Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan - Appendices

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 II

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: July 2021
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20235

Chapter 1 Appendices
Appendix 1.1

1

Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule and Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 2 Appendices

1
63

Appendix 2.1

Current ALWTRP Requirements Summary

63

Appendix 2.2

Large Whale Entanglement and Vessel Strike Cases between 2010 and 2019

73

Chapter 3 Appendices

97

Appendix 3.1

Decision Support Tool Model Documentation: Version 3.1.0

Appendix 3.2

Decision Support Tool Model Runs

165

Appendix 3.3

All State Proposals

203

Appendix 3.4

A Summary of Comments Received During the Scoping Process

295

Appendix 3.5

ALWTRP Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Strategy

343

Appendix 3.6

Example of approved weak insert gear configurations

347

Chapter 4 Appendices

97

349

Appendix 4.1

Full List of Species Caught Using Trap/Pot Gear* in the Northeast** in 2019

349

Appendix 4.2

Social Indicators for Top Landing Ports of American Lobsters by State

351

Appendix 4.3

Definition of Social Indicators

352

Appendix 4.4

Community Profiles

353

Chapter 5 Apendices
Appendix 5.1

424

Draft Technical Documentation for the Vertical Line / Co-Occurrence Model

Chapter 6 Appendices

424
595

Appendix 6.1

Gear Conversion Cost Methodology

595

Appendix 6.2

Vessel Trip Report Data Processing Method

599

ii

CHAPTER 1 APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1 Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule
and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1.1.1 Written and Oral 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
Four 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
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. 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.
Table 1: Stakeholder Groups Represented in Regulations.gov Comments
Stakeholder Group
Number of Unique Commenters
Academic/Scientific

28

Fed Agencies

2

Fed Resource Managers

1

1

Stakeholder Group

Number of Unique Commenters

Fishery Management Associations

2

Fishing Industry groups

10

Manufacturers

2

NGOs

71

Public

617

Fishermen

300

Other industry

2

State Fishery Resource Managers

7

State/Fed legislators

33

Towns

2

TOTAL

1076

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);
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

2

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.
We received several comments that were outside the scope of the current rulemaking, which are
summarized below. The Final Rule and analyses in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) are related to amendments to the Plan. The Plan and the take reduction process are
restricted to the monitoring and management of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine
mammals in U.S. commercial fisheries. Because these comments were out of the scope of the
Final Rule and the FEIS, we did not provide responses in this document.
In this Appendix, we summarize the comments received in 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 DEIS and
the 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.
Below please find our responses to comments. Due to the large number of comments, they are
organized according to the following specific topics:
1.1.2. Canada
1.1.3. Economics
1.1.4. Enforcement
1.1.5. Gear Marking
1.1.6. Legal Issues
1.1.7. Line/Effort Reduction
1.1.8. Management
1.1.9. Research
1.1.10. Restricted Areas
1.1.11. Ropeless Gear
1.1.12. Stressors
1.1.13. Trawls
1.1.14. Weak Ropes/Lines
1.1.15. Outside of Scope

3

1.1.2 Canada

Of the 1,076 unique comments, around 43 suggested that Canadian fishing gear is largely
to blame for the recent right whale mortalities and entanglements, and that Canada needs to do
more to reduce right whale mortalities and serious injuries. In addition to these commenters,
dozens of others felt it was unfair that U.S. fishermen are being asked to make expensive and
time-consuming changes to fishing gear and practices, and many questioned NMFS’s
apportionment of unknown entanglements in determining how much risk reduction was needed
to reduce U.S. commercial fishery interactions to the PBR level established under the MMPA.
Comment 1.1: Canadian fishing gear is primarily responsible for recent right whale
entanglements and mortalities, not U.S. fishing gear, and NMFS should not attribute 50 percent
of the unknown gear to the U.S.
Response: In recent years, gear has only been retrieved from about 54 percent of the
detected right whale entanglement events. The majority of the entangling line retrieved is of
unknown origin. During 2010-2019, out of 114 documented right whale entanglement incidents,
gear was present on 62 whales. Of these, gear could be identified to a country in only 25
incidents (22 percent of all observed incidents): 18 were documented Canadian cases (14
Canadian snow crab, 4 unknown Canadian) and 7 were documented U.S. cases (1 gillnet, 1
lobster, 2 unknown trap, 3 unknown U.S.). The remaining 37 incidents involved gear of
unknown origin (6 unknown gillnet/mesh, 1 unknown trap, 30 unknown line). Out of
approximately 1.24 million buoy lines within the Northeast waters from Rhode Island to Maine,
we estimate that 72 percent of buoy lines were unmarked under current ALWTRP gear marking
guidelines although that percentage was reduced when Maine required gear marks on lobster trap
buoy lines beginning in September 2020.
It is important to consider that most right whale mortalities are never seen. Entanglement
incidents detected in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in recent years from May to early November may
reflect some observer bias as the result of the extensive survey effort since late summer 2017 in
an enclosed water body. During most of that season, the whereabouts of the two-thirds of the
population that were not detected in the Gulf of St. Lawrence remains largely unknown. While
acoustic detections indicate that right whales are present in U.S. waters year round, counts of
individuals when spread over large areas remain outside of current capabilities but, given Gulf of
St. Lawrence counts, the entire population could be present in U.S. waters from December
through April and up to two thirds of them could be present year round. U.S. fisheries fish many
more buoy lines than Canadian fisheries. That exposure to U.S. fisheries is balanced, however,
by the many broad scale gear modifications in place, as well as seasonal restricted areas
implemented under the Plan. However lacking an actual estimate of the proportion of the right
whale population’s exposure to U.S. or Canadian fisheries each year, in 2019 NMFS apportioned
unknown mortality using a 50/50 split that recognized that more whales may be exposed over
more months to fishing gear in U.S. waters (suggesting higher opportunity for entanglement) but
broad based U.S. conservation measures would reduce mortality and serious injury. This
apportionment also recognizes that mortality is occurring on both sides of the border, and that
U.S. and Canadian measures are needed to reduce human-caused mortality to this transboundary
species to recover the population. For more, see FEIS Section 2.1.5.
Comment 1.2: Canada’s current regulations are insufficient, as they rely on dynamic
management, which could fail due to lack of visual or acoustic detections, and the delay of weak
rope implementation until the end of 2022.
Response: Under the MMPA, NMFS is responsible for U.S. fisheries and protected

4

species within our borders and on the high seas. We work closely with our Canadian partners
through bilateral meetings, coordinated disentanglement efforts, distribution and abundance data,
health assessment, and gear analysis. Since July 2017, Canada has shown a commitment to
reduce the impacts of their fisheries on the North Atlantic right whale population and they affirm
that commitment in these bilateral efforts. The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans
(DFO) is responsible for fisheries management and protected species within their borders, and
any concerns about their management measures should be directed to Canada’s DFO.
Comment 1.3: Canada and the U.S. should collaborate in monitoring, data collection, and
technology development to understand whale movements and sources of mortality, and the U.S.
should pressure Canada into doing more.
Response: NMFS coordinates with Canada on right whale conservation and recovery
efforts through bilateral discussions and frequent information sharing with the DFO and
Transport Canada at both the senior leadership and staff levels. NMFS senior leadership have
had discussions with leadership from DFO and Transport Canada on conservation and
management efforts for right whales since 2019, and plan to continue these discussions. We also
coordinate and cooperate with DFO and Transport Canada through the Canada and United States
Bilateral Working Group on North Atlantic Right Whales. This includes discussing lessons
learned on fishing and vessel regulations, planning joint scientific activities (e.g., aerial surveys),
and coordinating collaboration across all right whale conservation efforts.
Comment 1.4: Maine’s Department of Marine Resources should be allowed to participate
in all future bilateral meetings with Canada.
Response: The U.S. government routinely conducts bilateral consultations with foreign
counterparts on issues of fisheries management. Several of these ongoing consultations are
founded in formal collaborative agreements, while others occur through less formal
arrangements. Discussions often include sensitive topics, such as respective positions being
considered for multilateral organizations. Consequently, such consultations are restricted to
federal government personnel.

1.1.3 Economics

Approximately 143 commenters voiced concerns that this rule would cause them extreme
economic hardship, with some stating that this rule would put them out of business. Many
commenters expressed concern about the effects of this rule on the economic health of their
communities, the supply chain, and on the state of Maine. Several questioned NMFS’ economic
analysis and suggested additional factors to consider in the economic analysis. Others were
concerned that economics inappropriately and illegally dictated the alternatives considered in
this rule; see the Legal Issues section for responses to those comments.
Comment 2.1: The new regulations will drive up costs, making fishermen unable to
compete with Canada, resulting in the loss of an iconic U.S. fishery.
Response: Under the Fish and Fish Product Import Provisions of the MMPA published
on August 15, 2016 (81 FR 54389), fish and fish products from fisheries identified by the NOAA
Assistant Administrator in the List of Foreign Fisheries can only be imported into the United
States if the harvesting nation has applied for and received a comparability finding from NMFS.
Nations have until November 30, 2021, to apply for Comparability Findings for their fisheries.
Beginning January 1, 2023, all nations seeking to continue exporting fish and fish products to the
United States must have received Comparability Findings. Beginning in 2023, Canadian lobster
and snow crab fisheries will face similar conservation costs for large whale protection if they

5

wish to enter the U.S. seafood market. The new regulations are intended to even the playing
field.
Comment 2.2: NMFS underestimated the economic costs of the LMA1 seasonal restricted
area because it did not take into account; (1) total affected vessels, (2) displacement of effort
from those vessels, (3) changes in value to landings.
Response: Based on the comments received, we identified new and updated data sources
and have revised our estimation methods. In the DEIS, we relied on the Industrial Economics
(IEc) model vessel data and calculated catch per trap using NMFS Vessel Trip Report data.
Because only about 10 percent of Maine vessels provide trip reports annually, these data may not
have reflected the catch rates and landings achieved by vessels fishing in the seasonal restricted
areas. Due to public comments, we updated the analysis using Maine Department of Marine
Resources (Maine DMR) harvester and dealer report data to re-estimate the total landings outside
12 nm. Please see FEIS Section 6.3.4.1 for details.
Further, not all landings would be lost when the restricted area is in place. Fishermen are
expected to relocate their gear to fishing grounds within the same or directly adjacent Maine
lobster management zones. As fishermen commented, vessels already fishing in those adjacent
fishing grounds would then be crowded, reducing their catch rates. We have included the
crowding effects to other vessels in the surrounding areas in our economic calculations in the
FEIS. We also assume a 5-10 percent reduction rate based on the natural lobster mortality rate.
Nearly all the lobsters not caught during the restricted area closure are assumed to be caught at
other locations or later in the year. Looking at the industry as a whole, the lost value to the entire
fleet would be those lobsters dying from natural causes.
In Table 6.12, as one commenter noted, we had incorrect information on the lobster price
unit leading to an error in the landings values. The prices displayed in the table are in dollars per
pound but should have been calculated as dollars per kilogram. However, the costs in the last two
columns are still correct, as they were calculated separately using pounds.
Comment 2.3: NMFS should include the potential benefit of reducing the need for
disentanglement efforts in the economic effects analysis. We ask NMFS to evaluate the annual
average costs of retaining each disentanglement team, including its equipment, insurance
requirements, and staff.
Response: We agree that we should consider this in our economic analysis, and have
revised our analysis to include an estimate of disentanglement costs as well as the potential
benefit of reducing the need for disentanglement efforts. See the qualitative and quantitative
discussion in FEIS Section 9.6.4.
Comment 2.4: The DEIS does not analyze the economic benefits of ropeless fishing.
Response: This rule does not require fishermen to fish with “ropeless” fishing gear.
However, in response to commenters, we added some analysis of the economic costs and
benefits of ropeless fishing to FEIS Section 6.3.3, and some details of anticipated impacts can be
found in response to comments below in response to Comment 9.4.
Comment 2.5: The Proposed Rule fails to account for the full benefits of weakening
vertical lines to reduce mortality and serious injury from entanglements. The full benefits should
be taken into account in the development of a final rule.
Response: All cases where full weak rope was not implemented were analyzed according
to the proportional risk reduction of the number of inserts compared to the equivalent of full
weak rope (an insert every 40 feet). Please see FEIS Section 3.3.4 and 5.3.1.3 for a description of
how the use of weak rope was analyzed and the anticipated impacts on large whales. FEIS

6

Sections 5.3.2.3 and 5.3.4.3 discuss the expected impacts on other protected species and
protected habitat.
Comment 2.6: NMFS should consider the costs already incurred under previous take
reduction measures, and the effectiveness of those measures, and should standardize a review of
its economic analysis based on the actual impact of previous rules.
Response: In the FEIS, we revised our analysis to provide as much information as
possible about the costs already incurred under previous take reduction measures. However,
these economic impacts are not directly related to current rulemaking, so would not be included
in the final costs. Under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS is required to
review any significant rule to evaluate the continued need for regulation. Our review procedures
include a summary of the expected economic impacts contained in the Final Rule, as well as a
summary of any changes in technology or economic conditions that may have occurred since. To
allow for sufficient time for economic adjustments to occur and for data to become available, we
review rules every seven years. The most recent ALWTRP rule was published in 2015, and will
be coming up for review shortly.
Comment 2.7: Did economic analysis take into account fishermen from outside Maine,
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, as there are some fishermen from New York
and Connecticut that may be affected?
Response: This rulemaking applies to lobster and Jonah crab fisheries in the Northeast
Region Trap/Pot Management Area (Northeast Region). Please see FEIS Chapter 1 for the
regulated waters map. In the DEIS, we only included fishermen from Maine to Rhode Island. In
the FEIS, we identified a few New York fishermen that fished within the regulated area and we
revised our analysis to include the economic impacts to those lobster and Jonah crab fishermen.
No Connecticut fishermen were identified in the regulated waters. Due to data confidentiality
requirements, those New York fishermen were combined with Rhode Island LMA 2 vessels and
LMA 3 vessels in the analysis.
Comment 2.8: This rule will drive small fishermen out, and the fleet will become
consolidated into larger corporate operations, destroying iconic tourist-drawing fishing
communities and resulting in cultural loss.
Response: A number of the measures including trawling up and weak insertion
requirements were initially developed by Maine DMR after extensive outreach with Maine
fishermen. Fishermen indicated that the trawling up and weak insertion measures could be done
by reconfiguring existing trawls and buoy lines, reducing impacts of wholesale replacement of
gear. Based on recommendations from the public, fishermen and state agencies, we have
modified the alternatives in the FEIS to include conservation equivalencies in Southern New
England, LMA 3, and Maine Lobster Management Zones out to 12 miles. As requested by
Rhode Island fishermen and supported by the State, we analyzed the use of weak rope instead of
trawling up measures for LMA 2. Fishermen indicated they could not support longer trawls
unless they invested in a new vessel or vessel modifications. An analysis of risk reduction
determined that this provided equal or better risk reduction. The Final Rule applies weak rope
measures identical to the Massachusetts state measures for LMA 2 and does not require further
trawling up. Similar concerns expressed by LMA 3 fishermen resulted in the implementation of
trawling up restricted areas with varying trawling up requirements. Conservation equivalency
measures provided by Maine fishermen and Maine DMR allow fishermen to choose between
different trawl lengths with one or two buoy lines, or use more weak inserts instead of trawling
up based on fishing practices in the Maine lobster management zones.

7

Comment 2.9: Does the economic analysis of gear conversion take into account the
replacement savings of current gear that is nearing the end of its lifespan?
Response: We have revised our analysis to include this in the FEIS. Since it is difficult to
estimate the life stages for all gears in the regulated areas, we applied new gear prices for current
gear requirements in the DEIS.
When vessels modify their gear configurations by trawling-up to add more traps between
trawls, they can save some gear costs from the reduction in surface system like buoy lines, buoys
and radar reflectors. These savings are calculated using new gear prices.
For weak rope measures, in Alternative 2 (Preferred) and the Final Rule, weak rope can
be inserted into current ropes, so no large-scale replacement of buoy lines is needed. Estimated
costs of inserts assume the rope or sleeve is new. In Alternative 3, which requires fully
engineered weak rope to replace the current rope, the compliance costs would be the difference
between fully weak rope and regular rope. We also use new gear prices for both ropes.
Comment 2.10: Fishermen should be compensated for the time it takes to mark all the
gear.
Response: Currently there is no mechanism by which NMFS is able to compensate
fishermen for gear marking costs. A program of that nature would require Congressional
appropriations. Similar programs have been made available to fishermen in the past. Note that
effective gear marking could help fishermen and the government avoid additional regulatory
burden in the future by better identifying areas where interactions are likely and unlikely to
occur.
Comment 2.11: The costs of lost gear from new weak rope requirements should have
been considered in the evaluation of economic effects.
Response: We discussed this issue qualitatively in FEIS Section 6.2.6.1.
Comment 2.12: The economic impacts of gear marking, including the time already spent
marking gear, should have been included in the economic impact analysis because the rules were
implemented in direct anticipation of the Proposed Rule.
Response: Other than the gear marking costs for fishermen fishing within Maine Exempt
waters, who will be regulated by the state of Maine, we revised the analysis to include estimates
of the gear marking costs (both material and labor costs). This revision is in response to public
comments correctly noting that Maine implemented gear marking measures in anticipation of
this Final Rule. However, improved information regarding the location of large whale
entanglement related mortalities and serious injuries may allow future tailoring and reduced
economic impacts of regulations.
Comment 2.13: The evaluation of the economic effects of this rule should have included
all parts of the supply chain, such as lobster processors, dealers, gear suppliers, trap builders,
rope and line manufacturers, and restaurateurs.
Response: We quantitatively evaluated the economic impact of the Final Rule as it
applies to the lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries in the Northeast. We recognize that these
changes could impact the broader supply chain, as well as local communities and economies in
ways that are not easily quantifiable. In FEIS Section 6.7.2.2, we include a qualitative evaluation
of the socioeconomic impacts to fishing communities.
Comment 2.14: Fishermen should get economic assistance/subsidies to cover the costs of
gear changes and lost revenue.
Response: 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,

8

many gear modifications implemented in the Final Rule were created to control costs. However,
the economic analysis in Chapter 6 indicates the first-year cost of this rulemaking is $9.8 to
$19.2 million, which is 3 percent of the landings value of the lobster fishery in 2019. Some of
those costs are likely to be passed on to the consumer but economic impacts to fishermen are
anticipated.
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 to support recovery actions for the North Atlantic right whale in the lobster/Jonah
crab trap/pot 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 and have been distributed to Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode
Island to assist the lobster/Jonah crab trap/pot fishery in adapting to and comply with the
measures in this Final Rule and to help defray costs to support affected fishermen broadly.
Comment 2.15: NMFS should reevaluate the use of Automatic Identification Systems
(AIS) to track vessel locations and movements, and not dismiss it from consideration as an
alternative based on expense.
Response: NMFS supports the collection of high-resolution spatial data in the lobster
fishery and intends to continue to work with the Commission, through their technical working
group, to develop data collection objectives and requirements, while balancing the financial
burden to industry. Included in ongoing discussions are specifications needed to determine
whether options less expensive than AIS systems can be used effectively. A basic vessel tracking
system costs between $500 and $1,300, while a more advanced AIS system costs between $750
and $3,500. AIS devices also have ongoing operating costs. In relation to the overall size and
value of the lobster fishery (approximately $600 million), for example, the cost of vessel tracking
technology is small in light of the benefits it provides in the form of real-time fishery monitoring
as well as safety to prevent vessel collisions. We anticipate continued investigation into the
appropriate vessel tracking specifications to meet the needs for lobster and right whale
management and, if appropriate, would pursue rulemaking within the next few years to require
vessel tracking for federally permitted vessels fishing for lobster.
Many lobster vessels are smaller than 65 feet and therefore not currently required by law
to carry AIS. While the individual cost of AIS systems are low compared to the value of the
fishery, outfitting the entire fleet with AIS would not be a cost effective approach to monitoring,
due to the trap-setting nature of the fishery. Other vessel tracking methods are being piloted by
the Commission that are more responsive to tracking the movements of lobster boats, such as
setting and hauling back. NMFS will work with them to regulate this monitoring approach.
Comment 2.16: In doing its economic analysis, NMFS did not consider the ecological
value of right whales, and the role they play in a healthy environment, including their role in
carbon sequestration.
Response: In Section 9.6.1 of the DEIS, we discussed the value of large whale protection
in non-consumptive use benefits and non-use benefits. We provided the total expenditure of the
whale watching industry as a proxy for non-consumption use value, and we provided a list of
research results on the willingness to pay for whale protection programs from society as a proxy
for the non-use value. In FEIS Section 9.6, we revised our analysis to include recent studies on
the ecological and economic value of large whales.
Comment 2.17: The DEIS does not include a reference to the Meyers and Moore 2020

9

paper that suggests a reduction in effort brought about by time/area closures and removals of
traps and lines from the water may reduce costs.
Response: When we prepared the DEIS in spring 2020, this Meyers and Moore (2020)
paper had not yet been published. We have updated the FEIS and this paper has been cited. See
FEIS Section 6.5.1.
Comment 2.18: The economic and social impacts analysis fails to consider the impact
that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has had on demand for the fisheries. In the first six
months of 2020, U.S. exports of lobster declined by 44.6 percent (FAO Globefish 2021) and that
significant uncertainty regarding the duration and extent of these impacts remains.
Response: The full consequences of COVID-19 on the U.S. lobster and Jonah crab
trap/pot fisheries cannot yet be determined. In the first half of 2020, the U.S. fishing and seafood
sector experienced broad declines due to COVID-19 protective measures instituted in March
2020 across the United States. While lobster fishing effort and demand for lobster were low in
the first half of 2020, landings increased and prices rose as the year went on. Maine, the state that
has the most active and valuable lobster fishery, reported preliminary data that indicated that the
value of lobster landings in 2020 exceeded $400 million for only the seventh time (Maine DMR
constituent email, March 24, 2021). The catch volume was reportedly 5 percent lower than 2019
landings but the vessel price was $0.44 higher per pound than the average price over the previous
ten years. While the uncertainty caused by COVID-19 on communities that rely on lobster and
other fisheries cannot be understated, in the Gulf of Maine, where lobster stocks are healthy, the
fishery appears to be somewhat resilient.
Comment 2.19: The costs of compliance fail to account for economic losses associated
with shorter equipment durability and lifespan caused by the proposed weak ropes, insertions,
and trawling up.
Response: See the description of gear loss costs in Chapter 6, section 6.2.6.1. Gear loss is
not included in the final costs estimation because the effect of trawling up on gear loss is unclear
and not thought to be substantial. We also currently have no evidence that weak rope or weak
inserts would cause significantly more 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. Some fishermen who have used the South Shore Sleeves for several
years have incurred no significant increase in extra gear loss. NMFS will continue to test and
evaluate the use of weak inserts to ensure they are not likely to contribute to an increase in ghost
gear. See Section 5.3.1.3.2 for a description of the anticipated indirect effects of trawl length and
weak rope measures, including the likelihood of gear loss. Also note that lobster landings
dropped in 2020 due to COVID-19 but the 2020 lobster average price was the second highest in
the past decade, about $4.4/lb.
Comment 2.20: The DEIS exclusively uses the federal dealer data to analyze the
commercial impact to the industry, not the full value of the supply chain, and so underestimates
the true cost.
Response: For our analysis of the impacts on commercial fisheries, the dealer data
provides the most accurate information. Although we have some information of the total
economic value of the supply chain in Maine, it is difficult to estimate the impacts of the
proposed rule on it. The biggest impact on the supply chain from the rulemaking would be the
short-term landing reduction. There could be some negative impacts in the near term, but also

10

could benefit the industry in the long run. We discussed this issue briefly in FEIS Section
6.7.2.2.
Comment 2.20: NMFS’s economic analysis fails to properly consider that reduced effort
does not equate to reduced catch.
Response: For reduced effort in restricted areas, under the scenario where fishing is
suspended, we assumed fishermen would lose all their revenue during the closed fishing period,
which was the more conservative estimate. We recognize the costs could be overestimated in
section 6.3.1.2 "Caveats". Under the scenario where effort is relocated, we assumed a 5% to 10%
landing reduction in the first year, and we also applied a decreasing rate of landing reduction for
the impacts of restricted areas.

1.1.4 Enforcement

About 14 commenters voiced concerns that this rule would be difficult to enforce, and 11
commenters including the U.S. Coast Guard, suggested that NMFS needs to develop a
comprehensive enforcement plan for the areas affected by this rule. As noted in the FEIS, lobster
trap/pot gear makes up the vast majority of buoy lines fished in the Northeast Region, making
compliance with regulations paramount to the rule’s ultimate success or failure in reducing right
whale mortalities and serious injuries.
Comment 3.1: NMFS should develop a comprehensive monitoring and enforcement plan
to ensure compliance. One commenter stated that there is currently no enforcement in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and LMA 3, and another stressed the importance of including
states in the development of any enforcement plan.
Response: State partnerships serve a significant role in effective regional enforcement
activities. The Office of Law Enforcement-Northeast Division (OLE-NED) has Joint
Enforcement Agreements (JEA) in place with ten New England and Mid-Atlantic Coastal States
(Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia). The following states perform inspections of lobster gear in
Lobster Management Areas: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
New York, and New Jersey. The following states perform inspections of black-sea-bass gear in
Lobster Management Areas: Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. OLE-NED has developed and
implemented a pilot program using remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to inspect offshore
fishing gear, including in LMA 3. The pilot project will inform future offshore enforcement
activities for ALWTRP compliance monitoring efforts Additional information on this pilot
program is provided in response to Comment 3.2. OLE-NED has identified a number of elements
to review, in partnership with the states and the U.S. Coast Guard, to help develop a more
comprehensive enforcement strategy for the ALWTRP regulatory requirements. Appendix 3.5 of
the FEIS provides a high-level overview of compliance monitoring plans and associated
enforcement assets.
Comment 3.2: Several commenters noted that enforcement in the offshore areas,
particularly LMA 3, is sparse, and question whether Marine Patrol will be able to do gear
inspections on longer trawls.
Response: Traditional methods of hauling gear in offshore waters for compliance
monitoring poses both safety and sustainability challenges. To meet these challenges, OLE-NED
developed and implemented a pilot program using ROVs to inspect offshore fishing gear. OLENED has conducted offshore subsurface ROV surveys to check for sinking groundlines, gear
markings, and weak links in previously uninspected areas. Gear tags were also inspected when

11

possible. After initial trials, OLE has determined that ROV-based inspection of gear in the water
is a safer and more efficient way to enforce offshore lobster gear requirements, rather than
physically pulling the gear. The pilot project was carried out in FY2020 and FY2021, and will
inform future offshore enforcement activities for ALWTRP compliance monitoring efforts.
Comment 3.3: How will NMFS be able to enforce the different requirements in different
areas, as fishermen move from area to area?
Response: NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement partners with state agencies and the U.S.
Coast Guard to enforce all applicable lobster regulations nearshore and offshore. Fishermen are
required to adhere to the regulations in the areas they fish. In Maine Lobster Management Zones,
where conservation equivalencies established by zone and distance from shore present the
greatest enforcement challenge, the Maine Marine Patrol assured us that they use outreach,
education, and enforcement to establish and maximize compliance, are very familiar with
Maine’s lobster management zones and boundaries, and that “. . .enforcement of most restrictive
rules relative to lobster zones does not present any significant challenge. . .” (email from Erin
Summers, April 20, 2021). Offshore enforcement poses challenges that enforcement partners
have been evaluating in recent years. While OLE does not disclose specific law enforcement
techniques, as discussed above, OLE has started deploying ROVs to inspect offshore gear. OLE
welcomes and encourages the public to report violations to their hotline.

1.1.5 Gear Marking

A total of 75 commenters supported gear marking, indicating that gear marking is the
best way to determine where and in which fisheries entanglements occur, and potentially
absolving other areas and fisheries of blame. Gear marking was universally supported by
conservationists and fishermen. Several Maine fishermen commented that they had already
completed their required gear marking, and many are expecting the results to show that Maine’s
lobster fishery does not entangle whales.
Comment 4.1 NMFS should give Maine’s lobster fishery a three-year evaluation period to
make sure that Maine’s rope (now with purple marks) is not causing entanglements before
adding any other requirements.
Response: The results of Pace et al. 2021 show that in the years 1990-2009, roughly eight
right whales per year died, many unseen. Since 2010, on average 21 right whales per year have
died. Recent observations indicate that the increase in mortality since 2010 is in part due to a
significant amount of mortality in Canadian waters and/or from Canadian fishing gear. However,
the sources of the unseen mortality (roughly eight whales per year) that has existed for decades
remains uncertain and the effects of the Plan’s measures cannot be evaluated (Pace et a.. 2017)
and likely has not reduced mortality and serious injury below one per year as required to meet
MMPA goals.
If current trends continue, even accounting for a mean of 11 births per year over the last
10 years, we could expect to lose another 30 whales over the next 3 years, or 10 whales per year.
Pace et al. (2021) estimates that approximately 368 right whales were alive at the end of 2019.
At the current rate of decline, we would expect the 2020 population to be 358. If we wait 3 more
years to implement risk reduction regulations, the population could be as low as 328. We are
required by the MMPA to take action now. See FEIS Chapter 1 for more information on the need
for immediate action.
We expect gear marking and acoustic and aerial surveys to help us further identify the
areas of most risk to right whales. Until we have additional information, we must regulate based

12

on the best available science: Maine has the highest concentration of all vertical line gear in U.S.
waters, and right whales are still using Maine waters.
Comment 4.2: There should be an exemption for hand-hauled lobster traps in less than
100 feet of water, because when traps are pulled by hand, the vertical lines are not cleared of
organisms on the rope as they would be when a pot hauler is used.
Response: It is unclear what exemption is being requested by the commenter but this
exemption was not included in the Final Rule. The request may be for an exemption from gear
marking requirements because marks may be obscured by fouling. While this may reduce the
ability to see marks from a vessel, gear marks would be detectable from line retrieved from a
whale.
Comment 4.3: We received comments from some who support the idea of individual ID
tags that would allow NMFS to identify the fisherman whose gear entangles a whale, as well as
from others who oppose individual ID tags.
Response: Current regulations require buoys to be marked with information that can be
traced back to individual fishermen. Buoy and individual line tagging technologies exist, but this
method of marking comes at some cost and the benefits are unclear. Gear is not always
recovered and often buoys or traps are not present on the entangled whale. Line marking
technology, such as identification tape (i.e., marker tape) that is woven into line, is expensive and
is difficult to enforce without severing the buoy rope. Radio frequency identification and passive
integrated transponder tags are also expensive, require standardized tag readers to adequately
enforce, and in field trials have not held up well in commercial fishing conditions. As the
technology improves and the costs are reduced, NMFS will continue to monitor the possibility of
line identification tape. We are not requiring individual markings in this rulemaking.
Comment 4.4: One commenter proposed dividing Massachusetts and Maine into smaller
subdivisions with distinct markers to allow NMFS to develop more accurate and targeted marine
policy, and another suggested weak rope should be marked or colored to identify it as weak
rope.
Response: Current regulations include some small zones of multiple colored marks but
given the rarity of gear retrieval, the value of small area marking requirements is not yet proven.
Gear marking is one of the most expensive elements within the proposed regulations and
increasing complexity adds expense without proven benefits or any risk reduction. Regarding
requiring weak rope to be identifiable with a color or marking scheme, NMFS does not regulate
rope manufacturers. However, we are asking them to create intentionally engineered weak rope
with a tracer or a strand of a contrasting color. Weak insertion approval has included a
requirement of a contrasting color to allow both enforcement and disentanglement teams to
recognize the weak insertion.
Comment 4.5: NMFS should not require any additional gear marking beyond what is
already in place.
Response: Currently, the majority of gear recovered has no identifiable marks and until
Maine established gear marking requirements in Maine exempted waters, over half of all U.S.
buoy lines were unmarked. In order for the ALWTRT to make better recommendations,
including those that could allow more targeted gear modifications and closures, the Team needs
a better understanding of the types and locations of rope that entangle whales. The more robust
gear marking scheme included in the Final Rule, including some markings largely supported by
the ALWTRT and states, should increase our ability to identify the gear, and subsequently,
identify more targeted and more effective measures to reduce entanglements.

13

Comment 4.6: Gear marking should be required for all fisheries in the right whale
migratory path.
Response: The ALWTRP covers commercial fisheries within the right whale migratory
path from Florida to Maine. While, historically, the majority of gear recovered from right whale
entanglements has been unknown, state regulations and the Final Rule expand the gear marking
schemes substantially for the lobster/Jonah crab fishery, which contributes the vast majority of
vertical lines in these waters. The new gear marking requirements should increase the frequency
with which we encounter gear marks on recovered rope from entanglements and enable visual
identification of state of origin from aerial and vessel-based platforms. The ALWTRT has begun
meeting to develop recommendations related to reducing the risks posed by other U.S. fisheries
in right whales range. In recent years, Canada has also implemented gear marking requirements
for Canadian lobster and snow crab fisheries.
Comment 4.7: NMFS should require gear markings every 17 fathoms, so that gear
markings will be at the same intervals regardless of the total length of the rope.
Response: The large number of different fisheries operating at various depths managed
under the ALWTRP makes it difficult to implement a single gear marking structure. For those
fisheries occurring in deep offshore waters, this rule more than doubles current gear marking
requirements but may not result in marks as frequent as every 17 fathoms (31 meters). However
given the large number of buoy lines in shallower waters, one marking every 17 fathoms (31
meters) would be a reduction in gear marking compared to what we have in the Final Rule.
Comment 4.8: Several commenters suggested that sinking groundlines should be marked
to distinguish them from vertical lines, while others supported not requiring any gear marking on
sinking groundlines.
Response: Groundline marking has not been extensively discussed by the ALWTRT in
recent years. Under current ALWTRP and in this Final Rule, no gear marking will be required
for sinking ground lines.
Comment 4.9: Why are the gear marks required to be 3 feet long (0.91 meters), and
would that be useful in murky water?
Response: Gear marking and fishery identification relies mainly on recovering gear from
entangled whales, making the water clarity a negligible component of gear identification.
However, the proposed larger 3-foot (0.91 meter) mark within 2 fathoms (3.65 meters) of the
surface system should help identify gear from vessel and aerial platforms, as the surface system
will keep the line in relatively clear water. The mark could also provide useful information for
disentanglement teams, and may allow gear identification in cases where whales are
photographed, but not seen again.
Comment 4.10: Any Final Rule should include requirements for all buoy lines to be
marked the full length of the vertical line, or at the very least, markings every 40 feet, and in
such a way that the location of where gear was set can be known even in cases when a buoy is
not seen or retrieved.
Response: The Final Rule increases the number of marks with additional distinction
between federal and state waters, offering better spatial resolution than those in the Proposed
Rule. The marks will also be longer in length to increase the likelihood that a mark will be
spotted without a buoy. However, it was determined that marking every 40 feet would be costly
without a commensurate benefit given that since 2010 gear has only been retrieved from about
40% of the observed right whale entanglements.
Comment 4.11: Time consuming gear marking regulations should be implemented during

14

the off season, as otherwise gear making will reduce the time available for fishing.
Response: We recognize this issue, and this rule will include a delayed implementation
date to allow time during slow seasons as practicable for gear configuration and gear marking
changes.
Comment 4.12: Can we alert whales to the presence of ropes with visual or acoustic cues?
Response: Research conducted by Kraus, Fasick, Werner and McFarron (2014), and
Kraus and Hagbloom (2016), suggested that red and orange lines may be visually detectable by
North Atlantic right whales at greater distances than other colors although it is unclear to what
depths color can be detected or whether detection results in avoidance. For more information on
gear marking measures included in this rule, please see Table 3.3. Unlike toothed whales that use
echolocation to sense their surroundings, baleen whales like right whales are not detecting
fishing gear acoustically and acoustic cues are unlikely to result in gear avoidance in the same
way that pingers have been successful at reducing entanglements of harbor porpoises, for
example.

1.1.6 Legal Issues

Approximately 28 commenters believe that the Proposed Rule violated the requirements
of the MMPA, the ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and/or the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Most of these concerns were raised by NGOs, including
but not limited to: Whale and Dolphin Conservation, Oceana, Center for Biological Diversity,
Conservation Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Humane Society of the U.S., Natural
Resources Defense Council, PEER, Clearwater Marine Aquarium, Georgia Aquarium, Southern
Environmental Law Center, as well as the Maine Lobstering Union, and many federal and state
legislators.
Comment 5.1: NMFS refusal to evaluate some strategies, including but not limited to
certain trap reductions, weak line enhancements, static area closures, and gear marking
strategies, was “arbitrary and capricious” under the APA.
Response: The development of the Proposed Rule was the result of an extensive public
process involving challenging negotiations within the ALWTRT and ample opportunity for
public input as prescribed by the MMPA, NEPA, and the APA.
Many options were considered, deliberated, and evaluated by the ALWTRT, the public, and
NMFS, and some were modified or eliminated from further consideration as the process
unfolded. Where the measures considered in the Final Rule would also affect state fisheries, the
input of state fisheries agencies was important to ensure that conservation measures were
feasible and safe in the various locations in which they would apply. State scoping and outreach
helped inform the rulemaking efforts, and helped identify the measures that would be given
extensive consideration in the NEPA process.
The Final Rule and FEIS reflect this extensive involvement by the numerous stakeholders
and considered a reasonable range of alternatives.
Comment 5.2: Proposed rule and DEIS violated Executive Order (EO) 12898 by not
reviewing issues of environmental justice, particularly for Maine’s Washington County.
Response: EO 12898 requires agencies to consider whether their actions result in
disproportionately adverse human health and environmental impacts on minority or low income
populations. The DEIS addressed EO 12898 by examining the various counties affected by the
ALWTRP rulemaking, and concluding that minority and low impact communities will not be
disproportionately affected.

15

While Washington County has higher than state average low income and minority
populations, Washington County is not disproportionately affected by adverse health and
environmental impacts from the rulemaking when compared to other counties. Where the
impacts of the ALWTRP rulemaking extend over a large area across multiple states, the county
level is an appropriate level at which to assess whether there would result in disproportionate
impacts.
The commenter’s concerns appear to be economic in nature, as opposed to adverse
human health and environmental impacts, which are the focus of EO 12898. See FEIS Section
10.12 for a complete analysis of this rule as it pertains to EO 12898.
Comment 5.3: NMFS’ authorization of lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries violates
the ESA by allowing entanglements.
Response: NMFS has satisfied its obligations under the ESA by reinitiating consultation
on the operation of federal fisheries under eight federal fishery management plans and two
interstate fishery management plans, which was completed on May 27, 2021, and consulting on
the amendment of the ALWTRP itself, which was completed on May 25, 2021.
The ALWTRP does not authorize fisheries. NMFS disagrees with the commenter’s
claims that the ALWTRP “allows” entanglements. The ALWTRP does not state that
entanglements are allowed, nor does it prevent fishermen from taking actions to avoid or prevent
entanglements beyond what is required by this rule.
Comment 5.4: Allocating the full PBR to the trap/pot fishery violates the MMPA.
Response: MMPA Section 118 directs NMFS to develop take reduction plans to reduce
the incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidentally taken by commercial
fishing operations to levels less than a stock’s PBR level. Section 118 does not address other
sources of human-caused mortality (e.g., vessel strikes) and those other causes are not considered
in the goals of the take reduction plan. The short-term goal of a take reduction plan is to reduce
incidental mortality and serious injury of each marine mammal stock to below the stock’s PBR
in the commercial fisheries addressed by the plan, with a longer term goal of reducing incidental
mortality and serious injury to 10 percent of a stock’s PBR taking into account economics,
available technology, and existing fishery management plans. NMFS has already reconvened the
ALWTRT to develop recommendations for gillnet and other trap/pot fisheries.
Additionally, the FEIS analyzes other sources of impacts on right whales. Although
beyond the scope of this rule, NMFS has identified evaluation of current measures to protect
right whales from vessel strikes, as well as research into factors affecting health and abundance,
collaboration with Canada on range-wide recovery efforts, and consideration of emerging threats
as 2021 to 2025 priority actions in the right whale 5-year Species in the Spotlight action plan.
Comment 5.5: The Proposed Rule violates the MMPA by considering economics as a
factor when choosing the preferred alternative.
Response: The commenter argues that NMFS is prohibited from considering the
economic impacts of measures to be implemented in a Take Reduction Plan unless such
measures are part of the MMPA’s long-term goal of reducing mortality and serious injury to
insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and injury rate (often referred to as ZMRG).
However, the distinction drawn by the commenter does not accurately reflect the statute. Under
the MMPA, to reach the long-term goal requires the TRP to take into account the economics of
the fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing state or regional fishery
management plans. The portion of the MMPA discussing the short-term goal of reducing
mortality and serious injury to below a stock’s PBR does not use this language. However, that

16

does not mean that economics, technological limitations, and state or regional fishery
management plans cannot be part of the consideration as to which measures should be chosen to
achieve the short-term goal. Here, NMFS developed a 60-80 percent risk reduction target based
on the latest PBR calculations and estimates of mortality and serious injury, and the ALWTRT
developed recommendations based on this target. In choosing between measures that will
accomplish the goal of reducing mortality and serious injury below PBR, the MMPA does not
prohibit the consideration of economics, and here the agency’s choice of measures to include in
the Final Rule balances various factors, but does not do so at the expense of the risk reduction
target to reach the short-term goal.
Comment 5.6: The Proposed Rule violates MMPA by not meeting ZMRG within 5 years.
Response: Under section 118 of the MMPA, NMFS is required to meet both the short and
long-term take reduction plan goals of reducing mortality and serious injury incidental to
commercial fishing operations. The short-term goal is to reduce mortality and serious injury to
below a stock’s PBR, while the long-term goal is to reduce mortality and serious injury to
insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate (i.e., ZMRG, defined as
10 percent of PBR in 50 CFR 229.2), taking into account the economics of the fishery,
availability of existing technology, and existing state or regional fishery management plans.
Due to the continued entanglements of large whales in commercial fishing gear, NMFS is
required to take additional action to further reduce mortality and serious injury incidental to
commercial fisheries covered by the ALWTRP. NMFS will continue to discuss future plan
modifications with the ALWTRT and has already reconvened the Team in light of these goals.
Comment 5.7: The Proposed Rule violates MMPA by not reducing PBR in six months.
Response: The MMPA created a framework for developing and issuing take reduction
plans, monitoring the plans regularly, meeting with take reduction teams regularly, and
amending plans if necessary to meet the goals of the MMPA. NMFS’ actions have been
consistent with the process laid out by the MMPA.
The first ALWTRP was issued in 1997, and NMFS has modified the ALWTRP numerous
times since, with input from the ALWTRT to further the MMPA goals of reducing mortality and
serious injury of large whales incidental to commercial fisheries.
As we state in the preamble to the Final Rule, for the purposes of creating a risk reduction
target, NMFS assigned half of the right whale entanglement incidents of unknown origin to U.S.
fisheries. Under this assumption, a 60 percent reduction in mortality or serious injury would be
needed to reduce right whale mortality and serious injury in U.S. commercial fisheries, from an
observed annual average of 2.2 to a PBR of less than one whale per year. See Chapter 2 of the
FEIS for our revised analysis of PBR.
Comment 5.8: These additions to the ALWTRP may not prevent the continued decline of
right whales.
Response: NMFS tasked the ALWTRT with developing measures to reduce risk of
entanglement to meet the MMPA’s goals that fisheries mortality and serious injury should be
below PBR. It is not within the agency’s discretion to disregard PBR, and the current rulemaking
is the agency’s attempt to reduce the risk of mortality and serious injury from the Northeast
lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries to comply with the MMPA. That such measures in and
of themselves may not result in recovery of the right whale population does not mean that NMFS
can disregard the statutory direction of the MMPA.
Comment 5.9: State measures should be included in the Final Rule.
Response: NMFS agrees that the MMPA authority applies in both state and federal

17

waters. Many state measures are included in the Final Rule, including Massachusetts weak
insertion requirements and extension of the MRA north to the New Hampshire border. Because
dynamic management is difficult to accomplish under federal procedural requirements and such
measures were not part of the proposed rule, the Massachusetts extension of the state water
closure into May was not included. Other Massachusetts measures, such as a maximum state
water line diameter, were not included because they were not analyzed or part of the proposed
rule.
Comment 5.10: NMFS “Purpose and Need” statement is too narrow.
Response: The Purpose and Need chapter of the FEIS states that the measures need to
achieve a risk reduction of at least 60 percent, rather than an exact risk reduction target, and
therefore, it was not meant to constrain the risk reduction to a specific number. Rather, this is the
minimum target needed. Both of the action alternatives considered in the DEIS met the Purpose
and Need. The Alternatives have been modified in the FEIS.
The Alternatives were selected because, using the Decision Support Tool, 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 MRA, are estimated to
achieve or exceed a 60 percent risk reduction necessary to reduce impacts to right whales to
below the PBR level of 0.8 mortalities or serious injuries per year based on observed incidents.
Thus, mortality and serious injury of right whales in U.S. fishing gear must be reduced by 60
percent (documented) to 80 percent (estimated) to achieve the MMPA goal of reducing fisheryrelated incidental mortality and serious injury to below the right whale PBR.
For more information on the Decision Support Tool and the input data, assumptions, and
uncertainty please see FEIS Appendix 3.1.
In terms of the ESA, the Final Rule has been identified as a first anticipated step in the
adaptive management approach within the conservation framework in the Section 7 Consultation
on the authorization and permitting of a number of federal fisheries, including lobster and Jonah
crab. Additionally, a consultation on the ALWTRP which included the implementation of Final
Rule determined that the gear regulations implemented by the Plan for U.S. fixed gear fisheries
including those measures in the Final Rule will have wholly beneficial effects to ESA-listed
species or their critical habitat and therefore the Plan is not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed
species or designated critical habitat.
Comment 5.11: NMFS cannot rely on CEQ’s recent amendments to NEPA.
Response: Because the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(84 FR 37822, August 2, 2019) was published prior to September 14, 2020, this action was
prepared under the NEPA regulations first implemented in 1978. Text has been added to the
Purpose and Need section (FEIS Section 2.2) to reflect this. As written, the FEIS addresses direct
and indirect impacts in Chapter 5 (Biological Impacts), Chapter 6 (Economic and Social
Impacts), and Chapter 7 (Summary of Biological, Economic, and Social Impacts). Cumulative
Effects are addressed in Chapter 8, which also summarizes the direct and indirect impacts of the
action as well.
Comment 5.12: NMFS failure to consider a “no commercial fishing” alternative is in
violation of NEPA.
Response: Not allowing any commercial fishing is not a reasonable alternative under
NMFS’ regulatory responsibilities, namely the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and does not meet the
Purpose and Need of the action nor the goals of the Plan. Per the agency’s mission, NMFS is
responsible for the stewardship of the nation's ocean resources and their habitat. We provide vital

18

services for the nation: productive and sustainable fisheries, safe sources of seafood, the recovery
and conservation of protected species, and healthy ecosystems—all backed by sound science and
an ecosystem-based approach to management.
Comment 5.13: NMFS did not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives or all
reasonable measures in violation of NEPA.
Response: The development of the Proposed Rule was the result of an extensive public
process involving the ALWTRT as prescribed by the MMPA, NEPA, and the APA. Many
alternatives were considered, deliberated, and evaluated by NMFS, the ALWTRT stakeholders,
and the public, but some were eliminated from further consideration as the process unfolded.
Where the measures considered here would also affect state fisheries, the input of state
fisheries agencies was important to ensure that conservation measures were feasible and safe in
the various locations in which they would apply. As such, state scoping and outreach helped
inform the rulemaking, and measures given extensive consideration in the NEPA process. The
FEIS reflects this extensive involvement by the numerous stakeholders and contains a reasonable
range of alternatives for the agency and the public’s consideration. The Alternatives were
selected because, using the Decision Support Tool, they achieve or exceed a 60 percent risk
reduction necessary to reduce impacts to right whales to below the PBR level of 0.8 serious
injury or mortality per year.
Comment 5.14: NMFS rejected trap reductions in violation of NEPA.
Response: While agencies shall include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction
of the lead agency, these trap reduction strategies were not considered reasonable under the
Purpose and Need due to multiple factors. They are complex, time-intensive, and carry a large
administrative burden. For example, implementing a line cap would require pinpointing accurate
data sources, identifying qualifying criteria, outlining an allocation method, and engaging the
industry, on top of managing current measures. Given the need for rulemaking and conservation
measures, these trap reduction strategies are not currently cost effective, nor could they be
implemented in a timely manner. For more information on trap reduction strategies undertaken
by the ASMFC, see response to Comment 6.5 below.
Comment 5.15: DEIS did not analyze all risks in concluding the rule will reduce
mortality and serious injury below PBR in violation of NEPA and APA.
Response: In accordance with NEPA, as part of its cumulative impacts analysis, the DEIS
described impacts to right whales and other large whales from various anthropogenic sources,
including vessel strikes, aquaculture, and offshore energy development. However, attribution of
sources of mortality in the PBR framework is not a legal requirement of NEPA, but of the
MMPA. Section 118 of the MMPA directs that NMFS develop take reduction plans to reduce the
mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations to
levels less than PBR for the marine mammal stock. While the DEIS did address other sources of
impacts on right whales, the MMPA does not mandate that take reduction plans must reduce
incidental mortality and serious injury from fisheries to levels that would accommodate mortality
and serious injury from other anthropogenic sources within PBR. In other words, NMFS does not
apportion PBR; PBR is a reference point that serves as the short-term goal for a take reduction
plans and also alerts NMFS to take management actions needed to reduce all sources of humancaused mortality so that we can meet the overarching MMPA goal of recovering marine
mammals to their optimum sustainable populations.
Comment 5.16: NMFS did not consider dynamic area management as required under
NEPA and APA.

19

Response: The commenter is correct that in the past the take reduction plan included
dynamic closure measures. Such measures were found to be problematic with the fixed gear
lobster fishery, and so were not considered in this Final Rule. When a closure is made gear
cannot be removed instantaneously, and factors such as weather and sea conditions affect the
timing of gear removal. Dynamic closures must allow for safety concerns, which make them less
effective from a conservation perspective, as such delays can result in gear remaining after
whales are sighted, and may also result in a situation where, by the time fishermen are able to
remove their gear, the whales may have already left the area subject to the closure. Further, while
Canada began using dynamic closures in 2018 as part of its right whale conservation effort, in
2019 there were twelve Canadian right whale mortalities despite these measures. See Comment
9.2 under Restricted Areas and Borggaard et al. (2017) for further discussion of dynamic
management.
Comment 5.17: Proposed rule violates MMPA and ESA because regulations are not
effective and immediate.
Response: The MMPA take reduction rulemaking process is subject to procedural
requirements arising from the APA, MMPA, NEPA, and ESA that make “immediate”
protections in the form of a Take Reduction Plan amendment a legally difficult proposition.
While there are circumstances in which MMPA emergency rulemaking authority may be
exercised, NMFS has not concluded that this would be appropriate here, and even if this
authority were used it would not allow for “immediate” protections, as there are other nonMMPA procedural steps that must occur. NMFS has undertaken the current rulemaking process
using the best available scientific information while engaging with various stakeholders in the
take reduction team process to develop effective conservation measures to reduce entanglements
of right whales in Northeast lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries.
Comment 5.18: NMFS did not use the best scientific information available in violation of
NEPA, MMPA, and ESA.
Response: The rulemaking process unfortunately cannot react instantaneously as new
information comes to light. The MMPA take reduction planning process requires the
involvement of numerous stakeholders in the TRT in the development of conservation measures,
followed by the required NEPA and APA processes. At all points, however, NMFS uses the best
available scientific information to inform its decisions, and when the TRT was reconvened,
NMFS developed a 60-80 percent risk reduction target based on the latest PBR calculations and
estimates of mortality and serious injury.
As NMFS prepared to publish the DEIS and Proposed Rule, new information regarding
NARW population came in the form of preliminary estimates from the NMFS Northeast
Fisheries Science Center in the fall of 2020. These estimates have since undergone additional
review, and are being incorporated into the North Atlantic right whale stock assessment that
includes a new PBR calculation, a process that includes public notice and comment. This new
information is included in the FEIS.
Comment 5.19: The proposed regulation is not only unconstitutional, but a direct attack
on the citizens and sovereignty of the state of Maine. You should refrain from implementing this
regulation.
Response: NMFS is acting in accordance with direction from Congress under the MMPA
and other applicable laws. See FEIS Chapter 10.

20

1.1.7 Line/Effort Reduction

At least 34 commenters were in favor of effort reduction through trap limits, line caps, and
buybacks, as a way to reduce the number of vertical lines in the water, thus reducing risk to right
whales, while a few were against any effort reduction measures. Maine DMR noted that the
administrative burden of a line cap system is also something that has deterred them from
pursuing this management measure. Several commenters pointed out that, due to latent effort,
NMFS’ assumptions on effort may be artificially high, though Maine’s DMR stated that the
latent effort calculations were consistent with their view. Some commenters suggested that fewer
fishermen are entering the fishery, leading to a natural reduction in effort, and therefore line
reduction was already taking place, which would contribute to the risk reduction goals of the
Final Rule.
Comment 6.1: NMFS should review the amount of latent effort in the fishery, and ensure
that latent effort is properly accounted for in determining the risk reduction value of any
measures.
Response: Since the collapse of the Southern New England (SNE) lobster stock, the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) has taken action to attempt to
address latency in LMA 2 and 3. The Commission’s Lobster Management Board initiated
Addendum XVIII to scale the SNE fishery to the diminished size of the SNE lobster resource
with a consolidation program aimed at addressing latent effort (unfished allocation) and
reductions in traps fished. Addendum XVIII included an approximate 50 percent trap reduction
in LMA 2 implemented over 6 years and an approximate 25 percent trap reduction in LMA 3
implemented over 5 years. These trap reductions concluded in fishing years 2020 and 2021.
Given that the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank (GOM/GB) lobster stock (overlapping with
LMA 1, 3, and the Outer Cape) is at a near time series high for abundance, we can assume that
the amount of latency is comparatively lower than that found in SNE. As discussed in Chapter 5
of the FEIS, positive market and lobster stock conditions for the GOM/GB stock 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. Maine, which accounts for the majority of permits issued in the Gulf of
Maine, submitted data on latency rates of state permits (Appendix 3.2 of the DEIS), indicating a
stable number of latent permits over the last 10 years (2008-2018). Of its approximately 6,000
permits issued, approximately 1,500 permits have no reported purchased landings and are
considered latent. While other jurisdictions have not completed similar analyses, latency rates are
likely similar.
Given the actions to reduce latency in LMA 2 and 3, the relatively low but stable amount
of latency in LMA 1, and the current fishery incentives given high abundance in the Gulf of
Maine, fishery data included in the Decision Support Tool are considered accurate and
representative of existing fishery conditions, including existing rates of latency. See FEIS
Chapter 5 for more details.
Comment 6.2: A range of views were expressed on the Non-preferred Alternative of
capping buoy lines. One comment stated that NMFS should choose its Non-preferred Alternative
of capping buoy lines at 50 percent of the average monthly lines fished in federal waters in 2017.
Another expressed opposition to it, citing that Massachusetts is the only state where end lines are
accurately counted or regulated, and it would be time and labor-intensive to develop such a
system across the other states without funding or capacity to do so.
Response: Regulating buoy lines was analyzed in the DEIS and the FEIS as an element

21

within the Non-preferred Alternative 3, taking an alternate approach to achieving risk reduction
across the proposed areas that would reduce line numbers while allowing fishermen to respond to
the reduction according to their preferences and individual operational capacity. Alternative 3
would cap the total number of lines available for trap/pot fishing in federal waters to 50 percent
of the average baseline number of lines (2017) outside of state waters. Because this was not a
Preferred Alternative, the exact regulatory mechanism for implementing a line cap was not
identified. It was assumed, however, that NMFS would work with the Commission and New
England states to qualify the number of buoy lines based on an April 29, 2019, control date (84
FR 43785, August 22, 2019) using vessel trip reports or, for Maine, other data sources to
distribute allocations of line tags to fishermen.
NMFS did not select this Non-preferred Alternative because development of a buoy line
control program would be time- and labor-intensive and come at a substantial cost to the
industry. The Commission process, including soliciting public feedback, requires, at a minimum,
approximately six months to develop an adaptive management action. Larger, more controversial
actions can take 8 to 18 months. One commenter is likely correct that, given the lack of
mandatory vessel trip reports in the federal lobster fishery in the baseline year of 2017, the
Commission would have had to rely on state data as the best scientific information available to
develop a qualification program through an addendum.
Given the variable data regarding individual fishermen’s lobster fishing histories due to
inconsistent state and federal reporting requirements, this would be a large and controversial
action. Even once approved by the Commission, additional time would be required for NMFS to
undertake a federal rulemaking and associated analysis. The FEIS estimates that a 50 percent
reduction of buoy lines in federal waters would alone achieve an average 45 percent risk
reduction in federal waters with economic impacts ranging from $3.9 to 13.4 million. The
combined set of measures included in the preferred alternative was projected to achieve a 69
percent risk reduction at a cost of $9.8 to $19.2 million in the first year of implementation. Given
implementation challenges, the economic impacts of this preferred alternative and the fact that
the preferred alternative achieves the stated risk reduction target, buoy line reductions will not be
implemented in the Final Rule.
Comment 6.3: States should cap and reduce the number of licenses, and reduce risk to
right whales.
Response: Through the Commission’s Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American
Lobster, states and NMFS have made substantial efforts at capping the number of permits and
traps authorized in the lobster fishery, which serves as a primary effort control. The concept of
controlling lobster fishing effort by limiting access to historical participants began in 1994 when
NMFS generally limited access into the federal lobster fishery to those who could document
participation in the fishery before 1991 (59 FR 31938, June 21, 1994). Years later, in August
1999, the Commission passed Addendum 1 to Amendment 3 to the Interstate Plan, which limited
access to Lobster Conservation Management Areas 3, 4, and 5 to only those who could
document fishing history in those areas. Subsequent Commission addenda similarly attempt to
control effort by limiting access to other Areas:

22

Table 2. Actions under Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster
Lobster Conservation
Commission Action 1
Corresponding Federal Action
Management Area
EEZ
March 1994-Amendment 5 2
June 21, 1994 (59 FR 31938)
LMA 1
November 2009–Addendum XV
June 12, 2012 (77 FR 32420)
LMA 2
December 2003–Addendum IV 3
February 2005–Addendum VI
April 7, 2014 (79 FR 19015)
November 2005–Addendum VII
May 10, 2005 (70 FR 24495)
LMA 3
August 1999–Addendum 1
March 2003 ( 68 FR 14902)
LMA 4
August 1999–Addendum 1
March 2003 ( 68 FR 14902)
LMA 5
August 1999–Addendum 1
March 2003 ( 68 FR 14902)
LMA 6
1995–by State action
Not Applicable in Federal Waters
Outer Cape Cod
February 2002–Addendum III
April 7, 2014 (79 FR 19015)
May 2008–Addendum XIII
All Areas
February 2009–Addendum XII
April 7, 2014 (79 FR 19015)

The Commission has used a similar step-by-step approach in all of the areas. First,
participants are qualified based upon their ability to document a history of fishing within the
area. Second, those who qualify are allocated some number of traps within a given management
area, based upon their ability to document the level of past fishing effort in the area. 4 These
addenda have largely required that states implement similar limited access programs (with the
exception of LMA 1, where recommendations were for the federal fishery only).
The Commission Interstate Plan has not included reductions to the number of permits
issued in the lobster fishery. However, since area qualifications were implemented, the number
of federal permits issued in each area has either held steady or declined. The 2020 American
Lobster Benchmark Stock Assessment summarized state and federal permits issued in the lobster
fishery, with approximately 1,400 fewer permits being issued in 2018 than in 2010. Further, the
Commission has approved numerous actions that reduce area-specific maximum trap caps or
reduce the number of traps allocated to each permit. Most recently, Addendum XVIII required an
approximate 50 percent trap reduction in LMA 2 implemented over six years and an approximate
25 percent trap reduction in LMA 3 implemented over 5 years. These trap reductions concluded
in fishing years 2020 and 2021.
The Commission recommended a reduction in the LMA 3 maximum trap cap as well as
ownership caps in LMA 2 and 3 that are expected to further reduce the number of traps
authorized in the areas, as part of Addenda XXI and XXII. NMFS is in rulemaking to consider
the implementation of these measures. This FEIS anticipates this future rulemaking and has
given credit to the risk reductions associated with Addenda XVIII, XXI, and XXII.
Comment 6.4: NMFS should remove half the traps from the water, which would reduce
the risk to right whales while still allowing fishermen to make a living.
Response: Since 1994 under the Commission’s Interstate Fishery Management Plan for
American Lobster, states and NMFS have made substantial efforts at capping the number of
1

All Addenda can be found at www.asmfc.org, under Interstate Fisheries Management, American Lobster.
New England Fishery Management Council document. This action occurred prior to the 1999 transfer of Federal
lobster management to the Commission under the Atlantic Coastal Act.
3
Addendum IV was rescinded in Addendum VI and then revised and approved in Addenda VII and XII.
2

4

Through various addenda to the ISFMP for American lobster, history-based effort control plans
based on fishery performance have been enacted by NMFS (LCMAs 1, 3, 4, and 5) and states
(MA in Outer Cape Cod; NY and CT for LCMA 6; and MA, RI, CT,& NY for LCMA 2).
23

permits and traps authorized in the lobster fishery. Participation caps serve as a primary effort
control. Reducing trap caps by half could result in less effort and, when paired with traps/trawl
requirements, could reduce the number of lines being fished, with an associated reduction in risk
to large whales. A number of fisheries and managers that have participated in the public
meetings of the Commission and the Take Reduction Team have expressed confidence that, on
productive fishing grounds, lobster trap reductions could occur without negative economic
consequences. A number of studies have demonstrated this, see for examples Myers and Moore
(2020) and Acheson (2013).
However, for a reduction in the number of actively fished buoy lines 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 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 been variable, data to easily determine effective trap and
line cap measures is not available. This was demonstrated by the failed attempt of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission to identify an effort limit addendum, as described in FEIS
Section 3.1.1.2.

1.1.8 Management

We received thousands of comments on management issues, ranging from the use of
adaptive management strategies to including southeastern states in future rulemaking to
evaluating the effectiveness of the Final Rule. Thousands of commenters, primarily through
campaigns organized by NGOs, but also at least 149 unique commenters, advocated NMFS
taking emergency action to institute immediate vertical line reductions or closed areas, and of
them, many suggested shutting down all fishing activities that involve vertical lines. Several also
recommended shutting down all commercial fishing. We also received thousands of comments,
again primarily through campaigns organized by NGOs, but also from 83 unique commenters,
about our risk reduction calculations being based on outdated population estimates.
Comment 7.1: NMFS should use adaptive management to assess and recalibrate the
measures every few years to reach goals of reduced entanglements in fishing gear.
Response: During the ESA Section 7 consultation on the operation of eight fisheries
managed under federal fishery management plans and two fisheries managed under interstate
fisheries management plans, NMFS identified the need for additional measures to meet the
mandates of the ESA, and developed a Conservation Framework to outline the agency’s
commitment to implement measures necessary for the recovery of right whales. In addition to the
current rulemaking that seeks to reduce risk of mortality and serious injury by 60 percent, the
Conservation Framework provides for additional rulemakings to further reduce risk over the next
decade at levels expected to lead to survival and recovery of the species. Central to the
Conservation Framework is an adaptive management approach by which new information
relating to the status of right whales and the impacts of fisheries and non-fisheries activities will
be used to determine the extent of additional management measures needed.
Comment 7.2: NMFS should establish another process through which stakeholders can
propose measures that could achieve equal or greater protections for right whales. The ALWTRP
process is time-consuming, and does not allow for flexibility and adaptability.

24

Response: The MMPA requires NMFS to convene Take Reduction Teams and develop
Take Reduction Plans. While this process can be time consuming, it provides a framework for
developing mitigation measures and clear goals for the ALWTRP. The ALWTRT has the
discretion to recommend mitigation measures that are flexible and adaptable in meeting the
MMPA goals.
Comment 7.3: NMFS should include southeastern states in any future rulemakings, since
right whales spend time in the southeast.
Response: To simplify and expedite rulemaking, NMFS chose to direct the ALWTRT
efforts initially on the Northeast Region lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries because these
fisheries constitute 93 percent of the U.S. buoy lines in areas where right whales occur. The
Team includes southeastern state fishery managers as well as members that represent the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council and Southeast U.S. fishermen. NMFS has begun working
with the ALWTRT to get their recommendations on further rulemaking that may include
modifications to the southeastern fisheries that are subject to the ALWTRP. We will include
outreach to stakeholders in these states in our future rulemaking efforts.
Comment 7.4: NMFS should enlist fishermen in disentanglement efforts, rather than
relying on college students and other groups.
Response: Disentanglement efforts on large whales are conducted under a NMFS permit
by highly skilled and trained responders throughout the U.S. These responders come from a
variety of backgrounds, including fishermen, and NMFS regularly conducts training that
specifically targets fishermen and other members of the on-water community. Disentanglement
techniques, tools, and protocols have been developed over decades and have been used as a
model for successful rescues and international disentanglement efforts. National and
international trainees come from all over the world to learn from and train with our teams in the
U.S. We do ask for assistance from untrained fishermen from time to time on specific cases, and
will continue to do so to provide an effective disentanglement effort that is safe for both the
disentanglement team and the whales.
Comment 7.5: NMFS should take emergency action to close all fisheries that use vertical
lines or other gear that may entangle right whales, or to close all areas where whales may cooccur with fishing.
Response: There are several statutes that lay out the situations in which NMFS can take
emergency action. In Section 118(g) of the MMPA, which many commenters mentioned, the
Secretary of Commerce may implement emergency rules when incidental take from commercial
fisheries are having "an immediate and significant adverse impact on a stock or species." Where
there is already a take reduction plan in place, the Secretary should develop such emergency
rules that are consistent with the plan to the maximum extent practicable, and follow "on an
expedited basis" with amendments to the plan as recommended by the TRT to address the
situation. In developing emergency rules, the Secretary must consult with the Marine Mammal
Commission, TRT, fishery management councils, and state fishery managers. Emergency rules
can only stay in place for 180 days, but can be extended for additional 90 days if an emergency
situation persists.
Section 4(b)(7) of the ESA also includes emergency rulemaking authority provisions.
NMFS has used this authority in the past to implement emergency rules for right whale
protections (e.g. SERO 2006 gillnet closure, 71 FR 66469, Nov. 15, 2006). This authority is
available when there is an "emergency posing a significant risk to the well-being of any species
of fish or wildlife or plants." In an ESA emergency rulemaking, the Secretary must provide

25

detailed reasons why the regulation is necessary, and must provide actual notice to state agencies
in states where species occur. An ESA emergency rule can only last 240 days.
While ESA emergency rulemaking provisions explicitly waive the procedural rulemaking
requirements of the APA and the ESA, the MMPA emergency rulemaking provisions are an
alternative to the normal procedural requirements of the MMPA, and appear to implicitly waive
the APA's notice and comment requirements.
These emergency provisions do not, however, waive other procedural requirements that
agencies are subject to when undertaking a rulemaking, like NEPA, the Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA), or EO 12866. The NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1506.12, for example, allow
agencies to consult with the Council on Environmental Quality to develop "alternative
provisions" in addressing an emergency situation, but agencies are expected to "limit such
arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency." EO
12866 provides that in an emergency situation, "the agency shall notify the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as soon as possible and, to the extent practicable, comply with
subsections (a)(3)(B) and (C) of this section." The PRA includes emergency review provisions,
subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a finding that the
normal process will result in public harm or is not possible because of an unanticipated event,
and even then the agency must take all practicable steps to consult with members of the public.
To the extent that an emergency action would impact a wide range of the fishing community, the
need to satisfy these procedural requirements would limit the speed of such actions.
Due to the above-referenced requirements for emergency action under the MMPA and
ESA, including public notice and comment requirements NEPA, PRA, or EO 12866, and the
limitations on how long an emergency rule can stay in effect (270 for MMPA, 240 days for
ESA), NMFS believes that proceeding with the current action will provide the fastest relief and
longest-lasting protections for right whales. NMFS generally views emergency actions to be
appropriate where a clearly identifiable problem can be addressed with directed, focused
measures, and such measures will effectively address the emergency in the timeframes to which
such authorities are limited. Because it is difficult to predict where entanglements will occur
given the relative scarcity of identified locations of entanglement, an emergency action to
completely close all fisheries using vertical lines at this time would appear to be an overbroad
use of its emergency authority. NMFS has not identified a geographic location or discrete
temporal period within which emergency action would address a specific entanglement concern,
and therefore NMFS believes that the complex issues associated with right whale fishery
interactions are better addressed through the comprehensive approach in the Final Rule.
Comment 7.6: NMFS should take emergency action to immediately implement a yearround closure south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.
Response: As noted in the response to Comment 7.5, we believe that the Final Rule will
provide the fastest relief and longest-lasting protections for right whales, so we are not planning
to take emergency action at this time. The Final Rule does include a seasonal closure south of
Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket that will be in effect from February to April, when right
whales have been sighted most frequently in high numbers in this area.
We have selected the larger of the closed areas analyzed as a restricted area in Alternative
3 (Non-preferred) in the DEIS, but is in the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS and is being
implemented in the Final Rule. This larger restricted area was best supported by the most recent
sightings data. Since 2018, right whales have been documented to the west of the originally
proposed closure, such that the closure could relocate lines into areas of equally high whale

26

density during the restricted season. The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS and Final Rule area
encompasses the majority of the area where the highest density of right whales have been
sighted, and the most recent sightings in years not yet within the Decision Support Tool
demonstrate these aggregations have persisted. Restricting buoy lines within this area between
February and April provides an estimated 4.6 percent risk reduction for the entire Northeast and
captures much of the risk within that area. See FEIS Section 3.1.2.5 for our revised analysis.
Comment 7.7: NMFS should take emergency action to immediately implement seasonal
closures in the three areas in the Gulf of Maine: Downeast summer closure from August 1October 31, a western Gulf of Maine spring closure from May 1 to July 31, and an offshore
migration closure from October 1 to April 30.
Response: As noted above, we believe that the Final Rule will provide the fastest relief
and longest-lasting protections for right whales, so we are not planning to take emergency action
at this time. NMFS analyzed the closure areas in the three Gulf of Maine areas proposed in an
emergency rulemaking petition submitted by The Pew Charitable Trusts. Along with the yearround closure proposed in Southern New England, these four areas would achieve an estimated
12.6 percent risk reduction according to Decision Support Tool Version 3, using the updated
right whale habitat density model (2010-2018). However, the team working on the current rule
would have to divert to preparing a new emergency rule and the required NEPA analyses. As
noted above, emergency measures may only be implemented within the limited timeframe
provided by the statutory authority, and the approximate 67 percent risk reduction from the
current rule far exceeds the estimated risk reduction suggested by the commenters. The Final
Rule is a priority in order to implement broad risk reduction in a timely manner. See FEIS
Section 3.4 for a further discussion of this and other alternatives that were considered but
rejected.
Comment 7.8: NMFS should issue emergency regulations that remove vertical buoy lines
from the water in areas of high entanglement risk to North Atlantic right whales.
Response: As noted above, NMFS would typically use its emergency authority in
situations where a clearly defined problem can be addressed using discrete measures in a defined
geographical area to effectively provide conservation protections within the limited timeframe
provided by the statutory authority. Because the location of entanglements are so rarely
observed, it is difficult to pinpoint times and places where emergency measures might provide
effective protections from entanglements. NMFS has not currently identified new areas where
emergency regulations would be appropriate, but the Final Rule includes comprehensive
measures that address entanglements on a broad scale, including measures that will reduce
vertical buoy lines through trawling up and seasonal area closures. See FEIS Chapter 3.
Comment 7.9: How will the regulations in this Final Rule be evaluated?
Response: NMFS anticipates annual meetings of the Team to review the North Atlantic
right whale and other large whale distribution and abundance data, mortality and serious injury
data, retrieved entanglement gear analyses, fishing effort data, and other relevant research
results. As they become available, these new data will also inform the evolving Decision Support
Tool. Modifications to seasonal restricted areas will be considered annually by the Team, and
they may make recommendations to amend the Plan, as needed. Following the recommendations
of the NMFS Expert Working Group asked to review right whale surveillance and monitoring
programs (Oleson et al. 2020), we anticipate a three-year surveillance and review cycle,
providing additional opportunities to evaluate right whale distribution data to gauge seasonal
restricted areas and other conservation measures contained in the ALWTRP.

27

Comment 7.10: NMFS should evaluate the success of past regulations, like sinking
groundlines and breakaways, before adding more regulations.
Response: Under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS is required to
review any significant rule to evaluate the continued need for regulation. To allow for sufficient
time for economic adjustments to occur and for data to become available, we review rules every
7 years. The most recent ALWTRP rule was published in 2015, and will be coming up for
review shortly.
Comment 7.11: Several commenters suggested that NMFS ban commercial fishing, ban
certain commercial fishing gears, or focus on reducing the demand for seafood.
Response: MSA is the primary law that governs marine fisheries management in U.S.
federal waters. First passed in 1976, the MSA fosters the long-term biological and economic
sustainability of marine fisheries. Its objectives include preventing overfishing, rebuilding
overfished stocks, increasing long-term economic and social benefits and ensuring a safe and
sustainable supply of seafood. The Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act,
governing the U.S. lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fisheries, directs the federal government to
support the management efforts of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(Commission) and, to the extent the federal government seeks to regulate a Commission species,
develop regulations that are compatible with the Commission’s Interstate Fishery Management
Plan and consistent with the MSA’s National Standards. Banning or disincentivizing commercial
fishing would be inconsistent with our mandates under these laws.
Comment 7.12: NMFS should require all vessels in fixed-gear fisheries to use Vessel
Monitoring Systems and/or AIS, submit Vessel Trip Reports, and have observer coverage in
order to get better information on distribution and density of vertical lines.
Response: NMFS supports the collection of high resolution spatial data in the lobster
fishery. The Commission recommended the collection of mandatory harvester reports in the
federal fishery, as part of Addendum XXVI to Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery
Management Plan for American Lobster. NMFS is in rulemaking to develop harvester reporting
requirements that complement the Commission’s Interstate Plan for lobster. NMFS intends to
work with the Commission, through a technical working group, to develop additional high
resolution spatial data collection objectives and requirements, while balancing the financial
burden to industry.
Comment 7.13: If the lobster/Jonah crab trap/pot fishery had been managed like the
Northeast Multispecies fishery, there would be fewer offshore fishing permits, and we wouldn’t
be having this problem.
Response: The interaction risk of a protected species is largely associated with the gear
type, but also the quantity of gear in the water, gear soak/tow duration, and the temporal and
spatial overlap of the gear and a given protected species. For the critically endangered North
Atlantic right whale, fixed gear fisheries with lines linking gear on the ocean floor to surface
marking systems (buoys, etc.) pose the greatest risk as they have accounted for the majority of
identifiable past fishery interactions. The DEIS indicated that the 2017 IEC model estimated that
over 93 percent of fixed gear buoy lines within right whale habitats along the Northeast U.S.
Atlantic coast are fished by the lobster and Jonah crab fishery. Thus, the lobster and Jonah crab
fishery poses the greatest risk to right whales and has been the focus of this action. For
comparison, the Northeast multispecies fishery authorizes the use of fixed gear (e.g., gillnets),
however, it is a relatively small component of the fishery and one of several fisheries comprising
the other 7 percent of fixed gear fisheries with buoy lines.

28

The MSA, governing the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, and the
Atlantic Coastal Act (ACA), governing the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American
Lobster are the primary laws governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters.
First passed in 1976, the MSA fosters the long-term biological and economic sustainability of
marine fisheries. Its objectives include preventing overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks,
increasing long-term economic and social benefits, and ensuring a safe and sustainable supply of
seafood. The ACA directs the federal government to support the management efforts of the
Commission and, to the extent the federal government seeks to regulate a Commission species,
develop regulations that are compatible with the Commission’s Interstate Fishery Management
Plan and consistent with the MSA. These laws allow for the updating of management measures
to meet legislative and management objectives. While adjustments to management measures may
affect the quantity of gear fished, soak time or tow duration, or the spatial or temporal usage of
gear, and, thus, may alter the interaction risk associated with any fishery to protected species,
they are unlikely to dramatically alter the gear usage in these fisheries.
Comment 7.14: These rules will create safety hazards for fishermen, and will not reduce
right whale entanglements or mortalities.
Response: We acknowledge that open ocean fishing is inherently dangerous, and that
fishing is one of the most dangerous occupations. Fishermen configure their operations in the
ways that work best for them, and any regulatory changes that require them to modify their
practices can increase risk until adaptations to the new practices are made. Although some
commenters have criticized the deference that NMFS gave to the states and offshore fishery
members in developing the Proposed Rule analyzed in the DEIS, the extensive outreach to
fishermen informed the development of measures included in the Final Rule. Fishermen
informed measures with important information such as number of traps that can fit safely on
deck at one time, amount of force on rope hauled under commercial fishing practices, rope size
that fits safely through blocks and haulers on commercial vessels, sizes of vessels and crews
fishing at various distances from shore, local fishing conditions, and conservation equivalencies.
Alternative 2 (Preferred) of the FEIS and the Final Rule consider those public comments,
including many of the conservation equivalencies requested, and accommodate those changes
along with measures from the Proposed Rule that benefitted from earlier scoping. Together,
these measures should prevent this rulemaking from introducing hazards beyond those that
already exist in the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries.
Comment 7.15: NMFS should also evaluate the effects of these regulations on all the
other large whale species in the region.
Response: Chapter 5 of the FEIS evaluates the effects of the Final Rule on large whales,
other protected species, and habitat.
Comment 7.16: Thousands of commenters were concerned that cryptic mortality and
uncertainty in the data was not taken into account when choosing the risk reduction target, and
recommended an 80 percent risk reduction target or higher, with a few suggesting 100 percent.
Response: The application of cryptic mortality estimates in determining annual
entanglement mortality and serious injury rates relative to the PBR level was a new concept
when first introduced to the ALWTRT in 2019. Peer review of the cryptic mortality estimate had
not yet been completed and although it was discussed in the 2018 Marine Mammal Stock
Assessment Report (Hayes et al. 2019) that was available to the Team for the April 2019
meeting, cryptic mortality was not incorporated into the entanglement related mortality and
serious injury estimates in that report. The 60 percent target based on documented mortality was

29

in itself seen as a difficult challenge for the Team given uncertainties about the location of origin
of most documented entanglement events. The 80 percent target was an initial attempt to account
for early estimates of cryptic mortality, but was even more daunting and the Team recognized the
uncertainty in that higher target given the many unknowns related to the unseen mortalities,
including cause and location of deaths. Therefore, while the Team accepted the challenges of a
60 percent mortality and serious injury risk reduction, they were unable to agree on the higher
target. The recent paper by Pace et al. 2021 on cryptic mortality and the more recent analysis in
the current population estimate (Pace 2021) now provide more support for the 80 percent target
than at the time the ALWTRT undertook its efforts to develop recommendations. Our
understanding of cryptic mortality will affect management decisions going forward as new stock
assessments and PBR calculations incorporate this new science.
Here, NMFS considered this new information, as well as the remaining uncertainty
around apportioning mortalities to country and source, conservation equivalency
recommendations from states and stakeholders, and the need for urgency in completing the
current rulemaking constraining us to the scope of the analyses in the DEIS. Resulting
modifications to the Final Rule included selection of a larger area closure south of the islands
and modifications to management measures that improved risk reduction estimates to achieve a
nearly 70 percent risk reduction as determined by the Decision Support Tool. Further efforts by
NMFS to estimate serious injury and mortality and to apportion the estimates to country and
mortality source will be included in guidance to the ALWTRT to support their development of
recommendations for further amendments to the ALWTRP.
Comment 7.17: NMFS should focus risk reduction efforts on areas of high right whale
occurrence.
Response: Chapter 3 in the FEIS describes how the alternatives were developed and
explains that while precautionary measures are required throughout the regulated areas, more
restrictive and protective measures are focused on areas of high right whale co-occurrence with
buoy lines (e.g. the hotspot analysis that identified restricted areas). Particularly, the months and
areas with highest whale occurrence and co-occurrence are the areas that were selected for
seasonal restricted areas. However, as described in Chapters 2, 3, and 8 of the FEIS, there is also
a great need to implement measures that will be resilient to changes in whale distribution and
therefore requires broader precautionary risk reduction across the regulated area.
Comment 7.18: ASMFC pending measures should not be counted in analyzing risk
reduction.
Response: Noted in the ALWTRT recommendations and throughout the development of
this rule, other relevant actions that we considered to be reasonably certain to occur within the
timeframe evaluated within this rule were treated as such in our analysis of anticipated risk
reduction throughout the regulated area. We commit to monitoring the progress of these related
actions and reporting our findings to the ALWTRT at future meetings for consideration.
Comment 7.19: Massachusetts did not ban single traps on vessels longer than 29 feet in
their rule, so how was that risk reduction re-allocated?
Response: During the development of the Proposed Rule, NMFS discussed this measure
with the Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries and recognized that it was likely to be
positive toward risk reduction. However, we were unable to estimate the impacts on risk. Since
we did not assign any quantified risk reduction to that measure in the DEIS, there was no need to
re-allocate it.
Comment 7.20: NMFS should adopt Maine’s proposed conservation equivalencies.

30

Response: As discussed in FEIS Section 3.3, NMFS is adopting most of the conservation
equivalencies offered by Maine out to 12 nm, and is appreciative of the work done by Maine
Department of Marine Resources and the Zone Councils to develop and recommend weak
insertion and trawling up requirements in collaboration with Zone Councils that are familiar with
capacity and constraints of Zone-specific fishing operations and conditions.
Comment 7.21: Maine should get gear reduction credit if Maine funds tags or
development of a GPS tracker.
Response: Technology and tracking in and of themselves do not reduce the risk of fishing
gear on large whales. However, if Maine develops a line reduction program and
reporting/tracking technology that demonstrates line reduction, it would be considered toward
risk reduction.
Comment 7.22: In LMA 3, NMFS should analyze the difference in risk reduction
between a 50 percent reduction in buoy lines and the proposed closure with potential gear
displacement.
Response: Several scenarios were analyzed in Georges Basin Restricted Area for the
DEIS and FEIS, including a 50 percent reduction in lines through a line cap or through trawling
up and a restricted area. The FEIS includes longer trawl lengths in this area compared to the
DEIS (50 traps per trawl versus 45 traps per trawl) but still implements broader trawling up
measures throughout LMA 3 in order to distribute risk reduction more evenly. The Georges
Basin Restricted Area was predicted to increase co-occurrence in the DEIS (See co-occurrence
maps in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5.2).
Comment 7.23: How is the Massachusetts Restricted Area credit being added to the risk
reduction estimates?
Response: FEIS Section 3.3.5.1 discusses credit assigned to the Massachusetts Restricted
Area and provides an assessment of risk reduction with and without application of the value of
that area. The Team unanimously supported including credit for the Massachusetts Restricted
Area, which was fully implemented in its current configuration in 2015 (79 FR 36585), given
recent years’ increased use of that area by right whales (e.g., Ganley et al. 2019).
Comment 7.24: Were all the proposals evaluated using the same model?
Response: Each individual risk reduction measure and suite of measures were run
through the Decision Support Tool (DST) Version 3 to identify the estimated contribution to risk
reduction across the Northeast Region as defined by the Northeast Trap/Pot Management Area.
Comment 7.25: The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute has developed a methodology
in collaboration with the fishing industry to attribute risk to gear based on proportion of water
column occupied. This information must be considered in this rulemaking.
Response: We anticipate adding this information to the DST in the near future. However,
this is less important for the current rulemaking because an endline, assuming it approximates a
straight line from the bottom to the surface, occupies all portions of the water column equally
and the lobster industry has incorporated sinking groundline so groundlines may be assumed to
have negligible presence in the water column. Incorporating proportions of the water column
occupied are more critical for complex structures like gillnets or potential aquaculture
installations, in which case it is important to model both the proportion of water column
occupied but also which portion of the water column is occupied and the vertical distribution of
whales. This will be incorporated into the DST for future analysis of risk posed by different gear
types that do not use the entire water column.
Comment 7.26: Some commenters questioned the validity of the threat component of the

31

DST.

Response: The threat model based on the TRT opinion poll is no longer in use. Starting
with the CIE review in 2019, the threat model has been based only on the analysis of empirical
data on rope breaking strengths, rope samples retrieved from entangled whales, and whale spatial
distributions. At this time, the model is unfortunately constrained to rope breaking strength but in
two years of polling scientists and stakeholders, nobody has proposed a viable alternative. It is
appropriate for the threat model to be equally weighted with line and whale density because
entanglement risk only exists when lines are present, whales are present, and the lines pose a risk
to whales. If any of these three factors are not present, the risk of entanglement is zero.
Comment 7.27: The DST is critically flawed in its reliance on an estimate of gear threat
that significantly overemphasizes the contribution of rope strength to entanglement risk. By
failing to account for the uncertainty inherent in the DST, NMFS overestimated the effectiveness
of the selected methods for reducing risks tor right whales.
Response: There are uncertainties in the DST calculations that we have not fully
quantified. However, it is important to distinguish between uncertainty and bias and we have no
reason to believe that the inputs and therefore model outputs are particularly biased high or low.
Thus, while there is unquantified uncertainty around the risk reduction calculated by the DST, it
is equally likely that actual risk reduction is higher than estimated as lower than estimated and no
reason to believe that risk reductions are overestimated.
Comment 7.28: NMFS should implement these regulations as soon as possible as any
delays come at the expense of right whales.
Response: NMFS recognizes the urgency of the current situation and intends to
implement these regulations to provide needed conservation benefits to right whales as soon as
possible. We intend to implement new seasonal restricted areas 30 days after the rule is finalized.
Massachusetts Restricted Area fishermen have indicated that it takes several trips for them to
remove all of their gear, and because of unpredictable winter weather and holidays, they remove
and move beginning at least a month in advance of their February 1 closure. The LMA 1 closure
will likely result in moved trawls rather than trawls brought to the beach and stored on land so
may not require round-trips to the dock. Many fishermen moving gear from the South Island
Restricted Area would be expected to remove gear prior to the February 1 closure; one month
should provide sufficient time to remove gear. Gear configuration changes including trawling up,
weak buoy lines or weak insertion installation, and gear marking, will be delayed for a longer
period of time because these buoy and groundline modifications will take substantial time. The
delayed effective date will factor in winter or low effort months when many fishermen have
removed gear from the water for maintenance. The actual effective dates will depend on when
the Notice of Availability of the FEIS and the Final Rule are released. Our intention is that all
measures will be in place for the next fishing year starting in the spring of 2022.
Comment 7.29: Some components of the rule state prohibitions “to fish with, set, or
possess” where other portions leave out “set.” If this was strategic, please clarify how “setting” is
separate from the regulatory intent of “to fish with.
Response: This was carryover language from the existing regulations. The word “set” is
included within seasonal restricted areas; seasons when gear must be removed unless fishing
without buoy lines. During the season that the gear can be fished with gear configuration
requirements referenced in the regulations, the word “set” is not included.
Comment 7.30: It is our understanding that any trap, pot, contrivance etc. that is capable
of catching a lobster is required to have a valid lobster trap tag affixed to it. This would indicate
32

that any trap which falls into this category is subject to the marking, weak insert, and trawling up
requirements of this rule. We would ask for clarification on this assumption from NOAA, which
should help to guide discussions in the next ALWTRT process which will be aimed at the
additional gear types of gill nets and fish pots.
Response: Any trap/pot within the Northeast Trap/Pot Management Region with a lobster
trap tag will be required to comply with the marking, weak insert, weak line, and trawl length
requirements.
Comment 7.31: While some of these proposals may end up being effective, this proposal
makes very clear that there is insufficient mortality and tracking data on right whales, and many
of the suggested changes will be considerably more detrimental to the fishing industry than
beneficial to the whales.
Response: The Decision Support Tool estimates at least a 60 percent reduction in
entanglement risk, which is spread across the region to remain resilient to changes in right whale
distribution. The population and distribution are frequently monitored via aerial/vessel surveys as
well as with acoustic detection, and will be evaluated to ensure the measures are targeting areas
where entanglement risk exists. See more about monitoring in response to Comment 9.10.
Comment 7.32: The proposed rule does not consider reduction in effort, particularly for
recreational fisheries. PEER urges NOAA to consider the effect of reducing or eliminating
recreational fisheries in right whale habitat.
Response: The ALWTRP only regulates Category I and II commercial fixed gear
fisheries identified in the Plan. Additional regulation of recreational fisheries is outside the scope
of the current rulemaking.

1.1.9 Research

Comments on research generally fell into one of three categories: whale distribution,
insufficiency of current data, and entanglements. Many of the fishermen commenting said they
had either never seen a right whale where they fish, never seen or heard of an entangled right
whale in areas where they fish, did not believe that there was any recent evidence of
entanglement in their trap/pot lines, and questioned the validity of the scientific models on whale
distribution.
Comment 8.1: NMFS has not shown that entanglement in lobster trap/pot gear
contributes to low birth rates.
Response: There is a wealth of research that demonstrates that stressors, including
entanglements in fishing gear like traps/pots, have effects on marine mammal health and
reproduction. Entanglements in fishing line, such as those used in the lobster trap/pot fishery, is
energetically costly for right whales and requires expenditure of a portion of their energy budget
that would otherwise be allocated to reproduction (van der Hoop et al. 2017a). Entanglements
can reduce overall whale health and increase calving intervals (Rolland et al. 2016, Moore et al.
2021). Entanglements that restrict feeding further impact energetic reserves and ability to feed
(van der Hoop et al. 2017b). An inability to get enough food is also an important factor in the
reproductive health of right whales (Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2015). See FEIS Chapters 5 and 8.
Comment 8.2: Healthy whales don’t get entangled in fishing gear; there is something else
wrong with them.
Response: Several commenters stated the belief that healthy whales do not get entangled
in fishing gear. Entanglement in fishing gear is a global problem that has been documented for
many whale and dolphin species. In the Northeast Region, humpback and minke whale

33

entanglements are not uncommon. More than 85 percent of North Atlantic right whales have
experienced entanglement in fishing gear, many more than once. A recent assessment of all right
whale photos reveals that entanglement scarring injuries have increased, with roughly more than
30 percent of the population having at least minor entanglements each year. Much of the
population has been entangled multiple times, and there is a more than 90 percent chance that a
healthy female will get entangled between each calving cycle potentially contributing to reduced
calving rates. Repeated and chronic entanglement affects whale health and some whales with
unrelated compromised health status may be more vulnerable to injury and death. However,
there is no evidence that healthy whales are more adept at avoiding entanglement.
Comment 8.3: NMFS should hire mechanical engineers to examine the rope and net
configurations that are causing entanglements to occur.
Response: NMFS conducts extensive analysis of recovered gear from entangled whales
using our gear team, which includes former and active fishermen. We also regularly consult with
active fishermen who have decades of experience and are well versed in various fishing methods
and local practices. The various configurations we have seen over decades of recorded
entanglements varies widely, but the basic fact is that rope or net in the water column has the
potential to entangle large whales. NMFS also funds bycatch reduction research, and considers
research by right whale scientists that include modeling of entanglement configurations. NMFS
does not believe that hiring mechanical engineers is necessary.
Comment 8.4: NMFS should develop a plan to monitor all whale entanglements,
including observer coverage and satellite monitoring.
Response: NMFS, state, and independent research organizations coordinate monitoring
whale entanglements. Monitoring of entangled whales is done through comprehensive survey
effort to resight individuals and check for entangling gear or scarring. Satellite position beacons
are sometimes attached to gear entangling a whale to facilitate finding the whale for a
disentanglement effort. Because whale entanglement incidents are rare relative to fishing effort
hours and whales typically carry gear away from incident sites before a vessel returns to the gear,
an observer program is not an effective means for large whale entanglement monitoring.
Comment 8.5: How can NMFS justify a seasonal restricted area if there have been no
confirmed entanglements in that area in over a decade? No North Atlantic right whales have
been entangled in gear attributable to Maine trap/pot gear in at least 15 years, because the whales
no longer are in Maine waters.
Response: No gear remains on most right whales that bear entanglement scars. In the
cases where gear does remain, it is rarely collected, and even more rarely has any identifying
marks. Between 1980 and 2016, the New England Aquarium analyzed 1,462 right whale
entanglement interactions (A. Knowlton pers comm). Only 110 of these incidents had gear still
attached, and in only 13 cases could that gear be traced to the original set location. Because we
lack information on exactly where interactions occur, we use areas of high co-occurrence of right
whales and fishing gear as a proxy for identifying areas of high entanglement potential. The
Decision Support Tool also considers the type of gear in determining the risk of a serious
entanglement that would cause mortality or serious injury. The seasonal restricted areas
identified in the Final Rule are based on hot spots, areas with high current and historic habitat
use by North Atlantic right whales, high fishing gear density and high configuration threat. The
population and distribution are monitored via aerial/vessel surveys as well as with acoustic
detection, and will be evaluated to ensure the restricted areas are effective. See more about
evaluation below in response to Comment 9.10.

34

Until September 2020, when Maine required gear marking in exempted waters, most
Maine lobster fishery buoy lines were unmarked. Therefore, if a buoy line fished by a vessel
operating under a Maine permit entangled a right whale, the odds of tracing that rope to a Maine
lobster fishery buoy line have been extremely low. The commenters are correct that no rope
retrieved from a right whale has been specifically traced to gear set by Maine trap/pot fishermen
since the 2000s. However, cases in 2011 and 2012 were identified as U.S. unknown trap/pot gear
with red ALWTRP marks, consistent with the marking scheme for Maine fishermen outside of
exempted waters during those years. Additionally, a number of anchored minke whales and
humpback whales have been identified in Maine gear in the past 15 years. Maine lobster buoy
lines entangle and kill whales.
As noted by the commenters, right whale distribution has changed in the past decade, and
there may be fewer or less dense aggregations of whales in the Gulf of Maine. Right whales
continue to occur in Maine waters; however, and given the endangered status of the population,
the high rate of entanglements evidenced by scars on right whales, and the continued mortality
and serious injuries above PBR, NMFS must provide protective measures throughout the
population’s range in U.S. waters.
Comment 8.6: One commenter indicated that the data shows that gillnet and netting gear
were the most prevalent gear (other than Canadian snow crab gear) and the Northeast lobster
fishery were the least prevalent in right whale entanglements.
Response: As detailed in Chapter 2, while gillnet gear may be identified at rates higher
than anticipated given the relative number of buoy lines, there are more cases identified as
trap/pot found on right whales than identified gillnet gear and the most prevalent gear seen on
right whales is described as unknown rope.
Comment 8.7: The Decision Support Tool relies on coarse data for both line density and
whale density, and should not be used. There is no way to model where the whales are and where
the gear is with any degree of certainty.
Response: The Decision Support Tool (DST) was and continues to be the best available
analytical tool to assess the co-occurring risk of large whale entanglement in commercial fixed
gear. The model compiles the best available large whale habitat density modeling by Roberts et
al. (2016) which incorporates data from nearly every systematic marine mammal survey of the
eastern United States. The DST also draws from every available state and federal fisheries data
source to incorporate the best available estimate of the distribution of fixed gear fisheries vertical
lines within the Exclusive Economic Zone. We agree that there are uncertainties associated with
this model, and any model, but we are confident in the DST’s ability to inform the Team’s
discussion and recommendations toward a risk reduction goal.
Comment 8.8: NMFS right whale population model overestimates the cumulative
mortalities.
Response: The estimates of total mortality are derived from a peer-reviewed
methodology designed to estimate the abundance of North Atlantic right whales. The model
itself is a version of methodology used for many species of wildlife in which particular statistical
characterizations are used to characterize the capture and/or resighting (both alive and dead)
histories of individually marked whales to estimate survival rates. These models take into
account that individuals are not seen every year, and this particular model allows individuals to
have different probability of being "captured" on each capture occasion.
It is true that these models cannot distinguish between true mortality and the appearance
of mortality that would come from an individual permanently leaving the survey areas. For that

35

to happen in great abundance would suggest that many whales use the U.S. and Canadian coasts
for enough time to become catalogued and then decide to move elsewhere and never return.
There is simply no evidence for that scenario. Indeed, there is abundant evidence that the great
mobility and long life of right whales allows them to take modest sojourns to Icelandic and even
Norwegian waters and return to the survey areas to be "recaptured" once again.
Very few wildlife populations even approach having all mortality documented by
detected carcasses. Despite the vast survey effort directed at right whales, given the large amount
of area that right whales travel, right whales and other large whales likely die without their
carcasses ever being seen.
Comment 8.9: NMFS should use a longer time series to make any determinations, as well
as acoustic and prey data.
Response: The FEIS is a compilation of the best available scientific information
including information on documented and projected changes in prey distribution. Acoustic data
are used increasingly used to identify right whale distribution and are included in the near realtime sightings posted on our website at fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/north-atlantic-rightwhale-sightings, and passive acoustic monitoring research is available at appsnefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/pacm/#/narw. For a complete list of citations, see the list of references
included at the end of every FEIS chapter.
Recent population models demonstrate that the right whale population decline began in
2010 and accelerated around 2015 (Pace et al. 2021). We cannot wait another decade to respond
to that decline.
Comment 8.10: Thousands of commenters who submitted comments as part of a
campaign noted that the Proposed Rule relied on outdated population estimates to calculate PBR,
and requested that the calculations be updated and a new PBR determined.
Response: The calculations in the DEIS showing how NMFS proposed to achieve that
risk reduction relied on the 2018 Stock Assessment report available when the DEIS was drafted,
using 2016 population estimates. The FEIS has been updated with the most recent population
estimate (Pace et al. 2021) and stock assessment data (Hayes et al. 2020), including the PBR of
0.8, down from 0.9 in the DEIS. For more, see FEIS Section 2.1.1.
Comment 8.11: NMFS should use peer-reviewed science before implementing any
regulations.
Response: NMFS concurs. The FEIS is a compilation of the best available scientific
information. Included in the FEIS are data from the Stock Assessment Reports, which are peer
reviewed by the Atlantic Scientific Review Group and subject to review by the public, and
results from the Decision Support Tool, which underwent an independent peer review conducted
by the Center for Independent Experts.
Comment 8.12: The data used to determine whale distribution is flawed and incomplete,
and therefore should not be used to make regulations.
Response: NMFS disagrees with this assessment. The whale distribution data is the best
available information. Although more data will help increase the accuracy of analysis results,
there is no indication that results to date are incorrect, nor is there evidence that either the data or
the analytical approaches taken to date are flawed. The data have been collected with strict
adherence to established protocols, and analyses have used accepted peer-reviewed statistical
methods.
Comment 8.13: What are the migratory patterns of right whales in LMA 2?
Response: An interactive map of right whale sightings data, including sightings in LMA

36

2, can be found online at fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/north-atlantic-right-whale-sightings.
Comment 8.14: NMFS should do more to gather data on right whale distribution,
including increasing aerial, boat-based, and drone surveys.
Response: We agree that more data are needed to refine our understanding of right whale
distribution. With available resources, NMFS is maintaining aerial surveys, increasing acoustic
surveys and investigating additional tools to document whale distribution and individual
identification. NMFS is working to identify the primary factors that correlate with right whale
distribution to help identify other areas where right whales are likely to occur to direct future
survey efforts.
Comment 8.15: NMFS should develop ways to tag and track right whales.
Response: NMFS agrees that tagging would help us learn more about right whale
movements and habitat use. Long-term attachments used in past studies require an invasive
approach to implant tag anchors. These efforts were halted on right whales out of concerns
regarding potential health impacts. NMFS has supported development of less invasive tags to
track (greater than 24 hours) right whales since 2014. First, we began supporting an investigation
into using dart-style Low Impact Minimally Percutaneous Electronic Transmitters (LIMPETs) on
right whales. Although a few of the tags successfully tracked right whale movements through the
mid-Atlantic, most tag attachments were relatively brief. Fortunately, there was no evidence of
negative health impacts in any of the whales that were tagged. We also began, and continue to
support, the development of blubber-only tags. These are slightly more invasive than the
LIMPET tags. The fieldwork component of this study was interrupted by the global pandemic.
Still, tag enhancements continue to be supported including investigations into tag materials, tag
retention methods, etc. It should be noted that despite several decades of development, many of
the technical and logistical challenges of tagging continue to limit the utility of this approach. It
is therefore important for NMFS to continue and enhance existing monitoring programs to
provide whale location information for a large portion of the population.
Comment 8.16: NMFS should use spotter planes to make fishermen aware of when
whales are in their area.
Response: NMFS uses multiple means to track right whales, including aerial surveys and
acoustic monitoring systems. Near real-time sighting information can be found on our website at
fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/north-atlantic-right-whale-sightings.
Comment 8.17: Warming in the Gulf of Maine is causing changes in copepod
distribution, driving whales to Canada, and out of Maine.
Response: NMFS agrees that large whales are susceptible to ecosystem changes caused
by climate change and right whale habitat use changes have been documented. Baleen whales
will most likely continue to expand or shift their current range in response to prey species but the
nature of the impacts varies by species (MacLeod 2009). Right whale habitat shifts in recent
years follow their preferred prey farther north as the Gulf of Maine warms (Meyer-Gutbrod et al.
2018, Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene 2018, Record et al. 2019a, Record et al. 2019b). Climate
change impacts their preferred prey abundance, which is known to impede reproductive success
in this species (Meyer-Gutbrod et al. 2015a). 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). However, data shows that while abundance and duration of stays may have shifted,
right whales still occur in waters offshore of Maine and throughout the Gulf of Maine at various
times of the year. Past and near real-time right whale sighting information can be accessed online

37

at fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/north-atlantic-right-whale-sightings.
Comment 8.18: North Atlantic right whales do not occur in coastal, shallow waters or in
LMA 1, and therefore, Maine coastal waters, particularly inside the 3 nm line, should be
exempted from these regulations.
Response: Gear marking and weak insertion requirements inside the Maine exempted
waters are not included in this rulemaking. These measures are (gear marking) or will (weak
insertions) be implemented by Maine DMR. Note, however, that the risk reduction benefits of
weak insertions are considered in the FEIS.
Comment 8.19: Massachusetts lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishing gear has never
killed a right whale. These regulations will not save whales and will force Massachusetts
lobstermen out of business.
Response: No gear remains on most right whales that bear entanglement scars. In the
cases where gear does remain, it is rarely collected, and even more rarely has any identifying
marks. Between 1980 and 2016, the New England Aquarium analyzed 1,462 right whale
entanglement interactions (A. Knowlton pers comm). Only 110 of these incidents had gear still
attached, and in only 13 cases could that gear be traced to the original set location. Because we
lack information on exactly where interactions occur, we use areas of high co-occurrence of right
whales and fishing gear as a proxy for identifying areas of high entanglement potential. For
example, the Massachusetts Restricted Area was identified in the 2014 modifications to the
ALWTRP based on high co-occurrence given frequent habitat use by North Atlantic right whales
and fishing gear density. There are other areas in Massachusetts that have been identified as
hotspots where entanglement risk is high for right whales based on predicted whale density and
the presence and strength of trap/pot gear (see Chapter 3).
There are cases in 2011 and 2012 where gear was recovered and were identified as U.S.
unknown trap/pot gear with red ALWTRP marks, consistent with the marking scheme for
Massachusetts fishermen outside of exempted waters during those years. In 2001 and 2016, right
whale mortalities or serious injuries in Massachusetts lobster gear were avoided only because
they were successfully disentangled. Additionally, a number of anchored minke whales and
humpback whales have been identified in Massachusetts gear in the past 15 years, so
Massachusetts lobster buoy lines do entangle and kill whales.
Comment 8.20: Whale population data is flawed because right whales are traveling
between Iceland and Labrador, and are not dead as the model suggests.
Response: The right whale population model estimates the number of right whales that
have disappeared from the population. Given the high percentage of the population seen in most
years, those whales are to some extent presumed dead. It is possible that some right whales are
not dead, but have emigrated to another area for an extended period. Some individuals have been
resighted after an absence of many years. This is unusual, however, and it is unlikely that all the
whales considered dead have only emigrated. We currently have few records of right whales
seen beyond Newfoundland, and to date the whales photographed in the Eastern Atlantic have all
been seen again in U.S. waters. See our response to Comment 8.7 for more detail.

1.1.10 Restricted Areas

The vast majority of commenters associated with campaigns, as well as at least 97 unique
commenters, support restricted areas as a management tool, with many suggesting that some or
all of the closures should be larger and/or longer. A few commenters did not support specific
restricted areas, and some did not support restricted areas of any kind. Many commenters

38

supported the idea of dynamic management for restricted areas, such that the areas could be
opened if no right whales were documented in the area at the time of a closure or areas could be
closed upon the sightings of right whales. Several commenters questioned the risk reduction
value for the Massachusetts Bay Restricted Area, which we did continue to include in our risk
reduction estimate for the Preferred Alternative, as described in FEIS Section 3.3.4.2
Comment 9.1: Several commenters suggested that restricted areas should apply to
gillnet/mobile gear.
Response: The ALWTRT is meeting to develop recommendations to reduce the risk of
gillnet and other trap/pot fisheries on right whales and other large whales. Seasonal restricted
areas are likely to be among the risk reduction strategies considered by the Team.
Comment 9.2: NMFS should use dynamic closures such as those being used in Canada.
Dynamic closures would allow fishermen to keep fishing as long as the whales are not there.
Response: The ALWTRP has used Seasonal Area Management to protect right whales in
areas of annual predictable aggregations since the inception of the Plan. The Plan also has
employed dynamic management to protect temporary right whale aggregations. Measures
implemented through amendments to the Plan in 2002 triggered closures or gear modification
requirements for lobster and gillnet fishing within a prescribed distance from sightings of right
whale aggregations. Borggaard et al. (2017) summarizes the ALWTRP’s amendments, including
the evolution of the Dynamic Area Management (DAM) program. More than 60 dynamic area
management zones were implemented between 2002 and 2009. Borggaard et al. notes that the
program was administratively burdensome and attracted significant complaints regarding
feasibility and effectiveness, ranging from delayed implementation preventing whale protection,
to such rapid implementation that fishermen could not safely remove or modify their gear in time
for the required effective dates. Given these concerns about the DAM program, the Team
modified the Plan to instead apply broad-based extensions of the gear modifications used in
DAMs (such as sinking groundline required in most trap trawls through 2009 Plan amendments).
Broad-based gear requirements afford protection to whales, and is a measure that is resilient to
changes in whale and fishery distribution.
Although it was not effective at preventing mortalities in 2019, Canada’s vessel speed
and fishery dynamic management program seems to have afforded substantial protection to right
whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 2018 and 2020. Canada implements time-area closures
with boundaries that vary based on direct observations that respond to annual or seasonal
resources distribution changes. To be done well Canada currently implements an intensive and
expensive surveillance program through aerial surveys and acoustic monitoring. Canada also has
an agile regulatory implementation authority.
While NMFS and our collaborators may be able to support an intensive surveillance
program when resources are available, the U.S. regulatory requirements are not as agile. As
discussed above, while DAMs were being implemented, NMFS rulemaking was often
unsuccessful at responding rapidly to changing conditions. NMFS rulemakings under the MMPA
and ESA are also subject to procedurally complex federal laws and requirements that Canadian
resource management is not subject to, including NEPA, PRA, APA, and EO 12866. These laws
include consultation requirements, notice and comment requirements, and environmental and
economic analyses of the impacts of federal rulemaking before final decisions can be made about
federal actions that could have environmental effects. Evaluating the impacts of future actions
that have not yet been determined is logistically very challenging. NMFS, other federal agencies,
and many collaborators are continuing to develop models that may be able to project prey and

39

whale distribution into future months that could provide tools to develop predictable triggers for
dynamic area management measures.
Comment 9.3: Many commenters voiced concern that NMFS had not adequately
accounted for the effort displacement and crowding that will be caused by closures.
Response: In response to these comments, we modified our analysis in the FEIS to
consider the impacts that would be caused by vessels relocating gear from the LMA 1 Restricted
Area to offshore waters of Maine Lobster Zones C, D, and E. The analysis in FEIS Section 6.3
estimates the landing reduction for all vessels outside 12 nm in Maine Lobster Zones C, D, and E
by using data from the Maine DMR harvester reports, which are only available for 10 percent of
Maine lobster fishermen, and from 100 percent of the dealer reports.
Comment 9.4: How will the restricted areas affect mobile gear fishermen?
Response: Restricted areas may result in opening up of fishing habitat that mobile gear
vessels have not been able to access due to the presence of lobster trawls, although the benefits
may be marginal.
Mobile gear fishermen have expressed concerns about conflicts with ropeless gear trawls
that may be fished under EFPs and that could increase gear conflicts if trawlers do not know the
gear is on the bottom. The Final Rule changes existing and new seasonal restricted areas from
fishing closures to buoy line closures. This would allow the use of gear fished without buoy lines
(commonly referred to as “ropeless” gear). Fishermen who obtain EFPs to fish without buoy
lines could pose some gear conflict threat to mobile gear fishermen. Ropeless experimentation
with the proper authorization can be done anywhere, however access to areas otherwise closed to
lobster fishing could incentivize fishermen to conduct ropeless fishing within the seasonal
restricted areas.
Ropeless experimentation in the lobster and black sea bass trap/pot fisheries is occurring
already. In the northeast, NMFS and ropeless fishing collaborators are working with groundfish
and scallop bottom trawl fishermen to assess bottom marking technology being developed to
allow mariners to detect lobster. Concerns that this experimentation will occur broadly in the
near term appear to be unfounded. Due to the cost of ropeless technology, for the foreseeable
future we believe that ropeless experimentation will be limited to collaborators accessing the
NMFS ropeless gear cache, with perhaps an additional 10 percent of trawls being fished with
other ropeless units. The NMFS gear cache also loans technology to collaborating mobile gear
fishermen. For the next few years, we anticipate that the largest number of trap/pot trawls that
could be supported by these efforts would approach about 330 pot/trap trawls coastwide (Maine
through Florida). Additionally, we anticipate that EFP conditions will require participants to
work with adjacent trawl fisheries, as well as other notice requirements that will prevent gear
conflicts and support enforcement efforts. Collaboration across gear sectors, use of the NMFS
ropeless gear cache, and reporting and monitoring conditions under exempted fishing permits
should keep costs and gear conflicts to a minimum while ropeless technology is evaluated for
potential use as an alternative to fishery closures.
Comment 9.5: Many commenters were concerned that restricted areas would create
“walls” of dense gear right outside the borders, posing a greater risk to right whales.
Response: We have modified our analysis in the FEIS to consider gear displacement in
response to the restricted areas. These analyses resulted in changes in the South Island Restricted
Area selected for Final Rulemaking, and was one of the reasons that a seasonal buoy line closure
was not selected for the Georges Basin Restricted Area in the preferred alternative. Updated
calculations on the gear displacement effects of restricted areas suggested the alternative

40

restricted areas displaced gear to areas of equal or higher co-occurrence, although “walls” of gear
were not projected. The borders of the restricted areas are not uniformly productive lobster
habitat. Fishermen are more likely to redistribute their gear to fishing ground that is productive.
Please see Chapters 3, 5, and 6 of the FEIS for more details.
Until recently, NMFS had no evidence that existing closures created “walls” of gear. In
April 2021, however, concentrations of gear were observed in a small open area east of the state
of Massachusetts extended spring closure area and west of the Massachusetts Restricted Area
(MRA). This appears to be an unintended consequence of the state extension of the MRA in state
waters to the northern state boundary. Although this patch of Massachusetts Bay is not a
productive fishing ground during this season, fishery managers believe that fishermen permitted
to fish in both state and federal waters did not remove their gear in response to the closure, but
instead moved gear out of the state waters and into this small open band of water while waiting
for the MRA to open up May 1 (Bob Glenn, Massachusetts DMF, pers comm April 26, 2021).
Federally permitted fishermen may also have been staging their gear, taking it out over multiple
trips and days until the MRA opened. NMFS will consider future rulemaking to extend the
northern boundary of the MRA across to the coast to close that gap and prevent an annual
development of this high-risk dense gear storage area. The unconstricted nature of waters
surrounding other seasonal restricted areas are not expected to similarly aggregate gear.
Comment 9.6: NMFS should add a restricted area north of Georges Bank and/or expand
the Georges Bank restricted area. Georges Basin has a right whale hot-spot analysis five times
greater than LMA 1.
Response: The Final Rule does not implement a restricted area in Georges Basin, but
instead includes additional reduction of lines in this area (50 traps/trawl within the restricted
area). The previous analyses suggest that it is difficult to restrict fishing in this hotspot without
pushing effort to areas that increase risk outside of the hotspot based on predicted whale density
(see co-occurrence maps in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5.2 the DEIS). Broad line reduction,
however, achieves line and associated risk reduction without incidentally increasing cooccurrence of gear with right whales within this area.
Comment 9.7: The Pew Charitable Trusts’ online message campaign of more than
47,000 submissions requested that NMFS implement a year-round closure South of the Islands,
and seasonal closures in three areas in the Gulf of Maine: Downeast summer closure from
August 1-October 31, a western Gulf of Maine spring closure from May 1 to July 31, and an
offshore migration closure from October 1 to April 30.
Response: NMFS analyzed the Gulf of Maine closures proposed by The Pew Charitable
Trusts along with the year-round closure proposed in southern New England. These four areas
would achieve an estimated 12 percent risk reduction according to Decision Support Tool
Version 3, using the updated right whale habitat density model (2010-2018).
However, to implement these measures, NMFS would have to set aside the current
rulemaking conducted under the ALWTRT, and divert staff working on Final Rule and FEIS to
prepare a new rule and NEPA analyses, not a small undertaking. The Final Rule, which is
estimated to achieve approximately 67 percent risk reduction, is the NMFS priority. See FEIS
Section 3.4 for a further discussion of the petition and other alternatives that were considered but
rejected.
Comment 9.8: Many commenters wanted to know how NMFS will evaluate and modify
restricted areas based on changes to whale distribution, and how often those evaluations will take
place.

41

Response: NMFS anticipates annual meetings of the Team to review the North Atlantic
right whale and other large whale distribution and abundance data, mortality and serious injury
updates, retrieved entanglement gear analyses, fishing effort data, and other relevant research
results. These data will be incorporated into the next iterations of the Decision Support Tool. The
Team will consider modifications to seasonal restricted areas on an annual basis, and the team
will continue to make recommendations to amend the Plan. Following the recommendations of
the NMFS Expert Working Group, which reviewed the right whale surveillance and monitoring
programs (Oleson et al. 2020), the NEFSC anticipates a three-year surveillance and review cycle,
providing an additional opportunity to review right whale distribution data to evaluate seasonal
restricted areas and other conservation measures contained within the ALWTRP.
Comment 9.9: Restricted areas should be based on the best available science, which
includes recent and historical sightings, acoustic data, and prey data.
Response: As described in FEIS Section 5.1, the seasonal restricted areas that are being
implemented through the Final Rule are based on the best available information, including recent
and historical right whale and other large whale sightings data, acoustic monitoring data, and
data on prey distribution. The FEIS includes analysis based on updated data that has become
available since we drafted the DEIS.
Comment 9.10: Dynamic triggers for closures would not be feasible, and NMFS should
remove that from consideration in the Final Rule.
Response: NMFS agrees that real time data are not available to develop an effective
trigger for restricted areas. To reduce risk to right whales, the LMA 1 area will be implemented
as a closure to lobster/Jonah crab fishing with buoy lines from October through January each
year.
Comment 9.11: Commenters suggested that LMA 1 was designated a “hotspot” for right
whales based on old data, and should be analyzed using data after the ecosystem shift that began
in 2010. As a result of old data, the analysis in the proposed LMA 1 closed area appears to be
disproportionately high in risk reduction value compared to the Massachusetts Restricted Area,
given the relatively low abundance of right whales in that area and the high abundance in Cape
Cod Bay.
Response: In the DEIS, we evaluated whale data from 2003 to 2017 (Whale model 8,
DST Version 2). The proposed LMA 1 Seasonal Restricted Area was estimated to have the same
risk reduction value of the MRA. However, when the Duke whale model was updated to include
only whale distribution since 2010 (Whale model 11, DST Version 3), while the spatial
distribution off Maine generally didn't change, the relative abundance of right whales did. Using
the newer data, the LMA 1 restricted area contributes less risk reduction benefit (approximately
6.6 percent) than was considered in the DEIS when considered across all of the Northeast
Lobster Trap/Pot Management Area. However, the value of the LMA 1 Seasonal Restricted Area
remains an important piece of the risk reduction for Maine permitted fishermen. See FEIS
Sections 3.1.2.5.1 and 5.3.1.1.2 for more information regarding the selection and analysis of the
LMA 1 restricted area.
The LMA 1 Seasonal Restricted Area was created to supplement the risk reduction
contribution of the Maine lobster fishery to the overall 60-80 percent risk reduction for the
Northeast Trap/Pot Management Area, following the ALWTRT’s recommendation in April 2019
to spread risk reduction across jurisdictions. The original recommendation approved by the
Maine caucus achieved that level of risk reduction primarily through a 50 percent line reduction.
However, after the ALWTRT meeting, the Maine DMR and the Maine Lobstermen’s

42

Association members on the Team withdrew their support for such extensive line reduction
measures. Maine DMR developed alternatives and used an alternative risk reduction calculation
to demonstrate their belief that their alternative, which included broad use of weak insertions and
some trawling up to reduce vertical buoy line numbers, achieved a 60 percent risk reduction.
NMFS’ analysis of the Maine risk reduction measures for the DEIS estimated that the Maine
DMR revisions were insufficient to achieve 60 percent risk reduction for Maine-permitted
fishermen in LMA 1. In discussions regarding preliminary analyses with Maine DMR prior to
their submission of alternatives, NMFS suggested a closure along the LMA1 Restricted Area
border with LMA 3 to improve the risk reduction calculation for that area during winter months
when right whales have been demonstrated to aggregate in offshore waters.
Comment 9.12: NMFS erred in conducting hot-spot analysis by Lobster Management
Area rather than the region as a whole, and as a result, fails to provide evidence that the LMA 1
Restricted Area is supported by the data.
Response: We disagree. As analyzed in FEIS Section 5.1, and in comment 9.11 above,
the LMA 1 Restricted Area provides significant risk reduction for right whales. This area was
identified as part of a Northeast Trap/Pot Management Area fishery-wide hotspot analysis. See
FEIS Section 3.1.2.4 for further details.
Comment 9.13: Several commenters suggested that LMA 1 should be closed in the spring
rather than fall, both to alleviate lost profits and to protect calves.
Response: In evaluating the risk reduction provided by the restricted areas, we relied on
the peer-reviewed DST. The DST does not indicate substantial risk reduction from restricted
areas implemented in the spring or summer months. The DST indicates that October through
January demonstrate the most effective risk reduction to right whales. See FEIS Section 5.1 for
more information. Estimated right whale habitat density and co-occurrence is included in the
table below.
Table 3. LMA 1 Monthly Right Whale Density and Co-Occurrence with Buoy Lines
Right whale habitat
Right Whale CoMonth
density
Occurrence
January
6.31
23.50
February

1.37

3.87

March

0.12

0.33

April

0.16

0.43

May

0.98

1.74

June

0.85

1.26

July

0.44

0.66

August

0.17

0.37

September

0.35

0.74

October

4.50

11.00

November

8.75

24.42

December

5.37

15.99

Comment 9.14: NMFS should allow ropeless fishing in LMA 1.
Response: The LMA 1 Seasonal Restricted Area would be a buoy line closure rather than
a fishery closure. Fishermen with an EFPfor fishing without the use of persistent buoy lines
would be able to fish within the seasonal restricted area from October to January.
43

Comment 9.15: NMFS should reconfigure the LMA1 restricted area so that it would be
narrower and run the entire length of the Area 1 line, and should also be at least the same size—
if not larger—on the Area 3 side of that line, too. This would spread the burden of the closure,
and would benefit the whales according to the co-occurrence model. It would also reduce
crowding at the area borders, and the accompanying gear conflicts and losses.
Response: This is a novel idea that could have been assessed if it had been received
during scoping. Because this proposed seasonal restricted area was not analyzed in the DEIS, we
are unable to implement it through final rulemaking at this time. The ALWTRT could consider
this as an amendment during future discussions.
Comment 9.16: A number of commenters suggested that the LMA 1 restricted area was
not supported by the acoustic data, either because acoustic gliders were not deployed at the right
time of year, or because the acoustic data showed that only 27 percent of the right whale
detections were inside LMA 1.
Response: The right whale habitat model (Duke Model Version 11) that the LMA 1
Restricted Area was based on projects a higher density of whales in this area throughout October
to January. Like some commenters, given the lack of recent systematic surveys in this area, we
were concerned that whales might not be using this area after they shifted distributions in the last
decade. The glider data validated that right whales are still in LMA 1 during the season predicted
by the Duke Whale Habitat Model (Version 11).
The commenter notes that only 27 percent of reported positions from deployed acoustic
gliders were inside the LMA 1 Seasonal Restricted Area and season. The glider data supports the
Duke whale habitat model (Version 11), which estimates higher whale densities on the LMA 3
side of the LMA boundary than the LMA 1 side. The glider data does, however, validate that
whales are still in this area seasonally. Gear density on the LMA 3 side is much lower than on
the LMA 1 side. We initially assessed a restricted area that included both sides of the boundary,
but determined that there was minimal benefit from the LMA 3 side. LMA 3 vessels are adopting
trawling up and weak line measures that provide greater risk reduction, so the restricted area
does not include the LMA 3 side of the boundary.
During the comment period, we received information that we had underestimated the
number of vessels that would be affected by the LMA 1 Restricted Area. In our revised analysis,
we considered that in conjunction with the fact that there are only about 75 LMA 3-permitted
vessels. LMA 3 vessels have higher rates of vessel trip reporting, which contributes to our
estimates of gear distribution. However, because we also received anecdotal reports of higher
gear densities on the LMA 3 side than our data indicate, we are investigating whether LMA 1
permitted vessels are inaccurately reporting location, or whether we are we are underestimating
gear density and entanglement threat on the LMA 3 side.
We have modified our analysis of the value of the LMA 1 Seasonal Restricted Area in the
FEIS. See Chapters 3 and 5.
Comment 9.17: NMFS should add restricted areas in LMA 3, as a huge majority of the
boats there already fish 45 pot trawls or longer, and the proposed regulations will have little
effect on reducing the risk posed by fishing in LMA 3.
Response: Alternative 3 analyzed restricted areas in offshore waters of LMA 3. The Final
Rule does not implement restricted areas in LMA 3, and instead requires a combination of
trawling up and weak rope requirements. Some areas originally considered for seasonal closures
to buoy lines in LMA 3 were difficult to create without just shifting the risk (see co-occurrence
maps in Chapter 5 of the FEIS). Broad line reduction and weak rope requirements achieved

44

associated risk reduction without incidentally increasing co-occurrence with right whales within
this area. Contrary to the comment, the average baseline gear configuration according to the line
model in the DST is 35 traps per trawl, so requiring a minimum of 45 traps per trawl is predicted
to reduce lines in this area. The new preferred alternative offers a conservation equivalency that
would result in an average of 44 traps on a trawl, but with longer trawl lengths occurring in areas
of high whale density, thus offering slightly greater risk reduction for LMA 3.
Comment 9.18: The Massachusetts Bay Restricted Area should be expanded.
Response: The Final Rule would expand the restricted area to include state waters to the
Massachusetts/New Hampshire line, mirroring the regulations implemented by Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, Title 322 Section 12.
Comment 9.19: We ask NMFS to expand its proposed trigger of three right whales to
extend the Massachusetts Bay Restricted Area to include a cow/calf as a trigger, in addition to
three right whales.
Response: The Final Rule does not include a dynamic opening mechanism or trigger for
the Massachusetts Bay Restricted Area.
Comment 9.20: Seasonal restricted areas should be re-evaluated as a management
measure once the commercial fishery transitions to ropeless fishing systems.
Response: We anticipate that the ALWTRT will consider the appropriateness of existing
and new seasonal management areas at meetings annually within the context of the best available
information on large whale distribution, abundance, mortality, birth rates, and population
metrics. Should ropeless fishing develop as an operationally feasible alternative to closures, that
will also be evaluated.
Comment 9.21: What is the risk reduction value to other large whale species of the South
Island restricted area?
Response: A new analysis suggests that the South Island Restricted Area is not estimated
to reduce risk reduction for humpback whales or fin whales.
Comment 9.22: NMFS should establish a larger restricted area south of Nantucket, which
has become recognized as an important winter habitat for right whales.
Response: The Final Rule implements the larger South Island Restricted Area, which had
been analyzed in Alternative 3 (Non-preferred) in the DEIS. See FEIS Chapter 3 for the South
Island Restricted Area selected for implementation.
Comment 9.23: The South Island Restricted Area should be closed year-round, as NMFS
has confirmed that the area south of the islands is a year-round habitat for the species.
Response: The monthly risk scores within the South Island Restricted Area are shown in
the table below. The risk within this specific area is estimated to be very low between June and
November. A year-round closure is not supported by this data. The closure is being implemented
when the risk level and predicted whale density are the highest.
Table 4. South Island Restricted Area Monthly Risk Scores
Right Whale
Month
Default Risk
Habitat Density
4.12
83.85
1
3.54
87.82
2
3.25
92.54
3
3.68
104.14
4
1.32
47.87
5
0.19
4.54
6
0.03
0.61
7

45

Month

Default Risk

8
9
10
11
12

0.02
0.03
0.08
0.38
1.95

Right Whale
Habitat Density
0.5
0.67
1.4
8.4
45.39

Comment 9.24: Because right whales use the South Island area year-round, NMFS should
require only one buoy line between May and October to reduce risk of entanglement in this
heavy offshore gear.
Response: The use of one buoy line on long trawls in areas of high mobile gear fishing
effort would likely increase gear conflicts until technology becomes available that allows surface
detection of bottom gear. Work on this challenge is currently being conducted to support the
development of ropeless fishing methods, including a collaboration with mobile gear fishermen
to assess bottom gear marking technology. These efforts could make this possible for future
consideration as a risk reduction measure.
Comment 9.25: NMFS has drastically underestimated the amount of fishermen actively
fishing in the LMA 1 restricted area, and thus the effects of the restricted area on fishermen. If
there are only 45 fishermen in the LMA 1 restricted area, the risk reduction value of the closure
should be much lower, since that would mean there aren’t many buoy lines in that area.
Response: Based on the comments we received from Maine fishermen saying that we had
underestimated the number of fishermen in LMA 1, we have modified our economic analysis of
the impacts of the LMA 1 seasonal restricted area. Fishermen fishing in the fishing zones that are
bisected by the LMA 1 restricted area are not all required to submit vessel trip reports, making a
precise count of affected vessels difficult. Based on fishermen’s input, the evaluation, which can
be found in FEIS Section 6.3, now assumes that up to 50 percent of the vessels that fish outside
of 12 nm in Maine Zones C, D, and E, up to 60 vessels, may have landings from the restricted
area. The other half of the vessels may be crowded by the vessels that move from the restricted
area into the waters 12 nm offshore of Maine Zones C, D, and E, reducing their catch rates. As a
result, our estimate of vessels that may be affected by the LMA 1 Restricted Area has been
increased to 120 in the FEIS. See FEIS Section 6.3
Estimated buoy line numbers are only one component of the risk estimated for the LMA
1 Seasonal Restricted Area. Three factors are considered: whale density, gear density, and threat
of the configuration of gear used in an area. Those were sufficient to identify this area as a
hotspot, as described further in FEIS Section 3.1.2.4.
Comment 9.26: If NMFS closes an area during the summer, the available fishing window
would be cut by 40 to 50 percent.
Response: There are no summer restricted areas in this Final Rule. For analysis of the
restricted areas being implemented in this Final Rule, see FEIS Section 1.4.3.
Comment 9.27: NMFS should require that fishing vessels operate at less than 10 knots
under EFPs in restricted areas, regardless of their vessel length.
Response: Vessel speed restrictions are likely to be included as a condition of EFPs for
activities in seasonally restricted areas. Evidence suggests that 10 knot speed restrictions within
areas of large whale occurrence have successfully mitigated vessel strikes (Laist et al. 2014).
Fishing vessels actively fishing either operate at relatively slow speeds, drift, or remain idle
when setting, soaking and hauling gear. Listed species in the path of a fishing vessel would be
more likely to have time to move away before being struck. However, fishing vessels transiting
46

to and from port or between fishing areas can travel at greater speeds and could strike a right
whale or other vulnerable species. A 10-knot transit requirement for fishing vessels authorized to
harvest lobster from seasonally restricted areas is merited as these areas are seasonally important
to right whales.
Comment 9.28: Closures in offshore areas would also minimize the impact on fishermen,
because the majority of lobster fishing occurs closer to shore.
Response: For an explanation for how seasonal restricted areas were selected, see FEIS
Section 3.1.2.4 and for a description of the number vessels impacted and the economic impacts
by seasonal restricted areas considered in the preferred and non-preferred alternatives, see FEIS
Section 6.3.

1.1.11 Ropeless Technology

We received thousands of comments, including the majority of campaign comments, on
ropeless fishing, with the vast majority of non-fishermen supporting an immediate transition to
ropeless gear throughout the northeast lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishery, and the majority
of fishermen opposing ropeless fishing on the grounds that it is expensive, unproven, and
impractical for a variety of reasons. While ropeless technology is not required in the Final Rule,
fishermen who wish to try ropeless fishing may apply for an EFP, and will be able to fish in the
restricted areas to test the technology.
Comment 10.1: NMFS should promote the permitting process and make sure that all
fishermen are aware of and have the opportunity to participate in EFP trials of ropeless gear.
Response: An EFP is a permit issued by NMFS’ Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries
Office. EFPs authorize a vessel to conduct fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited
under the regulations at 50 CFR part 648 or part 697. Generally, EFPs are issued for activities in
support of fisheries-related research, including landing undersized fish or fish in excess of a
possession limit for research purposes, seafood product development and/or market research,
compensation fishing, the collection of fish for public display, or in this case, testing various
aspects of ropeless gear. Anyone that intends to engage in an activity that would be prohibited
under these regulations (with the exception of scientific research on a scientific research vessel,
and exempted educational activities) is required to obtain an EFP prior to commencing the
activity. While NMFS believes that ropeless gear should be widely tested by vessels under
varying operating conditions, researchers submitting the EFP requests will be responsible for
soliciting and securing participants.
Comment 10.2: Many fishermen had questions and concerns about the feasibility of
ropeless fishing. Fishermen were concerned about whether ropeless technology could work in
areas subject to different tides, on different bottoms, and in different weather conditions. Others
raised concerns about conflicts with bottom-tending mobile gear, conflicts with other ropeless
traps/pot gear, a reported 80 percent retrieval rate, an increase in lost gear, which leads to ghost
gear, and the need for a marking system. Still others were concerned that ropeless technology is
not ready to be implemented, and would take too long to implement. Concerns about repairs,
enforcement, expense, and safety hazards were also raised.
Response: We acknowledge that considering broad scale deployment of ropeless fishing
requires additional planning and research to overcome obstacles to implementation. This would
include many of the potential issues identified within these comments. However, technologies
are developing to enable fishermen to increase the rate of successful retrieval of ropeless gear
and to minimize gear conflicts and increase enforceability over time. NMFS has invested a

47

substantial amount of funding in the industry's development of ropeless fishing gear. We
anticipate that these efforts to facilitate and support the industry's development of ropeless gear
will continue, pending appropriations, including cooperative research and field trials, economic
analyses and cost projection, and policy implementation, among the many factors that require
consideration and further study.
Comment 10.3: NMFS should offer buybacks or subsidies for fishermen unable to
transition to ropeless gear.
Response: Section 312(b) of the MSA establishes the mechanism for NMFS to conduct a
buyback or fishing capacity reduction program. It requires funding appropriations from Congress
and a determination that the program is necessary to prevent or end overfishing, rebuild stocks of
fish, or achieve measurable or significant improvements in the conservation and management of
the fishery.
Comment 10.4: NMFS did not analyze the costs or effects of conflicts between ropeless
gear and bottom-tending mobile gear, or the effects of ropeless-only fishing areas on mobile gear
fisheries, some of which significantly overlap with prime scallop grounds.
Response: NMFS agrees that this would be useful information to analyze but was unable
to provide a specific cost estimate in the FEIS. We have modified our discussion of the effects of
gear conflicts associated with ropeless gear. See FEIS Section 3.3.3.
Comment 10.5: NMFS needs to invest in the technology to make it viable, which should
include working with manufacturers to develop virtual gear marking systems and to tailor the
devices to the needs of fishermen in different areas.
Response: NMFS has invested a substantial amount of funding in the collaborative
development of ropeless fishing gear. Virtual gear marking systems are being tested by mobile
and fixed gear fishermen and we anticipated that these efforts will continue, pending
appropriations.
Comment 10.6: Ropeless gear regulations will be difficult to impossible to enforce.
Response: Currently ropeless fishing is conducted under EFPs or state authorizations to
exempt fishermen from the fishery management regulations that require the use of buoy lines to
notify mariners of the presence of fixed fishing gear. Conditions of authorization include
notification of effort, monitoring and reporting. If a permittee does not abide by the terms of the
permit, the permittee will be subject to enforcement action. As data is collected throughout the
EFP process for ropeless gear, law enforcement has the opportunity to review that data. Lessons
learned from ropeless testing will be incorporated into an enforcement strategy in the event that
ropeless technology is authorized for use in the fishery.
Comment 10.7: For ropeless fishing to work, we will need a new trap allocation system.
There are too many traps in the water for ropeless to work.
Response: We recognize that feasibility in terms of both affordability and effective
avoidance of gear conflicts will be most challenging in areas of dense fishing effort. A number of
studies have demonstrated that effort reduction could be done without substantial economic
impacts, see for example, Myers and Moore (2020) and Acheson (2013). Commenters including
fishermen have suggested that a reduction in traps would provide fast and effective risk
reduction. Less rope might ameliorate the need for further measures in some areas, and would
reduce the cost of any future broadscale implementation of ropeless fishing.
Comment 10.8: NMFS received several comments on space-sharing to address potential
gear conflicts associated with ropeless gear. One commenter suggested that NMFS should not
require trap fishermen and mobile gear fishermen to undertake space-sharing negotiations

48

themselves. The other commenter suggested the use of seasonal areas for different gear types.
Response: If broad adoption of ropeless fishing methods is considered and area
management is deemed essential for success in preventing gear conflicts, NMFS anticipates that
engagement and collaboration with the fishery management councils and commissions would be
required to successfully design and implement any area-based management following fishery
management public processes. This is well beyond the scope of what is being implemented by
this rule.
Comment 10.9: NMFS should fast-track and simplify permitting to make ropeless fishing
an easier option for fishermen.
Response: The provisions within this rule expand fishermen’s options and provide
incentives to fish with ropeless gear in an area otherwise restricted under the ALWTRP. The
NMFS Greater Atlantic Region Fisheries Office is considering conducting an Environmental
Assessment (EA) identifying and analyzing ropeless fishing under EFPs, including measures to
minimize environmental impacts. The EA would facilitate development of EFP requests and
reduce the need of the applicant for separate environmental analysis, expediting the EFP process
substantially. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center has developed a “gear library” for
collaborating fishermen to access ropeless gear and virtual gear marking technology. We expect
to continue to learn about the feasibility of ropeless gear on a broader scale as more fishermen
take advantage of the opportunity to try ropeless. If operational challenges including surface
markings are overcome, NMFS would work with the Council to determine if fishery
management regulations could be modified to not require buoy lines, allowing ropeless fishing
without an EFP.
Comment 10.10: NMFS should develop a comprehensive roadmap for fishermen to
permanently transition to ropeless gear so that they can continue to fish without endangering
right whales. Relying on EFPs is not a long-term solution.
Response: NMFS is currently developing a “Roadmap to Ropeless Fishing”
comprehensive plan to document the agency’s approach to researching and testing ropeless gear.
This plan will also include economic analyses and potential policy pathways of ropeless fishing,
along with identifying partners and establishing short and long-term goals for ropeless research
and development
Comment 10.11: For ropeless to work, there needs to be a single universal platform for all
devices, so that all fishermen may see other’s gear and locate their own.
Response: Ropeless gear and the technologies enabling it have evolved rapidly in recent
years. If ropeless fishing continues to develop, other technologies platforms such as those to
view the location of set ropeless gear and to prevent gear conflicts and facilitate law
enforcement, will need to develop concurrently.
Comment 10.12: NMFS should establish additional ropeless restricted offshore areas, and
require the offshore fishery to transition to ropeless gear within three years.
Response: We will continue to evaluate the latest population abundance, mortality and
serious injury, and PBR estimates calculated for large whales to inform the risk reduction targets
that we provide to the ALWTRT. As we work to reduce lethal entanglement risk as required by
the MMPA, we will continue to convene the Team to analyze the latest data and to make
recommendations to us as to how best to fulfill these goals.
Comment 10.13: Due to the high incidence of right whales in Cape Cod Bay from
February to May, we recommend that NMFS not permit testing of ropeless fishing systems
during these times.

49

Response: We recognize that in some areas at some times, like Cape Cod Bay in late
winter/early spring, any additional risk to right whales (increased vessel traffic, etc.) may be
unacceptable. These risks may be evaluated and avoided or mitigated on an individual basis as
applicants seek EFPs for ropeless experimentation within ALWTRP restricted areas.
Comment 10.14 There is no way to implement ropeless in the gray zone, where
Canadians are also setting their gear.
Response: The rule does not require ropeless fishing in the gray zone or anywhere else.
Comment 10.15 Ropeless fishing will still put thousands of end lines in the water column,
but without tension on them, posing a greater risk for all marine mammals and boaters.
Response: Ropeless fishing as it is currently being tested would only result in buoy lines
in the water column when a fishing vessel is on site to retrieve the trawl. While we agree that
operationalization of a ropeless fishery will require much more planning and evaluation in the
future, ropeless vertical lines would spend a significantly lower proportion of time in the water
column than a traditional fixed vertical line with a surface buoy. This would significantly lower
exposure to marine mammals and therefore significantly lower entanglement risk.
Comment 10.16: NMFS erred in asserting that ropeless gear should be considered
“neutral risk” as sinking groundline may still pose a risk to large whales. While ropeless gear is
not expected to be widely used in the immediate future, technology may advance to make it more
feasible, and so NMFS should re-evaluate the risk posed by the gear.
Response: To date, evidence of sinking groundline in large whale entanglements is
limited, though we continue to investigate as the scarce data and opportunities allow. The
discussion in the FEIS was modified per comments about possible addition of risk in areas where
none currently occurs in existing closed areas. The qualitative discussion of risk including
anticipated conditions while ropeless fishing is developed is summarized in the FEIS Section
5.3.1.1.2.1.2.

1.1.12 Stressors on Right Whales

Dozens of commenters suggested a variety of factors that may be contributing to right
whale decline, with many fishermen pointing to other known and possible causes of mortality.
These commenters stated or suggested that this regulation will not contribute to the recovery of
right whales due to issues beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Among the issues raised are
climate change, disease, pollution, inbreeding/small population size, previous entanglements,
sonar, noise, oil spills, plastic pollution, shark predation on calves, vessel strikes, and offshore
wind. The Final Rule and analyses in the FEIS are related to amendments to the Plan. The Plan
and the take reduction process are restricted to monitoring and mitigating incidental mortality
and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to particular U.S. commercial fisheries. The
majority of these issues are outside the scope of this regulation, and many are beyond the
authority of the NMFS but given the frequency with which these issues were introduced, we
have provided some answers below.
Comment 11.1: Climate change/global warming is primarily to blame for the decline of
right whales, and it has nothing to do with fishermen.
Response: The effects of climate change may have led to a shift in the distribution of right
whales sometime between 2010 to 2013. This distribution shift increasingly brought right whales
into areas of greater risk from human activities, including fishing. Entanglement in fishing gear
is one of the primary causes of serious injury and mortality in right whales. See FEIS Section 1.1
for an overview.

50

Comment 11.2: Since the right whales have found their food sources in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, they are thriving again and this rulemaking is unnecessary.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Since the population started regularly using the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, the population has declined by 23 percent overall, and roughly 200 right whales have
died, many of them outside the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Threats to right whales are spread across
their range in U.S. and Canadian waters.
The need to amend the ALWTRP is driven by the average reported mortality and serious
injury to right whales due to fishery entanglement compared to PBR is 0.8 per year and,
unfortunately, fishery entanglement-related mortality and serious injury is 5.55 whales per year
(Hayes et al. 2020). Since fishery entanglement-induced mortality and serious injury exceeds
PBR, this rule is necessary.
Comment 11.3: NMFS should consider the effects of disease and increased pollution on
right whales.
Response: NMFS agrees. In NMFS’ Species in the Spotlight North Atlantic right whale
five-year action plan, one of the five priorities identified for the next five years to halt the decline
of this species is to “Investigate North Atlantic Right Whale Population Abundance, Status,
Distribution and Health.” NMFS also convened a 2019 Health Assessment Workshop to help
evaluate current health information data, including associated data gaps, and identified
appropriate available and needed tools and techniques for collecting standardized health data that
can be used to understand health effects of environmental and human impacts, and inform
fecundity and survivorship models to ultimately guide right whale recovery (Fauquier et al.
2020). The Species in the Spotlight North Atlantic right whale five-year action plan is available
online at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/species-spotlight-priority-actions-20212025-north-atlantic-right-whale. Please see Chapter 8 of the FEIS, which has a summary of
Cumulative Effects.
Comment 11.4: Right whales are suffering from inbreeding, and will never be able to have
a viable population again, so there is no point to these regulations.
Response: Small population sizes may carry some greater risk of inbreeding as a potential
limiting factor to recovery, however, there is evidence that natural populations have mechanisms
to reduce the loss of genetic diversity (Frasier et al. 2013). Additionally, the North Atlantic right
whale population has continued to produce healthy whales despite the relative low level of
genetic variability when compared to other large whales, a condition that has apparently been
sustained since the 16th century (McLeod et al. 2009). Numerous mammalian species have
recovered from much smaller population sizes than the North Atlantic Right whale population,
including Northern Elephant seals and gray seals in New England. Many of the great whale
populations were decimated by the end of commercial whaling and most have recovered. Despite
being reduced to about 260 right whales alive in 1990, North Atlantic right whales were
genetically sound enough to recover, albeit slowly due to persistent human impacts, until
peaking at 481 individuals in 2010. After 2010, the change in habitat use that involved more
regular excursion into areas where management protections were not in place. This resulted in
increased human-caused mortality and additional stresses, including both environmental food
limitations and increased non-lethal entanglement. Together these stressors are likely
contributing to documented reduced caving rates. While inbreeding could play a negative role
here, there is little evidence to support that theory. After accounting for human-caused mortality,
the 1990-2010 calving rates and population growth rates were well within normal cetacean
population demographic rate. The changes in those rates since 2010 may be driven by increased

51

anthropogenic mortality and climate change.
Comment 11.5: After vessel strikes, industrial sonar and ocean noise are the greatest
threats to right whales. Has there been any research on the effects of Naval use of sonar in
training, and the effects of ocean noise generally, on the increase or decrease in entanglements?
Response: We are not aware of any studies evaluating the correlation between ocean noise
and rates of entanglement in fishing gear. However, given that right whales are not detecting
fishing gear acoustically, it would seem highly unlikely that ocean noise levels would directly
affect or have any relationship to entanglement rates. Furthermore, while increases in ocean
noise is of concern for the communication ability for right whales and many other species, these
effects are generally “sub-lethal,” whereas entanglement in fishing gear can lead directly to
serious injury and mortality.
Comment 11.6: Did the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or a
change in food source affect right whale birth rates?
Response: NMFS is not aware of any studies, data, or evidence that suggest right whales
have been affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. For information on factors that may
affect birth rates, see Chapter 8 of the FEIS, which has a summary of Cumulative Effects.
Comment 11.7: NMFS should consider the environmental impact of the consumption of
additional plastic products this rule will require.
Response: This rule is not likely to change the need for ropes or weak links made from
plastic material. The Final Rule may temporarily increase the production of new inserts, which
may have plastic components, but ultimately would decrease with the reduction of gear in the
water. Please see Chapter 5 and for a description of indirect effects, the likelihood of ghost gear,
and frequency of gear replacement, as well as Chapter 8 for our Cumulative Effects Analysis.
Comment 11.8: NMFS should consider the role of seismic testing in right whale
population declines.
Response: Seismic survey operators for oil and gas exploration require permits from the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). As part of issuing these permits, BOEM
consults with NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA to ensure the proposed action (i.e., the seismic
surveys) does not jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA listed species, including North
Atlantic right whales. Through this process, NMFS fully evaluates the potential impacts of
seismic testing on the right whales (e.g., Biological Opinion on the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management's Issuance of Five Oil and Gas Permits for Geological and Geophysical Seismic
Surveys off the Atlantic Coast of the United States, and the National Marine Fisheries Services'
Issuance of Associated Incidental Harassment Authorizations at
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/19552). Seismic surveys for other purposes such
as those conducted by the National Science Foundation or the United States Geological Survey
for research purposes also require the same type of consideration under Section 7 of the ESA
(e.g., Biological Opinion on a National Science Foundation-funded seismic survey by the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the South Atlantic Ocean, and Issuance of an Incidental
Harassment Authorization pursuant to section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection
Act by the Permits and Conservation Division, National Marine Fisheries Service at
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/22585). Finally, any take of marine mammals that
is likely to occur as a result of these seismic surveys requires authorization under the MMPA
(e.g., Incidental Take Authorization: Oil and Gas Industry Geophysical Survey Activity in the
Atlantic Ocean at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-oil-andgas-industry-geophysical-survey-activity-atlantic), and as part of this authorization, NMFS also

52

analyzes impacts to marine mammal population stocks, including right whales.
Under both the MMPA and ESA, in authorizing take of marine mammals including right
whales, NMFS requires mitigation and monitoring as well as terms and conditions to monitor
and reduce the impacts from such take. However, it is important to note that there is no concrete
evidence that seismic surveys are likely to have any population level effects on large baleen
whales such as right whales. Furthermore, the impacts of seismic surveys on the vital rates (e.g.,
survival, reproduction, growth) of individual baleen whales are not well understood, but current
evidence does not support that they cause serious injury, mortality, or lower reproduction.
Finally, at present, and in the recent past, there is very little seismic survey activity in the U.S.
Atlantic Ocean other than infrequent surveys conducted for scientific research purposes that
typically use lower source level (i.e., quieter) airguns as compared to the louder oil and gas
exploration surveys such as those in the Gulf of Mexico.
In summary, NMFS does evaluate impacts from seismic surveys on right whales and
while there have been and currently are few surveys being conducted, through the MMPA and
ESA ensures that such surveys are not furthering the decline of the population.
Comment 11.9: Many commenters voiced their concern that recent right whale
mortalities and serious injuries were due to vessel strikes, and suggested that vessels should be a
higher priority for NMFS than reducing entanglements in fishing gear. Several commenters
pointed out that more right whale calves were born this year, a year in which the cruise ship
industry was largely shut down due to the global pandemic, than in any recent years. Others
raised concerns about mortalities and serious injuries caused by Naval, whale watch and shipping
industry vessels. Many commenters favored expediting updated regulations on vessel speeds,
including in shipping lanes.
Response: Right whales are particularly vulnerable to vessel strikes due to their use of
coastal habitats and frequent occurrence at near surface depths. Furthermore, they are vulnerable
to strikes by nearly all types and sizes of vessels operating within the whales’ range. In 2008 (73
FR 60173, October 10, 2008), NMFS implemented regulations requiring most vessels equal to or
greater than 65 ft in length to transit at speeds of 10 knots or less in designated Seasonal
Management Areas (SMAs) along the U.S. East Coast. Concurrently, NMFS initiated a
voluntary Dynamic Area Management (DMA) speed reduction program to provide additional
protection for aggregations of right whales outside of active SMAs. To reduce the
spatial/temporal overlap of whales and vessel traffic NMFS established recommended routes for
vessels transiting Cape Cod Bay and into/out of ports in northern Florida and Georgia, and
modified the shipping lane approaching the port of Boston.
In January 2021, NMFS released an assessment evaluating the conservation value and
economic and navigational safety impacts of the speed rule (50 CFR § 224.105). While the
assessment is considered final, we sought comments on the report findings through March 26,
2021, as we evaluate the need for future action and modifications to the existing speed
regulations.
The report evaluates four aspects of the right whale vessel speed rule: biological efficacy,
mariner compliance, impacts to navigational safety, and economic cost to mariners. It also
assesses general trends in vessel traffic characteristics within SMAs over time, provides a
detailed assessment of the speed rule’s effectiveness and offers recommendations for
strengthening the rule based on these findings. In addition to the assessment of the vessel speed
rule, the report also evaluates mariner cooperation with the DMA program and investigates small
vessel transit patterns through active SMAs

53

NMFS is evaluating whether further efforts are needed to minimize the spatial overlap of
right whales and vessel traffic and reducing the speed of vessels transiting through right whale
habitat remain the most viable options to reduce vessel strikes in U.S. waters. The review and
information collected during public comment will be used to consider whether current measures
are appropriate given recent shifts in right whale distribution. For more information, please see
Chapter 8 of the FEIS, which has a summary of Cumulative Effects.
Comment 11.10: Many fishermen commented that they feared offshore wind energy
projects would displace them, and questioned NMFS’ role in permitting offshore wind energy
projects.
Response: BOEM is the lead federal agency and primary decision-maker for offshore
wind development projects. NOAA works with BOEM and offshore wind developers to provide
information and consultation on how offshore wind projects may affect endangered or threatened
species, marine mammals, fisheries, marine habitats, and fishing communities. Each proposed
project is evaluated individually, with opportunities for public input, which can be found on the
BOEM website. NOAA's engagement on offshore wind activities is limited to our authorities
under the NEPA, the ESA, the MMPA, and the MSA. Further information on NOAA's role in
offshore wind development can be found on our website at fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-midatlantic/science-data/offshore-wind-energy-development-new-england-mid-atlantic-waters.

1.1.13 Trawls

Many of the campaign commenters as well as 38 of the unique commenters supported
trawling up as a way to reduce the number of vertical lines in the water, while 52 unique
commenters disagreed, saying that trawling up is may instead result in more severe
entanglements and more danger to fishermen. Comments from NGOs and members of the public
indicated concern about whether heavier trawl lines would increase the severity of
entanglements. Fishermen voiced concerns about the specifics of trawling up requirements in
particular areas. Several fishermen supported the option of splitting buoy lines, and having only
one line on a trawl. Some fishermen were concerned that trawling up would have an impact on
landings.
Comment 12.1: A 50 percent vertical buoy line reduction mandate would harm smaller
vessels and lead to consolidation of the fishery.
Response: A 50 percent vertical line reduction is a measure in the non-preferred
alternative, and is not be implemented under this final rule. See FEIS Chapter 2 for more details.
Comment 12.2: Trawling up is expensive, and will put some fishermen out of business.
Response: The Final Rule provides conservation equivalencies to provide more flexibility
to fishermen. We expect these options to help fishermen choose the options that minimize their
economic impacts. We understood from Maine DMR that the trawling up configurations
developed through collaborations with Zone Councils were selected because fishermen could do
them with minimal investment in time or new gear relative.
Comment 12.3: What will the effects of trawling up be on landings?
Response: The effects will depend on several factors, including the increase in the
number of traps per trawl. For vessels trawling up fewer than 2 traps per set, we would expect to
see a reduction rate of 0-5 percent on landings. For vessels trawling up 2 or more traps per set,
we expect the landing reduction rate to be 5-10 percent. See FEIS Chapter 6 for more details
including a summary of the limited previous investigations into the impacts of trawling up on
catch rates.

54

Comment 12.4: NMFS should allow different trawls lengths depending on vessel sizes,
vessel configurations (open/closed transom or equipment placement), distance from shore, and
fishing depth. Several specific requests were submitted, such as four traps per trawl measure in
New Hampshire waters, one buoy line along the northern edge of Georges Bank, and triples in
the “sliver” area.
Response: The Final Rule establishes varying trawl lengths (traps per trawl), primarily by
distance from shore. These are based on measures proposed by the ALWTRT, states,
conservation equivalencies requested, and comments received during scoping and rulemaking.
Configurations by distance from shore were considered likely to parallel vessel sizes, with
smaller vessels operating closer to shore. Trawling up requirements by vessel size or
configuration would be difficult to implement, enforce, and evaluate.
Comment 12.5: NMFS should exempt waters from 50 fathoms (91 meters) and deeper
along the continental slope from trawling up.
Response: The Final Rule implements a less restrictive trawling up requirement for
vessels fishing in waters deeper than the 50 fathom curve south of Georges Bank (35 traps per
trawl) than was initially proposed (45 traps/trawl) in response to conservation equivalency
requests from the Atlantic Offshore Lobster Fishermen’s Association. There is no information to
suggest that right whales and other large whales are not entangled in waters deeper than 50
fathoms therefore an exemption from trawling up requirements without a concurrent line or risk
reduction alternative would not provide sufficient risk reduction.
Comment 12.6: NMFS should consider the 3 mile zones around Matinicus and Ragged
Islands to be the same as other Maine coastal areas, and regulate them as such.
Response: As noted below in this rule, there is an island buffer for this fishing in waters
within 1/4 nautical miles of the following Maine islands are exempt from the minimum number
of traps per trawl requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section: Monhegan Island,
Matinicus Island Group (Metinic Island, Small Green Island, Large Green Island, Seal Island,
Wooden Ball Island, Matinicus Island, Ragged Island), and Isles of Shoals Island Group (Duck
Island, Appledore Island, Cedar Island, Smuttynose Island).
Comment 12.6: The problem with using only one buoy line is that other fishermen won’t
be able to tell where my gear is, more catch-downs, and losing the ability to haul in a certain
direction because of the wind.
Response: Area-specific allowances of up to ten traps per trawl with one buoy line was
requested by Maine DMR, after discussion with the Zone Councils, as a conservation
equivalency that would allow fishermen to fish shorter trawls while still reducing the number of
buoy lines. Because this change is restricted to Maine Zones at the request of Zone Councils, it
may reflect vessel capacity and current fishing practices. However, as occurs whenever measures
are modified, there will be a transition period as fishermen adjust to new measures that the
fishing community will likely work out relative to issues of gear placement and safety.
Comment 12.7: Trawling up increases chances of gear conflicts due to longer lines.
Response: 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 in some Maine Lobster Zones

55

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 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 ten-trap trawls), the second buoy line may make it easier to
locate and retrieve gear when 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. For more, see FEIS Section
6.2.6.1.
Comment 12.8: NMFS should not leave it to fishermen to develop agreements between
large and small boats to set trawl lengths that would meet an overall goal of line reduction, as
this would be difficult to evaluate and enforce.
Response: Agreed. The Final Rule does not implement any regulations based on boat
length or size.
Comment 12.9: Trawling up leads to longer, heavier lines that pose a greater risk to right
whales, causing worse and heavier entanglements.
Response: While we recognize that the trawls will be longer, for many of the
configurations, the portion of the trawl hanging in the water column and putting force on the
hauling rope is based on water depth and distance between traps rather than wholly on trawl
length and the configuration changes may not substantially change that. Many of the
configurations adapted were proposed by fishermen during scoping and were proposed because
they can be fished using existing rope and do not require a turnover in buoy lines currently being
fished. Finally, every buoy line will be fished with weak insertions or weak rope. In a 2016
study, Knowlton et al. showed evidence that 1,700 lb weak links within buoy lines or 1,700 lb
weak line will allow whales to part the gear and reduce the likelihood of serious injury. Trawling
up reduces the chance of an entanglement as fewer buoy lines will be present in the water
column. The combination of these two measures will reduce the threat of mortality and serious
injury of entanglement for large whales.
Comment 12.10: Many fishermen voiced safety concerns about trawling up, including not
having enough room on their vessel for 45 traps, that the increased weight of the vessel could
lead to greater danger of capsizing in bad weather, and that longer lines may injure and entangle
the crew.
Response: Throughout the development of the Final Rule, we have taken safety
considerations into account in identifying alternatives. Several proposed measures were rejected
in whole or in part due to safety concerns. See Table 3.4. Conservation equivalencies adopted in
the Final Rule better accommodate small scale fishing operations and traditional practices,
considers fishing safety concerns, and requires less costly gear modifications.
Comment 12.11: NMFS should require all trap/pot vessels be rigged for trawl nets or
aluminum beam trawl type equipment, and cease to allow trap/pot gear with buoy lines.
Response: NMFS does not have the authority under either the ACA or MSA to
unilaterally require trawl gear in all fisheries. The ACA directs the federal government to support

56

the management efforts of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and, to the extent
the federal government seeks to regulate a Commission species, develop regulations that are
compatible with the Commission’s Interstate Fishery Management Plan and consistent with the
MSA’s National Standards. The Commission’s Interstate Fishery Management Plans for lobster
and Jonah crab specifically contemplate the use of trap/pot gear. NMFS would not have the
authority to implement a requirement to prohibit trap/pot gear and require trawl gear without
such a measure being incorporated into the Interstate Plan and recommended by the
Commission. Similarly, the MSA charged regional fishery management councils with
developing fishery management plans that meet the requirements of the Act. Under the MSA, the
Secretary shall approve, disapprove, or partially approve a plan or management action developed
by the Councils. Unless and until the Mid-Atlantic and New England fishery management
councils modify gear requirements for their fishery management plans, NMFS is not authorized
to take action under the MSA.
Comment 12.12: NMFS should focus on keeping tension in buoy lines and reducing
length between surface buoys to 3-4 feet (0.91-1.2 meters) to reduce entanglements of all marine
mammals.
Response: Documentation from entanglements indicates that buoy lines and unknown
lines represent the majority of interactions. Surface system direct interactions are rarely
documented.
Current industry practice and the ALWTRP already requires the use of sinking line on the
top of buoy lines to reduce floating line at the surface. Under many conditions, fishermen also
minimize scope in their buoy lines to prevent the lines from interacting with nearby set gear,
although in areas of high tidal range and currents, more scope may be needed.
The Final Rule reduces the possibility of entanglements by using a combination of closed
areas, trawling up (less buoy lines in water column), weak line, weak insertions, and weak
contrivances.

1.1.14 Weak Rope/Links/Inserts

More than 71 of the unique commenters supported the use of some form of weak rope to
reduce the severity of right whale entanglements in fishing gear, while thousands of campaign
comments and 144 unique commenters noted that weak rope may not reduce entanglement
events and may still have detrimental effects on juveniles and calves, as well as cause sublethal
effects to adults. Many fishermen are concerned that weak rope will result in gear loss, which
will result in economic losses to them and increase the amount of ghost gear, which poses an
entanglement risk to right whales.
Comment 13.1: Many commenters had questions or concerns about weak link locations,
configurations, and surface systems.
Response: We received dozens of comments questioning the reasons for locations of the
weak links/inserts, suggestions for other configurations of weak points, and the effectiveness of
weak links/inserts, particularly the 600 lb weak link, in reducing right whale entanglements. We
also received dozens of suggestions for different options for weak links/inserts, including but not
limited to, knots, time tension line cutters, loops and tucks, eye splices with sheep bends, and
Novabraids. We received several suggestions regarding surface systems, with some commenters
suggesting that they be eliminated, others wanting to keep them, and some asking for evidence
that they are effective at reducing entanglement.
For reasons specified in FEIS Section 3.3.3, we removed the requirement for lobster and

57

Jonah crab fishermen to connect their buoy to the buoy line using a weak link because the new
measures require using weak rope or weak insertions in the buoy line. For our evaluation of
surface system weak links, please see FEIS Section 3.3.3.1.
Comment 13.2: Many commenters had questions or concerns about safety and economic
loss related to weak inserts, link, or Rope. Fishermen were particularly concerned that weak rope
and weak inserts may result in injuries to fishermen and economic impacts due to lost gear.
Response: Forces on lines hauling up lobster trawls were measured during commercial
operations. Forces greater than 1,700 lb (771.1 kg) breaking strength were required to retrieve
gear, particularly for trawls of 35 traps and more in waters greater than 50 fathoms (91.4 m)
(Maine DMR 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 Maine proposal,
Appendix 3.2). 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 lb (771.1 kg) during a haul. This is consistent with modeling work conducted
by Knowlton et al. (2018) who demonstrated that operational changes in fishing practices to
minimize speed and the amount of gear in the water column would further minimize rope
tensions. In field work conducted by Knowlton et al. (2018), gear loss for buoy ropes using
Novabraid sleeves inserted every 40 feet throughout the buoy lines fished in waters from 42 to
310 feet (12.8 to 94.5 m) was not significantly different than gear loss using standard buoy lines.
The Final Rule does not require the configuration studied by Knowlton et al. (2018), and while
that means that the final configurations do not get the level of risk reduction that would be
achieved through their experimental configuration, the measures reduce the likelihood that weak
insertions will occur where forces may exceed the breaking strength of the rope. That
compromise is intended to minimize safety risks to fishermen and economic impacts of increased
gear loss. For more, see FEIS Section 3.3.3.2.
Comment 13.3: Many commenters had questions or concerns about the effects of weak
inserts and weak rope on right whales.
Response: Conservationists voiced concerns that weak rope wouldn’t reduce the risk of
entanglement, and would still cause sublethal effects to adults, and could cause lethal effects to
juveniles and calves. There were also suggestions that weak rope will hamper disentanglement
teams and could result in more right whale mortalities and serious injuries. Some commenters
questioned our analysis of the spacing, particularly concerning why we elected to use weak
insertions every 40 feet as equivalent to weak rope.
We evaluated weak line relative to the findings of Knowlton et al. (2016), which
documented that no ropes retrieved from entangled right whales of all ages had breaking
strengths that were below 7.56 kN (1,700 lb). Knowlton et al. (2016) suggest that right whales
can break free from these weaker ropes before a serious injury occurs. 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 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 entanglement configuration (van der Hoop et al.
2017).
The research available suggests that a full-length weak line provides the maximum
precautionary benefit to whales (Knowlton et al. 2016, DeCew et al. 2017). However, when full
weak rope is not readily available or when replacement of an entire buoy line is not feasible,

58

weak links are also effective at reducing breaking strength. To evaluate the risk reduction benefit
of weak rope alternatives, we compared the relative risk reduction achieved from a rope with one
or two weak inserts at particular buoy line depths to a rope with inserts at regular intervals of 40
feet. We selected 40 feet intervals based on the work of Knowlton et al. (2016 and 2018) which
was selected because it was within the range of a right whale’s girth and length, is within the
range of rope length typically removed from entangled whales and was the configuration
discussed most directly by the Team when considering weak rope. Spacing of every 40 feet
provides the greatest benefit to whales, since entanglements can be very complex, and inserts
every 40 feet provide the greatest likelihood that at least one weak point will be present on an
entangled whale, allowing it to break the rope. Weak line models suggest that weak points will
not necessarily benefit a whale that encounters the rope below the weak point, particularly with a
heavy trawl. The lower the lowest weak insertions, the higher the potential for the rope to part
(DeCew et al 2017). See Chapter 3 for a more detailed description of the calculations of the
proportional risk reduction estimated for inserts that were not at regular intervals, and how we
determined the measures included in the Final Rule.
We agree that there may be added or reduced risk reduction to whales depending on how
weak insertions are configured. The greater the number of weak points on a line, the greater the
likelihood that a weak point will be located below where the whale encounters the line, and that
there will be a weak insertion outside of the mouth where the whale may have a better chance of
breaking free from the entanglement. Configurations that are knot-free may also pose less risk.
Gear that is knot-free, and/or free of attachments may be less likely to get caught in baleen if a
mouth entanglement occurs, 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. However
there is evidence that splices and knots introduce weaknesses into buoy lines. Lines undergoing
breaking strength testing broke on the smaller or weaker side of a knot or splice (Maine DMR
2020).
We evaluate risk reduction under the assumption that weak rope is not zero risk to whales
and that few insertions do not provide the risk reduction benefits of fully weak rope or weak rope
with insertions every 40 feet. However, in concert with the other measures in the Final Rule,
NMFS believes that it will achieve the required levels of risk reduction and applies a
precautionary measure across the Northeast Region. For more on our analysis, see FEIS Section
3.3.4 and Appendix 3.1.
Comment 13.4: Commenters indicated current buoy weak link requirements should be
rescinded. Reasons included: to retain buoy to increase our ability to identify fishery and location
of incidents, so buoy drag in concert with weak rope or weak inserts in buoy line can pull parted
gear free from whales, to improve visibility to disentanglement teams.
Response: The Final Rule rescinds buoy weak link requirements for Northeast Region
lobster and Jonah crab buoy lines that require weak rope or weak inserts in the buoy line. See
Chapter 3 of the FEIS for a discussion of this modification.
Comment 13.5: The weak rope equipment suggested as an alternative in the Proposed
Rule has not been proven to effectively reduce harm to right whales. In fact, many fishermen
have stated that they will use more rope if the weak rope requirement is implemented, overall
increasing the likelihood of entanglements.
Response: For LMA 1 fishermen, the weak rope/weak insertion measures were proposed
by Maine DMR after extensive outreach with Maine fishermen. The insertion locations are
informed by research done by Maine DMR measuring at what point the forces on rope when

59

trawls are hauled in exceed 1,700 lb (771.1 kg). Insertion locations were selected for placement
in the buoy line above that point. Fishermen indicated a preference for a solution that would not
require them to purchase additional rope, suggesting that most fishermen do not anticipate
purchasing more rope other than the short lengths needed to create weak insertions, adding only
three to six feet to the amount of buoy line already fished.
See FEIS Section 3.3.42, Knowlton et al. (2016) and Arthur et al. (2015) for evidence
indicating large whales including right whales can break free of rope with breaking strengths
below 1700 lb, reducing opportunity for serious injury and mortality.

1.1.15 Outside Scope

As noted above, we received dozens of comments that were outside the scope of the
current rulemaking. The Final Rule and analyses in the FEIS are related to amendments to the
Plan. The Plan and the take reduction process are restricted to the monitoring and management of
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in U.S. commercial fisheries.
Because these comments were out of the scope of the Final Rule and the FEIS, we did not
provide responses in this document. A list of the out of scope comments appears below.
1. NMFS or the states should institute a lobster and crab tax or other funding mechanism to
make up for the economic deficit caused by the regulations.
2. The Economic Impact Analysis produced by Nathan Associates incorrectly states that the
Casco Bay Lines ferry to Long Island has 24 daily runs year round, casting doubt on
NMFS’ entire economic analysis.
3. We are concerned that the Agency’s broad assumptions may unnecessarily alarm industry
members and their families.
4. NMFS should monitor the travel routes of whales and enforce all regulations that might
impact whales, such as ocean dumping.
5. NMFS and states should work with manufacturers to produce ropes in a single color to
match state requirements, which would reduce the difficulty of maintaining marks at the
designated increments for fishermen moving to different depths.
6. NMFS should use emergency action to close all high seas transport to allow right whales
to recover.
7. NMFS should not issue incidental take permits for right whales under the ESA.
8. Several commenters submitted recommendations on gillnet and other mobile gear
configurations, which are not the subject of this rule, but may be considered by the
ALWTRT in the future.
9. Expand and strengthen response networks comprising researchers, environmental
organizations, industry groups and stakeholders, and government decision-makers to help
manage the crisis and start rebuilding the population.
10. The percentage of vertical lines proposed to be reduced (60% up to 98%) in the
Biological Opinion was not derived based on any scientific findings.
11. NMFS should study the effects of the rebounding white shark populations on the survival
of right whale calves.
12. NMFS should seriously consider a seal cull to mitigate the extensive ongoing, damage
being done to numerous fish species, particularly striped bass stocks in the New England
region.
13. Vessels should be outfitted with pingers to deter right whales from being near vessels.

60

1.1.16 Literature Cited
Acheson, J.M. 2013.Co-management in the Maine lobster industry: a study in factional politics. Conserv Soc 2013,
11: 60–71.
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.
Borggaard, D.L., Gouveia, D.M., Colligan, M.A., Merrick, R., Swails, K.S., Asaro, M.J. et al. 2017. Managing U.S.
Atlantic large whale entanglements: Four guiding principles. Marine Policy, 84, 202– 212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.027
DeCew, J., P. Lane, and E. Kingston. 2017. Numerical analysis of a lobster pot system. Page 61. New England
Aquarium.
Erin M. Oleson, 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.
Frasier, T. R., Gillett, R. M., Hamilton, P. K., Brown, M. W., Kraus, S. D., White, B. N. 2013. Postcopulatory
selection for dissimilar gametes maintains heterozygosity in the endangered North Atlantic right whale.
Ecology and Evolution 3/10: 3483-3494.
Ganley L.C., S. Brault, C.A. Mayo. 2019. What we see is not what there is: estimating North Atlantic right whale
Eubalaena glacialis local abundance. Endang Species Res 38:101-113. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00938
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. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-264, NEFSC, NMFS,
NOAA, DOC, Woods Hole, 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: Fishing Rope and Whale Entanglements.
Conservation Biology 30:318–328.
Knowlton, A.R., R. Malloy Jr. , S.D. Kraus and T.B. Werner. 2018. Final Report in fulfillment of MMARS Contract
#: CT EVN 0607160000 000 000 3938. Development and Evaluation of Reduced Breaking Strength Rope
to Reduce Large Whale Entanglement Severity. August 7, 2018. Accessed online at
bycatch.org/sites/default/files/WRR percent20Project percent20EEA percent202018-Final_0.pdf
Kraus, S., J. Fasick, T. Werner, P. McFarron. 2014. Enhancing the Visibility of Fishing Ropes to Reduce Right
Whale Entanglements. Report by New England Aquarium, Boston, MA. Report for National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Kraus, S.D. and M. Hagbloom. 2016. Assessments of Vision to Reduce Right Whale Entanglements. Final Report to
the Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction. Final Report # NA10NMF4520343 to the New England
Aquarium, Boston. 13 pp.
Laist, D. W., A. R. Knowlton, and D. Pendleton. 2014. Effectiveness of mandatory vessel speed limits for protecting
North Atlantic right whales. Endangered Species Research 23(2): 133-147.

61

McLeod, B.A., M.W. Brown, T.R. Frasier, and B.N. White. 2009. DNA profile of a sixteenth century western North
Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis). Conserv. Genet. 11, 339–345. doi: 10.1007/s10592-009-9811-6
Meyer-Gutbrod, E., C. Greene, P. Sullivan, and A. 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.
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.
Myers, H.J. and M.J. Moore. 2020. Reducing effort in the US 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: doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104017
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.
Pace, R.M., R.Williams, S.D. Kraus, A.R.Knowlton, H.M Pettis. 2021. Cryptic mortality in North Atlantic right
whales. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3:e346
Pace III, R. M. in press for May 2021. Revisions and Further Evaluations of the Right Whale Abundance
Model: Improvements for Hypothesis Testing. NOAA NEFSC Tech Memo 269.
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., 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.
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.
Rolland, R., R. Schick, H. Pettis, A. Knowlton, P. Hamilton, J. Clark, and S. 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. 2017a. Entanglement is a costly life-history stage in large whales.
Ecology and Evolution 7:92–106.
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.

62

CHAPTER 2 APPENDICES
Appendix 2.1 Current ALWTRP Requirements Summary
(see 50 CFR Section 229.32 for complete and current regulations)

2.1.1 Trap/Pot Gear Modification Requirements and Restrictions under
the ALWTRP
Trap/Pot Universal Requirements
•
•

days).

No buoy line floating at the surface.
No wet storage of gear (all gear must be hauled out of the water at least once every 30

Fishermen are encouraged, but not required, to maintain knot-free buoy lines.
All groundlines must be made of sinking line.
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic: Trawls with less than or equal to 5 traps may only possess 1
buoy line, except in MA state waters. In MA, 3 traps or less must have 1 endline.
•
•
•

Trap/Pot Weak Link Requirements
•
All buoys, flotation devices and/or weights must be attached to the buoy line with a
weak link having a certain breaking strength as defined for each management area on the
following pages.
•
Weak links must be chosen from the list of NMFS approved gear, which includes: off
the shelf weak links, rope of appropriate breaking strength, hog rings, and other materials or
devices approved in writing. Weak links must be designed in such a way that the bitter end of the
buoy line is clean and free of any knots when the weak link breaks.

Trap/Pot Gear Marking Requirements
Trap/pot surface buoys to be marked to identify the vessel or fishery with one of the
following: the owner’s motorboat registration number and/or U.S. vessel documentation number;
the federal commercial fishing permit number; or whatever positive identification marking is
required by the vessel’s home-port state.
•
When marking is not already required by state or federal regulations, the letters and
numbers to mark gear must be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) in height, block letters or Arabic numbers,
in a color that contrasts with the color of the buoy.
•
Buoy lines are to be marked with three 12 inch (30.48 cm), colored marks: one at the top
of the buoy line, one midway along the buoy line, and one at the bottom of the buoy line.
•
If the mark consists of two colors, EACH COLOR mark may be 6-inches for a TOTAL
MARK of 12- inches.
•
Color requirements are defined for each individual management area as described in
each management area description that follows.
•

Massachusetts Restricted Area

63

February 1 – April 30 • CLOSED to ALL trap/pot fishing
May1 – January 31
• Universal requirements
• Gear marking – RED or the following colors for minimum trap per trawl exemption areas
o Single traps in exempted MA State waters in LMA1- RED & WHITE
o Single traps in exempted MA state waters in LMA 2 - RED & BLACK
o Single traps in exempted MA state waters in Outer Cape - RED & YELLOW
• Weak links ≤ 600 lbs breaking strength
• Sinking groundline
Trap Restrictions
• MA State Waters – 2 or no minimum
• LMA 1 (3-12 miles) – 10
• LMA1/Outer Cape Overlap (0-3 miles), Outer Cape (0-3 miles) – no minimum
• Outer Cape (3-12 miles) – 10
Great South Channel Restricted Area
April 1 – June 30 • CLOSED to ALL trap/pot fishing
July 1 – March 31
• Universal requirements
• Gear Marking – RED (areas overlapping LMA 2 and/or Outer Cape LMA), BLACK (areas
overlapping LMA 2/3 Overlap and/or LMA3)
• Weak links no greater than 600 lb in area overlap with LMA2 and/or OC, and no greater
than 1,500 lb. in areas that overlap with LMA 2/3 and/or LMA3
• Sinking groundline
Trap Restrictions
• Outer Cape (12+ miles) – 20
• LMA 2 (12 + miles) – 15
• LMA 2/3 Overlap (12+ miles) – 20
• LMA 3 (12+ miles) – 20
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area
Year-round
• Universal requirements
• Gear marking – RED or RED & GREEN if overlapping Jeffreys Ledge Gear Marking Area
or the following colors for minimum trap per trawl exemption areas
o Single traps in exempted MA State waters in LMA1 – RED & WHITE
o Single traps in exempted MA state waters in LMA 2 – RED & BLACK
o Single traps in exempted MA state waters in Outer Cape – RED & YELLOW
• Weak links ≤ 600 lbs breaking strength

64

•

Sinking groundline

Trap Restrictions
• ME Zones A-G (3-6 miles) – 3
• ME Zones A-C (6-12 miles) – 5
• ME Zones D-G (6-12 miles) – 10
• ME Zones A-E (12+ miles) – 15
• ME Zones F-G (12+ miles) – 15 (Mar 1 – Oct 31), 20 (Nov 1 – Feb 28/29)
• LMA 1 (3-12 miles) – 10
• LMA 1 (12+ miles) – 20
• Outer Cape (3-12 miles) – 10
• Outer Cape (12+ miles) – 20
• LMA 2 (3-12 miles) – 10
• LMA 2 (12 + miles) – 15
Northern Inshore State Trap/Pot Waters
Year-round
• Universal requirements
• Gear marking – RED or the following colors for minimum trap per trawl exemption areas
o Single traps in exempted MA State waters in LMA1 – RED & WHITE
o Single traps in exempted MA state waters in LMA 2 – RED & BLACK
o Single traps in exempted MA state waters in Outer Cape – RED & YELLOW
• Weak links ≤ 600 lbs breaking strength
• Sinking groundline
Trap Restrictions
• ME State and Pocket Waters – 2
• MA State Waters – 2 or no minimum
• NH State Waters, LMA1/Outer Cape Overlap (0-3 miles), Outer Cape (0-3 miles), & Rhode
Island State Waters - no minimum
Northern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters
Year-round
• Universal requirements
• Gear marking – RED or RED & GREEN if overlapping Jeffreys Ledge Gear Marking Area
(page 30) or RED & PURPLE if overlapping Jordan Basin Gear Marking Area
• Weak links ≤ 600lbs breaking strength
• Sinking groundline
Trap Restrictions
• ME Zones A-G (3-6 miles) – 3
• ME Zones A-C (6-12 miles) – 5
• ME Zones D-G (6-12 miles) – 10
• ME Zones A-E (12+ miles) – 15
• ME Zones F-G (12+ miles) – 15 (Mar 1 – Oct 31), 20 (Nov 1 – Feb 28/29)

65

•
•
•
•
•
•

LMA 1 (3-12 miles) – 10
LMA 1 (12+ miles) – 20
Outer Cape (3-12 miles) – 10
Outer Cape (12+ miles) – 20
LMA 2 (3-12 miles) – 10
LMA 2 (12 + miles) – 15

Southern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters
Northeast – Year-round
Mid-Atlantic - September 1 – May 31
Southeast - December 1 – March 30 South of the Southeast Restricted Area North and
September 1 – May 31 North of the Southeast Restricted Area North
•
•
•
•

Universal requirements
Gear marking – ORANGE
Weak links ≤ 600 lbs breaking strength
Sinking groundline

Trap Restrictions
LMA 4,5,6 – no minimum
Offshore Trap/Pot Waters
Northeast – Year-round
Southeast – September 1 – May 31 North of 32° N. lat, November 15 – April 15 Between
32° N. lat and 29° N. lat, and December 1 – March 31 Between 29°N. lat and 27° 51’ N. lat
•
•
•
•

Universal requirements
Gear marking – BLACK or BLACK & PURPLE if overlapping Jordan Basin Gear Marking
Area
Weak links ≤ 1500 lbs in offshore, 2,000 lbs if red crab trap/pot
Sinking groundline

Trap Restrictions
• ME Zones A-E (12+ miles) – 15
• ME Zones F-G (12+ miles) – 15 (Mar 1 – Oct 31), 20 (Nov 1 – Feb 28/29) LMA 2/3
Overlap (12+ miles) - 20
• LMA 3 (12+ miles) North of 40° – 20
• No trap restrictions in offshore waters south of 40 degrees
Southeast Restricted Area North

66

Nov. 15 – April 15
All of Southeast Restricted Area North
• Universal requirements
• Buoy lines must be made out of sinking line
• Buoy lines – Only single traps are allowed. Also, whole buoy line (from trap/pot to buoy)
must be the same diameter and free of objects (e.g., weights, floats, etc.) and the buoy line
must be made of sinking line.
Florida State Waters
• Weak links – ≤ 200lbs
• Vertical line breaking strength ≤ 1,500 lbs
• Gear marking – BLUE & ORANGE
SC/GA State Waters
• Weak links – ≤ 600lbs
• Vertical line breaking strength ≤ 2,200 lbs
• Gear marking - BLUE & ORANGE
Federal Waters
• Weak links – ≤ 600lbs
• Vertical line breaking strength ≤ 2,200 lbs
• Gear marking – GREEN & ORANGE
• Trap/pot gear must be brought back to shore at the conclusion of each trip.
Jordan Basin Gear Marking Area
Year-round
• Gear marking – RED & PURPLE if overlapping LMA1, BLACK & PURPLE if overlapping
Offshore Trap/Pot Waters
Jeffreys Ledge Gear Marking Area
Year-round
• Gear marking – RED & GREEN

67

2.1.2 Gillnet Gear Modification Requirements and Restrictions under the
ALWTRP
Gillnet Universal Requirements
•
•
•
•

No buoy line floating at the surface.
No wet storage of gear (all gear must be hauled out of the water at least once every 30
days)
Fishermen are encouraged, but not required, to maintain knot-free buoy lines.
All groundlines must be made of sinking line.

Gillnet Gear Marking Requirements
•

•

•

Gillnet surface buoys to be marked to identify the vessel or fishery with one of the
following: the owner’s motorboat registration number and/or U.S. vessel documentation
number; the federal commercial fishing permit number; or whatever positive
identification marking is required by the vessel’s home-port state.
When marking is not already required by state or federal regulations, the letters and
numbers to mark gear must be at least 1 inch (2.5cm) in height, block letters or Arabic
numbers, in a color that contrasts with the color of the buoy.
Buoy lines are to be marked with three 12 inch (30.48 cm), colored marks: one at the top
of the buoy line, one midway along the buoy line, and one at the bottom of the buoy
line. Color requirements are defined for each individual management area as described
in each management area description that follows.

Gillnet Weak Link Requirements
•

•

•

•

•

All buoys, floatation devices and/or weights must be attached to the buoy line with a
weak link having a certain breaking strength as defined for each management area in the
following tables.
Individual weak links are not required in locations where rope of appropriate breaking
strength is used. Additionally, if no up and down line is present, then weak links are not
required at that location.
Gillnet panel weak links must be chosen from the list of NMFS approved gear, which
includes: off the shelf weak links, rope of appropriate breaking strength, hog rings, and
other materials or devices approved in writing.
The weak link placement must meet one of the two configuration options shown on the
following page. The same configuration will be required for all gillnet panels in a string.
Anchored Gillnet Anchoring Requirements
All gillnets, regardless of number of net panels, will be required to be anchored with the
holding power of at least a 22-lb Danforth-style anchor at each end of the net string
(must be a burying anchor; no dead weights)

Drift Gillnet Night Fishing & Storage Restrictions
•

Fishing with drift gillnet gear at night (i.e., anytime between one-half hour before sunset

68

•

and one half hour after sunrise) is prohibited unless the gear is tended (i.e., attached to the
vessel).
All drift gillnet gear must be removed from the water and stowed on board before a vessel
returns to port.

Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area
Jan. 1 – May 15 All Gear
• CLOSED to ALL gillnet fishing
May 16 – Dec 31 Anchored
• Universal requirements
• Weak links – breaking strength of no greater than 1,100 lb.
• Anchoring requirements
• Sinking groundlines
• Gear marking – GREEN
Drift
• Gear marking – GREEN
• Night fishing & storage restrictions
Stellwagen Bank/ Jeffrey’s Ledge Restricted Area
Year-round Anchored
• Universal requirements
• Weak links – breaking strength of no greater than 1,100 lb.
• Anchoring requirements
• Sinking groundlines
• Gear marking – GREEN
Drift
• Gear marking – GREEN
• Night fishing & storage restrictions
Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area
April 1 – June 30
All Gear (not including Silver Area)
• CLOSED to ALL gillnet fishing. Does not include Sliver Area.
July 1 – March 31
Anchored (including Silver Area)
• Universal requirements
• Weak links – breaking strength of no greater than 1,100 lb.
• Anchoring requirements
• Sinking groundlines

69

•

Gear marking – GREEN

Drift (including Silver Area)
• Gear marking – GREEN
• Night fishing & storage restrictions
Jeffrey’s Ledge Gear Marking Area
Year-round All Gear
• Gear marking – GREEN & BLACK
Jordan Basin Gear Marking Area
Year-round All Gear
• Gear marking – GREEN & YELLOW
Other Northeast Gillnet Waters
North – Year-round
Mid-Atlantic – Sept 1 – May 31 Anchored
• Universal requirements
• Weak links – breaking strength of no greater than 1,100 lb.
• Anchoring requirements
• Sinking groundlines
• Gear marking – GREEN
Drift
• Gear marking – GREEN
• Night fishing & storage restrictions
Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters
Sept 1 – May 31
Anchored
• Universal Requirements
• Sinking GroundlinesGear Marking – BLUE
• Weak Link & Anchoring Requirements- Breaking strength of no greater than 1,100 lb.
Configurations differ for gillnets returning to port and those that do not. See page 9 for more
details.
• Gillnets set within 300 yards (900ft) of the shoreline in NC, that do not return to port with
the vessel, will also have an optional gillnet configuration: net panels configured with 5 or
more weak links per net panel, depending on panel length, with a breaking strength no
greater than 600 lb, and be anchored with the holding power of at least an 8-lb Danforthstyle anchor on the offshore end of the string and a 31-lb dead weight on the inshore end of
the string. The entire string must be set within 300 yards (900ft) of the shoreline.

70

Anchored
• Gear marking – GREEN
• Night fishing & storage restrictions
November 15 – April 15 All Gear
• Fishing with or possessing gillnets is prohibited.
• Vessels transiting through the area may possess gillnet if the following three conditions are
met:
o Nets are covered with canvas or other similar material and lashed or
o otherwise securely fastened to the deck, rail, or drum;
o All buoys, high flyers, and anchors are disconnected from all gillnets; and
o No fish are onboard.
Southeast U.S. Restricted Area South
December 1 – March 31 All Gear
• The Southeast U.S. Restricted Area South is CLOSED to fishing with or possessing gillnets.
Fishing for sharks with gillnets is exempt from the closure from IF:
• Gillnet is 5 inches or greater stretched mesh;
• Gillnet is deployed so that it encloses an area of water;
• A valid commercial directed shark limited access permit is issued to the vessel and is on
board;
• No net is set at night (any time between one 1/2 hour before sunset and one 1/2 hour after
sunrise) or when visibility is less than 500 yards;
• The gillnet is removed from the water before night or immediately if visibility decreases
below 500 yards;
• Each set is made under the observation of a spotter plane;
• No gillnet is set within 3 nm of a right, humpback, or fin whale; and
• The gillnet is removed immediately from the water if a right, humpback, or fin whale moves
within 3 nm of the set gear.
• Vessel operator calls the Southeast Fisheries Science Center Panama City Laboratory
(phone 850-234-6541) at least 48 hours prior to departure on fishing trips in order to arrange
for observer coverage. If Panama City Laboratory requests an observer be taken, gillnetting
is not allowed unless an observer is on board the vessel during the fishing trip.
• Gear marking – GREEN and BLUE
Fishing with gillnet for Spanish mackerel is exempt from the closure from December 1
through December 31 and from March 1 through March 31 IF:
•
•
•

Gillnet mesh size is between 3-½ inches and 4-7/8 inches stretched mesh;
A valid commercial vessel permit for Spanish mackerel is issued to the vessel and is
onboard;
No person may fish with, set, place in the water, or have on board a vessel a gillnet with a
float line longer than 800 yards;

71

•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•

The gillnet is removed from the water before night or immediately if visibility decreases
below 500 yards;
No net is set within 3 nm of a right, humpback, or fin whale; and
The gillnet is removed immediately from the water if a right, humpback, or fin whale moves
within 3 nm of the set gear.
No person may fish with, set, or place in the water more than one gillnet at any time;
No more than two gillnets, including any net in use, may be possessed at any one time;
provided, however, that if two gillnets, including any net in use, are possessed at any one
time, they must have stretched mesh sizes (as allowed under the regulations) that differ by at
least ¼”;
No net is soaked for more than 1 hour. The soak period begins when the first mesh is placed
in the water and ends either when the first mesh is retrieved back on board the vessel or the
gathering of the gillnet is begun to facilitate retrieval on board the vessel, whichever occurs
first; providing that, once the first mesh is retrieved or the gathering is begun, the retrieval is
continuous until the gillnet is completely removed from the water;
No net is set at night or when visibility is less than 500 yards;
Gear marking – YELLOW

Other Southeast Gillnet Waters
November 15 – April 15 – North of 29°00’N lat. & December 1 – March 31 – South of
29°00’N lat.
Non-shark gillnet
• Universal requirements
• Gear marking – YELLOW
• Weak links ≤1,100 lbs
• Sinking groundline
Shark gillnet with webbing 5” or greater stretched mesh
• Gear marking – GREEN and BLUE
• Nets cannot be set within 3nm of a right, humpback, or fin whale
• Gear is immediately removed from the water if a right, humpback, or fin whale approaches
within 3 nm of the set gear
December 1 – March 31 - South of 27°51’N lat. Non-shark gillnet
Gear marking –YELLOW
Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area
December 1 – March 31
Shark gillnet with webbing 5” or greater stretched mesh
• Gear Marking – GREEN and BLUE
• Fishing vessel must be compliant with VMS requirements found in 50 CFR 635.69.
• Fishing vessel must carry an observer if selected by NMFS.

72

Appendix 2.2 Large Whale Entanglement and Vessel Strike
Cases between 2010 and 2019
Large whale incidents in the North Atlantic that occurred as a result of entanglement (EN) or
vessel strike (VS) by country of origin or gear type (PT: trap/pot, GN: gillnet, NE: netting, or
UN: unknown). Includes the country of origin (US, CN: Canada, or UN: unkown), if determined,
and fate (M: mortality, SI: serious injury, SIA: serious injury averted, or PR: prorated). Data
from 2019 are still in press.
Date

Taxon

ID

3/18/10

Fin

7/17/10

Fin

9/3/10

Fin

1/1/11

Fin

6/5/11

Fin

7/2/11

Fin

F100

7/9/11

Fin

1028

7/24/11

Fin

9/21/11

Fin

1/23/12
2/19/12
7/16/12

Fin
Fin
Fin

7/30/12

Fin

8/10/12
10/7/12

Fin
Fin

1/13/13
6/6/13

Fin
Fin

4/12/14
5/13/14

Fin
Fin

6/23/14

Fin

8/20/14

Fin

10/5/14

Fin

BOS 0631

Capitaine Crochet

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

South Delaware Bay
Beach
Montauk, Long Island,
NY
Cape Henlopen State
Park, DE
85 nm SE of Portland,
ME
7 mi E of Long
Branch, NJ
Between Anticosti
Island and the North
Shore, Gulf of St.
Lawrence
18.2 nm SE of
Portsmouth, NH
Petit Etang beach,
Cheticamp, NS
113 miles due E of
Atlantic City, NJ
Ocean City, NJ
Norfolk, VA
16.5 nm SE of
Portland, ME
16.5 nm ESE of
Portsmouth, NH
Hampton Bays, NY
Outer Boston Harbor
Islands, MA
East Hampton, NY
St. Lawrence Marine
Park, QB
Port Elizabeth, NJ
10 nm off Rocky
Harbour, NL
30 nm SE of Chatham,
MA
30 nm E of
Provincetown, MA
35 nm E of
Manasquan, NJ

VS

MT

US

VS

NS

XU

VS

MT

US

EN

MT

XU

VS

MT

US

EN

SI

CN

PT

EN

NS

XU

UN

EN

MT

CN

UN

EN

MT

US

UN

VS
VS
EN

MT
MT
PR

US
US
XU

UN

EN

NS

XU

UN

VS
VS

MT
MT

US
US

VS
EN

MT
SI

US
CN

PT

VS
EN

MT
MT

US
CN

PT

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

PR

XU

UN

VS

MT

US

73

Gear
Type

UN

Date

Taxon

6/6/15

Fin

9/16/15

Fin

6/18/16

Fin

7/6/16

Fin

7/8/16

Fin

7/27/16

Fin

12/14/16

Fin

5/30/17
7/7/17

Fin
Fin

8/25/17

Fin

6/22/18

Fin

10/14/18

Fin

6/19/19

Fin

7/18/19

Fin

8/14/19
3/7/10

Fin
Humpback

3/13/10
5/5/10

Humpback
Humpback

5/8/10

Humpback

5/15/10

Humpback

5/18/10

Humpback

5/28/10

Humpback

6/10/10

Humpback

6/19/10

Humpback

7/4/10

Humpback

7/5/10

Humpback

ID

CCS_1308

CCS0919

Ladders

Pinch

Swallowtail

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

41.8 nm SSE of Bar
Harbor, ME
49.9 nm E of Corolla,
NC
2.3 nm NE of Truro,
MA
32.5 nm E of Truro,
MA
60 nm NE of Virginia
Beach, VA
17 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
1.4 nm S of
Provincetown, MA
Port Newark, NJ
22 nm N of
Provincetown, MA
38nm NE of Miscou
Island, QC
16.5 nm E of Gaspe,
QC
3.5 nm S of Wood
End, Provincetown,
MA
20nm E of Miscou
Island, QC
Portugal Cove South,
Avalon, NL
S of Bliss Island, NB
16.2 nm E of Ponte
Vedra Beach, FL
Ocean City Inlet, MD
1.5 nm W of
Northampton, VA
0.35 nm SW of Point
Judith, RI
Hatteras Inlet Sandbar,
NC
10.7 nm NE of Truro,
MA
off South Beach,
Martha's Vineyard,
MA
Jones Beach State
Park, NY
3.5 nm E of Orleans,
MA
12 mi S of Ocean City
Inlet, MD
2.1 nm E of Orleans,
MA

EN

SI

XU

UN

VS

NS

XU

EN

NS

US

PT

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

PR

XU

H/MF

EN

NS

US

PT

EN

PR

XU

UN

VS
EN

MT
NS

US
XU

UN

EN

MT

CN

PT

EN

MT

CN

UN

VS

MT

US

EN

MT

CN

UN

EN

MT

CN

PT

VS
EN

NS
SI

XC
XU

UN

VS
EN

MT
SI

US
XU

UN

EN

MT

US

GN

EN

MT

XU

UN

EN

NS

XU

NE

EN

MT

XU

NE

VS

MT

US

EN

SIA

US

VS

MT

US

EN

NS

XU

74

PT

UN

Date

Taxon

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

7/23/10

Humpback

Vault

EN

NS

US

UN

7/26/10

Humpback

EN

PR

XU

UN

7/27/10

Humpback

Sodapop

EN

SIA

XU

UN

7/27/10

Humpback

Bearclaw

EN

NS

XU

UN

8/6/10
8/13/10

Humpback
Humpback

Aphid

VS
EN

NS
SI

US
US

PT

8/20/10

Humpback

Chili

EN

SI

XU

UN

8/31/10

Humpback

Bearclaw

EN

SIA

US

PT

9/10/10

Humpback

EN

PR

XC

UN

10/2/10

Humpback

EN

PR

XU

UN

11/27/10

Humpback

EN

MT

XC

UN

12/23/10

Humpback

EN

SI

XU

UN

1/7/11

Humpback

EN

SI

US

GN

2/1/11

Humpback

EN

SI

US

UN

3/7/11

Humpback

VS

MT

US

4/11/11

Humpback

EN

PR

XU

UN

4/15/11

Humpback

EN

NS

US

GN

5/5/11
5/27/11

Humpback
Humpback

VS
VS

MT
MT

US
US

5/30/11

Humpback

EN

PR

XU

UN

6/3/11

Humpback

EN

SIA

US

UN

7/2/11

Humpback

EN

SI

XU

UN

7/2/11

Humpback

VS

NS

XU

7/5/11
7/9/11

Humpback
Humpback

7.7 nm E of Eastham,
MA
12.8 nm E of Chatham,
MA
16.8 nm NNW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
6.5 nm NE of
Chatham, MA
S Stellwagen
2.7 nm E of Orleans,
MA
10.3 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
6.2 nm E of Chatham,
MA
4 miles from White
Head Island, Grand
Manan, NB
4.0 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
0.9 nm ENE of Grand
Manan Island, NB
S of Port Everglades
Inlet, FL
6.8 nm SE of Oregon
Inlet, NC
20.8 nm S of Bar
Harbor, ME
Thorofare Bay, Core
Sound, NC
Off Halibut Point,
Rockport, MA
0.4 nm NE of Little
Island Park Pier, VA
Little Compton, RI
Island Beach State
Park, NJ
0.1 nm E of Nauset
Beach, Orleans MA
18.4 nm SE of
Portsmouth, NH
Off Race Point, Cape
Cod
Off Race Point, Cape
Cod
Jeffreys Ledge
3.4 nm SSE of
Monomoy Island, MA

VS
EN

NS
PR

US
XU

EKG

Flyball

Chalkline

75

UN

Date

Taxon

ID

7/10/11

Humpback

7/18/11

Humpback

7/21/11

Humpback

7/25/11

Humpback

Ganesh

7/30/11

Humpback

Reflection

7/30/11

Humpback

2009 Calf of Rapier

7/31/11

Humpback

2011 Calf of
Canopy

8/2/11

Humpback

Artillery

8/4/11
8/14/11

Humpback
Humpback

2011 Calf of Ganesh
Echo

8/24/11

Humpback

Piano

9/15/11

Humpback

Checkmark

9/30/11

Humpback

Hippocampus

10/10/11

Humpback

Clutter

11/8/11

Humpback

Dyad

11/13/11

Humpback

1/26/12

Humpback

3/11/12

Humpback

4/7/12

Humpback

4/13/12

Humpback

4/29/12

Humpback

5/18/12

Humpback

Basmati

6/9/12

Humpback

Etchasketch

Reflection

7621

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

6.1 nm E of Monomoy
Island, MA
1.9 nm N of North
Truro, MA
3.0 nm SE of Oregon
Inlet, Rodanthe, NC
8.8 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
8.3 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
8.0 nm NNE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
6.4 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
7.0 nm NNE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
Stellwagen
6.8 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
5 nm E of Chatham,
MA
9.0 nm NE of
Plymouth, MA
5.8 nm ENE of
Chatham, MA
Bay of Fundy, 5.3 nm
NE of Grand Manan
Island, NB
34.2 nm E of
Nantucket, MA
Bay of Fundy, 10.3 nm
E of Lubec, ME
2.0 nm NE of Virginia
Beach, VA
2.8 nm SE of Hatteras,
NC
10.1 nm SE of
Southwest Harbor, ME
18.7 nm SE of
Southwest Harbor, ME
10 nm ESE of
Chatham, MA
6.4 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
6.2 nm NW of Race

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

NS

US

UN

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

MF

VS
EN

NS
NS

US
US

MF

VS

NS

US

EN

NS

US

UN

EN

SIA

US

GN

EN

SI

XC

UN

EN

NS

XU

MF

EN

SIA

CN

PT

EN

NS

XU

H/MF

EN

SIA

US

GN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

SI

US

UN

EN

NS

US

PT

EN

NS

US

MF

76

Date

Taxon

ID

6/10/12

Humpback

Apex

6/18/12

Humpback

Sabot

6/22/12

Humpback

Dome

7/5/12

Humpback

Hiatus

7/6/12

Humpback

Serengeti

7/8/12

Humpback

Piano

7/29/12

Humpback

8/4/12

Humpback

Aphid

8/16/12

Humpback

Doric

8/18/12

Humpback

Hiatus

8/21/12

Humpback

2011 Calf Of
Wizard

8/24/12

Humpback

Forceps

8/27/12

Humpback

Cardhu

9/3/12

Humpback

Reflection

9/16/12

Humpback

9/17/12

Humpback

Goalpost

9/23/12

Humpback

Zelle

9/23/12

Humpback

10/23/12

Humpback

11/27/12

Humpback

2009 Calf Of
Thumper
2012 Calf Of
Tornado

1/6/13

Humpback

4/3/13

Humpback

Location
Point, Provincetown,
MA
14.8 nm ESE of
Chatham, MA
7.2 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
8.5 nm E of Chatham,
MA
5.0 nm NE of
Chatham, MA
5.0 nm NE of
Chatham, MA
6.2 nm N of Chatham,
MA
15.2 nm SE of
Gloucester, MA
7.7 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
10 nm SE of
Gloucester, MA
4.7 nm NE of
Chatham, MA
3.6 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
6.0 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
8.6 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
2.6 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
20.1 nm NE of
Gloucester, MA
2.2 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
12.5 nm SE of
Portsmouth, NH
12.9 nm SE of
Portsmouth, NH
12.0 nm NE of
Gloucester, MA
11.8 nm NE of
Plymouth, MA
6.4 nm NNE of
Virginia Beach, VA
9 mi off Ft. Story, VA

77

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

GN

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

NS

XU

UN

EN

SI

XU

UN

EN

SI

XU

UN

EN

NS

XU

MF

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

PR

XU

MF

EN

SI

US

UN

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

SIA

US

GN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

NS

XU

UN

VS

MT

US

Date

Taxon

ID

5/17/13

Humpback

6/5/13

Humpback

2013 Calf of
Buckshot
Thumper

6/20/13

Humpback

Thicket

7/7/13
9/11/13
9/13/13

Humpback
Humpback
Humpback

2013 Calf of Spar

9/16/13

Humpback

9/28/13

Humpback

9/29/13

Humpback

10/1/13
10/4/13

Humpback
Humpback

11/14/13

Humpback

6/2/14

Humpback

6/9/14

Humpback

6/21/14

Humpback

7/16/14
7/16/14
7/18/14

Humpback
Humpback
Humpback

7/30/14
8/11/14
8/14/14

Humpback
Humpback
Humpback

9/3/14

Humpback

9/11/14

Humpback

Spinnaker

9/20/14

Humpback

NYC0010

10/1/14

Humpback

10/15/14
12/15/14

Humpback
Humpback

Buckshot

12/25/14

Humpback

Triomphe

Foggy

Hangglide

2014CalfOfCanopy
Northstar

Monarch

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Stellwagen Bank

VS

NS

XU

11.0 nm SE of
Chatham, MA
13.0 nm ESE of
Chatham, MA
Bar Harbor, ME
Poquoson River, VA
mouth of York River,
VA
29.4 nm SE of
Chatham, MA
0.2 nm SE of Saltaire,
NY
1.5 nm NW of Tibert's
Landing, NS
Buzzards Bay, MA
2.0 nm E of Chatham,
MA
2.7 nm NE of
Manasquan, NJ
14 nm SE of Chatham,
MA
35 nm WSE of Brier
Island, NS
6 nm E of Gloucester,
MA
Stellwagen Bank
Stellwagen Bank
Provincetown Harbor,
MA
Cape May, NJ
Great South Channel
600ft off Harvey
Cedars, Long Island
Beach, NJ
600ft off Harvey
Cedars, Long Island
Beach, NJ
18 nm SE of
Southwest Harbor, ME
off Rockaway Beach,
Long Island, NY
12 nm E of
Metompkin Inlet, VA
Stellwagen Bank
8.5 nm S of Grand
Manan, NB
Little Cranberry
Island, ME

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

H/MF

VS
VS
VS

NS
NS
MT

XU
US
US

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

MT

XU

GN

EN

SIA

CN

PT

EN
EN

MT
SI

US
XU

UN
UN

EN

SIA

US

GN

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

SIA

CN

PT

EN

PR

XU

UN

VS
VS
EN

NS
NS
SI

XU
US
XU

UN

VS
EN
VS

NS
NS
PR

US
XU
XU

UN

EN

PR

XU

NE

EN

MT

XU

EN

PR

XU

GN,P
T
GN

EN

PR

XU

UN

VS
EN

NS
PR

XU
CN

PT

EN

MT

XU

UN

78

Gear
Type

Date

Taxon

ID

2/1/15

Humpback

2/3/15
4/13/15

Humpback
Humpback

4/18/15
4/26/15

Humpback
Humpback

Not named

5/14/15

Humpback

Spinnaker

6/20/15

Humpback

Not named

6/29/15
7/9/15

Humpback
Humpback

7/9/15

Humpback

Lacuna

7/11/15

Humpback

Not named

7/25/15

Humpback

Putter

8/2/15

Humpback

Not named

8/2/15

Humpback

8/2/15

Humpback

8/14/15

Humpback

8/15/15
8/16/15

Humpback
Humpback

Mogul
Cardhu

8/29/15

Humpback

Crinkle

9/1/15

Humpback

2015CalfOfOwl

9/7/15

Humpback

9/17/15

Humpback

Epee

9/18/15

Humpback

Azrael

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

9.3 nm SW of Cape
Lookout, NC
Corolla, NC
15.4 nm SE of Fire
Island, NY
Smith Point, NY
1.1 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
77.2 nm E of
Portsmouth, NH
27.6 nm SE of
Chatham, MA
Fire Island, NY
3.4 nm SE of Sandy
Hook, NJ
4.4 nm N of Brier
Island, NS
7.2 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
2.7 nm NE of North
Truro, MA
3.5 nm SE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
4.8 nm NE of
Chatham, MA
14.8 nm NNE of
Chatham, MA
1.7 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
Jeffreys Ledge
6.7 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
8.5 nm E of Chatham,
MA
6.0 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
12.2 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
10.5 nm NNE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
9.4 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA

EN

SI

XU

NE

EN
VS

MT
MT

US
US

UN

VS
EN

MT
SIA

US
XU

UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

SIA

XU

UN

VS
EN

MT
PR

US
XU

UN

EN

NS

XC

UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

SI

XU

GN,P
T

EN

NS

XU

MF

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

NS

US

PT

VS
EN

NS
NS

US
XU

H/MF

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

NS

XU

MF

EN

PR

XU

MF

VS

NS

US

EN

NS

US

79

H/MF

Date

Taxon

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

9/18/15

Humpback

Diablo

EN

NS

XU

MF

9/19/15

Humpback

Mogul

EN

NS

US

H/MF

9/24/15

Humpback

EN

PR

US

AN

9/25/15

Humpback

EN

SI

XU

UN

10/17/15

Humpback

VS

MT

US

11/18/15

Humpback

EN

NS

XU

MF

12/4/15

Humpback

EN

SIA

US

UN

12/4/15

Humpback

EN

PR

CN

PT

12/13/15

Humpback

VS

NS

US

12/15/15

Humpback

EN

PR

CN

PT

1/7/16

Humpback

EN

PR

US

PT

1/9/16

Humpback

VS

SI

US

1/11/16

Humpback

EN

SIA

US

GN

1/14/16

Humpback

EN

SIA

US

GN

1/16/16

Humpback

MAHWC250

VS

NS

US

3/3/16

Humpback

VS

SI

US

4/21/16

Humpback

MAHWC251/HDR
VA045

EN

NS

XU

UN

4/24/16

Humpback

No ID

EN

PR

XU

UN

4/25/16
4/25/16
5/14/16

Humpback
Humpback
Humpback

No ID
GOM1609

VS
VS
EN

MT
MT
SIA

US
XU
US

PT

5/18/16

Humpback

Foggy

EN

SI

XU

UN

5/21/16

Humpback

EN

PR

XU

GN

5/26/16

Humpback

6.5 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
13.0 nm ESE of
Hampton, NH
13.5 nm ESE of
Hampton, NH
0.6 nm N of
Menemsha Harbor,
MA
Lloyd Neck Harbor,
NY
7.7 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
8.8 nm SW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
16.5 nm NW of Brier
Island, NS
1.9 nm E of Fort Story,
VA
3.5 nm SE of Ingomar,
NS
1 nm S of Great
Captains Island,
Greenwich, CT
2.6 nm NE of Fort
Story, VA
1.2 nm SE of Hatteras,
NC
1.0 nm NE of Fort
Story, VA
2.3 nm NE of Fort
Story, VA
off Virginia Beach,
VA
Shackleford Banks,
NC
1 nm SE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
Marshfield, MA
Napeague Bay, NY
0.5 nm SW of Wood
End, Provincetown,
MA
7.6 nm NE of
Gloucester, MA
0.4 nm E of
Mantoloking, NJ
1.5 nm SE of Race

EN

SIA

US

PT

Lunar

MAHWC254/HDR
VA053
No ID

GOM1552

80

Date

Taxon

ID

6/15/16

Humpback

No ID

6/16/16

Humpback

Freckles

6/24/16

Humpback

No ID

6/25/16

Humpback

GOM1689

6/26/16

Humpback

Snowplow

7/2/16

Humpback

2016CalfOfTwine

7/5/16

Humpback

No ID

7/26/16

Humpback

Scratch

8/8/16

Humpback

No ID

8/14/16

Humpback

Storm

8/15/16

Humpback

Victim

8/16/16

Humpback

A+

9/2/16

Humpback

9/9/16

Humpback

9/10/16

Humpback

9/15/16

Humpback

Echo

9/16/16

Humpback

No ID

9/16/16

Humpback

Tear

9/17/16

Humpback

Crisscross

10/8/16

Humpback

Aswan

GOM1602

Location
Point, Provincetown,
MA
20.9 nm E of Fenwick
Island, DE
3.4 nm E of Wellfleet,
MA
0.5 nm off Shinnecock
Inlet, NY
0.4 nm E of
Monomoy, MA
15 nm NE of
Rockport, MA
9.9 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
2.4 nm SE of
Chatham, MA
9.9 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
5.0 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
10.1 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
21.5 nm SSW of
Grand Manan Island,
NB
30.0 nm E of
Nantucket Island, MA
14.9 nm SE of
Gloucester, MA
off Race Point,
Provincetown, MA
Jobs Neck Cove,
Martha's Vineyard,
MA
5.9 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
3.6 nm NE of
Chatham, MA
6.6 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
9.1 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
9.5 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA

81

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

VS

MT

US

EN

NS

XU

VS

MT

US

VS

NS

US

VS

MT

US

EN

NS

US

H/MF

EN

SI

XU

UN

EN

NS

XU

UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

NS

US

PT

EN

SIA

CN

PT

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

PR

XU

UN

VS

NS

US

EN

MT

XU

UN

EN

NS

US

PT

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

XU

MF

EN

NS

XU

MF

UN

Date

Taxon

ID

10/16/16

Humpback

GOM1626

10/19/16

Humpback

Storm

10/25/16

Humpback

SEUS1606

11/13/16
11/14/16

Humpback
Humpback

NYC#0052

12/4/16

Humpback

12/8/16

Humpback

GOM1636

12/16/16

Humpback

HDRVA078

12/19/16

Humpback

12/20/16

Humpback

1/5/17

Humpback

2/2/17

Humpback

2/5/17

Humpback

2/11/17
2/14/17

Humpback
Humpback

4/3/17
5/4/17

Humpback
Humpback

6/15/17
6/18/17

Humpback
Humpback

7/15/17

Humpback

2016CalfOfThumpe
r

7/18/17

Humpback

2017CalfOfFirefly

7/20/17

Humpback

Firefly

7/26/17

Humpback

Sprinkles

8/1/17

Humpback

2017CalfOfCajun

GOM1633

GOM1625

Location
2.1 nm E of Ipswich,
MA
0.5 nm N of
Provincetown, MA
3.9 nm SW of
Beaufort, NC
off Belmar, NJ
4.7 nm E of Stone
Harbor, NJ
1.1 nm S of Quogue,
NY
3.8 nm NE of Hull,
MA
2-3 mi E of Dam
Neck, VA
0.1 nm E of Tiverton,
NS, Canada
1.2 nm S of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
6.2 nm E of Virginia
Beach, VA
Hampton Roads
Bridge Tunnel,
Chesapeake Bay, VA
Chesapeake Bay
Bridge Tunnel,
Chesapeake Bay, VA
Fort Story, VA
off Virginia Beach,
VA
Rockaway, NY
North Shores,
Rehobeth Beach, DE
Jamestown, RI
Monomoy, Chatham,
MA
6.3 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
3.7 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
8.5 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
8.2 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
21.9 nm SE of
Gloucester, MA

82

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

EN

MT

US

PT

EN

NS

US

PT

EN

NS

US

GN

EN
EN

PR
PR

XU
US

MF
PT

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

MT

US

UN

EN

PR

XC

UN

EN

NS

US

PT

EN

SIA

US

GN

VS

MT

US

VS

MT

US

VS
VS

MT
SI

US
US

VS
VS

MT
MT

US
US

VS
EN

MT
MT

US
XU

UN

EN

PR

US

H/MF

EN

NS

US

H/MF

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

MT

XU

GN

Date

Taxon

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

8/10/17

Humpback

2017CalfOfHancock

EN

NS

US

PT

8/14/17

Humpback

2014CalfOfEcho

EN

NS

US

MF

8/14/17

Humpback

Perseid

EN

NS

US

MF

8/18/17

Humpback

2017CalfOfHancock

EN

NS

US

MF

8/19/17

Humpback

EN

PR

XU

UN

8/28/17

Humpback

Drifter

EN

SIA

XU

UN

9/12/17
9/18/17

Humpback
Humpback

2016CalfOfSanchal

EN
EN

SIA
PR

US
CN

PT
PT

9/24/17

Humpback

GOM1744

EN

SIA

US

PT

10/1/17

Humpback

2017CalfOfGumdro
p

EN

NS

US

UN

10/1/17

Humpback

VS

MT

XU

10/3/17

Humpback

GOM1747

EN

NS

XU

MF

10/6/17

Humpback

2015CalfOfXylem

EN

SIA

XU

GN

10/10/17

Humpback

EN

PR

US

PT

10/14/17

Humpback

EN

PR

XU

UN

10/21/17

Humpback

2016CalfOfEcho

EN

SIA

US

UN

10/21/17

Humpback

GOM1747

EN

PR

XU

UN

11/12/17

Humpback

EN

PR

XU

MF

11/30/17

Humpback

EN

PR

CN

PT

12/26/17

Humpback

VS

MT

US

1/28/18
2/12/18
4/22/18

Humpback
Humpback
Humpback

5.2 nm NNE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
4.7 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
4.5 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
Southern Stellwagen
Bank
0.5 mi off of Smith
Point State Park, Long
Island, NY
10.2 nm SE of
Frenchboro, ME
1.1 nm E of Truro, MA
29.3 nm SE of
Jonesport, ME
7.7 nm NNW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
7.4 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
9nm S of Narragansett,
RI
6.4 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
3.9 nm NE of
Chatham, MA
3.0 nm NE of
Gloucester, MA
6.0 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
9.1 nm NE of
Gloucester, MA
1.0 nm SE of Quogue,
Long Island, NY
1.0 nm S of Atlantic
Beach, NY
17nm S of Grand
Manan, NS
East Atlantic Beach,
NY
Peters Point, FL
Breezy Point, NY
7.6 nm SW of
Provincetown, MA

VS
VS
EN

MT
MT
NS

US
US
US

Lascaux

83

PT

Date

Taxon

ID

5/5/18
5/18/18
5/27/18
6/1/18
6/20/18

Humpback
Humpback
Humpback
Humpback
Humpback

Sutures

6/21/18

Humpback

Crinkle

7/14/18

Humpback

2018CalfOfPierce

7/14/18

Humpback

2017CalfOfRapier

7/14/18

Humpback

7/20/18

Humpback

Cardhu or Orbit

7/20/18

Humpback

Milkweed or Mogul

7/20/18

Humpback

Owl

7/20/18
7/21/18

Humpback
Humpback

2016CalfOfSanchal
Rhino

7/23/18

Humpback

7/26/18
7/30/18

Humpback
Humpback

NYC0097

7/30/18

Humpback

Cardhu

8/1/18

Humpback

Dyad

8/3/18

Humpback

Sabot

8/5/18

Humpback

8/6/18

Humpback

Komodo

8/7/18

Humpback

Samara

8/9/18

Humpback

Dross

8/11/18

Humpback

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

Raritan Bay, NJ
Long Beach, NY
Fire Island, NY
Breezy Point, NY
3.5 nm NW of Brier
Island, NS
12.1 nm SE of
Chatham, MA
3.6 nm N of Brier
Island, NS
5.8 nm W of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
0.5 nm S of Nantucket,
MA
5 nm N of Race Point,
Provincetown, MA
6.7 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
5.7 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
Stellwagen Bank
7.2 nm E of Hampton
Beach, NH
High Duck Island,
Grand Manan, NB
Napeague, NY
1.0 nm SE of
Montauk, NY
8.2 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
7.8 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
0.6 nm W of Brier
Island, NS
10 nm E of Long
Island, NY
9.2 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
6.2 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
7.8 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
Cape May, NJ

VS
VS
VS
VS
EN

MT
MT
MT
MT
NS

US
US
XU
XU
XC

UN

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

SIA

CN

UN

EN

SI

US

PT

EN

SI

XU

UN

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

MF

VS
EN

NS
PR

XU
US

MF

EN

NS

CN

EN
EN

MT
SI

XU
XU

WE,
SE
UN
UN

EN

PR

US

AN

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

CN

UN

EN

SI

XU

UN

EN

NS

XU

UN

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

MF

VS

SI

US

84

Date

Taxon

ID

8/15/18
8/17/18

Humpback
Humpback

Samara

8/27/18

Humpback

Patches

8/29/18

Humpback

2016CalfOfVenom

9/1/18

Humpback

2016CalfOfSanchal

9/2/18
9/2/18

Humpback
Humpback

Lollipop

9/3/18

Humpback

Shuffleboard

9/7/18
9/8/18

Humpback
Humpback

Peajack

9/14/18

Humpback

Dross

9/21/18

Humpback

9/23/18

Humpback

9/23/18

Humpback

9/29/18

Humpback

12/13/18

Humpback

12/15/18
2/17/19
3/13/19

Humpback
Humpback
Humpback

3/17/19
4/23/19

Humpback
Humpback

5/1/19

Humpback

5/2/19

Humpback

5/5/19

Humpback

6/9/19

Humpback

Mostaza

6/24/19

Humpback

Krakatoa

7/7/19

Humpback

2016CalfOfRavine

2016CalfOfZeppelin
2017 Calf Of Diablo
Plateau

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

Stellwagen Bank
8.0 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
6.8 nm E of Rockport,
MA
1.5 nm E of Hampton
Beach, NH
9.4 nm S of Chatham,
MA
Brier Island, NS
3.9 nm E of Chatham,
MA
1.0 nm N of Rockport,
MA
off Brier Island, NS
3.1 nm SE of
Gloucester, MA
6.1 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
20 nm E of Rockport,
MA
10.5 nm SE of
Gloucester, MA
14.1 nm S of Martha's
Vineyard, MA
E of Campbobello
Island, NB
0.7 nm E of Mayport,
FL
Cape Point, Lewes, DE
Corolla, NC
5 nm off Virginia
Beach, VA
Corolla, NC
0.5 nm S of Cape May,
NJ
Avalon Pier, Kill Devil
Hills, NC
0.1 nm W of Ocean
City, MD
Westhampton Beach,
NY
11.5 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
11.8 nm E of Chatham,
MA
1 nm off Napeague,
NY

VS
EN

SI
NS

US
US

HK

EN

NS

XU

MF

EN

MT

US

NE

EN

NS

US

PT

VS
EN

NS
NS

CN
US

MF

EN

NS

US

MF

EN
EN

MT
PR

XC
XU

PT
UN

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

NS

XC

UN

EN

PR

XU

UN

VS
VS
VS

MT
MT
MT

US
US
US

EN
EN

MT
SI

XU
XU

VS

NS

XU

EN

PR

US

VS

MT

US

EN

NS

US

UN

EN

SI

XU

UN

VS

PR

US

85

GN
UN

GN

Date

Taxon

ID

7/11/19

Humpback

7/15/19

Humpback

7/22/19

Humpback

7/24/19

Humpback

7/26/19

Humpback

7/29/19

Humpback

Nike

7/31/19

Humpback

Komodo

8/5/19

Humpback

Nile

8/6/19
8/15/19

Humpback
Humpback

2015 Calf Of Jabiru

8/26/19

Humpback

Zorro

9/3/19

Humpback

NYC0159

9/3/19

Humpback

NYC0159

9/3/19

Humpback

9/10/19

Humpback

Nuke

9/10/19

Humpback

Doric

10/4/19

Humpback

10/7/19

Humpback

Diablo

10/24/19

Humpback

10/24/19

Humpback

2017 Calf Of
Manhattan

12/2/19

Humpback

Kansas

12/13/19

Humpback

NYC0144

6/16/10
7/2/10
7/9/10

Minke
Minke
Minke

8/14/10

Minke

2019 Calf Of
Pinball

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

200 ft S of
Manchester, MA
12 mi NE of
Shinnecock Inlet, Long
Island, NY
6.3 nm E of
Kingsburg, NS
7 nm E of Gloucester,
MA
4.5 nm E of Sea Isle
City, NJ
16.1 nm E of
Newburyport, MA
11.4 nm SE of
Montauk, NY
7.4 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
Ocean City, MD
1.4 nm E of Chatham,
MA
Provincetown Harbor,
MA
1.4 nm W of North
Truro, MA
1.4 nm W of North
Truro, MA
13.6 nm SW of
Nantucket, MA
20.3 nm SE of
Gloucester, MA
8.3 nm NW of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
2.2 nm W of North
Truro, MA
20.5 nm SE of
Gloucester, MA
Barnegat Light, NJ

EN

NS

XU

NE

EN

NS

US

GN

EN

PR

XC

UN

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

NS

US

PT

EN

NS

US

H/MF

EN

NS

XU

HK

EN

NS

US

MF

EN
EN

SI
SIA

XU
US

UN
PT

EN

PR

US

UN

EN

NS

XU

UN

VS

NS

XU

EN

NS

XU

UN

EN

SIA

US

AN

EN

NS

US

MF

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

NS

XU

MF

VS

MT

US

14.4 nm SE of Ocean
City, MD
6.2 nm N of Brier
Island, NS
21 nm SE of Newport,
RI
Goose River, PEI
Naufrage, PEI
Fire Island Inlet, Fire
Island, NY
2.6 nm ESE of
Schoodic Island, ME

EN

PR

US

GN

EN

SIA

CN

PT

VS

MT

US

EN
EN
VS

MT
MT
MT

CN
CN
US

UN
UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

86

Date

Taxon

8/19/10

Minke

8/21/10

Minke

10/31/10
5/6/11

Minke
Minke

6/3/11
7/6/11

Minke
Minke

7/17/11

Minke

7/24/11

Minke

8/4/11
8/26/11

Minke
Minke

8/29/11
9/7/11
9/19/11

Minke
Minke
Minke

10/5/11

Minke

10/6/11

Minke

12/7/11
12/19/11

Minke
Minke

2/4/12

Minke

3/16/12

Minke

5/15/12
6/21/12

Minke
Minke

6/23/12

Minke

6/26/12

Minke

6/30/12

Minke

7/1/12

Minke

7/1/12

Minke

7/13/12

Minke

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

1.7 nm NE of Ragged
Island, ME
3.5 nm ENE of
Plymouth Harbor, MA
La Poile Bay, NL
1.7 nm NW of Gay
Head, Martha's
Vineyard, MA
off Tadoussac, QC
Ochre Pit Cove,
Conception Bay, NL
2.4 nm E of Nahant,
MA
1.9 nm NNE of North
Truro, MA
Sandy Hook Bay, NJ
Sandy Hook GNRA, N
Horseshoe Cove, NJ
Moriches Bay, NY
Greenspond, NL
Northumberland Strait,
Pointe-Sapin, PEI
0.7 nm SE of Pumpkin
Island, ME
6.9 nm NNW of
Matinicus Island, ME
Carolina Beach, NC
Bay of Fundy, 3.0 nm
W of Seal Cove, Grand
Manan Island, NB
6.5 nm NNW of
Virginia Beach, VA
Cranes Beach,
Ipswich, MA
Sable Island Bank
4.6 nm E of
Frenchboro, ME
Container Terminal
Port Newark, NJ
1.5 nm N of Renews
Rock, NL
11.5 nm W of
Campbell Cove/North
Lake, Naufrage, PEI
23.2 nm SE of
Portsmouth, NH
East Point, Northern
Lake Harbor, PEI
10.5 nm SW of
Jonesport, ME

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

SI

XU

UN

EN
EN

SIA
MT

CN
US

SE
PT

EN
EN

SI
SIA

CN
CN

UN
GN

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

PR

XU

UN

VS
EN

MT
MT

US
US

NE

VS
EN
EN

MT
PR
PR

US
CN
CN

GN
UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

MT

US

PT

VS
EN

MT
MT

US
CN

PT

EN

NS

XU

H/MF

EN

MT

US

UN

EN
EN

SI
SI

CN
XU

PT
UN

VS

MT

US

EN

MT

CN

PT

EN

MT

CN

PT

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

MT

CN

PT

EN

PR

US

UN

87

Date

Taxon

7/17/12

Minke

8/2/12

Minke

8/5/12

Minke

8/22/12

Minke

10/4/12
3/31/13

Minke
Minke

7/1/13

Minke

7/23/13
8/17/13

Minke
Minke

8/31/13
10/4/13

Minke
Minke

4/7/14

Minke

6/9/14

Minke

7/2/14

Minke

7/10/14

Minke

7/12/14

Minke

7/17/14
7/21/14

Minke
Minke

7/29/14

Minke

7/29/14

Minke

12/24/14
3/26/15

Minke
Minke

4/16/15

Minke

5/9/15
6/6/15
6/14/15

Minke
Minke
Minke

6/23/15

Minke

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

1.7 nm NNE of
Chatham, MA
6.7 nm E of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
Hardings Beach,
Chatham, MA
7.8 nm SE of
Portsmouth, NH
SW Cliff Island, ME
Bay L'Argent, Fortune
Bay, NL
location sensitivity
68.2 nm E of Chatham,
MA
off Newport, RI
9.4 nm E of
Newburyport, MA
Miminegash, PEI
4.2 nm SE of Seal
Harbor, ME
8 nm SE of
Marblehead, MA
6 nm ENE of Race
Point, MA
Northumberland Strait,
NB
10 nm SE of
Southport, ME
10 nm S of
Southampton, NY
South Addison, ME
5 nm NW of
Cheticamp, Cape
Breton, NS
5 nm SE of Herring
Cove, NS
5 nm SE of Herring
Cove, NS
Dam Neck, VA
2.0 nm E of Cape
Canaveral
Lockes Island,
Shelburne, NS
Duck, NC
Coney Island, NY
21.8 nm SE of
Chatham, MA
4.0 nm SE of Ingonish,
NS

EN

SI

XU

UN

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

MT

US

UN

EN

SIA

US

UN

EN
EN

MT
NS

US
CN

UN
BM

EN

MT

US

MT

EN
EN

PR
SI

XU
XU

UN
UN

EN
EN

MT
PR

CN
US

UN
UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

MT

US

PT

EN

MT

CN

UN

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

SI

XU

DE

EN
EN

MT
SIA

XU
CN

UN
PT

EN

MT

CN

PT

VS

MT

CN

VS
EN

MT
SI

US
XU

UN

EN

MT

CN

UN

EN
VS
EN

MT
MT
PR

XU
US
XU

NE
UN

EN

PR

CN

PT

88

Date

Taxon

7/3/15

Minke

7/7/15

Minke

7/7/15

Minke

7/20/15

Minke

8/18/15
9/1/15
9/21/15

Minke
Minke
Minke

10/31/15

Minke

12/6/15

Minke

5/3/16
7/21/16
8/9/16

Minke
Minke
Minke

8/15/16

Minke

8/30/16

Minke

11/2/16

Minke

12/4/16

Minke

4/24/17

Minke

5/31/17
7/6/17
7/22/17

Minke
Minke
Minke

8/3/17

Minke

8/9/17

Minke

8/11/17

Minke

8/12/17

Minke

8/14/17

Minke

8/17/17
8/28/17

Minke
Minke

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

32.6 nm SE of Point
Judith, RI
20.5 nm NW of Funk
Island, NL
St. Brides, Cape St.
Mary's, NL
0.5 nm SE of Bliss
Island, NB
Roseville, PEI
Gloucester, MA
Cape Wolfe, Burton,
PEI
2.1 nm S of Boothbay
Harbor, ME
13 nm S of Port Joli,
NS
Biddeford, ME
Digby, NS
4.4 nm S of Matinicus
Island, ME
2.0 nm SE of Seguin
Island, ME
3.1 nm SW of
Matinicus Island, ME
Bonne Bay, Gros
Morne National Park,
NL
location sensitivity
10.8 nm E of Ocean
City, MD
Verrazano-Narrows
Bridge, State Island,
NY
Stephenville, NL
Manoment Point, MA
Piscataqua River NH /
ME
6.8 nm SE of Bar
Harbor, ME
6.2nm NE of Ellisville,
MA
3.8 nm SE of York,
ME
0.9 nm W of West
Tremont, ME
1.0nm SE of
Narragansett, RI
Rye, NH
9.6 nm S of Harpswell,
ME

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

MT

CN

PT

EN

NS

CN

WE

EN

SIA

CN

UN

EN
EN
EN

MT
MT
MT

CN
US
CN

UN
UN
UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

MT

CN

PT

EN
EN
EN

MT
SI
SIA

US
XC
US

PT
UN
PT

EN

MT

US

UN

EN

MT

US

PT

EN

PR

XC

UN

EN

MT

US

GN

VS

MT

US

EN
EN
EN

SIA
MT
MT

CN
US
US

PT
PT
UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

MT

US

UN

EN

PR

US

UN

EN

MT

US

UN

EN

MT

US

UN

EN
EN

MT
MT

US
US

UN
PT

89

Date

Taxon

8/30/17

Minke

9/4/17

Minke

9/6/17
9/17/17

Minke
Minke

9/26/17

Minke

9/27/17

Minke

10/9/17

Minke

10/10/17

Minke

2/9/18

Minke

5/25/18
6/11/18
6/19/18
6/22/18

Minke
Minke
Minke
Minke

6/24/18
7/7/18

Minke
Minke

7/22/18
7/28/18
8/4/18

Minke
Minke
Minke

8/6/18
8/29/18

Minke
Minke

8/29/18

Minke

9/3/18

Minke

9/16/18

Minke

11/7/18
12/25/18
3/27/19
6/5/19
7/11/19

Minke
Minke
Minke
Minke
Minke

8/1/19

Minke

8/4/19

Minke

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

11.1nm NE of Tignish,
PEI
St. Carroll's, Great
Northern Peninsula,
NL
Newport, RI
Henry Island,
Inverness, NS
12.6nm E of
Richbuctou, NB
5.7nm NE of
Richbuctou, NB
5.9 nm E of
Portsmouth, NH
5.0 nm E of Rockland,
ME
Tiverton, Long Island,
NS
Digby, NS
Cape Dauphin, NS
East Point, PEI
4.5 nm N of Grand
Manan, NB
Wellfleet, MA
1.6 nm E of
Newcastle, NH
Cape Neddick, ME
Biddeford, ME
1.5 nm E of Peaks
Island, ME
Fish Cove Point, NL
7.5 nm SE of
Chatham, MA
1.0 nm W of
Gloucester, MA
Nancy Head,
Campobello, NB
0.7 nm SSE of Rye,
NH
Tangier Island, VA
Yarmouth Bar, NS
Duxbury, MA
Queensland Beach, NS
9.4 nm NE of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
2.2 nm NE of
Rockport, MA
6.0 nm E of Montauk,

EN

MT

CN

UN

EN

MT

CN

NE

VS
EN

MT
MT

US
CN

NE

EN

PR

CN

UN

EN

MT

CN

UN

EN

SIA

US

PT

EN

MT

US

PT

EN

MT

XC

UN

VS
EN
EN
EN

MT
MT
MT
PR

CN
CN
CN
XC

PT
UN
UN

EN
EN

MT
MT

XU
US

GN
PT

EN
EN
EN

MT
MT
SIA

XU
XU
US

UN
UN
PT

EN
EN

PR
PR

CN
XU

NE
UN

EN

SIA

US

UN

EN

MT

CN

EN

MT

US

WE,
SE
PT

EN
EN
EN
EN
EN

MT
MT
MT
MT
NS

XU
XC
US
CN
XU

NE
UN
UN
UN
DE

EN

NS

US

PT

EN

PR

XU

UN

90

Date

Taxon

ID

8/9/19
8/21/19
9/1/19

Minke
Minke
Minke

9/10/19

Minke

9/19/19
2/21/10
5/13/10

Minke
Right
Right

3945/Sharkbait
2470/Killick

5/13/10

Right

2470/Killick

6/27/10

Right

1124/Tips

7/2/10

Right

3901

8/12/10
8/30/10
9/10/10

Right
Right
Right

1113/Trident
3966
1503/Trilogy

10/20/10

Right

3120/Oakley

12/18/10
12/25/10

Right
Right

3140/Lou
3911/Bayla

1/16/11
1/19/11

Right
Right

4023/Wolverine
3010/Binary

1/20/11
1/30/11

Right
Right

3853
3712

2/13/11

Right

3760/Callosity Back

2/13/11

Right

3993

3/16/11
3/17/11

Right
Right

3893

3/27/11
3/27/11
4/8/11
4/22/11

Right
Right
Right
Right

1308
2011 Calf of 1308
3620/Lone Star
3302

4/22/11

Right

4040/Chiminea

4/29/11

Right

3860/Bocce

Location
NY
Rigolet, Labrador
Mer et Monde, QC
31.3 nm SE of
Chatham, MA
0.1 nm N of Mattinicus
Rock, ME
off Burnt Island, ME
off GA
49.7 nm ESE of
Chatham, MA
49.7 nm ESE of
Chatham, MA
37.6 nm E of Cape
May, NJ
26 mi SW of Grand
Manan Island, ME
Digby Neck, NS
Jeffreys Ledge
15.5 nm NE of
Gloucester, MA
22.5 nm ESE of
Portsmouth, NH
Cashes Ledge
14.6 nm SE of
Jacksonville, FL
FL
12.8 nm ENE of St.
Augustine, FL
off South Carolina
10.1 nm E of St.
Augustine, FL
30.2 nm E of
Brunswick, GA
18.4 nm SSE of Tybee
Island, GA
Cape Island, SC
10.3 nm S of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
Nags Head, NC
Nags Head, NC
CCB
9.4 nm SW of Martha's
Vineyard, MA
3.7 nm SE of Long
Point, Provincetown,
MA
CCB

91

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

EN
EN
EN

PR
PR
PR

CN
XC
XU

NE
UN
UN

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN
VS
EN

MT
NS
SIA

US
US
XU

UN

VS

NS

XU

EN

MT

XU

VS

MT

XU

EN
VS
EN

MT
NS
SI

XC
XU
XU

UN

EN

NS

US

GN

VS
EN

NS
MT

XU
XU

PT

VS
EN

NS
NS

XU
US

UN

VS
EN

SI
NS

US
XU

NE

EN

NS

XU

GN

EN

SI

XU

UN

EN
EN

MT
NS

XU
XU

UN
GN

VS
VS
VS
EN

MT
SI
NS
SI

US
US
XU
XU

UN

EN

NS

US

PT

VS

NS

XU

UN

UN

UN

Date

Taxon

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

4/29/11

Right

3123

EN

NS

XU

UN

4/29/11
7/19/11

Right
Right

4092/Flare
4160

EN
EN

NS
NS

XU
XU

UN
UN

8/3/11
9/3/11
9/18/11

Right
Right
Right

4150
2660/Gannet
4090

VS
EN
EN

NS
SI
PR

XU
XC
XU

UN
GN

9/27/11

Right

3111

EN

PR

XC

UN

11/26/11

Right

1331/Trellis

VS

NS

XU

1/7/12

Right

3821/ZigZag

EN

NS

XU

GN

1/17/12
1/19/12

Right
Right

4146
1719

VS
EN

NS
NS

XU
XU

UN

1/26/12
1/26/12
2/15/12

Right
Right
Right

3951/Domino
4091
3996/Calanus

VS
VS
EN

NS
NS
SI

XU
XU
XU

GN

3/4/12
5/4/12
5/18/12
7/19/12

Right
Right
Right
Right

3701/Eros
2460/Monarch
3980

VS
EN
VS
EN

NS
NS
NS
MT

US
XU
US
XC

7/20/12
7/26/12
8/4/12
9/24/12
12/7/12
12/12/12
12/17/12

Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right

3308/Sierra
1820/Cello
1278
3610

EN
EN
EN
EN
VS
EN
EN

NS
NS
NS
SI
PR
NS
MT

XU
XU
XC
XC
US
XU
US

UN
UN
UN
UN

12/17/12
1/29/13
3/7/13
4/8/13
4/27/13
7/12/13

Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right

3942
4540
3692
3705/Checkmark
2160
3123

EN
VS
VS
VS
EN
EN

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
PR

XU
US
US
XU
XU
XU

UN

9/20/13

Right

3946

9.1 nm S of Long
Point, Provincetown,
MA
CCB
Off Race Point, Cape
Cod
Off Provincetown
Gaspe Bay, QC
25.8 nm NE of
Gloucester, MA
Bay of Fundy, 8.9 nm
E of Grand Manan
Island, NB
83 nm E of Portland,
ME
5.1 nm NW of Sesuit
Harbor, MA
St. Augustine, FL
15.5 nm E of St.
Simon's, GA
CCB
CCB
0.5 nm S of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
Cape Cod Bay
Great South Channel
Franklin Basin
Point Rd, Maritime
Beach, Clam Bay, NS
Great South Channel
Cashes Ledge
Gulf of St. Lawrence
Bay of Fundy
Wassaw Island, GA
Cape Cod Bay
2.8 mi off Palm Coast,
FL
SEUS
8 nm off Mayport, FL
off SC
CCB
Mass Bay, MA
55.7 nm ESE of
Virginia Beach, VA
38.1 nm SSE of
Clark's Harbour, NS

EN

NS

XC

UN

3946
4193

92

UN
UN

UN
PT

UN
UN

Date

Taxon

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

9/20/13
12/2/13

Right
Right

1920
3503/Caterpillar

EN
EN

NS
NS

XC
XU

UN
UN

1/15/14

Right

4394

EN

SI

XU

UN

2/16/14

Right

4057/FDR

EN

NS

CN

PT

3/1/14
3/5/14
3/19/14
3/23/14
3/25/14
4/1/14

Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right

2479/Scoliosis
2810
3360/Horton
1203/Senator
1280/Luna
1142/Kleenex

EN
EN
EN
EN
EN
EN

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
SI

XU
XU
XU
XU
XU
XU

UN
UN
UN
UN
UN
UN

4/2/14
4/9/14
4/12/14
6/29/14

Right
Right
Right
Right

3390

EN
VS
EN
EN

NS
PR
NS
NS

XU
US
XU
XC

UN

3293/Porcia
3333

6/29/14

Right

1131/Snowball

EN

SI

XC

UN

9/4/14

Right

4001

EN

SI

XC

UN

9/4/14

Right

EN

MT

XC

UN

9/17/14

Right

EN

SI

XC

UN

9/27/14

Right

EN

MT

US

UN

12/18/14

Right

3670/Cherokee

EN

SI

XU

UN

4/6/15
5/6/15

Right
Right

4370
3999/Braid

EN
VS

SI
NS

XU
US

UN

5/11/15
6/13/15

Right
Right

4545

VS
EN

NS
PR

US
XC

UN

7/10/15

Right

4530

EN

NS

XC

UN

7/18/15

Right

3160/White Cloud

EN

SIA

CN

PT

8/7/15

Right

3229

EN

NS

XC

UN

9/2/15
9/13/15

Right
Right

BK01MB15
1306/Velcro

Roseway Basin
25 nm E of
Fernandina, FL
12 mi E of Ossabaw
Island, GA
38 nm ESE of Amelia
City, FL
Cape Cod Bay
Cape Cod Bay
Cape Cod Bay
Cape Cod Bay
Cape Cod Bay
80 nm SE of Atlantic
City, NJ
Cape Cod Bay
Cape Cod Bay
Cape Cod Bay
100 mi S of Yarmouth,
NS
180 nm E of
Provincetown, MA
7 nm SE of Grand
Manan Island, NB
114 nm SE of Saint
Pierre & Miquelon,
NL
9 nm SE of Grand
Manan, NB
36 nm S of Nantucket,
MA
11 nm E of Sapelo
Sound, GA
Cape Cod Bay
7.0 nm S of Wood
End, Provincetown,
MA
Cape Cod Bay
8.8 nm NW of
Westport, NS
Gulf of St. Lawrence,
QC
2.3 nm E of Ingonish
Ferry, Cape Breton,
NS
35.9 nm SE of Perce,
QC
Plymouth Bay, MA
33.4 nm SE of Cape
Sable Island, NS

VS
EN

NS
NS

US
XC

UN

3279

93

UN
UN

Date

Taxon

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

9/13/15
9/28/15

Right
Right

1327/Scoop

EN
EN

NS
PR

XC
XU

UN
UN

11/29/15
1/29/16
3/1/16
3/8/16
5/3/16
5/19/16

Right
Right
Right
Right
Right
Right

3140/Lou
1968/Quatro
4140/Casper
3229
4681
3791/Truffula

EN
EN
EN
EN
VS
EN

SI
SI
NS
NS
MT
SI

XU
XU
XU
XU
US
XU

UN
UN
UN
UN

7/26/16
8/1/16
8/1/16
8/13/16

Right
Right
Right
Right

1427
2608
3323
4057/FDR

EN
EN
EN
EN

SI
NS
SI
SI

XC
XC
XC
CN

UN
UN
UN
PT

8/16/16

Right

1152/Necklace

EN

PR

XC

UN

8/28/16

Right

2608

EN

SI

XC

UN

8/31/16
9/22/16

Right
Right

4320
3823/Sundog

EN
EN

MT
SIA

CN
US

PT
PT

9/23/16

Right

3694

EN

MT

CN

PT

12/4/16

Right

3405/Fuse

EN

PR

XU

NE

12/20/16

Right

2760

EN

NS

XU

UN

1/5/17

Right

3530/Ruffian

EN

SIA

CN

PT

4/13/17
4/23/17

Right
Right

4694
4146

VS
EN

MT
NS

US
US

UN

6/19/17
6/21/17
6/23/17
6/27/17

Right
Right
Right
Right

1402/Glacier
3603/Starboard
1207
1820/Cello

VS
EN
VS
EN

MT
MT
MT
NS

CN
CN
CN
XC

UN

7/4/17

Right

3139/Diablo

EN

SI

XU

UN

7/5/17

Right

4510

EN

SIA

CN

PT

7/6/17
7/8/17

Right
Right

1317/Ergo

Roseway Basin, NS
22.2 nm E of Cape
Elizabeth, ME
6.4 nm E of Truro, MA
Jupiter Inlet, FL
Cape Cod Bay, MA
Cape Cod Bay, MA
Morris Island, MA
20.2 nm E of Chatham,
MA
Gulf of St Lawrence
Bay of Fundy, CAN
Bay of Fundy, CAN
3.25 nm E of Grand
Manan Island, Canada
2.0 nm S of Baccaro,
NS
5.2 nm N of Brier
Island, NS
Sable Island, CAN
6.5 nm N of Race
Point, Provincetown,
MA
6.5 nm SE of Seguin
Island, ME
3.5 nm E of Sandy
Hook, NJ
Massachusetts Bay,
MA
17.6 nm E of
Cumberland Island,
GA
Cape Cod Bay, MA
2.9 nm W of Truro,
MA
Gulf of St. Lawrence
Gulf of St. Lawrence
Gulf of St. Lawrence
46.0 nm SE of SainteMarie Saint-Raphael,
NB
1.5 nm S of Nantucket,
MA
37.9 nm SE of SainteMarie Saint-Raphael,
NB
Gulf of St. Lawrence
22.3 nm E of SainteMarie Saint-Raphael,

VS
EN

MT
NS

CN
CN

PT

94

UN

PT

Date

Taxon

ID

7/9/17

Right

4123

7/19/17

Right

4094/Mayport

7/19/17
7/24/17

Right
Right

2140/Peanut
G048

7/29/17

Right

1971/Nantucket

8/6/17

Right

8/28/17

Right

3245/Zion

9/15/17
10/23/17

Right
Right

4504

1/22/18

Right

3893

2/13/18
2/15/18

Right
Right

1817/Silt
3296

2/24/18
3/1/18
5/12/18

Right
Right
Right

3823/Sundog
4145
4091

7/11/18
7/13/18

Right
Right

4612
3312

7/21/18
7/30/18

Right
Right

4601/Gully
3843

8/20/18

Right

3960

8/25/18

Right

4505

10/14/18

Right

3515

12/1/18

Right

3208

12/20/18

Right

2310

12/27/18

Right

3950

2/20/19

Right

4615

Location
NB
22.5nm E of SainteMarie Saint-Raphael,
NB
26.5nm SE of SainteMarie Saint-Raphael,
NB
Gulf of St. Lawrence
14.9 nm E of SainteMarie Saint-Raphael,
NB
22.2 nm E of SainteMarie Saint-Raphael,
NB
Martha's Vineyard,
MA
37.7nm SE of Gaspe,
QC
Gulf of St. Lawrence
Nashawena Island,
MA
55 nm E of Virginia
Beach, VA
CCB
33 nm off Jekyll
Island, GA
CCB
CCB
53.7 nm SE of
Chatham, MA
GSL
30.7 nm NE of SainteMarie Saint-Raphel,
NB
GSL
13.2 nm E of Grand
Manan Island, NB
43.1 nm ESE of
Chandler, NB
10.4 nm S of Martha's
Vineyard, MA
100 nm E of
Nantucket, MA
30.8 nm S of
Nantucket, MA
28.5 nm SE of
Nantucket, MA
16.3 nm S of
Nantucket, MA
CCB

95

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

EN

SIA

CN

PT

EN

SI

CN

PT

VS
EN

MT
NS

CN
XC

UN

EN

NS

XC

UN

EN

MT

XU

UN

EN

NS

CN

UN

EN
EN

MT
MT

CN
XU

PT
UN

EN

MT

CN

PT

EN
EN

NS
SI

XU
XU

UN
UN

EN
VS
EN

NS
NS
NS

XU
XU
US

UN

VS
EN

SI
PR

XC
CN

UN

EN
EN

NS
PR

XC
XC

UN
UN

EN

NS

CN

UN

EN

MT

XU

UN

EN

MT

XU

UN

EN

SI

XU

UN

EN

PR

XU

UN

EN

NS

XU

UN

EN

NS

XU

UN

UN

Date

Taxon

ID

Location

Cause

Fate

Country
of Origin

Gear
Type

4/25/19

Right

4423

EN

SIA

XU

UN

6/4/19

Right

4023/Wolverine

VS

MT

CN

6/7/19

Right

3510

EN

NS

XC

6/20/19

Right

1281/Punctuation

VS

MT

CN

6/25/19

Right

1514/Comet

VS

MT

CN

6/27/19

Right

3450/Clipper

VS

MT

CN

6/29/19

Right

4440

EN

SIA

XC

UN

7/4/19

Right

3125

EN

SI

CN

PT

8/6/19

Right

1226/Snake Eyes

EN

MT

CN

UN

12/21/19

Right

3466

25.4 nm E of Orleans,
MA
46.4 nm ESE of Perce,
QC
67.8 nm ESE of Perce,
QC
27.3 nm E of
Magdalen Islands, QC
20.3 nm E of Miscou
Island, QC
37.4 nm E of Perce,
QC
24.2 nm E of Miscou
Island, NB
35.2 nm E of Perce,
QC
36.4 nm NW of Iles de
la Madeleine, NS
20.3 nm S of
Nantucket, MA

EN

NS

XU

UN

96

UN

CHAPTER 3 APPENDICES
Appendix 3.1 Decision Support Tool Model Documentation:
Version 3.1.0
1.
Introduction and Overview. The Right Whale Decision Support Tool was built to assist
managers, decision makers, and stakeholders with visualizing and understanding spatiotemporal
overlap between lobster fishing gear and North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) distributions in
the US, New England area and to model how risk of entanglement to NARW may change as a
result of changes to the spatial distribution and configuration of lobster gear. Within the model,
risk posed to the NARW population is calculated as the product of: (1) the density of vertical
lines associated with lobster traps at a given location, (2) the threat vertical lines pose to NARW
given the configuration of the lobster gear, relative to alternative gear configurations, and (3) the
density of NARW expected at the given location. The DST is partially based on the Vertical Line
Model (VLM) and Co-Occurrence Model developed by Integrated Economics (IEc,
indecon.com) for NOAA since 2004. Many of the inputs to the DST that are comparable to the
VLM have a similar format and maintain some backwards-compatibility for the purpose of datasharing.
Similar to the IEc co-occurrence model, the DST quantifies risk as the geographic overlap of
vertical lines and whale density, with an added allowance for varying levels of threat associated
with different gear configurations. Thus, the DST does not attempt to incorporate more complex
location- or situation-specific variables that may lead to severe entanglements including whale
behavior (transiting vs feeding), adjacent gear density, or how environmental conditions affect
the characteristics of vertical lines in the water, including line tension and orientation. While we
have reason to believe that these factors are important, empirical data on these factors are
generally insufficient to include in modeling at this time. Unlike the IEc models, the DST does
not currently quantify the length of groundline attributed to lobster traps and associated threat to
whales, though this may be incorporated in the future (Hamilton and Kraus 2019).
The DST further includes a capacity for users to test different management scenarios and get
feedback on how a management scenario changed the spatial distribution and gear configurations
of the lobster fishery. The DST was first introduced to the ALWTRT in April 2019 and has been
further revised and expanded since this time based on feedback from stakeholders and CIE
reviewers, management needs and the availability of additional data.
The spatial extent of the DST is comparable to the domain of the IEc vertical line model (Figure
2.1.a, Figure 2.1.b) and includes Lobster Management Areas (LMAs) 1, 2, the 2/3 Overlap,
Outer Cape Cod (OCC), and much of LMA 3. This domain covers the vast majority of the US
American Lobster Fishery including the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank and much of the Southern
New England lobster fishery. Other lobster management areas, including inshore and offshore
areas off Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware are not included as the
lobster fisheries are much smaller in these areas, resulting in low gear densities, and Right Whale
presence in these areas are expected to be very low with the exception of whales migrating to or
from calving grounds further south along the US coast.

97

2.
Information Flow. The DST is a deterministic series of calculations. All parameter
estimation occurs outside the tool in submodels that have been previously constructed. Flow of
information is one-way as shown in Figure 2.1 and narrated below.
2.1.

The initial density of traps by location and month is loaded into the model.

2.2.

User-inputs specify the spatial domain and fishery “fleet” to be tracked resulting in…

2.3.
A constrained map of trap densities by month. At this step, the tool creates two copies of
these “maps” and subsequently builds two data sets in parallel; a “Default” run and a “Scenario”
run. The Default run has all submodels applied to it, sequentially changing traps into trawls,
endlines, rope strengths, gear threats and whale risks. The Scenario run has the same submodels
applied to it but is further modified by user specified management measures that affect the
number of traps, trawl lengths, endlines, and rope strengths.
2.4.

User specified inputs remove traps, implement trap caps, and spatial closures.

2.5.
In the event of closures, redistribution rules can be implemented to move traps to
adjacent areas….
2.6.

Resulting in an updated spatial and temporal distribution of traps.

2.7.

Representative number of traps in a trawl are included based on existing data.

2.8.

Trawl length is further modified based on user-inputs.

2.9.

Resulting in calculated trawl length by location and month.

2.10.

Number of traps and trawl lengths are combined to calculate the number of trawls.

2.11. Endlines (either 1 or 2) are assigned to trawls based on trawl length. This is usually a
simple rule like “trawls with more than five traps have two endlines.”
2.12.

Endlines per trawl are further modified by user input.

2.13.

Resulting in total endlines by location and month.

2.14. Based on trawl length, appropriate distributions of rope diameters and resulting rope
strengths are calculated.
2.15.

Rope strength is further modified by user input.

2.16.

Resulting in distributions of rope strength by location and month.

2.17.

A gear threat model assigns threat scores to ropes based on rope strength.

98

2.18.

Resulting in gear threat scores by location and month.

2.19. A whale abundance / distribution model is used to get whale densities by location and
month.
2.20. Final risk values are calculated as the product of gear threat per endline, density of
endlines, and density of whales.
The results of the Default and Scenario runs are then be compared to understand the approximate
effectiveness of proposed management measures.
3.
Basic Software Architecture. The current version of the DST is coded in the R language
and is intended to be run from an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) like RStudio,
Jupyter, or Notepad++. The DST code is written as an R function that is loaded into the
workspace and then called from a script where the user is able to specify inputs and
configurations for a model run including:
3.1.

Function arguments:

3.1.1. Home directory: the parent directory for the DST function as well as standard
subdirectories for other inputs and outputs.
3.1.2. InputSpreadsheetName: The name of a user-built .csv file that is contains the userdefined management actions to be included in the model run (Figure 2.1, right column).
3.1.3. TrapMapName: the filename of the TrapMap (spatio-temporal distribution of traps) to be
used for the model run; 2.1 above.
3.1.4. WhaleInputModel: Filename of the whale density model to be used in the model run;
2.19 above.
3.1.5. TrawlLengthModelName: Filename of the desired trawl length model to be used; 2.7
above. No longer specified as it is loaded simultaneously with the TrapMap.
3.1.6. TrawlRopeStrengthModel: Modeled rope strength as a function of trawl length.
3.1.7. RopeStrengthResolution: Numeric; resolution at which rope strength should be modeled.
Current inputs support resolutions up to 100lb increments. Higher resolutions dramatically
increase memory use and model run time while low resolutions create model artifacts. 500lb
increments seem like a reasonable compromise for most cases.
3.1.8. ThreatModel: Filename of the gear threat model to be used; 2.17 above.

99

3.1.9. UpdateEndlineStrength: Boolean (true / false) if endline strengths should be recalculated
after trawl lengths are manipulated. This was added for cases where fishers are not expected to
change endline strength in response to changing trawl lengths.
3.1.10. CoOccurrence: Boolean if the model should be run without applying a threat model.
3.1.11. TestScenario: Boolean if a Scenario should be performed in addition to the Default run.
Sometimes the model is being run to examine spatiotemporal distributions and interactions of
factors and there is no Scenario being tested. In this circumstance, not performing the Scenario
run is a way to cut down on model run time.
3.1.12. HighResolution: Boolean if the model should be run in high- or low-resolution mode.
While the primary spatial inputs to the model are stored at 1NM resolution, there is the option to
aggregate data to a 10NM resolution, which drastically decreased model run time and required
computing capacity at the cost of lost resolution and spatial averaging.
3.1.13. PrintTables: Boolean; should the summarized output from the model run be written to a
pdf file after the model run?
3.1.14. PrintDefaultMaps: Boolean; should the maps accompanying the Default model run be
included in output. Can be set to FALSE to decrease processing time if these maps are not
desired.
3.1.15. PrintScenarioMaps: Boolean; should the maps accompanying the Scenario model run be
included in output. Can be set to FALSE to decrease processing time if these maps are not
desired.
3.1.16. PrintRedistributionMaps: Boolean; if traps are relocated as a result of a spatial closure,
should the maps showing the redistribution of maps be included in output.
3.1.17. WriteMapSources: Boolean; should R-objects used to produce Default and Scenario
maps be written to an .Rdata file? This is useful if one wants to generate maps with a
presentation different than that provided by the tool.
3.1.18. WriteOutputCSV: Boolean; should the summarized output from the model run be written
to a .csv file for later use?
3.1.19. WriteDetailedOutput: Boolean; should all major R-objects generated in a model run be
written to an .Rdata file for later analysis? Option to save on model run time and memory space
used by model output. Detailed output for model runs at high resolution and / or large spatial
extents can exceed 10Gb of drive space.
3.2.
Once the function is called, the IDE provides status messages and warning messages for
non-fatal issues encountered. Upon successful completion of a model run, all output is written to
a new directory in a designated location for review.

100

4.
Model Inputs, User Inputs and SubModels. The DST has a modular design, consisting of
several inputs that are used to initialize a model run and a number of submodels that are used
within a model run to perform necessary calculations and transformations. These inputs and
submodels are built outside the DST and can be readily substituted for alternative inputs and
submodels at the time the model is run.
4.1.
Trap and Vertical Line Densities. One of the primary inputs to the DST is a data layer
with the density of lobster traps throughout the domain of the model at a 1 NM spatial and
monthly resolution; i.e. a “TrapMap”. The TrapMap with co-located information on trawl length
is the basis for calculating vertical line density at the same spatial and temporal resolution.
Despite being one of the most valuable fisheries in the US, data that allow quantifying fishing
effort at fine spatial scales is generally lacking as there are no Vessel Monitoring System
requirements and trip reports for vessels fishing state waters generally only record fishing
regions. For vessels with federal permits, there is currently no trip reporting requirement for the
lobster fishery, though many of the larger vessels carry groundfish permits that require trip
reporting, in which case they report a set of “representative coordinates” for each statistical area
fished on each trip. As a result, the spatial distribution of traps and gear configurations is built
using location-specific methods for different states and the offshore fishery.
The density and distribution of traps as well as trawl configurations for inshore LMAs (1, 2, 2/3
Overlap and OCC) were adopted from the IEc Vertical Line Model model (IEc REF). A similar
model of trap densities and trawl lengths had been produced by IEc for offshore Area 3.
However, a different approach was employed for the current version of the DST, parameterized
from data from federal Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) and Northeast Fishery Observer Program
(NEFOP) data in an attempt to better capture spatial variations in fishing effort and vertical line
densities.
4.1.1. IEc Vertical Line Model. DST inputs for trap densities and trawl lengths for LMA 1, 2,
the 2/3 Overlap, and OCC come from the IEc Vertical Line Model. In general, the area adjacent
to each state within the inshore LMAs is divided into finer-scale polygons and data values are
assumed to be homogeneous within them. Based on harvester reporting or surveys, “vessel
classes” are identified within a region, based on trap allocations and trawl configurations. For
each subregion, the number of traps represented by each vessel class is estimated from the
number of active vessels represented by a given vessel class and the trap allocation of that vessel
type (NMFS Co-Occurrence Model 2019).
4.1.1.1.
Maine Traps and Vertical Lines. For Maine, the subregions are defined based on
Maine’s seven lobster management zones and distance from shore including exempt state waters,
non-exempt state waters, federal waters 3-6 miles from shore, federal waters 6-12 miles from
shore and federal waters 12+ miles shore (Figure 4.1.1.1.a). Number of active vessels were
determined based on permitting and landings data. Unique vessel classes, number of traps fished
and traps per trawl were based on an annual mail-based survey of lobstermen.
4.1.1.2.
New Hampshire Traps and Vertical Lines: The relatively small area of state
waters for New Hampshire are identified explicitly in the IEc model but federally-permitted

101

vessels fishing out of New Hampshire are intermixed with federal vessels from Maine and
Massachusetts. Number of active vessels, vessel classes, traps fished, and trawl lengths were
calculated based on harvester reporting.
4.1.1.3.
Massachusetts Traps and Vertical Lines For Massachusetts, fishing activity is
spatially modeled at the scale of Statistical Reporting Areas (SRAs, figure 4.1.1.3.a) and include
the southern portion of LMA1, OCC, eastern LMA2 and the 2/3 overlap. Number of active
vessels, vessel classes, traps fished and trawl lengths were calculated from trip-level and annual
reporting.
4.1.1.4.
Rhode Island Traps and Vertical Lines. Rhode Island provided the data for the
western portion of LMA 2, covering the extent of Statistical Area 539 (Figure 4.1.1.4.a).
Harvester logbook data allowed for spatially dividing this area into state waters, federal waters
between 3 and 12 miles from shore and federal waters greater than 12 miles from shore. The
logbook data was also used to calculate number of vessels and define vessel classes, fishing
effort, and trawl configurations.
4.1.2. Vertical line model for offshore LMA 3. Lobster vessels fishing in the offshore LMA3 do
not submit to state logbook reporting programs. While federal lobster vessels are not required to
file federal Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs), most lobster vessels in LMA3 do have VTR
requirements due to other permits the vessels carry. However, the federal VTR was designed for
mobile gear and, thus, collects minimal data on fixed gear configurations.
IEc previously built a vertical line model for LMA3 based on coordinates reported on VTRs,
with fishing effort from vessels without trip reporting spread homogeneously over the region.
Because lobstermen often reuse the same set of coordinates for long periods of time, the result
was an unrealistically patchy distribution of fishing effort with many areas of known offshore
lobster habitat showing little or no effort. Further, trawl configurations and seasonality were
largely informed by expert advice rather than empirical data.
We attempt to improve on this using a combination of observer data, landings, and federal VTRs.
Observer data provides gear configurations and catch-per-trap. This observer data, combined
with dealer landings are used to estimate total vertical lines. Finally, coordinates from VTRs,
combined with a bathymetry map are used to spatially allocate fishing effort across lobster
habitat. The offshore pot/trap fishery in this area actually consists of two overlapping fisheries:
American lobster and Jonah crab (Cancer borealis). Both species are fished with lobster pots
with only minor differences in gear modifications. Vessels with federal lobster permits can freely
target either species and vessels, particularly in Southern New England, often switch between
species seasonally, though several vessels now fish Jonah crab almost exclusively. Because the
Jonah crab fishery is more spatially and seasonally constrained, we model the two fisheries
separately in the DST to better understand if management measures would affect the two
fisheries differently. Also, through visual examination of the distributions of fishing effort and
observer data, we identify two general vessel classes for the offshore fishery, one for larger
~60’+ “Offshore” vessels that conduct longer, multi-day trips to the edge of the continental shelf,
Georges Bank, and the Gulf of Maine along the Hague line and a class of smaller “MidShelf”

102

vessels that tend to fish single-day trips on the continental shelf, Great South Channel and central
Gulf of Maine, and model them separately.
4.1.2.1.
Gear characterization and catch rates from observer data. Federal fisheries
observers with the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program record detailed haul-level data and
observations on fishing activities including catch rates, trawl lengths, soak times, vertical line
diameters. Because there is no federal mandate to place observers on federal fishing vessels,
there is very little dedicated observer effort in this area. However, there was additional observer
effort in 2014 and 2015, partially funded by a grant for a tagging study of lobsters in this region
and partially due to a need to document groundfish bycatch rates (Table 4.1.2.1.a). While this is
not a large data set, we use it to inform the model inputs where possible.
We estimate the number of vertical lines by stat area and month by:
VerticalLines(Stat, Month) = Landings(Stat, Month) / CatchPerVerticalLine(Stat, Month)
Where Landings by Stat Area and Month come from dealer reports that include vessels that don’t
have VTR requirements. Catch per vertical Line is estimated as:
CatchPerVerticalLine(Stat, Month) = CatchPerTrawl(Stat, Month) * EndlinesPerTrawl(Stat, Month) *
TrawlHaulsPerMonth(Stat, Month)
Where

CatchPerTrawl(Stat, Month) = CatchPerTrap(Stat, Month) * TrapsPerTrawl(Stat, Month)

4.1.2.2.
Catch Per Trap. Retained catch is recorded by observers on a per-trawl basis
rather than a per-trap basis. Because we wanted to build our model up from traps, we first
divided the retained catch per trawl by the number of traps in the trawl, then modeled individual
trap CPUE with one data point per trawl observed. Lobster CPUE was estimated using a General
Additive Mixed-Effect Model assuming a Gamma error distribution and vessels and trips as
nested random effects. Seasonal variation was included in the model as a cyclical spline with
separate intercepts for fleet and statistical areas (Figure 4.1.2.2.a). Individual data points were
weighted by the square-root of the trawl length to account for the decreased variability in CPUE
associated with longer trawls.
The same model was used for Jonah crabs except that only core statistical areas of the Jonah
fishery (537, 525, and 526) had sufficient data to support this level of complexity. Trap CPUE
for the remaining statistical areas, where less data were available and there is less effort and
landings, were estimated as the average CPUE from the three core statistical areas (Figure
4.1.2.2.a).
4.1.2.3.
Trawl Hauls Per Month The number of times that a trawl was hauled in a month
was calculated by modeling the duration between trawl hauls (soak time) and dividing the
number of days in a month by estimated soak time. Both lobsters and Jonah crabs were modeled
using a using a General Additive Mixed-Effect Model assuming a Gamma error distribution with
vessels and trips as nested random effects. Seasonality was modeled as a cyclical spline with
separate intercepts for fleet and statistical area. The resulting predicted soak times (Figure
4.1.2.3.a) where then used to estimate hauls per month (Figure 4.1.2.3.b).

103

4.1.2.4.
Traps Per Trawl. We estimated the number of traps per trawl for the lobster
fishery using linear models with separate intercepts for statistical areas and fleets with vessels
and trips as nested random factors (Figure 4.1.2.4.a). For Jonah crabs, the data only supported
estimating a grand mean with vessel and trips as nested random factors. For both the lobster and
crab fishery, there was insufficient evidence of seasonal changes in trawl length to include a
temporal variable.
4.1.2.5.
Total LMA3 Vertical Lines. Total vertical lines in LMA3, as calculated above
closely matched the aggregate line estimates from the IEc model (Table 4.1.2.5.a), which is
reassuring with both estimates comparable to estimates provided by industry. Interannual range
in marginally higher for the updated model and higher than would be expected, given that most
of this gear is part of a year-round fishery, which suggests that the model could be improved with
additional data. We chose to use this updated model going forward as it allowed for modeling the
two fisheries separately and provided realistic spatial and temporal variations in gear
characteristics.
4.1.2.6.
Spatial distribution of effort in LMA3. We used the above estimates of vertical
lines by statistical area and month, combined with VTR reported coordinates and a bathymetry
layer to spatially allocate effort in LMA3, based on the observation that fishing effort tends to be
oriented along isobaths but moves about seasonally. We binned the bathymetry map into 50m
intervals and used spatial overlay to get the bathymetry bin associated with landings from VTR.
We then summed landings across trip reports by depth bins, statistical area and month to get the
proportion of landings represented by each depth bin within a statistical area and month (Figures
4.1.2.6.a, Figure 4.1.2.6.b). We then applied these proportions to the number of vertical lines to
get lines by depth bin and distributed these lines homogeneously across the depth bin within the
statistical area, based on the bathymetry map (Figure 4.1.2.6.c, Figure 4.1.2.5.d). While some
modeling artifacts are evident in these maps, we consider this more realistic than distributing
gear and vertical lines based solely on raw VTR coordinates or a homogeneous spread across the
entire statistical area.
4.1.3. The resulting final input of trap density and default line density model for the DST are
shown in Figures 4.1.3.a and 4.1.3.b.
4.2.
User-defined spatial and fleet filter. When setting up a DST run, users have the option to
specify which fleets will be included or excluded from the model run and specify a spatial
constraint. For inshore LMAs, fleet options include state exempted waters, state non-exempted
waters, and federal waters. For the offshore LMA3, the fleet options include the MidShelf vs
Offshore fleet and Lobster vs Jonah Crab fishery. Spatial constraints can be specified by any
combination of State, LMA, Statistical Area or a user-provided shapefile. Only traps associated
with the specified fleet and falling within the specified spatial region are retained for the
remainder of the model run.
4.3.
Trap removal models. During Scenario runs, users can specify three different types of
management actions that affect the number and distribution of traps in the model; general trap
removals, implementation of new trap caps, and spatial closures.

104

4.3.1. Trap removal. Trap removals are specified by percentage and can be spatially constrained
by state, LMA, statistical area, or shapefile. Within the specified domain, the given percentage of
traps are evenly removed from the Scenario run. This option does not assume any particular
method by which traps are removed.
4.3.2. Trap Caps. Trap caps operate by lowering the maximum number of traps that individual
fisherman are allowed to fish. The submodel for trap caps is built from vessel reports where
fishermen have reported the total number of traps being actively fished. A separate trap cap
model is produced for each spatial region and month.
At the time of writing, trap caps are only an option for Maine LMA1 state and nearshore waters
with spatial models for Maine’s seven lobster zones and distances of <3, 3-12, and 12+ miles
from shore. Data for the number of traps fished come from Maine’s harvester reporting, which
includes a 10% subset of lobster license holders in any given year. For each individual lobster
license holder and month, we calculate the average number of reported traps fished. For each
license type, spatial region and month, we then assemble the fishermen who reported any fishing
and calculate a cumulative quantile curve of the number of traps being fished. For any case
where data are not available for any combination of license type, region and month, quantile
profiles are first borrowed across lobster zone, then month as is necessary to fill all cases. Each
of the quantile profiles are then weighted across license type by the proportion of active fishers
with that license type, based on dealer reporting, to create a general quantile profile for a zone,
distance from shore, and month. Figure 4.3.2.a shows an example set of quantile profiles for
Maine Zone B. Given that the area under each curve represent 100% of traps fished, the
proportion of traps that would be retained with the implementation of a trap cap can be
calculated as the total area under both the quantile curve and horizontal line defining the trap
cap, divided by the total area under the quantile curve. This method assumes that, as a fisher
reduces the number of traps fished, traps are removed equally over the area they are fishing (i.e.
a federally permitted fisher with traps in both 3-12 mile and 12+ mile regions will not remove all
affected traps only from the 12+ region), rather than a fisher shrinking the footprint of their
operation. The entire TrapCap model for Maine is depicted in Figure 4.3.2.b.
4.3.3. Spatial Closures. Spatial closures are specified via a shapefile and temporally by month
or month range. It is further possible to apply a percentage to a closure, specifying what portion
of the gear should be removed, which roughly approximates a closure for a portion of a month.
With the specification of a closure, the affected traps within the closure are identified and the
model attempts to redistribute these traps to adjacent areas. The actual industry response to a
closure would be idiosyncratic and difficult to predict but a crude model is currently employed in
some attempt to depict the displacement of gear.
First, the adjacent areas where gear can be moved to are identified based on a basic set of rules
whereby traps cannot move between federal and state waters under the assumption the affected
fishers may not have a permit to fish in these areas. Further, the adjacent areas available to trap
redistribution is limited to be more realistic and to speed computing time. For example, in Maine,
gear cannot move beyond the adjacent lobster zone to reflect management rules on how much
gear can be fished outside a fisher’s “home” zone. For Massachusetts and Rhode Island, gear can

105

be redistributed anywhere within the same LMA. For offshore LMA3, each statistical area has a
pre-identified set of adjacent statistical area that were judged to be within a reasonable
neighborhood.
Second, the pair-wise distances are calculated between all traps inside the perimeter of the
closure and adjacent traps inside the closure. The “cost” of moving traps to any adjacent pixel is
then assumed to be a linear function of the total distance a trap would have to be moved to the
adjacent pixel calculated as the summed distance between traps inside the closure and the
distance to the adjacent pixel. The cost associated with each adjacent pixel is then weighted by
the quality of lobster habitat in that pixel, measured as the density of traps already in the pixel.
The weighted cost at each pixel is then divided by the summed weighted cost for all pixels and
multiplied by the total traps to be moved to get the number of traps redistributed to each pixel.
Figure 4.3.3.a shows a diagram illustrating this process. Figure 4.3.3.b shows an example of
redistributed traps given the closure of the Canyons and Seamounts National Monument.
4.4.
Traps Per Trawl Model and Number of Trawls To convert traps to trawls, the DST uses a
different approach for inshore and offshore LMAs. For inshore LMAs, the DST uses the number
of traps in a trawl from the IEc model, given the location and vessel class associated with the
traps. For offshore LMA3, The DST uses the statistical model outlined in 4.1.2.4. The number of
trawls at a location is then calculated based on the number of traps in a trawl and the number of
traps at a location. For a management scenario, users can further specify a minimum, maximum
or exact number of traps to occur in a trawls for a location and time period and the trawl length is
truncated appropriately and the resulting number of trawls recalculated accordingly. Figure 4.4.a
shows the mean trawl length for a default model run.
4.5.
Endlines Per Trawl Model Based on the number of traps in a trawl and the trawl location,
the number of endlines on each trawl (one or two) and total endlines at location are then
calculated. For New Hampshire, trawls with three or less traps have one endline. In all other
locations, trawls with four or less traps are assumed to have one endline. All other trawls have
two endlines. For a management scenario, users can further specify the maximum trawl length
that has a single endline.
Users are also able to implement ropeless fishing scenarios within specified spatial regions and
time via either acoustic release buoys or timed tension release buoys. Buoys associated with
ropeless fishing will presumably spend some period of time at the surface but exact numbers are
hard to provide as this is still largely untested technology. Thus, we currently use the modelestimated mean results from the TRT Opinion Poll (Section 4.7.1) which allows for an 88%
reduction in lines for acoustic releases and a 52% and 46% reduction in lines for timed releases
inside and outside of 12 miles offshore respectively. Figure 4.5.a shows the density of endlines
for a default model run.
4.6.
Line Diameter and Rope Strength Model The DST attempts to quantify how gear
configuration contributes to entanglement risk for Right Whales. In early versions of the DST,
gear threat was based on both rope diameter and trawl length as primary factors. Because the
breaking strength of rope is considered a one of the biggest contributors to entanglements that
result in severe injury or death and the observed high variability in rope strength at a given rope

106

diameter, DST version >2.0.0 captures gear threat entirely on estimated rope strength with other
aspects of gear configurations to be added at a future time. However, our primary data source on
the relationship between trawl length and endline characteristics comes from the NEFOP
observer data which only recorded rope diameter. Thus, calculating the rope strength associated
with trawl lengths requires first characterizing the distribution of rope diameters observed for a
given trawl length and then deriving a relationship between rope diameter and rope strength.
4.6.1. Predicted Rope Diameter from Trawl Length. For each observed trawl, observers
recorded the trawl length and endline diameter. To characterize the expected distribution of rope
diameters for a given trawl length, we truncated the rope diameter data at 5/16” and 3/4” to
remove a few outliers, rescaled the rope diameters a range of zero to one, and fit the data to a
logistic regression (Figure 4.6.1.a, Figure 4.6.1b).
4.6.2. Predicted Rope Strength from Rope Diameter. Data on the breaking strength of ropes
from the lobster fishery came from two sources. Knowlton et al. (2016) acquired samples of rope
taken from whale entanglement events and tested their breaking strengths. Data from these ropes
are further characterized by polymer and fiber type, the condition of the rope (five levels: Very
Good to Very Poor), if the rope was leaded, and the test type used to determine breaking strength
(whole rope vs. individual fibers). The Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) provided
an additional data set from a recent study where lobstermen voluntarily submitted samples of
endline for testing. This data was further characterized by age (number of seasons fished), and a
descriptor of the rope segment (clear line, joined by a splice, or joined by a knot). To maximize
the size of the data set, we looked to match as many of the attributes between the two data sets as
possible.
For the data from Knowlton, we noted from residual analysis that rope condition at five levels
had a remarkably linear trend. Thus we recoded this attribute with numeric values from one to
five and treated this as a continuous variable comparable to age for the DMR data. Second, we
quantified the storage effect as the number of years between collection and observation, using
Jan. 1, 2015 as a best-guess test date, resulting in a mean storage time of 12.2 years (range 4.6 to
20.1 years). Storage was not a large effect in the final model so this assumption of test date has
minimal effect on outcomes. Finally, we coded all data as “clear” rope samples. Unfortunately,
rope material was not available for much of the DMR data, so material type was dropped from
the Knowlton data set. For the DMR data, we assumed the rope was not leaded and a storage
time of 1 year.
With the combined data set, the best linear model included (1) a rope diameter interaction with
section type (clear, spliced or knotted), (2) and interaction between rope age and source (DMR
vs Knowlton) to capture the different metrics of age between the data sources, (3) test type as a
factor (whole rope or rope fiber), and storage time as a continuous variable, with a log-normal
error distribution. Final model r-square was 0.58 with 290 degrees of freedom. As expected, rope
diameter was the strongest predictor of breaking strength, increasing in breaking strength by
32.6% per 1/16th inch (Figure 4.6.2.a, 4.6.2.b). Splices and knots in ropes are predicted to
decrease breaking strength by 22.5% and 39.3% respectively and rope is predicted to weaken at a
rate of 4.4% annually when fished and 1.1% annually when stored, though this storage effect
also accounts for changes in rope technology and tends to be an unstable parameter estimate.

107

Finally, to characterize the expected age distribution of ropes in use by the fishery, it was
necessary to model the rate at which endlines are lost or replaced to get the proportion of rope at
each age in the “rope population”. As empirical data on this was not readily available,
collaborators at Maine DMR observed that fishermen have a 10% loss allowance for lobster traps
that seem to be similar to the actual rate of gear loss and that, of the samples submitted for
strength testing and slated for removal, most were between 3 and 6 years of age. Thus, we
assume 10% stochastic removal rate of endlines due to loss and the mean age of removal at 4.5
years with a standard deviation of 1. The product of these two curves (Figure 4.6.2.c) results in
the distribution of rope ages one would expect to observe in the fishery and can be used to
predict rope strength.
4.6.3. Predicted Rope Strength from Trawl Length To obtain distributions of rope strength
given trawl length, we created 1,000 random draws from the predicted rope diameter distribution
for each trawl length, matched each with an appropriate random draw from the age distribution,
and used this to predict a mean rope breaking strength using the statistical model from 4.6.2, then
added a random draw from the rope strength model error distribution. We then binned the
calculated rope strengths from each trawl length into to 100-pound bins and calculated
proportions represented by each bin. Resulting distributions are strongly right-skewed,
particularly for short trawl lengths where both the rope diameters and rope strength distributions
are right-skewed. Single-pot trawls, for example have a median breaking strength of 2,000 lbs
but a range from less than 1,000 to greater than 5,000 lbs (Figure 4.6.3.a). As expected, longer
trawls are predicted to have endlines that break at much higher loads with median breaking
strength for a 50-pot trawl around 7,000 lbs (Figure 4.6.3.b). As a management action, users are
able to specify a maximum rope breaking strength seasonally and spatially in scenarios.
4.7.
Gear Threat Model Much of the interest in this tool is to provide some quantitative
analysis of how changes in gear configurations (rope strength, trawl length, buoyless fishing,
etc.) can contribute to decreasing risk to whales. However, quantitative data is largely lacking on
the relationship between gear configuration and the probability of causing a severe injury or
mortality. Notably, Knowlton et al. (2016) examined the breaking strength of ropes retrieved
from entanglement mortalities or disentanglement events and observed that entanglements
involving larger whales tended to occur in stronger lines. However, this falls short of providing
an estimate of how any two gear configurations compare.
4.7.1. Expert Opinion Poll for the April TRT meeting. Given short notice but a desire to fill this
portion of the decision tool, NMFS constructed and distributed a questionnaire to the members of
the Take Reduction Team and other experts in the field ahead of the April 2019 meeting, asking
participants to provide best-guess, relative threat scores for a variety of gear configurations.
Results were highly variable, particularly across different stakeholder groups, though
respondents generally agreed that lighter ropes posed less threat to whales than heavy ropes
(Figure 4.7.1.a). The results were analyzed using hierarchical Bayesian models with stakeholder
groups as random effects and resulting models were interpolated to provide threat scores for all
desired gear configurations (Figure 4.7.1.b). While the allowed for initial use of the model and
testing of alternate gear configurations, there was a general consensus among TRT members and

108

stakeholders that the poll-based threat model should be replaced with a model based on
quantitative analysis of empirical data.
4.7.2. Empirical models of gear threat. Building an empirical model of gear threat for the DST
has proved to be very challenging as it is necessarily attempting to distill the factors that
contribute to complex outcomes for events that are generally rare and not directly observed.
Most data on whale entanglements come from mortality or disentanglement events, both of
which occur a considerable amount of time after the entanglement event took place. In both
cases, the whales are generally not carrying the complete set of gear that they were entangled in.
Because disentanglement is not attempted for minor cases, there is also necessarily a small
amount of data on gear that does not result in serious injuries or mortality for comparison.
4.7.2.1.
Threat model based on apparent selectivity by rope strength. The gear threat
model currently implemented in DST V2.x quantify threat of different rope strengths based on
the discrepancy in rope strength distributions between ropes recovered from severe
entanglements and the ropes that whales are expected to encounter. Our data on the distribution
of rope strength observed in entanglements comes Knowlton et al. 2016, subset to entanglements
judged to represent serious injury cases. To get the distribution of rope strengths we expected
whales to encounter, we used model runs of the DST, including a run with a humpback habitat
model provided by collaborators at Duke University, and extracted the densities and strength of
endlines with co-located densities of whales (See 4.8 Whale Habitat Models). We then took the
product of the numbers of ropes for each strength interval and whale density by location and
summed across locations to get the relative proportion of each rope strength, by species, that
whales would be expected to encounter (Figure 4.7.2.1.a). For both Right and Humpback Wales,
there is some evidence of heavier ropes being more common in entanglement events than
expected from encounter rates (Figure 4.7.2.1.b, 4.7.2.1.c). However, both sets of profiles also
have higher than expected proportions of entanglements in the lightest ropes and lower than
expected proportions in intermediate-weight ropes.
We use the ratio of the two sets of proportions (Observed vs Encountered) as a proxy for the
threat associated with ropes of a given length. I.e. if a rope of a given strength is observed in
entanglements twice as often as would be expected, we interpret this as being twice as lethal as a
rope that is observed in proportion to the expected encounter rate.
For model fitting, we aggregated rope strengths to 500lb intervals and truncated all data below
1,250 lb. and above 5,250 lb. strengths, with values outside these bounds added to the nearest bin
to reduce the sensitivity of ratios to very low numbers in denominators. We then bootstrapped
the observed rope strength distribution 100 times, calculated observed-to-expected ratios, and
rescaled the data to have all ratios less than 1. We then combined the data sets for the two species
and fitted a binomial glm with separate intercept for the two species. The resulting glm model
was then back-transformed to the original scale of the data and plotted over the bootstrapped data
sets (Figure 4.7.2.1.d). The trendlines for both species increase with rope strength, again
suggesting that threat increases with rope strength. However, there is some lack-of-fit to the
models with apparent threat being over-estimated at intermediate rope strengths and
underestimated at higher rope strengths, indicating an artifact in the derived data sets or misspecification of the statistical model. However, we judge this to be the best candidate method for

109

deriving an empirical threat index based on rope strength, providing a threat score for any given
rope strength.
Given the above issues with the model fit, we used the above bootstrapping method to further
develop estimates of the uncertainty or instability of models around the relationship between
‘observed’ and ‘expected’ rope strength distributions. The goal of this approach is to define a
reasonable upper and lower bound on how rope threat, calculated from the selectivity ratios,
changes with rope strength.
Rather than using bootstrapping to define the range in selectivity ratios predicted for a given rope
strength, it is more appropriate to quantify uncertainty as the range of models produced by the
bootstrapping (Figure 4.7.2.1.e). As expected, model parameters (intercept, slope, and species
interaction) are highly correlated, particularly slope and intercept. A principal components
analysis of the parameter estimates suggests that >90% of variability in parameters can be
explained by the first principal component, which correlates strongly with slope parameters
(Figure 4.7.2.1.f). Thus, we define median, upper, and lower bounds on the model estimates as
the models from the 0.5, 0.975, and 0.025 quantiles of the first principal component (Figure
4.7.2.1.g). These upper and lower bounds correspond with expected limits on how steep the
relationship is between rope strength and gear threat, which also provide limits on the relative
benefits of decreasing entanglement risk by changing rope strength. While the curve representing
the lower bound has higher “threat scores” than the other two curves for ropes less than ~6,000
lbs breaking strength, it is important to recognize that relative threat score between any two rope
strengths defines actual entanglement threat, not absolute individual values. Thus, it is instructive
to plot the ratios of combinations of values for each curve to understand the inferred threat
reductions (Figure 4.7.2.1.h-j). Similarly, it is instructive to examine individual profiles for each
threat curve at a given target managed rope breaking strength, like 1,700lb (Figure 4.7.2.1.k). For
changing to 1,700 lb breaking strength, the median model predicts a 50% reduction in risk from a
3,100 lb rope and 75% reduction in risk from a 4,700 lb rope. The upper bound curve predicts a
50% reduction in risk switching from 2,600 lb rope to 1,700lb and a 75% reduction switching
from 3,400 lb rope. Conversely, the lower bound curve predicts that 50% reduction does not
occur within the domain of the model with changing from 10,000 lb rope to 1,700 rope results in
only a 38% reduction in risk.
These three curves have been implemented as alternate threat models in DST V>2.1.x. Thus, the
updated model produces output results and risk scores for all three threat models as well as a
“co-occurrence” model where all ropes have equal threat, providing a range of outcomes given
the uncertainty in the threat model.
For example, figures 4.7.2.1.k – n show output from an example DST model run where all ropes
>2,250 lb breaking strength were decreased to exactly 2,250 lbs. Figure 4.7.2.1.k depicts the
differences in rope strength distribution between the right-skewed default condition and the
scenario condition where rope strengths have been truncated to 2,250lbs breaking strength.
Figure 4.7.2.1.l shows the resulting truncated distribution in resulting threat scores for the
median threat model. Truncation in threat scores is less apparent for the lower bound curve
(Figure 4.7.2.1.m) and more apparent for the upper bound curve (Figure 4.7.2.1.n). In this
example, setting max rope strength at 2,250 lbs. results in a mean reduction of rope strength of

110

26% (Table 4.7.2.1.a) corresponding in a reduction in gear threat of 40% from the median threat
curve (Table 4.7.2.1.b) but a range of 5 – 68% from the lower and upper bound curves
respectively (Table 4.7.2.1.b and c). Similar tables are also produced for the co-occurrence
model (all ropes have equal threat) but are not presented here as numbers from co-occurrence
calculations only change if the number of ropes in the water are affected by the scenario.
This modeling framework seems useful for conveying uncertainty in the outcome of
management actions through manipulating rope strengths. This does not address the uncertainty
associated with the threat modeling methods, recognizing the difficulties discussed above. We
anticipate further developing the modeling methods as well as seeking additional data to include
in the analysis but would expect to keep presentations of uncertainty like these in future versions
of the model.
4.8.
Whale Habitat Models The spatial and temporal distribution of whales within the model
domain is adapted from the Right Whale Habitat model from Roberts et al. (2016). In short, the
model uses whale citing data from a variety of sources, matched with co-located oceanographic
and habitat variables to predict whale density at any given location. The right whale habitat
model has been updated over the past two years with a number of improvements. Recognizing
that whale distributions and seasonal migration patterns have changed over the past decade, the
whale distribution model now has three options for inputs, one model for the past decade (2010 –
2018), a second for the previous decade (2003 – 2009) and a third for the entire time series. We
used the recent decade model as the default for all current analysis and used the other two
models for some explorations of uncertainty in whale distributions and robustness of
management plans. The updated models are estimated at a 5km pixel resolution and was
translated to the domain of the DST by overlaying the points within the DST domain on the
whale habitat model raster and extracting the overlapping values. Thus, whale density values for
individual pixels in the DST will have the same value as some neighboring pixels if they fell into
the same cell in the original whale model. (Figure 4.8.a and b).
5.
Model Outputs Upon completion of a model run, a new directory is created to house the
output and the following are saved to review the results of the model run and scenario tested.
5.1.
Monthly Maps of the following Default conditions:
5.1.1. Trap density
5.1.2. Mean trawl length
5.1.3. Vertical line density
5.1.4. Mean vertical line strength
5.1.5. Mean gear threat score
5.1.6. Total threat score (gear threat * line density)
5.1.7. Whale density
5.1.8. Total risk (total threat * whale density).
● An .Rdata file with the individual data objects used for creating these maps is also saved
to custom maps can be created after the model run.
5.2.
5.2.1.
5.2.2.
5.2.3.

Monthly Maps of the following Scenario conditions:
Trap density before scenario effects on traps
Trap density after trap reduction
Trap density after implementation of trap caps

111

5.2.4. Trap density after implementation of closures
5.2.5. Map of traps relocated as a result of closures
5.2.6. Trawl lengths after scenario effects
5.2.7. Line densities after scenario effects
5.2.8. Mean line strength after scenario effects
5.2.9. Mean gear threat after scenario effects
5.2.10. Total gear threat after scenario effects
5.2.11. Whale densities
5.2.12. Total risk scores.
5.2.13. Monthly Maps of spatial changes in risk due to mitigation measures.
An .Rdata file with the individual data objects used for creating these maps is also saved
to custom maps can be created after the model run.
5.3.
Output tables with the following
5.3.1. Model documentation
5.3.1.1.
Model configuration settings
5.3.1.2.
Contents of the input spreadsheet
These two outputs allow users to fully understand the settings of a model run as
well as recreate the model run at a later time.
5.3.2. Tables with monthly values for default and scenario conditions
5.3.3. Initial and final trap numbers
5.3.4. Total number of trawls
5.3.5. Mean trawl length
5.3.6. Total vertical lines
5.3.7. Mean vertical line strength
5.3.8. Mean threat score per vertical line
5.3.9. Total gear threat
5.3.10. Seasonal whale density
5.3.11. Total risk scores
All summary statistics written to the tables are also written to a comma-separated text file
for further access.
5.4.
Optional extended output with full-resolution R data objects of the model run at all stages
for further analysis.
6.

Literature Cited:

Hamilton PK, Kraus SD. 2019. Frequent encounters with the seafloor increase right whales’ risk of entanglement in
fishing groundlines. Endangered Species Res. 39:235-246.
Knowlton AR, Robbins J, Landry S, McKenna HA, Kraus SD, Werner, TB. 2016. Effects of fishing rope strength
on the severity of large whale entanglements. Conserv.Biol. 50.318-328
NMFS Co-Occurrence Model. 2019. Prepared by Industrial Economics, Incorporated for the National Marine
Fisheries Service Greater Atlantic Fisheries Office and the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team.
Records et al. 2019. Rapid climate-driven circulation changes threaten conservation of endangered North Atlantic
Right Whales. Oceanography32.132:169.

112

Roberts et al. 2016. Habitat-based cetacean density models for the U.S.Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Scientific
Reports 6.22615

Figure 2.1.a Spatial domain of the Decision Support Tool including the lobster management
areas. Colors generally denotes the state where trap densities and traps per trawl data originated
with offshore area 3 data coming from the federal government.

113

Figure 2.1.b. Reference map for the spatial relation between lobster management areas and
NMFS statistical areas.

114

Figure 2.1. Schematic of the flow of information through the Decision Support Tool (center
column) with submodels (left column) and user inputs (right column).

115

Figure 4.1.1.1.a Default trap densities and delineated regions for waters off Maine.

116

Figure 4.1.1.3.a Default trap densities and delineated regions for waters off Massachusetts.

117

Figure 4.1.1.4.a Default trap densities and delineated regions for waters off Rhode Island.

118

Figure 4.1.2.2.a. Modeled Catch per trap by species, fleet, and statistical area.

119

Figure 4.1.2.3.a. Model estimated soak time by species, fleet, statistical area.

120

Figure 4.1.2.3.b. Resulting estimated number of times a trawl is hauled per month by species,
fleet, and statistical area.

121

Figure 4.1.2.4.a Estimated number of traps per trawl by statistical area and fleet for the Jonah
crab and lobster fishery.

122

Figure 4.1.2.6.a Proportion of lobster landings by depth bin (meters) within statistical areas and
fleets. With individual lines representing different months.

123

Figure 4.1.2.6.b Proportion of crab landings by depth bin (meters) within statistical areas and
fleets. With individual lines representing different months.

124

Figure 4.1.2.6.c. Finalized vertical line model for Offshore LMA3 for the lobster fishery.

125

Figure 4.1.2.6.c. Finalized vertical line model for Offshore LMA3 for the Jonah crab fishery.

126

Figure 4.1.3.a. Default TrapMap input to the DST in traps per square mile.

127

Figure 4.1.3.b. Vertical line densities (lines per square mile) under a default DST model run.

128

Figure 4.3.2.a. Sample quantile profiles of traps fished for Maine Zone B.

129

Figure 4.3.2.b Cumulative quantile curves of traps fished in Maine by lobster zone and distance
from shore. Individual lines within each panel represent individual months.

130

Figure 4.3.3.a. Illustration of the process of redistributing traps given a closure. (a) shows the
traps inside the closure to be moved, the density of traps outside the closure, and the linear cost
function of moving traps to greater distances. (b) shows the redistributed traps as a function of
the density of adjacent traps and cost of redistribution.

131

Figure 4.3.3.b. Example of trap redistribution model given the closure of the Canyons and
Seamounts National Monument (white circle).

132

Figure 4.4.a. Mean trawl length (number of traps per trawl) for a default model run.

133

Figure 4.5.a. Number of endlines per square mile (log-scaled) for a default model run.

134

Figure 4.6.1.a Observed relationship between trawl length and vertical line diameter from
observer data. Data points are ‘jittered’ to show density of data for discrete data intervals.
Overlayed trendlines are the results of a logistic regression fitted to the data + / - 2sd.

135

Figure 4.6.1.b. Observed (blue dots) and predicted (bubbles) relationship between trawl length
and vertical line diameter.

136

Figure 4.6.2.a. Relationship between rope diameter (inches) and observed breaking strength.
Includes data for rope sections with splices and knots.

137

Figure 4.6.2.b. Predicted rope breaking strength (+ / - 2sd) and decreases with age from the
combined rope strength data set.

138

Figure 4.6.2.c. Modeled age of ropes in the active fishery as a function of random loss rates and
active removal rates due to wear.

139

Figure 4.6.3.a. Example predicted distribution of breaking strength for endlines on single pot
trawls

140

Figure 4.6.3b. Distributions of rope breaking strength for trawl lengths up to 50 pot trawls.

141

Figure 4.7.2.1.a Distribution of endline strengths whales would be expected to encounter, based
on overlap of gear distributions and whale habitat models.

142

Figure 4.7.2.1.b Expected and observed distribution of rope strengths for Right Whales.

143

Figure 4.7.2.1.c Expected and observed distribution of rope strengths for Humpback Whales.

144

Figure 4.7.2.1.d Boot-strapped ratios of observed entanglement rope strength to expected
encounter rope strength with fitted lines for Right Whales and Humpback Whales. The increase
in ratio with rope strength is statistically significant but the species effect is not. Note lack of fit
at intermediate and high rope strengths.

145

Figure 4.7.2.1.e. Example bootstrapped threat models from the relationship between rope
strength and apparent selectivity ratio for Right Whales.

146

Figure 4.7.2.1.f. Relationship between threat model slope and first principal component.

147

Figure 4.7.2.1.g. Alternate threat curves representing the median, upper and lower bounds on the
relationship between rope strength and threat.

148

Figure 4.7.2.1.h. Relative threat surface derived from the median threat curve. Surface values
represent the reduction in threat based on the ratio of threat scores between pre-management (xaxis) and post-management (y-axis) rope strengths. Thus, values along the diagonal represent no
change in rope strength while the area below the diagonal represent decreases in rope strength.

149

Figure 4.7.2.1.i. Relative threat surface derived from the lower bound threat curve. Surface
values represent the reduction in threat based on the ratio of threat scores between premanagement (x-axis) and post-management (y-axis) rope strengths. Thus, values along the
diagonal represent no change in rope strength while the area below the diagonal represent
decreases in rope strength.

150

Figure 4.7.2.1.j. Relative threat surface derived from the upper bound threat curve. Surface
values represent the reduction in threat based on the ratio of threat scores between premanagement (x-axis) and post-management (y-axis) rope strengths. Thus, values along the
diagonal represent no change in rope strength while the area below the diagonal represent
decreases in rope strength.

151

Figure 4.7.2.1.k. Threat reduction for decreasing rope strength to 1,700 lbs for the median, upper
and lower bound threat curves.

152

Figure 4.7.2.1.l. Distributions of rope strengths associated with a DST model run where
maximum rope strength is decreased to 2,250 lbs.

153

Figure 4.7.2.1.m. Distribution of gear threat scores for scenario vs default conditions for the
median threat curve.

154

Figure 4.7.2.1.n. Distribution of gear threat scores for scenario vs default conditions for the
lower-bound threat curve.

155

Figure 4.7.2.1.n. Distribution of gear threat scores for scenario vs default conditions for the
upper-bound threat curve.

156

Figure 4.8.a. Monthly Right Whale density as predicted from the Duke whale habitat model v11.

157

Figure 4.8.b. Monthly Right Whale density, log-scaled as predicted from the Duke whale habitat
model v11.

158

Table 4.1.2.1.a Number of trawls observed by federal observers by year and statistical area.
Offshore LMA3 statistical areas are shown in yellow.
Statistical
Area
464

2012

2013

2014

2015

111

115

90

284

600

465

31

16

58

49

154

2

470

472

511

2016

2017

2018

Total

512

29

46

165

797

163

513

134

614

290

2155

567

223

188

4171

514

29

3

183

583

145

54

77

1074

515

76

136

161

145

521

66
7

34

155

196

41

36

196

312

526

174

738

912

537

140

589

52

1

26

808

538

23

48

1

4

32

108

539

65

93

48

7

213

522
525

39

186

1200

518
15

6

273

561

14

241

186

293

734

562

108

77

103

739

1027

611

39

58

100

84

18

299

612

163

263

323

241

146

1136

615

50

136

88

2

276

616

149

90

621

55

41

622

59

Total

637

1296

2225

8108

239
17
1471

159

119

73

305

42

50

151

822

619

Table 4.1.2.5.a Estimated number of vertical lines in LMA3 for the Jonah crab, lobster, and
combined fishery, compared to line estimates from the IEc
Month

Crab_Model

Lobster_Model

NMFS_Total

IEc

1

889

2,077

2,965

3,182

2

954

1,996

2,950

3,375

3

1,036

1,667

2,703

3,357

4

906

1,360

2,266

2,786

5

988

1,957

2,944

3,008

6

967

3,083

4,050

3,428

7

659

3,316

3,975

3,543

8

503

3,309

3,812

3,570

9

861

2,916

3,777

3,414

10

914

2,988

3,902

3,406

11

775

2,448

3,223

3,503

12

859

2,731

3,590

3,408

160

Table 4.7.2.1.a. Example DST Model run results implementing maximum rope strengths of
2,250 lbs; Changes in mean rope strength.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Variable
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength
RopeStrength

Mean Rope Strength
Month
Default
1
3,262.102
2
3,396.574
3
3,297.022
4
3,173.710
5
2,692.224
6
2,552.181
7
2,501.185
8
2,528.225
9
2,563.358
10
2,614.564
11
2,766.172
12
2,910.518
Total
2,653.339

161

Scenario
2,067.242
2,097.760
2,081.092
2,058.107
1,964.928
1,939.294
1,929.836
1,932.905
1,941.344
1,952.064
1,983.964
2,011.903
1,958.825

Reduction
36.6 %
38.2 %
36.9 %
35.2 %
27.0 %
24.0 %
22.8 %
23.5 %
24.3 %
25.3 %
28.3 %
30.9 %
26.2 %

Table 4.7.2.1.b. Example DST Model run results implementing maximum rope strengths of
2,250 lbs; Changes in total gear threat scores from the median threat curve.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Variable
Month Default Scenario Reduction
TotalGearThreat_Threat
1
1,779
818
54.0 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
2
789
348
55.9 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
3
729
334
54.3 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
4
1,327
635
52.1 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
5
3,676
2,158
41.3 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
6
5,530
3,495
36.8 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
7
6,654
4,327
35.0 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
8
7,249
4,630
36.1 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
9
6,985
4,386
37.2 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
10
6,608
4,044
38.8 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
11
5,562
3,170
43.0 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat
12
3,675
1,962
46.6 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat Total 50,564
30,307
40.1 %

162

Table 4.7.2.1.c. Example DST Model run results implementing maximum rope strengths of
2,250 lbs; Changes in total gear threat scores from the lower-bound threat curve.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Total Gear Threat Score - Threat Lower Bound
Variable
Month Default Scenario Reduction
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
1
4,014
3,692
8.0 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
2
1,701
1,555
8.6 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
3
1,631
1,499
8.1 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
4
3,114
2,880
7.5 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
5
10,675
10,136
5.1 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
6
17,328
16,583
4.3 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
7
21,474
20,612
4.0 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
8
22,988
22,027
4.2 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
9
21,742
20,795
4.4 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
10
20,018
19,092
4.6 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
11
15,625
14,780
5.4 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower
12
9,645
9,051
6.2 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Lower Total 149,957 142,701
4.8 %

163

Table 4.7.2.1.d. Example DST Model run results implementing maximum rope strengths of
2,250 lbs; Changes in total gear threat scores from the upper-bound threat curve.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Total Gear Threat Score - Threat Upper Bound
Variable
Month Default Scenario Reduction
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
1
1,121
223
80.1 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
2
510
95
81.3 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
3
460
91
80.2 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
4
810
173
78.7 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
5
1,899
575
69.7 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
6
2,638
925
64.9 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
7
3,068
1,142
62.8 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
8
3,421
1,223
64.2 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
9
3,361
1,161
65.4 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
10
3,268
1,073
67.2 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
11
2,948
848
71.2 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper
12
2,064
528
74.4 %
TotalGearThreat_Threat_Upper Total
25,570
8,058
68.5 %

164

Appendix 3.2 Decision Support Tool Model Runs
3.2.1 FEIS Preferred Alternative: Lower Bound
The lower bound of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) with the Massachusetts Restricted
Area credit for right whales 2010 - 2018

165

166

167

3.2.2 FEIS Preferred Alternative: Upper Bound
The upper bound of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) with the Massachusetts Restricted
Area credit for right whales 2010 - 2018

168

169

170

3.2.3 FEIS Preferred Alternative: Restricted Areas
The lower bound of the restricted areas in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), including the
Massachusetts Restricted Area credit for right whales 2010 - 2018

171

172

3.2.4 FEIS Preferred Alternative: Restricted Areas and Trawl Length
Measures
The lower bound of the restricted areas and trawl length measures in the Preferred Alternative
(Alternative 2), including the Massachusetts Restricted Area credit for right whales 2010 - 2018

173

174

175

3.2.5 FEIS Preferred Alternative: Restricted Areas, Trawl Length
Measures, and Planned Line Reduction
The lower bound of the restricted areas, trawl length, and other planned line reduction measures
in the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2), including the Massachusetts Restricted Area credit
for right whales 2010 - 2018

176

177

178

3.2.6 FEIS Preferred Alternative: No Massachusetts Restricted Area
Credit
The lower bound of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) without the Massachusetts
Restricted Area credit for right whales 2010 - 2018

179

180

181

3.2.7 FEIS Preferred Alternative: Humpback Whales
The lower bound of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) without the Massachusetts
Restricted Area credit for humpback whales 1999-2017

182

183

184

3.2.8 FEIS Preferred Alternative: Finback Whales
The lower bound of the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) without the Massachusetts
Restricted Area credit for finback whales 1999-2017 (co-occurrence only).

185

Model inputs

186

187

3.2.9 FEIS Non-Preferred Alternative
The estimate of the Non-preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) for right whales 2010 - 2018

188

189

190

3.2.10 FEIS Non-Preferred Alternative: Restricted Areas
The estimate of the restricted areas in the Non-preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) for right
whales 2010 - 2018

191

192

3.2.11 FEIS Non-Preferred Alternative: Restricted Areas and Trawl Length
Measures
The estimate of the restricted areas and trawl length measures in the Non-preferred Alternative
(Alternative 3) for right whales 2010 - 2018

193

194

3.2.12 FEIS Non-Preferred Alternative: Restricted Areas, Trawl Length,
and Line Cap Measures
The estimate of the restricted areas, trawl length, and line cap measures in the Non-preferred
Alternative (Alternative 3) for right whales 2010 - 2018

195

196

197

3.2.13 FEIS Non-Preferred Alternative: Humpback Whales
The estimate of the Non-preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) for humpback whales 1999-2017

198

199

200

3.2.14 FEIS Non-Preferred Alternative: Finback Whales
The estimate of the Non-preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) for finback whales 1999-2017 (cooccurrence only)

201

202

Appendix 3.3 All State Proposals
3.3.1 Maine DMR Proposal

JANET T. MILLS

STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES 21 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333 - 0 0 2 1

PATRICK C. KELIHER

GOVERNOR

COMMISSIONER

December 27, 2019
Michael Pentony Regional Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930
Dear Mr. Pentony
The Maine Department of Marine Resources (ME DMR) submits to NOAA Fisheries its
proposal for regulatory changes to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP).
This proposal is in response to the finding that the removal of North Atlantic right whales is
above the Potential Biological Removal established in the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA). The document includes proposed regulatory modifications to the Maine lobster
fishery.
The attached proposal was developed by ME DMR staff, with input from industry. It focuses
regulatory change on areas where right whales are most likely to be present in Maine’s coastal
waters, with the goal of achieving protective measures where they are needed most and would be
the most effective. It also balances this conservation with the safety concerns highlighted by
industry and the economic viability of the lobster fishery. As stated at NOAA Fisheries’ scoping
meetings, the lobster fishery is the economic and social cornerstone of Maine’s coastal and
island communities. It includes not only license holders but crew, lobster dealers, processors,
distributors, and a multitude of associated restaurant and tourism industries. This fishery has
been a model of conservation, not only in the management of the lobster resource, but also in its
two-decade participation in regulations aimed at protecting large whales. In fact, a right whale
entanglement has not been directly linked to the Maine lobster fishery in well over a decade.
ME DMR’s proposal is comprised of several components. They include reductions in the number
of vertical lines, weakening of remaining vertical lines, increased gear marking, and increased
harvester reporting. There is also a discussion regarding the enforcement benefits and potential
impacts of tracking on federally permitted vessels. In combination, these measures not only
203

minimize the risk of serious injury and mortality which may result from an entanglement but also
reduce the potential of an entanglement occurring. Further, these measures improve the effort
and location data collected by the Maine lobster fishery. Our hope is that, if future conversations
are needed, an improved data set will enable measures to be targeted to fisheries and regions
with high right whale densities and known entanglements. The proposal also includes a provision
for conservation equivalency so that regional differences in fishing practices and oceanographic
conditions can be considered. This level of flexibility is critical so that safety issues not
addressed in the state-wide approach can be ameliorated prior to implementation.
In addition, this proposal outlines several concerns that ME DMR has had with the ALWTRT
process, the development of supporting analyses, and the timing of pending management versus
needed scientific data. These concerns have prompted the Department to develop its own
supporting analyses given a completed model was not available at the time of proposal
submission. Given management measures related to the protection of right whales are generally
reviewed on a five-year schedule, my hope in raising these issues is to ensure the process can be
improved for the future.
I am confident the measures outlined in this proposal provide significantly greater protection to
right whales transiting through the Gulf of Maine. As such, we request NOAA Fisheries include
these measures as preferred alternatives in the upcoming proposed rule.
ME DMR remains committed to working with NOAA during the upcoming regulatory process.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out.
Sincerely,

Commissioner

204

Maine Department of Marine Resources’ Proposal to Amend the Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Plan
The following proposal includes a series of measures intended to prevent right whale serious
injury and mortality, and to reduce the presumed risk of entanglement posed by the Maine
lobster fishery. The proposal was developed after thorough analyses regarding the location of
right whales in the Gulf of Maine, the location of Maine lobster gear, the relative threat of
different gear configurations, and the risk reduction associated with various management tools.
Development of the proposal also considered several important criteria including safety of
fishermen, feasibility, enforceability, and economic impacts to the fishery.
ME DMR has been an active participant on the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team
(ALWTRT) and has routinely worked with state and federal partners to better the science and
data needed to support this group’s discussions. We are committed to solving issues regarding
the endangered status of right whales and recognize that the ALWTRT process allows for input
from multiple caucuses, including fishermen, Non-Governmental Organizations, and state
agencies. While at the April 2019 meeting ME DMR supported the preliminary
recommendations put forth by the ALWTRT, the Department also reserved its right to disagree
with this recommendation in the future, pending analysis to determine what a 50% vertical line
reduction meant in practice and to consider new, changing, or emerging data. After conducting
this analysis, it became clear a 50% vertical line reduction placed the largest portion of the
burden on the fishery within Maine’s exemption line – an area NOAA found, based on scientific
data, that endangered large whales rarely venture.1 This large burden in exempted waters resulted
because roughly 70% of vertical lines associated with the lobster fishery in Maine state waters
are located within Maine’s exemption line. Consequently, an overall 50% vertical line reduction
forced drastic measures primarily in areas where whales do not frequent. This would have
resulted in large economic hardship for inshore fishermen, a reduction in the diversity of the
Maine lobster fleet, and minimal benefits to right whales.
Given this information, ME DMR completed its own analysis, using many of the same data
inputs as NOAA Fisheries, to understand Maine’s ‘risk’ resulting from the overlap between the
Maine lobster fishery and the transiting of right whales through the Gulf of Maine. The results
showed the risk in Maine waters increases with distance from shore, with the majority of
Maine’s risk occurring outside the 12-mile line. Thus, this proposal focuses measures in federal
waters.
This proposal includes management measures and data collection tools. Many of the measures
are differentiated by distance from shore given Maine’s expansive coast and vast regional
differences. Detailed explanations of these measures are provided in the sections that follow. A
cornerstone of ME DMR’s proposal is the request for conservation equivalency and an
individual safety program. This flexibility is needed to address significant regional differences
such as traditional fishing practices, tides, and vessel traffic.
1

72 Fed. Reg. 57104, 57162 (Response to comment 337)

205

Without this management flexibility, future rules will fail to take into account the diversity of
Maine’s lobster fleet and differing oceanographic conditions within the Gulf of Maine.
This proposal does not include any trap reductions or area closures. As outlined in ME DMR’s
September 2019 scoping comments (Appendix IV), both trap reductions and area closures
present several concerns in Maine. Because there are often multiple traps fished on a single
endline or trawl, a practice known as trawling up, trap reductions do not decrease vertical lines
on a one-to-one basis. This means substantial trap reductions are needed to see a modest
reduction in the number of vertical lines, prompting serious economic consequences. For area
closures, their efficacy is based on the assumption that gear is brought to shore. However, the
year-round nature of the offshore lobster fishery makes it unlikely this assumption would be met.
Instead, it is more likely gear would be moved to adjacent fishing grounds yielding denser
aggregations of gear around areas intended to protect whales. Or, risk associated with the gear
could simply be shifted to another location.
ME DMR identified several challenges with the decision support tool presented to the
ALWTRT. These challenges included incomplete analysis, particularly in regard to the gear
threat score, and frequently changing risk reduction percentages as methodologies and data
inputs changed. As a result, the Department developed its own tool (Appendix I) to calculate the
risk reduction gained using certain management measures. Section B in this document describes
the challenges that prompted ME DMR to develop its own tool, as well as concerns with the
overall process, in greater detail.
A.

Background on the Maine Lobster Fishery and Regulations To-Date

American lobster is the most valuable single species landed in the U.S. The Maine lobster fishery
is a critical component of the State’s economy and culture. Since the early 2000’s, landings in
the lobster fishery have exponentially increased from roughly 57.2 million pounds in 2000 to a
high of 132.6 million pounds in 2016.2 In 2018, 121.3 million pounds of lobster were landed in
Maine, representing an ex-vessel value of $491 million dollars.3 These 2018 landings represented
82% of the total lobster landings in the U.S.4
The fishery encompasses roughly 4,800 lobster license holders and 1,100 student license holders.
Underscoring the importance of commercial fishing to Maine is the most recent data from the
Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program which reveals that Maine commercial harvesters
took more than twice the number of commercial fishing trips than any other state on the east
coast. In 2017, Maine harvesters reported 447,523 trips while harvesters from Virginia, the next
highest state, reported just 217,940.5 Importantly, participation in the lobster fishery is much
greater, as is its value to Maine’s coastal economy. Many individuals who do not have a lobster
license are an integral part of the fishery’s operations, including dealers, processors, sternmen,
bait dealers, trap builders, and boat mechanics. Many more participate in the logistics and
tourism businesses associated
ME DMR landings data: https://www.maine.gov/dmr/commercial-fishing/landings/documents/lobster.table.pdf
ACCSP Data Warehouse. Data pull on 12/23/19. 4 ACCSP Data Warehouse. Data pull on 12/23/19. 5 ACCSP Data
Warehouse. Data pull on 12/11/19.

2
3

206

with the lobster industry. In fact, a recent economic study concluded the Maine lobster supply
chain has an economic impact to the state of $1 billion annually.6 Maine’s coastal communities
are particularly dependent on lobster fishing and related business due to low alternate wages and
limited career options in those communities.7
ME DMR has actively contributed to the development and implementation of protective
measures for right whales and has a history of expanding federal measures beyond the minimum
federal requirements. Since the establishment of the ALWTRP, ME DMR has implemented 600
lbs weak links on buoy lines to ensure low breaking strengths, gear markings to identify trap/pot
gear, sinking groundline to reduce entanglements, and trawling-up requirements to reduce the
number of vertical lines in the fishery. ME DMR has also expanded many of these requirements
to areas exempted from the federal ALWTRP. For example, ME DMR prohibits float rope on the
surface for all lobster pot gear, including gear fished inside the exemption line. ME DMR has
also been at the forefront of efforts to improve the spatial resolution of gear marking; the State
has already adopted rules to implement new gear marking requirements which prescribe a
Maine- specific purple gear mark, increase the frequency of markings on a rope, and expand gear
marking requirements into exempted waters. These new regulations will be implemented in
2020, ahead of the federal regulatory process. Finally, Maine Marine Patrol and the Bureau of
Marine Science collaborate with NOAA Fisheries, serving as primary regional responders to
address whale entanglements on the Maine Coast. There are approximately 46 uniformed field
personnel trained to a minimum of Level I that are capable of responding to entanglements for
initial assessment and stand-by purposes. Nine officers and one Bureau of Marine Science staff
have undergone apprentice training and hold their Level III authorizations under the Marine
Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program’s permit. This authorization designates the
holder as a primary responder for disentanglement activities. As a part of the Atlantic Large
Whale Disentanglement Network, ME DMR’s primary responders work with NOAA Fisheries
and other network members to engage in assessment, reporting, and response when reports of
entanglements are received.
Many of the above regulations and activities have been adopted with minimal data linking the
Maine lobster fishery to cases of right whale entanglement, particularly in the last decade. Since
2017, there have been thirty documented cases of right whale serious injury and mortality. None
of these cases have been attributed to the Maine lobster fishery. In fact, entanglement records
indicate the most recent known right whale entanglement in Maine lobster gear occurred fifteen
years ago in 2004. Thus, the data from known entanglements suggest the Maine lobster fishery is
not the primary source of right whale serious injury and mortality. The data also suggest previous
regulations, particularly the implementation of sinking groundline which occurred in 2009, have
been effective. In fact, since the sinking groundline rule went into place, there have been no right
whale entanglements linked to groundlines from the US lobster fishery.

6 Lobsters to Dollars: The Economic Impact of the Lobster Distribution Supply Chain in Maine by Michael Donihue, Colby
College. June 2018.
7 Gulf of Maine Research Institute. Understanding Opportunities and Barrier to Profitability in the New England Lobster

Industry 13 (2014), https://www.gmri.org/sites/default/files/resource/gmri_ 2014_lobster_survey.pdf.

207

In contrast, there is a mounting level of evidence which indicates that other fisheries, particularly
the Canadian snow crab fishery, and vessel strikes are contributing to an increasing portion of
right whale serious injuries and mortalities. Of the thirty documented cases of right whale serious
injury and mortality since 2017, twenty-one have occurred in Canada.8 This includes nine cases
of serious injury and mortality which occurred in 2019. Further, an additional two mortalities,
which were first sighted in US waters, have been attributed to Canadian snow crab gear
entanglements. Looking further back to 2012- 2016, the years used by NOAA to calculate a
recommended risk reduction, one of the cases of serious injury and mortality attributed to a US
fishery was the result of an entanglement with netting. Additionally, evidence suggests that
vessel strikes are a significant contributor to right whale serious injury and mortality. Out of the
thirty cases of serious injury and mortality since 2017, eight have been attributed to vessel
strikes, including a case in US waters.
Information collected from right whale entanglements also indicates the vast majority of rope
taken off of right whales is not indicative of the Maine lobster fishery. Based on a 2018 industry
survey, ME DMR found the most prominent rope diameters used in the Maine lobster fishery are
3/8” rope followed by 7/16” rope (Appendix V). Results of the
survey also showed that over 79% of rope used in the Maine lobster fishery is less than ½” in
diameter. In contrast, entanglement records indicate that, between 2010 and 2018, 81% of all
recovered rope taken off right whales was greater than ½” diameter.9 This data further suggests
that the Maine lobster fishery is not a primary contributor to right whale entanglements.
Right whale habitat use and residency times in historically known feeding habitats are also
changing. Since 2010, right whale occurrence in the Gulf of Maine has declined.10 A similar
decrease of habitat use has also been documented across the same time frame in what had been
critical late summer feeding habitat in the Bay of Fundy.11 Hypotheses explaining this shift
include large-scale changes in food supply, namely the copepod Calanus finmarchicus. A recent
study supports this hypothesis by documenting an increase in the bottom temperature
experienced in the basins within the eastern Gulf of Maine.12 This ecosystem change is acting to
drive down the availability of the calanus copepod in the Bay of Fundy and can potentially
predict whether right whales will be seen there year to year. Other
8 NOAA Fisheries. 2017-2019 North Atlantic Right Whale Unusual Mortality Event.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2019-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event
9 ALWTRT October 2018 Meeting. Presentation by GARFO Staff re: Line Diameter.

https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/garfo/protected/whaletrp/trt/meetings/October%202018/eg_line_diameter.pdf
10 Davis, G. E., Baumgartner, M. F., Bonnell, J. M., Bell, J., Berchok, C., Thorton, J. B., Brault, S., Buchanan, G., Charif, R. A.,

Cholewiak, D., Clark, C. W., Cockeron, P., Delarue, J., Dudzinski, K., Hatch, L., Hildebrand, J., Hodge, L., Klinck, H., Kraus,
S., Martin, B., Mellinger, D. K., Moors-Murhpy, H., Nieukirk, S., Nowacek, D. P., Parks, S., Read, A. J., Rice, A. N., Risch, D.,
Sirovic, A., Soldevilla, M., Stafford, K., Stanistreet, J. E., Summers, E., Todd, S., Warde, A., and S. M. Van Parijs. 2017. Longterm passive acoustic recordings track the changing distribution of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from 2004 to
2014. Scientific Reports. 7:13460 (1-12).
11 Davies K.T.A., Brown M.W., Hamilton P.K., Knowlton A.R., Taggart C.T., and A.S.M. 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.
12 Record, N., Runge, J. A., Pendleton, D. E., Balch, W. M., Davies, K. T. A., Pershing, A. J., Johnson, C. L., Stamieszkin, K.,

Ji, R., Feng, Z., Kraus, S. D., Kenney, R. D., Hudak, C. A., Mayo, C. A., Chen, C., Salisbury, J. E., and C. R. S. Thompson.
2019. Rapid Climate-Driven Circulation Changes Threaten Conservation of Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales.
Oceanography, 32, 2: 162-169.

208

feeding habitats, outside of the Gulf of Maine, have seen increases in use by right whales over
the last decade. Cape Cod Bay and the surrounding waters in Massachusetts have seen an
increase in individuals sighted or detected in this important early season feeding habitat.13
As the use of the Gulf of Maine as a summer feeding ground has decreased, sighting and acoustic
surveys have documented a shift towards summertime use of the Gulf of St.
Lawrence by right whales.14 The shifts in habitat use documented above show a decreasing
reliance on the Gulf of Maine as a feeding habitat for right whales. This is likely particularly true
for waters very near to shore where most of the lobster fishery is executed. ME DMR again notes
that the majority of Maine state waters, where most lobster permits are held, are exempted from
the ALWTRP and outside designated right whale critical habitat. This spatial designation (e.g.
the exemption line and critical habitat boundary) was based on the low number of right whale
sightings as well as studies which show low concentrations of calanus which do not support the
aggregation of right whales.15
B.

Review of September 2018 – Present; Challenges and Concerns

ME DMR has been an engaged partner in the ALWTRT process since the group’s inception.
However, over the last few years, ME DMR has expressed concerns about the thoroughness of
analyses being conducted, the availability of preparatory work prior to meetings, and the
existence of new, changing, or emerging data. This has impacted ME DMR’s ability to fully
engage in the process and make informed decisions when developing this plan.
In September 2018, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) released a technical memo
entitled “North Atlantic Right Whales – Evaluating Their Recovery Challenges in 2018”. While
the title of the memo suggested the document would be a comprehensive review of many
challenges facing right whales, the memo focused on a single fishery in a single region: the
American lobster fishery in the Gulf of Maine. Throughout the memo,
hypotheses were stated as fact, with inappropriate or no data to support the assumptions and
conclusions. For example, the memo incorrectly suggested the 2015 vertical line regulations
increased the strength of rope used, and therefore the severity of entanglements; however, the
data provided to support this assumption included a paper which looked at data from 1994-2010,
well before the regulatory change. Many of the datasets cited in the memo were inappropriate for
the context, including the citation of an industry newsletter which approximated the number of
traps fished. This figure was then used to inform an absolute
13 Mayo C., Ganley L., Hudak C.A., Brault S., Marx M.K., Burke E., and M.W. Brown. 2018. Distribution, demography and

behavior of North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts 1998-2013. Marine Mammal
Science. 34(4): 979-996; Charif R.A., Shiu Y., Muirhead C.A., Clark C.W., Parks S.E., and A.N. Rice. 2019. Phenological
changes in North Atlantic right whale habitat use in Massachusetts Bay. Global Change Biology, 00:1-12. 14 Simard Y., Roy N.,

Giard S., Aulanier F. 2019. North Atlantic right whale shift to the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 2015,
revealed by long-term passive acoustics. Endangered Species Research. 40: 271-284; DFO. 2019. Review of North Atlantic right
whale occurrence and risk of entanglements in fishing gear and vessel strikes in Canadian waters. DFO Can. Sci.
Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2019/028.
15 Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
Regulations, 72 Fed. Reg. 57103 (October 5, 2007); Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Endangered North
Atlantic Right Whale, 81 Fed. Reg. 4837 (January 27, 2016).

209

number of traps in the memo. Many more statements were not cited. ME DMR communicated its
serious concerns about the merit of this technical memo and its basis for the upcoming
ALWTRT meeting in an October 2018 letter to the Director of the NEFSC (Appendix II).
Unfortunately, despite ME DMR’s concerns regarding the inaccuracies in the document, the
Technical Memo remains published without substantial edits by the NEFSC and continues to be
cited on NOAA’s own website16. In fact, the only change made to the memo was the addition of
the word “may” to a statement to indicate it is a hypothesis.
On April 5, 2019, less than three weeks before the ALWTRT meeting, NOAA released a
statement indicating the agency would be seeking a risk reduction target of 60-80%. This
announcement included minimal data to support its conclusions and, because it was distributed
via email, did not provide an opportunity for questions and discussion. In response to numerous
questions from the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, a follow-up email from NOAA Fisheries
staff was sent on April 18, 2019 which indicated other approaches were considered to calculate
the risk reduction target; however, yet again, minimal rationale was provided for the method
ultimately chosen. Of greatest concern to ME DMR was the assumption that 50% of unattributed
cases of serious injury and mortality (SI&M) were the result of U.S. entanglements and 50%
were the result of Canadian entanglements. This assumption did not match recent trends which
show Canadian fisheries are responsible for an increasing portion of SI&M. Unfortunately, no
time was set aside ahead of the April 2019 ALWTRT meeting to discuss these assumptions or
the risk reduction target. At the April 2019 ALWTRT meeting, members were discouraged from
discussing the risk reduction target given time constraints.
At the same time, NOAA announced weeks before the April 2019 ALWTRT meeting that it was
developing a model, called the “decision support tool”, to calculate risk reduction percentages
achieved through various management tools. While ME DMR had no objection to this goal and
fully supported additional modeling efforts to help inform the recommendations of the
ALWTRT, ME DMR was concerned about the short timeframe for a model to be thoughtfully
developed, tested, and reviewed. These concerns were realized on an April 16th webinar in which
NEFSC staff walked through preliminary results of the model. First, ME DMR expressed
concern about the components of the model. The severity score was based off a poll given to the
ALWTRT members which was neither developed nor reviewed by a social scientist or someone
with direct expertise in survey methodology. In addition, there was a clear incentive for
ALWTRT members to inflate or deflate gear severity scores given the data would directly impact
management recommendations.
Unsurprisingly, ALWTRT members voted along caucus lines resulting in a wide range of scores
for most gear configurations. Sensitivity analyses run by ALWTRT members during the April
2019 meeting confirmed the results from the tool were highly dependent on the gear severity
scores derived from the poll. Additionally, the whale habitat component of the model raised
concerns as it lacked key data components including the most recent standardized whale surveys,
and available information from alternative sighting sources and acoustic deployments. It also had
low effort in inshore Gulf of Maine where the bulk of the lobster fishery is promulgated. As a
result, recent changes in right whale distribution were
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-mammal-protection/right-whales-andentanglements- more-how-noaa
16

210

not reflected in the data outputs, whale distribution data were ‘stretched’ within the exemption
line, and there was a high level of uncertainty where the majority of vertical lines are deployed.
The compilation of these concerns resulted in puzzling risk reduction model results. While areas
south of Nantucket, where right whales are known to visit but fishing effort is low, were given
low risk scores, areas of inshore Gulf of Maine, where fishing effort is high but right whales are
extremely infrequent, were given high risk scores. This result did not
match NOAA’s stated intention of identifying overlapping areas of high gear density and
frequent whale presence. In the end, the risk reduction model used at the ALWTRT meeting was
not a finished product; data inputs were not finalized, the code was not perfected, and the model
was not peer-reviewed. In fact, the model crashed during a Maine break-out session at the
meeting when the Maine delegation tried to look at measures differentiated by distance from
shore. The suite of ME DMR’s concerns regarding the risk reduction target and the decision
support tool were outlined in a letter to the Regional Administrator dated April 19, 2019
(Appendix III).
Since the April 2019 ALWTRT meeting, ME DMR has struggled to develop a proposal due to
instability in the risk reduction percentages achieved by various management measures. In April
2019, calculations from the decision support tool showed vertical line reductions received, by
far, the highest percent risk reduction of the measures considered. This output was used to derive
Maine’s preliminary plan. However, since the April 2019 ALWTRT meeting, changes have been
made, and continue to be made, to the model in response to the concern expressed by many
ALWTRT members, and to changing and emerging data. While ME DMR is appreciative that
NEFSC staff continue to develop and improve the decision support tool, the modifications have
resulted in frequent changes to the risk reduction percentages associated with various
management options. These percentages continue to change as of the writing of this proposal.
Most notably, the risk reduction percentage associated with the implementation of rope which
breaks at 1,700 lbs has significantly increased relative to percentages given at the ALWTRT
meeting. These changes in the risk reduction percentages have not been communicated to the
broader ALWTRT.
Further, the November 2019 Peer Review of the decision support tool highlighted that many of
the concerns raised in ME DMR’s April 2019 letter to NOAA have not been addressed. ME
DMR staff attended the Peer Review in hopes of learning more about the model since no
documentation has been shared with the ALWTRT. Unfortunately, it became clear from the
meeting that several components of the model were not finalized. Specifically, the updated whale
habitat data, which is critical to understanding the new migration patterns of right whales, is
delayed and was not available for the peer review.
Further, a substitute for the gear severity poll had not yet been developed or tested. In fact, a
potential new gear severity score presented on the last day of the Peer Review showed
confounding results in which the highest gear severity in Maine was calculated to be in a lobster
zone with the fewest participants and the lowest trap allocation. As a result, it was clear that
significant work was still needed on the decision support tool. Further, ME DMR was concerned
to hear that, for some portions of the offshore lobster fishery, catch was being used as a proxy to
estimate the number of vertical lines. While ME DMR recognizes data on effort in the offshore

211

lobster fishery is limited, we have repeatedly commented that it is inaccurate to assume an
increase in landings is correlated to an equal increase in fishing effort (this proposal provides
data regarding landings and effort on pages 14-16). This is particularly true given the exponential
increase in the abundance of lobster within the Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank stock. As a result,
the model is likely overestimating the number of vertical lines in the offshore lobster fishery
given the increase in abundance, catch per trap, and landings.
As the decision support tool continues to be developed, it is unclear how the model results will
be used in the upcoming proposed rule. While advancements are still needed on the decision
support tool, the management process required to implement new ALWTRP regulations
continues to move forward. As a result, there is a clear disconnect between the timeline for the
science intended to support management and the implementation of new regulations. NOAA has
previously acknowledged this discrepancy. During a meeting with NOAA on July 11, 2019,
NOAA staff indicated the co-occurrence model, not the risk reduction model, would be used in
the proposed rule. This was a significant departure from what ME DMR anticipated, particularly
given the co-occurrence model was not discussed at the April 2019 ALWTRT meeting. Further,
without a gear threat score, it is unclear how differences between gear configurations will be
considered or how rope which breaks at 1700 lbs, a key component of the discussions at the
April 2019 ALWTRT, will be evaluated. Most importantly, this change has not been
communicated to the full ALWTRT.
Given uncertainty about ongoing and future changes to the decision support tool, the constantly
changing percentages produced by a model which is being updated, the lack of clarity of how the
decision support tool will be used in the proposed rule, and uncertainty about how the cooccurrence model will evaluate rope which breaks at 1700 lbs, ME DMR endeavored to produce
its own analysis to determine the risk reduction associated with this proposal. This in-state
analysis was conducted because a clear and stable alternative from NOAA was not available
before this proposal was due. If ME DMR had not conducted its own analysis, it is unclear how
the state would have calculated a risk reduction for various management options and engaged the
industry when weighing the options. A description of ME DMR’s analysis is included in
Appendix I.
C.

Elements of Maine’s Proposal

I.

Vertical Line Reductions

ME DMR proposes a vertical line reduction in the Maine lobster fishery, to be achieved through
changes to the trawling up requirements. As noted in ME DMR’s scoping comments to NOAA
fisheries on September 16, 2019 (Appendix IV), the Department has pursued measures
associated with trawling up because it appears to provide some of the strongest conservation
benefits; it reduces the risk of SI&M under the MMPA and the risk of entanglement under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposed trawling up requirements are separated by
distance from shore in recognition of differing fishing practices between inshore and offshore
fishermen, as well as the likelihood of right whale occurrence along Maine’s coast the farther
one gets from shore.

212

a.

Shoreline to Exempted Waters Line (<1% of Maine’s whale-days, see Appendix I)

Proposal: Status quo; maintain exempt status for all such waters.
Rationale: The addition of trawling-up regulations within Maine’s exempted waters would result
in significant safety concerns, reduce diversity in the fleet, and have negative economic impacts
for the lobster fishery, while providing minimal, if any, protections for right whales. Established
in 2007, the Maine exemption line designates inshore waters, including bays and rivers, where
right whale sightings are extremely rare. It was created in recognition that additional regulations
in these areas would not have a significant benefit to large whales.17 As a result, past
modifications to the ALWTRP have not included regulations in exempted waters.
The exemption line was subsequently used when denoting critical habitat as it concluded “late
stage copepods in quantities sufficient to trigger right whale foraging are not present inshore of
the Maine exemption line”.18 Sightings data corroborate the finding that right whales are
extremely rare shoreward of the
exemption line. Recent data on changing and decreasing copepod abundance in the eastern Gulf
of Maine further corroborates these findings.19
Establishing trawl minimums in exempted waters would also unnecessarily result in large
economic impacts by increasing operating costs and lowering the efficiency of inshore
fishermen. The majority of the Maine lobster fishery’s catch and effort occurs in state waters
(shoreline to 3-mile limit). In 2016, 68% of landings and 81% of trips occurred inside state
waters.20 With over 70% of state waters existing within the exemption line, a significant portion
of the fishery is executed close to shore.
Much of the fishery in this area uses small boats and skiffs which have limited capacity to haul
and store multiple traps. Thus, consideration of trawl limits in exempted waters precipitates large
safety concerns as it could force fishermen to operate beyond their boat’s means, resulting in
fishermen being caught in additional rope on deck, fishermen going overboard or losing limbs,
and vessels sinking.
Further, trawling up requirements would have significant economic consequences on the fleet.
Longer trawls would almost certainly increase gear loss as trawls are set over one another,
increasing marine debris. It is also likely small boat captains would have to hire an additional
crew member or purchase a larger boat to safely fish under the new requirements. Finally, longer
trawls would result in lower trap efficiency due to a decreased ability to maneuver traps on to
specific ledges and cracks where lobsters are frequently found.

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
Plan Regulations, 72 Fed. Reg. 57103 (October 5, 2007).
18
Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, 81 Fed. Reg.
4837 (January 27, 2016).
19
Record et al., 2019.
20
Based on harvester reporting collected in the Maine lobster fishery.
17

213

b.
Exempted Waters Line to Three Miles from Shore (0.8% of Maine’s whale-days and 4%
Maine’s of overall risk, see Appendix I)
Proposal: Require a minimum trawl length of three traps per single endline.
Rationale: A three-trap trawl considers safety concerns of small boat, state-waters fishermen
with the goal of reducing the number of endlines and the associated risk to right whales. Unique
safety concerns for small boat fishermen include lack of deck space and frequently operating a
vessel without a crew. Particularly in mid- coast Maine, moving to a three-trap trawl minimum
will be a substantial change from current fishing practices where, due to bottom type, many
people presently fish doubles.
c.
Three Miles to Six Miles from Shore (Three to twelve miles from shore represents 11%
of Maine’s whale-days and 30% of Maine’s overall risk, see Appendix I)
Proposal: Require a minimum trawl length of eight traps per two endlines, or four traps per
single endline.
Rationale: An eight (four) trap trawl minimum recognizes the historical sighting of right whales
in the Gulf of Maine is higher in federal waters than state waters and that higher trawl length
minimums are needed to reduce the risk of entanglement. Various fishing practices along the
coast make the unilateral transition to an eight- trap trawl with two endlines difficult; this region
includes small boat fishermen who fish just over the three-mile line, as well as larger vessels
which traditionally fish offshore. The ability to fish a four-trap trawl with a single endline
provides needed flexibility to the fleet and achieves the same conservation value.
d.
Six Miles to Twelve Miles from Shore (Three to twelve miles from shore represents
11% of Maine’s whale-days and 30% of Maine’s overall risk, see Appendix I)
Proposal: Require a minimum trawl length of fifteen traps per two endlines, or eight traps per
single endline.
Rationale: A fifteen-trap trawl configuration is expected to result in substantial endline
reductions in this area. The flexibility to use either a fifteen-trap trawl with two endlines or an
eight-trap trawl with a single endline, near equivalent configurations from a conservation
standpoint, allows for greater compliance with the regulations and recognizes that fishing
practices differ along the coast. This flexibility in trawl configuration also considers fishermen
safety and boat capacity, as some fishing operations in the region may not be able to safely haul
and stow fifteen traps on a boat. Load cell data collected by ME DMR also informed the
proposal for a fifteen-trap trawl length (see Section C-II). In particular, some of the load cell data
collected to evaluate the placement of weak points measured loads on the vertical line of fifteentrap trawls. This provided a level of data to inform both the trawling-up and weak point
components of ME DMR’s proposal.

214

e.
Twelve Miles from Shore to the Lobster Management Area 1/3 Boundary (88% of
Maine’s whale-days and 66% of Maine’s overall risk, see Appendix I)
Proposal: Require a minimum trawl length of twenty-five traps per two endlines.
Rationale: This trawl length provides the lowest ratio of vertical lines to traps in Maine’s
proposal. It also pushes the bounds of fishermen’s safety. At ME DMR’s June 2019 industry
meetings, fishermen from many parts of the coast expressed significant concern that few vessels
are equipped to handle thirty- or forty-trap trawls in addition to the mile of rope needed to fish at
these trawl lengths. Requiring fishermen to operate beyond their boat’s capacity would result in
dangerous fishing practices and the potential loss of human life. A twenty-five-trap trawl length
recognizes that vertical lines in the offshore areas of the Gulf of Maine pose a greater risk to
right whales given whales are more frequently sighted in this area; however, it also
acknowledges the limits on the capacity of fishing vessels in the area. Finally, this trawl length is
enforceable, but longer trawls likely would not be. With current vessel platforms, it would be
nearly impossible for Maine’s Marine Patrol to safely haul long trawls (i.e. greater than 30 traps
per trawl) to check compliance with ALWTRP measures.
Modifications to Maine’s Approach on Vertical Line Reductions
At the April 2019 ALWTRT, there was a consensus statement that each state and/or Lobster
Management Area (LMA) would meet a 60% risk reduction in their respective region. At the
time, one way for Maine to achieve this target was to take a 50% vertical line reduction
(equivalent to a 50% risk reduction) and implement 1700 lbs breaking strength rope in the top
75% of all vertical lines in federal waters (equivalent to a 10% risk reduction).
Since that time, outputs of the decision support tool have substantially changed based on
modifications to the model as well as emerging and changing data. As a result, the information
available to ME DMR is different than what was available at the time of the ALWTRT meeting.
Specifically, the risk reduction attributed to weak rope has steadily increased. This is
corroborated by peer reviewed literature which suggests a full weak rope would significantly
reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality for multiple large whale species by 72%.21 It also
matches results of the analysis conducted by ME DMR (Appendix I). Given these changes, ME
DMR has relied more heavily on weak points in the line (see Section C-II) as a method to
achieve risk reduction.
Furthermore, analysis by ME DMR following the ALWTRT April 2019 meeting showed that, to
achieve a 50% vertical line reduction, a substantial portion of this reduction would have to be
taken within exempted waters. This is because roughly 70% of state waters, where the majority
of the Maine lobster fishery is licensed, are within the exempt area.22
21 Knowlton, A. R., Robbins, J., Landry, S., McKenna, H. A., Kraus, S. D., and T. B. Werner. 2015. Effects of fishing rope
strength on the severity of large whale entanglements. Conservation Biology, 30, 2:318-328.
22 Currently, reporting requirements do not allow for effort to be discerned between exempt and non-exempt waters. It is

therefore assumed that 70% of vertical lines in the Maine state waters lobster fishery are shoreward of the exemption line because
this is the percentage of area that is included shoreward of that line. This is also the assumption made in the

215

Implementing strict vertical line reduction measures in this area does not align with right whale
sightings data and the associated risk of entanglement. Right whales are rarely sighted in
Maine’s exempted waters and copepod abundance does not support right whale feeding
aggregations23, hence why they were designated as areas where additional regulations would not
provide meaningful conservation benefits to right whales. As a result, a 50% vertical line
reduction would have forced the greatest regulatory change on areas where whales do not
frequent, having minimal effectiveness. In contrast, the vertical line reductions put forward in
this proposal focus on areas outside of exempted waters and provide more meaningful
protections to right whales. We believe this is a stronger and more defensible plan which
balances right whale conservation with maintaining a viable lobster fishery.
Trends Regarding Latent Effort in the Maine Lobster Fishery
A potential concern with vertical line reductions via trawling up is that latent licenses will
become active and negate the intended conservation benefits. ME DMR reviewed trends in latent
lobster licenses in Maine and found them to be extremely stable (Figure 1). In particular, over the
last ten years, there has been little perturbation in the number of latent licenses in the Maine
lobster fishery. This corresponds to a time of record high landings when we may have expected
latent fishermen to re-engage in the fishery. Furthermore, this stability persisted through previous
changes to the ALWTRP, including the 2014 vertical line rule which established the previous
trawling-up minimums. Given these trends, ME DMR is confident the activation of latent
licenses will not negate the conservation benefit gained by the proposed trawling-up scenarios
and will result in meaningful reductions in vertical lines.

Figure 1: Trends in Maine lobster licenses, including number purchased, active licenses, and
latent licenses. Data come from Maine DMR’s license and 100% dealer reporting databases.
Dealers are required to report purchases from all harvesters. Any harvesters without any reported
purchased landings are considered latent.
Industrial Economics model of the fishery, which is used in the Decision Support Tool and accepted by both NOAA Fisheries
and the ALWTRT as best available information.
23 Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, 81 Fed. Reg. 4837 (January

27, 2016).

216

Misconceptions about Changes in the Maine Offshore Lobster Fishery
It has been repeatedly alleged that effort in the offshore lobster fishery is expanding and thereby
increasing the risk of entanglement posed by the fishery. In fact, this allegation is a basis for the
conclusions made in the NEFSC’s September 2018 technical memo. ME DMR sought to
investigate this claim by looking at landings, number of trips, and catch per unit effort by
distance from shore. Outside of 3 miles from shore, pounds landed (Figure 2) in the Maine
lobster fishery has increased over time. However, a similar trend is not reflected in the number of
trips; the number of trips in the federal Maine lobster fishery has been relatively stable (Figure
3). This suggests that there has been an increase in the landings per trip, rather than an increase
in effort, which has contributed to the increased harvest offshore. This conclusion is supported in
Figure 4; regardless of distance from shore, all areas have seen an increase in average catch per
trap in the Maine lobster fishery. The slope of this increase is greater in federal waters than state
waters. Thus, while it is accurate to say landings have increased in the federal Maine lobster
fishery, there has also been a significant increase in average catch per trip.

Figure 2: Proportion of pounds of American lobster landed by distance from shore in Maine.
The blue line represents 0-3 miles from shore. The orange line represents 3-12 miles from shore.
The grey line represents 12 miles to the LMA 1/3 boundary. Data come from Maine DMR’s
harvester reporting database.

217

Figure 3: Proportion of directed American lobster trips in Maine since 2008. The blue line
represents 0-3 miles from shore. The orange line represents 3-12 miles from shore. The grey line
represents 12 miles to the LMA 1/3 boundary. Data come Maine DMR’s harvester reporting
database.

Figure 4: Average catch per trap (in pounds) in the Maine lobster fishery. The blue line represents
0-3 miles from shore. The orange line represents 3-12 miles from shore. The grey line represents
12 miles to the LMA 1/3 boundary. Data come from Maine DMR’s harvester reporting database.
218

II.

1700-Pound Weak Points

This proposal includes the addition of weak points to remaining vertical lines in the Maine
lobster fishery. This measure will result in rope breaking at 1700 lbs, a value determined in the
literature to be weak enough to allow a right whale to break free.24 Moreover, Knowlton et al.,
concluded from their research that a 1700 lbs breaking strength will significantly reduce the rate
of serious injury and mortality to right whales as a result of entanglements. Thus, it offers a level
of protection for all lines left in the water.
Appendix V describes results of ME DMR’s research initiative to determine the breaking
strength of vertical lines already being used by the fishery, as well as various rope and weak
point configurations. This analysis is provided to NOAA Fisheries to begin the development of a
list of 1700 lbs weak points options approved for use in the fishery. ME DMR has specifically
focused on weak points which result from alterations to existing rope. This aligns with ME
DMR’s goal of reducing economic impacts on the fishery. As such, ME DMR plans to continue
this work with the industry and requests the ability to continue to refine and add to the list of
options approved for use as 1700 lbs weak points.
ME DMR highlights that weak points, in combination with the minimum trawling-up levels
proposed, must be in conjunction with conservation equivalency. Due to the varying fishing
conditions along the coast, a ‘one size fits all’ approach does not work in Maine. As a result, a
method for flexibility must be included in the proposed rule so that, in consideration of local
practices and challenges, fishermen can suggest modifications to the regulations to achieve the
same level of protection for right whales. Conservation equivalency is particularly important for
safety; without a method to modify the state-wide proposal to fit regional oceanographic
conditions, fishermen will be required to partake in unsafe fishing practices. ME DMR is
committed to ensuring the safety of fishermen throughout this regulatory process and feels
conservation equivalency is a key to this endeavor. Sections VI and VII provide greater detail on
this management flexibility.
a.

State Waters (shoreward of the 3-mile line)

Proposal: Through state regulations enacted by ME DMR, a single 1700 lbs weak point will be
required half way down vertical lines in the Maine lobster fishery.
Rationale: The inclusion of weak points in all vertical lines means rope will part at the 1700 lbs
breaking strength recommended in literature and by the ALWTRT. In particular, including a
weak point in exempted waters provides protection such that, in the rare event a right whale
enters exempted waters and gets entangled, the encounter will not result in a SI&M. It is
important to note that the risk reduction associated with
the weak point in exempted waters is not included in ME DMR’s analysis as shown in Appendix
I. As a result, the risk reduction achieved from the implementation of a weak point in exempted
waters is in addition to the risk reduction percentage calculated in Appendix I.
24

Knowlton et al., 2015.

219

ME DMR intends for this measure to be implemented in state regulations and not in the federal
ALWTRP. It is recommended NOAA Fisheries cite the state regulation when federal regulations
are published. If necessary, ME DMR would support a clause that, if Maine removes this state
regulatory requirement, NOAA Fisheries would take emergency action to implement the same
regulatory measure in the ALWTRP.
b.

Federal Waters (3-mile line out to 12 miles)

Proposal: Two 1700 lbs weak points will be required in the top half of all vertical lines in the
Maine lobster fishery from the 3 -mile line out to 12 miles. One weak point should be roughly
25% down the vertical line and the other roughly 50% down the vertical line.
Rationale: The inclusion of weak points in all vertical lines means rope will part at the 1700 lbs
breaking strength recommended in literature and by the ALWTRT. As a result, this substantially
reduces the risk of serious injury and mortality in Maine’s waters.
Based on industry comments, ME DMR is concerned that, in some areas, a weak point 50%
down the vertical line may compromise fishermen safety when hauling, particularly as the
minimum trap-per-trawl requirement increases. Maine’s Commercial Fishing Safety Council, a
body established in state statute charged with providing information and advice concerning
fishing safety issues, also expressed concerns particularly when fishing in large tides. Given it is
likely that a weak point 50% down the vertical line may work for some fishermen and not for
others, ME DMR highlights the importance of having a method for conservation equivalency and
individual safety exemptions in the federal proposed rule (see Sections VI and VII). This
flexibility would allow some lobster management zones and/or individuals in Maine to achieve
the same level of conservation by adopting a different measure (e.g. greater level of trawling-up,
trap reduction) in order to move the weak points further up the vertical line.
c.

Federal Waters (outside 12 miles)

Proposal: One 1700 lbs weak point one-third of the way down the vertical line in the Maine
lobster fishery outside 12 miles from shore.
Rationale: The inclusion of weak points in all vertical lines means rope will part at the 1700 lbs
breaking strength recommended in literature and by the ALWTRT. As a result, this substantially
reduces the risk of serious injury and mortality in Maine’s waters.
Proposing one weak point further up the vertical line outside 12 miles is in response to safety
concerns heard from the fishing industry and Maine’s Commercial Fishing Safety Council.
Trawl minimums of 25-trap trawls fished in deeper waters at this distance from shore put higher
hauling loads on the vertical lines and could result in safety issues.
Putting a weak point one-third of the way down the vertical line, as per the recommendation of
the Maine Commercial Fishing Safety Council, puts a protection measure in place for right
whales encountering the top of the vertical line, while ensuring the safety of fishermen utilizing
these waters. A greater description of these safety concerns and associated data are included on
pages 22-25.

220

Maine’s proposal for weak points was developed by focusing on three factors: feasibility,
enforceability, and protections to right whales. ME DMR originally began to consider the
inclusion of weak points in vertical lines because a 1700 lbs manufactured rope is currently not
available at marine supply stores. Further, ME DMR’s testing of various functional breaking
strengths (Appendix V) indicated a 5/16th diameter rope would be needed to meet the threshold
of breaking at 1700 lbs. At industry meetings, fishermen consistently commented that 5/16th
diameter rope would be too small for their haulers. Given these constraints, ME DMR began to
consider weak points as a way to reduce the breaking strength of vertical lines.
Enforceability of Proposed Weak Point Measures
In its development of a weak point proposal, ME DMR had several conversations with law
enforcement personnel to determine what types of weak point measures can be enforced on the
water. Maine Marine Patrol agreed that implementing regulations requiring a specific number of
weak points in broad fishing areas is enforceable; but requiring weak points based on a
prescribed depth interval is not. More specifically, if a regulation were to require weak points at
a specified depth spacing, each fisherman would have a different weak point requirement for
each of his or her lines depending on the depth at which his or her traps were submerged. As a
result, enforcement personnel would have to know the depth of water when the traps were set
and then count the associated number of weak points to determine compliance. Not only is this
time consuming but it is impractical given depths change throughout the day due to tides.
Further, traps can be moved in large storms, meaning a trap legally set at one depth may be
moved to a different depth and be in violation of the ALWTRP.
Trying to create uniformity in weak point regulations by lobster zone also poses enforcement
challenges. Depths vary between and within Maine lobster zones. For example, offshore regions
of Zone G (adjacent to the New Hampshire border) have much shallower sections than its
neighboring Zone F. As a result, regulations based on depth would result in different weak point
requirements for the two zones. This disparity between zones creates complications given
fishermen can, and often do, move between adjacent areas. Under Maine’s regulations,
fishermen can fish up to 49% of their traps in an adjacent zone. This means, for example, a Zone
G fisherman can fish 49% of his or her traps in Zone
F. If fishermen setting traps side by side are subject to different regulations, enforcement of these
regulations becomes extremely difficult.
Operational Feasibility for Industry
Another key consideration for ME DMR when discussing weak points was their feasibility for
industry. Staff at the NEFSC compiled information showing the number of points which would
result if weak points were required every 40 ft in the top half of a vertical line (Figure 5). While
this analysis was intended for discussion, it highlighted the impracticality of weak points at this
spacing. Specifically, fishermen in three to six miles would be required to have roughly 3 to 8
weak points in the top half of their line as water depths increased; fishermen in six to twelve
miles would be required to have roughly 5 to 13 weak points in the top half of their line; and
fishermen outside of twelve miles would be required

221

to have anywhere from 5 to 20 weak points in the top half of their line. These numbers of weak
points would likely incentivize the use of more rope, increasing the risk of whales getting
entangled in the water column and fishermen getting entangled in additional rope on deck. At
ME DMR’s industry meetings, fishermen commented that, in response to an initial proposal that
75% of their vertical line break at 1700 lbs, they would likely lengthen their vertical line to
ensure a safe rope strength when hauling traps. ME DMR believes a similar response would
occur if numerous weak points are required; fishermen will likely lengthen line, even at the cost
of adding more weak points, to ensure ‘strong’ rope when hauling. This outcome is counter to
the efforts of the ALWTRT as it would result in the presence of additional slack rope in the
water, thereby increasing the risk of entanglement.

Figure 5: Number of weak points in the top half of a vertical line if required every 40 ft, by Maine lobster zone and
distance from shore. Data and figure provided by the NEFSC.

ME DMR is confident that its proposal for 1700 lbs weak points is enforceable, feasible,
effective and, most importantly, will not create perverse incentives which jeopardize right whale
conservation. A specific number of weak points is enforceable because it is simple and uniform
based on distance from shore. This proposal is also feasible for fishermen, helping to ensure
compliance with the regulations. ME DMR does not anticipate it will drastically alter current
vertical line lengths given rope strength is preserved in the bottom half of the vertical line where
load cell data shows the strain is highest.

222

Development of Weak Point Measures: Data and Previous Discussion
In ME DMR’s analysis for this proposal, we found a lack of data or peer-reviewed literature
regarding the ideal distance between weak points. Further, the definition of weak rope, how
weak points may be integrated into vertical lines, or how much risk reduction should result from
these measures were not agreed upon at the April 2019 ALWTRT meeting. Review of the
meeting summary for the April 2019 ALWTRT meeting showed neither a discussion regarding
the appropriate spacing of weak points nor a definition of what might constitute weak rope was
ever made or included in the vote.
In the history of the ALWTRT, there have been discussions and proposals which have included
measures which occur every 40 ft; however, it has never been formally agreed that this is the
correct spacing for any measure. ME DMR reviewed the origin of the 40 ft spacing and found it
was initially a recommendation developed for potential gear marking requirements. The first
mention of using 40 ft spacing for gear marking occurred in a 2009 report on experimental wire
tags from the International Fund for Animal Welfare. This report was included as a part of the
November 2010 ALWTRT meeting. The report suggests that because 90% of the gear recovered
from whales is at least 40 ft in length, marking gear every 40 ft would result in 90% of recovered
gear having a mark which can be used to discern fishery and/or set location. The data referred to
in the report are from a study conducted by John Kenney, a former NMFS gear specialist.
Kenney looked at gear taken off of whales from 1997-2003 which ranged in length from 5-1200
ft. He found in the 61 samples analyzed, the average length of line was 181 ft, the median length
was 102 ft, and the lower and upper quartiles were 60 and 222 ft, respectively. From this analysis
it was concluded that 12 ft spacing would result in 95% recovery of a mark, 40 ft would result in
90% recovery, 60 ft would result in 75% recovery, and 102 ft would result in 50% recovery.
The first place that the 40 ft spacing was used in conjunction with a weak point was in the April
2017 ALWTRP exemption request from the Massachusetts South Shore Lobstermen’s
Association. In this proposal, the fishermen proposed to implement a weak sleeve (breaks at
1700 lbs) every 40 ft in their vertical lines as a way to be able to fish inside the Massachusetts
Restricted Area closure. The 40 ft spacing was used, not because it was determined to be the
ideal spacing for weak points, but because they were proposing the sleeves double as their gear
marking requirement as well. This proposal was not ultimately accepted by the ALWTRT.
There have also been comments that the 40 ft spacing is consistent with the girth or length of a
right whale. ME DMR maintains this has not been discussed by the ALWTRT nor has it been
published in peer-reviewed literature. Therefore, 40 ft spacing has no basis as the standard by
which the addition of weak points for the conservation benefit of right whales should be held.
Modifications to Maine’s Weak Rope Measures
At the April 2019 ALWTRT meeting, the implementation of 1700 lbs breaking strength rope in
the top 75% of vertical lines was discussed for the federal Maine lobster fishery. This idea was
presented to fishermen at ME DMR’s industry meetings in June 2019 and concerns were expressed
regarding the ability to safely haul gear. Specifically, fishermen

223

were concerned that weakening the top 75% of the vertical line in combination with the proposed
increases in trawl lengths would reduce safety at sea. Many fishermen commented that, to
accommodate the proposed weakening of the majority of their endline, they intended to increase
the length of their vertical line to lengthen the bottom 25% of their endline and ensure enough
rope strength when hauling traps. Increasing overall amounts of rope in the water is counter to
the efforts of the ALWTRT, particularly when such additional line will likely be slack. Industry
members that fish in federal waters inshore of the 12 mile line did express that, with existing
vertical line lengths, modifications to the top 50% of the rope would be more feasible and
preferable, in that it would not likely lead to fishermen’s use of increased rope amounts. As a
result, ME DMR moved towards examining changes to the top 50% of the rope to ensure
industry feasibility and safety in addition to the protection of right whales.
ME DMR has heard from fishermen fishing outside of 12 miles that a weak point 50% of the
way down the vertical line would present safety concerns given the 25-trap minimum being
proposed in this area. These concerns are supported by the load cell data gathered by ME DMR
and presented in Figure 8 (discussed in depth below). Loads recorded on vertical lines for gear
being fished in more than 100 fathoms of water and more than 20-traps on a trawl exceeded
2,000 lbs of load. Hauling loads at a weak point 50% of the way down the line would likely
result in loads routinely over 1,000 lbs of force. To accommodate weather conditions, hang
downs, and set over events, ME DMR worked with industry to propose a weak point one-third of
the way down the vertical line.
Using Load Cell Data to Inform Protections for Whales and Safety for Fishermen
The strategy to achieve a conservation benefit for right whales in the top portion of the line,
while maintaining safe hauling practices for fishermen, is supported by data collected
through ME DMR’s vertical line research initiative. Beginning in 2018 and extending through
2019, ME DMR worked with fishermen throughout the Gulf of Maine region to deploy load cells
on lobster vessels and document the hauling loads experienced by vertical lines during common
fishing conditions. Of the 14 fishermen who fished with load cells on their boats, six of those
were from Maine, documenting over 140 hauls in five of the seven Maine Lobster Management
Zones (Figure 6). The Maine portion of the dataset occurs in federal waters and includes trawl
lengths ranging from 15 to 20 trap trawls in depths of 55- 125 fathoms.

224

Figure 6. Summary of load cell deployments throughout the Gulf of Maine and New England
with associated information on the trawl lengths, depth, and distance from shore.
Results of the load cell deployments show peaks in the load asserted on the line as the trawl is
being hauled (Figure 7). Often, the highest peaks in the loads are in the first section of the haul,
including the vertical line, because this corresponds to when the maximum number of traps are
suspended in the water column. Most of the hauls recorded were in calmer weather and, while
some gear set overs (where a trawl is laid over another) were recorded, these results shouldn’t be
expected to show the highest possible loads that would be experienced by fishermen in more
extreme hauling events.

225

Figure 7. An example of a load cell output from a 20-trap trawl. The portion of the haul that is
the load on the vertical line occurs between 0-750 on the time axis and increases steadily as traps
are picked up off of the bottom. The first trap coming onboard the vessel is denoted by the red
circle and was validated by observers on the vessel. The peak load on the vertical line occurred at
the first trap with a load of 1,263 lbs. Loads after this point were hauled on the groundline.
The results from the load cell deployments in Maine federal waters support the concerns
expressed by fishermen, namely that the combination of increased trawl lengths and weak points
half way down the line could compromise safety. Figure 8 shows the average and range of
hauling loads on the vertical lines for a variety of trawl lengths and how those loads are affected
by the depth of the trawl. Trawl lengths of 20 traps in more than 100 fathom depths have average
vertical line loads greater than 1700 lbs and range over 2000 lbs. As a result, it is essential that
this portion of the fishery be allowed a sufficient length of vertical line at the bottom to be able
to haul these common working loads safely.
The average hauling loads documented for trawls between 5-20 traps in 50-100 fathoms are
below the 1700 lbs threshold for loads. However, this does not allow a safety buffer for more
extreme hauling events that include weather, gear set-overs, and getting hung-down (or caught)
on rocky bottom. There were 60 hauls of 15-trap trawls in this depth range with the load cells.
The maximum load recorded on a vertical line was 2,152 lbs, which is over the weak point 1700
lbs threshold. The average vertical line hauling load of these trawls was 1365 lbs, just 335 lbs
below the 1700 lbs target. 25% of these hauls recorded vertical line loads over 1500 lbs and 97%
of hauls were over 1000 lbs. Additionally, 100% of hauling loads for the 5-trap trawls in this
depth bin were also over 1000 lbs of load.

226

ME DMR supports the industry’s request for safe buffers in working line loads to allow for
variables that impact both the load put on lines during hauling and the likelihood that a line may
break. These variables include the natural degradation of line strength over time, extreme hauling
events, weather, and tides.

Figure 8. All recorded vertical line loads binned by trawl length and depth fished. Average
vertical line loads for more than 20-trap trawls in 100 fathoms of water are above the 1,700 lbs
weak point threshold. Trawl lengths from 5-20 in the 50-100 fathom depth bin average below the
1700 lbs threshold, but almost reach over 1000 lbs almost 100% of the time.
Implications for Drag Should Entanglement Occur
In this proposal, varying lengths of vertical line have the potential to be left on a right whale in
the event it becomes entangled and the rope breaks at a weak point. The length of the trailing line
depends on the initial length of the vertical line and the number of weak points required in the
area. Figures 9-11 were developed by the NEFSC for discussion around this topic and show the
spectrum of line lengths which could be left on right whales under this weak point proposal.
Figure 9 should be used for the state waters (all exempt and non- exempt state waters) proposal
of one weak point half way down the vertical line. In general, less than 100 ft of line would be
remaining after a break inside the exemption area. Only slightly more, up to 150 ft, could be left
on a right whale in Maine’s non-exempt state waters.
Figure 10 shows the lengths of line that could result from three to twelve miles in federal waters
where two weak points in the upper 50% of the vertical line are required. The results

227

vary by distance from shore, which is mainly attributable to the differences in depth and
therefore the scope of the vertical line in each area. From 3-6 miles from shore the length of line
left on a whale could range from about 50-125 ft. The more offshore section from 6-12 miles
increases to a range of 100-200 ft.

Figure 9. This figure was prepared by the NEFSC for discussion purposes. The first two
columns, “exempt” and “state”, show the range in lengths of lines that could be left on a right
whale after a weak point breaks. This is assuming one weak point 50% down the vertical line in
state waters and is categorized by the amount of gear in a given depth. Most gear inside the
exemption line would result in less than 100 ft of line remaining on a right whale after a break.
Gear in non-exempt or
“state” waters would result in slightly longer lengths of line, generally ranging from 100-150 ft.

228

Figure 10. This figure was prepared by the NEFSC for discussion purposes. The columns
labeled “3-6” and “6-12” show the range in lengths of lines that could be left on a right whale
after a weak point breaks from three to twelve miles in federal waters by distance from shore.
This is assuming two weak points in the top 50% of the vertical line in this area and is
categorized by the amount of gear in a given depth. Most gear in the 3-6 mile band would range
in remaining line length from 50- 125 ft. A break in the distance range 6-12+ could result in lines
left from 100-200 ft.
Under this proposal the area outside of 12 miles from shore will have one weak point 1/3 of the
way down the vertical line from the buoy to accommodate the safety needs of the fleet operating
in deeper depths with longer trawls. Figure 11 shows the distribution of vertical lines occurring
at different water depths by distance from shore in Maine waters. The fishing area outside of 12
miles can generally range from 50-125 fathoms depth, but most of the vertical lines occupy the
depths around 100 fathom. Assuming a 1.5 scope of vertical line length to depth, a common
practice in the fishery, the vertical line lengths would range to 188 fathom. A weak point
breaking 1/3 of the way down this vertical line could result in a line 62 fathom in length on a
right whale.

229

Figure 11. This figure was prepared by the NEFSC for discussion purposes. The last column
label “12+” by Maine Lobster Management Zones A-G, shows the number of vertical lines
distributed in that area by depth in fathoms. Most of the gear set in the 12+ distance from shore is
set in a range around the 100fa depth strata.
Van der Hoop et al. (2015)25 shows some results of the drag resulting from different lengths of
5/16” line and concludes shorter lengths of line are better for whales due to less drag forces
being applied to the swimming whale. ME DMR attempted to duplicate these results using two
different diameters of rope most common in the fishery: 3/8” and 7/16” sink rope. Van der Hoop
used a range of line lengths including 82-480 ft. DMR used a set of three lengths which included
60, 120, and 240 ft. In the ME DMR study (Figure 12), the different diameters and lengths of
line were tested using a load cell to measure the pounds of drag force exerted on the lines at
varying vessel speeds. The slow speed, around 2.5
25 Van der Hoop, J. M., Corkeron, P., Kenney, J., Landry, S., Morin, D., Smith, J., and M. J. Moore. 2015. Drag from fishing
gear entangling North Atlantic right whales. Marine Mammal Science, 32, 2:619-642.

230

knots, simulates the swimming right whale. The higher speeds may be confounded by the wake
created by the vessel exerting more drag force on the lines.
The results show that, at the 2.5 knot speed, drag forces are at or below 10 lbs of force for any of
the line lengths in both studies. DMR’s results show that at the line lengths of 60 and 120 ft, line
drag is less than 5 lbs of force. Lengthening the line out to 240 ft only increased the drag a
couple of pounds, up to 7 lbs of drag force. DMR believes that increasing the number of weak
points and, therefore, shortening the distance between them will have minimal effect on the
potential drag for right whales, but would come at a much greater cost to the fishing industry.

Figure 12. Data from ME DMR field trials assessing the drag force exerted by different
diameters and lengths of line are plotting here next to the results from Van Der Hoop et al. 2015.
At the speed of 2.5 knots, all lengths of line exert less than 10 lbs of drag force, with the 60 and
120 ft lengths exerting less than 5 lbs.

231

III.
a.

Gear Marking
Exempt Waters (shoreward of the exemption line)

Proposal: A purple Maine-only gear mark is required at the top, middle, and bottom of the vertical
line. The top mark is 36” in length and must be in the top two fathoms of the line. The middle and
bottom marks are 12” in length. Gear mark requirements within exempt waters have been finalized
by the adoption of state regulations.
Note: ME DMR finalized gear marking requirements for exempt waters at its October 2019
DMR Advisory Council meeting. The regulations set an implementation date of September 2020,
ahead of the federal regulatory process, and will allow for individuals to switch to purple gearmarking ahead of the implementation deadline. A copy of the regulations can be found here:
https://www.maine.gov/dmr/lawsregulations/regulations/documents/dmrchapter75_11132019.pdf
It is recommended NOAA Fisheries cite ME DMR’s regulation when the federal rule is published
and include a clause that, if the State removes this requirement, NOAA Fisheries would take
emergency action to implement the same regulatory requirement in the ALWTRP.
Rationale: (see rationale included for non-exempted waters below)
b.

Non-Exempt Waters

Proposal: A purple Maine-only gear mark replaces the existing 12-inch red marks at the top,
middle, and bottom of the vertical line. In addition, a 6” green mark and a 36” purple mark, in
the top two fathoms of the line will be required.
Note: ME DMR finalized gear marking requirements for non-exempt waters at its October 2019
DMR Advisory Council meeting. The regulations set an implementation date of September 2020,
ahead of the federal regulatory process, and will allow for individuals to switch to purple gearmarking ahead of the implementation deadline. A copy of the regulations can be found here:
https://www.maine.gov/dmr/lawsregulations/regulations/documents/dmrchapter75_11132019.pdf
Rationale: It has been clear throughout the ALWTRT discussions that a primary impediment to
the development of regulations is the lack of conclusive data on what gear is involved in
entanglements. This includes cases in which no gear is present and cases in which gear is
retrieved but does not have markings which can be traced to a specific fishery. Maine’s gear
markings address both of these challenges by increasing the amount of gear that is marked and
increasing the frequency of markings on those lines. Maine has adopted these additional gear
markings ahead of the federal regulatory process given the importance of spatially-specific data.

232

The core of Maine’s gear marking proposal is the implementation of a state-specific purple mark
for Maine’s lobster fishery. At present, all Northeast trap/pot gear is identified by a red mark.
This lack of spatial specificity means that, if red-marked gear is retrieved during an
entanglement, the gear cannot be attributed to a specific state. As a result, it is nearly impossible
to develop protections for right whales which are specific to fisheries or regions with confirmed
entanglements, and broad-brush management measures must be used as a default. Maine’s
adoption of a state-specific mark will help provide the basis for spatially specific data and
support better management advice in the future. Furthermore, a lack of purple marks in future
entanglement records will help Maine justify the success of its right whale protection measures
in place at that time.
Another major component of Maine’s gear marking plan is the requirement that all commercial
lobster gear within Maine’s exempted waters be marked. Currently, gear fished shoreward of the
exemption line is not subject to the gear marking requirements in the ALWTRP. While scientific
evidence does not show that right whales frequent exempted waters or that gear within the
exemption area has contributed to a right whale entanglement, the State does recognize that this
lack of marking creates holes in the data. Requiring this gear to be marked will address these
data gaps and greatly increase the number of marked vertical lines. Further, it will reduce
uncertainty surrounding the retrieval of gear that is unmarked since all Maine commercial lobster
gear will be subject to marking requirements and, therefore, identifiable.
Gear in both the exempt and non-exempt waters will be required to have a 36” purple mark in the
top two fathoms of the line. This requirement stemmed from a Coast Guard and New England
Fishery Management Council recommendation intended to increase the visibility and frequency
of markings. Specifically, the Coast Guard suggested a 36” mark at the top of the line could
enable the identification of fishery-specific gear from various platforms such as boats and planes.
This would mean data in the entanglement record could be significantly improved without gear
being retrieved. Further, the additional mark increases the number of marks per line by 25%,
making it more likely that a piece of retrieved gear from an entangled whale will have a mark.
Finally, Maine is proposing a green mark, in combination with the Maine-only purple mark, be
required on vertical lines outside of exempted waters. A cornerstone of Maine’s right whale
regulations is the exemption line, which identifies inshore waters and bays where right whales
are rarely, if ever, present. This exemption line creates a balance between establishing
protections for right whales and ensuring a viable lobster fishery in Maine. As all Maine lobster
gear becomes marked, it is critical to differentiate between gear in exempted versus unexempted
waters given the two regions are subject to different regulations. Requiring an additional green
mark, in combination with the purple mark, allows Maine to achieve this objective.
IV.
a.

Harvester Reporting
All Maine Commercial Lobster License Holders

Proposal: Move the Maine lobster fishery to 100% harvester reporting.
Rationale: Currently 10% of Maine lobster license holders are randomly selected each year to
complete harvester reporting. While analysis by the ASMFC’s Lobster Technical Committee26
suggests this level of reporting is enough to get precise estimates of catch, it does not provide the
233

level of information on fishing effort or location needed for current right whale discussions.
Increased harvester reporting will close this data gap and provide a complete picture of activity
in the Maine lobster fishery. Addendum 26 to Amendment 3 to the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission American Lobster Fishery Management Plan, which was approved in
February 2018, requires all states to implement 100% active commercial harvester trip-level
reporting by January 1, 2024. Given, the importance of improved fishery effort data to ongoing
discussions, ME DMR is considering adopting 100% reporting ahead of the ASMFC
requirement.
Moving to 100% harvester reporting in the Maine lobster fishery is a large financial endeavor.
The Maine lobster fishery comprises roughly 40% of all commercial fishing trips taken each year
by all fisheries along the Atlantic coast. As a result, the anticipated volume of reports requires
additional ME DMR staff for QA/QC, technical support, and licensing. Further, options for
electronic reporting will need to be developed and offered to defray costs associated with paper
reporting. Currently, DMR is under contract with a third-party firm to develop a harvester
reporting application (expected to go live in Fall 2020) for iOS and Android devices that will
make harvester reporting more efficient and user-friendly.
ME DMR has also submitted a proposal for funding to the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics
Program (ACCSP). While the exact amount of funding is yet to be determined, it is likely there
will be a substantial difference between the level of funding needed and the level of funding
received. This deficit means other levels of funding will need to be identified and secured. ME
DMR highlights the feasibility of 100% reporting, and the date associated with its
implementation, are highly dependent on the level of funding received.
V.
Electronic Tracking on Federal Vessels
At the April 2019 meeting, ALWTRT members had a cursory discussion regarding electronic
tracking on federally permitted vessels. Given this discussion, ME DMR had conversations with
law enforcement and industry to gather feedback.
From an enforcement perspective, vessel tracking in federal waters would be a critical tool to
ensure new and existing regulations are properly enforced. Offshore fishing areas pose unique
challenges to enforcing regulations because the areas are vast. As a result, many hours can be
spent searching for gear. Further, Maine Marine Patrol currently has eight patrol vessels with the
capability to haul lobster gear in state waters. Of those eight, only
Addendum 26 to Amendment 3 to the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan.
http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/5a9438ccAmLobsterAddXXVI_JonahCrabAddIII_Feb2018.pdf
26

234

four boats have the capability to effectively and safely inspect lobster gear in areas where larger
trawls are fished outside of Maine state waters. As a result, Marine Patrol’s capability to enforce
lobster regulations drops as one moves further offshore.
Industry has expressed many reservations about adopting tracking on federally permitted vessels.
These concerns include the cost of the unit, ongoing expenses associated with data plans,
whether technical failures of a tracking device would cause boats to be tied to the dock, and
whether vessels which already have VMS onboard will be required to have two different tracking
units. Given a webinar on vessel tracking, as discussed at the April 2019 ALWTRT meeting, was
never held, many questions remain regarding the parameters and potential impacts of this
program.
Given industry’s concerns and the lack of clarity around a federal tracking program, ME DMR
recommends NOAA work with industry to understand the various tracking technologies which
are available and to determine the associated costs. As a starting point, ME DMR notes that
during the development of Addendum 26 to Amendment 3 to the American Lobster Fishery
Management Plan, the ASMFC’s Law Enforcement Committee (LEC) spent significant time
discussing vessel tracking in the federal lobster fishery. This group produced several
recommendations, including the need for a fast ping rate to discern between steaming and
hauling. The LEC concluded the ability to distinguish these actions through a tracking device is
important because it can indicate where traps are set and for how long. The LEC also noted that
real-time data is not necessary in the lobster fishery given traps are set for multiple days;
knowing the location of the traps is more important than getting hourly, real-time data. Given
these criteria, it may be that a cellular-based tracking device is a better fit for the federal lobster
fishery, and it is available at a substantially lower cost. At present, ASMFC is conducting a pilot
program with cellular- based tracking devices in the lobster fishery to better understand their
performance. This information may be crucial as NOAA begins to engage with the industry on
this issue.
VI.
Request for Conservation Equivalency
A unique feature of the Maine lobster fishery is that it is based on a system of co- management.
The coast of Maine is divided into seven lobster zones in recognition that areas along the coast
differ in habitat and traditional fishing practices. Each zone is represented through a Zone
Council, which is comprised of fishermen in the region. These Zone Councils are an integral part
of the lobster management process within the State.
Under ME DMR’s regulations, Zone Councils have the authority to set some measures within
their Zone, including exit ratios (number of licenses issued vs. the number of licenses that are not
renewed), number of traps fished (as long as this is more conservative than the statewide limit),
number of traps on a trawl (as long as it is more conservative than state regulations), and time of
day when fishing may occur. Several Zones have used this authority to fit regulations to their
region. For example, fishermen in Zone E have adopted a 600-trap limit based on local fishing
practices. All fishermen who fish in Zone E, regardless of whether it is their primary zone, are
held to the 600-trap limit.

235

At present, ME DMR’s proposal is for all state-licensed fishermen and is not differentiated by
Maine’s lobster management zones. However, this statewide approach does not acknowledge the
acute regional differences in the Maine lobster fishery. Further, it does not consider that Zone
Councils may prefer a different combination of measures to achieve the same level of risk
reduction. Allowing for future flexibility in the regulations to meet the same level of risk
reduction will be crucial to the success of this rule. As a result, ME DMR recommends NOAA
Fisheries include an alternative for conservation equivalency within the proposed rule. This will
prevent the need for lengthy rule-making process if regional measures need to be adjusted to
achieve the same level of risk reduction. Conservation equivalency is a management tool
frequently used by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and specific guidance has
been developed on its implementation and use.27
VII. Individual Safety Program
For a small number of fishermen, the measures included in this proposal exceed the physical
limitations of their boat and would require the purchase of a new boat to come into compliance.
While ME DMR believes these individual cases are few and far between, we do believe they
exist. Given the purchase of a new vessel can be cost prohibitive, ME DMR is asking for the
flexibility to address these safety concerns on an individual basis. To be clear, ME DMR is not
asking that these individuals be exempt from the risk reduction included in this proposal. Instead,
ME DMR is asking for the flexibility to address these individual cases in which a fisherman
physically cannot comply with the requirements.
For example, it may be that a fisherman does not have the boat capacity to comply with the new
trawling-up requirements. ME DMR is requesting the flexibility to develop an individual plan to
achieve the same risk reduction at a lower trawling-up scenario. This could include an individual
trap reduction and/or the use of full weak rope to compensate for the lower trawl limit.
Maine Marine Patrol would be notified of these individual cases to ensure enforcement and all
analysis showing the individual conservation equivalency would be sent to GARFO staff for
review.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Conservation Equivalency: Policy and Technical Guidance
Document. Approved May 2004; Edited October 2016.
http://www.asmfc.org/files/pub/ConservationEquivalencyGuidance_2016.pdf

27

236

3.3.1.1 Appendix I: Maine DMR Risk Assessment Tool
In the absence of a way to quantitatively assess the risk reduction gained by incorporating weak
points into vertical lines in Maine, ME DMR developed its own risk assessment tool utilizing
many of the same principals and data inputs as NMFS’ Decision Support Tool. However, the ME
DMR risk assessment tool does not incorporate the results of the gear severity poll. Instead, the
DMR calculation relies on data collected by its own vertical line research initiative and peer
reviewed literature stating that gear which breaks under 1700lbs of force should significantly
reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality in right whales (Knowlton 2015). The primary
definition of risk that was presented and discussed at the October 2018 and April 2019
ALWTRT meetings remain the same:
Risk = Whales X Vertical Lines X Threat
ME DMR is proposing measures for vertical line reductions, as well as the insertion of weak
points in vertical lines in a manner that differentiates measures by distance from shore.
Therefore, the areas calculated in this risk assessment are broken up and presented as follows:
Exemption line – 3 miles (Ex-3) or non-exempt state waters
3 miles – 12 miles (3-12); this combines measures from 3-6 and 6-12 miles
12 miles to the Area 1/3 line (12+)
Whales
To populate the whale portion of the above risk equation, ME DMR used the annual summed
number of right whales per area above from the expanded Duke whale model in the NMFS
Decision Support Tool. This is the latest version of the Duke right whale habitat model available.
The expanded version of the model pushes right whales inshore past the original extent of the
model, which may be inflating numbers in the nearshore areas. This component can easily be
updated as changes are made to that input. Up-to-date numbers were received from the Northeast
Fishery Science Center at the time of submission of this Plan. Using this method, less than 1% of
annual right whale presence in Maine non- exempt waters occurs in state waters between the
exemption line and the 3-mile line. Maine federal waters from the 3-mile line out to 12 miles
constitutes 11% of Maine’s annual right whale occurrence and 88% of Maine’s right whale
presence is contained beyond 12 miles. This is consistent with ME
DMR’s strategy to tailor the measures to more offshore areas where there the risk is higher.
It is important to note that ME DMR is evaluating the risk reduction gained by proposed
measures for the portion of risk that Maine represents. The annual total of whale days presented
above only includes those whales showing up in Maine’s portion of the LMA1 in the expanded
Duke model. For context, the total number of annual whale days in the domain within the
Decision Support Tool is 222,129. As such, Maine represents less than 10% of this total.
Vertical Lines
The number of vertical lines in this risk assessment is taken from the Industrial Economics gear
model, which is also used for Maine’s portion of LMA1 in the NMFS Decision Support Tool.
The total used in the calculation is the annual sum of vertical lines present by distance from
shore and, therefore, does not represent the number of vertical lines in the water at any one time
(the Industrial Economics model is often presented as a monthly average). Using this dataset,
63% of the vertical lines in the non-exempt portion of the Maine lobster fishery are within state
waters where most of the fleet is permitted. 29% of non-exempt gear occurs between 3 and 12
miles, while just 8% are fished outside 12 miles.
Threat

237

The calculation of the threat score is where this methodology departs from the NMFS Decision
Support Tool. In this analysis the threat of a vertical line to a right whale is assessed as a binary
value. The vertical line either poses a risk (breaks higher than 1700lbs) and is assigned a value of
1, or it does not pose a risk (breaks lower than 1700lbs) and is assigned a zero. Vertical lines that
break at 1700lbs or less are considered to be zero risk of serious injury or mortality to right
whales to maintain consistency with Knowlton (2015). ME DMR’s science staff worked
collaboratively with the fishing industry in Maine to collect and break more than 200 samples of
vertical lines in 2018 and 2019 to determine the functional breaking strength of the gear as it is
tied or spliced together in the fishery. The results of that study show that rope of a diameter of
5/16” or less can be considered weak, or reliably breaking below 1700lbs in a variety of vertical
line configurations and rope material types (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Breaking strength results of over 200 sample breaks from vertical lines donated by
fishermen throughout the Gulf of Maine region. Results are presented in the pounds of force
needed to break the line. Results are organized by rope diameter ranging from 5/16” to ½”. The
varying sample sizes for each diameter and sample type are denoted in the figure. Sample breaks
included the knots (grey) or splices (orange) used to attach pieces of rope together to make up
the vertical line. Unaltered (no knots or splices) lengths of lines were also broken to show how
much a knot or splice reduces the breaking strength. Those breaks are labeled as “clear” in
blue.
Therefore, ropes already known to the be used the fishery that are 5/16” diameter or smaller were
considered to already be weak and were removed from the baseline threat score. The use of
5/16” or smaller diameter line was documented by DMR science staff in a survey done
collaboratively with the lobster fishery in 2018 on how vertical lines are rigged and fished by
area. With more than 800 responses received, DMR was able to document that 14%, 9%, and 6%

238

of respondents reported using 5/16” or smaller diameter line in non-exempt state waters, 3-12
miles, and 12+ miles respectively (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The percentage of responses to the ME DMR vertical line gear survey in 2018 that
reported fishing with specific diameters of rope arranged by distance from shore.
The baseline use of weak (5/16” or smaller diameter rope) vertical lines was taken into account
in the risk analysis, which acts to lower the amount of risk reduction that is received for adding
weak points to lines in different areas. For example, 14% of vertical lines are already assumed to
break below 1700lbs in non-exempt state waters. Therefore, no risk reduction credit is given to
14% of the vertical lines in that area when calculating the risk benefit gained from adding weak
points to vertical lines. The remaining 86% of lines in that area that are currently fished using
ropes that break over 1700lbs can be used to calculate a risk reduction by adding weak points.
All vertical lines using rope diameters larger than 5/16” were given a risk score of 1.
The Baseline
The baseline amount of risk associated with non-exempt waters in Maine’s portion of LMA1 is
calculated by area using the above definition of risk and multiplying the annual sum of whales,

239

the annual sum of vertical lines, and the % of vertical lines breaking above 1700lbs and therefore
posing a threat.
This was done by distance from shore so that different measures in those areas could be assessed
against the amount of relative risk posed by that area. As seen in Table 1, non-exempt state
waters accounts for 4% of Maine’s relative risk of entanglement, while federal waters from 3-12
and 12+ account for 30% and 66% respectively.
Table 1. The baseline annual sum of whales, vertical lines, and lines breaking above or below
the 1700lb threshold by distance from shore in Maine non-exempt waters. Trends show that
while the majority of the vertical lines are closer to shore, 88% of the annual total of whales
occurs outside of 12 miles in Maine. Additionally, more of the vertical lines closer to shore
utilize rope diameters 5/16” or smaller and, therefore, pose no risk to right whales. These two
factors contribute to 66% of Maine’s relative risk of entanglement to right whales being
concentrated offshore beyond 12 miles.
Baseline
Whales

Ex-3
3 to 12
12+

AnnualSu
m
166
2,369
18,474

Totals

21,009

Threat of
Vertical
lines
AnnualSu
Percent<=
Percent
m
1700
934,924 63%
14%
430,414 29%
9%
118,370 8%
6%
Vertical
lines

Percent
0.8%
11%
88%

1,483,708

`Risk

Percent>
1700
86%
91%
94%

W*VL*T = R Percent
133,376,203 4%
932,309,353 30%
2,048,096,772 66%
3,113,782,327

Risk Analysis
To calculate the change in risk associated with measures in the ME DMR proposal, the same
calculation can be done with a few changes to represent the impact of the proposed measures.
The whale annual sum by area remains the same between the two calculations. In this scenario,
the vertical line totals are reduced in each area by the percentage reduction gained by the relative
trawl minimums being proposed. In the proposal this results in vertical line reductions of 25%,
21%, and 28% in non-exempt state waters, 3-12miles and outside 12miles, respectively. Lastly,
the threat score is altered to account for the vertical lines that will have weak points built in to
break the line at 1700lbs or less. The ME DMR proposal would implement a weak point into all
vertical lines in state waters 50% of the way down the line. In federal waters from 3-12 miles,
fishermen would be required to add two weak points into each vertical line, with none being
required more than 50% of the way down the line. Outside of 12 miles from shore, one weak
point would be required 1/3 of the way down the vertical line. To include this measure in the
calculation, all vertical lines were considered weak by the proportion of the way down the
vertical line that the lowest weak point is required. The analysis assumes that any right whale
entanglement in the top half of the vertical line will break the line at a designated weak point and
free the whale, avoiding serious injury and mortality.
Table 2 summarizes how the risk calculation changes when proposed measures are implemented.

240

Table 2. The resulting risk calculation with changes made for proposed risk reduction measures.
Changes include a drop in vertical lines by area resulting from trawling-up regulations, and a
gear threat in each area proportional to the location of the lowest weak point required.

Ex-3

Whales
Annual
Sum

Vertical Lines
Annual Sum – % Threat % not
Weak
Risk W*VL*T
reduction
166
701,193
50%
58,199,007

3 to 12

2,369

340,027

12+

18,474

85,227

66% 1,039,153,100

21,009

1,126,446

1,500,113,809

Relative risk reduction achieved by the proposed plan:
Risk reduction = 1 – (Proposal Risk/Baseline Risk)
Risk Reduction = 1 – (1,500,113,809/3,113,782,327) = 52%

241

50%

402,761,703

3.3.1.2

Appendix II: Letter to NOAA re Technical Memo

STATE OF MAINE
D EPARTMENT OF M ARINE R ESOURCES 21 STATE
HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333 - 0 0 2 1

PAUL R. LEPAGE

PATRICK C. KELIHER

GOVERNOR

COMMISSIONER

October 3, 2018
Dear Dr. Hare,
I am writing in response to the recently released NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE247, North Atlantic Right Whales—Evaluating Their Recovery Challenges in 2018 (“Technical
Memo” or “Memo”). Regrettably, I have significant concerns about the scientific merit of this
document, which I have documented below in detail.
As I am sure you’ll agree, any measures developed to protect right whales must be based on
sound science in order to be effective. For this reason, it is imperative that the Technical Memo
provide a comprehensive picture of the best available science to inform the critical decisions that
the TRT is being asked to make. The title of the Memo implies a comprehensive look at all
stressors across the right whale’s range. While many category I and category II fisheries from
Maine to Florida are regulated under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, the content
of the Memo is almost exclusively limited to the lobster fishery in the Gulf of Maine. There is
little context offered for how right whales are utilizing expanded habitats in Canadian and MidAtlantic waters, and how that changing range and interactions with other fisheries affects risk of
entanglement. Absent this information, any discussion on new regulations will be based on an
incomplete picture, and provide uncertain benefit to whales. It is my sincere hope that you will
endeavor to update and correct this document expeditiously, as we anticipate its use to inform the
work of the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) at its upcoming meeting in
Providence.
Overall, the Memo is inconsistent in its application and interpretation of various data sets and
publications. In some cases, conclusions directly contradict statements and information
previously presented by NOAA. In several instances, the paper lacks citations or cites
inappropriate sources (i.e. industry documents instead of raw data; unpublished articles) and
appears to be stating conclusions or opinions without any supporting data (i.e. that the 2015
vertical line regulations are making entanglements worse). Our most substantive concerns are
addressed below but please note that this list does not represent an exhaustive list of the issues
we identified, which range from minor technical points to omissions of core data sources.

242

First and most significantly, the Memo suggests that the 2015 vertical line regulations increased
the strength of rope and therefore the severity of entanglements by altering fishing practices and
encouraging the use of larger diameter ropes as vertical lines. There are no current data sets or
analyses used to support this theory. The paper instead cites Knowlton et al. 2016. While the
Knowlton paper accurately characterizes the change in rope strength through manufacturing
processes over time, the data used encompass the years 1994-2010. This time period was largely
before any of the substantial changes in gear due to regulations, such as the sinking groundline
regulation in 2009 and the vertical line rule in 2015, and overlapped with a time period in which
right whales actually saw population increases. There has been no recent assessment that states
that fishermen have been using larger diameter rope in response to the vertical line regulations in
2015.
Additionally, to our knowledge, there is no published analysis of ropes taken from right whales
that includes the time period since the vertical line regulations went into effect in 2015, nor any
assessment of the efficacy of those regulations. The most recent publication that details current
instances of entanglements that resulted in serious injuries or mortalities, NOAA’s “Serious
Injury and Mortality Determinations for Baleen Whale Stocks Along the Gulf of Mexico, United
States East Coast, and Atlantic Canadian provinces, 2011—2015” (Ref Doc. 17-19) was
published in 2017 and relies on data from 2011-2015 (prior to the implementation of the vertical
line rule). Instead of using this most recent agency source, the Memo repeatedly cites Knowlton
et al. 2012 to point out the increasing rate of entanglements and that 83% of the population has
been entangled at least once. Knowlton et al. 2012 is a comprehensive 30-year retrospective of
the right whale catalogue but does not provide an assessment of entanglements in the right whale
population beyond 2009. While it is indisputable that entanglements are increasing, a more
recent assessment would provide a more accurate picture of the current threats facing right
whales, which are changing rapidly. In fact, due to the lack of data on this critical question,
NOAA recently funded DMR’s current research project to improve understanding of gear usage,
hauling load and vertical line breaking strength. In sum, the Memo fails to take a comprehensive
look at how entanglement rates and severity have changed since the implementation of the
sinking groundline and vertical line regulations went into effect in 2009 and 2015, respectively,
nor does it assess changes or trends in entangling gear during that time period. It is therefore an
unreliable assessment of current regulations.
Second, the Memo cites increased Maine landings to indicate increased effort. Most importantly,
landings are not a proxy for effort, and have never been used as an accepted metrc for increased
risk of entanglement. The Memo cites Maine state landings data to demonstrate increased effort
offshore without describing where the data apply in terms of fishing areas. It uses these landings
to assert that
there is an increased overlap and therefore level of risk “offshore.” The data provided by DMR
staff represents landings generated from logbooks from 10% of randomly selected harvesters
licensed by the state. Contrary to the assertion made in Figure 2c, Maine logbook reported
landings have increased both inshore (which we define from 0-12 miles) and offshore (from 12
miles to the Area 1 boundary), but, when comparing the two areas, the inshore portion has
increased at five times the rate of the offshore area. It appeared, from the webinar held at the
time of publication, that NOAA interpreted “offshore” as being out to the Hague Line (based on
the webinar presenter’s interpretation of heat map slides, which are not included in the Memo).

243

These heat maps interpolate VTR data for lobster. While Area 3 has 50- 100% of Federal
licenses reporting through VTRs (ASMFC TC Memo July 2015), most Area 1 Federal lobster
permit holders are exempt from VTR requirements and those with permits required to report
represent less than 10% of Maine Federal permit holders and 3% of the total license holders in
Maine (ASMFC TC Memo January 2017). Maine has only a handful of Area 3 license holders
(permitted by NOAA), and the majority of effort that we categorize as being beyond 12 miles
would end at the Area 1/3 boundary, approximately 40 miles from the coastline. Area 3 VTR
data could characterize “offshore” effort but was not used in the Memo. It is unclear why NOAA
would choose to use state landings records for only one state that is dominated by inshore effort
if seeking to accurately characterize offshore effort, as the majority of the truly “offshore” effort
(in Area 3) is from permitholders in other states.
While the State of Maine recognizes that the size of our fishery is the reason for the focus on our
impact to right whales, effective management measures will require a clear picture of changing
population distribution and abundance in recent years. The Memo repeatedly points to an
expanding range and increasing overlap with fisheries as sources of increased risk. It notes
decreased observations of right whales in the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy during the
summer months and southeast coast in the winter, and increased presence in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence in the summer and off the mid-Atlantic in the winter. Despite the changes in
distribution, the only fishery considered for “increased” overlap is the Gulf of Maine lobster
fishery, despite the parallel assertion that the Gulf of Maine is an area of decreased presence and
the fact that NOAA’s own observation resources have been diverted to Canada because of this
shift. There is also little assessment of the unregulated fisheries they encounter in the Bay of
Fundy, on the Scotian Shelf and into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, or the devastating interactions
that resulted when right whales overlapped with changes in the snow crab fishery in 2017.
Additionally, there is no discussion of the role of other US regions or fisheries despite the fact
that the Memo states that right whales are increasingly using other areas, such as the midAtlantic. Furthermore, the Memo includes little discussion of the impact of other U.S. or
Canadian fisheries on right whales. All vertical lines do not present the same level of risk; the
location, the season, the type of gear, and whether it incorporates conservation regulations (e.g.
the use of weak links and sinking line in surface systems) all factor into the level of risk posed by
a given line. Additionally, lines that overlap with right whale feeding aggregations inherently
pose more risk of entanglement. A shift in habitat use out of the Gulf of Maine and into
Canadian waters does not double risk, but rather it shifts the spatial intensity of the risk that
exists. The Memo does not cite evidence for the assertion that closures are regionally effective,
nor does it cite any basis for Figure 4’s assertion that vertical lines have increased in the
Northeast since 2011. In fact, this claim directly contradicts a presentation made by Mark
Murray- Brown to the New England Fishery Management Council in December 2017, pointing
to the reduction of 2740 miles of vertical line achieved through implementation of the 2015
regulations.
There are additional instances where a more comprehensive data set is available but inexplicably
not used. For example, Figure 5 seems to be trying to show the relevance of the lobster fishery in
entanglements, but most of the entanglements shown are from years prior to when the sinking
groundline and vertical line rules were implemented. This Figure shows only those

244

entanglements where the set locations are known, and it is unclear whether it shows all
entanglements or only those resulting in serious injury or mortality. Notably absent from the
Memo is any reference to the much more robust dataset curated by NMFS that documents
entanglements to confirmed fisheries, which would provide a much more comprehensive look at
the causes of entanglements across the right whale’s range. Use of this dataset would also allow
a look at how entanglements have changed, either by the confirmed fishery to which the
entanglements are attributed, or by characteristics of the rope (i.e. diameter) over time. Two of
the entanglements in Maine shown on this map also fail to note that Maine lobster gear was the
secondary cause of entanglement. The use of range-wide, recent fishery confirmed instances of
entanglement would inform consideration of what measures would most effectively curtail the
current entanglement problem. Focusing on only entanglements where the set location is known
drastically limits an already small dataset and could result in the misalignment of new
regulations with the current entanglement risk.
I strongly believe the Maine lobster industry takes the threats to right whales seriously and will
work to identify a meaningful solution appropriate to the risk posed by their fishery under
current biological and environmental conditions and considering past regulatory actions.
However, conclusions based on conjecture, without sound scientific basis, will alienate their
critical participation in this process. The net result of the oversimplified picture painted by this
Memo is likely to be regulations imposed on a fishery or in an area that will result in very little
conservation benefit for the right whale but will come at a great cost to the fishermen in terms of
money, time, and safety.
I look forward to working with you and your staff to improve the accuracy of the information
which will inform the ALWTRT’s work going forward. If you have any questions or would like
to discuss this further, please contact Erin Summers, email: [email protected];
telephone: (207) 633-9556.
Sincerely,

Patrick C. Keliher Commissioner
Cc:
Mike Pentony, Regional Administrator, Greater Atlantic Regional Office Mike Asaro,
Protected Resource Division, Greater Atlantic Regional Office

245

3.3.1.3

Appendix III: Letter to NOAA re Decision Support Tool

April 19, 2019
Michael Pentony Regional Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, Massachusetts
01930
Dear Mr. Pentony,
Next week, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) will be meeting
with the goal of recommending a suite of measures to reduce the rate of serious injury and
mortality (SI&M) of North Atlantic right whales to below Potential Biological Removal
(PBR). The measures developed at this meeting have the potential to substantially impact
several important fisheries, including the American lobster fishery which is an economic
cornerstone of many New England communities. As a result, the states of Maine and New
Hampshire have been actively engaged on the ALWTRT, its sub-groups, and in
conversation with NOAA Fisheries. Our primary objective has been to provide the most
relevant data possible so resulting measures can target areas of high risk and yield the
greatest conservation benefit possible for right whales. Unfortunately, the weeks leading up
to this meeting have raised serious concerns about the ability to thoughtfully make these
recommendations. Specifically, NOAA Fisheries has been inconsistent in its message on the
analysis that will be provided to the ALWTRT, executed poor time management in holding
sub-group meetings and developing tools, provided insufficient time for stakeholders to
review newly developed models, and compromised the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of
the analysis needed to support important decisions. This has hindered the states' ability to
prepare for the ALWTRT meeting, and solicit the participation and engagement of the
fishing industry.
A key component of the upcoming ALWTRT meeting appears to be a new decision support
tool, or Risk Reduction Model. While the two states agree the development of this type of
tool is needed and applaud NOAA Fisheries for engaging a modeler familiar with the lobster
fishery, the states have concerns about the components of this model, its documentation, and
its lack of external review. As of the writing of this letter, no documentation on the model
has been provided to the ALWTRT. Consequently, states are being asked to attend the
ALWTRT meeting without an in-depth understanding of how the model works or how it
translates management measures into a reduction of risk. In addition, conversations with
NOAA Fisheries staff indicate this model has not been peer-reviewed. Given the model
appears to have been developed a few weeks prior to the ALWTRT meeting, stakeholders
are being asked to develop consensus management measures based on a model which was

developed under unreasonably tight deadlines, has no documentation, and has not been peer

246

reviewed.
Known components of the Risk Reduction Model further raise concerns about the outputs of this
product. On April 7th just two weeks before the upcoming meeting, ALWTRT members were
asked to complete a survey ranking the relative risk of different gear configurations and
modifications. Communications with NOAA Fisheries indicate results of this survey are an
important component of the model in determining "Severity" when evaluating the risk to whales
(Risk = Whales * Gear Density * Severity). While the New England states are not opposed to the
use of polling as a tool to capture the ALWTRT's expertise, the states are opposed to the use of a
survey which has not been developed or reviewed by a social scientist. As a result, the states believe
the risk value for various gear configurations should also be informed by gear taken off entangled
whales. We acknowledge only a subset of entanglements have gear that can be analyzed; however,
there are relevant trends which can inform the risk that different gears pose, such as the decline in
the prevalence of 3/8" rope in SI&M cases. In contrast, cases with rope diameter greater th.an
3/8" account for 88% of the total Sl&M since 20101•

In addition, the states review of Jason Robert's habitat model (Duke Habitat Model),
another component of the new Risk Reduction Model, raises concerns about the utility of this data
source in New England. While documentation provided on the Duke Habitat Model notes the model
was updated with data through 2016, an in-depth look at the data elements shows much of the
recent infonnation is from the mid-Atlantic region. Specifically, data on the distribution of
whales in New England (minus Cape Cod Bay, which is being updated for the ALWTRT) has
only been updated through aerial surveys completed through 2013. ln addition, standardized

shipboard surveys are largely absent from the Gulf of Maine. This leaves much of the Gulf of Maine
relying on the modeled distribution of right whales, which uses climatological data when there is
little effort and low sightings. There are plans to update the Duke Habitat Model with more recent
surveys, possibly find ways to incorporate opportunistic sightings, and split the time period to preand post-2010. However, none of these enhancements will be completed on a timeframe that is
relevant for the upcoming ALWTRT meeting. Thus, due to the changing distribution of right whales
since 2010 (Davis et al. 20172) , the current data elements in the Duke Habitat Model are no longer
relevant in New England as they do not reflect current right whale habitat use.

The compilation of these concerns has resulted in the states questioning the Risk Reduction Model's
outputs. Our understanding of the model is that areas of high risk are determined by the presence of
both right whales and fishing gear. NOAA Fisheries staff noted that the region south ofNantucket,
which has recently been under much scrutiny due to the high number of whales in the region, is
characterized as low risk in the model because of minimal fishing gear. Interestingly, the reverse
NMFS Large Whale Entanglement Reports; NMFS Mortality and Serious Injury Reports.
Davis, G. E., Baumgartner, M. F. and S. M. Van Parljs. 2017.Long-tenn passive acoustic recordings track the changing distribution of
North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. Scientific Repots, 1,
1

2

Article number: 13460.

247

does not seem to hold true; areas of high gear density but low whale presence, such as mid-

coast Maine, are characterized as having a high level of risk in the model. Unfortunately,
with less than a week to the ALWTRT meeting, there is no space in the current timeline to
raise these anomalies and brainstorm ways to fix them prior to having to use the model for
decision making purposes. As a result, team members are being asked to develop proposed
measures based on a model that was not complete prior to the ALWTRT meeting and whose
outputs prompt substantial questions. As a result, the states request the Risk Reduction
Model be fully documented for members of the ALWTRT and an external peer review be
conducted before final decisions based on the model are made.
In addition to questions about the development of the Risk Reduction Model, the states are
also troubled by the risk reduction target outlined by NOAA Fisheries in an April 5th email
to the ALWTRT. A description of the calculations for the risk reduction target indicate 50%
of the unattributed cases of SI&M are assumed to be a result of US fisheries; however,
recent entanglement data suggests Canadian fisheries are responsible for an increasing
portion of SI&M. For example, 2013-2017 data suggests US fisheries were responsible for
0.2 of the SI&M to right whales while Canada was responsible for 1.43 • This trend continues
in 2014-2018, where data suggests US fisheries were again responsible for 0.2 of the SI&M
while Canada was responsible for 1.64. Given this information, the states assert the current
risk reduction target is inappropriate and should be reconsidered. An email sent to the
ALWTRT on April 18th indicates other approaches to calculate the target risk reduction were
considered; however, minimal rational is provided in the email for the method ultimately
chosen. If, as data suggests, Canada is now the primary source of SI&M for right whales,
draconian measures in US fisheries will not ensure a successful reduction of SI&M below
PBR for the range of North Atlantic right whales.

Inconsistency in NOAA Fisheries' communication regarding the upcoming ALWTRT
meeting has also severely hampered the states' ability to interact with the fishing industry.
On March 18th, the Regional Administrator announced NOAA Fisheries would be
developing a strawman proposal ahead of the ALWTRT meeting to provide stakeholders
with the scope of potential management changes. On April 4th, this course of action abruptly
changed as, on an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Lobster Plan Development
Team call, NOAA Fisheries stated they would not be providing a strawman proposal and
would instead be relying solely on the new Risk Reduction Model. This unexpected change
of direction was not only confusing to the state agencies but also disrupted planned
preparations for the ALWTRT meeting. Due to inconsistent messaging from NOAA
Fisheries, the state of Maine cancelled three industry meetings that had been planned to
provide clear direction to, and solicit input from, the lobster fishing industry. Given the Risk
Reduction Model is not available for review, these meetings will not be re-scheduled prior
to the ALWTRT meeting because states do not have the tools needed to assess various
management measures and hold productive industry conversations.
3

4

NMFS Large Whale Entanglement Reports; NMFS Mortality and Serious Injury Reports.
NMFS Large Whale Entanglement Reports; NMFS Mortality and Serious Injury Reports.

248

Finally, the two New England states raise serious concerns about NOAA Fisheries
timeliness regarding preparations for the April ALWTRT meeting. The ALWTRT
previously met in October 2018 and, at that meeting, developed a work plan for NOAA
Fisheries to complete prior to the next meeting. The states recognize an extended federal
government shut-down delayed progress on necessary analysis; however, the spring
ALWTRT meeting was also postponed by over a month due to this shut-down. The states
note the first sub-group meeting of the ALWTRT was not held until March 25th a reduction
target was not announced until April 5th, a presentation of the Risk Reduction Model was
not given until April 16 th, and a :final working model was not available to the ALWTRT
prior to the meeting. As a result, the states are concerned about the thoroughness and
thoughtfulness of the analysis being conducted given the time constraints. In addition,
NOAA Fisheries has commented that they intend to move straight into rulemaking
following the ALWTRT meeting. This timeline perpetuates the states' concerns given if
further truncates the time for appropriate review and ensures rushed and unreviewed
analysis will be immediately used to promulgate regulations.
The states of Maine and New Hampshire recognize difficult decisions need to be made to
ensure the conservation of North Atlantic right whales; however, the states have concerns
about the analysis directing the conversations and consensus recommendations, and the
timeliness of rulemaking. While the states have sought to be thoughtful contributors to this
important discussion, the actions of NOAA Fisheries have undermined the state's ability to
engage on this issue and severely dampened the voice of the fishing industry.
The two states request the Risk Reduction Model be completely documented for review by
the state' s fisheries managers, and the full ALWTRT, and an external peer review be
conducted before :final decisions based on results of the Risk Reduction Model are made.
Sincerely,

Pat Keliher
Commissioner, Maine Department of Marine Resources

Doug Grout
Chief of Marine Fisheries, New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game
3.3.1.4

Appendix IV: Letter to NOAA re Scoping

STATE OF MAINE
D EPARTMENT OF M ARINE R ESOURCES 21 STATE
HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333 - 0 0 2 1

JANET T. MILLS

PATRICK C. KELIHER

GOVERNOR

COMMISSIONER

249

September 16, 201

Michael Pentony Regional
Administrator
National Marine Fisheries
Service 55 Great Republic
Drive Gloucester,
Massachusetts 01930
Dear Mr. Pentony,

The Maine Department of Marine Resources (ME DMR) appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the upcoming rule-making to amend the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
(ALWTRP).
Proposed changes to the ALWTRP are likely to have large impacts on Maine’s lobster fishery,
the social and economic backbone of Maine’s coastal and island communities. In 2018, landings
from the Maine lobster fishery were valued at over $486 million and a recent economic study
determined the fishery has an economic impact of an addition $1 billion annually1. This fishery
not only encompasses the roughly 4,800 lobster license holders and 1,100 student license holders
but also sternmen, dealers and distributors, bait dealers, and trap builders who contribute to this
fishery and their communities. Understanding the full impact of these pending regulations on the
Maine lobster fishery, and to the North Atlantic right whale population, will be critical to ensure
the appropriate suite of measures is implemented.
A.
Characteristics of the Maine Lobster Fishery
The Maine lobster fishery is comprised of a diverse set of vessels, fishermen, and fishing
practices. According to data collected in 2018, roughly 20% of vessels registered to Maine
lobster license holders are less than 18 feet in length while 10% of vessels are greater than 39
feet in length. Thus, most fishermen who participate in the lobster fishery use smaller boats and
typically fish close to shore. In addition to length, vessels in the Maine lobster fleet vary in their
construction and layout. Smaller vessels, less than 25 feet in length, tend to be outboards and
have extremely limited deck space for the temporary storage of gear. Some boats have open
sterns which allow individual traps, or trawls, to be easily set off the back of the vessel.
Lobsters to Dollars: The Economic Impact of the Lobster Distribution Supply Chain in Maine by Michael Donihue,
Colby College. June 2018.

1

250

However, other boats have closed sterns, requiring traps to be set over the side of the boat. As a
result, safe and fishable trawl lengths are not only dictated by the size of the vessel but also its
construction.
Fishing practices within the Maine lobster fishery vary between the eastern and western ends of
the State, and between inshore and offshore fishermen. In most state waters, the average trawl
length can be characterized by singles, doubles, and triples; however, this masks important
regional differences.
For example, as a long-standing convention, fishermen in Casco Bay often fish trawls with two
endlines. In this area, recreational and commercial boat traffic is very high and, as a result,
fishermen can experience significant buoy loss. Longer trawls allow these fishermen to reduce
their number of buoy lines and minimize their potential loss. In contrast, fishermen in mid-coast
Maine tend to fish smaller trawl lengths which allow for a higher degree of precision to set traps
on specific ledges and cracks, the preferable habitat of lobsters. This increases a fisherman’s trap
efficiency. An added benefit of fishing singles, pairs, and triples is that it reduces potential gear
conflicts between other fishermen if, and when, traps are set over one another. In federal waters,
trawl lengths increase, in part due to existing regulations in the ALWTRP. In some of Maine’s
furthest fishing grounds (outside of 12 miles from shore), trawl lengths average around 15 traps
per trawl.
Fishing operations also differ by the number of crew onboard. 29% of license holders have a
Class I license, which allows only the individual named on the license to participate in lobster
fishing.
Therefore, at a minimum, a quarter of the fleet operates without an unlicensed crew. 39% of
Maine lobster fishermen have a license which allows for one unlicensed crew member onboard
while the remaining 32% have a license which allows 2 unlicensed crew onboard.
Landings in the Maine lobster fishery have spatial and regional patterns. While the pounds of
lobster landed vary across the State, most landings occur within state waters. In 2008, 81% of
pounds landed were harvested within three miles of shore. Federal waters, broken up by 3 to 12
miles and outside 12 miles from shore, landed 15% and 4% of the pounds in that year,
respectively. Recently, the pattern of catch based on distance from shore has slightly shifted,
with an uptick in federal waters landings. In 2016, state waters accounted for 68% of the pounds
landed, while 3 to 12 and beyond 12 miles accounted for 23% and 9%, respectively. This pattern
of landings does not, however, equate to an identical shift in effort offshore. Between 2008 and
2016, the number of trips recorded within state waters dropped by only 7%, while the number of
trips outside 12 miles increased by just 3%.
B.

Management Tools Considered

At the April Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting, several
management tools were discussed which could reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality
from entanglements. Some of the tools considered included: area closures, dynamic management
areas, trap reductions, vertical line reductions, and 1700 pound rope. Following the ALWTRT
meeting, ME DMR reviewed the measures to understand the potential conservation benefits to
251

right whales versus the burden to fishermen. The intent was to consider a range of measures, and
then take the most viable options out to industry for feedback.
ME DMR held seven industry meeting to get input from fishermen on the feasibility and
implications of these management tools. Based on our internal analysis and the feedback
obtained through industry meetings, the following comments are offered regarding the various
management tools.
Area closures were proposed and discussed at the ALWTRT meeting but were ultimately not
included in any of the final recommendations. Following the ALWTRT meeting, ME DMR
continued to discuss the potential efficacy of area closures. Ultimately, ME DMR did not include
an area closure in the June 2019 presentation (see Appendix I) to industry due to several
pertinent concerns. First, the efficacy of area closures relies on the assumption that gear within
the closure is brought to shore. While this assumption holds true in the existing Cape Cod Bay
closure due to its timing and location, the same assumption would not hold in Maine waters.
Offshore fishermen deploy gear year-round, moving traps to various fishing grounds as lobsters
respond to environmental changes. As a result, a federal waters closure, akin to some of the
proposals discussed at the ALWTRT, would not result in traps taken out of the water but may
instead result in fishermen moving gear to the boundaries of the closure, concentrating gear
around an area intended to protect right whales. This ‘curtain effect’ may have the unintended
consequence of increasing vertical line densities in areas of known right whale distribution.
Industry members also asked about the potential conservation benefits of a seasonal closure
during the spring months in state waters. After conducting analysis, ME DMR found negligible
reductions in risk through this type of measure given right whales are infrequently sighted in
state waters and there is minimal lobster gear set during the spring months. As a result, a spring
state waters closure resulted in more of a paper exercise than a meaningful conservation benefit
for right whales. ME DMR found specific areas and times for closures which resulted in a
meaningful risk reduction were hard to define due to a lack of right whale sightings, and their
more diffuse and changing use of the habitats in the Gulf of Maine.
Also discussed at the ALWTRT meeting were dynamic management closures. A potential
benefit of this approach is that protections are enacted only when right whales are present,
lessening the burden on industry. ME DMR considered this approach but quickly came up with
several concerns regarding their effectiveness in protecting right whales. The primary concern is
that dynamic management is reactive; it relies on right whales being spotted to enact a
management response.
Given right whales are notoriously hard to observe and weather conditions along the Maine coast
can impede sighting efforts, ME DMR questioned the ability to effectively patrol northern Gulf
of Maine waters and spot whales. Furthermore, the resources needed to support successful
dynamic management are intensive and expensive, raising concerns of whether dynamic
management is a long-term solution for right whale protection. Ultimately, ME DMR concluded
measures which can provide year-round protections to right whales are stronger given all whales
are positively impacted, not just those sighted.

252

The ALWTRT briefly discussed trap reductions at its April meeting, particularly those that are
ongoing in Lobster Management Areas 2 and 3. ME DMR evaluated the potential benefit of trap
reductions as a right whale protection measure and presented these findings to the lobster
industry to get feedback. The most frequent concern raised by industry regarding trap reductions
was that the ratio between vertical lines and traps is not one-to-one. This means that, particularly
offshore, a substantial trap reduction is needed to see a modest reduction in the number of
vertical lines.
Industry expressed concern that, as a primary management tool to save right whales, trap
reductions could result in large economic consequences due to reduced catch and revenue.
Others noted that focusing on trap reductions is ancillary to the conversation since it is vertical
lines, not traps, which pose a risk to whales. In addition, the diversity of Maine’s lobster fleet, as
well as varying levels of participation, make it challenging to implement a trap reduction which
does not result in some individuals increasing their effort. This was the result of a substantial trap
reduction in 1997; some individuals removed gear from the water while others increased their
effort up to the new limit.
One of the primary management tools ME DMR discussed with industry was vertical line
reductions via trawling-up. After analyzing many of the potential management tools, trawling-up
appears to provide some of the strongest benefits; namely, it addresses serious injury and
mortality considered under the Marine Mammal Protection Act as well as risk under the
Endangered Species Act. Further, it directly addresses the cause of entanglements: vertical lines
in the water column. At the June industry meetings, a series of trawling-up scenarios were
presented to industry. These ranged from doubles to quads in state waters and from twenty to
forty trap trawls offshore. In response, industry provided critical input on the extent of trawlingup which is feasible and safe in the Maine lobster fishery. Specifically, while offshore fishermen
expressed some ability to add traps to an existing trawl, they expressed grave concerns about
moving to thirty or forty trap trawls. Several noted that only a few boats are safely equipped to
handle forty traps, in addition to the mile of rope needed to fish at these trawl lengths. As a
result, requiring fishermen to operate beyond their boat capacities would result in dangerous
fishing practices and the loss of human life. Inshore fishermen also highlighted that trawling-up
scenarios need to consider the feasibility of smaller boats, particularly skiffs, which have limited
deck space and are often operated by a single individual. Moreover, fishermen noted that, at
longer trawl lengths, those who operate alone may have to hire a crew.
Outside of safety concerns, fishermen also provided insight on the potential consequences of
trawling-up on fishing operations. First, longer trawls may increase gear conflicts and gear loss
as there is a higher chance of trawls being set over one another. Second, longer trawls may
decrease a fisherman’s ability to maneuver traps on to specific ledges and cracks which produce
high catch rates. This would reduce a trap’s efficiency. Third, industry highlighted that fishermen
frequently move traps across regulatory boundaries (i.e. the three mile line, the six mile line,
etc.). This movement needs to be considered to ensure ongoing fishing practices and new
regulations are congruent. To this end, fishermen suggested that any trawling-up scenario
differentiated by distance from shore be comprised of multiples of one another so trawl lengths
can easily be extended or shortened. In addition, law enforcement personnel were asked to
provide input on the feasibility of enforcing long trawl lengths; they noted that, with the current
253

platforms available, it would be nearly impossible for enforcement to safely haul long trawls to
check compliance with the ALWTRP and lobster resource management measures.
Finally, the implementation of 1700 pound rope was also considered by both the ALWTRT and
ME DMR. One advantage of 1700 pound rope is it offers a level of protection for all lines left in
the water and can substantially reduce the occurrence of a serious injury or mortality which
results from an entanglement. However, it does not address the risk of an entanglement
occurring. In its June industry meetings, ME DMR presented 1700 pound rope as a potential
management tool for consideration. At the time, ME DMR presented this as 75% topper in
federal waters. It became clear from several comments that, to accommodate a 75% topper,
fishermen intended to increase the length of their vertical line to ensure there was enough rope
strength at the bottom where the strain of hauling traps is highest. This result would be counter to
the efforts of the ALWTRT and a clear example of the unintended consequences which can
result from management action. Instead, several industry members felt that, with existing vertical
line lengths, modifications to the top 50% of the rope would be more feasible. Industry also
commented that 1700 pound rope should be achieved through modifications to existing rope, as
opposed to requiring fishermen to buy new rope. This could be achieved through specific splices
or the threading of existing swivels into the rope to achieve a 1700 pound breaking strength. Law
enforcement personnel also provided guidance on the enforceability of 1700 pound rope. They
noted a specific number of weak points in a rope is more enforceable than 1700 pound rope
regulations based on depth fished or the length of the vertical line. They also highlighted that
enforcement of a rope diameter, as a proxy for 1700 pound rope, would be challenging since
rope can expand in the water and differs by manufacturer.
C.
Gear Marking
It is widely recognized that one of the biggest challenges faced by the ALWTRT when
discussing the entanglement of right whales is the lack of data on the source of entanglements.
This creates large amounts of uncertainty about which fisheries and regions are contributing to
serious injury and mortality. At its industry meetings in June, ME DMR proposed a Maine-only
purple gear mark to the lobster industry. This purple mark would replace the current red mark
used to distinguish the Northeast trap/pot fishery and would allow Maine to better understand its
role in the right whale conversation. The use of a Maine-only gear mark was unanimously
supported by fishermen at all seven industry meetings as fishermen expressed strong support for
identifying their gear from other trap/pot fisheries.
As stated in a letter to NOAA dated July 10th, ME DMR fully supports the improvement of gear
marking to better inform conversations on right whale entanglements. As a result, the State
intends to implement a Maine-only gear mark ahead of the federal regulatory process. ME DMR
has already begun the State’s regulatory process and, under the current timeline, the Maine-only
gear mark could be required for Maine licensed lobster fishermen by spring 2020. Critical to this
effort is guidance and confirmation from NOAA regarding the placement and color of the
Maine-only mark. ME DMR highlights that it has not received a response to its July 10th letter to
NOAA requesting written confirmation regarding the location and color of the Maine-only gear
mark. This level of communication is needed to support Maine’s efforts to enact regulations
ahead of the federal process. For example, it is unclear if additional gear marking areas, such as
Jeffery’s Ledge and
254

Jordan Basin, will be maintained as states move to their own marks. ME DMR recommends that,
as a part of the proposed rule, NOAA re-evaluates these markings against recent sightings data to
determine the usefulness of area-specific marks in addition to state-specific marks.
D.

Recommendations for the Proposed Rule-Making

As NOAA engages in the writing of a proposed rule, ME DMR requests the agency consider two
topics which were not fully discussed or voted on at the ALWTRT meeting. A question
repeatedly raised at the ME DMR industry meetings was the continued use of Maine’s
exemption line. As outlined in the 2007 Final Rule to the ALWTRP, the exemption line is based
on the low number of right whale sightings in this area. NOAA has consistently defended the
exemption line in previous rule-makings, commenting “NMFS does not believe that regulating
the waters that will be exempted from the ALWTRP would have a significant benefit to large
whales.”2. Additionally, studies have shown there are low concentrations of calanus copepods
shoreward of the 100 meter isobath, which do not support the aggregation of right whales.3 As a
result, NOAA did not include exempted waters as a part of the critical habitat designation for
right whales. Instead, NOAA used the exemption line from the ALWTRP as the nearshore
boundary, stating “late stage copepods in quantities sufficient to trigger right whale foraging are
not present inshore of the Maine exemption line”4. Given no vote at the April ALWTRT meeting
was taken in regards to the exemption line, ME DMR requests NOAA consider the impacts to
industry versus the conservation benefits of establishing regulations within the exemption line.
Taking extensive action in areas where right whales rarely, if ever, visit will not have a
measurable impact on the right whale population.
In addition, ME DMR requests NOAA include a method for conservation equivalency within the
proposed rule. As previously described, a key feature of the Maine lobster fishery is its diversity.
This breadth of vessel size, fishing location, and crew precipitates the need for different
management approaches within the State. Allowing for conservation equivalency in the rulemaking provides an opportunity for fishermen to develop equivalent, or more conservative,
regulations in their region to meet the requirements of the ALWTRP. This flexibility is needed to
ensure not only the long-term success of the lobster fishery but also the protections provided to
right whales.
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
Plan Regulations, 72 Fed. Reg. 57103 (October 5, 2007).
3
Runge 2012 Report “Summer distribution of the planktonic copepod, Calanus finmarchicus, along the coast of the
Gulf of Maine”
4
Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for Endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, 81 Fed. Reg.
4837
(January 27, 2016).
2

255

E.

Conclusions

ME DMR appreciates the opportunity to comment on the upcoming proposed rule regarding
right whales and the Northeast trap/pot fishery. The Maine lobster fishery has been an active
participant in the conservation of right whales for over twenty years. While ME DMR recognizes
the scope of this comment period pertains to US entanglements in the trap/pot fishery, the
Department highlights that this scope does not encompass the full set of impacts on the right
whale population. Specifically, entanglement records indicate the full risk reduction outlined by
NOAA should not be solely on the Northeast lobster fishery and the apportionment of risk to
Canada should reflect the stark increase in right whale mortalities resulting from the snow crab
fishery and Canadian vessel strikes. ME DMR underscores that placing further regulations on the
Maine lobster fishery will not improve the status of the right whale population if mortalities are
happening elsewhere.
We appreciate NOAA’s consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,

Pat Keliher, Commissioner

256

3.3.1.5 Appendix V: ME DMR Vertical Line Research Initiative
Beginning in the summer of 2018, ME DMR received a grant from the Section 6 Species
Recovery Grants to States program to assess the use of vertical lines throughout the Gulf of
Maine region. Portions of the resulting data have been instrumental in the development of the
ME DMR Plan to reduce the risk of entanglement for right whales in Maine fixed gear. Over the
next year, as new draft and final rules for the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan are
proposed and finalized, ME DMR will use the following data as a basis for the development of
weak point options in the fishery. This work will be done in collaboration with the fishermen and
other relevant industry stakeholders. The primary objectives of this work will be to:
1)
Collaboratively develop and test gear modifications that break at or below 1700lbs and
can be integrated into existing gear to minimize the impact on the fishery
2)
Work with NMFS to include these options on a list of approved modifications that will
meet a weak point regulation
3)
Field test a variety of modifications with the fishing industry, including manufactured
weak points that could go through the hauler
Volunteer Gear Survey
In the summer of 2018, ME DMR sent out a gear survey to fishermen throughout the Northeast
region to assess their use of vertical lines and received over 800 responses through online, paper,
and phone- based options. One of the pieces of information from that survey that has been used
in the development of this proposal is the variety of rope diameters used in different segments of
the fishery, including by distance from shore. While there is a spread of diameters used in Maine,
survey responses show the most prevalent diameter of rope used in the lobster fishery is 3/8”,
followed by 7/16” (Figure 1). The data also show the relative use of diameters of line greater
than 3/8” increase with distance from shore (Figure 2).

257

Figure 1. Percentages of Maine based responses from the volunteer gear survey that use
different diameters of line. Respondents could choose more than one diameter if their line
contains multiple diameters or if their rope use differed by area. The most prevalent gear in the
Maine lobster fishery is 3/8” rope being reported by 47% of respondents.

Figure 2. Rope diameter use by distance from shore from the Maine responses to the volunteer
gear survey. The proportion of ropes greater than 3/8” increases as gear moves offshore.

258

Functional Breaking Strength
The second effort of this project included collecting donated vertical lines from fishermen
throughout the region. The goal was to break a variety of ropes and capture the spectrum of
functional breaking strengths for vertical line configurations used in the fishery. These data could
be used to determine what configurations of vertical lines in the fishery are already weak, or
break at or below 1700lbs, as well as provide a way to determine the benefit gained by requiring
weak points in the vertical lines.
Whole vertical lines were collected from fishermen in addition to information about where the
line was fished, rope types, rope diameters, age of rope, gear configuration, etc. A total of 215
samples were broken on the Tinius Olsen tensile testing machine housed at the DMR lab in
Boothbay Harbor. These samples included the knots and splices that were used to tie ropes
together to make up the vertical lines, as well as clear or unmodified pieces of rope. The ages of
the rope generally ranged from two to six seasons fished, but went up to as many as twelve
seasons (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows the results of the breaking strength tests. The sample sizes
generally represent the relative occurrence of a certain diameter in the fishery. Knots and splices
reduce the breaking strength of rope, which is of importance since less than 5% of lines fished in
the fishery are used without a modifying link of some kind (Figure 5). When a line of two
different diameters knotted or spliced together was tested, the smaller diameter broke 100% of
the time and the knot or splice always stayed with the larger end if it did not unravel.
These results show that, of all of the diameters tested, 5/16” can be considered to meet the
threshold of breaking at 1700lbs, especially with the addition of a knot. While many of the larger
diameter ropes did break below 1700lbs with some regularity, the type of knot or splice used
would have to be identified to be able to add these diameters to a list of weak points which break
at or below 1700lbs. Results of a two-way ANOVA suggest that rope diameter, modifications to
the rope (splices and knots), and age or seasons fished all have a significant effect on the
breaking strength of the vertical line (Table 1). It should be noted that the relationship between
the diameter of rope and the breaking strength is regardless of material used since all types of
ropes that are used in the lobster fishery are represented in the dataset (Figure 6).

259

Table 1. Results of two-way ANOVA showing the significant relationship between breaking
strength of line and rope diameter, modifications, and age.
Rope Breaking Strength ~ Rope Diameter + Rope Modifications + Seasons Fished
f-value

p-value

Rope Diameter

13.8

<0.0001

Rope Modifications

29.3

<0.0001

Seasons Fished

11.9

<0.0001

Figure 3. The distribution of the ages of vertical lines that were donated for breaking strength
testing. While some went up to as many as 12 seasons fished, the majority of donated lines had
been fished between two and six seasons.

260

Average Breaking Strength
5000

knot

4500

splice

clear

(N=2)

4000

(N=58)

3000
2500
2000

(N=99)
17

(N=28)

1
6 29

1500
3 14

1000
500

1

(N=28)

3500

23

54
31

14

1700lbs target
7 4

11

0

5/16
11/32
3/8
7/16
1/2
Figure 4. The breaking strength in pounds for over 200 samples of vertical lines donated by
lobstermen in the Northeast region for ropes 5/16” to ½”. The varying sample sizes for each
diameter and sample type are denoted in the figure. Sample breaks included the knots (grey) or
splices (orange). Unaltered (no knots or splices) lengths of lines were also broken to show how
much a knot or splice reduces the
breaking strength. Those breaks are labeled as “clear” in blue.

261

Figure 5. The percentage of respondents to the gear survey that utilize knots, splices, or both
knots and splices by rope diameters. Less than 5% of respondents do not modify vertical lines
(“clear”).

Figure 6. One-way ANOVA suggests a significant linear relationship between the rope diameter
and the breaking strength of the line (F=11.512; Pr(>F) = 1.811e-08 ***)

262

Initial Weak Point Workshop
ME DMR held an initial industry workshop to test various configurations of vertical line
attachment points that might meet the requirements of an approved weak point. Several
fishermen were in attendance and came with ideas they wanted to test for weak points. Table 2
summarizes the more than twenty options that were initially tested. Of those options, a subset
that showed promise of breaking below 1700lbs were chosen for further testing. Ten samples of
each of those options were rigged up by fishermen and sent back to ME DMR for breaking
strength testing. The results of those samples are summarized in Table 3 and are the basis for
what has been discussed with the industry to-date. Potential options that will move on to the
field-testing phase include lengths of 5/16” line knotted or spliced into the vertical line, 3/8” rope
connected with a loop and double tuck (“lazy splice”), and manufactured products like dog bones
(Figure 7).
Some of the options tested during the workshop included a couple of different brands of dog
bones, as well as some modified dog bones (Figure 7). Dog bones were included because some
fishermen in attendance were interested in investigating a manufactured weak point option that
integrated easily into the line and was already being used in the fishery. The benefit of a
manufactured point, as opposed to utilizing certain knots or splices in the line, is that the point
will not degrade in strength over time. A rope made to break 1700lbs over its entire length or of a
small diameter, like 5/16”, will decrease in strength with the use of knots or splices and will lose
strength over time. While strength over the age of the rope varies based on diameter, rope
material, storage, and UV exposure, there is a significant decline in strength versus the number
of seasons fished for a vertical line (Figure 8).
Table 2. Ideas brought forward by fishermen and initially tested for breaking strength.
Highlighted ideas were carried through to have additional samples tested or will be field tested
with fishermen in the future. This list is not meant to be exhaustive but it what has been tested so
far.
Break

Diameter

Rope Modification

Breaking Strength (lbs)

1

3/8 danline

lazy man splice one pleat

2

3/8 manline

sqaure "splice"

no break, stretched until
1950
2435

3

3/8 manline

sqaure "splice"

2300

4

3/8 manline

lazy man splice two tuck

1650

5

lazy man splice two tuck

1396

6

11/32 sink to 3/8
float
3/8 float 11/32 sink

short splice

2326

7

11/32 sink 7/16 float

lazy man splice two tuck

2050 slipped off wheel

8

5/16 sink 3/8 float

lazy man splice two tuck

1257

9

11/32 sink 7/16 float

lazy man splice one tuck each side taped

slide out of tape at 700

10

5/16 sink 3/8 float

white dog bone and knot

2300

11

5/16 sink 7/16 float

lazy man splice 2 tuck

12

3/8 loat 7/16 float

black dog bone

1378 no break pulled
through
1550

13

5/16 sink 3/8 float

short splice

1800

14

5/16 sink

clear

15

3/8

notched dog bone

1468

263

Break

Diameter

Rope Modification

Breaking Strength (lbs)

16

11/32 sink 3/8 float

short splice

2454

17

3/8

1656

18

11/32 sink 7/16 float

modified white dog bone, drilled on the
top
short splice

19

3/8

lazy man splice two tucks

1209

20

2202

steel swivel

2500+

Table 3. Trials of options from the initial weak point workshop. *denotes trials where the tuck
slipped out instead of breaking the line. Some dog bones were testing higher than 1700lbs and,
therefore, were modified with drilled holes to reduce the strength prior to completion of the tests.
Description

trial 1

trial 2

trial 3

trial 4

trial 5

trial 6

trial 7

trial 8

7/16 white dog bone to 3/8

1470

1748

1892

1674

1835

1722

1870

1854

3/8 white dof bone to 3/8

1121

1922

1442

1415

1742

1776

2016

1869

1798

1826

1692.70

7/16 lazy splice to 3/8

2123

2215

2101

2199

2204

2119

1715

2168

2103

2067

2101.40

3/8 lazy splice to 3/8

483*

1845

728*

1301

1365

1761

1159

1246

1654

3/8 blackdog bone to 3/8 no hole

2423

2313

2476

2404.00

1866

1876

2328

2023.33

2153

1814

2105

3/8 black dog bone to 3/8 3.5mm
hole
7/16 black dog bone to 3/8 3.5mm
hole

2312

2414

1919

2497

2023

trial 9

trial 10

average
1758.13

1938

1475.86

2014

2118.90

Figure 7. Examples of options testing for weak points. The top option is a photo of the loop and
double tuck (7/16” into 3/8”) or “lazy splice”. The bottom is an example of a dog bone. Several
different types of dog bones were broken and/or modified and broken during the tests.
264

Figure 8. Using 3/8” rope only (the most common rope diameter), this plot shows the
relationship between rope breaking strength and seasons fished or age. All different types of
rope and manufacturers are included in this analysis and accounts for some of the variability in
the results.
Future Work
ME DMR is continuing to work with the fishing industry and other stakeholders in the
ALWTRT process to find options for weak points in vertical lines. The next steps in this work
will include field testing some of these ideas with fishermen and conducting load cell testing
integrated into their vertical lines. ME DMR has already begun soliciting ideas from fishermen
for ways to rig weak points into their existing gear and will work with them to test those ideas on
the Tinius Olsen Tensil testing machine in Boothbay Harbor. ME DMR is also pursuing funding
to work with the manufacturers of products liked dog bones and engineers to create new
manufactured weak points (similar to existing weak links) that will run through the hauler when
integrated into the vertical line. ME DMR is committed to working with NMFS throughout this
process to develop options that will work for all stakeholders.

265

3.3.2 MA DMF Proposal

Commonwealth of
Massachusetts

Division of Marine Fisheries
Daniel J.
McKiernan
Acting Director

251 Causeway Street, Suite 400
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
(617)626-1520
fax (617)626-1509

March 6, 2020
Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator NOAA
Fisheries, GARFO
55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930

Charles D. Baker
Governor
Karyn E. Polito
Lieutenant
Governor Kathleen
Theoharides
Secretary
Ronald Amidon
Commissioner
Mary-Lee King
Deputy Commissioner

RE: Massachusetts Right Whale Conservation Plan 2020

Dear Mr. Pentony,
The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries offers the following proposal to amend the
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan and provide protection for right whales in
Massachusetts coastal waters (see attachment titled Massachusetts Right Whale Conservation
Plan 2020). The Division has been a committed member of the TRT since its inception. We are
committed to developing a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of entanglement and
serious injury and mortality to North Atlantic right whales that maintains a safe, efficient, and
profitable lobster fishery in Massachusetts.

Sincerely,
Daniel J. McKiernan

266

ATTACHMENT A
2020 Massachusetts Right Whale Conservation Plan
Background
Over the last several months, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has worked
closely with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Massachusetts lobster industry to
develop conservation measures to augment protections for right whales under the Atlantic Large
Whale Take Reduction Plan. We understand the challenge in identifying conservation measures
that meet the 60% risk reduction target but are still workable for the fishing industry. Given the
current trajectory of the right whale population and the high abundance of whales observed in
Massachusetts waters each year, we are committed to achieving an overall goal of 60% risk
reduction in our waters.
However, meeting that goal is especially complicated in Massachusetts because we are the only
state with multiple lobster management areas (LMA) in our waters. Each area has their own
unique lobster management strategy, level of fishing effort, and trends in effort. In addition, each
area has varying patterns of whale distribution and abundance.
In our deliberations about conservation measures, we considered three categories; measures that
address acute entanglement risk, measures that address dispersed entanglement risk, and
measures that mitigate for serious injury and mortality (SIM) and sub-lethal effects. Acute
entanglement risk is that posed to a dense, consistent, and largely predictable aggregation of
whales. Whereas dispersed entanglement risk is that posed to single whales or small groups of
whales whose movements are unpredictable and observed distribution occurs infrequently.
Mitigating the risk of SIM and sub-lethal effects is focused on reducing harmful impacts to
whales in the event that an entanglement occurs.
Acute Entanglement Risk
We feel that the appropriate management tool to address acute entanglement risk at this time is
the elimination of risk through a seasonal closure to fixed fishing gear. Approximately 65% of
the known right whale population visits Cape Cod Bay each year. This is the largest known
aggregation of North Atlantic Right whales in the world. In a single day in April 2017, a total of
179 right whales were observed in Cape Cod Bay. This represents a peak observed density of 10
right whales/cubic mile of water. To put this in perspective, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, an area
which hosts large aggregations of right whales in recent years and has been the epicenter of an
Unusual Mortality Event since 2017, has only ever reached a known peak density of 0.012
whales per cubic mile of water, in June 2018. This underscores the importance of the
Massachusetts Bay Restricted Area (MBRA) as an effective means of eliminating entanglement

268

risk and subsequent serious injury and mortality to right whales. The MBRA closure likely
represents the single most important conservation measure to right whales in the United States.
The Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has been proactive in ensuring the effectiveness of the
state waters portion of the MBRA closure. We have done this by implementing a dynamic
extension of the fixed gear closure in the state waters portions of the Mass Bay Restricted Area if
the presence of right whales extends past the closure end date. The size, location and duration of
the closure extensions are created by DMF through the director’s authority using data on whale
distribution and abundance from the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies (PCCS) aerial
surveillance team. Furthermore, with help from the Massachusetts Environmental Police we
regularly patrol Cape Cod Bay to identify and remove any derelict or abandoned fishing gear to
further reduce the risk of entanglement.
Ropeless fishing represents another possible means to mitigate acute entanglement risk. It is our
belief that the technology and concomitant fisheries management framework necessary to
execute ropeless fishing is not sufficiently developed at this time to allow it in a manner that is
safe, cost effective, compatible with high gear densities, and compatible with important
competing mobile gear fisheries for groundfish, sea scallops, and surf clams. DMF is committed
to permitting and promoting experimental ropeless fishing in areas and times that do not have a
high risk of conflict with other fisheries and do not pose substantial risk of interactions with right
whales.
Dispersed Entanglement Risk
Dispersed entanglement risk is a more general risk posed by gear in times and places where
whales are not aggregated. The primary way of mitigating this risk is reducing the amount of
buoy lines deployed in all fixed gear fisheries. It is our opinion that to effectively reduce buoy
lines it is first necessary to establish an accurate baseline of how many buoy lines are being
fished. DMF has required all fixed gear fishermen who land in MA ports to report the number of
buoy lines they deploy since 2011. This includes federally permitted fishermen as well. We are
one of only two jurisdictions in the U.S. that currently requires this. With these data we can look
at trends over time and can judge the effectiveness of management measures we have put into
place to control fishing effort with empirical data. We do not have to rely solely on models,
assumptions, and expert opinion to quantify buoy line numbers. Since 2011 we have observed
declining trends in the number of buoy lines deployed in the lobster fishery by Massachusetts
based fishermen (Table 1, Figures 1 – 4). This trend is apparent both statewide and in each
individual lobster management area (LMA) within Massachusetts coastal waters. Buoy line
trends from Massachusetts based LMA3 fishermen have increased in recent years, but the
entirety of LMA3 falls outside or our jurisdiction.

269

Table 1: MA Lobster-pot Fishery, Total maximum buoy lines by LMA and Year, 20112018
LMA
LMA1
LMA2
LMA3
OCLMA
Total

2011
71,811
10,952
1,299
18,430
102,492

20122013
67,80165,220
10,8288,560
1,2561,335
15,02716,773
94,91291,888

2014
66,050
7,803
1,549
15,009
90,411

2015
61,014
7,333
1,040
15,037
84,424

2016
64,191
7,167
1,126
13,669
86,153

Data Source: MA Supplemental Reports and LMA permit declaration

Figure 1. Total maximum buoy lines deployed in LMA 1 – 2011 - 2018

270

2017
2018
67,846 60,821
7,002 6,188
1,228 1,656
13,518 13,474
89,594 82,139

Figure 2. Total maximum buoy lines deployed in LMA 2 – 2011 - 2018

Figure 3. Total maximum buoy lines deployed in LMA OCC – 2011 - 2018

271

Figure 4. Total maximum buoy lines deployed in LMA 3 – 2011 – 2018
Over the long term we have proactively managed lobster fishing effort in the Massachusetts
lobster fishery. We have had a moratorium on the issuance of new coastal lobster fishing permits
since 1988 and a moratorium on the issuance of LMA 1 lobster landing permits since 2003. We
allow the transfer of active coastal lobster permits (at least 1,000 lbs or 20 sales per year for 4 out
of last 5 years) to qualified individuals (1-year full time or equivalent part-time experience in the
lobster trap fishery or 2-years full-time or equivalent part-time experience in other commercial
fisheries). This has resulted in a long-term reduction in the number of participants and the
amount of fishing effort in the MA lobster fishery (Table 2 and 3).

Table 2: MA Lobster-pot Fishery, Active Permit Count by LMA and Year, 2011-2018
LMA
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
669
650
628
624
627
LMA1
77
78
73
64
71
LMA2
21
26
25
28
25
LMA3
69
67
71
67
65
OCLMA
836
821
797
783
788
Total
Data Source: MA Trip-level reports and NOAA Fisheries VTRs
*Preliminary, subject to change

272

20162017
627634
7873
2626
6160
792793

2018*
651
71
27
63
812

Table 3: MA Lobster-pot Fishery, Issued Permit Count by Permit type and Year, 2011-2018

Issued Permits
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1,245 1,214 1,188 1,170 1,139 1,116 1,088 1,081
Coastal Lobster
189
175
161
163
159
154
171
156
Offshore Lobster
98
78
79
76
86
88
96
100
Seasonal Lobster
1,532 1,467 1,428 1,409 1,384 1,358 1,355 1,337
Total
Data Source: MA Permitting database
All Massachusetts fishermen who fish in LMA1, LMA2, and LMAOCC have been subject to a
maximum trap limit of 800 since 1992. In addition to this LMAOCC and LMA2 have been
subjected to a historically based trap allocation plan in 2004 and 2007 respectively. These plans
allocated individual transferable trap allocations based on historical participation and also
include a 10% trap tax on any partial trap allocation transfer. NMFS has adopted complimentary
measures to these plans and your agency is integral to the administration of these plans. The
implementation of the effort capping and effort reduction measures in Massachusetts have
greatly contributed to the reduction in traps and the reduction of buoy lines we have observed.
We anticipate that the declining trends in participation, traps, and buoy lines will continue to
decline. The median age of fishermen in Massachusetts has steadily increased over time and is
rapidly approaching the age at which many fishermen retire or downscale their effort (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Median age of lobster permit holder in LMA1, LMA2, and LMAOCC – 2000 to 2019.

273

As these fishermen reach retirement and leave the fishery, we expect that only a portion of their
permits will be transferred. In LMA2 and LMAOCC this has and will continue to promote partial
trap allocation transfers which are subject to a 10% trap tax. DMF will continue to monitor
participation and efforts trends over time and is committed to making necessary adjustments to
our management framework to ensure long term stability in participation in our lobster fishery
with continued reductions in buoy lines. We believe our track record in this area speaks for itself.
Mitigating for Serious Injury and Mortality and Sub-Lethal Effects
The vast majority of buoy lines fished in Massachusetts state waters are comprised of either
5/16” or 3/8” line. Prior to 2010, these smaller diameter lines were also the most common size
removed from entangled right whales. However, in recent years, the majority of rope removed
from and seen on right whales has been heavy, large diameter rope not used in the inshore US
lobster fishery. This gear is typical of the offshore lobster fishery and the Canadian snow crab
fishery. This heavy line also has a higher breaking strength and is most likely to cause severe
entanglement injuries and mortality. An analysis of entanglement cases found only severe
injuries resulting from higher breaking strength line (Knowlton et al. 2016). That same analysis
concluded that the broadscale use of reduced breaking strength ropes (1,700 pounds or less)
would reduce the number of life-threatening whale injuries by 72%. Some scientists also believe
that sub-lethal effects of minor entanglements are putting additional stress on the already
declining right whale population and further suppressing their ability to recover. To address
disperse entanglement risk during times when whales are not aggregating, Massachusetts
managers and fishermen have been pursuing potential weak rope options for vertical lines. DMF
and the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association are partnering on a state-wide effort to test
weak rope options beginning in summer 2020. In addition, the South Shore Lobstermen’s
Association has successfully developed a weak sleeve that can be used on traditional buoy lines
to create 1,700-pound weak links. Massachusetts is committed finding effective weak rope
solutions to make vertical lines less harmful to right whales while sufficiently safe for the
commercial fishermen.

274

The Division of Marine Fisheries proposes the following management strategies:
Acute Entanglement Risk
*Continue the ongoing MBRA seasonal fixed gear closure from February 1st through April 30th.
*Dynamic closure extension of the state waters portion of the MBRA using state authority to
extend the closure in portions of state waters, as necessary based on up to date whale
surveillance.
*Establishment of a new South of Nantucket Restricted Area (SNRA) fixed gear closure from
February 1st through April 30th (Figure 6a and 6b). We propose using utilizing 2017 to 2019 right
whale sightings data to evaluate this closure. We also suggest that the size, shape, and timing of
this closure be re-evaluated ever three years and modified as necessary.

Figure 6a. Map of the Massachusetts Bay Restricted Area and newly proposed South of
Nantucket Restricted Area.

275

Figure 6b. Close up map of the proposed South of Nantucket Restricted Area with coordinates
of each corner.

Dispersed Entanglement Risk
1.)
Trawling up requirements – We expect these to be applied to all fishermen in the EEZ
regardless of state of origin.
i.
LMA 1
1.
3 to 6 miles - 10 trap per trawl minimum
2.
6 to 12 miles - 15 trap per trawl minimum
3.
12 + miles – 25 traps per trawl
ii.
LMA 2
1.
3 to 12 miles – 15 trap per trawl minimum
2.
12 + miles – 25 traps per trawl
iii.
LMA OCC
1.
3 miles to LMA 3 boundary – 15 trap per trawl minimum

276

2.)
Ban on fishing singles on vessels greater than 29’ in all MA LMA’s on permits
transferred after 1/1/2020
3.)
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

Continue the ongoing 50% trap allocation reduction in LMA2 through 2021
2016 – 25% reduction
2017 – 5% reduction
2018 - 5% reduction
2019 – 5% reduction
2020 - 5% reduction
2021 - 5% reduction

Mitigation of SIM and Sub-lethal Effects
1.) Requirement for all fishermen in all LMA’s to utilize 1,700 lb. breaking strength rope or an
approved 1,700 lb. contrivance as follows;
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Coast to 3 miles – One weak contrivance at 50% down buoy line.
3 miles to 12 miles – Two weak contrivances in topper at 25% at 50% down.
12 miles to the LMA 3 border – One weak contrivance in topper at 35% down.
Ban on all rope greater than 3/8” diameter in Massachusetts coastal waters.

Summary
Based on preliminary evaluations and discussions with NMFS staff we are confident that the
measures we have proposed will achieve the required 60% risk reduction for the Massachusetts
lobster fishery. We encourage NMFS to utilize a combination of the risk evaluation tool,
empirical data, expert opinion, and common sense when evaluating our proposal. We also urge
NMFS to utilize more recent right whale sightings data instead of relying solely on a long time
series. To date the risk evaluation tool has relied on right whale sightings data from 2010 through
2017. Time series of sightings data make sense for demonstrating historic usage of habitat,
however in a rapidly changing environment with documented broadscale changes in right whale
distribution, they likely do not accurately reflect current density and distribution of whales. This
has the potential to overestimate the effectiveness of risk reduction measures in some areas and
underestimate it in others.
In closing, we are committed to developing a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of
entanglement and serious injury and mortality to North Atlantic right whales that maintains a
safe, efficient, and profitable lobster fishery in Massachusetts.

277

Attachment 2 emailed on March 12, 2020 MA Vessel size state data all states:
COUNT OF
PERMITS
LMA
LMA1

LMA1
TOTAL
LMA2

LMA2
TOTAL
LMA3

LMA3
TOTAL
OCLMA

VESSEL
LENGTH
0-20'
20-25'
25-30'
30-35'
35-40'
40-45'
45-50'
50'+
NO SUPP
REPORT
0-20'
20-25'
25-30'
30-35'
35-40'
40-45'
45-50'
NO SUPP
REPORT
45-50'
50'+
NO SUPP
REPORT
0-20'
20-25'
25-30'
30-35'
35-40'
40-45'
45-50'
NO SUPP
REPORT

2018
AVERAGE
TRAPS/TRAWL BIN

1

40
36
8
5
3
2

94
4
6
3
4
1

2

5
1
1
1
1

9

3-4

8
12
2

5-9

1

23

3
26
23
36
8
1

97
1
1
1
5
1

1
1
1

10-14
15
20
82
54
11

182
1
7
6

1

15-19
6
21
29
26
3

NO SUPP
REPORT

20+

GRAND
TOTAL
56
90
60
157
144
103
14
1

12
49
62
11
1
23

23
648
5
7
6
19
16
5
13

85

135

23

2
5
3
2

3
1
5

5

0
18

1

2

10

14

12
1

0
3
3
6
13
7
1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1
1

4

1
1
2
1
1

1
4
1
1

9
1
21

22

71
1
22

4

4

4

27
3
5
7
22
16
8
1

1

1

1

63

1
3
5

OCLMA
TOTAL
33
1
1
4
6
8
9
*Calculated as Renewed Permits who were federal or reported state landings in 2018, but did not submit a
supplemental report
Data source: Fixed Gear Supplemental Reports, Permitting Data, Trip-level reports; refreshed
8/16/19, AW

278

5

3.3.3 RI DEM Proposal

RHODE ISLAND
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES

Three Fort Wetherill Road Jamestown, Rhode Island 02835

March 17,
2020
Michael Pentony, Regional Administrator NOAA Fisheries, GARFO
55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930
Dear Mr. Pentony,
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Marine Fisheries,
would like to submit the following proposal for consideration into the LMA 2 portion of the
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. This proposal will continue the commitment Rhode
Island has to ensure the continued survival of the North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW) through
existing trap reduction plans and gear configurations. These measures will continue to reduce the
likelihood of serious injury and mortality to NARW while allowing the Rhode Island lobster and
Jonah crab fisheries to persist and be profitable during a challenging time for those fisheries.

Sincerely,
Jason McNamee, Deputy Director RIDEM

279

State of Rhode Island 2020 Plan to reduce Norther Right Whale serious injury and
mortality
The State of Rhode Island participates on the NOAA Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction
Team (ALWTRT) as state fisheries managers and industry stakeholders. These seats have
extensive background in fixed gear fisheries and offer expert perspectives on operations in both
the inshore and offshore lobster and gillnet fisheries. At the last meeting of the ALWTRT in
April 2019, the team, through near consensus developed proposals, by state, for lobster
conservation management areas which met the 60% risk reduction target for US fisheries. Since
that meeting, developing and analyzing measures has been achieved through numerous in-person
and conference meetings between the states of Rhode Island, Massachusetts and NOAA
Fisheries.
The following proposal summarizes those deliberations and is also reflective of feedback from
the Rhode Island Lobster industry in achieving the intended risk reduction target.
Executive Summary
The North Atlantic right whale (NARW) population has experienced anomalously high mortality
in recent years, leading fisheries stakeholders to seek strategies for mitigating the risk of
entangling whales in fixed fishing gear such as lobster fishing gear. Lobster fishery managers
have been tasked with proposing solutions that will meet target goals for the reduction of serious
injury or mortality (SIM) to the NARW; proposed measures include reducing vertical lines via
the Southern New England (SNE) effort control plan, modifying fishing gear configurations, and
implementing seasonal fishery closures.
The SNE lobster stock has been in long-term recruitment failure since the 1990s. To reduce
fishing effort, managers in lobster conservation management area 2 (LCMA 2) implemented a
six-year lobster trap allocation reduction program in 2016, which will have reduced the number
of allocated traps in the LCMA 2 fishery by more than 50% over the 2016-2022 reduction
schedule. Rhode Island managers believe that effort reductions attributed to the ASMFC Effort
Control Plan (Addendum XVIII) should be credited toward risk reduction targets in this region,
as the reduction in fishing effort will have simultaneously reduced entanglement risk by
removing gear (vertical lines) from the water.
Staff at the Rhode Island Division of Marine Fisheries (RIDMF) have worked to estimate the
number of end lines that have been removed from LCMA 2 waters since 2017, and to forecast
the number of end lines that will be removed through the end of the effort reduction program.
The calculated risk reduction varies by month as fishing effort changes seasonally however the
RI analysis indicates a reduction in vertical lines of greater than 24 % with even greater
reductions predicted during the area aggregation period of February through April. Current weak
line configurations being employed by the industry have not yet been analyzed by NOAA
Fisheries, but we feel the combination of trap reductions, gear and vertical line modifications
will result in a risk reduction that reaches the intended target of 60%.
Background
The SNE American lobster stock experienced a decline in abundance in the 1990s, resulting in
the introduction of multiple management measures intended to reduce fishing pressure on this
resource in LCMA 2. In 1999, Addendum I to Amendment 3 to the American Lobster Interstate
279

Fishery Management Plan established a trap allocation cap for LCMA 2 permit holders at 800
traps per federal permit/state license.
The decline of the SNE lobster stock was determined to be largely environmentally driven, but
further reductions in fishing pressure were deemed necessary to allow for recovery of the stock.
To address the need for fishing effort relief for the SNE stock, Addendum XVIII to Amendment
3 to the American Lobster FMP (approved August 2012) introduced a six-year trap allocation
reduction program in LCMA
This program was implemented with the purpose of reducing fishing effort in LCMA 2 by 50%,
corresponding to an estimated 50% decline in SNE’s lobster abundance (Table 1).
Table 1. Lobster management area 2 trap reduction schedule
Fishing year (May 1-Apr 30)
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022

Reduction
(Implemented May 1)
N/A
25%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%

Example allocation
800
600
570
542
515
490
466

In addition to the above effort reduction schedule, Addendum IX created a trap transfer
conservation tax in LCMA 2, whereby 10% of the traps that are transferred between permit
holders are permanently retired from the fishery, continuing to reduce vertical lines beyond the
trap reduction plans termination.
The number of traps reported fished by fishers (using state harvester reports and federal vessel
trip report data) has exhibited a clear decline during the first three years of the trap allocation
reduction schedule. It is expected that fishing effort levels will continue to decrease through the
end of the trap allocation reduction schedule.
Although these effort reductions were initiated for the purpose of conserving the lobster
resource, they concurrently achieve the goals of reducing risk to NARW. Any fishing effort
reduction resulting from the trap allocation reduction program will inherently provide a reduction
in risk to NARWs via removal of vertical lines from the water. Managers of the Rhode Island
LCMA 2 lobster fishery thus propose that risk reduction credit be granted for this recent and
ongoing effort reduction.
To quantify the extent to which fishing effort has decreased in LCMA 2 due to the trap allocation
reduction program, and to forecast the extent to which fishing effort will decrease by the end of
the program, staff at Rhode Island Division of Marine Fisheries (RI DMF) have fit a model to the
relationship between total lobster trap allocations (LTA) and total number of traps fished in
LCMA 2 by Rhode Island fishers, both federally permitted and state licensed.
280

Whale conservation efforts are concerned with the risk to whales associated with vertical lines
rather than traps, so trap estimates were converted to end line estimates. Rhode Island fishers
have not historically reported the number of end lines they fish, so the relationship between traps
and end lines was estimated based on assumptions about gear configuration reported in Industrial
Economics End Line Model (IEc draft vertical line model documentation, 2014). In the absence
of empirical data on individual future allocations, we assumed that the overall relationship
between traps and end lines for the fishery would remain relatively static. For all LCMA 2
Rhode Island-based fishers, gear configuration assumptions were based on Rhode Island state
waters model assumptions as summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. IEC end line model gear configuration assumptions for Rhode Island state waters
Allocation
Up to 50 traps
51-100 traps
101-200 traps
201+ traps

Number of traps per trawl
1
5
10
15

Number of end lines per trawl
1
2
2
2

NOAA Fisheries indicated that 2017 would be the baseline year for assessing risk reduction for
the NARW population, so percent reductions in LCMA 2 end lines were calculated assuming
2017 as the baseline. Based on model output, and the trap to endline conversion, there is a
projected reduction of 24- 44% (month-dependent) in the number of end lines in LCMA 2 waters
set by Rhode Island fishers by the end of the reduction schedule (April 2022), with an average of
38% reduction in vertical lines during the period Feb-April when aggregations of NARW are
known to occur in LCMA 2 (Table 3).
Table 3. % reduction in vertical lines 2017-2022 by month
Estimated max. end lines in water
20152016
NA 1489

2017
1330

2018
998

Forecasted max. end lines in water Projected Reductions (to end of
reduction schedule)
% reduction
2017 confint
since 2017
(95%)
2019 2020
2021
2022
1050 962
886
813
39%
(22%, 52%)

2

NA 1110

945

534

679

623

573

526

44%

(29%, 56%)

3

NA 1285

900

687

747

685

630

579

36%

(18%, 50%)

4

NA 2126

1739

1429

1466

1344

1236

1135

35%

(17%, 49%)

5

2863 3291

2793

2705

2515

2306

2122

NA

24%

(9%, 36%)

6

4735 4266

3898

3529

3346

3079

2827

NA

27%

(9%, 42%)

7

5048 4816

4295

4636

3809

3505

3217

NA

25%

(6%, 40%)

8

4810 4211

4106

4527

3553

3270

3001

NA

27%

(9%, 41%)

9

4132 3571

3436

3180

2875

2645

2428

NA

29%

(12%, 43%)

10

3260 2735

2846

2390

2252

2072

1902

NA

33%

(17%, 46%)

Month
1

281

Estimated max. end lines in water
Month
11

20152016
2533 2302

2017
2154

2018
1793

Forecasted max. end lines in water Projected Reductions (to end of
reduction schedule)
% reduction
2017 confint
since 2017
(95%)
2019 2020
2021
2022
1727 1589
1459
NA
32%
(15%, 46%)

12

2006 1835

1829

1420

1394

1283

1178

NA

36%

(20%, 48%)

Vertical Line breaking strength
In addition to the credit in risk reduction from ongoing trap reductions, Rhode Island would like
to propose a risk reduction in serious injury and mortality through gear modifications and
configurations. The two options proposed would be a requirement for all fishermen in LCMA 2
to utilize a 1700 lbs. breaking strength vertical line at the top 75% or an approved 1700 lbs.
contrivance in the form of a weak sleeve inserted at various places in vertical lines based on
distance fished from shore and water depth per vertical line length. There are significant
reductions in risk with both options, 41% estimated from 1700 lbs. vertical lines on either end at
the top 75% of the vertical line and 26 % estimated when a 1700 lbs. insert is used on both ends
(Table 4). Inserts are likely less cost prohibitive to the industry and may be more readily
available at the time of rulemaking.
Table 4. Weak vertical line measures by area and risk reduction
Line reduction area
measure
Coast – 3nm
1 insertion at 50%
3nm – 12nm
2 insertions at 25% and 50%
12nm – Area 3
1 insertion at 35%
Area 2 wide
2 vertical lines top 75%

% risk reduction
12.3%
12.25%
2.45%
41% RI preferred option

Current vertical line configuration
The Rhode Island lobster industry has been configuring vertical lines with a break away line at
the top 1/3 of the vertical line. A sample of this vertical line was sent to Erin Summers at Maine
DMR to put through a load test. The line diameters tested were 1/4” and 5/16” knotted together
and then each line without knots. The results are in Table 5 below and it was noted that when the
knotted line broke it was the first example of a configuration that broke and left no knot.
Table 5. Load test results of RI vertical lines
Line Diameter (in.)
1/4 X 5/16
1/4 X 5/16
1/4 X 5/16
1/4 X 5/16
1/4
5/16

Load with knot (lbs.)
631
650
680
662
N/A
N/A

282

Load without knot (lbs.)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1115
1589

Color marking requirements
ALWTRT members have had concern over the broad gear making requirements of the northeast
fixed gear fisheries. Rhode Island supports a more spatially specific gear marking requirement
for state specific lobster management area fisheries including expanded marking requirements at
multiple locations including visually identifiable top marking requirements.
Minimum number of traps per trawl
Rhode Island does not support substantial changes to the current LCMA 2 minimum number of
traps per trawl mainly over safety concerns and vessel size. Much of the small vessel fishery that
occurs in the 3-12 nm from shore range are too small to safely accommodate large numbers of
traps per trawl. Rhode Island does support a small change in the current ALWTRT plan where
vessels fishing 3-12 nm could safely change from 10 traps/trawl to 12/trap per trawl and requests
that this change be analyzed for additional risk reduction.
Seasonal Area Closures
Due to the high degree of uncertainty of model outputs, the lack of empirical data on fishing
effort and limited whale sightings information, we do not support a closed area at this time.
Without the understanding of whether a closed area in an open ocean environment such as
LCMA 2 would create a potentially higher risk situation due to things like gear fencing where
fixed fishing gear is relocated outside of a closed area creating a denser array of vertical lines.
Similarly, recently closed areas of SNE to gillnet fisheries will cause effort to be re-directed with
little understanding of what co-occurrence may result. We feel we cannot support such an action
without understanding the true impacts to whale interactions. Measures could in fact be more
detrimental to the species of concern when the result of the intended action causes the fishing
industry and associated gear to re-locate into areas of higher risk.
Summary
Based on discussions with state managers, fishery stakeholders, and the analysis done by NOAA
Fisheries of the above proposed measures, we believe this combination of gear changes and trap
reductions will achieve the 60% risk reduction target (Table 6). Rhode Island feels confident that
recent and future reductions in the amount of fixed gear as well as anecdotal information on the
realistic reductions in effort are the best way to mitigate serious injury and mortality of NARW.
Less lines in the water means reduced risk.
Rhode Island is confident that our proposed risk reduction strategy through vertical line removal
along with additional measures of gear configuration to reduce the likelihood of severe injury or
mortality should an entanglement occur will meet the risk reduction target approved by the
ALWTRT. Therefore, we ask that the NOAA Fisheries and Regional Administrator accept the
Rhode Island proposal to reduce risk to NARW by 60% through the combination of measures
listed below.
Table 6. Possible risk reduction measures for consideration
283

Line reduction by area
All LMA 2
SI Closure

Line reduction by measures
18% via effort reduction plan
Feb-April

% risk reduction
18% RI preferred
8.60%

Weak Line
Coast-3
3-12 nm
12 nm to MNA 1/3 border
Two End Lines 1700 lbs

Insert Configuration
1 insertion at 50%
2 insertions at 25% and 50%
1 insertion at 35%
75% of vertical line

12.30%
12.25%
2.45%
41% RI preferred

284

Estimation of reduction in LMA 2 vertical lines during lobster trap
allocation reduction program
Rhode Island Division of Marine Fisheries 3 Fort Wetherill Road Jamestown, RI
02835
Contact:
Corinne Truesdale Principal Biologist
[email protected]
Scott Olszewski Deputy Chief
[email protected]
Executive Summary
The North Atlantic right whale stock has experienced anomalously high mortality in recent
years, leading fisheries stakeholders to seek strategies for mitigating the risk of entangling these
whales in lobster fishing gear. Lobster fishery managers have been tasked with proposing
solutions that will meet target goals for the reduction of lethal entanglement risk; proposed
measures include reducing fishing effort, modifying fishing gear, and implementing seasonal
fishery closures.
The southern New England lobster stock has been in long-term recruitment failure since the
1990s. To reduce fishing effort, managers in lobster management area 2 implemented a six- year
lobster trap allocation reduction program in 2016, which will have reduced the number of
allocated traps in the LMA 2 fishery by more than 50% over the 2016-2022 reduction schedule.
Rhode Island managers believe that effort reductions due to the trap allocation reduction
program should be credited toward risk reduction targets in this region, as the reduction in
fishing effort will have simultaneously reduced entanglement risk by removing gear (end lines)
from the water.
Staff at the Rhode Island Division of Marine Fisheries have worked to estimate the number of
end lines that have been removed from LMA 2 waters since 2017, and to forecast the number of
end lines that will be removed through the end of the effort reduction program. Here, a model is
presented which shows a reduction in LMA 2 end lines of 24-44% (month-dependent)
between 2017 and 2022, the end of the effort reduction program. Rhode Island DMF
proposes that this estimated reduction in end lines be credited to the Rhode Island LMA 2 lobster
fishery when assessing the need for further risk reduction strategies in the region.

285

Background
The southern New England (SNE) American lobster stock experienced a decline in abundance in
the 1990s, resulting in the introduction of multiple management measures intended to reduce
fishing pressure on this resource in lobster management area 2 (LMA 2). In 1999, Addendum I to
Amendment 3 to the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan established a trap allocation
cap for LMA 2 permit holders at 800 traps per permit. In 2006, Addendum IX to Amendment 3
created a trap transfer conservation tax in LMA 2, whereby 10% of the traps that are transferred
between permit holders are permanently retired from the fishery.
The SNE lobster stock was determined to be experiencing long-term recruitment failure in a
2010 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Technical Committee memo
(https://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/april2010_SNE_Recruitment_Failure_TCmemoB.pdf). The
decline of the SNE lobster stock was determined to be largely environmentally-driven, but
further reduction in fishing pressure was deemed necessary to allow for recovery of the stock. To
address the need for fishing effort relief for the SNE stock, Addendum XVIII to Amendment 3 to
the American Lobster Fishery Management Plan (approved August 2012) introduced a six- year
trap allocation reduction program in LMA 2. This program was implemented with the purpose of
reducing fishing effort in lobster management area 2 (LMA 2) by 50%, corresponding to an
estimated 50% decline in southern New England’s lobster abundance (Table 1).
Table 1. Lobster management area 2 trap reduction schedule
Fishing year (May 1-Apr 30)
2015-2016
2016-2017
2017-2018
2018-2019
2019-2020
2020-2021
2021-2022

Reduction
(Implemented May 1)
N/A
25%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%

286

Example allocation
800
600
570
542
515
490
466

Figure 1. Monthly maximum number of traps reported fished by Rhode Island fishers in LMA 2,
May 2015 through December 2018
Due to recent concern for the decline of the North Atlantic right population, the North Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Team has worked toward finding solutions to reduce risk of
entangling this species in the end lines of trap fishing gear. These solutions are geared toward
achieving a threshold for risk reduction in the North Atlantic American lobster fishery. A
quantitative risk reduction model is being used to assess the reductions in risk associated with
seasonal lobster fishing closures, modified fishing gear, and reductions in fishing effort across
lobster management areas 1, 2, and 3.
As mentioned, the Rhode Island LMA 2 lobster fishery is in the middle of the trap reduction
schedule which began in May 2015. Since the initiation of this program, substantial reductions in
LMA 2 fishing effort are evident. The number of traps reported fished by fishers (using state
harvester reports and federal vessel trip report data) has exhibited a clear decline during the first
three years of the trap allocation reduction schedule (Figure 1). It is expected that fishing effort
levels will continue to decrease through the end of the trap allocation reduction schedule.
Although these effort reductions were initiated for the purpose of conserving the lobster
resource, they concurrently achieve the goals of reducing risk to North Atlantic right whales.
Any fishing effort reduction resulting from the trap allocation reduction program will inherently
provide a reduction in risk to North Atlantic right whales via removal of end lines from the
water. Managers of the Rhode Island LMA 2 lobster fishery thus propose that risk reduction
credit be granted for recent and ongoing effort reduction.
To quantify the extent to which fishing effort has decreased in LMA 2 due to the trap
allocation reduction program, and to forecast the extent to which fishing effort will
decrease by the end of the program, staff at Rhode Island Division of Marine Fisheries (RI
DMF) have fit a model to the relationship between total allocation and total number of
287

traps fished in LMA 2 by Rhode Island fishers. Methods for fitting this model and its
estimates are provided below.
Data
Rhode Island lobster fishers were defined as harvesters who either had Rhode Island state waters
lobster fishing permits or had federal fishing permits and landed their catch in Rhode Island ports
with a Rhode Island state landing permit. There were a few reported trips over the analyzed time
period during which catch was landed in Rhode Island, but the permit holder was predominantly
based in another state. These fishers were assumed to be accounted for by their home port states
and were excluded from these analyses.
Trip level effort data were collected for years 2015 through 2018 from federal Vessel Trip
Reports (VTRs), where applicable, or from Rhode Island state harvester reports. State harvester
reports are required to be completed by any Rhode Island permitted vessel that is not required to
fill out a VTR. In both VTRs and state harvester reports, fishers enter the number of traps they
currently have set in the water. To obtain a conservatively high estimate of the number of traps
set by all Rhode Island fishers in LMA 2 on a monthly basis, analyzed month-level effort data
consisted of the maximum number of traps reported fished by each harvester within a given
month. Thus, the aggregate maximum number of traps reported fished in each month was the
upper bound on how many traps were in the water during that time period.
The total number of allocated traps in the Rhode Island LMA 2 fishery was calculated by
summing the lobster trap allocations for all active and inactive lobster permit holders (state,
federal, and dual permitholders). For predicting effort in years 2019-2021, allocation was
calculated by reducing the total allocation from 2018 by 5% in each subsequent year. This
provided conservative estimate of total allocation in future years because any reductions due to
the trap transfer conservation tax were not accounted for.
Methods
To predict and forecast reductions in LMA 2 lobster fishing effort over the trap allocation
reduction schedule, a negative binomial generalized linear model (GLM) was fitted to the
relationship between total allocation in the LMA 2 fishery and the number of traps actively
fished. The negative binomial distribution is suitable for overdispersed count data (the variance
exceeds the mean of the distribution), because it incorporates a parameter to estimate and
account for overdispersion. A Quasi-Poisson distribution was also fit to the data, but model
diagnostics indicated a better fit from using the negative binomial distribution (for more
information about these distributions, see Ver Hoef and Boveng, 2007; White and Bennetts,
1996).
Month was incorporated as a categorical variable because the lobster fishery follows a highly
predictable seasonal cycle; fishing is heaviest in the summer months and lightest in in the winter
(Figure 1). Results are thus provided on a monthly scale to account for these intra- annual
variations in effort.
Whale conservation efforts are concerned with the risk to whales associated with end lines rather
than traps, so trap estimates produced by the presented model were converted to end line
estimates. Rhode Island fishers have not historically reported the number of end lines they fish,
so the relationship between traps and end lines was estimated based on assumptions about gear
configuration reported in Industrial Economics, Incorporated’s draft end line model (IEc draft
vertical line model documentation, 2014). For all LMA 2 Rhode Island-based fishers, gear
configuration assumptions were based on Rhode Island state waters model assumptions. These
assumptions are summarized in Table 2.
288

Table 2. iEC end line model gear configuration assumptions for Rhode Island state waters
Allocation
Up to 50 traps
51-100 traps
101-200 traps
201+ traps

Number of traps per trawl
1
5
10
15

Number of end lines per trawl
1
2
2
2

Gear configuration assumptions were applied to maximum traps fished per month by each fisher
(based on their total allocation) to arrive at an estimate of the maximum number of end lines in
the water in each month. This conversion method was applied to monthly data from 2015 to
2018. For forecasts of fishing effort, a monthly aggregate conversion factor of traps to end lines
for 2018 was calculated and applied to monthly traps fished estimates. To obtain trap- to-end line
conversion factors, the total maximum number of traps fished in each month was divided by the
estimated number of end lines. In absence of empirical data on individual future allocations, we
assumed that the overall relationship between traps and end lines for the fishery would remain
relatively static. Thus, monthly traps fished estimates for 2019-2021 were divided by the 2018
end line conversion factors to produce forecasts of end lines in the water. Conversion factors for
2015 through 2018 can be found in Table 3.
Table 3. Traps fished to end line conversion factors, 2015 through 2018. Conversion factors for
2018 were used to convert traps to end lines for effort forecasts in years 2019-2021. Estimates in
2015 are not available in months before the beginning of the fishing year, in May.
factor
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec

Trap-to-End line conversion
20152016
N/A7.43
N/A7.43
N/A7.24
N/A7.25
6.816.58
6.666.56
6.626.34
6.576.60
6.727.02
7.257.17
7.317.31
7.287.35

2017
7.26
7.16
7.13
7.16
6.90
6.44
6.33
6.48
6.98
7.28
7.33
7.28

2018
7.18
7.50
7.48
6.97
6.77
6.24
6.21
6.41
6.72
7.04
7.29
7.28

Results
A summary of the selected negative binomial model specifications and coefficient estimates is
provided in Table 4. The selected model incorporates coefficients for individual months and fits
allocation as a quadratic predictor of traps fished. The relation between allocation and traps
fished is exhibited in Figure 2. The curvilinear relationship indicates that the response of fishing
effort to allocation reductions is not constant. Over the course of the allocation reduction
289

schedule thus far—which has reduced total allocation from 118,686 traps to 74,380 traps
between 2015 to 2018—the model suggests that the response of traps fished to reductions in
allocation was less drastic (slope of the traps fished vs. allocation line is lower) than will be
expected as the allocation is further reduced. This could be an effect of initial allocation
reductions having primarily removed latent traps from the fishery rather than actively fished
traps. Model output in number of traps fished per month is provided in the appendix (Table a1).

290

Table 4. Coefficients and diagnostics for selected negative binomial GLM.

291

Figure 2. Plot exhibiting the relationship between allocation and maximum number of traps
fished as specified by the selected negative binomial GLM.
The North Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team indicated that 2017 would be the
baseline year for assessing risk reduction for the North Atlantic right whale population, so
percent reductions in LMA 2 end lines were calculated assuming 2017 as the baseline. Based on
the output of the select model, which was converted to end lines using the Table 3 conversion
factors, there is projected to be a reduction of 24-44% (month-dependent) in the number of end
lines in LMA 2 waters set by Rhode Island fishers by the end of the reduction schedule, in April
2022 (Table 5, Figure 3). This percent reduction is estimated to be highest in the winter months
(December to March), and lowest in the summer months (June to August).

292

Table 5. Model estimates of of Rhode Island LMA 2 end lines in the water through the end of
the trap allocation reduction schedule. Estimated percent reduction from 2017 to the end of the
reduction schedule, with 95% confidence intervals, are provided in green-highlighted columns.
Estimated max. end lines in
water
Month

2015

20162017 2018

1

NA

1489 1330 998

Forecasted max. end lines in Projected Reductions (to end
water
of
reduction schedule)
%
2017 confint
2019 2020 2021 2022 reduction (95%)
since 2017
1050 962
886
813
39%
(22%, 52%)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

NA
NA
NA
2863
4735
5048
4810
4132
3260
2533
2006

1110 945
1285 900
2126 1739
3291 2793
4266 3898
4816 4295
4211 4106
3571 3436
2735 2846
2302 2154
1835 1829

679
747
1466
2515
3346
3809
3553
2875
2252
1727
1394

534
687
1429
2705
3529
4636
4527
3180
2390
1793
1420

623
685
1344
2306
3079
3505
3270
2645
2072
1589
1283

573
630
1236
2122
2827
3217
3001
2428
1902
1459
1178

526
579
1135
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

44%
36%
35%
24%
27%
25%
27%
29%
33%
32%
36%

(29%, 56%)
(18%, 50%)
(17%, 49%)
(9%, 36%)
(9%, 42%)
(6%, 40%)
(9%, 41%)
(12%, 43%)
(17%, 46%)
(15%, 46%)
(20%, 48%)

Figure 3. Estimated number of end lines in the water, 2015-2018, and predicted number of end
lines in the water, 2019-2021. Estimates for years 2019-2022 are based on forecasts of traps
293

fished produced by the fitted negative binomial GLM converted to end lines using conversion
factors in Table 3.
The fitted model indicates a reduction of 24-44% in LMA 2 end lines fished from 2017 to the
end of the ongoing trap allocation reduction program. This reduction, although designed intended
to benefit the lobster resource, has simultaneously reduced the risk of entangling right whales in
fishing gear. Rhode Island DMF therefore proposes that the reductions calculated in the
presented model be credited toward Rhode Island’s LMA 2 fishers when considering further risk
reduction measures for the LMA 2 lobster fishery.
Ver Hoef, J.M., and P.L. Boveng. 2007. Quasi-Poisson vs. negative binomal regression: how
should we model overdispersed count data? Ecology 88(11):2766-2772.
White, G.C. and R.E. Bennetts. 1996. Analysis of frequency count data using the negative
binomial distribution. Ecology 77(8):2549-2557.
Table a1. Model predictions of maximum traps fished per month, 2019-2021, and forecasted
percent reductions in number of traps fished at the end of the trap reduction schedule (2021-2022
fishing year) compared with baseline year 2017.
Reported max. traps fished (used
in model fitting)
Forecasted max. traps fished
Month
1

2015
NA

2016
11067

20172018
9653 7164

2019
7539

2020
6910

20212022
63595838

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

NA
NA
NA
19481
31550
33437
31608
27781
23650
18524
14609

8251
9309
15415
21659
27969
30511
27788
25058
19600
16818
13479

6765 4002
6413 5138
12448 9954
19281 18314
25101 22022
27172 28807
26623 29013
23996 21371
20735 16831
15781 13068
13319 10341

5095
5592
10212
17030
20880
23669
22772
19316
15860
12585
10156

4670
5126
9361
15610
19215
21781
20956
17776
14595
11581
9346

42983945
47174330
86147908
14365NA
17639NA
19995NA
19238NA
16318NA
13398NA
10632NA
8580NA

294

Projected Reductions (to
end of reduction
schedule)
%
2017
reduction confint
since 2017 (95%)
34%
(20%, 46%)
36%
26%
31%
25%
30%
26%
28%
32%
35%
33%
36%

(23%, 48%)
(10%, 40%)
(16%, 43%)
(11%, 38%)
(12%, 44%)
(8%, 41%)
(10%, 42%)
(15%, 46%)
(19%, 48%)
(16%, 46%)
(20%, 48%)

Appendix 3.4 A Summary of Comments Received During the
Scoping Process
NMFS held a 45-day scoping/public comment period following the August 2, 2019,
publication in the Federal Register (84 FR 37822) of the agency’s Notice of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
(ALWTRP). Oral comments were provided during eight public meetings attended by over 800
people. Over 89,200 written comments were received. 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.
Due to the large number of comments, they are organized according to the following specific
topics:
• Exemptions
• Safety
• Monitoring
• Gear Marking
• Vertical Line Model
• Gear Modifications
• General Comments
This appendix summarizes the written and oral comments, presenting them in two
separate tables. Each comment is assigned to one of five categories:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Analyzed: Comment is addressed in the DEIS.
Discussed: Subject was included in the decision making process in development of
alternatives.
Proposed Alternatives: Comment is an element in one or more of the proposed
alternatives.
Rejected Alternatives: Comment relates to regulatory alternatives considered but
rejected by NMFS.
Outside of Scope: Comment falls outside the scope of the current regulatory action.
Will not achieve Purpose: Comment or proposed action would not fulfill our legal
requirement to reduce North Atlantic right whale entanglement severity and frequency.
Considered: NMFS acknowledges the comment and considered it when developing
alternatives
Duly Noted: or responding is difficult because the commenter did not articulate specific
concerns; did not suggest concrete alternatives; or did not substantiate the position
advocated.
295

The Response to Comments received during the public comment period for the Notice of Intent
to prepare an EIS should be considered as a whole, for it collectively reflects NMFS’
consideration of public comments. In some cases, NMFS has combined or paraphrased
comments. All comments received during the public comment period and the public hearings
have been fully considered. NMFS has addressed all written and oral comments.
Topics of Interest by Stakeholder
GENERAL

Citizens

Environmental

Scientist

Fisherperson

Fed/State
Manager

Topic Area

Sub
category

Sub
category

Topic Area

Topic Area

Topic Area

-

-

-

-

-

Trawling up

Trawling up

General

General

General

General

General

Trap
reduction

Trap
reduction

Trap
reduction

Trap
reduction

Trap
reduction

Line
reduction

Line
reduction

Line
reduction

Line
reduction

Line
reduction

Fishery
Regs

Fishery
Regs

Fishery
Regs

Fishery
Regs

Fishery
Regs

Enforcement

-

-

-

-

-

Gear Marking

-

-

-

-

-

Closures and
other time/area
proposals

S. of
Nantucket
and
Martha’s
Vineyard

S. of
Nantucket
and Martha’s
Vineyard

S. of
Nantucket
and
Martha’s
Vineyard

S. of
Nantucket
and
Martha’s
Vineyard

S. of
Nantucket
and
Martha’s
Vineyard

Additional
areas to
consider

Additional
areas to
consider

Additional
areas to
consider

Additional
areas to
consider

Additional
areas to
consider

Exemptions
Safety

Line/Effort
Reduction

Monitoring

296

Trawling up Trawling up

Trawling up

GENERAL

Citizens

Environmental

Scientist

Fisherperson

Fed/State
Manager

Topic Area

Sub
category

Sub
category

Topic Area

Topic Area

Topic Area

General

General

General

General

General

Ship strikes

Ship strikes

Ship strikes

Ship strikes

Ship strikes

Aquaculture

Aquaculture

Aquaculture Aquaculture

Aquaculture

Noise

Noise

Noise

Noise

Noise

Climate
change and
food

Climate
change and
food

Climate
change and
food

Climate
change and
food

Climate
change and
food

Other

Other

Other

Other

Other

Stressors

-

-

-

-

Ecosystem
Consideratio
ns

Fishermen
assistance

Fishermen
assistance

Fishermen
assistance

Fishermen
assistance

Fishermen
assistance

Gear
innovation
funding

Gear
innovation
funding

Gear
innovation
funding

Gear
innovation
funding

Gear
innovation
funding

Other
1700 lbs
General

Other
1700 lbs
General

Other
1700 lbs
General

Other
1700 lbs
General

Other
1700 lbs
General

Economic
Concerns

-

-

-

-

-

Coordination with
Canada

-

-

-

-

-

Ecosystem
Considerations

Funding/Subsidies

Weak Rope

297

GENERAL

Citizens

Environmental

Scientist

Fisherperson

Fed/State
Manager

Topic Area

Sub
category

Sub
category

Topic Area

Topic Area

Topic Area

-

-

Disentangle
ment efforts

-

Disentangle
ment efforts

Whale
distribution

Whale
distribution

Whale and
Prey
distribution

Whale
distribution

Whale
distribution

Prey
distribution

Prey
distribution

Prey
distribution

Prey
distribution

Ropeless

-

-

-

-

-

Decision Support
Tool

-

-

-

-

-

Allocation

Allocation

Allocation

Allocation

Allocation

Target
Credit
Support
General

Target
Credit
Support
General

Target
Credit
Support
General

Target
Credit
Support
General

Target
Credit
Other
General

Disentanglement
efforts
Research

Risk Reduction

Other

298

Fisherperson comments
Topic Area
Exemptions

Safety

Sub-category Specific Comment Component

Category

Opposed to imposing rules within
the ME exempt area, keep
Considered
exemption line
Will Not
Anyone with an Area 1 permit
Achieve
should be exempt
Purpose
1/4 mile buffer is insufficient for
inshore fishermen and not
Considered
enforceable
Trawling up within 3 miles is
Considered
Trawling up
unsafe and not feasible.
NH has maxed out on the number
Considered
of traps you can trawl safely
Doubles+ are a safety issue and
economically unfeasible for
Duly Noted
single fishers
Lose lives offshore doing 40/50
pot trawls offshore. It is unsafe.
Discussed
Even 30 can be dangerous
Quads aren't safe to fish
Considered
Trawling up could lead to gear
Discussed
conflicts, such as overlaying.
In Area C, 4 trap trawls would be
risky given some fishers
sometimes fish alone on small
Considered
boats making this operation more
dangerous for crew
Cannot safely handle longer
trawls with my current boat and Duly Noted
equipment.
Zone C vessels are not capable of
Duly Noted
hauling trawls of this size
Multiple traps are dangerous for
Duly Noted
younger and older fishermen
Many boats aren't equipped for
Duly Noted
trawling up
Putting a mile of line on a boat is
Duly Noted
not feasible

299

DEIS
Section
Chapter 3,
5, 6

Chapter 3,
5, 6

Chapter 5,
6
Chapter 5

Topic Area

Sub-category Specific Comment Component

General

Line/Effort
Reduction

Trap
reduction

Injuries and deaths are concerns
from handling larger trawls with
more line.
Danger of going alone
1700 lb rope is feasible in LMA2
but with safety concerns
Re rigging has financial and
safety burden that should not be
required until thoroughly tested
for safety, durability, and efficacy
Danger of getting caught when
setting gear, threatens vessel
stability, increased danger when
dealing with increases in snarled
gear
Sinking groundline led to lost
fingers
Use MEDMR's preliminary
breaking strength and load cell
data and OSHA standards to
analyze safety
Believe gear can be removed in
area 3, including buoy lines from
the water.
Take into account amount of trap
reduction that has resulted in a lot
of lines being removed
Removing traps would bring it
down to 700 traps. This is an
adjustable trap limit plan. If the
poundage per trap is up by 10 %
after 5 years if lbs are down we
could have a trap increase. But if
the lbs decrease the traps
decrease.
Suggest to reduce trap allocation
in LMA 3 in order to make
buoyless system work
Prefer trap limits over trawls

300

Category

DEIS
Section

Discussed

Chapter
3,5, and 6

Considered
Proposed
Chapter 5
Alternatives
Considered

Chapters
3 and 5

Considered

Chapters
3,5 and 6

Outside of
Scope
Discussed

Chapter 3,
5

Proposed Chapter 3,
Alternatives
5
Proposed
Chapter 3
Alternatives

Outside of
Scope

Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope

Topic Area

Sub-category Specific Comment Component

Line
Reduction

Suggest long term trap/line
reduction plan using the zone
enter/exit ratio instead of short
term reduction to keep fishermen
in business
The effort MA Lobster Fleet in
LMA1 has been declining for
years now
Area 1 lobster is not overfished
and trap reductions should only
be used for stock concerns. Any
reduction in traps just to reduce
endlines is vindictive when you
have other options available to
reduce risk to these whales
Trawling up affects fishing
efficiency and isn't possible for
small boats
Reducing the amount of lobster
traps to reduce entanglements and
maximize profits
Line reduction through trawling
up/doubles will create more gear
conflict
Do not support line reduction
The best way to reduce
entanglement risk is to remove
vertical lines from the water
Fish triples or 5s, can go with end
line tags
4 trap trawls on rocky bottoms
near the islands would be
impossible and there isn't enough
space
Low density of lines in LMA3,
need a buoy line on each end of
trawl due to deep water and
strong current
Offshore most fish at 5 traps per
trawl anyways

301

Category

DEIS
Section

Outside of
Scope

Discussed

Chapter 5

Duly Noted

--

Analyzed

Chapter 6

Outside of
Scope
Considered

Chapters
3,5 and 6

Duly Noted
Proposed Chapter 3,
Alternatives
5
Analyzed

Chapter 5

Duly Noted

Discussed
Duly Noted

Chapter 5

Topic Area

Monitoring

Sub-category Specific Comment Component

Fishery

Regs
Enforcement

Zone C, 800 traps, no trawls but
fishes double traps: quads will be
difficult in the area because of the
number of fishermen
Prefer endline allocation rather
than trap reduction, but need
better enforcement to prevent
fishermen cutting other's line
when gear conflicts happen
The MLA rejects the
management approach put
forward in the Scoping Document
to reduce Maine’s vertical lines
by 50%
Let the lobstermen fill out
surveys for fishing and gear
configuration information to
inform what can be fished safely
Need information on industry
compliance
Especially for areas with
continued open access, need to
monitor to ensure true line
reduction. Monitor for increase
effort offshore where there are
more threats to whales
Require all federal permit holders
to report locations
Want monitoring of regs to
determine effectiveness
Consider how the proposed
alternatives will be
enforced/whether they are
enforceable.
Need better enforcement to
prevent fishermen cutting other's
line when gear conflicts happen
Boats of a certain size will not be
able to comply with the
regulations
Need a vessel for offshore
enforcement, not just offshore
Area 1, Area 3 as well
302

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted

Proposed Chapter 3,
Alternatives
5

Duly Noted

Considered

Chapter
3,5

Discussed

Chapter 3

Analyzed

Chapter 3,
5

Discussed

Chapter 3

Discussed

Chapter 3

Discussed

Chapter 3

Duly Noted
Considered
Duly Noted

Chapter 3,
5

Topic Area

Gear Marking

Sub-category Specific Comment Component

Category

DEIS
Section

Ropeless enforcement is an issue Duly Noted
Need better enforcement
Duly Noted
Enforcement is a critical
component of any ALWTRP rule
change, yet fishermen are
continually discouraged with the
Discussed Chapter 3
lack of oversight and
enforcement in federal waters;
need an offshore enforcement
vessel
Proposed Chapter 3,
Support marking gear
Alternatives
5
Support country of origin line
marking system so US has a
Rejected
Chapter 3
tracer through whole line, area
Alternatives
tracers as well
Work with gear manufacturers to
develop affordable manufactured
solutions for discrete segments of Duly Noted
US fisheries gear marks or allow
multiple marking methods
Suggest gear marking in exempt
Proposed Chapter 3,
area to show it isn't a problem
Alternatives
5
Support gear marking across the
fishery and adding any color or
size gear markings that will fit
through my hauler without
Duly Noted
fouling it, so long as it shows my
gear is not involved in whale
entanglements.
Marking requirements should
accommodate regular re-rigging
of endlines to fish at drift. depths;
so do not identify exact distances
apart. Eg. lines fished in certain
Proposed
Chapter 3
deep water shelf edges in
Alternatives
LCMA3 can be up to 2400 feet
(400 fathoms); most active Area
3 vessels deploy 50 to 75
endlines.
Some do not support gear
Duly Noted
marking
3 foot mark good, but feasibility
Analyzed Chapter 5
unsure
303

Topic Area

Sub-category Specific Comment Component

S. of
Closures and other
Nantucket
time/area
and Martha’s
proposals
Vineyard
Additional
areas to
consider
General

Category

Put pressure on rope
manufacturing - put tracer
Analyzed
through entire line, unique to
each area
Want states to have separate gear Proposed
markings
Alternatives
Will Not
Suggest the use of twine
Achieve
interweaved in endlines
Purpose
Gear marking will lose color
when soaked in water over a
Duly Noted
week
Maine traps and buoys are
Rejected
already marked, a single tracer
Alternatives
should be sufficient
Marking is already being done
Rejected
outside the exemption line and
Alternatives
should be sufficient
In to shoal water for marking
Duly Noted
Gear marking does very little
Duly Noted
Support gear marking but would
be difficult for fishermen fishing Duly Noted
in different areas
Need better gear marking
methods and need to see results
Duly Noted
from marking
Maine lobster gear should be
Proposed
marked so it is uniquely
Alternatives
identifiable.
Gear from each state should be
Proposed
uniquely identifiable.
Alternatives
Consider closed areas,
particularly in Nantucket
Look at cape cod bay for
entanglement issues

Chapter 3,
5
Chapter 3

Chapter 3
Chapter 3

Chapter 3
Chapter 3

Proposed
Chapter 3
Alternatives
Analyzed

Don't think closures work (dead
whales have been found in Cape Duly Noted
Cod Bay)
Some do not support any closures Duly Noted
304

DEIS
Section

Chapter 5

Topic Area

Stressors

Sub-category Specific Comment Component
TRT did not propose because
they don't work due to
unpredictable ecosystem and
habitat use changes
Closures have unintended
consequences such as: fencing
within and between fishery gear
conflicts due to changed fishing
locations, habitat impacts,
economic impacts and
inequitable treatment of fishing
operations. Need to be dynamic
but hard to analyze because can't
predict where gear will be moved
to.
Dynamic closures don't work
with US rulemaking hurdles, plus
impossible for vessels to move
gear quickly, especially in bad
weather. Area 3 vessels can only
move 304 trawls in a trip.
Will avoid areas where
entanglements might be likely.
Closures may cause redistribution
of effort and exacerbate the issue
Ship strikes Ship strikes are a bigger concern
Impose speed restrictions as well
especially if closures will be
implemented
Ship strikes (including potential
navy ship strike, shipping
industry, cruise ships, night time
boaters)
Aquaculture, permitting more
Aquaculture
vertical lines for aquaculture
Noise

Concerns for Seismic testing for
oil and natural gas
US Navy and sonar present
concern

305

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted
Analyzed

Chapter 5

Discussed

Chapter 8

Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope,
Chapter 8
Discussed
Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope,
Chapter 8
Discussed
Outside of
Scope,
Chapter 8
Discussed

Topic Area

Sub-category Specific Comment Component
Consider wind farm/acoustic
impact on whales
Climate
change and
food

Other

Ecosystem
Considerations

Funding/Subsidies

Fishermen
assistance

Consider climate change and its
impact on whale health/food
source
Some of the direct effects of
warming and increased PCO2 on
lobster larvae as well as the
copepods
Nutritional concerns and decline
of food source
Derelict fishing gear
Risk in increased use of
pesticides that threaten the food
supply on right whales
Plastic ingestion
Whale watch industry
Analyze potential increase in lost
gear
Low reproduction from food
restriction and entanglement
Protect the top levels of the
fisheries food chain
Oceanographic and climate
changes being recorded that show
vast movement in the right whale
population, and changes and
movement in the fisheries as well
Provide stipend for time/energy
necessary to make modifications
to gear or boat
Fishermen compensations
Provide subsidies

Other

Federal permit buy backs
Hopes the senator finds money to
help mitigate the impact of ships
on whales
Conservation groups can help
find funding
306

Category

DEIS
Section

Outside of
Scope,
Chapter 8
Discussed
Discussed

Chapter 8

Discussed

Chapter 8

Discussed

Chapter 8

Analyzed

Chapter 5

Discussed

Chapter 8

Discussed
Discussed

Chapter 8
Chapter 8

Analyzed

Chapter 5

Discussed

Chapter 2,
5

Duly Noted

Discussed

Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope

Chapter 5,
8

Topic Area

Weak Rope

Sub-category Specific Comment Component

Category

Regulations require more funding
to stay compliance.
Try 1900-2000 lbs, would reduce
to 1700 quickly, less times to
replace rope, would be more
compliance
Thinks a calf in Mass can break
out of 1700 lb rope because they
use 1500 lb rope. otherwise
replaced more often
More frequent replacement of
1700 lb line
Keep 1700 lb rope to top half or
top ⅔ - keep short
1700 lb seems like can work.
Changing % by depth fished
makes sense.
1700 lb rope is a solution, when
fishing less than 100 feet, use
entire weak rope; greater than
100 feet, use 100 feet addons.
Question over effectiveness
Use predetermined bleach soak
time to weaken rope (tested with
specific brands/breaking strength)
Potential issue with practicality
of braided line in the middle
Weak rope is an issue in rocky
areas, may increase lost gear
For years been using 1500 lb
braided, twisted line breaks down
in strength.
Some do not support weak rope,
a particular issue in rocky areas
The Association supports the
uses of “contrivances” to lessen
the breaking strength of end lines
during entanglement events.
However, the Association
opposes a universal requirement
to use ≤1700 lb breaking strength
rope

Outside of
Scope

1700 lbs

General

307

DEIS
Section

Rejected
Chapter 3
Alternatives

Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Rejected
Chapter 3
Alternatives
Discussed

Chapter 3,
5

Rejected
Chapter 3
Alternatives
Duly Noted
Rejected
Chapter 3
Alternatives
Duly Noted
Analyzed
Duly Noted
Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Chapter 5

Topic Area

Economic
Concerns

Sub-category Specific Comment Component
The MLA rejects the
management approach put
forward in the Scoping Document
to require weak rope on the top
half of vertical lines in Maine’s
federal waters.
Can't use weaker rope with
longer trap trawls, larger rope
already breaks with 15 trap trawls
often
Sleeves do not work because it
takes much time and costs to use
it. You need two sets of ropes to
fish in different depth.
Test cheaper alternatives to weak
lines such as soaking them in
bleach.
Weakening a line throughout its
entire length, as opposed to a
single weak point, will do more
to reduce the severity of these
entanglements than other options
Many applications including the
South Shore Sleeve are costly
and labor intensive. We
understand that a suite of reduced
breaking strength (RBS)
options/modifications intended to
minimize cost and effort will be
available to satisfy this
rulemaking
Examine community economic
health/impact
A mass fisherman fishing singles
catches double what others do,
helps keep up with cost of living?
50% endline reduction would
cost 30-35% of income
Re Rigging has costs, don't
require until fully tested and
proven effective and safe
Lowering the trap limit our
poundage goes up and our cost
lowers.
308

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted

Considered

Chapter 3
and 5

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Analyzed

Chapter 5

Duly Noted

Analyzed

Chapter 6

Duly Noted
Analyzed

Chapter 6

Duly Noted
Discussed

Chapter 6

Topic Area

Sub-category Specific Comment Component
Longer trawls mean buying
bigger boats and an excess of
unused smaller boats
Boat modifications will cost
money to comply with trawling
up
Costs of compliance vary by
business
Time and money to maintain.
Consider cost of replacing rope.
He replaces 10% line annually.
Make sure it's effective before
requiring so new modifications
won't be needed in a couple of
years
Gear modifications cost extra
Bait is expensive and catch is
mediocre. Flexibility is key to
maintaining our diverse fleet
Re rigging has financial and
safety burden that should not be
required until thoroughly tested
for safety, durability and efficacy
This recent set of proposals lacks
a scientific basis and will inflict
great harm to our community
while having no meaningful
impact on the survival of the right
whale
Additional help difficult to find
and will be needed for trawling
up
If Maine were proven to be a
concern, we would need a 5-year
plan to modify the fishery to
support the community
Will be forced to retire
Will increase lost gear
$80,000 cost predicted to modify
Zone 2, 200 traps: worries about
those depending on fishing

309

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted
Analyzed

Chapter 6

Analyzed

Chapter 9

Analyzed

Chapter 6

Duly Noted
Analyzed

Chapter 6

Analyzed

Chapter 6
and 9

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Analyzed Chapter 6
Analyzed Chapter 6
Analyzed

Chapter 6

Topic Area

Sub-category Specific Comment Component
$50,000 required to change rope
and 400-500 hours of unpaid
work to rig new groundline
Jobs should come before a whale
$3,500 for more endlines and a
couple of weeks of modification
Running gear back and huge
snarls are concerns, not being
able to recover gear
Reducing traps or end lines will
reduce revenue by 50%
Will impact all of the town's
economy contributing to loss of
businesses, jobs, and create
higher taxes, lose schools
(especially in smaller
communities)
Concern over the time period
between regulation and the
implementation date to achieve
compliance, especially if
regulation will require 100%
compliance by May 2020.
The cost associated with line/trap
reductions, such as hiring
additional help, buying
new/replacing gear, or loss of
fishing efficiency or time spent to
modify gear (i.e., time), will
create and economic hardship.
Estimated cost to modify vessels
may be approximately $10,000.
20% of income would go to new
ropes, hydraulics, stern extension,
hoses, motor, tank, and fittings to
be able to comply with proposed
regulations
Economy depends on lobster
industry and modifications will
affect communities’ economies
significantly by loss of revenue
or jobs.

310

Category

DEIS
Section

Analyzed

Chapter 6

Duly Noted
Analyzed

Chapter 6

Duly Noted
Analyzed

Chapter 6

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Analyzed

Chapter 6

Analyzed

Chapter 6

Analyzed

Chapter 6

Analyzed

Chapter 6

Topic Area

Sub-category Specific Comment Component

Coordination with
Canada

Disentanglement
efforts
Research

Whale
distribution

Small boat fishery would be lost
due to modifications
Fishermen have suffered enough
from high bait price and low
lobster price
Urge to regulate Canadian
fisheries with whale safe
measures
50% whale responsibility for US
lobster fishery is unfair
Canadian waters have contributed
more to recent year RW
mortalities
Train lobstermen as whale
observers and disentangle teams
Right whales have not been
sighted to overlap with the
distribution of the lobster fishery
Track whales through tagging

Category
Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Discussed

Chapter 3

Duly Noted
Discussed

Chapter 2,
4

Rejected
Alternative
Duly Noted
Outside of
Scope, Duly
Noted
Discussed Chapter 3

Acoustic monitoring
Increase aerial survey coverage
Discussed
and occurrences
Need better monitoring of whales
in US shipping lanes, particularly Discussed
south of Nantucket.
Tracking the whales migration
patterns, understanding
environmental issues affecting
Discussed
the whales feed and supply of
same need to be done
Need better whale distribution
Discussed
data for more rules
More research on behavior - is
Outside of
feeding behavior more risky for
Scope, Duly
entanglement than traveling
Noted
whales
DMR is going to try and find
some funds to try and do aerial
Duly Noted
surveys.

311

DEIS
Section

Chapter 3
Chapter 3

Chapter 3

Chapter 3

Topic Area

Sub-category Specific Comment Component
Need to study whether there is
any interaction with the whales
and Maine lobster gear
Research copepods and develop
Prey
distribution predictive zooplankton model

Ropeless

Decision Support
Tool

Not possible in short or medium
term. Offshore fishermen willing
to continue to work with
developers
Ropeless gear won't apply to
rocky bottom, and too expensive
to afford it
Ropeless gear has been
successfully tested in 40-140 feet
of water
Need to set up a system to
prevent the mobile gear fleet
from interacting with the
buoyless system.
An EFP option remains desirable
within the Atlantic Large Whale
Take Reduction Plan and hope
that this remains a priority for
NOAA
Buoyless fishing isn't feasible
Most of traps are in shoal waters
and are incapable of trawls using
buoyless
There's not a chance ropeless tech
will survive actual commercial
fishing, nor can it even be used in
a competitive fishery
Should be looking at 2015 and
not 2017. 2017 should only apply
to areas that haven't made an
effort to reduce vertical lines.
Should look at decline since
2010, period of analysis, to
capture line reductions in those
LMAs that have implemented
effort controls and limited entry
programs
312

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted
Outside of
Scope,
Chapter 3
Discussed
Duly Noted

Duly Noted
Duly Noted

Discussed

Chapter 3,
5

Discussed

Chapter 3

Duly Noted
Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Discussed

Chapter 3

Topic Area

Risk reduction

Sub-category Specific Comment Component

Allocation

Target

Credit

Start from scratch
Was designed for closure and has
been overused
DST isn't capturing recent
reductions in effort
Need to consider other factors
into risk reduction model like
water temperature, feed etc.
Need more data, update the
science
Use all of the new data available
Use the aquariums 72%
published risk estimate
Keen on the idea of equity, split
between US and Canada as well
as among areas in the US
Consider takes by state so Maine
is exempt
The MLA continues to reject
NMFS’ 60% risk reduction goal
for the Maine lobster fishery
because it is unsupported by
documented evidence of
interaction between right whales
and Maine lobster gear.
Happy about 18% credit, but
want to see more credit, started
reductions in 2015, so need credit
for that in the model.
Prior and ongoing efforts to
reduce the amount of gear fished
should be given risk reduction
credit.
Credit for existing area 2 trap
reductions. already very little line
that is not captured in the DST
We appreciate the risk/line
reduction credit the substantial
closure of the 3000 square
nautical miles, known as,
"Massachusetts Restricted Area"
has achieved within the current
rule making process
313

Category
Duly Noted

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted
Considered Chapter 3
Chapter 3,
Considered Appendix
3.2
Duly Noted
Discussed

Chapter 3

Duly Noted
Discussed

Chapter 2

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Proposed
Chapter 3
Alternatives
Proposed
Chapter 3
Alternatives

Proposed
Chapter 3
Alternatives

Topic Area
Other

Sub-category Specific Comment Component
Support
General

Support what came out of TRT
Need a seat at TRT for Maine
lobster union
People who fish should make the
rules
Consider what the states propose
Any new rules applied to Maine
fisherman should only be applied
to large distances from shore
(30+ miles) as we have minimal
to no interaction inside of that.
Apply same rules to all LMA3
and federal permitted lobstermen
equally

314

Category
Duly Noted

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Considered Chapter 3
Rejected
Chapter 3
Alternative

Duly Noted

State Manager/Congress/Marine Mammal Commission
Topic Area

Sub-category

Exemptions

Safety

Category

Regulating exempted waters would
not have a benefit to right whales

Duly Noted

Preserve the exemption line

Considered

Trawling up Trawling up is a safety concern

General
Line/Effort
Reduction

Specific Comment Component

Trap
reduction

DEIS
Section

Chapter
3
Chapter
Considered
3, 5, 6

Triples or quads will be very
difficult for skiff and the older
Duly Noted
generation lobstermen
Longer trawls have safety issues:
excessive rope on deck, less space
Chapter
on deck, less visibility by higher
Considered
5, 6
stacks of traps, more weight on
deck
Trawling up for offshore fisheries
Chapter
Considered
will create safety issues
5, 6
Longer trawls will increase the risk
Chapter
of accidents that could put lives at
Considered
5, 6
stake
Safety would be a huge concern for
me, and the vast majority of the
fleet if we were forced into larger
configurations, especially in shoals, Duly Noted
closer waters, where gear density is
higher, and whale frequency is non
existent
Chapter
Weak rope also has safety issues
Discussed
6
Consider trap and buoyline
reductions that have already
Proposed Chapter
occurred in the areas 2 and 3 in
Alternatives
3
DEIS analysis
Eliminating single traps in Mass is
not effective (in summer along
Duly Noted
coast with no whales present)
ASMFC Add 18 (really 21/22) had
trap cap reductions, will help get us Duly Noted
to where we need to be
GARFO need to take action on trap Outside of
cap reduction.
Scope

315

Topic Area

Sub-category

Line
reduction

Monitoring

Fishery

Regs

Specific Comment Component

Category

DEIS
Section

Vertical line reduction can be
Outside of
achieved by reducing fishing effort
Scope
Absolute effort reduction and may
Outside of
be the only effective solution and
Scope
should be considered by NMFS
Consider buoy line reductions that
Proposed Chapter
have already occurred in the areas 2
Alternatives
3
and 3 in DEIS analysis
Proposed Chapter
Get a cap on the offshore endlines
Alternatives
3
Trawling up hard to regulate but
should be done for those that have
Duly Noted
deck space.
Longer trawls offshore are only
Duly Noted
workable on some vessels
Trawling up is impractical for
Duly Noted
inshore fishermen
Chapter
Trawling up reduces gear efficiency Analyzed
6
Substantial reductions in vertical
Proposed Chapter
line numbers in all states and LMAs Alternatives
3
Supports measures expanded
Chapter
Discussed
harvester reporting
3
Collaborating with the states to
collect complete information on
Duly Noted
lobster fishing effort
(e.g., numbers of end lines)
NMFS, in cooperation with the
states, take immediate steps to
Duly Noted
collect data to provide reliable
information on the numbers of end
lines in use before and after the
implementation of any line
reduction
measures, thus allowing the
effectiveness of such measures to be
assessed
Management measures adopted
through rulemaking should be
Chapter
studied to assure the measures are
Discussed
3, 5
effectively reducing risk after
implementation.

316

Topic Area

Enforcement

Gear Marking

Sub-category

Specific Comment Component

Category

Needs to contain provisions to
assess the effectiveness of those
measures and modify them
Discussed
promptly if the take reduction
goal(s) of the MMPA are not
achieved.
Increased efforts from NOAA OLE,
in coordination with the states, can
Duly Noted
lead to effective and timely
prosecution of cases.
Enforcement in offshore waters
should be made a priority by NOAA
Fisheries, e.g. obtain a large vessel
Duly Noted
that is capable of hauling gear and
could operate year-round in
offshore areas.
Proposed
Support expanded gear marking
Alternatives
Proposed
State wide gear marking in Maine
Alternatives
If replace 20% of lines in each year,
Rejected
would have all line marked in 5
Alternative
years.
Collaborate with the states to
implement comprehensive gear
Considered
marking.
The use of any other proven
measures that will reduce
Rejected
entanglement severity, such as high- Alternatives
visibility rope
Vertical line reduction can be
achieved by prohibiting fishing in
areas where and/or at times when
Proposed
whales are most likely to be present
Alternatives
either with fixed (like
Massachusetts) or dynamic (like
Canada) time-area closures
Time-area closures to protect the
largest and most predictable
Proposed
concentrations and migratory
Alternatives
pathways of right whales
Time area closures in the fishery
may be the only effective solution
Duly Noted
and should be considered by NMFS
317

DEIS
Section
Chapter
3, 5

Chapter
3
Chapter
3
Chapter
3
Chapter
3
Chapter
3

Chapter
3

Chapter
3

Topic Area

Stressors

Sub-category

Specific Comment Component

Category

NMFS evaluate the use of dynamic
closures in the DEIS, such as those
that have been implemented in
Canada. NMFS tried to use fishery
DMAs in the past and rejected their
use due to logistical difficulties
faced by fishermen, but the DEIS
should, at a minimum, identify the
logistical, economic, and
operational difficulties, and discuss
potential solutions.

Outside of
Scope

Ship strikes

Ship strikes (including navy ships
without speed limits)

Aquaculture

NMFS should reconsider offshore
aquaculture.

Noise

Sonar
NMFS should reconsider offshore
wind.
NMFS should reconsider seismic
testing.

Funding/Subsidies

Weak Rope

Outside of
Scope,
Discussed
Outside of
Scope,
Discussed
Outside of
Scope,
Discussed
Outside of
Scope,
Discussed
Outside of
Scope,
Discussed

DEIS
Section

Chapter
8
Chapter
8
Chapter
8
Chapter
8
Chapter
8

Whale distribution is changing
Climate
along the change of the food
Chapter
Discussed
change and
sources and GOSL is the new food
8
food
source for RW
Gear
Explore rapid and intense research
Outside of
innovation
into different gear config.
Scope
funding
Increase funding for the Joint
Enforcement Agreement which
Outside of
would allow for more extensive
Other
Scope
coverage of MMPA and ESA
regulations.
Funding research on the
Outside of
relationships between types of gear
Scope
and the severity of injuries
The use of ‘weak’ rope (1,7001700 lbs pound equivalents) in every pot/trap Duly Noted
fishery
318

Topic Area

Sub-category

Specific Comment Component
If more time was given to
experiment 1700 lbs weak links it
could be a solution for everyone’s
problems

General

Economic
Concerns

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
No change to gear configurations in
Rejected Chapter
state waters
Alternative
3
Load cell testing says feasible for
Duly Noted
50 fathoms and shallower.
Look at having 1 week vertical line
Chapter
Analyzed
and 1 strong vert line.
3, 5
Supportive of ways to weaken line.
Proposed Chapter
Put another weak link lower in line. Alternatives
3
Sleeves and 1,700-pound rope are
not now commercially available in
sufficient quantities to supply all
U.S. lobster fisheries; this creates
Duly Noted
some uncertainty regarding their
feasibility as entanglement
mitigation measures in the short
term.
For alternatives that include the
weak sleeve option, that NMFS
undertake a careful analysis of the
pertinent science and make use of
Chapter
modeling to determine the optimal
Considered
3, 5
distance between sleeves for right
and other large whales, and include
that distance in its DEIS analyses
and proposed regulations
Sleeves have not been scientifically
tested and it is unknown how they
Duly Noted
will perform in entanglement
situations.
Continue to work with industry and
staff to develop a plan that does not
Chapter
Considered
have adverse social and economic
3, 4, 6
effects on the industry.
Ban import of Canadian lobster or
Outside of
snow crab until on par with US
Scope
Trap reduction will make offshore
Duly Noted
fishermen hard to make a profit
Should use weak links/rope

319

Topic Area

Sub-category

Specific Comment Component

Category

DEIS
Section

The gear configuration of longer
trawls reduces the efficiency of
Chapter
each lobster trap, which may impact Analyzed
6
the profitability of individual
operations.
A 50% reduction in endline would
Chapter
Analyzed
be catastrophic financially for me
6
NMFS continue and expand on
these efforts and that the importance
of working with Canada be
reflected in the DEIS. Among other
things, the DEIS might usefully
Outside of
Coordination with
discuss the applicability of the
Scope
Canada
MMPA fish import rule in helping
to ensure that Canada’s take
reduction program for its fisheries is
and remains comparable to that of
the United States.
NMFS should take into account the
aggressive conservation program
administered by the Commonwealth Duly Noted
and its fishermen during the
rulemaking process.
The DEIS might also consider steps
to formalize ongoing coordination
and collaboration with Canada on
Outside of
take reduction and monitoring
Scope
through a binding bilateral
agreement.
Chapter
Whale
Support aerial surveys
Discussed
Research
3
distribution
Support increased NARW
Chapter
Discussed
surveillance, aerial and acoustic
3
Outside of
Support tagging/tracking whales
Scope
Continue and expand visual and
acoustic whale surveys (including
Outside of
an assessment of how frequent and
Scope
extensive such surveys need to be to
meet management objectives),
Eliminate vertical lines through
ropeless-seen as the solution that
Chapter
Discussed
Ropeless
can reduce lines without reducing
3
fishing effort
320

Topic Area

Sub-category

Decision Support
Tool

Risk Reduction

Allocation

Specific Comment Component

Category

DEIS
Section

If it turns out that the offshore
lobster fishery cannot make the
weak-rope option work, then NMFS
should require the offshore fishery Duly Noted
to make the transition to ropeless
gear on an aggressive, time-bound
schedule.
Will Not
Reconsider the use of the “baseline
Achieve
year” of 2017
Purpose
Within the 100m isobaths has low
Calanus but is not included in the
Duly Noted
habitat model
Would like improved habitat
Duly Noted
suitability model
NMFS should utilize the
Chapter
72% published estimate of risk
Considered
3, 5
reduction (Knowlton et. al 2015)
NMFS should be cautious about the
Chapter
impacts and measurability of
Analyzed
5, 6
additional “trawling up” scenarios
Conducting further research on the
Outside of
relationships between types of gear
Scope
and the severity of injuries
Measures contained in rule are as
certain as the best available science
can assure to reduce serious injury
and mortality to below PBR. The
decision-support tool is built on the
Chapter
Considered
best available data and science, and,
3
along with other tools, analyses and
sources of information, is the tool
that should guide NMFS in the EIS
and rulemaking process
Focusing all of the risk reduction
efforts on Maine's lobster fishery is
Duly Noted
not sufficient for protection of the
species

321

Topic Area

Sub-category

Target
Credit

Specific Comment Component
Review methodology which
attributes serious injury and
mortality from unattributed gear to
the US and Canada. Examine two
time series of entanglement data,
2010-2018 and 2013-2018, when
assigning serious injury and
mortality from unattributed cases to
the two countries.
Re-evaluate the current risk
reduction target, as the data indicate
that Canadian fisheries have an
increased role in the serious injury
and mortality of NARWs
Detected serious injury and
mortality should be considered a
minimum, as 40-50 percent of all
presumed dead right whales go
undetected.
NOAA need re-consider the
attribution of unknown whale
entanglement cases to fishery and
country
Increase in Canadian mortalities
needs to be considered when
developing alternatives
Consider region-wide as well as
state specific approaches for
reducing those risks.
NMFS should develop and include
alternatives designed to achieve an
80 percent reduction in
entanglement risks
Give credit for Mass closure

Category

DEIS
Section

Discussed

Chapter
2

Duly Noted

Discussed

Chapter
2

Duly Noted

Discussed

Chapter
2, 3

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Considered

Chapter
3

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3

ME DMR requests NOAA include a
method for conservation
Chapter
Discussed
equivalency within the proposed
3
rule.
NMFS should take into account the
aggressive conservation program
administered by the Commonwealth Duly Noted
and its fishermen during the
rulemaking process.
322

Topic Area

Other

Sub-category

General

Specific Comment Component
Consider major actions taken by
Mass (including speed restrictions),
and give credit for closure
Measures to fishermen fishing in
the same federal areas should be
equitable, spread burden among
states
NMFS should propose only
measures that apply equally to
fishermen from ALL states who fish
in commonly fished federal waters
An immediate next step should be
for NMFS to undergo the process
necessary to promulgate equivalent
regulations for all U.S. fisheries that
entangle, or have the potential to
entangle, right and other large
whales.
Consider how the rule can be
implemented by zone or subregion
while considering the diversity and
geographic features of ME
Other regions step up to the same
level of protection as Massachusetts
Need protocol to put people on
boats to see gear testing

323

Category

DEIS
Section

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Considered

Chapter
3

Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3

Outside of
Scope

Considered
Duly Noted
Outside of
Scope

Chapter
3

Scientist
Topic Area
Exemptions
Safety
Line/
Effort Reduction
Enforcement
Gear Marking

Subcategory

Specific Comment Component
No exemptions for gear marking

DEIS
Section
Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Category

Fishing more than two traps per
Trawling
trawl is neither practical nor safe for Duly Noted
up
many of our boats
Benefits of trawling up will be
Chapter
Line
Analyzed
5
reduction negated if rope gets heavier
LMA3 lacks of enforcement and
need ropeless gear to reduce risks
Gear marking should occur
everywhere
Work with ME DMF and LMA on
gear marking
No exemptions for gear marking

Duly Noted
Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3

Additional
Proposed Chapter
Closures and other
New Closure in New England
areas to
Alternatives
3
time/area proposals
consider
New closure in offshore/deep
Proposed Chapter
waters
Alternatives
3
Recommend the approach used in
Cape Cod Bay be applied in areas
Outside of
General
with high chance of human impact
Scope
(e.g. M/V)
Create closures based on data on
Proposed Chapter
where prey are and can be modified
Alternatives
3
in the future as things change
Micromanaging specific areas sets
Duly Noted
you up for a big risk
Outside of
Chapter
Scope,
Stressors
Ship strikes Ship strikes are the main issue
2, 8
Discussed
Ocean noise are increasing due to
Outside of
navy training, oil and gas
Chapter
Scope,
Noise
exploration, and wind construction
8
Discussed
and larger transport vessels
Outside of
Climate Links between ecosystem changes
Chapter
Scope,
change and and reduced reproduction and
2, 8
increase in mortality
Discussed
food

324

Topic Area

Subcategory

Specific Comment Component

Category

Dam projects are a threat to food
source (copepods), examine this
Duly Noted
link (e.g. via changing ocean layers)
Sublethal trauma is an issue,
Discussed
impacts health and reproduction
Cape Cod area is a non-linear
Duly Noted
dynamic ecosystem
Consider ecosystem approach to
species management and cumulative Duly Noted
risk assessment
Outside of
Changes in the marine food web
Scope,
(consider for critical habitat)
Discussed
Need to learn something from
fishery scientists who are studying
Outside of
the link between cod recruitment
Scope
and the North Atlantic Oscillation
Large whales contribute to the
health of our ocean ecosystems; the
loss of this species will have a
Duly Noted
cascade of long-lasting and farreaching effects on nutrient cycling
and plankton communities
Outside of
Fisherman Subsidize cost of ropeless (fed,
Scope
assistance state, surcharge paid by consumers)
Convention costs should be
completely subsidized, primarily by
federal and state governments, but
Outside of
also through a modest ‘ropeless
Scope
surcharge” for lobsters and crabs to
be paid by consumers.
1700 lb should be the upper bound
for rope strength. Weak links might
Analyzed
1700 lbs
not work for whales to break the
rope
Not a long term solution and
Knowlton suggests has to be far less Duly Noted
than 1700 to break.
Weak rope can be a useful tool to
reduce SI/M if tailored to what we
Discussed
General
know about entanglements
Weak rope will reduce mortality but
Discussed
not sublethal trauma

DEIS
Section

Other

Ecosystem
Considerations

Funding/Subsidies

Weak Rope

325

Chapter
2, 8

Chapter
8

Chapter
3, 5

Chapter
5
Chapter
5

Topic Area

Economic Concerns

Coordination with
Canada

Research: Whale
and Prey
distribution

Ropeless

Subcategory

Specific Comment Component

Category

Proposed regulations for lobster
fishing in the Gulf of Maine are
inappropriate and would impose
Analyzed
undue hardship on both our
independent fishermen and our
small coastal communities
Given the demonstrated and
extreme risks for right whales in
Canadian waters on top of
numerous deaths associated with
Outside of
Canadian fishing gear, there must
Scope
be a high level and coordinated
working agreement between the US
and Canada to protect the species.
Whale surveys and plankton tows
have been very spotty in Gulf of
Maine waters, which hampers
NMFS’ ability to understand right
Discussed
whale transiting behavior and any
spatial and temporal correspondence
between the lobster industry in
Maine and right whale fitness.
Support ropeless fishing

DEIS
Section
Chapter
6

Chapter
3

Chapter
3
Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3
Discussed

LMA3 needs ropeless gear to
reduce risks
Allow fishermen to commercially
fish with exclusively ropeless
Proposed Chapter
fishing gear in areas that are
Alternatives
3
otherwise closed to trap/pot fishing
due to the presence of right whales.
Support the development and
testing of ropeless gear by providing
a gear cache, offering compensation
Outside of
to fishermen involved in testing,
Scope
and expediting the process to obtain
an Experimental Fishing Permit to
test ropeless gear.
Buoyless fishing has to be a winwin and has to be used as a viable
Duly Noted
long term solution
Chapter
Phased in approach to ropeless
Discussed
3
Do not consider time tension cutters Duly Noted
326

Topic Area

Decision Support
Tool

Risk Reduction
Other

Subcategory

Specific Comment Component

Ropeless is important, encourage
light line as a path to ropeless.
Need to eliminate line/ work with
fishermen to accomplish this
through things like ropeless fishing
Allow/develop ropeless gear inside
and outside of closed areas
Recalculate risk reduction in MA
LMA1 and OCC. Previous
measures should not be accounted
for new risk reduction.
Existing data is not predictive of the
future
Improve DST
Ones found in US likely drowned
Allocation
and are likely US mortalities
Support recommendations of the
Support
TRT

327

Category
Discussed

DEIS
Section
Chapter
3

Duly Noted
Considered
Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Duly Noted

Chapter
3

Environmental Organizations
Topic Area

Sub-category

Exemptions
Safety
Line/Effort
Reduction

Specific Comment Component
Remove exemption line

Trawling up to 30-40 traps in the
Trawling up offshore is a safety issue and not
enforceable
Trap
3 trap reduction
reduction
25% trap reduction

Line
reduction

Monitoring

Fishery

Trawling up within the exemption
line isn't likely to do much
Reduce vertical lines through trap
reduction
Analyze alternatives requiring a
minimum 25 percent trap reduction
for both state and federal permit
holders eligible to fish in LMA1,
increased as necessary such that
when combined with LMA 1 area
closures the total risk reduction in
LMA1 entanglement risk reduction
is 80 percent or greater;
Support vertical line reduction in
Maine waters
Cap the number of vertical lines in
all U.S. fixed-gear fisheries subject
to the TRP
Significantly reduce the number of
vertical lines in the water that
entangle right whales.
A requirement to use no more than
one endline in Lobster
Management Area 3 (“LMA3”)
year-round
Require all federal permits
reporting fishing areas in 10 min
squares by 2020

328

DEIS
Section
Rejected Chapter
Alternative
3
Category

Considered

Chapter
5

Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope
Duly Noted
Outside of
Scope

Outside of
Scope

Duly Noted
Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Rejected Chapter
Alternative
3
Discussed

Chapter
3

Topic Area

Sub-category

Regs

Specific Comment Component
Require real-time vessel
monitoring and trip reporting in all
state and federal waters for the
American lobster and Jonah crab
fisheries
Better spatial information,
including VMS and AIS use in
fishery (e.g. 100%
VMS/eReporting)
Require fishery monitoring and
reporting
A requirement for all vessels in
U.S. fixed gear fisheries to use
Vessel Monitoring Systems
(“VMS”) and electronic Vessel
Trip Reporting (“VTR”);
Develop categorization for
monitoring and deciding when the
trt will need to come back to the
table
Review and revise time/area
closures annually based on
sightings within 3 years.
EIS should have criteria to dissolve
static management regulations,
change based on surveys
Adjust closures 3-5 years after
implemented based on sightings
and surveys
Sustained scientific research in the
Gulf of Maine and other New
England waters is recommended to
continue monitoring the status of
the North Atlantic right whale
population and determine changes
in their spatial and temporal
distribution resulting from climate
change

329

Category

DEIS
Section

Considered

Chapter
3

Rejected Chapter
Alternative
3
Discussed

Chapter
3

Rejected Chapter
Alternative
3

Duly Noted

Considered

Chapter
3

Duly Noted
Discussed

Chapter
3

Discussed

Chapter
3

Topic Area

Enforcement
Gear Marking

Sub-category

Specific Comment Component
Time-area closures should be
reviewed annually to adaptively
manage for future distribution
shifts. The closure could be lifted if
best available scientific
information demonstrates that right
whales are no longer using the area
to the same extent.
Prioritize and increase enforcement
efforts related to NARW
protections in state and federal
waters.
Mark gear within the exemption
area
Gear marking, if implemented,
should be used across all fisheries
off the east coast of both the United
States and Canada.
Ideally gear should be identifiable
down to the individual operator
Gear marking solutions that take
advantage of new smart
technologies
Identifying gear associated with an
entanglement should be mandated
so that useful data will be
documented and reported.
Expand gear marking to all US
fisheries
Gear marking every 40 feet
(reflecting location, fishery,
country, even sub region/
individual if possible)
Require regional gear markings
every 40 feet of line for all fixedgear fisheries along the U.S. East
Coast in state and federal waters.

330

Category

DEIS
Section

Considered

Chapter
3

Discussed

Chapter
3

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Outside of
Scope
Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3
Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Duly Noted
Outside of
Scope
Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3
Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3

Topic Area

Sub-category

S. of
Closures and other Nantucket
time/area
and
proposals
Martha’s
Vineyard

Specific Comment Component
Require new gear markings (in all
fisheries, including the currently
exempt areas that comprise 70
percent of Maine’s waters) on all
fishing gear every 40 feet so that
gear can be traced back to a
specific fishery, area fished, and
country.
It is essential that all fishing gear,
without exception, be thoroughly,
and comprehensively marked so as
to clearly indicate the specific
fishery, and specific area fished
Analyze alternatives and propose a
preferred alternative to create a
vertical line trap and pot fishing
closure in the high whale density
area south of Martha’s Vineyard
and Nantucket (portions of LMA2
and LMA3);
Increased importance of the waters
south of Nantucket and Martha’s
Vineyard, especially in the winter
and spring, we urge NMFS to
propose and analyze a new fishing
closure in this area as part of the
preferred alternative in its EIS. We
recommend that the boundaries of
the closure reflect the highest
relative density of right whales
Offshore area closures in south of
Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket
A new seasonal protected area
south of Martha’s Vineyard and
Nantucket that allows and
incentivizes ropeless fishing

331

Category

DEIS
Section

Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3

Outside of
Scope

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3

Topic Area

Sub-category

Additional
areas to
consider

Specific Comment Component
Take emergency action to establish
an interim closure to all vertical
line trap/pot fishing in the high
whale density area south of
Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket
(portions of Lobster Management
Areas 2 and 3 (LMA2 and LMA3),
effective until rulemaking is
completed and permanent measures
are implemented.
Implement seasonal restriction
south of Nantucket, bounded by
those 30-minute squares that
capture 80% of the most recent
(defined as the last three years) of
right whale sightings (Dec-May)
and passive acoustic data.
Propose a seasonal protected area
south of Nantucket as a preferred
alternative in the forthcoming Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
In addition, we recommend that
NMFS evaluate the potential for
new fishing closures in the offshore
areas of the Gulf of Maine (i.e.,
offshore areas of Lobster
Management Area 1) and Lobster
Management Area 3 as part of its
preferred alternative. Arguably, the
most severe entanglements
originating in the U.S. occur in the
offshore fishery, due to the use of
more durable vertical line that is
comparatively more likely to
contribute to serious injury and
mortality
Take emergency action to establish
an interim closure to vertical line
trap/pot fishing during the summer
and fall in offshore waters East of
Maine in LMA1 and LMA3.

332

Category

DEIS
Section

Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3

Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3

Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3

Topic Area

Sub-category

General

Specific Comment Component
Closures during the summer (June,
July, August) and fall (Sept./Oct.)
in offshore waters South and East
of the Maine coast in LMA1 and
LMA3.
Analyze alternatives and propose
preferred alternatives creating
vertical line trap/pot fishing
closures during the summer and
fall in offshore waters East of
Maine in LMA1 and LMA3.
NMFS should analyze a range of
vertical line closure alternatives
between the exemption line
extending to the Hague line, and a
range of alternatives in the western
Gulf of Maine where plankton
research shows potential feeding
areas.
Consider proposing additional
protected areas in Lobster
Management Area 3 (“LMA3”) in
its DEIS
Closed area in LMA 3 (trap/pot
and perhaps gillnet)
Consider closures offshore LMA 1
off Maine
Consider protected areas in Gulf of
Maine
Extension of Cape Cod closure to
New Hampshire border
A temporal and spatial expansion
of the current Massachusetts
Restricted Area that allows and
incentivizes ropeless fishing (with
the exception of inside Cape Cod
Bay);
Consider other offshore (e.g.
Jordan Basin, MD Rock, and
Jeffry's Ledge)
Establish new seasonal or yearround fishing closures to protect
North Atlantic right whales where
they are congregating.
333

Category

DEIS
Section

Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3

Considered,
Chapter
Rejected
3
Alternatives

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Proposed
Alternatives
Proposed
Alternatives
Proposed
Alternatives
Rejected
Alternatives

Chapter
3
Chapter
3
Chapter
3
Chapter
3

Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3

Topic Area

Sub-category

Specific Comment Component

Category

DEIS
Section

Range of alternatives for dynamic
management areas that change
Chapter
Discussed
based on whale aggregations/ co3
occurrence
Consider all time area management
Rejected Chapter
proposals provided last fall by
Alternatives
3
Oceana
Evaluate closed areas with updated
data in the DST: whales most
Duly Noted
common/heaviest gear
Dynamic closures should be
Rejected Chapter
considered given increase in
Alternatives
3
unpredictability
Mandatory speed restrictions (if
Outside of
Chapter
Scope,
Stressors
Ship strikes not everywhere, then in particular
8
areas/closures)
Discussed
Outside of
Deal with threats such as ship
Chapter
Scope,
strikes
8
Discussed
NMFS must also deal with threats
Outside of
Chapter
such as ship strikes and all forms of
Scope,
Noise
8
pollution, including noise pollution Discussed
Climate change is already having
Outside of
Climate
Chapter
Scope,
change and an impact on the ecosystem and
8
contributing to extinctions
Discussed
food
Consider existing UME and
Chapter
Discussed
Other
reduced reproductive success
2, 8
Entanglement also impacts their
Chapter
Discussed
health and reproduction
2, 4, 8
Understand the suffering of
Duly Noted
entangled individuals
Whales are keystone species,
important for ecosystem function
Ecosystem
Duly Noted
and maintaining productive
Considerations
fisheries (e.g. nutrient enrichment)
Outside of
Chapter
Consider ecosystem changes
Scope,
8
Discussed
Outside of
Fishermen
NOAA should subsidize ropeless
Funding/Subsidies
Scope
assistance
NOAA should fund and help make
Outside of
the transition to ropeless, starting
Scope
in closed areas.
334

Topic Area

Weak Rope

Sub-category

Specific Comment Component

Category

NMFS and other federal agencies
as well as state government should
financially assist fishers, through
subsidies and other means, in
making the changes that are
necessary

Outside of
Scope

DEIS
Section

Gear
Funding for gear research,
Outside of
innovation
technology
Scope
funding
Additional and sustained federally
funded scientific research in the
Gulf of Maine and other New
England waters is recommended to
continue monitoring the status of
Outside of
Other
the North Atlantic right whale
Scope
population and determine changes
in their spatial and temporal
distribution resulting from climate
change.
Remind NMFS of long-term
Outside of
(incl whale)
funding for RW recovery
Scope
The use of the 1,700-lb breaking
strength benchmark for reduced
breaking-strength (RBS) rope,
Duly Noted
1700 lbs which may not reduce
entanglements of juvenile right
whales and may still negatively
impact adult survival
Weak rope may add line,
particularly in Maine where there
Chapter
Discussed
General
are snagging concerns with rocky
5
bottoms.
Concerns about the ability of weak
Chapter
rope to meet ESA needs even if it
Discussed
5
meets MMPA (address in EIS)
Weak rope is not a sufficient
change for calves, should not be
Duly Noted
the main part of the proposed rule
Concern that weak rope will add
Chapter
Discussed
line to the water, increase lost gear
5
Weak rope may not be enforceable Duly Noted
Decreasing breaking strength is
Chapter
Analyzed
important
5
335

Topic Area

Economic
Concerns

Coordination with
Canada

Sub-category

Specific Comment Component
Weak rope won't prevent
entanglement
Capping rope diameters should not
be considered a solution without
also reducing rope strength to 1700
lb. (771.1 kg)
Gear modifications to reduce the
breaking strength of vertical ropes
so that entangled whales could
more easily break free are also
important
Consider people's economic
concerns
Trap reduction of 25% should not
have economic impact since catch
has declined
Evaluate technology based
solutions, while supporting
coexisting economy
High catch per unit effort an
important goal: minimize effect of
gear and maximize profits (explore
EIS)
Operational challenges of the
fishers’ down time and cost must
be addressed within the Plan and
DEIS
Recommend NMFS at minimum
continue its support of Canada’s
right whale protection efforts
Work with colleagues in Canada to
ensure solutions are
complementary and effective
throughout the biological range of
the North Atlantic right whale.
Gear marking, if implemented,
should be used across all fisheries
off the east coast of both the United
States and Canada.

336

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted
Discussed

Chapter
3

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3
Analyzed

Chapter
6

Outside of
Scope
Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Analyzed

Chapter
6

Discussed

Chapter
3

Duly Noted

Outside of
Scope

Topic Area

Sub-category

Disentanglement

Research

Whale
distribution

Specific Comment Component
NMFS and other agencies of the
US government should work
closely with the Canadian
government and fisheries to protect
right whales
Increase support for
disentanglement efforts in the U.S.
and Canada
Increase collaborations to facilitate
and prioritize disentanglement
actions to include NARW
individuals that may be
significantly impacted by
entanglement over time, even if
initial observation of the individual
does not reveal it to be suffering
from “serious injury”.
Increase support for
disentanglement efforts in the U.S.
and Canada
Increase comprehensive year round
aerial, shipboard, and acoustic
surveys and monitoring of right
whales along the U.S. East Coast
(particularly in late summer)
Recommend NMFS increase
survey effort delineate the
contemporary late spring, summer,
and fall distribution and
movements
It is not currently known if right
whales are utilizing a defined
biological corridor or if additional
foraging habitats are emerging en
route to the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
We strongly urge NMFS to further
investigate the level of risk faced
by right whales as they transition
from U.S. waters to the Gulf of St.
Lawrence to ensure the species is
protected.
NMFS should expand right whale
surveillance efforts in U.S. waters,
particularly in the Gulf of Maine
337

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Outside of
Scope

Discussed

Chapter
3

Discussed

Chapter
3

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Topic Area

Sub-category

Prey
distribution

Ropeless

Specific Comment Component
While the temporal and geographic
scope of both acoustic and aerial
surveys have expanded in recent
years, additional efforts off the
mid-Atlantic, the coast of Maine,
and Nova Scotia should be
considered.
Sustained scientific research in the
Gulf of Maine and other New
England waters is necessary to
continue assessing the risk of
serious injury and mortality to
North Atlantic right whales
resulting from entanglements and
monitoring the effects of regulatory
changes.
Significantly increase year-round
aerial and acoustic surveys of right
whales in U.S. waters;
NMFS to enhance survey effort
and review carcass drift analyses
Need more data on aggregations
Increase monitoring of NARWs
primary prey species, along the
northeast Atlantic coast.
Significantly increase year-round
surveys of right whales prey in
U.S. waters;
Analyze plankton data for foraging
habitats in the offshore areas of the
Gulf of Maine
increase plankton surveys along the
U.S. East Coast;
Ropeless plan - experimental first
then commercially viable within 5
years, also in currently closed areas
Remove legal barriers to ropeless,
move towards implementation
Supportive of vertical line
reductions through ropeless gear

338

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope
Outside of
Scope
Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3
Discussed
Duly Noted

Chapter
3

Topic Area

Decision Support
Tool

Sub-category

Specific Comment Component
Include alternatives that would
allow for “ropeless” fishing in new
closed areas created through this
action and existing closed areas
(with the exclusion of Cape Cod
Bay), and alternatives that would
create incentives and increase
development of ropeless
technology and experimental
fishing with ropeless gear
NMFS should include a “ropeless
roadmap” in the EIS, detailing how
ropeless fishing systems will be
advanced to a point that they are
commercially viable, and how they
will subsequently be implemented
for commercial fishing, both within
certain closed areas and elsewhere.
Ropeless fishing systems are the
most effective way to reduce the
risk of right whale entanglement—
given the complete removal of the
vertical line from the water
column—while allowing fishing
with pot and trap gear
A closure south of Nantucket and
Martha’s Vineyard could also
represent a valuable opportunity to
advance the testing of ropeless
fishing systems
Include plan in DEIS for
developing, testing, and
implementing ropeless fishing
(closed areas and elsewhere)
Implement, incentivize, and
enforce ropeless fishing
requirements by fixed-gear
fisheries in key areas that overlap
with current and projected NARW
movements.
Conduct a rigorous, best-practice
expert elicitation to assess the risk
posed by different gear
configurations
339

Category

DEIS
Section

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3

Outside of
Scope

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Outside of
Scope

Proposed Chapter
Alternatives
3

Duly Noted

Topic Area

Risk reduction

Sub-category

Allocation
Target

Specific Comment Component
The density maps currently being
used by the agency to assess right
whale risk, and the effectiveness of
risk reduction measures, do not
accurately reflect current levels of
right whale habitat use, including
in inshore and nearshore areas.
The agency has a significant
amount of recent data from state
monitoring efforts, passive acoustic
monitoring data, opportunistic
marine mammal sightings data, and
other data sources—that are
particularly informative for some
of the areas such as south of
Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard.
All these sources should be used to
develop and inform the riskreduction measures in the EIS.
By not including the sub-lethal
effects of entanglements on North
Atlantic right whales, the decision
support tool likely underestimates
the risk of severity from different
gear types.
Update and peer review the
decision support tool
Immediately validate and update
the decision support tool with upto-date right whale data from all
sources i.e. state and federal
waters, visual data (sightings),
acoustic data
Cannot rely on past data to predict
the future
Representatives of Lobster
Management Area (LMA) 3 did
not commit to any new risk
reduction measures.
NMFS should strive for an 80
percent risk-reduction target

340

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Considered

Duly Noted

Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Duly Noted

Chapter
3

Topic Area

Other

Sub-category

Support

General

Specific Comment Component
Analyze alternatives for targeted
vertical line and trap reductions, in
order to reach 80 percent
entanglement risk reduction;
Set the target risk reduction in U.S.
waters at 80 percent, which is
necessary to reach the allowed
potential biological removal, and
analyze all alternatives and
combination of alternatives as to
whether they meet this standard.
NMFS must amend the Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
(ALWTRP) to reduce the risk and
severity of entanglements by 80
percent in U.S. waters.
60% risk reduction is not enough
for RW recovery, need at least 80%
NMFS Must Act Immediately with
Strong and Targeted Measures to
Reduce the Risk of Entanglement
to North Atlantic Right Whales
Rules should be focused on cooccurrence of gear and whales.
NMFS should implement and
enforce the April 2019 take
reduction framework to reduce
entanglements
that cause serious injuries and
mortalities to North Atlantic right
whales in trap/pot gear in
New England.
Adopt the proposed options that
were decided upon at the TRT
Request a scoping meeting in
coastal Georgia

341

Category

DEIS
Section

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted

Duly Noted
Duly Noted
Analyzed
Discussed

Chapter
5
Chapter
3

Rejected Chapter
Alternatives
3
Outside of
Scope

Topic Area

Sub-category

Specific Comment Component
There should be an expansion of
geographic scope beyond New
England in future rulemakings.
North Atlantic right whales are
occurring more frequently in midAtlantic waters, but the distribution
of fixed gear fishing effort in that
region is not well understood (and
has not been presented at recent
TRT meetings).
Exclusive focus of the current
recommended take reduction
framework on the US lobster
fishery, ignoring the higher relative
risk of other US fisheries.

342

Category

DEIS
Section

Outside of
Scope

Outside of
Scope,
Discussed

Chapter
2, 3, 8

Appendix 3.5 ALWTRP Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring Strategy
NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office
Protected Resources Division
And
NOAA Office of Law Enforcement - Northeast Division
NOAA Office of General Counsel - Enforcement Section

April 2021
3.5.1 Purpose

The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) outlined recommendations provided by Take Reduction Team Members
(Table 3.1), which included the development of a monitoring plan to monitor compliance
efficacy over time as well as track implementation approaches and innovations. Additionally
Section 3.3.6.2 (1) Non-regulatory Components of the DEIS specify the purpose of a compliance
monitoring plan to support the proposed regulatory alternatives in the Final Environmental
Impact State and ALWTRP rule-making.

3.5.2 Need

This Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Strategy describes enforcement efforts to inform
fishermen of the regulatory requirements to support their ability to comply, as well as through
the 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 all coastal states in the Greater Atlantic Region. NMFS is in the process of
developing an offshore-enforcement plan that combines traditional enforcement practices with
the use of new technologies to support enforcement throughout the EEZ. The following sections
provide summaries for ongoing outreach and enforcement measures within the Northeast Region
Trap/Pot Management Area. Additionally, data gaps to inform future enforcement actions are
identified and recommendations for the enforceability of proposed measures are discussed.

3.5.3 Summary of Proposed Changes for ALWTRP

● Gear modifications to reduce the number of vertical lines
● Seasonal restricted areas that allow ropeless fishing but would be seasonally closed to
fishing with persistent buoy lines
● Gear modifications to include replacement of buoy lines with weak rope or weak
insertions placed in intervals in buoy lines
● Additional gear marking and expansion of gear marking requirements throughout the
Northeast Region

3.5.4 Enforcement Activities for ALWTRP

343

Enforcement of the ALWTRP has been an important component of monitoring the effectiveness
and compliance of regulatory requirements since the development and implementation of the
original plan in 1997. Since 1997, and resulting from amendments to the ALWTRP, lawenforcement activities have evolved to meet the needs of enforcing the various requirements of
the ALWTRP and monitoring compliance through collaboration with federal and state agencies.
Since the development of the ALWTRP in 1997, the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement has
increased its capacity to monitor fisheries in state waters through the implementation of Joint
Enforcement Agreements (JEA) with state partners, and coordinated enforcement efforts in
federal waters in collaboration with the United States Coast Guard. Primary enforcement
activities include dockside gear and catch inspections, at-sea patrols and gear inspections, aerial
surveillance and regulatory outreach activities. To implement changes to the ALWTRP, the
following law-enforcement activities and priorities have been identified for funding and support
by NOAA and collaborating enforcement agencies.
3.5.4.1 Law Enforcement Workforce
Maintaining and enhancing the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement - Northeast Division (OLENED) workforce is critical to implement regional enforcement priorities for the ALWTRP. The
OLE-NED’s current workforce consists of sixteen Special Agents, twelve Uniformed Officers,
one Industry Liaison, six Mission Support Staff, and seven Investigative Support Staff members.
The OLE-NED workforce conducts investigative activities, patrol activities, regulatory outreach
to industry, implements and oversees JEAs, oversees OLE and ALWTRP specific funding and
reporting requirements, and other support functions. OLE-NED maintains two 42 ft Metal Shark
Patrol Vessels used throughout the region for specialized on-water enforcement activities. The
current workforce capacity is estimated to remain at the current level for fiscal years 2021 and
2022.
3.5.4.2 Maintaining Joint Enforcement Agreements
State partnerships serve a significant role in effective regional enforcement activities. OLE-NED
has Joint Enforcement Agreements (JEA) in place with ten New England and Mid-Atlantic
Coastal States (ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, and VA). JEAs are implemented
beginning in May of each year using OLE programmatic funds. Each state uses OLE provided
forms to assess their labor and equipment needs for the next contract year. Labor costs are
assigned among six Execution Priorities. The JEAs specify Execution Priority for Protected
Resources and Gear Compliance that is largely directed to ALWTRP regulatory requirements.
OLE-NED hosts semi-annual meetings with JEA partners to discuss enforcement priorities.
Additional meetings may be organized as needed to discuss new enforcement needs and
requirements (example: new rule making). States are required to submit monthly reports that
detail performance and expended funds. Previous monthly and annual reports demonstrate an
average of 12,785 obligated or completed hours have been allocated to state enforcement
activities over the past three fiscal years (FY2020, FY2019, and FY2018). This level of effort is
expected to be maintained over FY2021 and FY2022, with no significant changes in funding. All
ten states have hours assigned to the Protected Resources / Gear priority in their FY2020 and
FY2021 agreements. The following states perform inspections of lobster gear in Lobster
Management Areas: ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ. The following states perform inspections of
black-sea-bass gear in Lobster Management Areas: DE, MD, VA. Common areas of noncompliance documented by state enforcement efforts include gear/buoy marking violations, wet344

storage violations, trap-tag violations, and trap configurations. These areas, coupled with
industry outreach, will continue to be a priority for compliance monitoring by state partners.
3.5.4.3 Enhancement of Offshore Enforcement Capabilities
Challenges with traditional methods of hauling gear in offshore environments for compliance
monitoring continues to be a concern regarding safety and the sustainability of these types of
operations. These identified challenges require alternative methods to be identified that can be
implemented efficiently with desired operational capabilities. Therefore, OLE-NED has
developed and implemented a pilot program using remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to inspect
offshore fishing gear. OLE-NED has conducted two offshore, subsurface survey operations using
an ROV to check for sinking ground lines, markings, and weak links in an area previously
uninspected. Gear tags were also inspected when possible. As a result of initial trials, OLE has
assessed that in situ inspection of gear in the water by ROVs rather than physically pulling the
gear is still the safest and most viable approach to efficiently and effectively enforce offshore
lobster gear requirements. The pilot project is being carried out in FY2020 and FY2021 and will
inform future offshore enforcement activities for ALWTRP compliance monitoring efforts.
OLE will continue its close partnership with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to conduct
ALWTRP enforcement activities in offshore waters. OLE-NED and USCG meet routinely to
discuss joint enforcement priorities and identify gear and areas for targeted patrols regulated by
the ALWTRP. The USCG conducts regular at-sea gear inspections. Failure to comply with
marking and weak-link requirements are the two most common areas of non-compliance the
USCG has documented in the past three years. These areas will continue to be a high priority for
ALWTRP enforcement efforts.
3.5.4.4 Industry Outreach Efforts
NOAA OLE and protected species program staff at the NOAA Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, as well as state partners under the
JEA perform routine outreach efforts to industry to provide information regarding regulatory
requirements. Execution Priorities for JEA activities include industry outreach. Outreach
activities have been substantially impacted in FY2020 and FY2021 and it is anticipated these
impacts will continue throughout the remainder of the 2021 JEA contract year.
3.5.4.5 Other Compliance Monitoring Activities
Although operational enforcement activities are critical in the enforcement of the ALWTRP,
additional needs have been identified to assist in planning and compliance monitoring efforts.
Specific data needs to inform enforcement priorities, understanding baselines for fishing gear in
certain areas, and identifying areas of non-compliance are as important in implementing a
comprehensive enforcement strategy. OLE-NED will work with protected-species biologists,
fisheries managers, state partners and the USCG to review existing data and current data
collection protocols for enforcement activities. Other areas, such as upcoming electronic vessel
trip reporting requirements and the potential, future collection of higher resolution spatial data
through vessel tracking systems will be explored for enhancing enforcement capabilities to
monitor fishing activity on a spatial scale. NMFS intends to work with the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, through their open and public process, to develop additional high
resolution spatial data collection objectives and requirements, while balancing the financial
345

burden to industry. Spatial data collection protocols and processes will be reviewed for potential
incorporation into enforcement planning initiatives. A data-review process will help inform
adaptive management strategies and in the development of specific performance measures for the
enforcement program. Annual reviews of ALWTRP enforcement activities will be conducted
with the intent to inform enforcement planning strategies among OLE-NED, JEA partners,
andthe USCG. Additionally, these efforts will assist in identifying specific areas for targeted
outreach activities to maximize law-enforcement resources and effectiveness.

346

Appendix 3.6 Example of approved weak insert gear
configurations
The median breaking strength (in pounds) of 8 weak contrivances tested at least 10 times on
calibrated breaking machine; all broke with clean ends. General note: strength of inserts is never
higher than the strength of the rope in the insert. The butt splice connection appears to create
breaking strength equal to strength of insertion rope, in these cases, MA red and candy cane
rope.
Rope 1

Rope used
for weak
insertion

Hydropro
on both
ends of
insert

MA weak red

Everson
on both
ends
Hydropro
on both
ends of
insert

Weak
insertion
method
4 tuck
splice

Candy cane

MA weak red

Median
Strength

Photos

1698.5

1764

3 tuck
splice

1610.5

347

Rope 1

Rope used
for weak
insertion

Hydropro
on both
ends of
insert

MA weak red

Everson

Hydropro
on both
ends
Everson

Annaco
on both
ends

Bonded candy
cane

MA weak red
Bonded candy
cane

Sleeve:
finishing
treatment
such as heat
shrinking,
tape or hog
rings on ends,
does not
impact
breaking
strength

Weak
insertion
method
Eye to
loop
splice/3
tucks

Butt
splice

South
Shore
Sleeve

Median
Strength

Photos

1668
1700

1710.5
1831

1657

Heat shrink and hog rings in this image

348

CHAPTER 4 APPENDICES
Appendix 4.1 Full List of Species Caught Using Trap/Pot
Gear* in the Northeast** in 2019
Species Name
LOBSTER, AMERICAN
CRAB, JONAH
CRAB, RED DEEPSEA
CRAB, ATLANTIC ROCK
HAGFISHES
SCUP
WHELK, CHANNELED
BASS, BLACK SEA
CONCHS
CRAB, GREEN
MENHADENS
CRABS, BRACHYURA
FLOUNDER, SUMMER
SHARK, DOGFISH, SPINY
MACKEREL, ATLANTIC
CRAB, HORSESHOE
WHELK, KNOBBED
EEL, CONGER
EEL, AMERICAN
TAUTOG
WHELK, WAVED
HAKE, RED
HAKE, SILVER
BLUEFISH
CUNNER
SKATE, LITTLE
GOOSEFISH
TRIGGERFISHES
BASS, STRIPED
HERRING, ATLANTIC
SCALLOP, SEA
HADDOCK
COD, ATLANTIC
CRABS, SPIDER
SKATE, WINTER
POLLOCK

Landing Pounds
123,600,000
13,275,373
3,682,739
2,026,960
1,964,864
629,323
491,960
268,929
126,593
83,145
36,780
27,228
26,980
22,453
18,059
13,423
12,708
10,461
10,239
9,035
6,612
5,637
5,158
5,131
4,322
4,100
2,744
2,232
2,128
2,000
1,689
1,570
1,416
1,261
1,211
888

349

Landing Value ($)
615,400,000
10,894,878
3,682,739
1,110,885
2,223,046
448,495
5,472,321
868,456
462,132
41,651
55,543
17,959
103,918
103,652
9,748
9,666
67,534
8,311
26,743
33,489
5,525
2,190
3,829
4,347
9,147
533
4,187
3,599
10,339
860
16,853
1,976
3,017
1,057
533
1,289

Species Name
SQUID, LONGFIN LOLIGO
BUTTERFISH
CLAM, QUAHOG, NORTHERN
OYSTER, EASTERN
TUNA, LITTLE TUNNY
HAKE, WHITE
RAVEN, SEA
SEAROBINS
SHAD, HICKORY
SCALLOP, BAY
PERCH, WHITE
SKATES, RAJIDAE (FAMILY)
WEAKFISH
FLOUNDER, WINTER
HALIBUT, ATLANTIC
CRAB, NORTHERN STONE
BONITO, ATLANTIC
FLOUNDER, WITCH
GOOSEFISH, BLACKFIN
FLOUNDER, AMERICAN PLAICE
TOADFISHES, BATRACHOIDIDAE (FAMILY)
CLAM, RAZOR, ATLANTIC
CRAB, BLUE
FLOUNDER, YELLOWTAIL
CUSK
MACKEREL, SPANISH
SHARK, DOGFISH, SMOOTH
KILLIFISHES
MUMMICHOG
CATFISHES, BULLHEAD
DRUMS
CLAM, SOFT
WINDOWPANE
KINGFISHES
KINGFISH, NORTHERN
SHRIMP, NORTHERN
REDFISH, ACADIAN

Landing Pounds
856
802
750
557
523
500
433
417
355
349
275
268
206
140
127
117
95
92
89
87
81
78
57
36
33
15
14
12
12
12
6
6
5
2
2
1
1

Landing Value ($)
1,292
548
8,963
19,212
379
758
650
54
213
3,446
286
1,265
276
396
817
99
214
217
267
161
242
1,129
342
67
18
15
11
60
70
21
2
87
1
1
1
3
1

Total
146,392,761
Notes: *data include all trap/pot gears
**data cover states from Maine to Connecticut
Data source: ACCSP Confidential Data Warehouse, 2021

641,152,025

350

Appendix 4.2 Social Indicators for Top Landing Ports of
American Lobsters by State
Population
Composition

Personal
Disruption

Housing
Disruption

0.281
0.028
0.91
0.201
-0.99
-0.27
1.103
0.875

0.846
0.849
N/A
0.392
0.349
0.481
1.249
1.121

-0.846
-1.171
-1.121
-0.813
-0.316
-1.043
-0.839
-0.475

-0.058
-0.601
-0.372
-0.473
-0.088
-0.734
0.099
-0.01

1.489 0.149
0.932 0.23
0.298 0.357
-0.427 0.579
0.583 -1.005
-0.223 0.789
-0.025 0.7
1.028 0.605

2% $12,108,318 -0.347 0.722 0.205

-1.166

-0.8

2%
46%
70%
22%
5%
97%
23%
11%
8%
5%
5%
52%
50%
42%

-0.79

7%

$11,979,699 0.082 0.349 0.28

-1.516
-1.341
-2.427
-1.118
0.121
-1.084
-2.463
-2.272

Commercial
Reliance

Housing
Characteristics

0.155
-0.651
-0.446
-0.182
0.665
-0.958
-0.111
-0.225

Commercial
Engagement

Labor Force

$57,674,407
$39,207,878
$21,700,970
$23,596,699
$18,409,293
$15,914,903
$9,967,077
$10,081,280

Urban Sprawl

Poverty

12%
7%
6%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%

Retiree
Migration

Value

Stonington
Hancock 15,152,984
Vinalhaven
Knox
8,916,960
Beals
Washington 6,955,382
Friendship
Knox
5,027,178
Portland Cumberland 3,987,340
Spruce Head
Knox
3,960,384
Jonesport Washington 3,292,579
Milbridge Washington 2,845,255
Cundys
Cumberland 2,836,017
Harbor
Owls Head
Knox
2,768,925
State Total
121,344,936
NH Newington Rockingham 4233958
Portsmouth Rockingham 1344288.8
Seabrook Rockingham 316024.28
State Total
6,082,882
MA Gloucester
Essex
4,148,414
New Bedford Bristol
2,021,644
Rockport
Essex
1,362,018
Marshfield Plymouth
867,973
Provincetown Barnstable 840,502
State Total
17,690,692
RI Point Judith Washington 950,699
Newport
Newport
794,620
Little
Newport
126,892
Compton
State Total
1,905,689

Port Share

Pounds

County

Port

State
ME

4.446 4.554
2.635 2.622
2.11 5.706
1.725 1.663
5.205 -0.031
3.333 1.287
1.82 1.538
1.227 0.786

0.999 0.998 -0.348 3.657

0.665

-0.594 0.106 0.704 -1.196 1.084

0.69

26463533.15 -0.775 -0.56 -0.705 -0.742 -0.841 0.607 -0.153 0.091 1.91 2.351
6322403.26 -0.729 -0.9 0.072 -0.745 -0.677 0.631 -0.662 0.289 1.361 -0.058
1469528.63 -0.365 -0.2 0.823 -0.851 0.089 -0.611 0.021 0.298 0.644 -0.041
$21,150,942
$11,667,249
$6,559,445
$3,855,943
$4,663,832

-0.352
1.227
-0.641
-0.497
-0.341

-0.12
-0.18
0.057
-0.71
0.075

0.018 -0.71 -0.314 0.211 -0.003
0.5
0.743 0.877 0.314 -0.46
-0.039 -0.886 -0.787 -0.267 0.404
-0.592 -0.692 -0.637 0.223 -0.392
0.116 -0.665 0.066 1.382 0.341

0.391
0.68
0.484
0.414
0.496

10.57 0.23
32.888 0.23
0.908 0.016
1.299 -0.072
0.965 0.279

$5,370,662 -0.861 0.092 -0.178 -0.976 -0.459 0.933 0.093 -0.063 9.854
$4,731,121 -0.004 -0.65 0.006 -0.36 -0.33 1.005 -0.71 0.255 1.425
$674,959

-0.386 0.054 -0.278 -0.913 -0.574 0.938 0.192 0.042 0.474

98%

351

0.495
-0.06
0.05

Appendix 4.3 Definition of Social Indicators
Indices
Social
Vulnerability
Indices

Type
Poverty

A commonly used indicator of vulnerable populations. A high rank indicates a
high rate of poverty and a more vulnerable population

Labor Force

Commercial
Engagement

Characterizes the strength and stability of the labor force and employment
opportunities that may exist. A high rank means likely fewer employment
opportunities and a more vulnerable population
A measure of infrastructure vulnerability and includes factors that indicate
housing that may be vulnerable to coastal hazards. A high rank means a more
vulnerable infrastructure and a more vulnerable population. On the other hand,
the opposite interpretation might be that more affordable housing could be less
vulnerability for some populations
Shows the presence of populations who are traditionally considered more
vulnerable due to circumstances often associated with low incomes and fewer
resources. A high rank indicates a more vulnerable population
Represents factors that disrupt a community member’s ability to respond to
change because of personal circumstances affecting family life or educational
levels or propensity to be affected by poverty. A high rank indicates more
personal disruption and a more vulnerable population
Represents factors that indicate a fluctuating housing market where some
displacement may occur due to rising home values and rents. A high rank means
more vulnerability for those in need of affordable housing and a population
more vulnerable to gentrification
Characterizes areas with a higher concentration of retirees and elderly people in
the population. A high rank indicates a population more vulnerable to
gentrification as retirees seek out the amenities of coastal living
Describes areas experiencing gentrification through increasing population and
higher costs of living. A high rank indicates a population more vulnerable to
gentrification
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

Housing
Characteristics

Population
Composition
Personal
Disruption
Gentrification
Pressure
Indices

Housing
Disruption
Retiree
Migration
Urban Sprawl

Fishing
Engagement
and Reliance
Indices

Description

352

Appendix 4.4 Community Profiles

Stonington, ME

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Where is Stonington located?
Stonington is a town with a population of 1,043 and
classified by the census as falling within an urbanized area.
Rural to urban is really a continuum. Increasing
urbanization indicates that a community has more jobs
overall, more kinds of jobs, and more services like
hospitals, social workers and job training centers.
However, increasing urbanization can also mean greater
pressure to transform working waterfronts for alternative
uses, such as hotels or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Stonington?

The landings associated with a fishing community tell
us what species are important to that community. The
diversity of species caught also is indicative of a
community’s ability to adapt to changing environmental
conditions (e.g. populations of specific fish stocks) or
changes in fishing regulations that restrict access to
resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

353

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Stonington?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a
sense of the scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port
may serve as the homeport for hundreds of vessels, a
smaller one may only have a handful. The number of
vessels also may provide a rough sense of the number of
fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions, jobs in shoreside
industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore
and stay out for longer periods more easily than smaller
vessels. These differences also affect family life. Smaller
dayboat fishermen tend to return home every day whereas
fishermen on larger vessels may be away from home for
weeks on long and distant
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger
counterparts are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these
characteristics help illuminate the potential impacts of regulatory changes on a given community.

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a
community is associated with issues important
for community development, such as income
and poverty levels, unemployment rates, and
local participation in community activities.

354

How do people make a living in Stonington?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town residents
speaks to their ability to adapt to environmental change, the
diversity in local occupations indicates the ability of a
community to adapt to economic changes, including changes
in the local fishing economy. Is there one predominant
industry, for instance, or is there a range of economic
opportunities? How many occupations are available that
offer incomes similar to fishing or require skills and
education common to the average fisherman? How many
jobs are available that would provide a working environment
that fishermen would be comfortable with?

Median Household Income: $36,339.00

Unemployment Rate: 2%

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one indicator of
the level of opportunity that may exist for fishermen who
lose their jobs to find alternative ways of making a living.
The unemployment rate may also indicate the desirability
of fishing in the face of other opportunities.

Individuals in Stonington living in poverty: 10.4% The

poverty threshold for an individual is defined by
the US Census for 2010 as $11,139. The
percentage of a town’s population living under
this economic threshold is an indicator of the
residents’ ability to adjust to loss of income and
job opportunities in fishing-related and other
local industries.

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many
broader community issues and institutions. A large number
of older residents may be associated with a retirement
community or an out-migration of young people. For many
fishing communities, an aging population can indicate
gentrification, a process that may affect fishermen’s access
to the waterfront. In some remote coastal communities,
people in their late teens or early twenties may leave to
look for work or pursue an education outside of their
community. A very large population of young people, on
the other hand,

355

may indicate the presence of universities or a military
base.
Median age: 50.7

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families and groups
to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the northeast region,
ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in New England, though there are
significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic groups have long been associated with fishing
in various specific ports throughout the region

356

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people,
both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those outside of
urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

357

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Vinalhaven, ME
Where is Vinalhaven located?

Vinalhaven is a town with a population of 1,165 and
classified by the census as falling within a rural area. Rural
to urban is really a continuum. Increasing urbanization
indicates that a community has more jobs overall, more kinds
of jobs, and more services like hospitals, social workers and
job training centers.
However, increasing urbanization can also mean greater
pressure to transform working waterfronts for alternative
uses, such as hotels or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Vinalhaven?

The landings associated with a fishing community tell us
what species are important to that community. The
diversity of species caught also is indicative of a
community’s ability to adapt to changing environmental
conditions (e.g. populations of specific fish stocks) or
changes in fishing regulations that restrict access to
resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

358

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Vinalhaven?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of the
scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as the
homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only have a
handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough sense of the
number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions, jobs in shoreside
industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and stay out
for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels. These differences
also affect family life. Smaller dayboat fishermen tend to return home
every day whereas fishermen on larger vessels may be away from home
for weeks on long and distant
fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger counterparts
are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these characteristics help
illuminate the potential impacts of regulatory changes on a given community.

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a community is
associated with issues important for community
development, such as income and poverty levels,
unemployment rates, and local participation in
community activities.

359

How do people make a living in Vinalhaven?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to environmental
change, the diversity in local occupations indicates the
ability of a community to adapt to economic changes,
including changes in the local fishing economy. Is there
one predominant industry, for instance, or is there a range
of economic opportunities? How many occupations are
available that offer incomes similar to fishing or require
skills and education common to the average fisherman?
How many jobs are available that would provide a
working environment that fishermen would be
comfortable with?

Unemployment Rate: 1.2%

Median Household Income: $40,526.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one indicator of
the level of opportunity that may exist for fishermen who
lose their jobs to find alternative ways of making a living.
The unemployment rate may also indicate the desirability
of fishing in the face of other opportunities.

Individuals in Vinalhaven living in poverty: 16%

The poverty threshold for an individual is
defined by the US Census for 2010 as $11,139.
The percentage of a town’s population living
under this economic threshold is an indicator
of the residents’ ability to adjust to loss of
income and job opportunities in fishing-related
and other local industries.

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many
broader community issues and institutions. A large number
of older residents may be associated with a retirement
community or an out-migration of young people. For many
fishing communities, an aging population can indicate
gentrification, a process that may affect fishermen’s access
to the waterfront. In some remote coastal communities,
people in their late teens or early twenties may leave to
look for work or pursue an education outside of their
community. A very large population of young people, on
the other hand,

360

may indicate the presence of universities or a military
base.
Median age: 45.1

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families and
groups to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the northeast
region, ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in New England, though
there are significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic groups have long been associated
with fishing in various specific ports throughout the region.

361

Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely translated from
English into other languages. Lack of strong English language skills could
affect participants’ ability to engage effectively in the fisheries management
process. While these numbers correspond to the overall community in
Stonington they may indicate a population needing assistance in
integrating their needs and concerns into the process.

National Average: 12.7%

Speak English less than very well: .5%

National Average: 8.7%

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe
social phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for Stonington that provide measures of fishing
engagement and reliance, and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to evaluate
community well-being in terms of social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or
recreational fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial
Reliance, Recreational Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to
adapt to change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices
include: Poverty, Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability of
a commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire Migration,
Urban Sprawl, Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies
more engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification. Learn
more about the
social indicators for fishing communities.

362

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

363

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Beals, ME
Where is Beals located?

Beals is a town with a population of 508 and classified by the
census as falling within a rural area. Rural to urban is really a
continuum. Increasing urbanization indicates that a community
has more jobs overall, more kinds of jobs, and more services like
hospitals, social workers and job training centers. However,
increasing urbanization can also mean greater pressure to
transform working waterfronts for alternative uses, such as hotels
or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Beals?

The landings associated with a fishing community tell
us what species are important to that community. The
diversity of species caught also is indicative of a
community’s ability to adapt to changing environmental
conditions (e.g. populations of specific fish stocks) or
changes in fishing regulations that restrict access to
resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

364

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Beals?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of
the scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as
the homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only have
a handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough sense
of the number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions, jobs in
shoreside industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and
stay out for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels. These
differences also affect family life. Smaller dayboat fishermen tend
to return home every day whereas fishermen on larger vessels may
be away from home for weeks on long and distant
fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger
counterparts are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these
characteristics help illuminate the

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a community is
associated with issues important for community
development, such as income and poverty levels,
unemployment rates, and local participation in
community activities.

365

How do people make a living in Beals?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to
environmental change, the diversity in local occupations
indicates the ability of a community to adapt to
economic changes, including changes in the local
fishing economy. Is there one predominant industry, for
instance, or is there a range of economic opportunities?
How many occupations are available that offer incomes
similar to fishing or require skills and education common
to the average fisherman? How many jobs are available
that would provide a working environment that
fishermen would be comfortable with?

Unemployment Rate: 4.1%

Median Household Income: $32,500.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one indicator
of the level of opportunity that may exist for fishermen
who lose their jobs to find alternative ways of making a
living. The unemployment rate may also indicate the
desirability of fishing in the face of other opportunities.

Individuals in Beals living in poverty: 16.8%

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many
broader community issues and institutions. A large number
of older residents may be associated with a retirement
community or an out-migration of young people. For many
fishing communities, an aging population can indicate
gentrification, a process that may affect fishermen’s access
to the waterfront. In some remote coastal communities,
people in their late teens or early twenties may leave to look
for work or pursue an education outside of their community.
A very large population of young people, on the other hand, 366

The poverty threshold for an individual is defined by
the US Census for 2010 as $11,139. The percentage of
a town’s population living under this economic
threshold is an indicator of the residents’ ability to
adjust to loss of income and job opportunities in
fishing-related and other local industries.

may indicate the presence of universities or a military
base.
Median age: 48.1

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families
and groups to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the
northeast region, ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in
New England, though there are significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic
groups have long been associated with fishing in various specific ports throughout the region.

367

National Average: 12.7%
Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely
translated from English into other languages. Lack of strong
Speak English less than very well: .9%
English language skills could affect participants’ ability to engage National Average: 8.7%
effectively in the fisheries management process. While these
numbers correspond to the overall community in Beals they may
indicate a population needing assistance in integrating
their needs and concerns into the process.

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe
social phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for Beals that provide measures of fishing engagement and
reliance, and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to evaluate community wellbeing in terms of social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or
recreational fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial Reliance,
Recreational Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to
adapt to change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices
include: Poverty, Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a
commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire Migration, Urban
Sprawl, Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies more
engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification. Learn more
about the
social indicators for fishing communities.

368

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

369

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Friendship, ME
Where is Friendship located?

Friendship is a town with a population of 1,152 and classified by
the census as falling within a rural area. Rural to urban is really a
continuum. Increasing urbanization indicates that a community has
more jobs overall, more kinds of jobs, and more services like
hospitals, social workers and job training centers.
However, increasing urbanization can also mean greater pressure
to transform working waterfronts for alternative uses, such as hotels
or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Friendship?

The landings associated with a fishing community tell us what
species are important to that community. The diversity of
species caught also is indicative of a community’s ability to
adapt to changing environmental conditions (e.g. populations
of specific fish stocks) or changes in fishing regulations that
restrict access to resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

370

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Friendship?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of the
scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as the
homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only have a
handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough sense of
the number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions, jobs in
shoreside industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and stay
out for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels. These
differences also affect family life. Smaller dayboat fishermen tend
to return home every day whereas fishermen on larger vessels may
be away from home for weeks on long and distant
fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger counterparts
are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these characteristics help
illuminate the potential impacts of regulatory changes on a given community.

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a community is
associated with issues important for community
development, such as income and poverty levels,
unemployment rates, and local participation in
community activities.

371

How do people make a living in Friendship?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to
environmental change, the diversity in local
occupations indicates the ability of a community to
adapt to economic changes, including changes in the
local fishing economy. Is there one predominant
industry, for instance, or is there a range of economic
opportunities? How many occupations are available
that offer incomes similar to fishing or require skills and
education common to the average fisherman? How
many jobs are available that would provide a working
environment that fishermen would be comfortable with?

Unemployment Rate: 3%

Median Household Income: $48,026.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one indicator
of the level of opportunity that may exist for fishermen
who lose their jobs to find alternative ways of making a
living. The unemployment rate may also indicate the
desirability of fishing in the face of other opportunities.

Individuals in Friendship living in poverty: 10.9% The

poverty threshold for an individual is defined by the
US Census for 2010 as $11,139. The percentage of
a town’s population living under this economic
threshold is an indicator of the residents’ ability to
adjust to loss of income and job opportunities in
fishing-related and other local industries.

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many
broader community issues and institutions. A large
number of older residents may be associated with a
retirement community or an out-migration of young
people. For many fishing communities, an aging
population can indicate gentrification, a process that
may affect fishermen’s access to the waterfront. In
some remote coastal communities, people in their late
teens or early twenties may leave to look for work or
pursue an education outside of their community. A very
large population of young people, on the other hand,

372

may indicate the presence of universities or a military
base.
Median age: 50.1

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families and
groups to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the northeast
region, ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in New England, though
there are significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic groups have long been associated
with fishing in various specific ports throughout the region.

373

Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely
translated from English into other languages. Lack of strong
English language skills could affect participants’ ability to
engage effectively in the fisheries management process. While
these numbers correspond to the overall community in
Friendship they may indicate a population needing assistance in
integrating their needs and concerns into the process.

National Average: 12.7%

Speak English less than very well: 0%

National Average: 8.7%

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe
social phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for Friendship that provide measures of fishing
engagement and reliance, and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to evaluate
community well-being in terms of social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or
recreational fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial Reliance,
Recreational Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to
adapt to change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices
include: Poverty, Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a
commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire Migration, Urban
Sprawl, Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies more
engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification. Learn more
about the
social indicators for fishing communities.

374

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

375

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Portland, ME
Where is Portland located?

Portland is a town with a population of 66,194 and classified by
the census as falling within an urbanized area. Rural to urban is
really a continuum. Increasing urbanization indicates that a
community has more jobs overall, more kinds of jobs, and more
services like hospitals, social workers and job training centers.
However, increasing urbanization can also mean greater
pressure to transform working waterfronts for alternative uses,
such as hotels or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Portland?

The landings associated with a fishing community tell us
what species are important to that community. The diversity of
species caught also is indicative of a community’s ability to
adapt to changing environmental conditions (e.g. populations
of specific fish stocks) or changes in fishing regulations that
restrict access to resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

376

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Portland?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of the
scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as the
homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only have a
handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough sense of the
number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions, jobs in shoreside
industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and stay out
for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels. These differences
also affect family life. Smaller dayboat fishermen tend to return home
every day whereas fishermen on larger vessels may be away from home
for weeks on long and distant
fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger
counterparts are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these
characteristics help illuminate the

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a community is
associated with issues important for community
development, such as income and poverty levels,
unemployment rates, and local participation in
community activities.

377

How do people make a living in Portland?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to
environmental change, the diversity in local occupations
indicates the ability of a community to adapt to
economic changes, including changes in the local
fishing economy. Is there one predominant industry, for
instance, or is there a range of economic opportunities?
How many occupations are available that offer incomes
similar to fishing or require skills and education
common to the average fisherman? How many jobs are
available that would provide a working environment
that fishermen would be comfortable with?

Unemployment Rate: 3.7%

Median Household Income: $44,422.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one indicator of
the level of opportunity that may exist for fishermen who
lose their jobs to find alternative ways of making a living.
The unemployment rate may also indicate the desirability of
fishing in the face of other opportunities.

Individuals in Portland living in poverty: 17.5% The poverty

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many broader
community issues and institutions. A large number of older
residents may be associated with a retirement community or
an out-migration of young people. For many fishing
communities, an aging population can indicate
gentrification, a process that may affect fishermen’s access
to the waterfront. In some remote coastal communities,
people in their late teens or early twenties may leave to look
for work or pursue an education outside of their community.
A very large population of young people, on the other hand, 378

threshold for an individual is defined by the US Census for
2010 as $11,139. The percentage of a town’s population
living under this economic threshold is an indicator of the
residents’ ability to adjust to loss of income and job
opportunities in fishing-related and other local industries.

may indicate the presence of universities or a military
base.
Median age: 36.7

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families and
groups to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the northeast
region, ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in New England, though
there are significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic groups have long been associated
with fishing in various specific ports throughout the region.

379

Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely
translated from English into other languages. Lack of strong
English language skills could affect participants’ ability to
engage effectively in the fisheries management process. While
these numbers correspond to the overall community in
Portland they may indicate a population needing assistance in
integrating their needs and concerns into the process.

National Average: 12.7%

Speak English less than very well: 6.6%

National Average: 8.7%

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe
social phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for Portland that provide measures of fishing engagement
and reliance, and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to evaluate community
well-being in terms of social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or
recreational fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial
Reliance, Recreational Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to
adapt to change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices
include: Poverty, Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability of
a commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire Migration,
Urban Sprawl, Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies
more engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification. Learn
more about the
social indicators for fishing communities.

380

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

381

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Newington, NH
Where is Newington located?

Newington is a town with a population of 753 and
classified by the census as falling within a rural area.
Rural to urban is really a continuum. Increasing
urbanization indicates that a community has more jobs
overall, more kinds of jobs, and more services like
hospitals, social workers and job training centers.
However, increasing urbanization can also mean
greater pressure to transform working waterfronts for
alternative uses, such as hotels or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Newington?

The landings associated with a fishing community
tell us what species are important to that community.
The diversity of species caught also is indicative of a
community’s ability to adapt to changing
environmental conditions (e.g. populations of
specific fish stocks) or changes in fishing regulations
that restrict access to resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

382

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Newington?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of
the scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as
the homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only
have a handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough
sense of the number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions,
jobs in shoreside industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and
stay out for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels.
These differences also affect family life. Smaller dayboat
fishermen tend to return home every day whereas fishermen on
larger vessels may be away from home for weeks on long and
distant fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger
counterparts are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these
characteristics help illuminate the potential impacts of regulatory changes on a given community.

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a community
is associated with issues important for community
development, such as income and poverty levels,
unemployment rates, and local participation in
community activities.

383

How do people make a living in Newington?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to
environmental change, the diversity in local
occupations indicates the ability of a community to
adapt to economic changes, including changes in the
local fishing economy. Is there one predominant
industry, for instance, or is there a range of economic
opportunities? How many occupations are available
that offer incomes similar to fishing or require skills
and education common to the average fisherman?
How many jobs are available that would provide a
working environment that fishermen would be
comfortable with?
Unemployment Rate: 0.9%

Median Household Income: $78,500.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one
indicator of the level of opportunity that may exist for
fishermen who lose their jobs to find alternative ways
of making a living. The unemployment rate may also
indicate the desirability of fishing in the face of other
opportunities.

Individuals in Newington living in poverty: 6.8% The

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many
broader community issues and institutions. A large number
of older residents may be associated with a retirement
community or an out-migration of young people. For many
fishing communities, an aging population can indicate
gentrification, a process that may affect fishermen’s access
to the waterfront. In some remote coastal communities,
people in their late teens or early twenties may leave to look
for work or pursue an education outside of their community.
A very large population of young people, on the other hand,384

poverty threshold for an individual is defined by the US
Census for 2010 as $11,139. The percentage of a town’s
population living under this economic threshold is an
indicator of the residents’ ability to adjust to loss of
income and job opportunities in fishing-related and
other local industries.

may indicate the presence of universities or a military
base.
Median age: 48

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families and
groups to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the northeast
region, ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in New England, though
there are significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic groups have long been associated
with fishing in various specific ports throughout the region.

385

Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely
translated from English into other languages. Lack of strong
English language skills could affect participants’ ability to
engage effectively in the fisheries management process. While
these numbers correspond to the overall community in
Newington they may indicate a population needing assistance
in integrating their needs and concerns into the process.

National Average: 12.7%

Speak English less than very well: .4%

National Average: 8.7%

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe
social phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for Newington that provide measures of fishing
engagement and reliance, and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to evaluate
community well-being in terms of social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or
recreational fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial Reliance,
Recreational Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to
adapt to change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices
include: Poverty, Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a
commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire Migration, Urban
Sprawl, Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies more
engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification. Learn more
about the
social indicators for fishing communities.

386

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

387

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Portsmouth, NH
Where is Portsmouth located?

Portsmouth is a town with a population of 20,779 and classified
by the census as falling within an urbanized area. Rural to urban
is really a continuum. Increasing urbanization indicates that a
community has more jobs overall, more kinds of jobs, and more
services like hospitals, social workers and job training centers.
However, increasing urbanization can also mean greater
pressure to transform working waterfronts for alternative uses,
such as hotels or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Portsmouth?

The landings associated with a fishing community tell us
what species are important to that community. The diversity of
species caught also is indicative of a community’s ability to
adapt to changing environmental conditions (e.g. populations
of specific fish stocks) or changes in fishing regulations that
restrict access to resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

388

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Portsmouth?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of the
scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as the
homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only have a
handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough sense of the
number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions, jobs in shoreside
industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and stay
out for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels. These
differences also affect family life. Smaller dayboat fishermen tend to
return home every day whereas fishermen on larger vessels may be
away from home for weeks on long and distant
fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger
counterparts are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these
characteristics help illuminate the potential impacts of regulatory changes on a given community.

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a community
is associated with issues important for community
development, such as income and poverty levels,
unemployment rates, and local participation in
community activities.

389

How do people make a living in Portsmouth?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to environmental
change, the diversity in local occupations indicates the
ability of a community to adapt to economic changes,
including changes in the local fishing economy. Is there
one predominant industry, for instance, or is there a
range of economic opportunities? How many
occupations are available that offer incomes similar to
fishing or require skills and education common to the
average fisherman? How many jobs are available that
would provide a working environment that fishermen
would be comfortable with?

Unemployment Rate: 3.6%

Median Household Income: $62,191.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one indicator of
the level of opportunity that may exist for fishermen who
lose their jobs to find alternative ways of making a living.
The unemployment rate may also indicate the desirability
of fishing in the face of other opportunities.

Individuals in Portsmouth living in poverty: 8.7% The

poverty threshold for an individual is defined by the
US Census for 2010 as $11,139. The percentage of a
town’s population living under this economic
threshold is an indicator of the residents’ ability to
adjust to loss of income and job opportunities in
fishing-related and other local industries.

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many
broader community issues and institutions. A large
number of older residents may be associated with a
retirement community or an out-migration of young
people. For many fishing communities, an aging
population can indicate gentrification, a process that may
affect fishermen’s access to the waterfront. In some
remote coastal communities, people in their late teens or
early twenties may leave to look for work or pursue an
education outside of their community. A very large
population of young people, on the other hand,

390

may indicate the presence of universities or a military
base.
Median age: 40.3

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families and
groups to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the northeast
region, ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in New England, though
there are significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic groups have long been associated
with fishing in various specific ports throughout the region.

391

Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely
translated from English into other languages. Lack of strong
English language skills could affect participants’ ability to
engage effectively in the fisheries management process. While
these numbers correspond to the overall community in
Portsmouth they may indicate a population needing assistance in
integrating their needs and concerns into the process.

National Average: 12.7%

Speak English less than very well: 1.5%

National Average: 8.7%

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe social
phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for Portsmouth that provide measures of fishing engagement and
reliance, and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to evaluate community well-being
in terms of social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or recreational
fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial Reliance, Recreational
Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to adapt to
change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices include: Poverty,
Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a
commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire Migration, Urban
Sprawl, Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies more
engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification. Learn more about
the
social indicators for fishing communities.

392

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

393

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Gloucester, MA
Where is Gloucester located?

Gloucester is a town with a population of 28,789 and classified
by the census as falling within an urbanized area. Rural to urban
is really a continuum. Increasing urbanization indicates that a
community has more jobs overall, more kinds of jobs, and more
services like hospitals, social workers and job training centers.
However, increasing urbanization can also mean greater
pressure to transform working waterfronts for alternative uses,
such as hotels or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Gloucester?

The landings associated with a fishing community tell us
what species are important to that community. The diversity
of species caught also is indicative of a community’s ability
to adapt to changing environmental conditions (e.g.
populations of specific fish stocks) or changes in fishing
regulations that restrict access to resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

394

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Gloucester?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of
the scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as
the homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only
have a handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough
sense of the number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions,
jobs in shoreside industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and
stay out for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels.
These differences also affect family life. Smaller dayboat
fishermen tend to return home every day whereas fishermen on
larger vessels may be away from home for weeks on long and
distant fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger
counterparts are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these
characteristics help illuminate the potential impacts of regulatory changes on a given community.

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a community
is associated with issues important for community
development, such as income and poverty levels,
unemployment rates, and local participation in
community

395

How do people make a living in Gloucester?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to
environmental change, the diversity in local
occupations indicates the ability of a community to
adapt to economic changes, including changes in the
local fishing economy. Is there one predominant
industry, for instance, or is there a range of economic
opportunities? How many occupations are available
that offer incomes similar to fishing or require skills
and education common to the average fisherman?
How many jobs are available that would provide a
working environment that fishermen would be
comfortable with?
Unemployment Rate: 4%

Median Household Income: $60,506.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one indicator
of the level of opportunity that may exist for fishermen
who lose their jobs to find alternative ways of making a
living. The unemployment rate may also indicate the
desirability of fishing in the face of other opportunities.

Individuals in Gloucester living in poverty: 7.8%

The poverty threshold for an individual is defined by
the US Census for 2010 as $11,139. The percentage of
a town’s population living under this economic
threshold is an indicator of the residents’ ability to
adjust to loss of income and job opportunities in
fishing-related and other local industries.

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many
broader community issues and institutions. A large
number of older residents may be associated with a
retirement community or an out-migration of young
people. For many fishing communities, an aging
population can indicate gentrification, a process that may
affect fishermen’s access to the waterfront. In some
remote coastal communities, people in their late teens or
early twenties may leave to look for work or pursue an
education outside of their community. A very large
population of young people, on the other hand,

396

may indicate the presence of universities or a
military base.
Median age: 46.4

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families
and groups to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the
northeast region, ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in
New England, though there are significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic
groups have long been associated with fishing in various specific ports throughout the region.

397

Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely
translated from English into other languages. Lack of strong
English language skills could affect participants’ ability to
engage effectively in the fisheries management process. While
these numbers correspond to the overall community in
Gloucester they may indicate a population needing assistance in
integrating their needs and concerns into the process.

National Average: 12.7%

Speak English less than very well: 4%

National Average: 8.7%

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe
social phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for Gloucester that provide measures of fishing
engagement and reliance, and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to
evaluate community well-being in terms of social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or
recreational fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial
Reliance, Recreational Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to
adapt to change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices
include: Poverty, Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability
of a commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire
Migration, Urban Sprawl, Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies
more engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification.
Learn more about the
social indicators for fishing communities.

398

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

399

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

New Bedford, MA
Where is New Bedford located?

New Bedford is a town with a population of 95,072 and
classified by the census as falling within an urbanized area.
Rural to urban is really a continuum. Increasing urbanization
indicates that a community has more jobs overall, more kinds of
jobs, and more services like hospitals, social workers and job
training centers. However, increasing urbanization can also
mean greater pressure to transform working waterfronts for
alternative uses, such as hotels or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in New Bedford?

The landings associated with a fishing community tell us what
species are important to that community. The diversity of
species caught also is indicative of a community’s ability to
adapt to changing environmental conditions (e.g. populations
of specific fish stocks) or changes in fishing regulations that
restrict access to resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

400

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in New Bedford?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of
the scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as
the homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only
have a handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough
sense of the number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions,
jobs in shoreside industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and
stay out for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels. These
differences also affect family life. Smaller dayboat fishermen tend
to return home every day whereas fishermen on larger vessels may
be away from home for weeks on long and distant
fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger
counterparts are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these
characteristics help illuminate the potential impacts of regulatory changes on a given community.

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a community
is associated with issues important for community
development, such as income and poverty levels,
unemployment rates, and local participation in
community activities.

401

How do people make a living in New Bedford?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to
environmental change, the diversity in local
occupations indicates the ability of a community to
adapt to economic changes, including changes in the
local fishing economy. Is there one predominant
industry, for instance, or is there a range of economic
opportunities? How many occupations are available
that offer incomes similar to fishing or require skills
and education common to the average fisherman?
How many jobs are available that would provide a
working environment that fishermen would be
comfortable with?
Unemployment Rate: 6.2%

Median Household Income: $36,172.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one
indicator of the level of opportunity that may exist for
fishermen who lose their jobs to find alternative ways
of making a living. The unemployment rate may also
indicate the desirability of fishing in the face of other
opportunities.

Individuals in New Bedford living in poverty:

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many broader
community issues and institutions. A large number of older
residents may be associated with a retirement community or
an out-migration of young people. For many fishing
communities, an aging population can indicate
gentrification, a process that may affect fishermen’s access
to the waterfront. In some remote coastal communities,
people in their late teens or early twenties may leave to look
for work or pursue an education outside of their community.402
A very

22.7%

The poverty threshold for an individual is defined by
the US Census for 2010 as $11,139. The percentage
of a town’s population living under this economic
threshold is an indicator of the residents’ ability to
adjust to loss of income and job opportunities in
fishing-related and other local industries.

large population of young people, on the other hand,
may indicate the presence of universities or a military
base.
Median age: 36.6

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families and groups
to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the northeast region,
ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in New England, though there are
significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic groups have long been associated with fishing
in various specific ports throughout the region.

403

Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely
translated from English into other languages. Lack of strong
English language skills could affect participants’ ability to
engage effectively in the fisheries management process. While
these numbers correspond to the overall community in New
Bedford they may indicate a population needing assistance in
integrating their needs and concerns into the process.

National Average: 12.7%

Speak English less than very well: 17.2%

National Average: 8.7%

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe
social phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for New Bedford that provide measures of fishing
engagement and reliance, and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to evaluate
community well-being in terms of social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or
recreational fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial Reliance,
Recreational Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to
adapt to change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices
include: Poverty, Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a
commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire Migration, Urban
Sprawl, Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies more
engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification. Learn more
about the
social indicators for fishing communities.

404

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

405

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Rockport, MA
Where is Rockport located?

Rockport is a town with a population of 6,952 and classified by
the census as falling within an urbanized area. Rural to urban is
really a continuum. Increasing urbanization indicates that a
community has more jobs overall, more kinds of jobs, and more
services like hospitals, social workers and job training centers.
However, increasing urbanization can also mean greater
pressure to transform working waterfronts for alternative uses,
such as hotels or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Rockport?

The landings associated with a fishing community
tell us what species are important to that community.
The diversity of species caught also is indicative of a
community’s ability to adapt to changing
environmental conditions (e.g. populations of specific
fish stocks) or changes in fishing regulations that
restrict access to resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

406

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Rockport?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of the
scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as the
homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only have a
handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough sense of the
number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions, jobs in shoreside
industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and stay
out for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels. These
differences also affect family life. Smaller dayboat fishermen tend to
return home every day whereas fishermen on larger vessels may be
away from home for weeks on long and distant
fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger
counterparts are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these
characteristics help illuminate the potential impacts of regulatory changes on a given community.

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a community is
associated with issues important for community
development, such as income and poverty levels,
unemployment rates, and local participation in
community activities.

407

How do people make a living in Rockport?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to
environmental change, the diversity in local
occupations indicates the ability of a community to
adapt to economic changes, including changes in the
local fishing economy. Is there one predominant
industry, for instance, or is there a range of economic
opportunities? How many occupations are available
that offer incomes similar to fishing or require skills
and education common to the average fisherman? How
many jobs are available that would provide a working
environment that fishermen would be comfortable with?

Unemployment Rate: 5.2%

Median Household Income: $70,625.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one
indicator of the level of opportunity that may exist for
fishermen who lose their jobs to find alternative ways
of making a living. The unemployment rate may also
indicate the desirability of fishing in the face of other
opportunities.

Individuals in Rockport living in poverty: 3.7% The

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many broader
community issues and institutions. A large number of older
residents may be associated with a retirement community or
an out-migration of young people. For many fishing
communities, an aging population can indicate
gentrification, a process that may affect fishermen’s access
to the waterfront. In some remote coastal communities,
people in their late teens or early twenties may leave to look
for work or pursue an education outside of their community.
A very large population of young people, on the other hand, 408

poverty threshold for an individual is defined by
the US Census for 2010 as $11,139. The
percentage of a town’s population living under
this economic threshold is an indicator of the
residents’ ability to adjust to loss of income and
job opportunities in fishing-related and other
local industries.

may indicate the presence of universities or a
military base.
Median age: 51.2

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families and
groups to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the northeast
region, ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in New England,
though there are significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic groups have long been
associated with fishing in various specific ports throughout the region.

409

Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely
translated from English into other languages. Lack of strong
English language skills could affect participants’ ability to
engage effectively in the fisheries management process. While
these numbers correspond to the overall community in Rockport
they may indicate a population needing assistance in
integrating their needs and concerns into the process.

National Average: 12.7%

Speak English less than very well: 1.1%

National Average: 8.7%

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe social
phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for Rockport that provide measures of fishing engagement and reliance,
and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to evaluate community well-being in terms
of social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or recreational
fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial Reliance, Recreational
Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to adapt
to change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices include:
Poverty, Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a
commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire Migration, Urban
Sprawl, Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies more
engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification. Learn more about
the
social indicators for fishing communities.

410

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

411

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI
Where is Point Judith/Narragansett located?

Point Judith/Narragansett is a town with a population of 15,868
and classified by the census as falling within an urbanized area.
Rural to urban is really a continuum.
Increasing urbanization indicates that a community has more
jobs overall, more kinds of jobs, and more services like
hospitals, social workers and job training centers. However,
increasing urbanization can also mean greater pressure to
transform working waterfronts for alternative uses, such as
hotels or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Point Judith/Narragansett?

The landings associated with a fishing community tell
us what species are important to that community. The
diversity of species caught also is indicative of a
community’s ability to adapt to changing environmental
conditions (e.g. populations of specific fish stocks) or
changes in fishing regulations that restrict access to
resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

412

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Point Judith/Narragansett?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of
the scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as
the homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only
have a handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough
sense of the number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions,
jobs in shoreside industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and
stay out for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels. These
differences also affect family life. Smaller dayboat fishermen tend
to return home every day whereas fishermen on larger vessels
may be away from home for weeks on long and distant
fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger
counterparts are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these
characteristics help illuminate the potential impacts of regulatory changes on a given community.

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a
community is associated with issues important
for community development, such as income
and poverty levels, unemployment rates, and
local participation in community activities.

413

How do people make a living in Point Judith/Narragansett?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to
environmental change, the diversity in local
occupations indicates the ability of a community to
adapt to economic changes, including changes in the
local fishing economy. Is there one predominant
industry, for instance, or is there a range of
economic opportunities? How many occupations are
available that offer incomes similar to fishing or
require skills and education common to the average
fisherman? How many jobs are available that would
provide a working environment that fishermen would
be comfortable with?
Unemployment Rate: 3.3%

Median Household Income: $57,906.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one indicator
of the level of opportunity that may exist for fishermen
who lose their jobs to find alternative ways of making a
living. The unemployment rate may also indicate the
desirability of fishing in the face of other opportunities.

Individuals in Point Judith/Narragansett living in poverty: 17.2%

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many broader
community issues and institutions. A large number of older
residents may be associated with a retirement community or
an out-migration of young people. For many fishing
communities, an aging population can indicate gentrification,
a process that may affect fishermen’s access to the waterfront.
In some remote coastal communities, people in their late teens
or early twenties may leave to look for work or pursue an
education outside of their community. A very
414

The poverty threshold for an individual is defined by the
US Census for 2010 as $11,139. The percentage of a
town’s population living under this economic threshold
is an indicator of the residents’ ability to adjust to loss
of income and job opportunities in fishing-related and
other local industries.

large population of young people, on the other hand, may
indicate the presence of universities or a military base.
Median age: 40.4

National median:

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families
and groups to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the
northeast region, ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in
New England, though there are significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic
groups have long been associated with fishing in various specific ports throughout the region.

415

Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely translated National Average: 12.7%
from English into other languages. Lack of strong English language Speak English less than very well: 1.8%
skills could affect participants’ ability to engage effectively in the
National Average: 8.7%
fisheries management process. While these numbers correspond to
the overall community in Point Judith/Narragansett they may
indicate a population needing assistance in integrating their needs
and concerns into the process.

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe
social phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for Point Judith/Narragansett that provide measures of
fishing engagement and reliance, and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to
evaluate community well-being in terms of social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or
recreational fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial Reliance,
Recreational Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to adapt
to change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices include:
Poverty, Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a
commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire Migration, Urban
Sprawl, Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies more
engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification. Learn more
about the
social indicators for fishing communities.

416

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

417

Human Communities and Fisheries in the Northeast

Newport, RI
Where is Newport located?

Newport is a town with a population of 24,672 and classified
by the census as falling within an urbanized area. Rural to
urban is really a continuum. Increasing urbanization indicates
that a community has more jobs overall, more kinds of jobs,
and more services like hospitals, social workers and job
training centers.
However, increasing urbanization can also mean greater
pressure to transform working waterfronts for alternative
uses, such as hotels or tourist shops.1

Involvement in Fisheries
What species are landed in Newport?

The landings associated with a fishing community tell
us what species are important to that community. The
diversity of species caught also is indicative of a
community’s ability to adapt to changing environmental
conditions (e.g. populations of specific fish stocks) or
changes in fishing regulations that restrict access to
resources.
*Groundfish includes cod, winter fl.,witch fl.,yellowtail fl., am.plaice,
haddock, white hake,redfish, pollock.

**Whiting includes red hake,ocean pout,black whiting,whiting.

418

What are the characteristics of the fishing vessels in Newport?

The number of fishing vessels in a given port provides a sense of
the scale of fishing in that port. Where a large port may serve as
the homeport for hundreds of vessels, a smaller one may only
have a handful. The number of vessels also may provide a rough
sense of the number of fishing-related jobs (e.g. crew positions,
jobs in shoreside industries) available in a given location.
Size also matters. Larger vessels can travel farther offshore and
stay out for longer periods more easily than smaller vessels.
These differences also affect family life. Smaller dayboat
fishermen tend to return home every day whereas fishermen on
larger vessels may be away from home for weeks on long and
distant fishing expeditions.
Apart from the lobster fleet, smaller boats also tend to catch a broader range of species where their larger
counterparts are more specialized (e.g. limited access scallop boats and herring pair trawlers). All these
characteristics help illuminate the potential impacts of regulatory changes on a given community.

Demographic Attributes
Educational Attainment

The level of educational attainment in a community
is associated with issues important for community
development, such as income and poverty levels,
unemployment rates, and local participation in
community activities.

419

How do people make a living in Newport?

Just as the range of fish species harvested by town
residents speaks to their ability to adapt to
environmental change, the diversity in local occupations
indicates the ability of a community to adapt to
economic changes, including changes in the local
fishing economy. Is there one predominant industry, for
instance, or is there a range of economic opportunities?
How many occupations are available that offer incomes
similar to fishing or require skills and education common
to the average fisherman? How many jobs are available
that would provide a working environment that
fishermen would be comfortable with?

Unemployment Rate: 2.2%

Median Household Income: $57,640.00

National Rate: 7.9%*

National Average: $51,914.00 (2011)

The unemployment rate in a community is one indicator
of the level of opportunity that may exist for fishermen
who lose their jobs to find alternative ways of making a
living. The unemployment rate may also indicate the
desirability of fishing in the face of other opportunities.

Individuals in Newport living in poverty: 10.2% The

*Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Age structure of residents

Age structure provides potential indications of many
broader community issues and institutions. A large number
of older residents may be associated with a retirement
community or an out-migration of young people. For many
fishing communities, an aging population can indicate
gentrification, a process that may affect fishermen’s access
to the waterfront. In some remote coastal communities,
people in their late teens or early twenties may leave to look
for work or pursue an education outside of their community.
A very large population of young people, on the other hand, 420

poverty threshold for an individual is defined by the
US Census for 2010 as $11,139. The percentage of
a town’s population living under this economic
threshold is an indicator of the residents’ ability to
adjust to loss of income and job opportunities in
fishing-related and other local industries.

may indicate the presence of universities or a military
base.
Median age: 36.4

National median: 37.2

Ethnicity and Race

These factors give a sense of the cultural context of the community, and the relationship of fishing families and
groups to the community in which they live. Is this community racially and ethnically diverse? In the northeast
region, ethnic diversity in coastal communities tends to be higher in the Mid Atlantic than in New England,
though there are significant exceptions in some fishing ports. Moreover, certain ethnic groups have long been
associated with fishing in various specific ports throughout the region.

421

Fishing regulations can be complex. Documents are rarely
translated from English into other languages. Lack of strong
English language skills could affect participants’ ability to engage
effectively in the fisheries management process. While these
numbers correspond to the overall community in Newport they
may indicate a population needing assistance in
integrating their needs and concerns into the process.

National Average: 12.7%

Speak English less than very well: 3.6%

National Average: 8.7%

Social Indicators
Social indicators are quantitative measures that describe the well-being of communities and are used to describe social
phenomena over time. Below are a series of indices for Newport that provide measures of fishing engagement and reliance,
and social vulnerability. An index combines variables of interest and are used to evaluate community well-being in terms of
social, economic and psychological welfare.
Fishing engagement and reliance indices portray the importance or level of dependence of commercial or recreational
fishing to coastal communities. The indices include: Commercial Engagement, Commercial Reliance, Recreational
Engagement and Recreational Reliance.
Social vulnerability indices represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to adapt to
change. These factors exist within all communities regardless of the importance of fishing. The indices include: Poverty,
Population Composition, and Personal Disruption.
Gentrification Pressure indices characterize those factors that, over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a
commercial or recreational working waterfront, including infrastructure. The indices include: Retire Migration, Urban Sprawl,
Natural Amenities and Housing Disruption.
The factor scores for each index are normalized so that zero is the mean. Therefore, a higher value implies more
engagement or reliance upon fishing or higher social vulnerability or vulnerability to gentrification. Learn more about the
social indicators for fishing communities.

422

1The

Census Bureau currently identifies two types of urban areas: urbanized areas of 50,000 or more people, and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000
people, both representing densely developed territory and encompassing residential, commercial, and other non-residential urban land uses. Rural areas are all those
outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters. For more information see: http://blogs.census.gov/2012/04/04/how-do-we- measure-urban-areas and
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/2010urbanruralclass.html#lists.
2Categories available are: Less than 9th grade; 9th to 12th grade, no diploma; High school graduate (includes equivalency); Some college, no degree; Associate's
degree; Bachelor's degree; Graduate or professional degree.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Social Sciences Branch

423

CHAPTER 5 APENDICES
Appendix 5.1 Draft Technical Documentation for the Vertical
Line / Co-Occurrence Model

Photo: NOAA Fisheries

424

Prepared for:
National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office (GARFO)
55 Great Republic Drive
NOAA Fisheries Service
Gloucester, MA, 01930

June 2020
Prepared by:
Industrial Economics, Incorporated
2067 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02140
617-354-0074
www.indecon.com

425

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Background........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
Data Limitations and Uncertainty......................................................................................................................................... 2
Validation of Gear Configuration Assumptions .................................................................................................................... 4
Development Timeline ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

2. SCOPE OF THE MODEL ................................................................................................................................. 7
Software ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Geographic and Temporal Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Commercial Fisheries ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Whale Sightings .................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Indicators of Fishing Activity and Potential Risk of Entanglement ..................................................................................... 11

3. OVERVIEW OF METHODS AND BASELINE RESULTS ...................................................................................... 13
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Conceptual Overview ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Number of Active Vessels ................................................................................................................................................... 14
Number of Vertical Lines and Length of Groundline .......................................................................................................... 15
Combined Whale Sightings and Vertical Line Indicator (Co-Occurrence) .......................................................................... 17
Scenario Generation ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
Reporting Tools .................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Illustrative Baseline Results ................................................................................................................................................ 20

4. LOCATION SPECIFIC METHODS AND DATA SOURCES ................................................................................... 25
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Use of VTR and Southeast Logbook Data to Estimate Vessel Activity ................................................................................ 25
Accounting for Recent Vertical Line Rulemakings .............................................................................................................. 26
Federal Northeast Nearshore Waters ................................................................................................................................ 27
Northeast Offshore Waters ................................................................................................................................................ 35
Mid-Atlantic and Southeast Federal Waters ...................................................................................................................... 36
General Approach to State Waters .................................................................................................................................... 38
Maine ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
New Hampshire ....................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Massachusetts......................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Rhode Island ............................................................................................................................................................................ 56
Connecticut ............................................................................................................................................................................. 60
New York ............................................................................................................................................................................ 63
New Jersey ......................................................................................................................................................................... 66
Delaware ............................................................................................................................................................................ 68
Maryland ............................................................................................................................................................................ 71
Virginia ............................................................................................................................................................................... 74
North Carolina ....................................................................................................................................................................79
South Carolina .................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Georgia ............................................................................................................................................................................... 84

426

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Florida................................................................................................................................................................................. 85
APPENDIX A | NARWC SIGHTINGS PER UNIT EFFORT DATA SOURCES........... ................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B | MODEL VESSEL REGIONS .................................................................. ........................................ B-1
APPENDIX C | NORTHEAST LOBSTER MODEL VESSEL DISTRIBUTIONS ......... ................................................... C-1

427

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

1. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND

Commercial fishing gear can inadvertently pose a risk of entanglement to protected marine
species, including whales. Along the Atlantic coast of the United States, the risk that whales may
become entangled is of particular concern for four populations: the western North Atlantic stock
of right whales; the Gulf of Maine stock of humpback whales; the western North Atlantic stock
of fin whales; and the Canadian eastern coastal stock of minke whales. The effects of
entanglement on members of these species can range from no permanent injury to serious injury
or death.
Right whale and fin whale stocks are listed as endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA); three species – Right, humpback, and fin whales – are protected under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Pursuant to the ESA and the MMPA, the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – with guidance from the Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Team (ALWTRT) – is responsible for the development and implementation of
measures to reduce the risks of entanglement for these species. These measures are embodied in
the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP). The Plan seeks to reduce the risks
of entanglement through a set of gear modifications and other requirements that affect
commercial fishing operations in Atlantic waters.
A continuing concern in the evolution of the ALWTRP is the risk of entanglement in vertical
line; i.e., buoy lines associated with lobster trap/pot gear, other trap/pot gear, or gillnet gear. To
better understand these risks and the potential impact of management measures designed to
address them, NMFS requires information on the amount of vertical line used by various
fisheries, as well the extent to which that line is fished in areas and during seasons in which
whales are likely to be present.
The model described herein – the Vertical Line/Co-occurrence Model – draws on a variety of
sources to assist both NMFS and the ALWTRT in their efforts to improve the effectiveness of
the ALWTRP. The model, developed under contract to NMFS by Industrial Economics,
Incorporated (IEc), is designed to address the following types of questions:
•

Where do the fisheries that are subject to the requirements of the ALWTRP operate?

•

Where are concentrations of vertical line the greatest?

•

Do whales frequent areas with high concentrations of vertical line?

The model contains information on a wide range of fixed gear fisheries, including a number of
gillnet fisheries, the American lobster fishery, the blue crab fishery, and other trap/pot fisheries.
Through the integration of information on fishing activity and gear configurations, the model
analyzes geographic and temporal variations in fishing effort and the distribution of fishing line
in waters subject to the ALWTRP. The model also incorporates information on whale sightings
and identifies areas and times at which whales and commercial fishing gear are likely to cooccur. The 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.
428

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Development of the model began in 2005; since then, NMFS has directed a series of
expansions and improvements (see timeline below). This document describes the latest
version of the model and the methods and data employed to support preparation of NMFS’
current proposal to incorporate new requirements into the ALWTRP.1
DATA LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTY

The objective of the ALWTRP is to reduce the number of large whales that die or suffer serious
injuries as the result of incidental entanglement in commercial fishing gear. In light of this goal,
it is important to emphasize that the model does not provide a basis for estimating the frequency
with which entanglements may occur, nor does it provide a basis for estimating the probability
that an entanglement will result in a serious injury or death. The risk of serious injury or
mortality due to entanglements is likely to be a function of many factors. For example, the
probability that an entanglement will occur may depend on the amount of gear deployed in a
particular area, the number of whales that are present, whether the gear is actively tended, the
behavior in which a whale is engaged when gear is encountered (e.g., whether the whale is
feeding), or other factors. Similarly, the risk of injury or death in the event of an entanglement
may depend on the characteristics of the whale involved (species, size, age, health, etc.), the
nature of the gear (e.g., whether the gear incorporates weak links designed to help a whale free
itself), human intervention (e.g., the feasibility or success of disentanglement efforts), or other
variables. The interrelationships among these factors are not fully understood, and the data
needed to provide a more complete characterization of risk are not readily available. In light of
these limitations, the model does not attempt to predict the frequency or severity of
entanglements. Instead, it provides relative indicators of
(1) the potential for entanglements to occur at different times and locations and (2) the effect
that new regulatory requirements may have on the potential for entanglements to occur. These
indicators do not measure entanglement risks or changes in entanglement risks; however, they
provide a relative sense of risks in different areas, as well as insight to the potential impact of
alternative regulatory requirements on those risks.
In addition to the limitations noted above, the quality of the information the model provides is
constrained by limitations in the data it employs. Because the data underlying the model were
derived from disparate sources, including fishing reports, survey data, and expert judgment, it is
not possible to generate statistical confidence intervals that characterize the uncertainty in the
model’s output. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize several key sources of uncertainty:
•

1

The model draws on multiple sources of data to characterize commercial fishing
activity and gear use. There is no single, uniform source of data on commercial
fishing activity in waters subject to the ALWTRP. Permitting and reporting

This documentation reflects updates to the Co-occurrence/Vertical Line Model carried out in support of ongoing NMFS rulemakings. The data and
methods used to support the analysis of regulations enacted in 2014 and 2015 are addressed in “Draft Technical Documentation for the Vertical
Line Model,” Prepared for NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service by Industrial Economics, Inc., March 2014. The 2014 documentation provides
outcomes of supplementary validation and sensitivity analyses conducted at the time in response to a Center of Independent Experts peer review.
The 2020 documentation focuses on the current application of the model and does not recreate prior validation and sensitivity analyses. In
addition, the 2014 documentation presents several appendices that, for reference, provide monthly baseline model outputs. The 2020
documentation provides several examples of baseline model outputs, but for brevity does not present the full suite of outputs.

429

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

requirements vary by political jurisdiction, with states regulating activity in state
waters and NMFS regulating activity in Federal waters. As a result, the available data
on commercial fishing activity vary considerably across jurisdictions.
•

Data on fishing activity and gear configurations in state waters vary in specificity
and quality. IEc and NMFS worked directly with state marine resource officials to
develop defensible modeling assumptions for vessels fishing exclusively in state waters.
For some states, key activity and gear configuration parameters are estimated based on
reporting data (e.g., logbook data) submitted by fishermen in accordance with state
requirements. For others, surveys are the primary source of this information. In some
cases, these surveys are one-time efforts, while others are administered annually (e.g.,
recall surveys). Finally, for some states, the characterization of fishing activity is based
upon the professional judgment of state fisheries experts. In several cases, the data are
taken from a mix of sources (e.g., surveys and best professional judgment). Section 4
describes the data and processes employed to develop the key fishing parameters for
each state covered in the model.

•

Federal lobster permits currently impose no trip reporting requirements. Unlike
Federal permits for other commercial fisheries, Federal lobster permits do not require
their holders to report the location of fishing activity; as a result, information on the
location of trips taken by vessels that hold Federal lobster permits is limited to those
that also hold permits for other fisheries (these vessels must report the location of all
fishing activity). In the absence of better data, the current version of the model employs
several approaches to estimate the number of lobster vessels fishing in Federal waters,
based on recommendations provided both by state fisheries administrators and the
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). These revisions improve the temporal
and geographic resolution of the model’s characterization of lobster fishing activity in
Federal waters; however, the absence of trip report data remains an important source of
uncertainty, particularly in LMA 1, where the majority of non-reporting vessels
operate. Section 4 provides details on the model’s revised approach to characterizing
the activity of Federal lobster vessels.

•

Sightings Per Unit Effort (SPUE) data provide a limited basis for characterizing
the distribution of whales. The model relies on effort-corrected sightings data to
characterize the likely distribution of whales within the waters that are subject to the
ALWTRP. The dataset, however, is neither geographically nor temporally
comprehensive, adding uncertainty to the analysis of both baseline co-occurrence
scores and the impact of alternative management measures. In particular, uncertainty
arises from the inclusion of SPUE values in areas or at times with very low survey
effort, as well as from the absence of SPUE values (and therefore, co-occurrence
values) in areas or at times for which effort-adjusted survey data are unavailable. In
addition, other sources of information (e.g., acoustic data or data on habitat conditions,
such as the presence of prey species) suggest that whales may be present in places and
430

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

at times at which no sightings have been recorded. Thus, the SPUE data are both an
incomplete and imprecise indicator of the distribution of whales. Section 2 provides
additional detail on the SPUE data.
•

The geographic precision of the model’s presentation of co-occurrence scores may
be overstated. As described in greater detail in Section 3, the model employs effortcorrected whale sightings information and estimates of the concentration of vertical
line in an area to generate a co-occurrence score. These scores are assigned on a
discrete basis to individual grid cells; this may imply a higher degree of geographic
precision in characterizing the potential for an entanglement than the underlying data
support.

VALIDATION OF GEAR CONFIGURATION ASSUMPTIONS

As discussed in detail in Section 4, the model employs a range of assumptions on the
configurations of gear used in ALWTRP-regulated fisheries to estimate the number of buoy
lines in the water column. IEc reviewed its assumptions on gear use with representatives of
state fisheries management agencies, NEFSC, NMFS gear experts, and fishermen on the
ALWTRT. In addition, IEc shared its assumptions in writing and through multiple
presentations to the ALWTRT and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (see the
timeline below) so that all participants were given the opportunity to review and comment.
Commenters’ suggestions were taken into account in subsequent revisions to the gear
configuration assumptions.
DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE

IEc began development of the Vertical Line Model in 2005. Since then the model has
undergone numerous updates and revisions, many of which reflect the guidance and assistance
of the ALWTRT. Members of the TRT provided information on fishing activity and gear
configurations employed within state waters, as well as available data on sightings of
endangered whales. Below, we present a brief timeline of the model’s development, including
formal presentations to the full TRT or its subgroups.
2005 - 2009. Initial methods development, working prototype, and data collection.
•

Created working prototype focused on Federal vessel activity in the Northeast for 2004.

•

Presented methods and preliminary findings to ALWTRT in December 2006.

•

Improved the characterization of commercial fishing activity and gear use.

•

Updated the model to include federally permitted activity for 2005 and 2006.

•

Incorporated data on State-permitted activity in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and
refined assumptions on gear configurations in Northeast State waters.

•

Incorporated preliminary data on whale sightings for the Northeast.

•

Presented expanded model to the ALWTRT in April 2008.

•

Expanded the model to include fishing activity and gear configuration data for the
431

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Southeast (includes Federal and State waters).
•

Presented updates to the model, along with requests for improved State data at
separate Northeast and Mid-Atlantic/Southeast ALWTRT Subgroup meetings
in April 2009.

2010. Co-occurrence indicator and scenario generator development.
•

Developed distributional approach to characterize gear configurations in key Northeast states.

•

Refined co-occurrence indicator using a preliminary effort-adjusted whale sightings dataset.

•

Developed the capability to evaluate potential management scenarios, including closures.

•

Produced draft model documentation.

•

Presented a full accounting of the 2008 baseline, including an in-depth methods
discussion, along with NMFS’ straw man proposal at separate Northeast
(November 2010) and Mid- Atlantic/Southeast ALWTRT Subgroup meetings
(April 2011).

2011 – 2012. Proposal analysis and documentation.
•

Worked directly with the ALWTRT’s Northeast working group to evaluate and
improve the model’s methods and data sources.

•

Incorporated coast-wide effort-adjusted sightings data provided by the North
Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, based on recommendations from ALWTRT.

•

Presented updated methods and results to ALWTRT, including 2009/2010 baseline and
analysis of vertical line management proposals in January 2012.

•

Presented analysis of revised vertical line management proposals in April 2012.

•

Submitted draft documentation for peer review in June 2012.

•

Peer review reports received November 2012.

2013 – 2015. Finalization of baseline and alternatives for DEIS and FEIS associated with
NMFS’ vertical line rulemaking.
•

Updated baseline state and Federal fishing activity and gear configuration data to 2011
(where available).

•

Refined gear configuration assumptions for the other trap/pot fisheries based on
interviews with state officials and NMFS gear team.

•

Developed sensitivity analysis to address TRT/peer review concerns regarding
uncertainty in the effort-adjusted whale sightings dataset.

•

Updated documentation to reflect changes in the baseline and clarify issues raised in
the peer review.

•

Developed DEIS/FEIS alternatives for the 2014 rulemaking and subsequent amendments.

2016 – 2017. Updated platform and preliminary 2016 baseline.
432

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

•

Transitioned the model from ArcGIS / MS Access to an open-source web-based
platform, improving performance, flexibility, and scalability.

•

Updated baseline state and Federal fishing activity and gear configuration data to
2016 (where available) to test the new platform.

•

Updated NARWC effort-corrected and opportunistic sightings to data, as available.

•

Conducted extensive testing using the new platform and preliminary data,
adjusting where necessary.

•

Presented preliminary 2016 baseline findings as part of NMFS discussions with the
ALWTRT in October 2018.

2018 - 2020. Finalized 2017 baseline for use in the DEIS associated with NMFS’s
forthcoming ALWTRP rulemaking.
•

Updated baseline state and Federal fishing activity and gear configuration data to
2017 (where available).

•

Provided updated 2017 baseline to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Lobster Plan Development Team (PDT) and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center
(NEFSC) for review and comment.

•

In response to comments from the PDT and NEFSC, updated approach to calculating
vertical lines in Northeast Nearshore waters and Offshore waters.

•

Updated NARWC effort-corrected and opportunistic sightings data to incorporate
sightings through 2018.

•

Participated in peer review conducted for NEFSC’s Decision Support Tool.

•

Employed the revised model to support the development of NEFSC’s Decision
Support Tool and the DEIS alternatives for the 2020 rulemaking.

433

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

2. SCOPE OF THE MODEL
SOFTWARE

The Vertical Line/Co-occurrence Model resides on a combined platform, utilizing free, open
source options wherever possible. The current model employs PostGreSQL 9 as the primary
database, Pentaho Data Integration tools for modeling, and a combination of Pentaho
Community Tools, Geoserver, and Open Layers for web-based mapping and visualization.
Map images can be imported into Microsoft PowerPoint or other software to create animations
demonstrating changes in indicators over time.
GEOGRAPHIC AND TEMPORAL SCOPE

The model analyzes all the commercial fisheries subject to the ALWTRP, including those
operating in the Northeast Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast Atlantic. The geographic range
of the model mirrors that of the ALWTRP: it extends from the Canadian border to southeast
Florida (at 26 degrees 46.5 minutes N latitude), and includes all Atlantic waters within the limits
of the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 2
To facilitate the integration of data on fishing activity, gear configurations, and whale sightings,
the model analyzes information on a common spatial grid, with consistent positioning and
resolution (i.e., cell size). It employs two spatial grids for analysis. The model analyzes fishing
activity and gear distribution on a one-minute grid. This allows the model to delineate activity
within relatively small fishing areas, such as state fishing zones. For mapping purposes, fishing
activity and gear distribution are aggregated to a standardized ten-minute grid, which matches
the grid cell size used to develop the effort- adjusted whale sightings data. Likewise, the cooccurrence indicator is presented at the ten-minute grid cell level. Exhibit 1 illustrates the
geographic scope of the model, displayed on a 10-minute grid.
The model baseline currently incorporates data on fishing activity in Federal waters for
2017, representing the most recent period for which IEc conducted data collection on
commercial fishing activity. Because states have differing data collection programs that
have evolved over time, the availability of data characterizing fishing in state waters varies
by state. At minimum, the model incorporates state data that characterize vessel activity
from 2015 through 2017; many states have provided data from prior years. Section 4
describes the data provided by each state in greater detail.

2

The model’s geographic range includes certain inshore waters currently exempted from some or all requirements of the ALWTRP.

434

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT 1 . GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE VERTICAL LINE MODEL

COMMERCIAL FISHERIES

To account for differences in fishing practices and to allow for more detailed analysis of results,
the model treats the lobster, gillnet, blue crab (south of the Delaware/New Jersey border), and
435

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

other trap/pot fisheries as distinct groups. For each group, IEc collected spatially explicit data on
fishing activity and the configuration of gear employed by fishing vessels. Exhibit 2 summarizes
the fisheries considered in the model.
EXHIBIT 2 . FISHERIES ANALYZED IN THE VERTICAL LINE MODEL

GROUP

ALWTRP FISHERY

CORRESPONDING

PERIOD OF
ACTIVITY

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic American
lobster trap/pot

Year-round

Northeast sink and anchored float
gillnet fisheries

Year-round

Mid-Atlantic gillnet fishery

Year-round

Southeast sink and anchored
gillnet fisheries

Varies

Blue
Crab

Mid-Atlantic/Southeast blue crab
fishery

Varies

Other
trap/pot

Atlantic other trap/pot fisheries
(includes blue crab in the
Northeast)

Varies

Lobster

Gillnet

Note: The model currently excludes Northeast drift gillnet vessels.
Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. January 2010. Guide To The Atlantic Large Whale Take
Reduction Plan. Available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-mammal- protection/atlantic-large-whaletake-reduction-plan.

WHALE SIGHTINGS
NARWC SPUE Data

As with other datasets used in the model, IEc worked with the ALWTRT to identify data that
describe the distribution of large whales in the waters subject to the ALWTRP. Based on the
recommendations of the TRT, IEc worked with the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium
(NARWC) to obtain an amalgamated dataset derived from shipboard and aerial surveys to
characterize the seasonal distribution of right whales, humpback whales, and fin whales. These
data are adjusted for the level of effort employed to locate whales from the air and sea, providing
an indication of sightings per unit of survey effort (SPUE). The TRT identified these surveys as
the best available information on the distribution of large whales in the Atlantic.
The NARWC SPUE dataset includes information obtained from surveys conducted between
October 1978 and December 2018. Appendix A lists the sources of the SPUE data, which
include both aerial and shipboard track surveys. To be included in the NARWC dataset, a
survey must:
•

Provide sufficient records of the survey platform’s time and position to reconstruct its trackline;

•

Have been conducted with at least one trained observer who recorded periods of
dedicated observation or no observation;
436

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

•

Report the whale species, group size, and position for each sighting; and

•

Provide data on sightings conditions.

The records included from each survey in the dataset include only those which meet the
NARWC’s minimum standards for acceptable sightings conditions; i.e., visibility of at least two
nautical miles, a sea state of Beaufort 4 or lower, and, for aerial surveys, a maximum altitude of
no greater than 1,200 feet. The dataset includes only sightings of live whales, and excludes all
records in which the identification of the species is uncertain.
The NARWC SPUE dataset aggregates the following fields by 10-minute grid cell and month:
•

Effort, defined as the total kilometers surveyed;

•

Sightings, defined as the total number of individuals of each species observed;

•

SPUE, in units of whales (separated by species) per 1000 kilometers of valid effort
(calculated as 1000*[Sightings/Effort]).

The model can further aggregate the sightings data, producing combined SPUE datasets that
sum across all or a subset of the whale species within each grid cell and month. Users may
employ these values in developing the Whale Sightings and Vertical Line Co-Occurrence
Indicator (see below). Exhibit 3 presents maps that illustrate average monthly SPUE values for
the Northeast, indexed on a scale of 0 to 1000.3 Monthly scores can be viewed for a specific
year or as the cumulative aggregation of multiple months and years, as selected by the user.
Using this functionality, the model can produce monthly or seasonal maps of SPUE values for
all three regions: Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast.
Limitations of the NARWC SPUE Data

The NARWC SPUE dataset is subject to a number of limitations. For example, the dataset gives
equal weight to sightings reported from survey platforms – airplanes and ships – that are known
to differ with respect to search efficiency. Similarly, the dataset does not adjust SPUE values to
account for variation in search efficiency across species within a platform; in the case of NEFSC
aerial surveys, the estimated effective width of a survey track ranges from approximately 0.8
nautical miles for humpback whales to approximately 1.0 nautical mile for right whales and 1.4
nautical miles for fin whales. Failure to account for these differences is a source of imprecision
in the model’s characterization of the seasonal distribution of whales.
A potentially more significant issue is that the NARWC SPUE dataset is neither geographically
nor temporally comprehensive, adding uncertainty to the analysis of co-occurrence. This
uncertainty arises from the inclusion of SPUE values in areas or months with very low survey
effort, as well as from the absence of SPUE values (and therefore, co-occurrence values) in
3

The model also allows users to view opportunistic sightings data, as reported in the NARWC database. Raw sightings data from the NARWC
database are strictly observational; they are not effort-adjusted and the management documents in which they are used are not peer-reviewed.
Distributional patterns based on these data are likely to be biased by where, and when, surveys were conducted. We include the raw NARWC
sightings data in the model primarily for reference purposes.

437

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

areas or months for which effort- adjusted survey data are completely unavailable. In addition,
other sources of information (e.g., acoustic data) indicate that whales may be present in places
and at times at which no sightings have been recorded. Thus, the SPUE data are both an
incomplete and imprecise indicator of the distribution of whales.4
EXHIBIT 3 . NARWC SPUE SCORE ( NORTHEAST CUMULATIVE ALL MONTHS 2010 - 2018 )

INDICATORS OF FISHING ACTI VI TY AND POTEN TIAL RISK OF ENTANGLEMEN T

The model generates four indicators to describe fishing activity and the potential for interactions
between large whales and fishing gear.
4

In developing the prior version of the model, members of the ALWTRT and peer reviewers encouraged an attempt to evaluate the sensitivity of
the model’s findings to the most critical limitations in the SPUE data. In response to this concern, IEc developed an analysis that examines the
sensitivity of baseline co-occurrence scores to alternative assumptions about the presence of whales in areas or at times for which SPUE data are
not available, or may be too limited to be reliable. Appendix C of the model’s 2014 documentation presents the results of this analysis. We did not
repeat this analysis for this latest model update, as we anticipate similar results. See “Draft Technical Documentation for the Vertical Line
Model,” Prepared for NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Industrial Economics, Inc., March 2014.

438

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

•

Number of Active Vessels – Using Federal and state data sources, the model estimates
the number of commercial fishing vessels that participate in each fishery. The methods
employed to estimate the number of active vessels vary by location and fishery.

•

Number of Vertical Lines – Based on the number of active vessels and data on
typical gear configurations (e.g., the number of vertical lines employed per vessel), the
model estimates the number of vertical lines employed by each fishery.5

•

Length of Groundlines – Using similar information, the model can estimate the total
length of groundline (i.e., fishing line linking traps to traps and/or traps and gillnets to
anchors) in the water.6

•

Whale Sightings and Vertical Line Co-Occurrence Indicator – As a relative
measure of the potential for an entanglement to occur, the model combines effortadjusted whale sightings information with estimates of the number of vertical lines in
the water at a particular location and time. The co-occurrence indicator can be
generated for each whale species (right, humpback, and fin) or for any combination of
the three.

Section 3 provides an overview of the methods employed to produce these indicators. Section 4
provides descriptions of the specific methods and data sources used to develop estimates of the
number of active vessels and vertical lines in specific areas.

5

Since vertical lines span the entire water column, from the surface to the ocean floor, the model assumes that the frequency of whale
interactions with vertical lines is not influenced by the length of the line in the water column. The length of vertical line in the water can be
estimated using bathymetry data that has been aggregated into the model’s grid structure.

6

As groundline has not been the recent focus of the ALWTRT, the functionality of this aspect of the model has not been recently updated. When
the model was initially developed, the TRT was briefed on the methods and data sources used to estimate the length of groundline in the water.

439

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

3. OVERVIEW OF METHODS AND BASELINE RESULTS
INTRODUCTION

This section presents a general overview of the Vertical Line/Co-occurrence Model and the
calculations used to estimate the indicators discussed in Section 2. It also briefly describes the
model’s scenario building and reporting capabilities.
CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW

Exhibit 4 presents a conceptual representation of the Vertical Line/Co-occurrence Model. The
model develops spatially explicit monthly estimates of each indicator. Using Federal and state
data describing fishing effort and location, the model first estimates the number of vessels
operating in each grid cell each month. The model then combines the number of active fishing
vessels and information on vessel gear configurations to generate monthly estimates of the
number of vertical lines and the length of groundline within each cell. Finally, the model
combines the vertical line estimate with the effort-adjusted NARWC whale sightings data to
produce the combined whale-vertical line co-occurrence indicator. Below, we detail the general
approach used to estimate each indicator.
EXHIBIT 4 . CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM OF THE VERTICAL LINE/CO- OCCURRENCE MODEL

440

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

NUMBER OF ACTIVE VESSELS

Based on GIS layers provided by NMFS and state fisheries administrators, the model assigns
each 1- minute grid cell either to a particular state’s jurisdiction or to one of several Federal
fishery management zones. Where data permit, grid cells in state waters are assigned to
appropriate state management areas (e.g., Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Statistical Reporting Areas) and are demarcated as exempt or non-exempt waters based on the
ALWTRP exemption line established in the 2014/2015 rulemaking. Grid cells in Federal waters
are delineated by Lobster Management Zone, NMFS Statistical Area, and/or ALWTRP trap/pot
areas, including Northern Nearshore, Southern Nearshore, and Offshore waters. 7
Using data on fishing effort from a variety of sources, including the Northeast Vessel Trip
Report (VTR) system, NMFS’ Northeast Permit database, the Southeast Logbook, state
reporting programs, and judgments from NMFS gear experts and state fisheries administrators,
IEc has developed area-specific methods to generate monthly estimates of the number of
vessels that are active within Federal and state management zones. Section 4 details the
management zones and approaches employed. Exhibit 5 provides the current baseline estimates
of the number of active vessels by ALWTRP region, month, and fishery (includes exempt
waters).
EXHIBIT 5 . 2017 BASELINE ESTIMATES - NUMBER OF ACTIVE VESSELS

FISHERY

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Lobster

1,653

1,062

1,107

1,777

2,791

3,938

5,220

5,442

5,199

4,839

4,125

2,770

Gillnet

39

33

31

69

95

157

196

168

148

120

62

48

NORTHEAST

Other Trap/Pot
Total

6

6

3

21

81

94

138

113

123

125

91

53

1,698

1,101

1,141

1,866

2,967

4,189

5,553

5,723

5,470

5,084

4,279

2,871

56

36

49

86

152

203

197

167

131

107

106

86

MID-ATLANTIC
Lobster
Blue Crab
Gillnet
Other Trap/Pot
Total

2

0

307

783

1,151

1,243

1,341

1,303

1,166

868

480

28

214

305

386

395

290

195

160

210

302

378

379

268

60

48

48

115

113

110

105

90

125

127

132

83

332

388

790

1,379

1,706

1,751

1,803

1,770

1,725

1,480

1,097

465

238

243

264

262

256

247

229

220

222

223

209

200

6

4

8

15

8

8

4

4

10

14

21

12

SOUTHEAST
Blue Crab
Gillnet
Other Trap/Pot
Total
Total
7

7

8

5

7

5

5

2

0

0

1

3

3

251

255

277

284

269

260

235

224

232

238

233

215

2,281

1,745

2,208

3,530

4,941

6,199

7,591

7,716

7,427

6,802

5,608

3,551

Grid cells that overlap two or more management zones are assigned to the zone that accounts for the greatest share of the cell’s total area.

441

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
NUMBER OF VERTICAL LINES AND LENGTH OF GROUNDLINE
Model Vessel Development

Given the broad scope of the ALWTRP, a vessel-by-vessel analysis of fishing gear and
location is infeasible. Instead, the model is based upon the development of a set of model
vessels, each of which represents a group of vessels that are likely to share similar operating
characteristics. As currently configured, the model draws on nearly 220 individual model
vessels to characterize gear use under baseline conditions. The model designates one or more
model vessels for a suite of regions, including:
•

Lobster Management Areas (LMAs);

•

ALWTRP trap/pot areas;

•

Federal waters off the coast of Maine delineated by distance from shore;

•

Federal waters off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island;

•

State waters (exempt and non-exempt from the 2014/2015 Vertical Line rule); and

•

State management areas (where available).

The maps in Appendix B provide the geographic location of the model vessel regions
employed in the model.
Lobster, Blue Crab, and Other Trap/ Pot Model Vessel Calculations

For each lobster, blue crab, or other trap/pot model vessel, the model allows the user to
specify the following gear configuration parameters for each month:
•

Total traps fished;

•

Number of traps per trawl;

•

Number of endlines (i.e., buoy lines) per trawl;

•

Length of groundline between traps (in feet);

•

Number of anchors per trawl; and

•

Length of anchor lines (in feet).

Using these inputs, the model employs the equations specified in Exhibit 6 to calculate the
number of vertical lines and length of groundline associated with each model vessel.

442

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT 6 . METHOD FOR ESTIMATING QUANTITY OF GEAR USED BY LOBSTER, BLUE CRAB, AND OTHER TRAP/ POT
VESSELS

Gillnet Model Vessel Calculations

For each gillnet model vessel, the model allows the user to specify the following gear
configuration parameters for each month:8, 9
•

Total Strings Fished;

•

Endlines per String;

•

Number of Anchors per String; and

•

Length of Anchor Lines.

Using these inputs, the model employs the equations specified in Exhibit 7 to calculate the
number of vertical lines and length of groundline associated with each model vessel.
EXHIBIT 7 . METHOD FOR ESTIMATING QUANTITY OF GEAR USED BY GILLNET VESSELS

8

For use in potential revisions to the model, when possible, IEc also collected information on the number of net panels per string, the height and
length of the net panels, and the length of the line between the net panels. Currently, these values are not used in the calculations described
above.

9

While wet storage of gear subject to the ALWTRP is prohibited, trap/pot gear generally remains in the water as long as it is being actively fished –
in some cases, year-round. In contrast, gillnet gear may be fished in an area for as little as a few hours. Since the potential for whales to
encounter gear depends in part on the duration of time the gear is deployed, the Vertical Line Model initially was designed to take variation in
soak time into account in characterizing the concentration of vertical line in an area during a particular month. At the December 2010 meeting of
the ALWTRT’s Northeast Subgroup, the team raised concerns about the adequacy of the approach employed to determine and adjust for soak
time. IEc received suggestions on alternative methods; however, consensus on a specific method was not reached. The team requested that IEc
conduct a model run to test the impact and importance of the soak time assumption. IEc conducted the test assuming that vertical line from
gillnets would remain in the water for the entire month. The test showed that this assumption resulted in a small increase in the estimate of the
total number of lines deployed (0.07 to 0.4 percent, depending on the month). The results proved to be relatively insensitive to the treatment of
gillnet soak time because the overall figure is driven primarily by the use of vertical line in trap/pot fisheries. Given this finding, the working
group assigned to examine the issue determined that soak time was not of sufficient importance to warrant further analysis or more detailed
treatment in the model.

443

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Indicator Development

To estimate the total number of vertical lines in the water, the model considers each fishery
group (i.e., lobster, gillnet, blue crab, other trap/pot) independently. Users have the option to
view results for each group separately or as the sum of all four groups. For each group the model
first estimates the average number of vertical lines per grid cell, based on the model vessels
assigned to that grid cell. Where data permit (see Section 4 below for more detail), several
model vessels may be assigned to the same grid cell. In these cases, each model vessel
represents the percentage of vessels within the grid cell that operate with its particular
configuration. This effectively allows for the development of weighted average estimates for the
number of vertical lines in a given grid cell. We present example calculations below.
•

Activity within a one-minute grid cell during a specific month is represented by model
vessels A, B, and C.

•

The number of vertical lines deployed by these model vessels in a specific month is
200, 100, and 80, respectively.

•

The share of vessels fishing with each configuration is estimated as 50 percent, 30
percent, and 20 percent, respectively.

•

For this grid cell and month, the model would estimate a weighted average of 146
vertical lines per vessel ([200 * 0.5] + [100*0.3] + [80*0.2]).10

Exhibit 8 provides the current baseline estimates of the number of vertical lines by
ALWTRP region, month, and fishery (includes exempt waters).
To estimate the total length of groundline in the water, the model employs the same approach
described above for vertical lines, but uses the length of groundline estimates developed for each
model vessel.
COMBINED WHALE SIGHTINGS AND VERTICAL LINE INDICATOR ( CO- OCCURRENCE)

As a relative indicator of the potential for whale entanglement in commercial fishing line, the
model combines effort-adjusted whale sightings information provided by NARWC with
estimates of the number of vertical lines in the water at a particular location and time. 11 To
facilitate presentation and interpretation of the co-occurrence indicator, the underlying vertical
line and whale sightings measures are indexed on a scale from 0 to 1,000.12 For each grid cell,
the indexed values are then multiplied to generate a combined indicator score, which may range
in value from zero to 1 million.13 Based on the grid cell size used to develop the effort-corrected
whale sightings data, the co-occurrence indicator is presented at the ten-minute grid cell level.14
Exhibit 9 maps cumulative co-occurrence in the Northeast using indexed Right whale SPUE
from 2010 to 2018 and the current baseline number of vertical lines.
10

In several Northeast states (see Section 4), the data allow us to delineate distributions of model vessels based on traps per trawl and traps fished.

The calculations employed to estimate the number of vertical lines across these distributions are the same as those described in this example,
with the primary difference being a larger number of model vessels assigned to individual areas.

444

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT 8 . 2017 BASELINE ESTIMATES - NUMBER OF VERTICAL LINES

FISHERY

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

NORTHEAST
Lobster

186,440

121,094

119,761

212,947

381,881

578,053

844,079

929,582

915,911

871,298

657,585

338,494

Gillnet

815

396

306

814

1,308

3,614

5,780

4,980

4,366

3,202

1,569

1,313

OTP

131

135

50

696

3,103

3,267

4,135

3,052

3,756

4,303

3,464

1,920

187,386

121,625

120,117

214,457

386,292

584,933

853,994

937,614

924,033

878,802

662,618

341,727

4,422

2,669

4,049

6,715

9,409

12,877

12,847

11,155

8,279

6,578

6,631

5,929

Total

MIDATLANTIC
Lobster

342

0

66,975

170,984

251,394

275,300

297,413

287,452

257,676

197,146

113,517

7,448

Gillnet

Blue Crab

1,499

2,091

2,858

3,008

1,924

1,214

994

1,292

2,031

2,477

2,500

1,954

OTP

4,495

3,008

3,519

11,284

11,036

8,119

7,229

6,602

9,848

10,812

14,277

7,939

Total

10,759

7,768

77,401

191,991

273,763

297,511

318,483

306,501

277,834

217,013

136,925

23,269

22,979

23,261

25,323

26,322

25,810

25,252

23,341

22,199

22,579

22,655

21,072

20,023

18

12

24

49

27

24

12

12

30

42

63

36

2,460

2,833

1,674

2,435

1,497

1,624

718

0

0

298

934

934

SOUTHEAST
Blue Crab
Gillnet
OTP
Total
Total

11

25,457

26,106

27,021

28,806

27,334

26,900

24,072

22,211

22,609

22,995

22,069

20,993

223,602

155,498

224,540

435,254

687,389

909,344

1,196,548

1,266,326

1,224,476

1,118,811

821,612

385,989

The vertical line component of the combined indicator reflects the sum of the number of vertical lines estimated across the fishery groups (i.e.,

lobster, gillnet, blue crab, and other trap/pot).
12

Specifically, for each measure, the highest value identified across all months and grid cells is set to 1,000. Other grid cell values are then indexed

to the scale by dividing by the highest value and multiplying by 1,000. At the recommendation of the NEFSC, we updated the approach to account
for outliers (extremely high values) that may occur as result of extremely low effort in a cell (defined as less than one kilometer). To account for
this, the model assigns 1,000 to the grid cell with next highest value where the effort is greater than one kilometer.
13

As stated above, users may view monthly maps of the NARWC’s effort-corrected whale sightings information. This information is indexed on a 0

to 1,000 scale.
14

It is important to note that the method described assigns a co-occurrence score of zero whenever the vertical line score or SPUE score is zero.

While this is conceptually appropriate – there is no potential for whales to interact with vertical line where whales are not present or when gear
is absent – it has nonetheless raised concern among some members of the ALWTRT that it provides a misleading characterization of risk. This
concern stems from the understanding that to date, effort to survey the Atlantic coast for the presence of whales is in some areas inadequate to
provide a reliable portrayal of their seasonal distribution. It also stems from the recognition that, absent physical barriers to entry, individual
members of the species of concern could occur anywhere within the jurisdiction of the ALWTRP. Given these concerns, IEc worked with NMFS and
the ALWTRT to develop methods of adjusting SPUE values to account for the potential presence of whales in areas or months for which the
available SPUE are inadequate. Appendix C of the model’s 2014 documentation describes these methods and presents an analysis of the impact of
employing adjusted SPUE values on co-occurrence scores. See “Draft Technical Documentation for the Vertical Line Model,” Prepared for NOAA
National Marine Fisheries Service by Industrial Economics, Inc., March 2014.

445

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT 9 . 2017 CUMULATIVE BASELINE CO- OCCURRENCE – RIGHT WHALES ( 2010 - 2018) / 2017 NUMBER OF
VERTICAL LINES ( ALL FISHERIES)

SCENARIO GENERATION

The model allows users to test for the impact of different management scenarios on the number
of active vessels, the quantity of gear, and the degree of co-occurrence. Users may develop
scenarios that employ one or more of the following actions:
•

Gear configuration requirements – The user can develop scenarios that impose
specific gear configuration requirements, such as establishing restrictions on the
number of traps per trawl allowed in a given area. For example, in an area that
currently allows fishermen to employ singles, users could develop a scenario that
requires a minimum of three traps per trawl. In this case, the model would increase the
number of traps per trawl for those model vessels fishing singles and doubles to three
traps per trawl. This action would reduce the number of vertical lines in that area.

•

Redistribute fishing effort – The user may wish to develop scenarios that call for an
increase or decrease in fishing effort in an area. The model allows the user to specify,
as a percentage ofbaseline effort, the magnitude of this change. For example, the user
may wish to test the impact of a closure on a specific area. In this case, the model will
eliminate all fishing effort within the selected area. The user can examine the effect of
446

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

displacement of effort to surrounding areas by adjusting the inputs for those areas to
reflect the addition of displaced vessels.
REPORTING TOOLS

The model provides the capability to explore both baseline conditions and the implications of
different management scenarios for each indicator described above. Results are available as:
•

Maps – Users can produce a map for a specific month and indicator or the cumulative
value across multiple months. In addition, users can develop maps that show the
change in indicator values associated with a management measure (e.g., a reduction
in co-occurrence from the baseline).

•

Spreadsheets – Users can export results in a variety of file formats to support more
complex analyses.

•

Animations – Users can export monthly or seasonal maps to create animations in
PowerPoint or other software. These animations can be used to visually display changes
across months (or seasons) or between the baseline and alternative management
scenarios.

ILLUSTRATIVE BASELINE RESULTS

Exhibits 10 and 11 provide maps that illustrate the monthly cumulative distribution of vessel
activity and vertical line in the Northeast region, respectively. Exhibit 12 presents a map
illustrating the change in cumulative co-occurrence associated with a recently considered
management measure. Exhibit 13 presents a histogram illustrating the baseline distribution of
vertical line, by region and month, across the Atlantic coast.

447

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT 10 . CUMULATIVE 2017 BASELINE NUMBER OF ACTIVE VESSELS ( ALL MONTHS / ALL FISHERIES)

448

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

EXHIBIT 11 . CUMULATIVE 2017 BASELINE NUMBER OF VERTICAL LINES ( ALL M ONTHS / ALL FISHERIES)

449

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

EXHIBIT 12 . CUMULATIVE CHANGE IN CO- OCCURRENCE IN RESPONSE TO A PROPOSED MANAGEMENT
MEASURE ( ALL MONTHS / ALL FISHERIES / RIGHT WHA LES 2010 - 2018)

450

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

EXHIBIT 13 . 2017 BASELINE ESTIMATES – NUMBER OF VERTICAL LINES

451

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

4. LOCATION SPECIFIC METHODS AND DATA SOURCES
INTRODUCTION

The section details the location-specific methods and data sources employed in the Vertical
Line/Co- occurrence Model. IEc reviewed the assumptions used to estimate vessel activity and
gear use with representatives of state fisheries management agencies, NEFSC, NMFS gear
experts, and fishermen on the ALWTRT. IEc shared its assumptions in writing and during
multiple presentations to the ALWTRT and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission so
that all participants were given the opportunity to review and comment. The documentation
below incorporates this feedback, reflecting the latest 2017 baseline model assumptions.
Throughout the discussion below, the documentation references numerous geographic areas used
to assign gear configurations within the model. Appendix B identifies the geographic location,
Region ID, and name of each region. It may be useful to refer to this appendix while reviewing
the specific methods employed for each location.
USE OF VTR AND SOUTHEAST LOGBOOK DATA TO ESTIMATE VESSEL ACTIVITY

To estimate the number of active vessels that are subject to the requirements of the ALWTRP,
the model employs information from both state and Federal datasets. As the primary source of
information on activity in Federal waters, the model relies on two large datasets provided by
NMFS:
•

Northeast Vessel Trip Report (VTR) system. VTR covers waters north of Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina. Most commercial fishing permits administered by NMFS’
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) require fishermen to file a VTR
at the conclusion of every trip.15 VTR provides data on the gear the vessel employed
and the area in which it fished, along with other information. Specifically, fishermen
provide longitude and latitude coordinates that represent their average location for each
fishing trip.

•

Southeast Logbook. Similar to VTR, the Logbook requires trip-level reporting;
however, fishermen are required to identify the location of their fishing effort on a
1-degree grid, as opposed to a specific location.

Through spatial analysis of the VTR and Logbook data, the model assigns trips to the spatial
grid that the user specifies, creating a series of monthly datasets for each fishery (i.e., lobster,
blue crab, other trap/pot, and gillnet). For each vessel, the model then apportions activity
based on the ratio of trips reported within a particular grid cell to the total number of trips
taken within the month. For example, consider a vessel that reports 10 trips during the course
of a month, seven within Cell A and three within Cell B. The model apportions this vessel’s
activity for the month by assigning 0.7 active vessels to Cell A and 0.3 active vessels to Cell
B. In the final step, the model sums the apportioned activity from all vessels within each grid
cell.
15

Technically, the regulations require fishermen to submit separate reports for each statistical area and type of gear fished. In practice, many

fishermen compile all information for a single trip on one form.

452

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Although the model employs VTR and Logbook data throughout its range (i.e., in state and
Federal waters), the contribution of these data to the estimates of the number active vessels
depends on the fishery and geographic location:

16

•

Lobster. Unlike other permits administered by GARFO, Federal lobster permits
currently impose no trip report requirements. As a result, the VTR database typically
does not contain information on the activity of vessels that hold a Federal lobster
permit but no other Federal permit. This is of particularly concern in LMA 1 (off the
coast of Maine, New Hampshire, and northeastern Massachusetts), where vessels that
hold only a Federal lobster permit are common.
At the recommendation of Northeast state fisheries administrators, the updated model
uses state-collected data to characterize the activity of lobster vessels in Northeast
Nearshore waters.16 The model relies on VTR data, along with NMFS permit data, to
characterize activity in the Northeast Offshore, Mid-Atlantic Nearshore, and MidAtlantic Offshore lobster fisheries.

•

Blue Crab. While some fishing for blue crab occurs in the Northeast region, analysis of
VTR and discussions with state fisheries managers indicate that most blue crab fishing
occurs south of New Jersey. To reflect blue crab’s importance in these waters, the
model identifies blue crab as a separate fishery (based on VTR and Logbook gear and
species codes) in waters south of the New Jersey/Delaware border.17 This fishery is
heavily concentrated in state waters. This is confirmed by 2017 fishing activity data,
which report no blue crab fishing in Federal waters south of New Jersey. As a result, the
model uses state logbook data to account for the majority of blue crab effort.

•

Other Trap/Pot. Within the other trap/pot (OTP) fishery, commercial fishermen
frequently maintain and use different types of gear to target different species. For
purposes of analysis, the model assumes that each OTP vessel maintains separate sets
of gear for each species it targets. To provide an accurate characterization of the
amount of gear such vessels employ, the model treats multi-purpose trips as separate
events. For example, a vessel that targets both black sea bass and hagfish on the same
trip is treated as having taken two trips to the same location. The determination of the
species targeted is based on VTR and Logbook gear and species codes. VTR and
Logbook data contribute to estimates of fishing activity in both state and Federal
waters, where these fisheries are permitted.

•

Gillnet. The model identifies gillnet activity based on VTR and Logbook gear codes.
VTR and Logbook data contribute to estimates of fishing activity in both state and
Federal waters, where these fisheries are permitted.

The previous version of model used Federal permit data, in conjunction with VTR, to characterize the activity of lobster vessels in all Federal

waters. A modified version of this approach is still in use to characterize vessel activity in the offshore lobster fishery.
17

Blue crab fishing activity north of this border is included as a component of the other/trap pot fishery.

453

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
ACCOUN TIN G FOR RECENT VERTICAL LINE R ULE MAK I N GS

The data the model employs to characterize gear configurations in state waters do not distinguish
between areas subject to the vertical line rules and those that are exempt. Therefore, the data
often show vessels fishing in a manner that would be prohibited in areas subject to minimum
trawl size requirements. To characterize activity in non-exempt waters, we assume these vessels
trawl up to the nearest legal gear configuration. For example, the Maine data show a proportion
of vessels fishing singles in state waters, which is allowed in the exempted area, but prohibited in
the non-exempt waters. In the non-exempt share of the state zones, we assume this proportion of
vessels fishes doubles, as allowed by the Plan.
FEDERAL NORTHEAST N EARS HORE WATERS

In the Northeast, Nearshore waters comprise the portions of LMAs 1, 2, 4, and the Outer Cape
that lie outside of state waters (see Exhibit FED-1). Because of their intermediate position, the
methods for characterizing activity and gear configurations in nearshore waters are hybrid in
nature, incorporating data from diverse sources, including state logbook programs. To the extent
that the model incorporates state- submitted data for nearshore waters, the methods are included
in each state’s profile (see below). The discussion below provides an overview of these methods,
highlighting the ways in which the model integrates state data and Federal data to form a more
refined characterization of activity and gear. The discussion begins with a review of methods
used to estimate the number of active vessels in Nearshore waters, then describes methods for
characterizing gear configurations.

454

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

EXHIBIT FED- 1 . NORTHEAST NEARSHORE MODEL VESSEL REGIONS

Northeast Nearshore Lobster
Active Vessels

The principal obstacle to estimating vessel activity in nearshore waters is the fact that lobster
vessels holding only a lobster permit (i.e., no permits for other species) are not required to
report to the Federal VTR program. To address this extensive reporting gap, the model
previously used Federal permit data to estimate the number of non-reporters. In the absence of
better information, the model distributed the activity of these vessels evenly across nearshore
waters. State fisheries managers reviewing the earlier model asserted that this approach
misrepresented the level of effort and spatial distribution of activity.

455

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Based on their recommendation, the current version of the model characterizes activity in
nearshore waters using state data on vessels that hold Federal permits but do not report to
VTR.
Specific data sources and methods for each state are as follows:
•

Maine. The Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) “100% Dealer Reporting”
data report the individual vessels that were active in each of the seven Maine lobster
zones in each month (see Exhibit ME-1 below). Active vessels are those that landed at
least 100 pounds of lobster. The vessels identified include all federally permitted
vessels, regardless of whether they are subject to VTR requirements. We rely on these
data to estimate the number of active vessels operating in each zone. Within each zone,
the model distributes the location of vessel activity by distance from shore (i.e., 0-3, 312, or 12+ miles). The distribution of activity by distance from shore within each
lobster zone is derived from Maine’s “10% Harvester Reporting” data, which provides
information on the location of activity for the vessels included in the harvester survey
sample.

•

New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (FGD) requires
that fishermen who land up to 1,000 pounds of lobster in a calendar year report their
activity using the Annual Lobster Harvester Report, which includes a monthly
summary of fishing activity. Fishermen who land over 1,000 pounds in a calendar
year must file the Lobster Fisherman and Dealer Reporting Form, which includes triplevel data. To avoid double-counting activity captured in Federal datasets, we remove
from the FGD dataset all records for fishermen who also report to the Federal VTR
system. The FGD data indicate that a small number of New Hampshire-based vessels
fish in nearshore waters (LMA 1 or Statistical Area 513), but do not report to VTR.
Nearshore activity therefore includes these vessels, plus relevant activity reported in
VTR.

•

Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) provided
detailed vessel-level data to support development of the Vertical Line Model. Merging
information from the trip-level and annual reporting components of its Catch Report
data, MA DMF provided a comprehensive database of activity and gear configurations
for all fixed-gear fisheries in 2017. The DMF dataset allows identification and removal
of vessels that are subject to Federal VTR requirements. Therefore, the model
characterizes activity in Massachusetts’ nearshore waters (Massachusetts Statistical
Reporting Areas 15 through 20) on the basis of the VTR dataset, supplemented by
information from the DMF dataset on vessels that are not subject to VTR requirements.

•

Rhode Island. The Rhode Island DEM Division of Marine Fisheries (RI DEM)
provided 2017 vessel-level data from its state logbook program. The data include
information on the activity of Federal permit holders fishing in Federal portions of
NMFS statistical areas 539 and 611, as well as activity in statistical areas 537, 616, and
623. The model distributes this activity evenly across the relevant statistical area.
Additional nearshore effort reported to VTR is added to the activity of non-VTR
456

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

reporters captured in the RI DEM data.
The model's revised approach uses state-reported active vessel data to help characterize effort in
overlapping regions of Federal nearshore waters in LMAs 1, 2, 4, and the Outer Cape. Exhibit
FED-2 summarizes the nature of the overlap and the approximate number of vessels that the
model incorporates from overlapping input areas. The Model Vessel Region(s) column reflects
the region to which the vessels are attributed in the model output. The Overlapping State Area
column reflects the area of overlap from a neighboring state. For example, depending on the
month, the model evenly distributes one to four vessels from Massachusetts SRA 20 across the
Federal portions of ME Zone D, E, F, and G outside 3 miles.
EXHIBIT FED- 2 . LOBSTER ACTIVITY IN OVERLAPPING FEDERAL NORTHEAST NEARSHORE REGIONS

APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF VESSELS
NMFS STAT

OVERLAPPING STATE

AREA

513

AREA

MODEL VESSEL REGION(S)

Portions of ME Zones D, E, F,
and G outside 3 miles

FROM OVERLAPPING STATE VESSEL
DATA*

MA SRA 20

1 - 4 vessels in Federal waters only

NH 513

2 - 4 vessels in Federal waters only

514

Portions of ME Zones F and G
outside 12 miles

MA SRA 19

3 - 8 vessels based on area of overlap
(assumes equal distribution of vessels
across the overlapping areas)

537

MA SRA 12 and MA SRA 18

RI 537

0 to 2 vessels

539

RI 539

MA SRA 15

0 vessels reported in 2017

Exhibit FED-3 summarizes the number of active vessels in northeast nearshore waters, by
model vessel area and month.
Gear Configurations

State logbook data also provide the detailed information needed to characterize gear
configurations in Northeast Nearshore waters. The specification of each model vessel includes
the total number of traps that the vessel fishes and the number of traps fished per trawl. As with
northeast state waters, the model applies a distributional approach to characterize gear
configurations in nearshore waters. Rather than estimate the concentration of vertical line based
on a single model vessel designed to represent the average or typical configuration of gear, the
model specifies multiple model vessels – representing the mix of gear configurations currently in
use – and specifies the percentage of active lobster vessels to which each configuration applies.
Appendix C presents the distribution of gear configurations for Northeast Nearshore waters. The
table shows each model vessel area and month combination, and the percentage distribution of
vessels to each gear configuration bin (i.e., the combination of traps fished and traps per trawl).
The data and methods for relevant northeast states are presented in the sections below. Note
that where appropriate, the model adjusts the trap-per-trawl figures to conform to the
457

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

requirements enacted in 2014/2015. These minimum trap-per-trawl requirements apply in a
large share of Northeast Nearshore waters.
EXHIBIT FED- 3 . ACTIVE LOBSTER VESSELS IN NORTHEAST NEARSHORE WATERS ( 2017 )

NEARSHORE AREA

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

35

54
11

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

85

93

112

112

12

10

10 3

SEP

OCT

46

27

Maine State Zone B 12+

14

12

Maine State Zone B 3-12 Miles

38 8

20

30

36

44

48

45

56

58

63

50

Maine State Zone C 12+

15

16

21

18

16

17

15

12

12

11

14

16

Maine State Zone C 3-12 Miles

66

39

38

52

47

49

41

35

44

58

64

67

Maine State Zone D 12+

55

35

39

55

46

42

37

35

37

42

44

44

Maine State Zone D 3-12 Miles

43

28

40

41

55

43

40

49

52

50

58

52

2

7

87
4

23

25

24

23

14

12

13

13

Maine State Zone E 3-12 Miles

34

21

32

26

28

21

12

17

29

29

30

28

Maine State Zone F 12+

15

23

22

16

8

10

11

17

12

18

Maine State Zone F 3-12 Miles

60

44

34

36

19

20

20

20

24

25

Maine State Zone G 12+

11

11

Maine State Zone G 3-12 Miles

35

21

9

8

23

8
25

6

39

29
5

41

5

36

5

35

NH 513

2

2

2

2

2

2

Mass SRA 15

-

-

-

-

-

-

Mass SRA 16

4

3

2

3

4

7

8

8

Mass SRA 17

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

Mass SRA 18

-

-

-

-

2

3

4

5

Mass SRA 19

28

12

11

15

23

2
-

16

15

6

34

9

104
4

Maine State Zone E 12+

6

9

113

DEC

Maine State Zone A 3-12 Miles

9

116

NOV

5

39

40

9

5

16

6

44

44

3

3

4

4

3

-

-

-

-

-

9

7

7

1

1

1

-

5

5

4

4

22

10

28

37

40

33

Mass SRA 20

4

4

4

3

3

4

1

1

1

2

2

2

RI 537

2

-

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

RI 539

8

5

6

RI 611

-

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

-

RI 616

2

-

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

RI 623

-

-

-

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

12

18

19

24

22

20

18

14

12

Maine Nearshore Waters

To characterize gear configurations in Maine’s nearshore waters, the model relies on DMR’s
10% Harvester Reporting data. These trip-level data provide essential information on the total
quantity of gear that a vessel fishes in a given area, as well as information that enables us to infer
trawl configurations (see below). The data are reported by mile sub-area of each lobster zone,
allowing a more detailed characterization of gear configurations in the region. Furthermore,
Maine DMR provided Harvester data compiled across several years. Where appropriate, we pool
data from 2015 to 2017 to characterize variations in gear configuration across areas and months.
The model applies the following procedures to estimate vertical lines based on gear
configuration:
•

Gear Quantity. The Harvester data indicate the total number of traps that a vessel
458

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

fished at the time of the trip recorded. The model calculates the average quantity of
gear for each vessel in each month/area combination. To specify a distribution for these
parameters, we create several categories or bins for classifying data records. For traps
fished per vessel, we use the following categories for the specification of model vessels:
1-100, 101-300, 301-500, 501-700, and 701 or more traps.
•

Traps per Trawl. Fishermen report the total number of traps hauled in a given trip,
as well as the number of hauls performed. Dividing the number of traps hauled in a
month by the total number of hauls provides an estimate of average traps per trawl for
the month. The model assumes that if the traps-per-haul figure is five or less, the
vessel fishes with one endline per trawl. If the traps per haul figure is greater than
five, we assume two endlines are used. For traps per trawl, the model uses the
following categories for the specification of model vessels: 1, 2, 3-4, 5-9, 10-14, 1519, 20-39, and 40+ traps per trawl.

•

Gear Distributions. The model cross-tabulates traps per vessel and traps per trawl,
estimating the percentage of vessels that fish different configurations. We develop a
separate gear distribution for each month for each of Maine’s 21 nearshore model
vessel areas.

•

Point Estimates. To calculate the number of vertical lines deployed, the model must
apply specific numerical values to parameters specified with ranges. For example, for
the traps per trawl variable, we need to assign numerical values to the “10 to 14” range,
etc. To do so, we calculate the average traps per trawl for all responses in the range,
across all months. We do the same for the number of traps fished, calculating an
average number of traps for each of the ranges. The point estimates are calculated
collectively for all Maine nearshore waters. Exhibit FED-4 summarizes the point
estimates.

EXHIBIT FED- 4. POINT ESTIMATES APPLIED FOR LOBSTER GEAR CONFIGURATION RANGES IN MAINE
NEARSHORE WATERS

VARIABLE

Traps per Trawl

Number of Traps Fished

RANGE

POINT ESTIMATE

3-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-39
40+
1-100 Traps

3.5
6.8
11.5
16.3
20.9
NA

101-300 Traps
301-500 Traps
501-700 Traps
701+ Traps

213.5
409.5
604.9
789.8

54.2

Note: Over the last few years, Maine implemented regulations limiting trawl length and traps fished in several
geographic areas. In these areas, the distribution of model vessels is modified to comport to these regulatory

459

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
limits.
Massachusetts Nearshore Waters

The MA DMF Catch Report data provide a foundation for characterizing gear
configurations in Massachusetts nearshore waters (SRAs 15 through 20). For lobster
vessels, the model applies the following methods:
•

Gear Quantity. The Catch Report data indicate the total number of traps that a vessel
fished during the month. To specify a distribution for these parameters, we create
several categories or bins for classifying data records. For traps fished per vessel, we
use the following categories for the specification of model vessels: 0-99, 100-299, 300499, 500-799, and 800+.

•

Traps per Trawl. Massachusetts lobstermen do not explicitly report traps per trawl;
they do, however, report the number of traps they fished and the number of vertical
lines they employed. We combine this information to estimate traps per trawl. We first
divide the number of pots fished by the number of lines fished to calculate the number
of traps per line. Consistent with DMF guidance, we then assume that if traps per trawl
is less than or equal to three, the vessel fishes with one endline per trawl. If traps per
trawl is four or greater, we assume two endlines are used. The traps per trawl estimates
are derived by multiplying the number of traps per line by the assumed lines per trawl.
To define model vessels, the model uses the following categories or bins for traps per
trawl: 1, 2, 3, 4-5, 6-9, 10-14, 15-19, and 20+ traps per trawl.

•

Gear Distributions. The model cross-tabulates traps per vessel and traps per trawl,
estimating the percentage of vessels that fish different configurations. We develop a
separate gear distribution for each month for each of the five nearshore model vessel
areas (SRAs 16 through 20) where vessels were active in 2017.

EXHIBIT FED- 5. POINT ESTIMATES APPLIED FOR LOBSTER GEAR CONFIGURATION RANGES IN MASSACHUSETTS
NEARSHORE WATERS
PARAMETER

Traps per Trawl

Number of
Traps Fished

•

RANGE

NEARSHORE

NEARSHORE

NEARSHORE

SRA 15/16

SRA 17/18

SRA 19/20

6 to 9

NA

NA

NA

10 to 14
15 to 19
20+
0-99

10.8
16.5
44.6
54.6

11.2
17.1
39.1
NA

10.5
16.5
35.8
45.0

100-299
300-499
500-799
800+

185.0
372.1
617.2
1,314.8

172.9
389.2
690.1
1,386.5

187.9
366.8
639.4
800.2

Point Estimates. To calculate the number of vertical lines deployed, the model must
460

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

apply specific numerical values to parameters specified with ranges. The model
calculates the average traps per trawl for all responses in the range, across all months.
For traps fished, the model calculates an average number of traps for each of the
ranges. We develop separate gear configuration parameters for three partially
consolidated nearshore areas (SRAs 15/16, 17/18, and 19/20). Exhibit FED-5
summarizes the resulting values.
Rhode Island Nearshore Waters

Rhode Island DEM’s logbook data provide a foundation for characterizing lobster gear
configurations in nearshore waters:
•

Gear Quantity. The RI logbook data allow us to characterize the average number of
traps that each lobster vessel fishes in a given month. Each vessel fishing in nearshore
waters is assigned to one of the following traps-per-vessel categories: 1-100, 101-500,
501-800, and 801+.

•

Traps per Trawl. On the advice of RI fisheries experts, the model uses trap allocation
as a proxy for trawl configuration, applying the following assumptions: vessels
allocated 50 or fewer traps are likely to fish singles; vessels allocated 51 to 100 traps
are likely to fish five-trap trawls; vessels allocated 101 to 200 traps are likely to fish
10-trap trawls; and vessels allocated 201 or more traps are likely to fish 15-trap trawls.

•

Gear Distributions. We cross-tabulate traps per vessel and traps per trawl, estimating
the percentage of vessels that fish different configurations. We develop a gear
distribution for each month for all nearshore water areas as a group.

•

Point Estimates. To calculate the number of vertical lines deployed, the model must
apply specific numerical values to parameters specified with ranges. Exhibit FED-6
summarizes the point estimate figures estimated for Rhode Island nearshore waters.
These point estimates are combined with the percentage gear distributions to estimate
the number of endlines for each month/area combination.

•

Endlines per Trawl. Vessels fishing five-trap trawls are assumed to use one
endline, while longer trawls are fished with two endlines.

EXHIBIT FED- 6 . POINT ESTIMATES APPLIED FOR LOBSTER TRAPS FISHED RANGES IN RHODE ISLAND
NEARSHORE WATERS
TRAPS FISHED

1 TRAP PER

5 TRAPS PER

10 TRAPS

15 TRAPS

20 TRAPS

CATEGORY

TRAWL

TRAWL

PER TRAWL

PER TRAWL

PER TRAWL

1 to 100

NA

NA

38.0

71.4

NA

101 to 500

NA

NA

145.2

267.2

267.2

501 to 800

NA

NA

NA

700.7

NA

801+

NA

NA

NA

1,372.7

1,372.7

461

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Northeast Nearshore Gillnet and Other Trap/ pot Vessels

The model uses the VTR-based approach discussed above to estimate the number of active
vessels in the Northeast Nearshore gillnet and fisheries. The VTR dataset identified no trips in
Nearshore waters off the coast of Maine and New Hampshire. Exhibit FED-7 summarizes the
number of active gillnet and OTP vessels in Northeast Nearshore waters by month, respectively.
The specification of model vessels for the Northeast Nearshore gillnet and other trap/pot
vessels was developed using the same data sources as those used to produce the model vessels
assigned to Massachusetts and Rhode Island state waters. The in-depth discussions for these
states (below) provide details on the gear configurations assigned to Northeast Nearshore
gillnet and other trap/pot vessels.
EXHIBIT FED- 7 . ACTIVE GILLNET AND OTP VESSELS IN NORTHEAST NEARSHORE WATERS ( 2017)
NEARSHORE AREA

Gillnet Mass Nearshore Areas
(includes LMAs 1,2, Outer Cape)
Gillnet RI Nearshore Areas
(includes Areas 539 and 613)
OTP Mass Nearshore Areas
(includes LMAs 1,2, Outer Cape)
OTP RI Nearshore Areas (includes
Areas 539 and 613)

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

118

103

71

NOV

DEC

16 4

2

7

14

73

136

33

30

1

1

0

3

11

12

10 2

4

7

10

9

1

2

0

1

0

0

3

4

5

7

3

4

0

0

0

0

3

3

3

1

6

5

6

3

NORTHEAST OFFSHORE WATERS

State data do not cover activity or gear configurations for vessels operating in the offshore waters of LMA
3. The methodologies for offshore waters rely on VTR data, supplementary Federal data sets,
and other expert input, as discussed below. These approaches are similar to those applied in
earlier versions of the model.
Active Vessels

A Federal lobster permit gives a vessel the right to fish in the LMA the permit specifies. The
VTR database typically does not contain information on the activity of vessels that hold a
Federal lobster permit but no other Federal permit. Information on the location of trips taken by
vessels that hold Federal lobster permits is limited to those that also hold permits for other
fisheries that impose VTR requirements; these vessels must report all fishing activity to GARFO.
To identify vessels that hold only a lobster permit and are not required to submit VTRs, the
model relies on NMFS’ Northeast Permit Database. For LMA 3, the model compares VTR and
permit data to identify vessels that are permitted only for the lobster fishery and thus not subject
to VTR requirements. Because some fishermen maintain a Federal lobster permit but do not
actively fish, the model estimates the number of such vessels that are active within the LMA by
scaling the total number vessels permitted to fish LMA 3 by the proportion of other permitted
lobster trap/pot vessels (i.e., those vessels required to report to VTR) that actively fished in a
given month.
In the absence of more detailed information on the location of fishing activity, the model
462

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

distributes non- reporters based on the location of VTR reporters. Specifically, at the
recommendation of the NEFSC, the proportional distribution of VTR reporters to each NMFS
statistical area within LMA 3 is used to apportion non-reporters. The model assumes that the
activity of these vessels within each statistical area is evenly distributed. Finally, to estimate the
total number of vessels active in each grid cell for each month, the model adds the number of
active vessels estimated from the permit data to the number obtained from VTR. The VTR
reporters include not only lobster vessels, but gillnetters and OTP vessels.18 Exhibit FED- 8
summarizes the model’s estimate of the number of active vessels in offshore waters.
EXHIBIT FED- 8 . ACTIVE VESSELS IN NORTHEAST OFFSHORE WATERS ( 2017 )
NEARSHORE AREA

Lobster

JAN

66

Gillnet

18

Other Trap/Pot

2

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

64

58

58

50

27
2

29
2

38
4

32
4

JUN

JUL

68

79

27
4

11
4

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

70

70

12

8

8

4

6

1

1

3

5

3

75

77

DEC

80

Gear Configurations

The model uses simplified assumptions to characterize gear configurations used in Northeast
Offshore waters. These assumptions come from a variety of sources, as described below:

18

•

Lobster. Model inputs for lobster vessels in offshore waters are based on data
developed for the NEFSC’s Decision Support Tool (DST). We average across all the
traps per trawl observations provided by NEFSC to obtain an estimate for each month.
NEFSC also provided the total traps fished in each month; we divide this figure by the
number of active lobster vessels in LMA 3 to obtain the average number of traps fished
per vessel, and use that figure to specify a model vessel for each month.

•

Gillnet and other trap/pot. The specification of model vessels for the offshore gillnet
fishery relies on data collected through the Northeast Domestic Fisheries Observer
Program, which is operated by NEFSC. The Northeast Observer Program maintains
and distributes data on fishing activity off the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic U.S. for
scientific and management purposes. Under the program, trained scientific observers
travel aboard commercial fishing vessels to obtain data that are not readily obtainable
by other means, focusing on detailed observations of gear rigging and deployment.
Using records from the Observer dataset for 2015 through 2018, model vessels were
developed for the Northeast offshore sink gillnet and Northeast offshore other trap/pot
fisheries. To characterize the gillnet fishery, the model assigns four strings per vessel
and two endlines per string for all months. For the other trap/pot fishery, the model
assigns 518 traps, 148 traps per trawl, and two endlines per string for all months based
on the offshore red crab fishery, which fishes in long trawls.

Within the OTP fishery, commercial fishermen often maintain and use different types of gear to target different species. Thus, the model assumes that each OTP vessel

maintains separate sets of gear for each species it targets. To provide an accurate characterization of the amount of gear such vessels employ, the model treats multi-purpose
trips as separate events. For example, a vessel that targets both black sea bass and hagfish on the same trip is treated as having taken two trips to the same location. The
determination of the species targeted is based on VTR and Logbook gear and species codes.

463

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

MID- ATLANTIC AND SOUTHEAST FEDERAL WATERS
Active Vessels

To estimate the number of active vessels in Mid-Atlantic and Southeast Federal waters the
model relies on VTR and Southeast Logbook data, respectively, using the approaches
previously described for these data sources. Exhibit FED-9 summarizes, by fishery and month,
the model’s estimate of the number of active vessels in Mid-Atlantic and Southeast Federal
waters.
EXHIBIT FED- 9. ACTIVE VESSELS IN MID- ATLANTIC AND SOUTHEAST FEDERAL WATERS ( 2017)

AREA

Mid-Atlantic Nearshore Lobster

JAN

9

FEB

6

MAR

8

APR

8

MAY

JUN

5

19

Mid-Atlantic Offshore Lobster

12

7

12

12

14

16

Mid-Atlantic Nearshore Gillnet

65

50

38

44

33

28

Mid-Atlantic Offshore Gillnet

10

8

13

16

17

Mid-Atlantic Nearshore Other Trap/pot

19

11 4

13

15

4
17

JUL

21
19

AUG

1
17

8

8

1

3

14

13

SEP

OCT

18

20

17

15

18

16

15

13

15

20

34

49

5

4

16

Mid-Atlantic Offshore Other Trap/Pot

4

5

1

2

3

3

4

4

4

Southern Nearshore Gillnet

4

3

5

8

5

5

3

3

6

Southern Offshore Gillnet

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Southern Nearshore Other Trap/Pot

5

6

3

3

3

3

1

1

0

Southern Offshore Other Trap/Pot

2

3

1

4

1

2

1

0

0

4
18
5

9

0

NOV

2
14

1

2

2

0

0

In addition to those specified in Exhibit FED-10, the model also assigns model vessels to the portion of the LMA 2/3 overlap that intersects with

NMFS Statistical Area 613, based on information available from RI DEM. The model specifies two model vessels, both fishing 15 traps per trawl,

464

1
8

1

Mid-Atlantic Nearshore and Offshore lobster, gillnet, and other trap/pot. The
specification of model vessels for the offshore gillnet fishery relies on data collected
through the Observer Program. Using these data, separate model vessels were
developed for the Mid-Atlantic Nearshore and Offshore lobster, gillnet, and other
trap/pot fisheries based on the average Observer values for these regions using records
for 2015 through 2018. The model assigns these values for all months.19

with 267 and 1,373 traps fished, respectively.

25

1

The model uses simplified assumptions to characterize gear configurations used in Mid-Atlantic
and Southeast Offshore waters. These assumptions come from a variety of sources as described
below and are summarized in Exhibit FED-10:

19

6

23

Gear Configurations

•

DEC

1

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

•

Southeast Nearshore and Offshore gillnet. The specification of model vessels for the
Southeast Nearshore and Offshore gillnet fishery relies on data collected through the
Southeast Domestic Fisheries Observer Program, which is operated by Southeast
Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). The Southeast Observer Program maintains and
distributes data on fishing activity off the Southeast U.S. for scientific and management
purposes. Using average values from the Observer dataset for 2015 through 2018,
model vessels were developed for the Southeast Nearshore and Offshore gillnet
fisheries. The model assigns these values for all months.

•

Southeast Nearshore and Offshore other trap/pot. The Southeast Logbook provides
basic information on the number of traps hauled per trip. The model uses the average
number of traps hauled for trips using trap/pot gear for 2017. Based on discussion with
NMFS gear experts, the model assumes all Federal Southeast other trap/pot vessels
employ singles with one endline per trawl. The model assigns these values for all
months.

EXHIBIT FED- 10 . MID- ATLANTIC AND SOUTHEAST FEDERAL MODEL VESSEL CONFIGURATIONS

MODEL VESSEL

TRAPS OR

TRAPS PER

ENDLINES PER

STRINGS FISHED

TRAWL

TRAWL OR STRING

Mid-Atlantic Nearshore Lobster

736

21

2

Mid-Atlantic Offshore Lobster

1460

46

2

Mid-Atlantic Nearshore Gillnet

3.8

-

Mid-Atlantic Offshore Gillnet

5.1

-

Mid-Atlantic Nearshore Other Trap/Pot

444

26

2

Mid-Atlantic Offshore Other Trap/Pot

432

128

2

Southern Nearshore Gillnet

1.5

-

2

Southern Offshore Gillnet

1.5

-

2

Southern Nearshore Other Trap/Pot

346

1

1

Southern Offshore Other Trap/Pot

346

1

1

2
2

GENERAL APPROACH TO STATE WATERS

NMFS and IEc have worked directly with state marine resource officials to develop baseline
modeling assumptions for vessels fishing exclusively in state waters. Key modeling parameters
for lobster, blue crab, and other trap/pot vessels include: (1) the number of vessels active in
different months of the year;
(2) the total number of traps fished in different areas; and (3) the typical number of traps per
trawl. For gillnet vessels, key parameters include: (1) the number of vessels active in different
months of the year; and (2) the total number of strings typically fished.
The model development effort focused on obtaining the most recent and highest quality data
available from each state to characterize fishing effort in state waters. Exhibit ST-1 provides a
brief overview of the data sources. As shown, the model relies primarily on data for 2017; the
465

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

data for Connecticut are from 2016, while the data for Georgia include information
characterizing activity in both 2017 and 2018. The exhibit also characterizes information
obtained on gear configurations. As shown, gear information sources are of similar vintage and
vary from state to state:
•

For some states, key gear configuration parameters are estimated based on reporting
data (e.g., logbook data) furnished by fishermen in accordance with state
requirements.

•

For other states, surveys are the primary source of gear configuration information.
In some cases, these surveys are one-time efforts, while others are administered
annually (e.g., recall surveys).

•

For other states, gear configurations are largely based on the best professional
judgment of state fisheries experts.

In some cases, the gear data are taken from a mix of sources (e.g., surveys and best
professional judgment).
The individual state profiles in this section provide detailed descriptions of the data and analysis
used to characterize vessels fishing in state waters.
EXHIBIT ST- 1 . OVERVIEW OF STATE DATA SOURCES
STATE
YEAR COVERED BY MOST
RECENT ACTIVITY DATA

ME
NH
MA
RI
CT
NY
NJ
DE
MD
VA
NC
SC
GA
FL

2017
2017
2017
2017
2016
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017/20181
2017

GEAR CONFIGURATION DATA

DATA SOURCE

YEAR

Reporting
Reporting
Reporting/Survey
Reporting
Reporting
Reporting

2017
2017
2017
2017
2016
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017
2017/20181
2017

BPJ
Reporting
Reporting/BPJ
Reporting
BPJ
Reporting
Survey
Reporting

Notes: Georgia DNR conducted its survey with blue crab fishermen in March of 2018, with the responses reflecting a mix of 2017
experience and anticipated 2018 activity

MAINE

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with lobster vessels fishing in Maine waters.
Number of Active Vessels

466

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

To estimate the number of lobster vessels operating in state and nearshore waters off the Maine
coast, the model incorporates two categories of data provided by the Maine Department of
Marine Resources:
•

First, DMR provided an extract of its “100% Dealer Reporting” data for 2017. These
data report the individual vessels that were active in each of the seven Maine lobster
zones in each month (see Exhibit ME-1). Active vessels are those that landed at least
100 pounds of lobster. The data also designate whether each vessel holds a Federal
permit. The number of active vessels in each zone incorporates both state-permitted
vessels as well as all federally permitted vessels.20

•

Vessels in each zone are distributed to sub-areas defined by distance from shore, e.g.,
Zone G, 0-3 miles. Maine’s “10% Harvester Reporting” data provide trip-level
information on a variety of parameters, including more precise information on fishing
location. Specifically, in the Harvester form, fishermen report whether they fished 0-3,
3-12, or 12+ miles from shore. These data allow the model to distribute effort in a given
Zone proportionately to the distance subareas.21 In doing so, we implicitly assume that the selection of reporters for the
Harvester data is representative of overall effort and spatial distribution.

Exhibit ME-2 summarizes the estimated activity in each fishing area.22
Gear Configurations For Model Vessels

In many state waters, the model estimates the concentration of vertical line based on average
gear configuration parameters for a given area. The size and complexity of the lobster fishery in
Maine call for a more detailed approach. Rather than estimate the concentration of vertical line
based on a single model vessel designed to represent the average or typical configuration of gear
within a particular area, the chosen approach incorporates multiple model vessels for each area –
representing the full range of gear configurations currently in use – and specifies the percentage
of active vessels within the area to which each configuration applies.
To characterize gear configurations in Maine’s state and nearshore waters, the model relies on
DMR’s 10% Harvester Reporting data. These trip-level data provide essential information on the
total quantity of gear that a vessel fishes in a given area, as well as information allowing us to
infer gear configurations (see below). As noted, the data are reported by distance from shore
within each lobster zone, allowing a more detailed characterization of gear configurations in the
region. Furthermore, the DMR provided Harvester data compiled across several years (20142017). Where appropriate, we pool data from 2015 to 2017 to characterize variations in gear
configuration across areas and months. These years are selected to reflect fishing practices
20

Unlike other Northeast states, the model relies exclusively on the Maine Dealer data for estimating active vessels, both state- and federally-

permitted. VTR data are not incorporated into the active vessel count in Maine state and nearshore waters.
21

Harvester data from 2015 through 2017 are used for this apportionment process.

22

In addition to the lobster fishery, DMR also regulates the gillnet fishery and issues permits to gillnet vessels. However, DMR notes that very few

gillnet vessels have been active in recent years. To the extent that gillnet vessels fish exclusively with state permits (and are therefore not
reflected in the VTR data), the model may understate the use of vertical line in Maine waters.

467

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

prevailing after passage of the 2014 ALWTRP trawling requirements. Model vessels
assigned in Maine consider the demarcations established by recent rulemakings, including
the ALWTRP exemption line, “6-mile” line, “12-mile” line, and recent state regulations that
limit traps and/or restrict trawl length in specific geographic areas.
EXHIBIT ME- 1. MAINE LOBSTER ZONES

468

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

EXHIBIT ME- 2. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ACTIVE LOBSTER VESSELS IN MAINE STATE AND NEARSHORE
WATERS ( 2017 )

AREA

Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine
Maine

State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State
State

Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone
Zone

JAN

A 0-3 Miles
B 0-3 Miles
C 0-3 Miles
D 0-3 Miles
E 0-3 Miles
F 0-3 Miles
G 0-3 Miles
A 3-12 Miles
B 3-12 Miles
C 3-12 Miles
D 3-12 Miles
E 3-12 Miles
F 3-12 Miles
G 3-12 Miles
A 12+ Miles
B 12+ Miles
C 12+ Miles
D 12+ Miles
E 12+ Miles
F 12+ Miles
G 12+ Miles

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

86 34
52
180 337
86 60
68
140 232
146 111
114
223 346
161 92
91
180 318
125 83
65
87
149
142 89
101
117 178
47 35
32
59
103
46 27
35
54
85
38 8
20
30
36
66 39
38
52
47
43 28
40
41
55
34 21
32
26
28
60 44
34
36
25
35 21
23
39
41
46 31
27
37
31
14 12 9
11
12
15 16
21
18
16
55 35
39
55
46
23 25
24
23
14
15 23
22
16 6
11 11 9
8
6

JUN

JUL

AUG

492 786
828
310 483
537
472 652
709
511 721
754
233 311
327
347 498
507
135 153
165
93 112
112
44 48
45
49 41
35
43 40
49
21 12
17
29 19
20
36 35
34
34 24
22
10 10 3
17 15
12
42 37
35
12 13
13
8 8
10
5 5
5

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

786 714
550
235
496 430
329
215
693 626
547
309
718 697
587
362
285 282
250
185
482 457
403
274
151 140
107
81
116 113
104
87
56 58
63
50
44 58
64
67
52 50
58
52
29 29
30
28
20 20
24
25
39 40
44
44
21 25
38
36
2 7
4
4
12 11
14
16
37 42
44
44
9 9
9
16
11 17
12
18
6 5
5
6

Distributional Approach

The two parameters of primary interest in specifying model vessels for the Maine lobster fishery
are the number of traps fished per vessel and the number of traps fished per trawl. The Harvester
data indicate the total number of traps that a vessel fished at the time of the trip recorded.23 The
model calculates the average number of traps fished for each vessel in each month/area
combination. To specify a distribution for these parameters, we create several categories or bins
for classifying data records. For traps fished per vessel, we use the following categories for the
specification of model vessels: 1-100, 101-300, 301-500, 501-700, and 701 or more traps.
The Harvester survey does not require lobstermen to explicitly report traps per trawl; however,
traps per trawl can be reasonably inferred from reported information. Fishermen report the total
number of traps hauled in a given trip, as well as the number of hauls performed. Dividing a
vessel’s total traps hauled in a month by the total number of hauls provides an estimate of
average traps per trawl. The model assumes, based on ALWTRP requirements, that if the trapsper-haul figure is five or less, the vessel fishes with one endline per trawl. If the traps per haul
figure is greater than five, we assume two endlines are used.
23

Note that the total gear figure is distinct from the quantity of gear hauled in a given trip, which is also reported.

469

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Over the last several years, Maine has instituted trap and trawl-length maximums in specific
locations along the coast. The model incorporates these regions and applies the maximums that
Maine has specified in characterizing activity within them. These exception areas override any
gear configuration information based on the Harvester data.
For traps per trawl, the model uses the following categories for the specification of model
vessels: 1, 2, 3- 4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-39, and 40+ traps per trawl.
Table ME-3 incorporates the categories specified above to illustrate the application of the
approach to characterizing gear use. The table shows, for a hypothetical area and month, the
percentage of vessels that fish a given combination of traps and traps per trawl. In this case, for
instance, 20 percent of vessels fish 101 to 300 traps, configured in trawls of 10 to 14 traps. The
model employs matrices like this to characterize the baseline distribution of gear use in specified
areas off the Maine coast. The distribution for each area varies on a monthly basis, reflecting the
monthly variation in gear configurations reported in the Harvester data.
EXHIBIT ME- 3. DISTRIBUTION OF VESSELS FISHING A GIVEN CONFIGURATION OF GEAR FOR A HYPOTHETICAL
AREA AND MONTH
TRAPS PER TRAWL

TRAPS PER
VESSEL

1-100

101-300

301-500

501-700

MORE THAN

TRAPS

TRAPS

TRAPS

TRAPS

700 TRAPS

10%

15%

10%

10%

20%

15%
5%
10%

20%

35%

30%

10%

TOTAL

1
2
3-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-39
40+
Total

50%
5%
40%

5%
5%

5%
100%

Appendix C presents the distribution of gear configurations for all states where the
distributional approach is applied (including Maine). The table shows each model vessel area
and month combination, and the percentage distribution of vessels to each gear configuration
bin (i.e., the combination of traps fished and traps per trawl).
Model Vessel Parameters

To calculate the number of vertical lines deployed, the model must apply specific numerical
values to parameters specified with ranges. For example, for the traps per trawl variable, we
need to assign numerical values to the “10 to 14” range, etc. To do so, we calculate the average
traps per trawl for all responses in the range, across all months. We do the same for the number
of traps fished, calculating an average number of traps for each of the ranges. The model
470

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

applies separate sets of point estimates for state waters (0-3 miles from shore) and for nearshore
waters (beyond three miles). Exhibit ME-4 summarizes the resulting values. It is essential to
keep in mind that these are averages within each range. The model recognizes that gear
configurations vary seasonally and by area, incorporating this variation through the distribution
of active vessels to different model vessels (i.e., different combinations of traps and traps-pertrawl).
EXHIBIT ME- 4. POINT ESTIMATES APPLIED FOR GEAR CONFIGURATION RANGES

VARIABLE

Traps per Trawl

Number of Traps Fished

RANGE

3-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-39
40+
1-100 Traps

STATE WATERS (0-3

NEARSHORE WATERS (BEYOND

MILES)

3 MILES)

3.6
6.9
10.9
16.8
21.0

3.5
6.8
11.5
16.3
20.9
NA

NA

101-300 Traps
301-500 Traps
501-700 Traps
701+ Traps

31.4

54.2

200.3
410.9
602.7
782.8

213.5
409.5
604.9
789.8

Note: Over the last few years, Maine implemented regulations limiting trawl length and traps fished in several
geographic areas. In these areas, the distribution of model vessels is modified to comport to these regulatory
limits.
NEW HAMPSHIRE

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with lobster vessels fishing in New Hampshire state waters.24
Number of Active Lobster Vessels

The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (FGD) requires that fishermen who land no
more than 1,000 pounds of lobster in a calendar year file an Annual Lobster Harvester Report,
which includes a monthly summary of fishing activity. Fishermen who land over 1,000 pounds
must file a Lobster Fisherman and Dealer Reporting Form, which includes trip-level data. To
avoid double-counting activity captured in Federal datasets, we remove records for fishermen
who also report to the Federal Vessel Trip Reporting (VTR) system.
The model assigns the activity of state-licensed vessels based on the location of activity
reported by each vessel. The state reporting areas subject to the ALWTRP include the Isle of
Shoals, Seabrook, Gulf of Maine, Rye, and Hampton; all other fishing areas are located
landward of the ALWTRP exemption line. Vessels that fish more than one sub-area are counted
only once to provide a more accurate count of vessels that are active in each of the two major
areas: the state’s inland bays and its Atlantic waters.
Exhibit NH-1 presents the resulting data on the number of vessels active in NH waters in each
471

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

month of 2017.
EXHIBIT NH- 1. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF VESSELS ACTIVE IN NE W HAM PS HIRE STATE WATERS
( 2017)

WATERS

JAN

Inland Bays
3
Atlantic Waters
13

FEB

4
8

MAR

5
8

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

20

28
57

53
109

60
137

57
136

57
120

46
78

23
44

10
27

8

Gear Configurations For Model Vessels
Lobster

As with other northeast states, the vertical line model applies a distributional approach to
characterize gear configurations used by New Hampshire lobster vessels. Rather than estimate
the concentration of vertical line based on a single model vessel designed to represent the
average or typical configuration of gear, the model specifies multiple model vessels –
representing the full range of gear configurations currently in use – and specifies the percentage
of active vessels to which each configuration applies. We develop separate distributions for the
Inland Bays and Atlantic waters areas, all of which were exempted from the ALWTRP plan
trawl requirements during the last rulemaking.
24

The NH Fish and Game Department (NH FGD) indicates that OTP activity within NH waters is relatively minor. NH FGD does not maintain a

separate reporting system for the OTP fishery. Instead, OTP fishermen use the forms developed for the lobster fishery. The NH data do not
differentiate between lobster and OTP activity; therefore, any OTP activity is subsumed within estimates of activity for the lobster fishery.
Furthermore, in past years, a small number of gillnet vessels were also active in New Hampshire state waters. Recently, activity has been minimal
and FGD provided no gillnet information for 2017.

The specification of each model vessel includes the total number of traps that the vessel fishes
and the number of traps fished per trawl. To assist with development of gear configurations,
NH FGD provided an additional data set reflecting supplementary monthly data gathering in
2017. In these supplementary reports, fishermen provided an average of total traps and total
buoy lines fished per month. Linking by ID number, we appended these data to the 2017
Harvester and Dealer reporting data. We used the resulting data set to calculate model vessel
gear configuration parameters. Specifically, the trip-level data are used to estimate the trapsper-trawl configuration that each vessel fishes in each month, while the supplementary data
provide the number of traps that the vessel fishes in the month.
The merged data allow us to cross-tabulate traps per vessel and traps per trawl, estimating the
percentage of vessels that fish different configurations. To define model vessels, the model uses
the following categories or bins for traps per trawl: 1, 2, 3, 4-5, 6-9, 10-15, and 16+ traps per
trawl. The model assumes that if the traps-per-haul figure is five or less, the vessel fishes with
one endline per trawl. If the traps per haul figure is greater than five, we assume two endlines
are used.
Likewise, the model establishes ranges for the traps fished per vessel: 1-100, 101-300, 301-500,
472

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

501-800, and 801+. We develop a separate gear distribution for each month and area. As a
result, for example, the data suggest that about 13 percent of all vessels fishing in the Inland
Bays area in May fish 1 to 100 traps configured as doubles.
To calculate the number of vertical lines deployed, the model must apply specific numerical
values to parameters specified with ranges. For example, for the traps per trawl variable, we
need to assign numerical values to the “4-5” range, the “6-9” range, etc. To do so, we
calculate the average traps per trawl for all responses in the range, across all months. We do
the same for the number of traps fished, calculating an average number of traps for each of
the ranges. Exhibit NH-2 summarizes the resulting values.
EXHIBIT NH- 2. POINT ESTIMATES APPLIED FOR GEAR CONFIGURATION RANGES

PARAMETER

Traps per Trawl

Number of Traps Fished

RANGE

INLAND BAYS

ATLANTIC WATERS

4 to 5

4.3

4.8

6 to 9
10 to 15
16+
0-100
101-300
301-500
501-800
801+

6.2
10
NA
35.7
202.7
436.3
674.2
1,065.4

7.8
10.2
18.3
37.6
206.0
414.2
625.1
1,057.1

As noted, New Hampshire fishermen explicitly report the number of buoy lines per vessel. While
the vertical line estimation methodology is needed to allow testing of alternative gear
configuration scenarios, it yields estimates that differ slightly from the actual buoy line counts in
the FGD data. To address this discrepancy, the model employs a simple calibration process to
scale the endline estimates to the reported values. To accomplish this, we employed the ratio of
reported endline counts to the modeled results to create a set of monthly calibration scalers. The
model uses the scalers to adjust the baseline up or down to equal the reported endline counts for
each area.
Appendix C presents the distribution of gear configurations for all states where the
distributional approach is applied (including New Hampshire). The table shows each model
vessel area and month combination, and the percentage distribution of vessels to each gear
configuration bin (i.e., the combination of traps fished and traps per trawl).
MASSACHUSETTS

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with lobster, gillnet, and other trap/pot vessels fishing in Massachusetts waters.
Data Overv iew

473

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) provided detailed vessel-level data to
support development of the vertical line model. Merging information from the trip-level and
annual reporting components of its Catch Report data, DMF provided a comprehensive database
of activity and gear configurations for all fixed-gear fisheries (lobster, gillnet, and other
trap/pot).25 The data provide monthly, vessel-level information on quantity of gear fished,
number of endlines, and fishing location as indicated by Massachusetts statistical reporting area
(SRA). Exhibit MA-1 provides a map of the Massachusetts SRAs. The model incorporates the
data reflecting fishing activity and gear in 2017.
Number of Active Vessels

The model uses the 2017 DMF data to calculate the number of vessels active in state waters
(i.e., inshore SRAs 1 through 14). To avoid double-counting federally permitted vessels, we
remove all vessels that report to the Northeast Vessel Trip Report (VTR) system. In addition,
the DMF data incorporate Federal vessels operating in SRAs outside of state waters. For several
nearshore SRAs – 16 through 20 – the DMF data provide a preferred source for developing a
count of active lobster vessels (many of which do not report to VTR). For all areas, the model
assumes that the activity of each of the remaining vessels is evenly distributed throughout the
area(s) is which the activity is reported. Exhibit MA-2 presents the number of active vessels in
2017 by month and area for each of the three major fisheries (lobster, gillnet, other trap/pot).26

25

DMF removed all confidential information on vessel identity and assigned each vessel a generic identification number.

26

The table excludes SRAs in which the vessels of interest reported no activity.

474

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT MA- 1 . MASSACHUSETTS STATISTICAL REPORTING AREAS

475

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT MA- 2. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ACTIVE VESSELS ( 2017 )
FISHERY

Lobster Trap

Gillnet

OTP

AREA

SRA 1
SRA 2
SRA 3
SRA 4
SRA 5
SRA 6
SRA 7
SRA 8
SRA 9
SRA 10
SRA 11
SRA 12
SRA 13
SRA 14
SRA 16
SRA 17
SRA 18
SRA 19
SRA 20
SRA 2
SRA 3
SRA 4
SRA 5
SRA 9
SRA 7
SRA 9
SRA 10
SRA 12
SRA 13
SRA 14

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

1
34
20
18
10
5
1
7
0
0
0
5
3
4
4
0
0
28
4
1
0
0
0
0

2
20
7
5
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
4
4
3
0
0
12
4
1
0
0
0
0

1
15
5
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
5
2
0
0
11
4
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

5
32
18
28
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
8
10
3
0
0
15
3
0
3
5
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
5

11
54
45
48
44
40
23
9
11
1
0
6
10
12
4
1
2
23
3
0
2
7
2
1
2
0
12
2
5
13

16
85
74
77
49
53
40
19
29
1
0
7
14
15
7
1
3
16
4
0
5
7
3
1
2
0
10
3
10
19

31
108
86
99
59
63
54
26
33
1
0
9
18
16
8
1
4
15
1
0
3
7
2
1
3
1
20
5
17
24

32
113
88
106
59
60
61
28
33
0
0
7
15
12
8
1
5
22
1
0
3
7
2
0
5
0
20
5
14
20

26
112
82
102
58
59
57
25
29
1
0
5
9
7
10
1
5
28
1
3
4
2
0
0
7
0
25
6
15
20

23
101
74
99
54
53
53
21
27
0
0
3
6
4
9
1
5
37
2
2
2
0
0
0
4
0
25
1
13
28

12
77
68
84
50
44
39
20
21
0
0
2
3
3
7
1
4
40
2
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
21
0
8
20

7
60
42
53
32
26
17
10
3
0
0
3
5
6
7
0
4
33
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
2
16

Gear Configurations for Model Vessels

To properly reflect the size and complexity of the Massachusetts lobster fishery, the model
defines multiple model vessels for each area – representing the full range of gear configurations
currently in use – and specifies the percentage of active vessels within the area to which each
configuration applies. The discussion below describes the analysis in greater detail.
Lobster Vessel Gear Configurations

The two parameters of primary interest in specifying model vessels for the Massachusetts
lobster fishery are the number of traps fished per vessel and the number of traps fished per
trawl. Massachusetts lobstermen do not explicitly report traps per trawl; they do, however,
report the number of traps they fished and the number of vertical lines they employed. We
combine this information to estimate traps per trawl. We first divide the number of pots fished
by the number of lines fished to calculate the number of traps per line. Consistent with DMF
476

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

guidance and the current ALWTRP, we assume that if the traps-per- line figure is less than or
equal to three, the vessel fishes with one endline per trawl. If the traps per line figure is four or
greater, we assume two endlines are used. The traps per trawl estimates are derived by
multiplying the number of traps per line by the assumed lines per trawl. We calculate traps per
trawl individually for each record in the database.27 To define model vessels, the model uses the
following categories or bins for traps per trawl: 1, 2, 3, 4-5, 6-9, 10-14, 15-19, and 20+ traps per
trawl.
The second dimension in defining model vessels is the number of traps per vessel. Based on a
review of the distribution of the average traps fished per vessel during the year, we define the
following bins: 0-99, 100-299, 300-499, 500-799, and 800+.
Exhibit MA-3 incorporates the categories specified above to illustrate the application of the
gear characterization approach. The table shows, for a hypothetical area and month, the
percentage of vessels that fish a given combination of traps and traps per trawl. In this case, for
instance, 20 percent of vessels fish 100 to 299 traps, configured as singles. The model employs
matrices like this to characterize the baseline distribution of gear use in Massachusetts inshore
lobster areas. The distribution for each area varies on a monthly basis, reflecting the monthly
variation in gear configurations reported in the data.
EXHIBIT MA- 3. DISTRIBUTION OF LOBSTER VESSELS FISHING A GIVEN CONFIGURATION OF GEAR FOR A
HYPOTHETICAL AREA AND MONTH
TRAPS PER VESSEL
0
0-99 TRAPS

1
2
3
4-5
6 to 9
10 to 14
15 to 19
20+
Total

100-299
TRAPS

300-499
TRAPS

20%

10%
5%

500-799
TRAPS

15%

800 TRAPS

10%
10%
5%
5%
10%
10%

20%

MORE THAN

50%

TOTAL

40%
15%
5%

5%
5%
5%
15%

5%
15%
15%
5%
100%

Appendix C presents the distribution of gear configurations for all states where the
distributional approach is applied (including Massachusetts). The table shows each model
vessel area and month combination, and the percentage distribution of vessels to each gear
configuration bin (i.e., the combination of traps fished and traps per trawl). In calculating the
distributions, the model consolidates SRA 10 through 13, as activity is relatively light.
27

Note that this method necessarily leads to a “gap” in the estimate of traps per trawl; specifically, it yields no individual records where a vessel

fishes four to five traps per trawl. Limited instances of four to five traps per trawl occur in the frequency distribution because of averaging
performed across months for each vessel.

477

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Model Vessel Areas

The model must specify the areas to which a given distribution of gear configurations apply.
Model vessels assigned in Massachusetts consider the LMAs and ALWTRP regulations, which
as of the most recent rulemaking, exempted most Massachusetts waters from minimum trap-pertrawl requirements. The model also takes advantage of the Massachusetts data to develop
distributions that characterize the current configuration of lobster gear in several areas beyond
state waters: SRAs 16, 18, 19, and 20. The state dataset covers vessel activity in these nearshore
waters. In the absence of similarly detailed information from Federal sources or from other
states, the Massachusetts data provide the best available source of information on the
configuration of lobster gear in these areas. Exhibit MA-4 demonstrates the model vessel regions
assigned in Massachusetts waters.
EXHIBIT MA- 4. MASSACHUSETTS MODEL VESSEL AREAS IN STATE AND NEARSHORE WATERS

478

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Estimation of Vertical Lines

To estimate vertical line use in a given area and month, the model applies the specified
distribution of gear configurations to the number of vessels reported to be active at that place
and time. For instance, if the estimate of active vessels fishing in SRA 2 in September is 122,
the model applies the mix of gear configurations calculated for September Area 2 to these 122
active vessels.
To calculate the number of vertical lines deployed, the model must apply specific numerical
values to parameters specified with ranges. For example, for the traps-per-trawl variable, we
need to assign a numerical value to the “6 to 9” range. Based on a review of the data and
recommendations from MA DMF, we calculate the average traps per trawl across all months for
three inshore areas: SRAs 1 through 8; SRA 9; and SRAs 10 through 14. We do the same for the
number of traps fished, calculating an average number of traps for each of the ranges for each
inshore area. In addition to the inshore figures, we develop separate gear configuration
parameters for the three nearshore areas (SRAs 15/16, 17/18, and 19/20). Exhibit MA-5
summarizes the resulting values. We compared the variation in averages between areas and
months, and found the variation to be limited. Hence, we apply these values to all months and all
areas. It is essential to keep in mind that these are averages within each range. The model
recognizes that gear configurations vary seasonally and by area, and captures this variation by
employing a different distribution of gear configurations (i.e., different combinations of traps
and traps-per-trawl) for each area and month.
EXHIBIT MA- 5 . POINT ESTIMATES APPLIED FOR GEAR CONFIGURATION RANGES

PARAMETER

Traps per Trawl

Number of
Traps Fished

INSHORE

INSHORE

INSHORE

NEARSHORE

NEARSHORE

NEARSHORE

SRA 1-8

SRA 9

SRA 10-14

SRA 15/16

SRA 17/18

SRA 19/20

7.7

8.3

7.7

NA

NA

NA

10 to 14
15 to 19
20+
0-99

10.5
15.9
31.9
47.4

11.8
16.0
32.2
59.4

12.6
16.2
35.0
54.6

10.8
16.5
44.6
54.6

11.2
17.1
39.1
NA

10.5
16.5
35.8
45.0

100-299
300-499
500-799
800+

184.7
372.6
629.8
800.0

204.2
386.2
618.4
800.0

169.1
371.6
665.9
800

185.0
372.1
617.2
1,314.8

172.9
389.2
690.1
1,386.5

187.9
366.8
639.4
800.2

RANGE

6 to 9

Buoy Line Scalar

As noted, Massachusetts lobstermen explicitly report the number of buoy lines per vessel. While
the vertical line estimation methodology is needed to test alternative gear configuration
scenarios, it yields estimates that differ slightly from the actual buoy line counts in the DMF
data. To address this discrepancy, the model employs a simple calibration process to scale the
endline estimates to the reported values. We estimate the ratio of reported endline counts to the
modeled results to create a set of monthly calibration scalers. The model uses the scalers to
479

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

adjust the baseline up or down to equal the reported endline counts for each area. These scalars
are applied only in state waters, where the endline counts provided are largely complete and selfcontained.
Model Vessels for Gillnet And OTP Fisheries

In addition to the lobster fishery, the ALWTRP also covers two other fisheries active in
Massachusetts waters: the gillnet fishery and the other trap/pot (OTP) fishery. We
characterize model vessel gear configurations for these fisheries as described below.
Gillnet

Relatively few gillnet vessels operate in Massachusetts state waters, so the model applies
simplified gear configuration assumptions. The key gear configuration parameter for gillnet
vessels is the number of strings per vessel. Since the vessel-level data include the number of
buoy lines per vessel, we can use the 2017 DMF data to estimate the number of strings per
vessel by dividing the buoy line figure by two (i.e., by assuming two vertical lines per string).
The model applies an average strings per vessel of five for all inshore waters in all months. For
nearshore SRAs, the average number of strings per vessel is 19.
Other Trap/ Pot

The model characterizes gear use in the OTP sector based on data for the two major OTP
fisheries in Massachusetts: fish pots and conch pots. Using 2017 data, we calculate the number
of traps per vessel and traps per trawl for these fisheries.28 Seeing limited seasonal variation in
these figures, the model applies simple year-round averages for the key gear parameters.
Geographic variation is captured by developing separate values for three sets of waters: state
waters in SRAs 1 through 8; state waters for SRAs 9-14; and nearshore waters (SRAs 16 through
20). These estimates are presented in Exhibit MA-6.
EXHIBIT MA- 6 . GEAR CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS FOR OTP FISHERIES
WATERS

FISHERY

NUMBER OF TRAPS

TRAPS PER TRAWL

PER VESSEL

NUMBER OF
ENDLINES PER
TRAWL

Inshore SRAs 1-8 Fish Pots
Exempt waters
Conch Pots
Inshore SRAs 1-8 Fish Pots
Conch Pots
Inshore SRAs 9- Fish Pots
14
Conch Pots
Nearshore
Fish Pots
Conch Pots
28

104
118
104
118
121
150
213
166

1

1
2.5
2.5
18.5

1
1
1
2

3.7
44.2
10

2
2
2

2

We calculate traps per trawl using the method described above for the lobster fishery.

480

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

The model applies these gear configuration parameters to all vessels that report some form of
OTP activity, based on an estimate of the seasonal distribution of activity between the two
fisheries. This distribution is shown in Exhibit MA-7. For instance, in October in SRAs 1
through 8, the model assumes that 40 percent of all OTP vessels use the fish pot configuration,
while the other 60 percent use the conch pot configuration.
EXHIBIT MA- 7 . DISTRIBUTION OF OTP GEAR CONFIGURATIONS, BY MONTH

WATERS

Inshore SRAs
1-8
Inshore SRAs
9-14
Nearshor

FISHERY

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

0

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.6
0.6
0.02 0

Fish Pots

0

0

0

0

0

Conch Pots
Fish Pots

1
0

1
0

1
0

1
0

1
1
0.12 0.19

0.5
0.56

0.5
0.69

0.5
0.51

0.6
0.27

Conch Pots
Fish Pots
Conch Pots

1
0
1

1
0
1

1
0
1

1
0
1

0.88 0.81
0
0
1
1

0.44
0.67
0.33

0.31
0.7
0.3

0.49
0.67
0.33

0.73 0.98 1
0.36 0
0
0.64 1
1

RHODE ISLAND

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with vessels fishing in Rhode Island state waters.
Number of Active Vessels

The Rhode Island DEM Division of Marine Fisheries provided 2017 vessel-level data from its
state logbook program. Fishermen submitting these trip-level logbook reports hold state
permits, although the data include Federal lobster permit holders fishing in RI state waters. We
use these data to calculate the number of lobster, gillnet, and other trap/pot (OTP) vessels
fishing in the state-waters portion of NMFS statistical areas 538/539 (Narragansett Bay, RI
coastal waters, and the southern Cape Cod area) and 611 (RI coastal waters adjacent to Long
Island Sound). Exhibit RI-1 shows the location of these areas.
The vessel activity recorded in these areas includes all vessels holding only a state permit, as
well as a portion of Federal permit holders who report fishing in the overall NMFS statistical
area. The latter are evenly distributed to the statistical area, with a subset assigned to the statewaters portion of the overall statistical area. Exhibit RI-2 summarizes the activity data for
2017.
The OTP fishery includes vessels harvesting black sea bass, scup, eel, and conch. A single OTP
fisherman may harvest multiple species; therefore, the logbook data do not allow disaggregation
of these segments of the OTP fishery. However, DEM Marine Fisheries staff indicate that the
scup fishery is open year-round and has a large quota; therefore, fishermen primarily target scup.
Black sea bass are also harvested, but this activity is limited by a small quota and frequent
closures.
481

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT RI - 1. RI STATE MODEL VESSEL AREAS AND NEARBY NMFS STATISTICAL AREAS

EXHIBIT RI- 2 . VESSELS ACTIVE IN RHODE ISLAND STATE WATERS, BY MONTH ( 2017 )
FISHERY

Lobster

Gillnet

OTP

AREA

RI 538/539
State
Waters
RI 611
State
Waters
RI 539
State
Waters
RI 539
State
Waters
RI 611
State
Waters

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

17

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

57

67

54

32

20

19

17

10

6

9

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

9

18

19

15

12

10

1

1

1

2

19

20

24

13

13

0

0

0

0

Gear Configurations For Model Vessels
Lobster

482

34

JUN

2

0

4

1

6

1

5

0

4

2

0

2

0

0

11

8

2

13

6

1

1

0

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

As with other northeast states, the vertical line model applies a distributional approach to
characterize gear configurations used by RI lobster vessels. Rather than estimate the
concentration of vertical line based on a single model vessel designed to represent the average
or typical configuration of gear, the model specifies multiple model vessels – representing the
full range of gear configurations currently in use – and specifies the percentage of active
lobster vessels to which each configuration applies.
•

Gear Configuration Parameters. The specification of each model vessel includes the
total number of traps that the vessel fishes and the number of traps fished per trawl. The
RI logbook data allow us to characterize the average number of traps that each lobster
vessel fishes in a given month. Each vessel fishing in nearshore waters is assigned to
one of the following traps- per-vessel categories: 1-100, 101-500, 501-800, or 801+.
While the logbook data do not explicitly report traps per trawl, RI fisheries experts
suggest that vessels with a large trap allocation tend to fish longer trawls, while vessels
with small allocations fish singles. We use trap allocation as a proxy for trawl
configuration, applying the following assumptions recommended by RI DEM: vessels
allocated 50 or fewer traps are likely to fish singles; vessels allocated 51 to 100 traps
are likely to fish five-trap trawls; vessels allocated 101 to 200 traps are likely to fish 10trap trawls; and vessels allocated 201 or more traps are likely to fish 15-trap trawls.

•

Gear Distributions. We cross-tabulate traps per vessel and traps per trawl, estimating
the percentage of vessels that fish different configurations. We develop a separate gear
distribution for each month for each of the two areas (538/539 and 611). As a result, for
example, the data suggest that in Area 538/539, about six percent of all vessels active in
May fish 1 to 100 traps in 10-trap trawls.

•

Point Estimates. To calculate the number of vertical lines deployed, the model must
apply specific numerical values to parameters specified with ranges. Exhibit RI-3
summarizes the point estimate figures estimated in Rhode Island, with data pooled for
both model vessel areas. These point estimates are combined with the percentage gear
distributions to estimate the number of endlines for each month/area combination.

•

Endlines per Trawl. Vessels fishing five-trap trawls are assumed to use one
endline, while longer trawls are fished with two endlines.

•

Anchor Lines. Consistent with findings for surrounding states, we assume that anchor
lines are not used.

•

Appendix C presents the distribution of gear configurations for all states where the
distributional approach is applied (including Rhode Island). The table shows each
model vessel area and month combination, and the percentage distribution of vessels to
each gear configuration bin (i.e., the combination of traps fished and traps per trawl).

483

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT RI- 3 . POINT ESTIMATES FOR LOBSTER GEAR QUANTITY FISHED ( 2017 )
TRAPS FISHED

1 TRAP PER

5 TRAPS PER

10 TRAPS PER

15 TRAPS PER

CATEGORY

TRAWL

TRAWL

TRAWL

TRAWL

1 to 100

22.4

34.0

48.3

50.2

101 to 500

NA

104.0

209.5

297.1

501 to 800

NA

NA

NA

728.7

801+

NA

NA

NA

1,525.0

Gillnet

•

Total Strings Fished. The characterization of the Rhode Island gillnet fishery is based
on a single model vessel that represents gillnet operations in area 539. The
specifications for this vessel include the number of gillnet strings fished. Based on
analysis of the 2017 logbook data, the model incorporates the assumption that each
vessel in state waters fishes an average of 5.7 strings.

•

Other. The model assumes two surface lines and two 10-foot anchor lines for
each gillnet string.

Other Trap/ Pot

•

Total Traps Fished. The model specifies a single model vessel to characterize OTP
activity in Rhode Island state waters. The specification of each model vessel includes
the total number of traps that the vessel fishes. On averaged over all months, OTP
vessels in the region fish 36 pots each.

•

Traps per Trawl. No Rhode Island-specific data are currently available to characterize
the number of pots fished per trawl in the OTP fishery. However, RI DEM indicates
that the fishery primarily targets scup, which typically are harvested using single traps.
Therefore, we assume single traps for all vessels active in the OTP fishery. As noted,
fishermen also use trap gear to harvest black sea bass in limited quantities. These traps
are typically fished in trawls; as a result, the model may slightly overstate the number of
vertical lines associated with the Rhode Island OTP fishery.

CONNECTICUT

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with lobster, gillnet, and other trap/pot vessels fishing exclusively in
Connecticut state waters. All data included in the model reflect 2016 fishing activity. The
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) was unable to provide
data for more recent years.
Number of Active Vessels
Lobster

484

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

•

Exhibit CT-1 provides a map of the three major fishing areas in Connecticut state
waters.29 CT DEP analyzed catch report data to identify the number of lobster vessels
active in Connecticut waters, organizing the data by month and fishing area. Exhibit
CT-2 summarizes the data for 2016.

Other Trap/ Pot

•

A small fish pot fishery operates in Long Island Sound, focusing on scup, tautog, and
black sea bass. Exhibit CT-2 summarizes activity in this fishery in 2016. When only
one or two vessels report activity, the data are withheld. The model assumes 1.5 active
vessels in these instances.

•

Historically, a small staked gillnet fishery has operated in Connecticut state waters.
Because of limited participation, all data in 2016 were withheld. Therefore, the model
assumes no gillnetting activity in Connecticut state waters, possibly understating
vertical lines to a small degree.

Gillnet

GEAR CONFIGURATIONS FOR MODEL VESSELS
Lobster

29

•

Total Traps Fished: The specification of each model vessel includes the total number
of traps that the vessel fishes. CT DEP analyzed catch report data from 2016 to
calculate the total number of lobster pots fished each month in each of the three areas
that comprise the state’s waters. To estimate the mean number of traps per vessel, we
divide the total number of traps in each month/area by the number of active vessels in
each month/area. The model vessels for Connecticut incorporate the resulting figures,
as shown in Exhibit CT-3.30

•

Traps per Trawl: Each model vessel incorporates an estimate of the number of
traps per trawl. CT DEP reports that lobster vessels in state waters may fish singles
or trawls of up to 12 traps. Consistent with CT DEP recommendations, the model
vessels for all three state water areas assume the use of six-trap trawls.

•

Endlines per Trawl: Based on input from CT DEP, we assume two endlines per trawl.

•

Anchor Lines: Consistent with CT DEP recommendations, we assume that anchor
lines are not used.

CT DEP typically uses the terms Western LIS, Central Basin, and Eastern Basin, respectively, for these same areas. For simplicity, as shown in

Exhibit CT-1, the model uses the terms Long Island Sound West, Central, and East.
30

In several instances, data on number of traps fished are withheld. In these cases, the model incorporates an average number of traps per vessel

based on the adjacent months for which data are available. For instance, if no data are available for November, the model uses an average of the
number of traps per vessel in October and December.

485

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Other Trap/ Pot

•

Pots Fished per Vessel: CT DEP analyzed catch report data to calculate the total
number of fish pots fished by month and geographic area. To estimate the typical
number of traps per model vessel, we divide this total by the number of active vessels
in each month/area. The data suggest that fish pot vessels fished an average of 25 pots
per vessel in 2016.

•

Other: Consistent with CT DEP guidance, we assume that all pots are fished as
singles, with one endline.

EXHIBIT CT- 1. MODEL VESSEL AREAS IN CONNECTICUT STATE WATERS

486

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

EXHIBIT CT- 2 . NUMBER OF ACTIVE VESSELS FISHING IN CONNECTICUT STATE WATERS ( 2016)

FISHERY

Lobster

Fish Pot

AREA

Long Island
Sound East
Long Island
Sound Central
Long Island
Sound West
Long Island
Sound East
Long Island
Sound Central
Long Island
Sound West

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

5

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

11
15

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

19

19

19

2

0

2

9

22

25

25

2

0

4

8

12

12

10

4

0

5

8

7

4

4

3

4

8

6

4

6

8

8

0

0

0

0

0

2

5

7

6

3

0

2

0

0

0

0

3

5

7

5

3

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

0

11

TABLE CT- 3 . NUMBER OF TRAPS FISHED PER LOBSTER VESSEL IN CON N ECTICUT STATE WATERS
( 2016)

AREA

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Long Island Sound East

272

288

539

285

216

156

159

184

236

236

236

288

Long Island Sound Central

250

121

156

192

148

243

256

149

124.5

124.5

100

201

Long Island Sound West

364

274

354

329

293

302

298

351

111

111

132

153

NEW YORK

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with lobster and gillnet vessels fishing exclusively in New York state waters.31
Number of Active Vessels
Lobster

•

31

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC) provided
detailed, trip- level logbook data on the activity of lobster vessels permitted in New
York State. The reporting shows vessel activity in 34 detailed geographic areas. With
help from NY DEC, we consolidated these areas into the four major segments of state
waters – Long Island Sound (LIS) West, LIS Central, LIS East, and/or the South of
Long Island – with the remaining areas being outside of NY state waters. Exhibit NY-1
shows the location of these areas, including the demarcation of exempt waters.

Information on the activity of other trap/pot vessels licensed to fish exclusively in New York waters is not currently available. NY DEC indicates

that while other species (e.g., tautog, black sea bass, scup) are harvested with traps, these species are essentially by-catch harvested by lobster
vessels.

487

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

•

To estimate the number of vessels active in each of the four areas, we collapse the triplevel data into a monthly dataset that can be used to compile the number of active
vessels in each area and month. Exhibit NY-2 summarizes the estimated number of
active trap/pot vessels in 2017.

Gillnet

•

NY DEC provided similar trip-level logbook data for gillnet vessels permitted in
New York State. As with trap/pot vessels, we collapse these data to a monthly dataset
and compile the number of active gillnet vessels by month and area in 2017 (see
Exhibit NY-2).

Gear Configurations For Model Vessels
Lobster

•

Total Traps Fished. The specification of each model vessel includes the total number
of traps that the vessel fishes. We use information from the NY DEC logbook data to
estimate the average number of traps fished by vessels in each of the four areas of state
waters. The estimate for each area is an average over the year, i.e., the model assumes
that all traps are fished year- round, making no seasonal adjustment to the number of
traps fished. Exhibit NY-3 summarizes the assumptions.

•

Traps per Trawl. Each model vessel incorporates an estimate of the number of traps
per trawl. Traps per trawl are reported with the logbook data, so averages over the year
are calculated for each fishing area (Exhibit NY-3).

•

Endlines per Trawl. Based on input from NY DEC, we assume two endlines per trawl.

•

Anchor Lines. We assume that anchor lines are not used.

Gillnet

•

For gillnets, the model incorporates an estimate of the number of strings fished per
vessel. The NY DEC logbook data include information on this parameter; therefore, the
model incorporates an estimate of the average number of strings per vessel in each area
of state waters. Exhibit NY- 4 presents the estimates.

•

The gillnet model vessels also include a parameter reflecting the number of net
panels per string. Exhibit NY-4 includes an estimate for each area, as calculated
from the NY DEC logbook data.

488

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT NY- 1 . NEW YORK STATE MODEL VESSEL AREAS

TABLE NY- 2 .

FISHERY

Lobster

Gillnet

LOBSTER AND GILLNET VESSELS ACTIVE IN NEW YORK STATE WATERS ( 2017 )

AREA

Long Island
Sound East
Long Island
Sound Central
South of Long
Island Sound
Long Island
Sound West
Long Island
Sound East
Long Island
Sound Central
South of Long
Island Sound
Long Island
Sound West

JAN

2

FEB

1

4

MAR

3

APR

12

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

43

46

32

16

21

19

16

DEC

5

1

6

19

22

20

13

16

13

15

8

15

19

23

20

24

24

19

9

19

19

17

17

17

12

12

6

16

14

10

12

12

18

4

2

1

4

3

3

13
4

1
1

6

12

12
3

489

1

1

6

8

6

2

2

1

3
39
1

9

10

2

3
46

3

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT NY- 3. GEAR AS SUM PTI ON S FOR LOBSTER VESSELS IN NEW YORK STATE WATERS

( 2017)

AVERAGE TRAPS PER
AREA

AVERAGE POTS FISHED

108
397
615
151

Long Island Sound East
Long Island Sound Central
Long Island Sound West
South of Long Island Sound
EXHIBIT NY- 4.

TRAWL

12
12
7
13

GEAR ASS UM PTI ONS FOR GILLNET VESSELS IN NEW YORK STATE WATERS ( 2017)

AREA

STRINGS PER VESSEL

Long Island Sound East
Long Island Sound Central
Long Island Sound West
South of Long Island Sound

NETS PER STRING

1.2
1.7
1.5
1.4

2.2
1.7
1.0
3.0

NEW JERSEY

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear associated
with New Jersey-permitted lobster vessels.32
Number of Active Vessels

•

Fishery managers with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) indicate that approximately 21 vessels with New Jersey permits actively
harvested lobster in 2017.33 Exhibit NJ-1 reports the number of active vessels by
month.

•

NJDEP indicates that these vessels fish primarily in Federal waters, with a few
vessels operating in both Federal and state waters. Officials indicate that because no
vessels fish exclusively in state waters, no data on activity, landings, or gear use by
these vessels are collected.34 The vertical line model characterizes activity in Federal
waters using data from NMFS’ Vessel Trip Report (VTR) database. Therefore, the
NJDEP data on active vessels will be used only for comparative purposes.

•

While an active gillnet fishery exists in New Jersey, fishery experts believe that the
majority of the activity occurs in Federal waters.35

32

Information on the activity of gillnet or other trap/pot vessels licensed to fish exclusively in New Jersey waters is not currently available.

33

Updated activity and gear configuration information for lobster vessels obtained through personal communication with Chad Power, NJDEP,

February 22, 2019.
34

Personal communication with Peter Clark, NJDEP, NJ ACCSP State Coordinator, September 30, 2011.

35

Personal communication with Greg DiDomenico, Garden State Seafood Association, February 12, 2010.

490

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Gear Configurations For Model Vessels

•

Total Traps Fished. The specification of each model vessel includes the total number
of traps that the vessel fishes. Officials with NJDEP estimate that vessels each fish an
average of approximately 925 traps. We assume that this average is constant yearround, making no seasonal adjustment to the number of traps that active vessels fish.

•

Traps per Trawl. Officials with NJDEP suggest that lobster vessels fish approximately
20 traps per trawl, on average. This figure is consistent with a NJDEP report examining
fish/lobster potters’ use of constructed ocean reef sites.36 This gear survey reported that
the number of traps per trawl used in the study areas ranged from four to 70, with an
average of 22 traps per trawl.

•

Endlines per Trawl. The NJDEP reef study found that 97 percent of all surveyed
lobstermen used a high flyer at each end of their trawls; therefore, we assume two
endlines per trawl.

•

Anchor Lines. Consistent with findings for neighboring states, we assume that anchor
lines are not used.

EXHIBIT NJ- 1. NUMBER OF ACTIVE NEW JERSEY- PERMITTED LOBSTER VESSELS ( 2017 )

JAN

FEB

5

5

MAR

APR

3

4

MAY

2

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

19

18

20

20

18

14

17

EXHIBIT NJ- 2. GEAR CONFIGURATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR NEW JERSEY LOBSTER VESSELS ( 2017)

AVERAGE TRAPS
FISHED PER

TRAPS PER

ENDLINES PER

TRAWL

TRAWL

VESSEL

925

20

2

DELAWARE

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with vessels fishing in Delaware state waters.
Number of Active Vessels
Blue Crab and Other Trap/ Pot

•

36

Fisheries. Data provided by the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) identify
several trap/pot fisheries, including the blue crab fishery, the eel pot fishery, the fish
pot (black sea bass) fishery, and the conch fishery. While lobster landings occur, they
are largely by-catch from the black sea bass fishery.

Carlson, Jeff, et al., Pot Fishing Effort on Eight New Jersey Ocean Reef Sites, October 2005.

491

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

•

Number of Active Participants. DFW compiled logbook data on 2017 activity in each
of the trap/pot fisheries. Exhibit DE-1 summarizes the number of active participants in
each month. In the case of the blue crab fishery, multiple licenses can be fished from
one vessel; therefore, the figures likely overstate the total number of active blue crab
vessels, although the degree of overestimation is unknown. For other fisheries, the
number of participants is equivalent to the number of active vessels. The data are
subdivided by area (Delaware Bay, Inland Bays, Inshore Atlantic Ocean). These areas
are labeled in the map presented in Exhibit DE-2. Note that all activity in Delaware
Bay occurs on the Delaware side of the shipping channel. The model assumes that the
activity reported for each of the three areas is evenly distributed throughout that area.

Gillnet

•

Number of Active Vessels. DFW provided similar logbook data for gillnet vessels (see
Exhibit DE-1). As with trap/pot fisheries, all activity in Delaware Bay occurs on the
Delaware side of the shipping channel. Again, the model assumes that the activity
reported for each of the areas is evenly distributed throughout that area.

Gear Configurations For Model Vessels
Blue Crab and Other Trap/ Pot

•

Total Traps/Pots Fished. The specification of each model vessel includes the total
number of traps/pots that the vessel typically fishes. DFW provided an analysis of
2017 logbook data estimating the average number of traps/pots fished, by fishery,
month, and area. These data showed limited seasonal variation in the number of
traps/pots; this is particularly true for the blue crab fishery, which accounts for the
majority of fishing activity. Exhibit DE-3 shows the model vessel assumptions for the
average number of traps/pots.

•

Traps per Trawl. Logbook data suggest that most trap/pot vessels in Delaware
waters fish singles. The model applies this assumption.

•

Endlines per Trawl. The model assumes that traps/pots fished as singles have one endline.

•

Anchor Lines. We assume that anchor lines are not used.

Gillnet

•

Nets per Vessel. Using state logbook data, DFW provided an analysis of the average
net feet fished by gillnet vessels, organized by month and area. Using DFW’s estimate
of a net’s typical length (150 feet), we calculate the approximate number of nets fished
per vessel, based on 2017 data. This parameter shows limited variation between areas
or seasons; therefore, the model employs the mean of the values reported, nine nets per
vessel (see Exhibit DE-4).

•

Total Strings Fished. DFW does not collect data on the typical number of nets
492

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

fished per string. The model assumes that gillnets are fished singly, as is the case
in Virginia waters, further south along the Delmarva Peninsula.
•

Panel Dimensions. As noted, DFW staff estimate that net panels are roughly 150
feet long; other information on panel dimensions is unavailable.

•

Other. The model assumes two surface lines and two 10-foot anchor lines for
each gillnet string.

EXHIBIT DE- 1. NUMBER OF ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN DELAWARE FISHERIES ( 2017 )

FISHERY

Blue Crab
Eel Pot

Fish Pot
Conch

Gillnet
Notes:
1.

AREA

Delaware
Bay
Delaware
Bay
Inland Bays
N/A1
Atlantic
Ocean,
Inshore (<3
miles)
Delaware
Bay
Delaware
Bay

JAN

FEB

2

MAR

2

APR

MAY

JUN

31

38

43

1

1

20

JUL

AUG

62

70
1

SEP

63
2

OCT

NOV

44

DEC

10

3

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

2

5

1

29

DFW provided data on fish pot activity in ocean waters beyond three miles; however, the model uses Vessel Trip
Report (VTR) data to characterize activity in these waters. No fish pot activity was recorded in state waters in 2017.

493

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT DE- 2. AREAS FOR DELAWARE FISHERIES

EXHIBIT DE- 4 . GILLNET GEAR CONFIGURATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR DELAWARE STATE WATERS

AVERAGE NUMBER OF
STRINGS FISHED

9

1

NET

NET

NET

PANELS

PANEL

PANEL

PER

LENGTH

HEIGHT

ENDLINES

STRING

(FEET)

(FEET)

PER STRING

150

N.A.

494

2

ANCHOR LINES

2 (10 feet each)

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
MARYLAND

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with vessels fishing in Maryland state waters.
Number of Active Vessels
Blue Crab and Other Trap/ Pot

•

Fisheries. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) identified several
trap/pot fisheries operating in state waters. Significant fisheries include the blue crab
fishery, the eel pot fishery, and the fish pot fishery (catfish, black sea bass, tautog,
scup). Additional trap/pot fisheries exist, but are not included in the vertical line
model. For example, a conch fishery and a trap-based snapping turtle fishery exist, but
are small and poorly tracked.

•

Number of Active Vessels. MDNR used internal resources to develop estimates of the
number of active vessels in each fishery, segmenting the estimates by month and fishing
area.37 Exhibit MD-1 provides a map of the fishing areas while Exhibit MD-2 presents
the estimated activity. The data are representative of fishing activity in 2017. To
develop the estimates, MDNR used a mix of professional judgment and estimates of
fishing activity originally developed for purposes of evaluating potential risks to sea
turtles.

Gillnet

•

Number of Active Vessels. MDNR’s estimates indicate that anchored gillnet vessels
operate in Maryland’s Coastal Bays and the state waters portion of the Atlantic.38
These vessels generally target striped bass, croaker, spot, and spiny dogfish. Exhibit
MD-2 summarizes the number of active vessels and the distribution of vessel activity
by area.

Gear Configurations For Model Vessels
Blue Crab

•

37

Total Pots Fished per Blue Crab Vessel. Based on fishing activity reports, MDNR
estimated the number traps that each blue crab vessel fishes in Chesapeake Bay. For
the months that the fishery is active (April through December), vessels fish an average
of 336 pots. Vessels fishing in Coastal Bays are required to fish fewer traps; MDNR
indicates that these vessels fished an average of 164 traps per vessel in 2017. These
estimates are summarized in Exhibit MD-3.

The assessment of fishing activity has been updated based on personal communication with Brian Richardson, Director of the Fish Health &

Hatcheries Program, February 28, 2019.
38

Maryland prohibits anchored gillnets in Chesapeake Bay.

495

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

•

Traps per Trawl. MDNR representatives indicate that most blue crab potting occurs
south of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and that in this area, 75 percent of fishermen
fish single pots. The remaining 25 percent of the vessels fish pots connected on long
lines. The model assumes that vessels fish 12 pots per long line, using two endlines.
All vessels fishing in Coastal Bays are assumed to fish singles.

Other Pot Fisheries

•

Total Pots Fished. MDNR provided estimates of the number of pots fished per eel pot
and fish pot vessel in 2017. As shown in Exhibit MD-3, eel pot vessels fish an average
of 267 pots in Chesapeake Bay and 147 pots in the Coastal Bays. Fish pot vessels fish
an average of 47 pots.

•

Traps per Trawl. We assume that fish and conch pots are fished as singles.

•

Endlines per Trawl. The model assumes that traps/pots fished as singles have one vertical line.

•

Anchor Lines. We assume that anchor lines are not used.

Gillnet

•

Strings Fished per Vessel. MDNR representatives indicate that a licensee typically
fishes two strings, each with a 900-foot net. Total net length is restricted to 1,800 feet
per licensee. Consistent with MDNR recommendations, we assume that two licensees
fish from each vessel; hence, the model assigns four strings to each vessel (see Exhibit
MD-4).

•

Panel Dimensions. Based on information from MDNR, nets are assumed to be
approximately 900 feet long and 6 to 10 feet high.

•

Other. The model assumes two surface lines and two 10-foot anchor lines for
each gillnet string.

496

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT MD- 1. MARYLAND FISHING AREAS

EXHIBIT MD- 2 . NUMBER OF ACTIVE VESSELS IN MARYLAND STATE WATERS ( 2017)

FISHERY

Blue
Crab
Eel Pot

Fish Pot

Gillnet

AREA

Chesapeake
Bay
Coastal Bays
Chesapeake
Bay
Coastal Bays
Atlantic Ocean
(0-3 miles)
Atlantic Ocean
(0-3 miles)
Chesapeake
Bay
Coastal Bays
Atlantic Ocean
(0-3 miles)

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

211

28

0

0

0

154

326

449

503

483

434

362

0

0

0

49

66

81

82

74

57

36

0

2

7

22

22

15

12

11

18

15

0

0

1

3

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

12

8

5

3

2

3

2

5

3

2

2

2

1

5

3

2

6

11

13

2

3

7

5

18

25

16

15

8

13

497

14
8
23

14

0

0
14

9

2

12

10

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT MD- 3 . GEAR CONFIGURATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR TRAP/ POT FISHERIES IN MARYLAND STATE WATERS

AVERAGE
PERCENT

POTS PER

POTS/TRAPS

NUMBER

OF

LONG

FISHED PER

OF

VESSELS

LINE

VESSEL

ENDLINES

Chesapeake Bay

75%

336

1

Chesapeake Bay

25%

336

2

Coastal Bays
Chesapeake Bay

100%
100%

Singles
12 pots
per long
line
Singles
Singles

164
267

1
1

Coastal Bays
All

100%
100%

Singles
10

147
47

1
2

FISHERY

Blue Crab

Eel Pot
Fish Pot

AREA

EXHIBIT MD- 4 . GILLNET GEAR CONFIGURATION AS S UMPTI ON S FOR MARYLAND STATE WATERS

NET
AVERAGE

NET PANEL

PANEL

ENDLINES

NUMBER OF

NET PANELS

LENGTH

HEIGHT

PER

STRINGS FISHED

PER STRING

(FEET)

(FEET)

STRING

900

6 to 10

4

1

2

ANCHOR LINES

2 (10 feet each)

VIRGINIA

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with vessels fishing in Virginia state waters.
Number of Active Vessels
Other Trap/ Pot

•

Fisheries. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission (MRC) compiles commercial
fishing data via its harvest reporting system. MRC identifies several trap/pot fisheries
operating in state waters. Significant fisheries include the hard crab fishery, the peeler
(soft) crab fishery, the conch pot fishery, the eel pot fishery, and the fish pot fishery.39

•

Number of Active Vessels. Using harvest data, MRC identified individual active
vessels in each fishery, organizing the data by month and fishing location. The fishing
locations consist of nine “systems” and are defined in Exhibit VA-1. The data
incorporated into the model reflect activity in 2017; Exhibit VA-2 presents the data on
vessel activity for each fishery.

39 A small minnow pot fishery also exists; this fishery is not included in the model.

498

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Gillnet

•

Number of Active Vessels. MRC also provided data on activity in 2017 for
anchored and staked gillnet vessels. Exhibit VA-2 summarizes these data by month
and fishing location.

Gear Configurations For Model Vessels
Hard Crab

•

Total Pots Fished per Hard Crab Vessel. The specification of each model vessel
includes the total number of pots that the vessel typically fishes. MRC analyzed
harvest data to estimate the average pots fished per hard crab vessel, by month and
area, for 2017. These data showed limited seasonal variation in the number of pots
fished; however, the number of pots fished varies according to fishing area. Therefore,
the model specifies separate gear configurations for each fishing area (see Exhibit VA3).

•

Pots per Trawl. MRC representatives indicate that hard crab vessels typically fish single pots.

•

Endlines per Trawl. The model assumes that pots fished as singles have one endline.

Other Pot Fisheries

•

Total Pots Fished. Other pot fisheries show limited seasonal variation in the number
of pots fished. Therefore, the model vessels for the peeler, conch, eel, and fish pot
fisheries each incorporate a single estimate of pots fished for each relevant fishing
area in 2017 (see Exhibit VA-3).

•

Traps per Trawl. MRC representatives indicate that vessels in these fisheries
typically fish single pots.

Gillnet

•

Strings Fished per Vessel. MRC provided data on the number of strings fished per
gillnet vessel, by month and area. This figure varies little by month, but varies
significantly by fishing area. Therefore, the model specifies separate gear
configurations for each fishing area (see Exhibit VA-4). The model incorporates
separate estimates of strings fished for anchored gillnet gear and staked gillnet gear.

•

Nets per String. MRC experts indicate that gillnet vessels typically fish one net per string.

•

Other. The model assumes two surface lines and two 10-foot anchor lines for
each gillnet string.

499

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT VA- 1 . VIRGINIA FISHING AREAS

500

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT VA- 2. NUMBER OF ACTIVE VESSELS IN VIRGINIA STATE WATERS ( 2017 )
FISHERY

Hard Crab (pot)

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

1

1

2

50

46

33

31

31

33

35

32

29

3

2

6

8

12

12

13

11

6

4

4

136

209

196

169

169

157

142

124

96

5

40

43

54

59

66

62

62

53

41

6

14

34

50

52

55

60

53

42

24

7

26

69

74

74

82

80

75

50

26

8

7

18

55

80

96

105

92

47

9

9

27

38

57

68

65

52

52

42

29

1

DEC

1

2

1

3

17
1

4
Peeler (pot)

MAY

1

33

72

56

54

49

37

6

5

12

17

12

11

11

10

4

6

12

20

9

12

10

8

2

7

13

36

30

31

33

25

14

8

1

4

4

4

4

2

9

12

25

13

5

5

6

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

4

5

4

5

3

2

3

2

6

1

2

2

2

7

6

6

7

4

1

8

2

1

6

2

1
9

12

2

5

3

1

4

3

3

4

3

3

2

2

1

3

3

5

5

3

3
4
Conch Pot

2

5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3

Eel Pot

501

3
5

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
FISHERY

Eel Pot

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

3

3

2

2

2

3

1

1

2

1

2

2

5

5

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

5

9

13

13

10

1

4

3

4

3

3

3

3

4

2

3

2

3

3

1

3

1

1

1

5

8

6

6

6

5

6

8

8

7

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

3

1

4

3

2

5

3

5

9

7

8
9
1

1

1

2

1

DEC

1

3
Fish Pot

4
5

4

3

5

6
7

4

8

1

5

9
1

3

4

2

6

16

5

3

9

6

2

3

3

3

3

1

3
Anchored and Staked Gillnet

4

13

49

66

44

36

26

27

47

78

74

51

43

5

17

28

24

18

9

3

1

1

6

11

15

19

6

2

11

26

19

13

12

5

6

13

7

7

5

7

19

33

27

25

15

11

9

10

14

10

9

15

8

4

27

32

22

7

6

3

4

4

4

7

14

9

3

8

14

12

8

10

15

21

29

26

11

3

502

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT VA- 3. GEAR CONFIGURATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR TRAP/ POT FISHERIES IN VIRGINIA STATE WATERS ( 2017 )
FISHERY

Hard Crab

Peeler
Crab

Conch Pot

Eel Pot

Fish Pot

AREA/SYSTEM

POTS PER LONG
LINE

AVERAGE POTS/TRAPS FISHED PER
VESSEL

NUMBER OF
ENDLINES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4

Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles

300
191
214
247
216
229
168
135
190
100
188
100
223

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

5

Singles

168

1

6
7
8
9
1
2
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9

Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles
Singles

223
184
88
129
285
185
262
78
78
80
72
49
58
33
34
95
16
18
20
13
26

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

503

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT VA- 4. GILLNET GEAR CONFIGURATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR VIRGINIA STATE WATERS

GILLNET
TYPE

AREA/SYSTEM

Anchored

Staked

AVERAGE NUMBER OF STRINGS
FISHED

NET PANELS PER
STRING

ENDLINES PER
STRING

ANCHOR LINES PER
STRING

1

3.02

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

2

1.59

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

4

4.78

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

5

3.11

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

6

2.31

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

7

2.8

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

8

1.72

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

9

2.14

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

4

5.74

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

6

1.68

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

7

1

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

8

1.19

1

2

2 (10 feet each)

NORTH CAROLINA

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with vessels fishing in North Carolina state waters.
Number of Active Vessels
Other Trap/ Pot

•

Number of Active Vessels and Trips. The North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries (NCDMF) provided compiled trip ticket data on the activity of vessels in the
504

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

state’s black sea bass pot fishery in 2017 and 2018, specifying the number of vessels
that were active in each year by month and area. Exhibit NC-1 presents the data for
2017. As shown, the data characterize activity in four areas, including two in state
waters (north and south of Cape Hatteras) and two in Federal waters (i.e., more than
three miles off the coast, north and south of Cape Hatteras).
•

The model directly incorporates the state data on fishing activity for the two areas
within three miles of shore (i.e., state waters). In the absence of more precise data, the
model assumes that the activity reported within each of these areas is evenly
distributed throughout it. Fishing in Federal waters is handled separately in the model
through analysis of Southeast logbook data; the data provided by NCDMF will be
used to validate the NMFS logbook data.

•

Past data analyses provided by NCDMF suggest a minor level of effort targeting blue
crab in North Carolina state waters. The model does not explicitly account for this
effort, but the degree of error is likely de minimis.

Gillnet

•

Number of Active Vessels. NCDMF also provided trip ticket data for gillnet vessels.
As with pot vessels, the data indicate the number of vessels that were active in each
year by month and area of activity, using the same four geographic areas specified
above (see Exhibit NC-2). The model directly incorporates the data on fishing activity
for the two areas within three miles of shore (i.e., state waters). As above, the model
assumes that the activity reported within each of these areas is evenly distributed
throughout it. Fishing in Federal waters is characterized separately in the model
through analysis of Southeast logbook data; the data provided by NCDMF will be
used to validate the NMFS logbook data.

Gear Configurations For Model Vessels
Other Trap/ Pot

Pots Fished per Vessel. Exhibit NC-3 summarizes the gear configuration assumptions
for other trap/pot fisheries in North Carolina waters. These assumptions are based in
part a 2009 article in Marine Policy, which analyzed data suggesting that black sea
bass fishermen in northern North Carolina fish an average of 41 pots; the model adopts
this estimate.40 South of Cape Hatteras, the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (SAFMC) instituted a limit of 35 sea bass pots per vessel, beginning in July
2012. To establish a baseline for analysis of the impacts of future management actions,
the model adopts this limit as the default parameter for vessels fishing south of Cape
Hatteras. The model employs these assumptions in all months; i.e., it makes no
seasonal adjustment to the number of traps fished per vessel.
40

Levesque, Juan C., “Characterization of the southeastern US black sea bass (Centropristis striata) pot commercial fishery and implications for

western North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) management and policy,” Marine Policy, 33 (2009) 40-48.

505

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

•

Traps per Trawl. Each model vessel incorporates an estimate of the number of traps
per trawl. The 2009 Marine Policy article estimated that vessels in northern North
Carolina typically fish five pots per trawl, while those in southern North Carolina fish
singles or two pots per trawl. Our model vessels assume five pots per trawl in the north
and 1.5 pots per trawl in the south.

•

Endlines per Trawl. For vessels fishing five-pot trawls (northern NC), the model
assumes two endlines. For vessels fishing one to two pots per trawl, the model assumes
one endline.

Gillnet

•

Exhibit NC-4 summarizes the gillnet gear configuration assumptions applied in the
model. These parameters were originally developed in 2011 in consultation with the
Fishery Liaison in NMFS’ Southeast Regional Office (SERO). The parameters were
updated and refined in consultation with NCDMF staff.41 The parameters are applied
to vessels fishing within three miles from shore (see above); vessels fishing in Federal
waters are handled separately in the model.

•

Gear Configuration by Segment. As shown in Exhibit NC-4, the model
incorporates assumptions for several different gillnet segments that operate in
various seasons:
o

Vessels in the spring Spanish mackerel fishery, prosecuted in May, are
assumed to fish 2.5 strings with one panel per string. Nets are each 300
yards in length.

o

Summer Spanish mackerel vessels, active in June through August, also
fish 2.5 strings with one panel per string. Nets are each 300 yards in
length.

o

Vessels in the large mesh spiny dogfish fishery, active in January through
March, fish three strings with five panels per string. Nets are each 100
yards in length.

o

Vessels in the small-mesh fishery, active in June through October, are
assumed to fish 3.5 strings per vessel and four panels per string, with each
panel 100 yards in length.

In months where more than one gillnet segment is active, the model averages the
relevant configurations and applies the average to the active gillnet vessels. Exhibit
NC-5 presents the resulting averages.

41

•

Buoy Lines. The model assumes that all gillnet vessels fish strings with two buoy lines.

•

Anchor Lines. Gillnet vessels do not use anchor lines in North Carolina state waters.

Personal communication with Chris Batsavage, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, December 21, 2017.

506

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT NC- 1. NUMBER OF ACTIVE VESSELS IN NORTH CAROLI NA FISH POT ( BLACK SEA BASS) FISHERY ( 2017)
AREA

JAN

FEB

1

1

6

6

5

9

6

9

6

4

4

3

5

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ocean >3 mi, N of Cape
Hatteras
Ocean >3 mi, S of Cape
Hatteras
Ocean 0-3 mi, N of
Cape Hatteras
Ocean 0-3 mi, S of Cape
Hatteras

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

1

EXHIBIT NC- 2. NUMBER OF ACTIVE VESSELS IN NORTH CAROLI NA GILLNET FISHERY ( 2017 )
AREA

JAN

Ocean >3 mi, N of
Cape Hatteras
Ocean >3 mi, S of
Cape Hatteras
Ocean 0-3 mi, N of
Cape Hatteras
Ocean 0-3 mi, S of
Cape Hatteras

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

18

32

27

19

3

2

2

1

-

1

4

17

4

4

3

6

2

1

-

2

2

3

11

6

26

32

28

19

8

4

6

5

7

20

17

21

33

31

47

61

48

36

35

48

65

87

116

57

EXHIBIT NC- 3 . BLACK SEA BASS GEAR CONFIGURATION ASSUMPTIONS
POTS FISHED PER
VESSEL

MODEL VESSEL AREA

Ocean
Ocean
Ocean
Ocean

>3 mi, N of Cape Hatteras
>3 mi, S of Cape Hatteras
0-3 mi, N of Cape Hatteras
0-3 mi, S of Cape Hatteras

POTS PER TRAWL

41
35
41
35

5

NUMBER OF ENDLINES

2
1
2
1

1.5
5
1.5

EXHIBIT NC- 4. GILLNET GEAR CONFIGURATION ASSUMPTIONS
ESTIMATED

ESTIMATED

LENGTH OF

PRIMARY

STRINGS PER

PANELS

EACH NET

FISHERY

SEASON

VESSEL

PER STRING

PANEL (YARDS)

Spring Spanish Mackerel
Summer Spanish Mackerel
Large Mesh Spiny Dogfish
Fall/Winter/Spring Small
Mesh (primarily sea mullet)

May
June-Aug
Jan-Mar

ANCHOR LINES

2 to 3
2 to 3

1
1
5

300
300
100

0
0
0

3 to 4

4

100

0

3

Oct-May

NUMBER OF

EXHIBIT NC- 5. AVERAGE NUMBER OF STRINGS PER GILLNET VESSEL IN EACH MONTH
JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

3.3
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0*
3.5
3.5
* Configuration data not available for September. Figure represents the average of adjacent
months.

507

DEC

3.5

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
SOUTH CAROLINA

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with vessels fishing in South Carolina.
Number of Active Vessels

•

Number of Active Blue Crab Vessels. The South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources (SCDNR) provided 2017 data on the number of active vessels in South
Carolina’s blue crab fishery. The fishery operates almost exclusively inshore, in rivers
and estuarine waters landward of the COLREGS line that are exempt from the
requirements of the ALWTRP. Exhibit SC-1 shows the number of active blue crab
vessels by month and area (exempt and non-exempt waters). The model spreads the
inshore activity evenly throughout South Carolina inshore waters.42

•

Other Fisheries. Pot vessels also land black sea bass in South Carolina. SCDNR
indicates, however, that all black sea bass pots are fished in Federal waters. The
vertical line model characterizes activity in Federal waters using data from NMFS’
Southeast Logbook database. Gillnet vessels may target spot in state waters in isolated
months, but SCDNR experts indicate that trips and landings are minimal.

Gear Con figur a tion s For Model Vessels

•

Pots Fished per Vessel. SCDNR data indicate that blue crab vessels fish an average of
103 pots per vessel. The data show little seasonal variation, and only limited variation
between specific areas.

•

Traps per Trawl. SCDNR requires that blue crab vessels fish pots as singles (not in trawls).

EXHIBIT SC- 1. NUMBER OF ACTIVE BLUE CRAB VESSELS IN SOUTH CAROLINA STATE WATERS
( 2017)

WATERS

JAN

Inshore
96
(Exempt)
Waters
Non-Exempt
State
3
Waters

42

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

87

98

105

97

96

91

90

100

96

6

5

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

3

NOV

DEC

94

90
3

Note that DNR/OFM collects inshore crabbing data at a finer geographic resolution, recording effort in 21 individual inshore areas. Given that

inshore waters are exempt from the requirements of the ALWTRP, the model does not segment vessel activity at this level of geographic
precision.

508

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
GEORGIA

This profile provides an overview of the data and assumptions used to characterize
commercial fishing activity in Georgia state waters.
Number of Active Vessels

•

Data Sources. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources
Division (DNR/WRD) provided data on fixed-gear fisheries – primarily blue crab
operations – operating in Georgia state waters. Originally, DNR/WRD provided data
based on information gathered via mail and phone surveys conducted between
December 2009 and February 2010.43 As a follow-up to this survey, DNR/WRD
interviewed fisherman at the Georgia Blue Crab Advisory Panel meeting in March
2018. The interviews addressed anticipated effort in 2018 as well as likely gear
configurations. DNR/WRD summarized the findings in a letter dated March 18, 2018.
The results suggest little change in crabbing activity relative to the original survey;
therefore, the effort is broadly reflective of fishing in recent years.

•

Number of Active Vessels. The interviews DNR/WRD conducted indicate that
approximately 25 blue crab vessels operate in ocean waters within three miles of
Georgian’s shore (i.e., in state waters). The vessels are active in the first quarter of the
year, with a subset of vessels initiating fishing in December. Exhibit GA-1 summarizes
these estimates. DNR/WRD indicates that no crabbing effort occurs in Federal waters.

Gear Configurations For Model Vessels

•

Pots Fished per Blue Crab Vessel. DNR/WRD’s interviews indicate that each blue
crab vessel fishes an average of 55 pots, with no variation across months (see Exhibit
GA-1).

•

Traps per Trawl. Pot trawls are prohibited in Georgia state waters; all pots are
fished as singles.

•

Other. The model assumes one endline per pot with no anchor lines.

EXHIBIT GA- 1. NUMBER OF ACTIVE BLUE CRAB VESSELS IN GEORGIA

Estimated Number
of Active Vessels
Number of Pots
Fished per Vessel
Total Number of
Pots Fished
43

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

25

25

25

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

55

55

55

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

55

1,375

1,375

1,375 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

385

7

George, Clay, “Commercial Trap and Pot Fishing Effort in Georgia Ocean Waters: A Report to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team,”

March 1, 2010

509

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

FLORIDA

The discussion below explains the model’s characterization of the activity and gear
associated with vessels fishing in Florida state waters.
NUMBER OF ACTIVE VESSELS
Trap Fishery

•

Fisheries. Representatives of Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) indicate that the trap fishery operating in state waters subject to the ALWTRP is
primarily associated with the harvest of blue crab (over 90 percent). Some additional
effort focuses on the harvest of stone crab.

•

Number of Active Fishers. FWC provided detailed trip ticket data on the number of
fishers operating in Florida state waters, organizing the data by fishery, month, and
area.44 Five general areas – 722, 728, 732, 736, and 741 – are located in ALWTRP
waters; Exhibit FL-1 shows the boundaries of these areas.45 FWC provided general area
data from which we estimate the number of active fishers in each month/area
combination.

•

Activity in Inshore and Offshore Areas. Much of the trap fishery is prosecuted in
inshore waters (rivers, estuaries, etc.). These areas are located landward of the
COLREGS line and are therefore exempt from the ALWTRP. Detailed area data
provided by FWC record the number of trips to subareas within each major area. For
example, area 722 is divided into five subareas; two represent offshore waters while
the remaining areas (the St. Marys River, Nassau River, and St. Johns River) represent
inshore waters. We calculate the percent of trips in offshore and inshore areas for each
area/month combination, then apply this percentage to the total number of fishers
active in the area/month.46 Exhibit FL-2 summarizes these calculations.

Other Fisheries

•
44

Florida does not allow anchored gillnets in state waters.

The FWC data characterize activity according to the number of “fishers”. The model appropriately equates fishers with vessels, although a given

fisher may operate more than one vessel under a given permit.
45

FWC also provided data for area 717, Georgia state waters. In most months and years, however, no Florida vessels are active in this area.

46

FWC also provided the number of active vessels (fishers) by subarea and month. However, these data appear to double-count vessels active in

more than one subarea, and would likely lead to an overestimate of the total number of active vessels.

510

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
GEAR CONFIGURATIONS FOR MODEL VESSELS

•

Total Traps Fished. The specification of each model vessel includes the total number
of traps that the vessel typically fishes. Lacking specific data on the number of traps
fished per vessel, FWC provided trip ticket data characterizing the number of traps
hauled per licensee, organized by month and area. Translating the number of trap hauls
to an estimate of the number of traps fished requires assumptions regarding the
frequency with which traps are hauled. FWC suggests that it is reasonable to assume
that each trap is hauled 10 times per month (i.e., every three days). Using this
assumption, we estimate the average number of traps per licensee by area (see Exhibit
FL-3).

•

Traps per Trawl. FWC indicates that vessels fish traps singly, not in multi-trap trawls.

•

Endlines per Trawl. The model assumes one endline per trap.

EXHIBIT FL- 1. FLORIDA FISHING AREAS

511

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EXHIBIT FL- 2. NUMBER OF ACTIVE TRAP FISHERS IN FLORIDA STATE WATERS ( 2017)

Aggregate
Number

AREA

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

722
728

37
41

37
45

37
52

43
63

47
61

51
59

45
55

39
54

38
45

41
36

37
34

35
35

732

27

30

35

41

39

32

29

27

31

37

28

21

10

10

of Active

736

5

741
722
728
732

4

Fishers
Percent
of Trips
to
Offshore

736

Areas
Number
of Fishers
Active in
Offshore

2

8

3

6

3

5

2

6

2

4

2

6

3

6

6

5

7

4

0.25%
4.33%
0.00%

0.00%
4.13%
0.00%

0.22%
5.02%
0.62%

0.00%
2.96%
0.00%

0.37%
3.45%
0.30%

0.40%
1.97%
0.00%

0.42%
1.14%
0.00%

0.00%
0.82%
3.50%

0.00%
1.61%
6.53%

0.00%
1.81%
0.00%

0.26%
3.80%
0.43%

0.00%
2.60%
0.54%

3.13%

7.32%

12.50%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

7.69%

17.24%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

741
722
728
732

0
2
-

2
-

0
3
0

2
-

0
2
0

0
1
-

0
1
-

0
1

1
2

1
-

0
1
0

1
0

736

0

1

1

0

-

-

0

1

-

-

-

-

741
722
728
732

1

736

5

9

9

6

8

6

5

5

4

6

6

5

3

2

2

3

2

2

1

2

2

5

6

3

Waters
Number
of Fishers
Active in
Inshore

3

6

Waters

741

16.7%

28.6%

1
37
39
27

0.0%

37
43
30

0.0%

37
49
35

17.6%

1
43
61
41

0.0%

47
59
39

28.6%

1
51
58
32

15.4%

0
45
54
29

40.0%

1
39
54
26

10.0%

1
38
44
29

1
41
35
37

EXHIBIT FL- 3. GEAR CONFIGURATION AS S UMPTIONS FOR TRAP VESSELS FISHING IN FLORIDA
STATE WATERS ( 2017 )

MODEL VESSEL AREA

722
728
732
736
741

TRAPS FISHED

TRAPS PER

NUMBER OF

PER LICENSE

TRAWL

ENDLINES

137
79
100
61
22

1
1
1
1
1

512

1
1
1
1
1

11.8%

22.2%

1
37
33
28

35
34
21

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

APPENDIX A |

NARWC SIGHTINGS PER UNIT EFFORT DATA SOURCES

Survey data sources currently included in the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium
database, 1 December 2019.
———————————————————————————————————————
Northeast:
———————————————————————————————————————
AERIAL SURVEYS:
CETAP line-transect surveys, AT-11—1979, 1980, 1981, 1982
CETAP line-transect training flights, AT-11—1978, 1979
CETAP line-transect Great South Channel surveys, AT-11 & Skymaster—1980, 1981
CETAP POP surveys, private single-engine aircraft, USCG Albatross, B-N Islander, USCG
helicopter—1978, 1979, 1980, 1981
URI line-transect Great South Channel surveys, Skymaster—1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989,
1991, 1992, 1993
URI POP Great South Channel surveys, Skymaster—1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992
Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, Cape Cod Bay surveys, Skymaster—1998–2019
(survey format changed during 2015 season to a new one intermediate between line-transect
and POP-type)
Associated Scientists at Woods Hole, Cape Cod Bay, blimp—1990
NEFSC AMAPPS (Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species), Twin Otter—
2010–2012
NEFSC broad-scale and focused right whale surveys, Twin Otter—1998–2018
NEFSC stock assessment, harbor porpoise, other surveys, Twin Otter (maybe some AT-11 and
other aircraft)—1991, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2004
NLPSC (Northeast Large Pelagic Survey Collaborative) line-transect surveys, Mass.-R.I. Wind
Energy Areas, Skymaster—2011–2015
New England Aquarium line-transect surveys of Mass.-R.I. Wind Energy Areas (extension of
NLPSC program), Skymaster—2017–2018
East Coast Ecosystems, Bay of Fundy/Scotian Shelf, various aircraft—1997
New England Aquarium, Bay of Fundy, Scotian Shelf, Gulf of Maine, various aircraft—1994,
1996, 1997, 2011
Riverhead Foundation, New York/New Jersey, Skymaster—2005
SHIPBOARD POP SURVEYS:
CETAP, various platforms: 1978, 1979, 1980
URI, Great South Channel, various platforms—1986–1989, 1991, 1992
URI, Rhode Island Sound to Kelvin Seamount, USNS Bartlett—1986
URI, Southern New England, Gulf of Maine, Scotian Shelf, Gulf Stream, SSV Westward—1986
Manomet Bird Observatory, NE continental shelf, NOAA ships—1980–1988
Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, Cape Cod Bay, various—1987–1992, 1997–2003
New England Aquarium (and Canadian Whale Institute), mostly Bay of Fundy (partial), Mass
Bay, Gulf of Maine, various—1987–2018
513

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

NEFSC, large whale, stock assessment, and harbor porpoise surveys, various—1991, 1992,
1995, 1997, 1998,1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005
International Fund for Animal Welfare, Gulf of Maine, Song of the Whale—1997, 1999, 2000
Whale Center of New England, Mass Bay/Jeffreys Ledge—2004
———————————————————————————————————————
Mid-Atlantic:
———————————————————————————————————————
AERIAL SURVEYS:
CETAP line-transect surveys, AT-11—1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982
CETAP line-transect training flights, AT-11—1978, 1979
CETAP POP surveys, private single-engine aircraft, USCG Albatross, B-N Islander, USCG
helicopter—1978, 1979, 1980, 1981
URI POP Great South Channel surveys, Skymaster (transits)—1986, 1988
NEFSC broad-scale and focused right whale surveys, Twin Otter—1999–2007, 2012–2018
NEFSC stock assessment, bottlenose dolphin, other surveys, Twin Otter, AT-11 and maybe some
other aircraft—1991, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2005
NEFSC & SEFSC AMAPPS (Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species), Twin
Otter—2010–2013
Riverhead Foundation, New York/New Jersey, Skymaster—2005
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wallops Island & Onslow Bay SWTR,
Skymaster—1998–1999
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, North Carolina, Skymaster—2001–2002
SHIPBOARD POP SURVEYS:
CETAP, various platforms: 1978, 1979, 1980
URI, Rhode Island Sound to Kelvin Seamount, USNS Bartlett—1986
URI, Southern New England, Gulf of Maine, Scotian Shelf, Gulf Stream, SSV Westward—1986
Manomet Bird Observatory, NE continental shelf, NOAA ships—1980–1988
NEFSC, large whale, stock assessment, and harbor porpoise surveys, various—1995, 1997,
1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005
———————————————————————————————————————
Southeast:
———————————————————————————————————————
AERIAL SURVEYS:
CETAP line-transect surveys, AT-11—1979, 1980
URI line-transect surveys, Georgia/Florida, AT-11—1987
New England Aquarium line-transect surveys (MMS project), Skymaster—1989-1992
CETAP POP surveys, private single-engine aircraft, USCG Albatross, B-N Islander, USCG
helicopter—1978, 1979, 1980
514

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

NEFSC bottlenose dolphin, stock assessment, other surveys, Twin Otter, AT-11 (maybe other
aircraft)—1991, 1992, 1995, 2002, 2004, 2005
NEFSC & SEFSC AMAPPS (Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species), Twin
Otter—2010–2013
U.S. Navy, ship shock trials—1995, 1997, 1999
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wallops Island & Onslow Bay SWTR,
Skymaster—1998–1999
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, North Carolina, Skymaster—2001–2002
Continental Shelf Associates, offshore surveys (MMS), Skymaster—1996, 1997
Associated Scientists at Woods Hole, SEUS blimp surveys—1991–1993, 2001
Associated Scientists at Woods Hole, Florida nearshore surveys, AirCam—2011, 2012
New England Aquarium, nearshore, misc.—1988–1997
New England Aquarium, South Carolina, misc.—2000
New England Aquarium, EWS, Skymaster—1997–2002
New England Aquarium, central EWS, Skymaster—2002–2010
Florida Wildlife Research Institute, nearshore, misc.—1992–1999
FWRI, offshore, misc.—1996–1998
FWRI, nearshore, Skymaster—1999-2002
FWRI, southern EWS, Skymaster—2002-2019
FWRI, central EWS, Skymaster—2010 (there was a change in the survey design from three areas
to only northern (Georgia) and southern (Florida), but I don’t recall whether it happened
with the 2014-15 or 2015-16 winter season)
Georgia DNR, nearshore, misc.—1993–1998
Georgia DNR, nearshore, Partenavia—1998–2001
Georgia DNR, nearshore, Skymaster—2001–2002
Georgia DNR, offshore, misc.—1996
Georgia DNR, offshore, Skymaster—1998–2001
Georgia DNR, offshore, NOAA Twin Otter—2001–2002
Wildlife Trust, northern EWS (Georgia), NOAA Twin Otter—2002–2011
Wildlife Trust, offshore, Skymaster—2002–2003
Wildlife Trust, offshore, NOAA Twin Otter—2003–2004
Wildlife Trust, South Carolina EWS, Skymaster—2004–2011
Sea to Shore Alliance (name change to Clearwater Marine Aquarium Research Institute after a
merger in 2019), northern EWS (Georgia), NOAA Twin Otter—2011–2019
Sea to Shore Alliance, South Carolina EWS, Skymaster—2011–2013 (2014?)
SHIPBOARD POP SURVEYS:
CETAP, various platforms: 1979, 1980
Manomet Bird Observatory, NE continental shelf, NOAA ships—1980–1988
NEFSC, large whale, stock assessment, and bottlenose dolphin surveys, various—1992, 1995,
1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2005
———————————————————————————————————————
Canada:
———————————————————————————————————————
515

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

AERIAL SURVEYS:
CETAP line-transect surveys, AT-11 & Skymaster—1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1987, 1988
CETAP line-transect training flights, AT-11—1979
CETAP POP surveys, Skymaster & miscellaneous aircraft—1979, 1988, 1992
New England Aquarium line-transect surveys using Northeast Large Pelagic Survey
Collaborative protocols, Bay of Fundy/Scotian Shelf—2013
Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, Skymaster—1998, 1999, 2000
NEFSC AMAPPS (Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species), Twin Otter—
2010–2012
NEFSC broad-scale and focused right whale surveys, Bay of Fundy, Scotian Shelf, Gulf of St.
Lawrence (in 2015), Twin Otter—1998–2018
NEFSC stock assessment, harbor porpoise, other surveys, Twin Otter (maybe some other
aircraft)—1991, 1995, 1998, 2002, 2004
East Coast Ecosystems, Bay of Fundy/Scotian Shelf, various aircraft—1997–2001
New England Aquarium, Bay of Fundy, Scotian Shelf, various aircraft—1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
2004, 2011
SHIPBOARD POP SURVEYS:
CETAP, various platforms: 1978, 1979, 1980
URI, Rhode Island Sound to Kelvin Seamount, USNS Bartlett—1986
URI, Southern New England, Gulf of Maine, Scotian Shelf, Gulf Stream, SSV Westward—1986
Manomet Bird Observatory, NE continental shelf, NOAA ships—1980–1988
East Coast Ecosystems, Bay of Fundy, various—1994-2002
New England Aquarium (and Canadian Whale Institute), mostly Bay of Fundy, some Scotian
Shelf, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence—1987–2018
NEFSC, large whale, stock assessment, and harbor porpoise surveys, various—1991, 1992,
1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003
International Fund for Animal Welfare, Gulf of Maine, Song of the Whale—1997
Canadian Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, Bay of Fundy/Scotian Shelf—2006–2008

516

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

APPENDIX B

|

MODEL VESSEL REGIONS

MAINE | NEW HAMPSHIRE | LMA 1 | LMA 3

517

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

M AS S ACHUS ETTS | RHODE ISLAND | LMA 1 | LMA 2 | OUTER CAPE

518

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

MID- ATLANTIC | LMA 4 | LMA 5 | LMA 6

519

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

SOUTHEAST

520

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

REGION ID AND REGION NAME

REGION ID

REGION NAME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island Conservation Zone

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits & Zone E Trap Limits

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

17

Maine State Zone A

18

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

19

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island Conservation Zone

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

21

Maine State Zone C

22

Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

24

Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

26

Maine State Zone F

27

Maine State Zone G

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

33

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

35

Maine Nearshore Zone B 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

521

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
REGION ID

REGION NAME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

47

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles (Waters Around Mount Desert Rock)

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

50

Maine Nearshore Zone E 6-12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

53

Maine Nearshore Zone A +12 Miles

54

Maine Nearshore Zone B +12 Miles

55

Maine Nearshore Zone C +12 Miles

56

Maine Nearshore Zone D +12 Miles

57

Maine Nearshore Zone E +12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

58

Maine Nearshore Zone F +12 Miles

59

Maine Nearshore Zone G +12 Miles

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

74

Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

522

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
REGION ID

REGION NAME

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

77

Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

81

Mass State Area 2

82

Mass State Area 3

83

Mass State Area 4

84

Mass State Area 5

85

Mass State Area 6

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

89

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA 2 (3-12)

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

91

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA OC (3-12)

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

921

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

980

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (3-6)

981

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (6-12)

99

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA 2 (12+)

100

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (12+)

101

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

102

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA 2/3 Overlap (12+)

103

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (12+)

104

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (12+)

105

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

106

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (12+)

107

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (12+)

108

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (12+)

109

RI 538 / 539 Bays Exempt

110

RI 538 / 539 Atlantic Exempt

111

RI 611 Exempt (Northeast)

523

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
REGION ID

REGION NAME

112

RI 611 Exempt (Mid-Atlantic)

113

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (3-12)

114

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (12+)

115

RI 613 Nearshore LMA 2/3 (12+)

116

RI 613 LMA 4 (12+)

117

RI Area 613 LMA 2/3 Overlap Mid-Atlantic

118

CT Long Island Sound East Exempt

119

CT Long Island Sound Central Exempt

120

CT Long Island Sound West Exempt

121

NY Long Island Sound East Non-Exempt (Northeast))

122

NY South of Long Island Non-Exempt LMA 4 (NE)

123

NY Long Island Sound East Exempt

124

NY Long Island Sound Central Exempt

125

NY Long Island Sound West Exempt

126

NY South of Long Island Exempt

127

NY South of Long Island Non-Exempt (Mid-Atlantic)

128

NJ LMA 4 Exempt

129

NJ LMA 5 Exempt

130

NJ LMA 4 Non-exempt

131

NJ LMA 5 Non-exempt

132

DE Delaware Bay Exempt

133

DE Inland Bays Exempt

134

DE Atlantic Ocean

135

MD Chesapeake Bay Exempt

136

MD Coastal Bays Exempt

137

MD Atlantic Ocean

138

VA Atlantic Ocean System 1

139

VA Seaside Eastern Shore System 2

140

VA Miscellaneous Seaside Codes System 3

141

VA Chesapeake Bay System 4

142

VA James River System 5

143

VA York River System 6

144

VA Rappahannock River System 7

145

VA Potomac River System 8

146

VA Other Chesapeake Bay Tribs System 9

147

NC North of Cape Hatteras Exempt

148

NC South of Cape Hatteras Exempt

149

NC North of Cape Hatteras Non-Exempt

150

NC South of Cape Hatteras Non-Exempt

524

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
REGION ID

REGION NAME

151

SC Exempt

152

SC Non-Exempt

153

GA Non-Exempt

154

FL Jacksonville (722) Exempt

155

FL St. Augustine (728) Exempt

156

FL Cape Canaveral (732) Exempt

157

FL Fort Pierce (736) Exempt

158

FL West Palm Beach (741) Exempt

159

FL Jacksonville (722) Non-Exempt

160

FL St. Augustine (728) Non-Exempt

161

FL Cape Canaveral (732) Non-Exempt

162

FL Fort Pierce (736) Non-Exempt

163

FL West Palm Beach (741) Non-Exempt

200

Other LMA 3 (12+) Offshore

201

Other LMA 3 (12+) Offshore Georges Basin

210

LMA 3 Mid-Atlantic Offshore

211

LMA 4 Mid-Atlantic Nearshore

212

LMA 5 Mid-Atlantic Nearshore

213

Outside LMA 5 Mid-Atlantic Nearshore

214

Outside LMA 3 Mid-Atlantic Offshore

300

South Atlantic Nearshore

301

South Atlantic Offshore

525

DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

APPENDIX C

|

NORTHEAST LOBSTER MODEL VESSEL DISTRIBUTIONS

526

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
1

Region_Name
Maine State Zone A Exempt

Traps per Trawl
1

Traps Group

Jan

Feb
0.00%

Mar
0.00%

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

8.10%

7.40%

11.90
%

23.80
%

23.40
%

20.90
%

16.40
%

14.20
%

2.20%

13.30
%

15.20
%

14.50
%

15.00
%

12.70
%

14.90
%

4.30%

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.10%

11.10
%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

1

101 to 300

12.50
%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

1

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.40%

6.20%

8.90%

5.40%

5.50%

6.40%

9.00%

4.50%

4.30%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

1

501 to 700

0.00%

25.00
%

10.00
%

2.70%

3.70%

4.40%

5.40%

6.00%

5.00%

3.70%

0.70%

2.20%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

3.70%

5.90%

6.30%

8.90%

9.10%

9.00%

4.50%

0.00%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

2.70%

4.90%

0.70%

1.30%

0.40%

0.50%

0.50%

0.70%

6.50%

25.00
%

10.00
%

18.90
%

9.90%

8.10%

3.60%

3.80%

4.10%

3.70%

6.00%

13.00
%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

2

101 to 300

37.50
%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.10%

16.00
%

6.70%

3.10%

3.40%

4.10%

5.80%

10.40
%

8.70%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

2

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.10%

2.50%

5.20%

8.50%

4.70%

4.10%

4.80%

6.70%

4.30%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

2

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

3.70%

5.40%

8.90%

8.20%

8.50%

3.70%

2.20%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

25.00
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

4.30%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

3.70%

1.50%

1.80%

1.30%

0.50%

1.10%

0.70%

2.20%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.90%

0.90%

1.40%

1.60%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

2.20%

1.30%

2.60%

3.20%

1.60%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

1.50%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

301 to 500

0.00%

25.00
%

10.00
%

2.70%

0.00%

2.20%

0.40%

0.90%

0.90%

2.60%

3.00%

4.30%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

5 to 9

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

5 to 9

501 to 700

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.50%

1.50%

2.20%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

5 to 9

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.30%

1.30%

1.40%

1.60%

1.50%

0.00%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

0.00%

1.30%

0.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

4.30%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

1.20%

3.70%

1.30%

0.40%

0.90%

1.60%

1.50%

2.20%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

10 to 14

101 to 300

12.50
%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.70%

0.90%

1.30%

0.90%

0.50%

2.20%

2.20%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

2.20%

2.70%

1.30%

0.90%

1.10%

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

1.20%

0.00%

0.40%

1.30%

2.30%

1.60%

2.20%

4.30%

0.00%

10.00
%

8.10%

4.90%

3.00%

1.30%

0.90%

1.40%

1.10%

0.70%

0.00%

ME
ME

1
1

Maine State Zone A Exempt
Maine State Zone A Exempt

10 to 14
15 to 19

701+

0.00%

101 to 300

12.50
%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

15 to 19

301 to 500

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

0.70%

0.00%

0.40%

0.90%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

1.50%

0.40%

0.40%

0.50%

0.50%

0.70%

6.50%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

0.70%

2.20%

2.60%

3.60%

5.30%

4.50%

4.30%

527

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.40%

0.00%

0.70%

0.90%

0.40%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.90%

1.50%

0.90%

1.70%

0.90%

1.10%

0.70%

6.50%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

2.20%

2.20%

0.90%

1.40%

1.10%

0.70%

4.30%

ME

1

Maine State Zone A Exempt

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

0.70%

0.90%

1.30%

1.40%

2.10%

1.50%

2.20%

8.10%

7.40%

11.90
%

23.80
%

23.40
%

20.90
%

16.40
%

14.20
%

2.20%

13.30
%

15.20
%

14.50
%

15.00
%

12.70
%

14.90
%

4.30%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

1

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.10%

11.10
%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

1

101 to 300

12.50
%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

1

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.40%

6.20%

8.90%

5.40%

5.50%

6.40%

9.00%

4.50%

4.30%

10.00
%

2.70%

3.70%

4.40%

5.40%

6.00%

5.00%

3.70%

0.70%

2.20%

3.70%

5.90%

6.30%

8.90%

9.10%

9.00%

4.50%

0.00%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

1

501 to 700

0.00%

25.00
%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

2.70%

4.90%

0.70%

1.30%

0.40%

0.50%

0.50%

0.70%

6.50%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

37.50
%

25.00
%

10.00
%

18.90
%

9.90%

8.10%

3.60%

3.80%

4.10%

3.70%

6.00%

13.00
%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.10%

16.00
%

6.70%

3.10%

3.40%

4.10%

5.80%

10.40
%

8.70%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

2

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.10%

2.50%

5.20%

8.50%

4.70%

4.10%

4.80%

6.70%

4.30%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

2

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

3.70%

5.40%

8.90%

8.20%

8.50%

3.70%

2.20%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

25.00
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

4.30%

0.00%

3.70%

1.50%

1.80%

1.30%

0.50%

1.10%

0.70%

2.20%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3 to 4

101 to 300

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.90%

0.90%

1.40%

1.60%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

2.20%

1.30%

2.60%

3.20%

1.60%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

1.50%

1.30%

0.90%

0.00%

0.50%

2.20%

4.30%

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-4

101 to 300

25.00
%

0.00%

20.00
%

13.50
%

8.60%

8.90%

4.00%

1.70%

2.30%

3.20%

6.00%

2.20%

301 to 500

12.50
%

25.00
%

10.00
%

8.10%

6.20%

5.20%

2.20%

4.30%

3.60%

4.20%

6.70%

13.00
%

ME

2

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-4

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-4

501 to 700

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

5.40%

6.20%

6.70%

5.40%

2.60%

3.20%

3.20%

4.50%

13.00
%

ME

2

Maine State Zone A Exempt Washington County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

2.70%

3.70%

1.50%

4.90%

6.40%

8.60%

10.60
%

9.70%

10.90
%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

1

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

24.30
%

35.40
%

33.90
%

31.30
%

20.50
%

5.70%

15.50
%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

1

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.80
%

12.70
%

10.80
%

10.50
%

10.60
%

11.40
%

11.40
%

9.20%

6.90%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

1

301 to 500

11.10
%

7.10%

4.00%

5.40%

6.30%

9.00%

8.30%

3.70%

3.60%

3.00%

9.20%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

1

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.80%

5.50%

3.70%

3.60%

7.60%

4.60%

3.40%

528

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

6.30%

4.50%

4.40%

5.80%

4.80%

4.50%

1.10%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

5.40%

0.00%

0.90%

1.10%

1.60%

1.80%

2.30%

3.40%

8.60%

14.30
%

16.00
%

27.00
%

19.00
%

9.00%

2.20%

2.60%

3.60%

5.30%

9.20%

12.10
%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

2

101 to 300

11.10
%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

12.00
%

8.10%

9.50%

10.80
%

5.50%

6.30%

4.20%

7.60%

9.20%

10.30
%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

2

501 to 700

16.70
%

14.30
%

12.00
%

2.70%

6.30%

3.60%

5.00%

4.80%

5.40%

9.10%

12.60
%

8.60%

7.10%

4.00%

5.40%

1.60%

4.50%

6.60%

11.10
%

12.70
%

7.60%

5.70%

3.40%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

2

701+

11.10
%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

8.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

1.70%

501 to 700

11.10
%

14.30
%

8.00%

5.40%

1.60%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

1.70%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

3 to 4

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.90%

0.60%

0.50%

0.00%

2.30%

2.30%

3.40%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.60%

0.00%

1.10%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

5 to 9

101 to 300

5.60%

7.10%

0.00%

2.70%

3.20%

0.90%

0.60%

0.50%

1.20%

0.80%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.60%

0.90%

1.10%

1.60%

2.40%

0.80%

3.40%

1.70%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

5 to 9

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.60%

1.80%

0.60%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

5 to 9

701+

5.60%

0.00%

4.00%

2.70%

1.60%

0.90%

0.60%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

1.10%

1.70%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.60%

0.00%

0.60%

0.80%

1.10%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

10 to 14

301 to 500

5.60%

7.10%

8.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.90%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

1.50%

1.10%

1.70%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

10 to 14

501 to 700

5.60%

7.10%

8.00%

8.10%

3.20%

1.80%

2.20%

1.60%

1.80%

0.80%

1.10%

3.40%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

10 to 14

701+

5.60%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

2.20%

2.60%

1.80%

3.80%

3.40%

1.70%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

1.10%

2.40%

3.00%

1.10%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.50%

1.20%

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.60%

0.50%

0.60%

0.80%

0.00%

6.90%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

20 to 39

101 to 300

5.60%

7.10%

4.00%

2.70%

4.80%

1.80%

0.60%

0.50%

0.60%

0.00%

2.30%

1.70%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

3.20%

1.80%

1.10%

1.60%

0.60%

1.50%

1.10%

0.00%

529

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

20 to 39

501 to 700

5.60%

7.10%

4.00%

2.70%

3.20%

0.90%

1.10%

1.60%

1.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

3

Maine State Zone B Exempt

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

1.10%

1.60%

1.80%

1.50%

1.10%

0.00%

35.40
%

33.90
%

31.30
%

20.50
%

5.70%

15.50
%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

1

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

24.30
%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

1

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.80
%

12.70
%

10.80
%

10.50
%

10.60
%

11.40
%

11.40
%

9.20%

6.90%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

1

301 to 500

11.10
%

7.10%

4.00%

5.40%

6.30%

9.00%

8.30%

3.70%

3.60%

3.00%

9.20%

0.00%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

1

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.80%

5.50%

3.70%

3.60%

7.60%

4.60%

3.40%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

6.30%

4.50%

4.40%

5.80%

4.80%

4.50%

1.10%

0.00%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

5.40%

0.00%

0.90%

1.10%

1.60%

1.80%

2.30%

3.40%

8.60%

14.30
%

16.00
%

27.00
%

19.00
%

9.00%

2.20%

2.60%

3.60%

5.30%

9.20%

12.10
%
10.30
%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

11.10
%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

12.00
%

8.10%

9.50%

10.80
%

5.50%

6.30%

4.20%

7.60%

9.20%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

501 to 700

16.70
%

14.30
%

12.00
%

2.70%

6.30%

3.60%

5.00%

4.80%

5.40%

9.10%

12.60
%

8.60%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

701+

11.10
%

7.10%

4.00%

5.40%

1.60%

4.50%

6.60%

11.10
%

12.70
%

7.60%

5.70%

3.40%

ME

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

3.20%

0.90%

1.10%

1.10%

1.20%

0.80%

1.10%

10.30
%

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

11.10
%

14.30
%

12.00
%

5.40%

9.50%

4.50%

1.70%

1.10%

2.40%

3.80%

6.90%

1.70%

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

5.60%

7.10%

8.00%

5.40%

6.30%

6.30%

2.80%

3.70%

3.00%

3.80%

9.20%

5.20%

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700

22.20
%

28.60
%

20.00
%

18.90
%

9.50%

4.50%

5.00%

4.80%

5.40%

3.80%

4.60%

6.90%

4

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

701+

11.10
%

7.10%

4.00%

2.70%

3.20%

4.50%

5.00%

5.30%

5.40%

9.10%

8.00%

6.90%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

1

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

24.30
%

35.40
%

33.90
%

31.30
%

20.50
%

5.70%

15.50
%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

1

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.80
%

12.70
%

10.80
%

10.50
%

10.60
%

11.40
%

11.40
%

9.20%

6.90%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

1

301 to 500

11.10
%

7.10%

4.00%

5.40%

6.30%

9.00%

8.30%

3.70%

3.60%

3.00%

9.20%

0.00%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

1

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

7.90%

6.30%

9.90%

9.50%

8.40%

12.10
%

5.70%

3.40%

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

5.40%

0.00%

0.90%

1.10%

1.60%

1.80%

2.30%

3.40%

8.60%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

2

101 to 300

11.10
%

14.30
%

16.00
%

27.00
%

19.00
%

9.00%

2.20%

2.60%

3.60%

5.30%

9.20%

12.10
%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

12.00
%

8.10%

9.50%

10.80
%

5.50%

6.30%

4.20%

7.60%

9.20%

10.30
%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

2

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

27.80
%

21.40
%

16.00
%

8.10%

7.90%

8.10%

11.60
%

15.90
%

18.10
%

16.70
%

18.40
%

12.10
%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

3.20%

0.90%

1.10%

1.10%

1.20%

0.80%

1.10%

10.30
%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

11.10
%

14.30
%

12.00
%

5.40%

9.50%

4.50%

1.70%

1.10%

2.40%

3.80%

6.90%

1.70%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

5.60%

7.10%

8.00%

5.40%

6.30%

6.30%

2.80%

3.70%

3.00%

3.80%

9.20%

5.20%

ME

5

Maine State Zone B Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

33.30
%

35.70
%

24.00
%

21.60
%

12.70
%

9.00%

9.90%

10.10
%

10.80
%

12.90
%

12.60
%

13.80
%

ME
ME
ME
ME

ME

4
4
4

530

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

19.30
%

20.30
%

16.00
%

9.60%

8.60%

6.00%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

1

1 to 100

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

8.00%

2.40%

11.40
%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

1

101 to 300

3.60%

4.50%

0.00%

2.00%

8.20%

9.50%

6.90%

7.30%

7.10%

6.20%

6.60%

4.50%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

1

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.00%

2.40%

3.80%

4.10%

3.90%

4.20%

4.00%

2.60%

1.50%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

1

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

4.40%

3.20%

2.60%

3.30%

2.80%

2.00%

0.00%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

3.50%

2.50%

5.50%

5.20%

7.10%

2.80%

2.60%

1.50%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

3.60%

4.50%

0.00%

2.00%

1.20%

1.30%

0.00%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

7.50%

9.10%

14.30
%

8.00%

11.80
%

5.70%

3.20%

2.60%

2.40%

5.60%

7.90%

14.90
%

4.50%

3.60%

6.00%

15.30
%

12.70
%

6.40%

4.70%

4.70%

7.90%

12.60
%

7.50%

0.00%

10.70
%

7.10%

13.30
%

9.60%

8.20%

6.60%

7.90%

9.30%

6.00%

15.10
%

14.60
%

16.40
%

6.00%

7.50%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

10.70
%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

0.00%

501 to 700

10.70
%

ME
ME

6
6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

6.00%

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

701+

3.60%

4.50%

3.60%

6.00%

8.20%

7.00%

12.40
%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

1.90%

3.70%

3.40%

3.80%

1.10%

3.30%

6.00%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

17.90
%

22.70
%

25.00
%

16.00
%

10.60
%

3.80%

4.10%

4.30%

4.70%

4.50%

8.60%

9.00%

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

14.30
%

27.30
%

21.40
%

16.00
%

11.80
%

10.10
%

5.00%

3.40%

3.80%

6.80%

6.60%

7.50%

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700

21.40
%

13.60
%

10.70
%

10.00
%

5.90%

5.70%

5.50%

5.60%

7.50%

8.50%

7.30%

9.00%

701+

10.70
%

9.10%

10.70
%

6.00%

9.40%

7.00%

11.00
%

12.90
%

14.20
%

15.80
%

10.60
%

11.90
%

ME

6

ME

6

Maine State Zone C Exempt Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

1

1 to 100

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

8.00%

2.40%

11.40
%

19.30
%

20.30
%

16.00
%

9.60%

8.60%

6.00%

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

1

101 to 300

3.60%

4.50%

0.00%

2.00%

8.20%

9.50%

6.90%

7.30%

7.10%

6.20%

6.60%

4.50%

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

1

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.00%

2.40%

3.80%

4.10%

3.90%

4.20%

4.00%

2.60%

1.50%

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

1

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

4.40%

3.20%

2.60%

3.30%

2.80%

2.00%

0.00%

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

3.50%

2.50%

5.50%

5.20%

7.10%

2.80%

2.60%

1.50%

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

3.60%

4.50%

0.00%

2.00%

1.20%

1.30%

0.00%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

7.50%

9.10%

14.30
%

8.00%

11.80
%

5.70%

3.20%

2.60%

2.40%

5.60%

7.90%

14.90
%

4.50%

3.60%

6.00%

15.30
%

12.70
%

6.40%

4.70%

4.70%

7.90%

12.60
%

7.50%

0.00%

10.70
%

7.10%

13.30
%

9.60%

8.20%

6.60%

7.90%

9.30%

6.00%

15.10
%

14.60
%

16.40
%

6.00%

7.50%

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

10.70
%

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

0.00%

501 to 700

10.70
%

ME
ME
ME

7
7
7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

6.00%

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

701+

3.60%

4.50%

3.60%

6.00%

8.20%

7.00%

12.40
%

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

1.90%

3.70%

3.40%

3.80%

1.10%

3.30%

6.00%

22.70
%

25.00
%

16.00
%

10.60
%

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

17.90
%

3.80%

4.10%

4.30%

4.70%

4.50%

8.60%

9.00%

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

14.30
%

27.30
%

21.40
%

16.00
%

11.80
%

10.10
%

5.00%

3.40%

3.80%

6.80%

6.60%

7.50%

ME

7

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700

21.40
%

13.60
%

10.70
%

10.00
%

5.90%

5.70%

5.50%

5.60%

7.50%

8.50%

7.30%

9.00%

531

Stat
e
ME
ME

Region
ID
7
8

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Maine State Zone C Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

1

Traps Group

Jan

701+

10.70
%

1 to 100

3.00%

Feb

Mar

9.10%

10.70
%

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

12.90
%

14.20
%

15.80
%

10.60
%

11.90
%

6.00%

9.40%

7.00%

11.00
%

20.50
%

29.70
%

27.90
%

23.60
%

20.40
%

12.40
%

7.60%

0.00%

7.40%

9.80%

14.90
%

9.50%

14.80
%

12.20
%

16.20
%

16.00
%

11.40
%

10.00
%

10.60
%

11.20
%

11.20
%

15.20
%

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

1

101 to 300

12.10
%

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

1

301 to 500

6.10%

0.00%

3.70%

12.20
%

13.50
%

9.00%

6.60%

6.70%

6.50%

7.80%

7.50%

1.10%

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

1

501 to 700

6.10%

4.80%

7.40%

2.40%

1.40%

7.70%

7.90%

8.30%

8.80%

8.30%

8.10%

3.30%

13.30
%

10.20
%

8.70%

3.70%

3.30%

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

7.10%

12.20
%

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.90%

1.40%

2.60%

0.90%

2.10%

1.40%

1.50%

1.90%

6.50%

101 to 300

21.20
%

23.80
%

14.80
%

17.10
%

10.80
%

3.80%

4.80%

3.80%

3.70%

3.40%

5.60%

6.50%

14.80
%

12.20
%

4.10%

6.40%

1.70%

2.10%

0.90%

3.40%

9.30%

13.00
%

3.70%

2.40%

10.80
%

4.50%

4.40%

4.20%

6.50%

5.80%

6.20%

8.70%

10.70
%

10.60
%

3.30%

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

9.10%

19.00
%

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

501 to 700

9.10%

4.80%

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

701+

6.10%

4.80%

3.70%

4.90%

2.70%

3.20%

4.80%

5.80%

11.10
%

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

4.80%

0.00%

4.90%

2.70%

2.60%

1.70%

2.10%

1.90%

0.50%

2.50%

5.40%

ME

8

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

3.00%

0.00%

7.40%

4.90%

4.10%

5.80%

2.20%

1.70%

1.40%

3.90%

5.00%

14.10
%

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

15.20
%

14.30
%

7.40%

4.90%

6.80%

3.20%

3.10%

3.80%

4.20%

4.40%

8.70%

4.30%

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700

0.00%

4.80%

3.70%

2.40%

4.10%

3.80%

5.20%

3.30%

2.80%

2.90%

5.00%

2.20%

Maine State Zone D Exempt Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

9.50%

11.10
%

4.90%

4.10%

3.80%

3.50%

5.00%

6.50%

7.30%

2.50%

5.40%

20.50
%

29.70
%

27.90
%

23.60
%

20.40
%

12.40
%

7.60%

ME
ME
ME
ME

8
8
8
9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

1

701+

9.10%

1 to 100

3.00%

0.00%

7.40%

9.80%

14.90
%

9.50%

14.80
%

12.20
%

16.20
%

16.00
%

11.40
%

10.00
%

10.60
%

11.20
%

11.20
%

15.20
%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

1

101 to 300

12.10
%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

1

301 to 500

6.10%

0.00%

3.70%

12.20
%

13.50
%

9.00%

6.60%

6.70%

6.50%

7.80%

7.50%

1.10%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

1

501 to 700

6.10%

4.80%

7.40%

2.40%

1.40%

7.70%

7.90%

8.30%

8.80%

8.30%

8.10%

3.30%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

7.10%

12.20
%

13.30
%

10.20
%

8.70%

3.70%

3.30%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.90%

1.40%

2.60%

0.90%

2.10%

1.40%

1.50%

1.90%

6.50%

101 to 300

21.20
%

23.80
%

14.80
%

17.10
%

10.80
%

3.80%

4.80%

3.80%

3.70%

3.40%

5.60%

6.50%

14.80
%

12.20
%

4.10%

6.40%

1.70%

2.10%

0.90%

3.40%

9.30%

13.00
%

3.70%

2.40%

10.80
%

4.50%

4.40%

4.20%

6.50%

5.80%

6.20%

8.70%

5.80%

11.10
%

10.70
%

10.60
%

3.30%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

2

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

2

301 to 500

9.10%

19.00
%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

2

501 to 700

9.10%

4.80%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

2

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

4.80%

0.00%

2.40%

1.40%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.40%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

4.30%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

3 to 4

301 to 500

6.10%

9.50%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

1.00%

1.20%

1.10%

532

701+

6.10%

4.80%

3.70%

4.90%

2.70%

3.20%

4.80%

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

1.10%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

3 to 4

701+

3.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.40%

0.50%

1.00%

0.00%

1.10%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

1.30%

1.30%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

2.60%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.60%

0.00%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

1.30%

1.30%

1.40%

1.50%

1.90%

1.10%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

5 to 9

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

1.70%

1.70%

0.90%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

5 to 9

701+

0.00%

4.80%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.90%

0.40%

0.50%

1.00%

1.20%

2.20%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.60%

0.40%

0.80%

1.40%

0.50%

2.50%

1.10%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

10 to 14

101 to 300

3.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.30%

1.30%

1.30%

0.90%

1.90%

3.10%

7.60%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

10 to 14

301 to 500

6.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.60%

0.90%

1.70%

0.90%

0.50%

1.90%

1.10%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

4.80%

3.70%

2.40%

1.40%

1.30%

1.70%

1.30%

1.40%

1.00%

3.70%

1.10%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

10 to 14

701+

3.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

1.30%

2.90%

3.20%

2.90%

0.00%

1.10%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

2.40%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

0.00%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

15 to 19

301 to 500

3.00%

4.80%

3.70%

2.40%

2.70%

0.60%

0.90%

0.40%

0.50%

1.00%

1.20%

1.10%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

15 to 19

701+

3.00%

4.80%

3.70%

4.90%

2.70%

0.60%

0.90%

0.40%

1.40%

2.40%

0.60%

1.10%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.60%

0.40%

0.00%

0.50%

0.50%

0.00%

2.20%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.40%

1.30%

0.00%

0.40%

0.50%

0.50%

2.50%

0.00%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

1.90%

0.00%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

9

Maine State Zone D Exempt Penobscot Bay Closed Area

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.60%

0.40%

0.80%

0.90%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

35.10
%

38.70
%

37.10
%

37.30
%

35.60
%

26.40
%

12.10
%

14.00
%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

1

1 to 100

5.90%

0.00%

9.10%

23.50
%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

1

101 to 300

5.90%

9.10%

9.10%

5.90%

18.90
%

17.20
%

16.40
%

16.90
%

14.40
%

19.80
%

22.70
%

16.30
%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

1

301 to 500

5.90%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

6.50%

5.20%

4.20%

6.70%

6.60%

9.10%

7.00%

11.00
%

12.50
%

12.10
%

12.10
%

4.70%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

1

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

11.20
%

18.20
%

18.20
%

17.60
%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

11.80
%

5.40%

3.20%

2.60%

1.70%

1.90%

1.10%

0.00%

2.30%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

2 adjusted for max tpt

1 to 100

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

1.70%

0.80%

1.00%

3.30%

1.50%

0.00%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

17.60
%

9.10%

9.10%

23.50
%

16.20
%

7.50%

5.20%

5.90%

4.80%

6.60%

10.60
%

11.60
%

533

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
10

Region_Name
Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

Traps per Trawl
2 adjusted for max tpt

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

101 to 300

17.60
%

18.20
%

18.20
%

5.90%

5.40%

3.20%

0.00%

0.80%

3.80%

1.10%

1.50%

7.00%

5.90%

5.40%

7.50%

4.30%

5.90%

5.80%

4.40%

6.10%

14.00
%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

5.90%

9.10%

18.20
%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

2 adjusted for max tpt

301 to 500

11.80
%

9.10%

18.20
%

11.80
%

8.10%

6.50%

4.30%

1.70%

0.00%

0.00%

7.60%

7.00%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

2

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

3.40%

3.40%

3.80%

6.60%

4.50%

2.30%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

2 adjusted for max tpt

501 to 700

5.90%

9.10%

0.00%

5.90%

2.70%

4.30%

8.60%

10.20
%

9.60%

12.10
%

12.10
%

14.00
%

ME

10

Maine State Zone E Exempt Linekin Bay Trawl Limits

2 adjusted for max tpt

701+

5.90%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

1

1 to 100

5.90%

0.00%

9.10%

23.50
%

35.10
%

38.70
%

37.10
%

37.30
%

35.60
%

26.40
%

12.10
%

14.00
%

ME

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

1

101 to 300

5.90%

9.10%

9.10%

5.90%

18.90
%

17.20
%

16.40
%

16.90
%

14.40
%

19.80
%

22.70
%

16.30
%

ME

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

1

301 to 500

5.90%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

6.50%

5.20%

4.20%

6.70%

6.60%

9.10%

7.00%

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

1

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

11.20
%

11.00
%

12.50
%

12.10
%

12.10
%

4.70%

ME

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

2

1 to 100

11.80
%

18.20
%

18.20
%

17.60
%

5.40%

3.20%

2.60%

1.70%

1.90%

1.10%

0.00%

2.30%

ME

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

2

101 to 300

17.60
%

9.10%

9.10%

23.50
%

16.20
%

7.50%

5.20%

5.90%

4.80%

6.60%

10.60
%

11.60
%

ME

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

2

301 to 500

5.90%

9.10%

18.20
%

5.90%

5.40%

7.50%

4.30%

5.90%

5.80%

4.40%

6.10%

14.00
%

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

2

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

3.40%

3.40%

3.80%

6.60%

4.50%

2.30%

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

1.70%

0.80%

1.00%

3.30%

1.50%

0.00%

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

17.60
%

18.20
%

18.20
%

5.90%

5.40%

3.20%

0.00%

0.80%

3.80%

1.10%

1.50%

7.00%

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

11.80
%

9.10%

18.20
%

11.80
%

8.10%

6.50%

4.30%

1.70%

0.00%

0.00%

7.60%

7.00%

ME

11

Maine State Zone E Exempt Sheepscot Bay and Sequin Island Trawl Limits &
Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

11.80
%

18.20
%

0.00%

5.90%

2.70%

4.30%

8.60%

10.20
%

9.60%

12.10
%

12.10
%

14.00
%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

1

1 to 100

5.90%

0.00%

9.10%

23.50
%

35.10
%

38.70
%

37.10
%

37.30
%

35.60
%

26.40
%

12.10
%

14.00
%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

1

101 to 300

5.90%

9.10%

9.10%

5.90%

18.90
%

17.20
%

16.40
%

16.90
%

14.40
%

19.80
%

22.70
%

16.30
%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

1

301 to 500

5.90%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

6.50%

5.20%

4.20%

6.70%

6.60%

9.10%

7.00%

1

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

11.20
%

11.00
%

12.50
%

12.10
%

12.10
%

4.70%

1 to 100

11.80
%

18.20
%

18.20
%

17.60
%

5.40%

3.20%

2.60%

1.70%

1.90%

1.10%

0.00%

2.30%

9.10%

9.10%

23.50
%

16.20
%

7.50%

5.20%

5.90%

4.80%

6.60%

10.60
%

11.60
%

ME

ME
ME
ME
ME

ME
ME

12
12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits
Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

2

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

2

101 to 300

17.60
%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

2

301 to 500

5.90%

9.10%

18.20
%

5.90%

5.40%

7.50%

4.30%

5.90%

5.80%

4.40%

6.10%

14.00
%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

2

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

3.40%

3.40%

3.80%

6.60%

4.50%

2.30%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

2.20%

1.50%

0.00%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.10%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.10%

1.70%

0.80%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

4.70%

534

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

2.60%

2.50%

1.90%

3.30%

1.50%

2.30%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

5 to 9

1 to 100

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

1.70%

0.80%

0.00%

1.10%

0.00%

0.00%

18.20
%

18.20
%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

5 to 9

101 to 300

17.60
%

5.90%

2.70%

2.20%

0.00%

0.80%

1.90%

1.10%

1.50%

7.00%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

5 to 9

301 to 500

11.80
%

0.00%

18.20
%

11.80
%

5.40%

5.40%

2.60%

0.80%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

2.30%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

5 to 9

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

5.90%

9.10%

0.00%

5.90%

2.70%

3.20%

6.00%

7.60%

7.70%

7.70%

10.60
%

11.60
%

ME

12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

10 to 14

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

0.00%

0.00%

20 to 39

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

5.90%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

18.80
%

37.20
%

41.00
%

36.90
%

33.30
%

22.70
%

9.80%

5.60%

ME
ME

12
12

Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits
Maine State Zone E Exempt Zone E Trap Limits

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

1

1 to 100

4.80%

0.00%

5.90%

18.50
%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

1

101 to 300

4.80%

9.10%

5.90%

7.40%

4.20%

5.80%

6.80%

7.80%

8.50%

6.40%

5.90%

5.60%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

1

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

2.20%

2.00%

2.90%

2.80%

4.30%

2.00%

1.90%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.50%

1.10%

0.70%

2.00%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

2.90%

2.00%

2.40%

1.70%

1.40%

2.90%

0.00%

27.30
%

23.50
%

7.40%

8.30%

5.10%

4.40%

4.40%

5.10%

6.40%

5.90%

7.40%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

2

101 to 300

23.80
%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

2.10%

1.50%

2.00%

1.90%

2.80%

3.50%

4.90%

1.90%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

2

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

2

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

1.50%

1.10%

2.10%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

2.20%

0.50%

0.50%

0.00%

1.40%

0.00%

1.90%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

3 to 4

101 to 300

4.80%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

4.20%

2.20%

1.00%

1.00%

1.70%

1.40%

3.90%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

1.50%

1.00%

1.10%

1.40%

1.00%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

1.50%

0.50%

1.10%

0.70%

1.00%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.50%

18.20
%

5.90%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.50%

1.10%

0.70%

2.00%

5.60%

9.10%

17.60
%

11.10
%

20.80
%

5.80%

1.50%

1.90%

1.70%

2.80%

5.90%

7.40%

7.40%

2.10%

9.50%

3.90%

3.40%

2.80%

2.80%

9.80%

14.80
%

3.70%

8.30%

7.30%

7.30%

6.30%

5.10%

6.40%

6.90%

9.30%

17.00
%

18.10
%

22.00
%

20.60
%

11.10
%

ME
ME

13
13

Maine State Zone F Exempt
Maine State Zone F Exempt

5 to 9
5 to 9

1 to 100
101 to 300

9.50%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

5 to 9

301 to 500

9.50%

0.00%

11.80
%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

5 to 9

501 to 700

4.80%

0.00%

5.90%
0.00%

3.70%

4.20%

7.30%

12.70
%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

5 to 9

701+

9.50%

18.20
%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.90%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

2.10%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.70%

2.00%

9.30%

535

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

6.30%

2.90%

1.50%

1.50%

1.70%

3.50%

3.90%

1.90%

501 to 700

4.80%

18.20
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

0.70%

2.90%

1.50%

2.80%

4.30%

2.90%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

10 to 14

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

10 to 14

701+

9.50%

0.00%

5.90%

3.70%

2.10%

2.20%

3.40%

2.90%

3.40%

3.50%

3.90%

7.40%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

20 to 39

1 to 100

4.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

7.40%

2.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.90%

ME

13

Maine State Zone F Exempt

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

3.70%

2.10%

0.00%

0.50%

0.50%

0.60%

0.70%

0.00%

3.70%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

1

1 to 100

4.80%

0.00%

5.90%

18.50
%

18.80
%

37.20
%

41.00
%

36.90
%

33.30
%

22.70
%

9.80%

5.60%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

1

101 to 300

4.80%

9.10%

5.90%

7.40%

4.20%

5.80%

6.80%

7.80%

8.50%

6.40%

5.90%

5.60%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

1

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

2.20%

2.00%

2.90%

2.80%

4.30%

2.00%

1.90%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.50%

1.10%

0.70%

2.00%

0.00%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

2.90%

2.00%

2.40%

1.70%

1.40%

2.90%

0.00%

27.30
%

23.50
%

7.40%

8.30%

5.10%

4.40%

4.40%

5.10%

6.40%

5.90%

7.40%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

23.80
%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

2.10%

1.50%

2.00%

1.90%

2.80%

3.50%

4.90%

1.90%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

2

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

2

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

1.50%

1.10%

2.10%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

2.20%

0.50%

0.50%

0.00%

1.40%

0.00%

1.90%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

3 to 4

101 to 300

4.80%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

4.20%

2.20%

1.00%

1.00%

1.70%

1.40%

3.90%

0.00%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

1.50%

1.00%

1.10%

1.40%

1.00%

0.00%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

1.50%

0.50%

1.10%

0.70%

1.00%

0.00%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.50%

18.20
%

5.90%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.50%

1.10%

0.70%

2.00%

5.60%

11.10
%

20.80
%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

5 to 9

1 to 100

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

5 to 9

101 to 300

9.50%

9.10%

17.60
%

5.80%

1.50%

1.90%

1.70%

2.80%

5.90%

7.40%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

5 to 9

301 to 500

9.50%

0.00%

11.80
%

7.40%

2.10%

9.50%

3.90%

3.40%

2.80%

2.80%

9.80%

14.80
%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

5 to 9

501 to 700

4.80%

0.00%

5.90%

3.70%

8.30%

7.30%

7.30%

6.30%

5.10%

6.40%

6.90%

9.30%

536

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

0.00%

3.70%

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

4.20%

7.30%

12.70
%

17.00
%

18.10
%

22.00
%

20.60
%

11.10
%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

5 to 9

701+

9.50%

18.20
%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.90%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

2.10%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.70%

2.00%

9.30%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

6.30%

2.90%

1.50%

1.50%

1.70%

3.50%

3.90%

1.90%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

10 to 14

501 to 700

4.80%

18.20
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

0.70%

2.90%

1.50%

2.80%

4.30%

2.90%

0.00%

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

10 to 14

701+

9.50%

0.00%

5.90%

3.70%

2.10%

2.20%

3.40%

2.90%

3.40%

3.50%

3.90%

7.40%

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

10 to 15 adjusted for max
tpt - 12

1 to 100

4.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

10 to 15 adjusted for max
tpt - 12

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

7.40%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

10 to 15 adjusted for max
tpt - 12

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.90%

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

10 to 15 adjusted for max
tpt - 12

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME
ME
ME
ME

14
14
14
14

ME

14

Maine State Zone F Exempt Casco Bay Trawl Limits

10 to 15 adjusted for max
tpt - 12

701+

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

3.70%

2.10%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.10%

0.70%

0.00%

3.70%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

1

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

14.80
%

28.30
%

41.90
%

49.10
%

48.60
%

46.40
%

40.00
%

13.00
%

3.10%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

1

101 to 300

13.30
%

7.70%

26.70
%

25.90
%

10.90
%

10.80
%

9.40%

9.90%

8.20%

5.30%

8.70%

15.60
%

6.80%

2.80%

2.70%

3.10%

5.30%

8.70%

0.00%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

1

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

15.20
%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

1

501 to 700

6.70%

0.00%

6.70%

0.00%

2.20%

4.10%

4.70%

3.60%

5.20%

2.70%

6.50%

6.30%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

4.10%

3.80%

4.50%

4.10%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

2

1 to 100

6.70%

7.70%

6.70%

7.40%

4.30%

1.40%

1.90%

1.80%

3.10%

4.00%

4.30%

6.30%

13.30
%

11.10
%

4.30%

6.80%

1.90%

1.80%

3.10%

1.30%

2.20%

6.30%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

2

101 to 300

6.70%

15.40
%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

4.30%

1.40%

1.90%

0.90%

1.00%

2.70%

4.30%

9.40%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

2

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

1.80%

4.10%

5.30%

2.20%

3.10%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

2

701+

6.70%

15.40
%

0.00%

7.40%

2.20%

4.10%

1.90%

2.70%

2.10%

2.70%

4.30%

0.00%

1 to 100

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.90%

1.00%

1.30%

2.20%

3.10%

101 to 300

6.70%

15.40
%

13.30
%

0.00%

2.20%

1.40%

1.90%

1.80%

3.10%

4.00%

6.50%

6.30%

7.70%

13.30
%

0.00%

6.50%

1.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

ME
ME

15
15

Maine State Zone G Exempt
Maine State Zone G Exempt

3 to 4
3 to 4

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

3 to 4

301 to 500

13.30
%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

1.40%

0.00%

2.70%

2.10%

1.30%

2.20%

0.00%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

4.70%

1.80%

2.10%

1.30%

2.20%

3.10%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

2.20%

0.00%

0.90%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

6.30%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

5 to 9

101 to 300

6.70%

7.70%

6.70%

3.70%

0.00%

4.10%

0.90%

0.90%

0.00%

1.30%

4.30%

0.00%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

5 to 9

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

537

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

5 to 9

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

1.30%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

5 to 9

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

2.80%

5.40%

5.20%

5.30%

8.70%

3.10%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

4.30%

3.10%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

2.20%

1.40%

2.80%

1.80%

1.00%

1.30%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

2.70%

2.80%

0.90%

2.10%

4.00%

4.30%

6.30%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

10 to 14

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.30%

2.20%

6.30%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

1.30%

2.20%

0.00%

ME

15

Maine State Zone G Exempt

20 to 39

701+

6.70%

7.70%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

1

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

14.80
%

28.30
%

41.90
%

49.10
%

48.60
%

46.40
%

40.00
%

13.00
%

3.10%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

1

101 to 300

13.30
%

7.70%

26.70
%

25.90
%

10.90
%

10.80
%

9.40%

9.90%

8.20%

5.30%

8.70%

15.60
%

6.80%

2.80%

2.70%

3.10%

5.30%

8.70%

0.00%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

1

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

15.20
%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

1

501 to 700

6.70%

0.00%

6.70%

0.00%

2.20%

4.10%

4.70%

3.60%

5.20%

2.70%

6.50%

6.30%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

4.10%

3.80%

4.50%

4.10%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

6.70%

7.70%

6.70%

7.40%

4.30%

1.40%

1.90%

1.80%

3.10%

4.00%

4.30%

6.30%

13.30
%

11.10
%

4.30%

6.80%

1.90%

1.80%

3.10%

1.30%

2.20%

6.30%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

6.70%

15.40
%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

4.30%

1.40%

1.90%

0.90%

1.00%

2.70%

4.30%

9.40%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

2

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

1.80%

4.10%

5.30%

2.20%

3.10%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

2

701+

6.70%

15.40
%

0.00%

7.40%

2.20%

4.10%

1.90%

2.70%

2.10%

2.70%

4.30%

0.00%

1 to 100

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

4.30%

0.00%

2.80%

2.70%

2.10%

1.30%

8.70%

12.50
%

101 to 300

13.30
%

30.80
%

20.00
%

7.40%

6.50%

8.10%

5.70%

5.40%

4.10%

8.00%

13.00
%

6.30%

7.70%

13.30
%

0.00%

8.70%

4.10%

2.80%

0.90%

2.10%

4.00%

8.70%

12.50
%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

2.70%

0.00%

5.40%

3.10%

2.70%

2.20%

3.10%
15.60
%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

20.00
%

501 to 700

0.00%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

701+

6.70%

7.70%

6.70%

3.70%

2.20%

4.10%

7.50%

7.20%

8.20%

8.00%

13.00
%

ME

16

Maine State Zone G Exempt Southern Maine Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

10.80
%

12.30
%

12.60
%

25.10
%

23.80
%

21.40
%

16.90
%

14.90
%

8.70%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

2

101 to 300

50.00
%

25.00
%

10.00
%

27.00
%

21.00
%

21.50
%

18.80
%

18.30
%

19.10
%

16.40
%

20.90
%

17.40
%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

13.50
%

22.20
%

15.60
%

8.50%

8.90%

10.50
%

14.80
%

14.90
%

13.00
%

538

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
17

Region_Name
Maine State Zone A

Traps per Trawl
2

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

2

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

3 to 4

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

3 to 4

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

3 to 4

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

ME

17

ME
ME
ME

Traps Group
501 to 700

Feb

Mar

Apr

0.00%

25.00
%

10.00
%

10.80
%

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

9.60%

13.90
%

10.60
%

9.10%

8.50%

7.50%

6.50%

7.40%

9.60%

11.70
%

17.90
%

17.30
%

17.50
%

8.20%

2.20%

6.20%

0.00%

0.00%

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

101 to 300

0.00%

25.00
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

4.30%

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

3.70%

1.50%

1.80%

1.30%

0.50%

1.10%

0.70%

2.20%

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.90%

0.90%

1.40%

1.60%

0.70%

0.00%

Maine State Zone A

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

2.20%

1.30%

2.60%

3.20%

1.60%

0.70%

0.00%

17

Maine State Zone A

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

17

Maine State Zone A

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

1.50%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

301 to 500

0.00%

25.00
%

10.00
%

2.70%

0.00%

2.20%

0.40%

0.90%

0.90%

2.60%

3.00%

4.30%

Maine State Zone A

5 to 9

2.70%

May

0.00%

17

701+

Jan

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

5 to 9

501 to 700

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.50%

1.50%

2.20%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

5 to 9

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.30%

1.30%

1.40%

1.60%

1.50%

0.00%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

0.00%

1.30%

0.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

4.30%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

1.20%

3.70%

1.30%

0.40%

0.90%

1.60%

1.50%

2.20%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

10 to 14

101 to 300

12.50
%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.70%

0.90%

1.30%

0.90%

0.50%

2.20%

2.20%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

2.20%

2.70%

1.30%

0.90%

1.10%

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

1.20%

0.00%

0.40%

1.30%

2.30%

1.60%

2.20%

4.30%

0.00%

10.00
%

8.10%

4.90%

3.00%

1.30%

0.90%

1.40%

1.10%

0.70%

0.00%

ME
ME

17
17

Maine State Zone A
Maine State Zone A

10 to 14
15 to 19

701+

0.00%

101 to 300

12.50
%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

15 to 19

301 to 500

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

0.70%

0.00%

0.40%

0.90%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

1.50%

0.40%

0.40%

0.50%

0.50%

0.70%

6.50%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

0.70%

2.20%

2.60%

3.60%

5.30%

4.50%

4.30%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.40%

0.00%

0.70%

0.90%

0.40%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.90%

1.50%

0.90%

1.70%

0.90%

1.10%

0.70%

6.50%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.20%

2.20%

2.20%

0.90%

1.40%

1.10%

0.70%

4.30%

ME

17

Maine State Zone A

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

0.70%

0.90%

1.30%

1.40%

2.10%

1.50%

2.20%

36.50
%

35.40
%

33.10
%

22.70
%

9.20%

24.10
%

ME

18

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

5.40%

4.80%

25.20
%

ME

18

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

11.10
%

14.30
%

16.00
%

37.80
%

31.70
%

19.80
%

12.70
%

13.20
%

15.10
%

16.70
%

18.40
%

19.00
%

ME

18

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

11.10
%

7.10%

16.00
%

13.50
%

15.90
%

19.80
%

13.80
%

10.10
%

7.80%

10.60
%

18.40
%

10.30
%

539

Stat
e
ME
ME

Region
ID
18
18

Region_Name
Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

Traps per Trawl
2

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

501 to 700

16.70
%

14.30
%

12.00
%

Apr

7.10%

4.00%

8.10%

2.70%

May

Jun

Jul

5.40%

10.50
%

7.90%

9.00%

11.00
%

7.90%

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

8.50%

9.00%

16.70
%

17.20
%

12.10
%

16.90
%

17.50
%

12.10
%

6.90%

3.40%

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

2

701+

11.10
%

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

3.20%

0.90%

1.10%

1.10%

1.20%

0.80%

1.10%

10.30
%

ME

18

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

18

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

11.10
%

14.30
%

12.00
%

5.40%

9.50%

4.50%

1.70%

1.10%

2.40%

3.80%

6.90%

1.70%

ME

18

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

5.60%

7.10%

8.00%

5.40%

6.30%

6.30%

2.80%

3.70%

3.00%

3.80%

9.20%

5.20%

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700

22.20
%

28.60
%

20.00
%

18.90
%

9.50%

4.50%

5.00%

4.80%

5.40%

3.80%

4.60%

6.90%

18

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

701+

11.10
%

7.10%

4.00%

2.70%

3.20%

4.50%

5.00%

5.30%

5.40%

9.10%

8.00%

6.90%

ME

19

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

5.40%

4.80%

25.20
%

36.50
%

35.40
%

33.10
%

22.70
%

9.20%

24.10
%

ME

19

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

2

101 to 300

11.10
%

14.30
%

16.00
%

37.80
%

31.70
%

19.80
%

12.70
%

13.20
%

15.10
%

16.70
%

18.40
%

19.00
%

ME

19

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

2

301 to 500

11.10
%

7.10%

16.00
%

13.50
%

15.90
%

19.80
%

13.80
%

10.10
%

7.80%

10.60
%

18.40
%

10.30
%

ME

19

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

2

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

27.80
%

21.40
%

16.00
%

10.80
%

15.90
%

14.40
%

21.50
%

25.40
%

26.50
%

28.80
%

24.10
%

15.50
%

ME

19

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

3.20%

0.90%

1.10%

1.10%

1.20%

0.80%

1.10%

10.30
%

ME

19

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

11.10
%

14.30
%

12.00
%

5.40%

9.50%

4.50%

1.70%

1.10%

2.40%

3.80%

6.90%

1.70%

19

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

5.60%

7.10%

8.00%

5.40%

6.30%

6.30%

2.80%

3.70%

3.00%

3.80%

9.20%

5.20%

ME

19

Maine State Zone B Hancock County Trawl Limits & Swans Island
Conservation Zone

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

33.30
%

35.70
%

24.00
%

21.60
%

12.70
%

9.00%

9.90%

10.10
%

10.80
%

12.90
%

12.60
%

13.80
%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

5.40%

4.80%

25.20
%

36.50
%

35.40
%

33.10
%

22.70
%

9.20%

24.10
%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

2

101 to 300

11.10
%

14.30
%

16.00
%

37.80
%

31.70
%

19.80
%

12.70
%

13.20
%

15.10
%

16.70
%

18.40
%

19.00
%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

2

301 to 500

11.10
%

7.10%

16.00
%

13.50
%

15.90
%

19.80
%

13.80
%

10.10
%

7.80%

10.60
%

18.40
%

10.30
%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

2

501 to 700

16.70
%

14.30
%

12.00
%

2.70%

7.90%

5.40%

10.50
%

8.50%

9.00%

16.70
%

17.20
%

12.10
%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

2

701+

11.10
%

7.10%

4.00%

8.10%

7.90%

9.00%

11.00
%

16.90
%

17.50
%

12.10
%

6.90%

3.40%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

8.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

1.70%

14.30
%

8.00%

5.40%

1.60%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

1.70%

ME
ME

ME

18

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

3 to 4

501 to 700

11.10
%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.90%

0.60%

0.50%

0.00%

2.30%

2.30%

3.40%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

5 to 9 adjusted for max tpt

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

3.20%

0.90%

1.10%

1.10%

1.20%

0.80%

1.10%

6.90%

14.30
%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

5 to 9 adjusted for max tpt

101 to 300

11.10
%

4.00%

5.40%

7.90%

4.50%

1.70%

1.10%

2.40%

1.50%

6.90%

1.70%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

5 to 9 adjusted for max tpt

301 to 500

5.60%

7.10%

8.00%

5.40%

6.30%

6.30%

2.20%

3.70%

3.00%

3.80%

8.00%

3.40%

ME

20

Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

5 to 9 adjusted for max tpt

501 to 700

11.10
%

14.30
%

12.00
%

13.50
%

7.90%

4.50%

4.40%

4.80%

5.40%

3.80%

2.30%

5.20%

540

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
20

Region_Name
Maine State Zone B Waters Around Mount Desert Rock

Traps per Trawl
5 to 9 adjusted for max tpt

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

701+

11.10
%

7.10%

4.00%

2.70%

1.60%

3.60%

4.40%

4.80%

5.40%

6.80%

5.70%

3.40%

3.50%

12.70
%

19.30
%

20.70
%

16.00
%

9.60%

13.90
%

13.40
%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

2

1 to 100

7.10%

4.50%

0.00%

10.00
%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

2

101 to 300

14.30
%

13.60
%

14.30
%

10.00
%

20.00
%

15.20
%

10.10
%

9.90%

9.40%

11.90
%

14.60
%

19.40
%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

2

301 to 500

0.00%

4.50%

3.60%

12.00
%

17.60
%

16.50
%

10.60
%

8.60%

9.00%

11.90
%

15.20
%

9.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

2

501 to 700

10.70
%

0.00%

10.70
%

6.00%

9.40%

17.70
%

12.80
%

10.80
%

9.90%

10.70
%

11.30
%

6.00%

11.80
%

9.50%

17.90
%

20.30
%

21.70
%

19.20
%

8.60%

9.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

2

701+

3.60%

4.50%

3.60%

10.00
%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.90%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

4.00%

1.20%

0.60%

1.40%

1.30%

0.90%

1.10%

1.30%

1.50%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

3 to 4

101 to 300

7.10%

13.60
%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

2.40%

0.60%

0.50%

0.00%

0.90%

1.70%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.40%

0.00%

0.60%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

0.60%

0.90%

1.30%

2.80%

2.80%

0.70%

3.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.30%

2.80%

3.00%

2.80%

1.10%

2.00%

1.50%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

5 to 9

101 to 300

3.60%

4.50%

3.60%

4.00%

5.90%

1.90%

2.30%

2.60%

2.40%

1.70%

2.60%

4.50%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

4.50%

7.10%

4.00%

1.20%

5.10%

1.80%

1.30%

0.90%

2.30%

1.30%

1.50%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

5 to 9

501 to 700

3.60%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

3.20%

3.00%

4.20%

4.00%

3.30%

3.00%

6.00%

3.50%

1.90%

2.80%

2.60%

1.90%

2.80%

2.00%

4.50%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

5 to 9

701+

7.10%

9.10%

10.70
%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

1.30%

4.50%

6.00%

3.50%

1.30%

0.50%

0.40%

0.90%

1.70%

3.30%

3.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

10 to 14

101 to 300

3.60%

4.50%

14.30
%

18.20
%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

10 to 14

301 to 500

14.30
%

7.10%

8.00%

8.20%

3.80%

2.30%

1.30%

1.40%

2.30%

4.00%

6.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

10 to 14

501 to 700

17.90
%

9.10%

10.70
%

8.00%

5.90%

3.20%

2.30%

2.20%

2.80%

3.40%

2.60%

6.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

10 to 14

701+

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.70%

3.80%

6.40%

8.20%

9.00%

9.00%

7.30%

4.50%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

15 to 19

101 to 300

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.30%

0.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

4.50%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.50%

0.90%

0.00%

0.60%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.60%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.90%

0.90%

0.50%

1.10%

0.70%

0.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

21

Maine State Zone C

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

22

Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

7.10%

4.50%

0.00%

10.00
%

3.50%

12.70
%

19.30
%

20.70
%

16.00
%

9.60%

13.90
%

13.40
%

541

Stat
e
ME
ME

Region
ID
22
22

Region_Name
Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits
Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

Traps per Trawl
2
2

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

101 to 300

14.30
%

13.60
%

14.30
%

10.00
%

20.00
%

15.20
%

10.10
%

4.50%

3.60%

12.00
%

17.60
%

16.50
%

10.60
%
12.80
%

301 to 500

0.00%

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

9.90%

9.40%

11.90
%

14.60
%

19.40
%

8.60%

9.00%

11.90
%

15.20
%

9.00%

10.80
%

11.30
%

6.00%

ME

22

Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

501 to 700

10.70
%

0.00%

10.70
%

6.00%

9.40%

17.70
%

9.90%

10.70
%

ME

22

Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

701+

3.60%

4.50%

3.60%

10.00
%

11.80
%

9.50%

17.90
%

20.30
%

21.70
%

19.20
%

8.60%

9.00%

ME

22

Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

1.90%

3.70%

3.40%

3.80%

1.10%

3.30%

6.00%

Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

17.90
%

22.70
%

25.00
%

16.00
%

10.60
%

3.80%

4.10%

4.30%

4.70%

4.50%

8.60%

9.00%

Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

14.30
%

27.30
%

21.40
%

16.00
%

11.80
%

10.10
%

5.00%

3.40%

3.80%

6.80%

6.60%

7.50%

Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700

21.40
%

13.60
%

10.70
%

10.00
%

5.90%

5.70%

5.50%

5.60%

7.50%

8.50%

7.30%

9.00%

701+

10.70
%

9.10%

10.70
%

6.00%

9.40%

7.00%

11.00
%

12.90
%

14.20
%

15.80
%

10.60
%

11.90
%

ME
ME
ME

22
22
22

ME

22

Maine State Zone C Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

2

1 to 100

3.00%

0.00%

7.40%

14.60
%

16.20
%

23.10
%

30.60
%

30.00
%

25.00
%

21.80
%

14.30
%

14.10
%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

2

101 to 300

33.30
%

33.30
%

29.60
%

29.30
%

27.00
%

19.90
%

16.20
%

13.80
%

14.40
%

14.60
%

16.80
%

21.70
%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

2

301 to 500 adjusted for
max traps

36.40
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

34.10
%

35.10
%

37.80
%

37.60
%

40.40
%

44.00
%

44.70
%

45.30
%

32.60
%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

4.80%

0.00%

2.40%

1.40%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.40%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

4.30%

9.10%

9.50%

3.70%

0.00%

1.40%

0.00%

0.90%

0.40%

1.40%

1.90%

2.50%

3.30%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

3 to 4

301 to 500 adjusted for
max traps

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

1.30%

1.30%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

2.60%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.60%

0.00%

301 to 500 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

4.80%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

3.90%

3.30%

2.80%

3.40%

3.10%

3.30%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

5 to 9

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.60%

0.40%

0.80%

1.40%

0.50%

2.50%

1.10%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

10 to 14

101 to 300

3.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.30%

1.30%

1.30%

0.90%

1.90%

3.10%

7.60%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

10 to 14

301 to 500 adjusted for
max traps

9.10%

4.80%

7.40%

2.40%

4.10%

3.80%

3.90%

5.80%

5.60%

4.40%

5.60%

3.30%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

2.40%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.40%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

0.00%

6.10%

9.50%

7.40%

7.30%

5.40%

1.30%

2.60%

0.80%

2.30%

4.40%

1.90%

2.20%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

15 to 19

301 to 500 adjusted for
max traps

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.60%

0.40%

0.00%

0.50%

0.50%

0.00%

2.20%

ME

23

Maine State Zone D Monhegan Conservation Zone

20 to 39

301 to 500 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

4.10%

3.80%

0.40%

1.70%

1.40%

0.50%

3.10%

0.00%

ME

24

Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

3.00%

0.00%

7.40%

14.60
%

16.20
%

23.10
%

30.60
%

30.00
%

25.00
%

21.80
%

14.30
%

14.10
%

ME

24

Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

33.30
%

33.30
%

29.60
%

29.30
%

27.00
%

19.90
%

16.20
%

13.80
%

14.40
%

14.60
%

16.80
%

21.70
%

542

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
24

Region_Name
Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

Traps per Trawl
2

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

301 to 500

15.20
%

19.00
%

18.50
%

24.40
%

17.60
%

15.40
%

Jul
8.30%

9.50%

11.10
%

4.90%

12.20
%

12.20
%

12.20
%

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

8.80%

7.40%

11.20
%

16.80
%

14.10
%

12.50
%

15.30
%

14.10
%

14.30
%

12.00
%

ME

24

Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

501 to 700

15.20
%

ME

24

Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

2

701+

6.10%

4.80%

3.70%

4.90%

5.40%

10.30
%

17.00
%

19.20
%

21.30
%

19.40
%

14.30
%

6.50%

ME

24

Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

4.80%

0.00%

4.90%

2.70%

2.60%

1.70%

2.10%

1.90%

0.50%

2.50%

5.40%

ME

24

Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

3.00%

0.00%

7.40%

4.90%

4.10%

5.80%

2.20%

1.70%

1.40%

3.90%

5.00%

14.10
%

Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

15.20
%

14.30
%

7.40%

4.90%

6.80%

3.20%

3.10%

3.80%

4.20%

4.40%

8.70%

4.30%

Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700

0.00%

4.80%

3.70%

2.40%

4.10%

3.80%

5.20%

3.30%

2.80%

2.90%

5.00%

2.20%

Maine State Zone D Pemaquid to Robinson's Pt. Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME
ME
ME

24
24
24

701+

9.10%

9.50%

11.10
%

4.90%

4.10%

3.80%

3.50%

5.00%

6.50%

7.30%

2.50%

5.40%

18.20
%

27.30
%

41.20
%

40.50
%

41.90
%

39.70
%

39.00
%

37.50
%

27.50
%

12.10
%

16.30
%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

2

1 to 100

17.60
%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

2

101 to 300

23.50
%

18.20
%

18.20
%

29.40
%

35.10
%

24.70
%

21.60
%

22.90
%

19.20
%

26.40
%

33.30
%

27.90
%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

2

301 to 500

11.80
%

18.20
%

18.20
%

5.90%

8.10%

14.00
%

9.50%

10.20
%

12.50
%

11.00
%

15.20
%

20.90
%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

2

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

14.70
%

14.40
%

16.30
%

18.70
%

16.70
%

7.00%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

2.20%

1.50%

0.00%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.10%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

1.10%

1.70%

0.80%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

4.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

2.60%

2.50%

1.90%

3.30%

1.50%

2.30%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

3 to 4

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

5 to 9

1 to 100

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

1.70%

0.80%

0.00%

1.10%

0.00%

0.00%

101 to 300

17.60
%

18.20
%

18.20
%

5.90%

2.70%

2.20%

0.00%

0.80%

1.90%

1.10%

1.50%

7.00%

11.80
%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

5 to 9

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

5 to 9

301 to 500

11.80
%

0.00%

18.20
%

5.40%

5.40%

2.60%

0.80%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

2.30%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

5 to 9

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

5.90%

9.10%

0.00%

5.90%

2.70%

3.20%

6.00%

7.60%

7.70%

7.70%

10.60
%

11.60
%

ME

25

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

10 to 14

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

0.00%

0.00%

20 to 39

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

5.90%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

22.90
%

40.10
%

42.90
%

39.30
%

35.00
%

24.10
%

12.70
%

5.60%

ME
ME
ME

25
25
26

Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits
Maine State Zone E Zone E Trap Limits
Maine State Zone F

2

1 to 100

4.80%

0.00%

5.90%

18.50
%

36.40
%

29.40
%

14.80
%

12.50
%

10.90
%

11.20
%

12.10
%

13.60
%

12.80
%

11.80
%

13.00
%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

2

101 to 300

28.60
%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

4.20%

3.60%

3.90%

4.90%

5.60%

7.80%

6.90%

3.70%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

2

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

2

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

1.90%

2.30%

2.80%

2.00%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

2.20%

0.50%

0.50%

0.00%

1.40%

0.00%

1.90%

543

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

3 to 4

101 to 300

4.80%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

4.20%

2.20%

1.00%

1.00%

1.70%

1.40%

3.90%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

1.50%

1.00%

1.10%

1.40%

1.00%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

1.50%

0.50%

1.10%

0.70%

1.00%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

5 to 9

1 to 100

9.50%

18.20
%

5.90%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.50%

1.10%

0.70%

2.00%

5.60%

9.10%

17.60
%

11.10
%

20.80
%

5.80%

1.50%

1.90%

1.70%

2.80%

5.90%

7.40%

7.40%

2.10%

9.50%

3.90%

3.40%

2.80%

2.80%

9.80%

14.80
%

3.70%

8.30%

7.30%

7.30%

6.30%

5.10%

6.40%

6.90%

9.30%

17.00
%

18.10
%

22.00
%

20.60
%

11.10
%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

5 to 9

101 to 300

9.50%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

5 to 9

301 to 500

9.50%

0.00%

11.80
%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

5 to 9

501 to 700

4.80%

0.00%

5.90%
0.00%

3.70%

4.20%

7.30%

12.70
%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

5 to 9

701+

9.50%

18.20
%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.90%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

2.10%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.70%

2.00%

9.30%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

6.30%

2.90%

1.50%

1.50%

1.70%

3.50%

3.90%

1.90%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

10 to 14

501 to 700

4.80%

18.20
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

0.70%

2.90%

1.50%

2.80%

4.30%

2.90%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

10 to 14

701+

9.50%

0.00%

5.90%

3.70%

2.10%

2.20%

3.40%

2.90%

3.40%

3.50%

3.90%

7.40%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.50%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

20 to 39

1 to 100

4.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.60%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

7.40%

2.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.90%

ME

26

Maine State Zone F

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

3.70%

2.10%

0.00%

0.50%

0.50%

0.60%

0.70%

0.00%

3.70%

22.20
%

32.60
%

43.20
%

50.90
%

50.50
%

49.50
%

44.00
%

17.40
%

9.40%
21.90
%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

2

1 to 100

6.70%

7.70%

13.30
%

23.10
%

40.00
%

37.00
%

15.20
%

17.60
%

11.30
%

11.70
%

11.30
%

6.70%

10.90
%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

2

101 to 300

20.00
%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

2

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

19.60
%

8.10%

4.70%

3.60%

4.10%

8.00%

13.00
%

9.40%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

2

501 to 700

6.70%

0.00%

6.70%

3.70%

2.20%

4.10%

8.50%

5.40%

9.30%

8.00%

8.70%

9.40%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

2

701+

6.70%

15.40
%

0.00%

7.40%

6.50%

8.10%

5.70%

7.20%

6.20%

9.30%

4.30%

0.00%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

3 to 4

1 to 100

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.90%

1.00%

1.30%

2.20%

3.10%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

3 to 4

101 to 300

6.70%

15.40
%

13.30
%

0.00%

2.20%

1.40%

1.90%

1.80%

3.10%

4.00%

6.50%

6.30%

544

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

7.70%

13.30
%

0.00%

6.50%

1.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

3 to 4

301 to 500

13.30
%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

1.40%

0.00%

2.70%

2.10%

1.30%

2.20%

0.00%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

4.70%

1.80%

2.10%

1.30%

2.20%

3.10%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

2.20%

0.00%

0.90%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

6.30%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

5 to 9

101 to 300

6.70%

7.70%

6.70%

3.70%

0.00%

4.10%

0.90%

0.90%

0.00%

1.30%

4.30%

0.00%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

5 to 9

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

5 to 9

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

1.30%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

5 to 9

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

2.80%

5.40%

5.20%

5.30%

8.70%

3.10%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

4.30%

3.10%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

2.20%

1.40%

2.80%

1.80%

1.00%

1.30%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

2.70%

2.80%

0.90%

2.10%

4.00%

4.30%

6.30%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

10 to 14

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.30%

2.20%

6.30%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

1.30%

2.20%

0.00%

ME

27

Maine State Zone G

20 to 39

701+

6.70%

7.70%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

22.20
%

32.60
%

43.20
%

50.90
%

50.50
%

49.50
%

44.00
%

17.40
%

9.40%
21.90
%

ME

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

6.70%

7.70%

13.30
%

23.10
%

40.00
%

37.00
%

15.20
%

17.60
%

11.30
%

11.70
%

11.30
%

6.70%

10.90
%

ME

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

20.00
%

ME

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

19.60
%

8.10%

4.70%

3.60%

4.10%

8.00%

13.00
%

9.40%

ME

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

2

501 to 700

6.70%

0.00%

6.70%

3.70%

2.20%

4.10%

8.50%

5.40%

9.30%

8.00%

8.70%

9.40%

0.00%

7.40%

6.50%

8.10%

5.70%

7.20%

6.20%

9.30%

4.30%

0.00%

ME

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

2

701+

6.70%

15.40
%

1 to 100

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

4.30%

0.00%

2.80%

2.70%

2.10%

1.30%

8.70%

12.50
%

101 to 300

13.30
%

30.80
%

20.00
%

7.40%

6.50%

8.10%

5.70%

5.40%

4.10%

8.00%

13.00
%

6.30%

7.70%

13.30
%

0.00%

8.70%

4.10%

2.80%

0.90%

2.10%

4.00%

8.70%

12.50
%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

2.70%

0.00%

5.40%

3.10%

2.70%

2.20%

3.10%
15.60
%

ME

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

20.00
%

501 to 700

0.00%

ME

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

701+

6.70%

7.70%

6.70%

3.70%

2.20%

4.10%

7.50%

7.20%

8.20%

8.00%

13.00
%

ME

28

Maine State Zone G Southern Maine Trawl Limits

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

2

1 to 100

6.70%

7.70%

13.30
%

22.20
%

32.60
%

43.20
%

50.90
%

50.50
%

49.50
%

44.00
%

17.40
%

9.40%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

2

101 to 300

20.00
%

23.10
%

40.00
%

37.00
%

15.20
%

17.60
%

11.30
%

11.70
%

11.30
%

6.70%

10.90
%

21.90
%

545

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May
19.60
%

8.10%

4.70%

3.60%

2.20%

4.10%

8.50%

5.40%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

2

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

2

501 to 700

6.70%

0.00%

6.70%

3.70%

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

4.10%

8.00%

13.00
%

9.40%

9.30%

8.00%

8.70%

9.40%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

2

701+

6.70%

15.40
%

0.00%

7.40%

6.50%

8.10%

5.70%

7.20%

6.20%

9.30%

4.30%

0.00%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

3 to 4

1 to 100

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.90%

1.00%

1.30%

2.20%

3.10%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

3 to 4

101 to 300

6.70%

15.40
%

13.30
%

0.00%

2.20%

1.40%

1.90%

1.80%

3.10%

4.00%

6.50%

6.30%

7.70%

13.30
%

0.00%

6.50%

1.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

3 to 4

301 to 500

13.30
%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

1.40%

0.00%

2.70%

2.10%

1.30%

2.20%

0.00%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

4.70%

1.80%

2.10%

1.30%

2.20%

3.10%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

2.20%

0.00%

0.90%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

6.30%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

5 to 9

101 to 300

6.70%

7.70%

6.70%

3.70%

0.00%

4.10%

0.90%

0.90%

0.00%

1.30%

4.30%

0.00%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

5 to 9

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

5 to 9

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

1.30%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

5 to 9

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

2.80%

5.40%

5.20%

5.30%

8.70%

3.10%

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

10 to 15 adjusted for max
tpt - 10

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

4.30%

3.10%

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

10 to 15 adjusted for max
tpt - 10

101 to 300

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

3.70%

4.30%

2.70%

2.80%

2.70%

1.00%

2.70%

2.20%

0.00%

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

10 to 15 adjusted for max
tpt - 10

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

2.70%

2.80%

0.90%

2.10%

4.00%

4.30%

6.30%

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

10 to 15 adjusted for max
tpt - 10

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

701+

6.70%

7.70%

6.70%

3.70%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.30%

2.20%

9.40%

ME
ME
ME
ME

29
29
29
29

ME

29

Maine State Zone G Waters off Kittery Trawl Limits

10 to 15 adjusted for max
tpt - 10

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

1

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.40%

2.30%

2.20%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

1

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

1

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

1

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

4.50%

4.40%

4.00%

2.10%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

2

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

2

301 to 500

8.30%

0.00%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

9.10%

3.00%

2.70%

2.30%

2.20%

2.00%

6.30%

4.70%

0.00%

13.30
%

10.00
%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

2

501 to 700

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

2

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.10%

2.70%

11.40
%

8.30%

7.00%

6.50%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

546

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

2.10%

7.00%

3.20%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

4.70%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.10%

6.80%

6.70%

6.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.80%

0.00%

4.00%

2.10%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

5 to 9

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

3.00%

2.70%

0.00%

2.20%

2.00%

0.00%

4.70%

3.20%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

5 to 9

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

6.10%

5.40%

9.10%

2.20%

2.00%

4.20%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

5.40%

0.00%

4.40%

0.00%

4.20%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

2.70%

2.30%

4.40%

4.00%

2.10%

0.00%

9.70%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

10 to 14

701+

0.00%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

6.10%

8.10%

0.00%

4.40%

2.00%

4.20%

4.70%

3.20%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

15 to 19

101 to 300

8.30%

0.00%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

28.60
%

14.30
%

13.60
%

9.10%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

2.10%

0.00%

3.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

5.40%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

14.00
%

10.40
%

20.90
%

6.50%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

15 to 19

301 to 500

16.70
%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

3.00%

5.40%

9.10%

17.80
%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

2.30%

2.20%

2.00%

2.10%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

20 to 39

101 to 300

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

5.40%

2.30%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.50%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

20 to 39

301 to 500

25.00
%

0.00%

14.30
%

22.70
%

9.10%

0.00%

9.10%

2.20%

4.00%

4.20%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

20 to 39

501 to 700

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

6.10%

8.10%

2.30%

2.20%

4.00%

4.20%

4.70%

9.70%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

9.10%

18.90
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

30.00
%

29.20
%

18.60
%

22.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.50
%

5.90%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

10.50
%

11.80
%

6.30%

6.30%

10.50
%

5.00%

5.90%

5.30%

5.00%

5.90%

5.30%

5.00%

0.00%

ME

30

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Exempt

20 to 39

701+

16.70
%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

1

1 to 100

0.00%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

1

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

1

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

0.00%

5.30%

5.90%

6.30%

12.50
%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

1

701+

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

2

1 to 100

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

2

101 to 300

7.70%

0.00%

9.10%

6.70%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

6.30%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

5.30%

5.90%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

547

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
31

Region_Name
Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

Traps per Trawl
2

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

5.30%

5.00%

11.80
%

25.00
%

27.30
%

13.30
%

12.50
%

15.80
%

17.60
%

18.80
%

12.50
%

10.50
%

10.00
%

11.80
%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

2

701+

15.40
%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

3 to 4

101 to 300

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

6.30%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

5.90%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

12.50
%

9.10%

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

12.50
%

10.50
%

5.00%

0.00%
0.00%

ME
ME
ME

31
31
31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt
Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt
Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

5 to 9
5 to 9
10 to 14

501 to 700
701+
1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

6.70%
0.00%

5.30%

5.90%

6.30%

12.50
%

6.30%

5.30%

11.80
%

6.30%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%
10.00
%

5.90%

6.30%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

10.50
%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

10.50
%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

6.30%

5.30%

5.90%

6.30%

12.50
%

5.30%

5.00%

5.90%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

5.90%

6.30%

6.30%

10.50
%

5.00%

5.90%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

10 to 14

701+

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

11.80
%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

15 to 19

301 to 500

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

13.30
%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

5.90%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

15 to 19

701+

7.70%

12.50
%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

18.20
%

6.70%

6.30%

5.30%

5.90%

12.50
%

12.50
%

10.50
%

10.00
%

17.60
%

ME

31

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles Exempt

20 to 39

701+

15.40
%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.40%

2.30%

4.40%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

4.50%

6.10%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

2.30%

6.50%

8.30%

0.00%

14.30
%

4.50%

12.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

2.00%

2.10%

7.00%

3.20%

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

9.10%

3.00%

5.40%

2.30%

4.40%

2.00%

8.30%

9.30%

0.00%

22.70
%

24.40
%

20.00
%

14.60
%

ME
ME

32
32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

3 to 4
3 to 4

301 to 500
501 to 700

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.10%

13.50
%

7.00%

6.50%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

548

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.80%

0.00%

4.00%

2.10%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

3.00%

2.70%

0.00%

2.20%

2.00%

0.00%

4.70%

3.20%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

6.10%

5.40%

9.10%

2.20%

2.00%

4.20%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

5.40%

0.00%

4.40%

0.00%

4.20%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

2.70%

2.30%

4.40%

4.00%

2.10%

0.00%

9.70%

7.10%

4.50%

6.10%

8.10%

0.00%

4.40%

2.00%

4.20%

4.70%

3.20%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

701+

0.00%

14.30
%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

8.30%

0.00%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

28.60
%

14.30
%

13.60
%

9.10%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

2.10%

0.00%

3.20%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

16.70
%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

5.40%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

3.00%

5.40%

9.10%

17.80
%

14.00
%

10.40
%

20.90
%

6.50%

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

2.30%

2.20%

2.00%

2.10%

2.30%

0.00%

101 to 300

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

5.40%

2.30%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.50%

301 to 500

25.00
%

0.00%

14.30
%

22.70
%

9.10%

0.00%

9.10%

2.20%

4.00%

4.20%

2.30%

0.00%

501 to 700

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

6.10%

8.10%

2.30%

2.20%

4.00%

4.20%

4.70%

9.70%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

9.10%

18.90
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

30.00
%

29.20
%

18.60
%

22.60
%

ME
ME
ME

32
32
32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

20 to 39
20 to 39
20 to 39

ME

32

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

701+

16.70
%

ME

33

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.10%

4.50%

6.70%

6.00%

4.20%

4.70%

6.50%

101 to 300

16.70
%

14.30
%

21.40
%

22.70
%

12.10
%

8.10%

6.80%

0.00%

2.00%

4.20%

7.00%

19.40
%

50.00
%

28.60
%

42.90
%

40.90
%

33.30
%

8.10%

15.90
%

8.90%

12.00
%

14.60
%

14.00
%

12.90
%

ME

33

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

33

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

ME

33

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700

16.70
%

28.60
%

14.30
%

18.20
%

24.20
%

24.30
%

6.80%

15.60
%

12.00
%

14.60
%

20.90
%

22.60
%

701+

16.70
%

28.60
%

21.40
%

18.20
%

30.30
%

51.40
%

65.90
%

68.90
%

68.00
%

62.50
%

53.50
%

38.70
%

ME

33

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.40%

2.30%

4.40%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

2

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

2

301 to 500

8.30%

0.00%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

9.10%

3.00%

2.70%

2.30%

2.20%

2.00%

8.30%

4.70%

0.00%

17.80
%

14.00
%

10.40
%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

2

501 to 700

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

2

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.10%

5.40%

15.90
%

7.00%

6.50%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

549

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

2.10%

7.00%

3.20%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

4.70%

0.00%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.10%

6.80%

6.70%

6.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.80%

0.00%

4.00%

2.10%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

3.00%

2.70%

0.00%

2.20%

2.00%

0.00%

4.70%

3.20%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

6.10%

5.40%

9.10%

2.20%

2.00%

4.20%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

5.40%

0.00%

4.40%

0.00%

4.20%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

2.70%

2.30%

4.40%

4.00%

2.10%

0.00%

9.70%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

701+

0.00%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

6.10%

8.10%

0.00%

4.40%

2.00%

4.20%

4.70%

3.20%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

101 to 300

8.30%

0.00%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

28.60
%

14.30
%

13.60
%

9.10%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

2.10%

0.00%

3.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

5.40%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

14.00
%

10.40
%

20.90
%

6.50%

2.00%

2.10%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

301 to 500

16.70
%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

3.00%

5.40%

9.10%

17.80
%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

2.30%

2.20%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

101 to 300

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

5.40%

2.30%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.50%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

301 to 500

25.00
%

0.00%

14.30
%

22.70
%

9.10%

0.00%

9.10%

2.20%

4.00%

4.20%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

501 to 700

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

6.10%

8.10%

2.30%

2.20%

4.00%

4.20%

4.70%

9.70%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

9.10%

18.90
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

30.00
%

29.20
%

18.60
%

22.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.50
%

9.50%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

13.30
%

40.00
%

21.10
%

14.30
%

16.70
%

8.70%

14.80
%

14.80
%

19.00
%

ME

34

Maine Nearshore Zone A 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

701+

16.70
%

ME

35

Maine Nearshore Zone B 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

101 to 300

26.70
%

0.00%

16.70
%

ME

35

Maine Nearshore Zone B 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

35

Maine Nearshore Zone B 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

40.00
%

60.00
%

33.30
%

40.00
%

13.30
%

15.80
%

14.30
%

11.10
%

17.40
%

22.20
%

22.20
%

38.10
%

ME

35

Maine Nearshore Zone B 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

501 to 700

13.30
%

40.00
%

16.70
%

20.00
%

33.30
%

31.60
%

28.60
%

11.10
%

17.40
%

18.50
%

40.70
%

14.30
%

ME

35

Maine Nearshore Zone B 3-6 Miles (Hancock County Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

701+

20.00
%

0.00%

33.30
%

26.70
%

13.30
%

21.10
%

33.30
%

61.10
%

52.20
%

44.40
%

22.20
%

28.60
%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

8.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

101 to 300

5.30%

0.00%

8.30%

11.80
%

8.70%

7.10%

4.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

550

Stat
e
ME
ME

Region
ID
36
36

Region_Name
Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

Traps per Trawl
3 to 4
3 to 4

Traps Group
301 to 500
501 to 700

Jan

Feb

5.30%

15.40
%

0.00%

0.00%

Mar

May

Jun

5.90%

0.00%

14.30
%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

13.00
%

14.30
%

4.00%
20.00
%

0.00%

Apr

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

4.50%

3.60%

10.00
%

3.80%

4.50%

9.10%

3.60%

6.70%

0.00%

22.70
%

22.70
%

25.00
%

13.30
%

7.70%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

701+

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

17.60
%

4.30%

10.70
%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

101 to 300

5.30%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

8.70%

3.60%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

301 to 500

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.70%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

0.00%

3.80%

7.70%

8.30%

5.90%

4.30%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

501 to 700

15.80
%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

701+

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

8.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

3.30%

0.00%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

14.30
%

8.00%

9.10%

9.10%

3.60%

3.30%

3.80%

10.00
%

11.50
%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

101 to 300

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%
5.90%

8.70%

7.10%

4.00%

4.50%

9.10%

14.30
%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

5.30%

0.00%

16.70
%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

5.30%

38.50
%

16.70
%

5.90%

8.70%

3.60%

8.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

11.50
%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

701+

10.50
%

15.40
%

16.70
%

11.80
%

4.30%

17.90
%

16.00
%

31.80
%

27.30
%

21.40
%

36.70
%

30.80
%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

1 to 100

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

4.30%

0.00%

4.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

3.30%

7.70%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

7.10%

3.30%

0.00%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

8.70%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.30%

0.00%

701+

10.50
%

7.70%

16.70
%

11.80
%

4.30%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

4.50%

7.10%

6.70%

11.50
%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

36

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

8.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.80
%

8.70%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

10.70
%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.30%

3.80%

8.70%

14.30
%

4.00%

4.50%

9.10%

3.60%

6.70%

0.00%

22.70
%

22.70
%

21.40
%

13.30
%

7.70%

ME
ME
ME

37
37
37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket
Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket
Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

2
2
2

101 to 300
301 to 500
501 to 700

5.30%
5.30%
0.00%

0.00%
7.70%
0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

7.10%

20.00
%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

2

701+

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

17.60
%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

4.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

3.60%

6.70%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

551

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

101 to 300

5.30%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

8.70%

3.60%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

301 to 500

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.70%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

0.00%

3.80%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

501 to 700

15.80
%

7.70%

8.30%

5.90%

4.30%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

701+

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

8.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

3.30%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

14.30
%

8.00%

9.10%

9.10%

3.60%

3.30%

3.80%

10.00
%

11.50
%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

101 to 300

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%
5.90%

8.70%

7.10%

4.00%

4.50%

9.10%

14.30
%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

301 to 500

5.30%

0.00%

16.70
%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

501 to 700

5.30%

38.50
%

16.70
%

5.90%

8.70%

3.60%

8.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

11.50
%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

701+

10.50
%

15.40
%

16.70
%

11.80
%

4.30%

17.90
%

16.00
%

31.80
%

27.30
%

21.40
%

36.70
%

30.80
%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

1 to 100

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

101 to 300

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

4.30%

0.00%

4.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

3.30%

7.70%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

7.10%

3.30%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

501 to 700

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

8.70%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.30%

0.00%

7.70%

16.70
%

11.80
%

4.30%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

4.50%

7.10%

6.70%

11.50
%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

701+

10.50
%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

37

Maine Nearshore Zone C 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

1 to 100

13.30
%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

8.00%

3.70%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

101 to 300

6.70%

0.00%

6.30%

18.80
%

4.30%

8.70%

4.00%

7.40%

7.10%

6.90%

13.80
%

7.40%

301 to 500

13.30
%

0.00%

12.50
%

6.30%

13.00
%

0.00%

8.00%

3.70%

0.00%

3.40%

6.90%

0.00%

13.00
%

17.40
%

8.00%

7.40%

7.10%

6.90%

13.80
%

14.80
%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

12.50
%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

701+

33.30
%

44.40
%

31.30
%

31.30
%

26.10
%

43.50
%

36.00
%

44.40
%

50.00
%

41.40
%

34.50
%

22.20
%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

4.30%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

3.40%

0.00%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

701+

6.70%

11.10
%

6.30%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

6.90%

3.40%

7.40%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

552

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
38

Region_Name
Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

Traps per Trawl
10 to 14

Traps Group
101 to 300

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

13.00
%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

3.70%

3.60%

0.00%

3.40%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

18.80
%

12.50
%

8.70%

17.40
%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

6.70%

22.20
%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

8.00%

3.70%

3.60%

6.90%

6.90%

11.10
%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.70%

4.30%

4.00%

11.10
%

7.10%

10.30
%

3.40%

3.70%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

11.10
%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

701+

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

7.40%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

3.70%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

3.60%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

4.00%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

38

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

701+

6.70%

11.10
%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

7.10%

3.40%

6.90%

0.00%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

2

1 to 100

6.70%

0.00%

12.50
%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

8.00%

3.70%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

18.80
%

4.30%

4.30%

4.00%

7.40%

7.10%

3.40%

13.80
%

7.40%

0.00%

12.50
%

6.30%

13.00
%

0.00%

8.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

6.90%

0.00%

4.30%

13.00
%

4.00%

3.70%

3.60%

3.40%

6.90%

11.10
%

ME
ME

39
39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket
Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

2
2

101 to 300

0.00%

301 to 500

13.30
%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

2

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

2

701+

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

17.40
%

34.80
%

28.00
%

37.00
%

35.70
%

34.50
%

27.60
%

14.80
%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

1 to 100

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

101 to 300

6.70%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

8.70%

4.30%

4.00%

3.70%

3.60%

3.40%

6.90%

3.70%

44.40
%

31.30
%

25.00
%

8.70%

8.70%

8.00%

7.40%

14.30
%

6.90%

6.90%

7.40%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

3 to 4

701+

20.00
%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

4.30%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

3.40%

0.00%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

11.10
%

6.30%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

6.90%

3.40%

7.40%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

5 to 9

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

13.00
%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

301 to 500

6.70%

22.20
%

18.80
%

12.50
%

8.70%

17.40
%

0.00%

3.70%

3.60%

0.00%

3.40%

3.70%

553

701+

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
39

Region_Name
Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

Traps per Trawl
10 to 14

Traps Group
501 to 700

Jan
0.00%

Feb
0.00%

Mar
0.00%

Apr
0.00%

May
4.30%

Jun
0.00%

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

8.00%

3.70%

3.60%

6.90%

6.90%

11.10
%

7.10%

10.30
%

3.40%

3.70%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

10 to 14

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.70%

4.30%

4.00%

11.10
%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

15 to 19

701+

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

7.40%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

3.70%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

3.60%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

4.00%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

11.10
%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

7.10%

3.40%

6.90%

0.00%

ME

39

Maine Nearshore Zone D 3-6 Miles Pocket

20 to 39

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

5.60%

0.00%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

2

101 to 300

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

9.10%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

7.10%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

2

301 to 500

9.10%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

14.30
%

18.20
%

16.70
%

8.30%

5.60%

0.00%

2

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

14.30
%

9.10%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

18.20
%

8.30%

0.00%

11.10
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

25.00
%

5.60%

7.10%

ME
ME

40
40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)
Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

3 to 4

701+

1 to 100

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

20.00
%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

20.00
%

37.50
%

28.60
%

27.30
%

20.00
%

3 to 4

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

18.20
%

0.00%

12.50
%

14.30
%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

5 to 9

1 to 100

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

5 to 9

101 to 300

9.10%

20.00
%

12.50
%

14.30
%

9.10%

0.00%

14.30
%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

5.60%

0.00%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

5 to 9

301 to 500

27.30
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

14.30
%

9.10%

0.00%

14.30
%

18.20
%

16.70
%

8.30%

5.60%

14.30
%

5 to 9

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

9.10%

20.00
%

25.00
%

14.30
%

9.10%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

16.70
%

11.10
%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

22.20
%

21.40
%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

25.00
%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

10 to 14

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

10 to 14

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.60%

0.00%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.60%

0.00%

ME

40

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Pocket Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

10.00
%

14.30
%

9.10%

8.30%

8.30%

5.60%

7.10%

554

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
41

Region_Name
Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

Traps per Trawl
3 to 4

Traps Group
1 to 100

Jan
0.00%

Feb
0.00%

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

14.30
%

9.10%

0.00%

8.30%

5.60%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

22.20
%

21.40
%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

18.20
%

30.00
%

0.00%

18.20
%

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

3 to 4

101 to 300

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

3 to 4

301 to 500

9.10%

40.00
%

37.50
%

28.60
%

27.30
%

30.00
%

14.30
%

18.20
%

16.70
%

8.30%

5.60%

0.00%

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

3 to 4

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

18.20
%

0.00%

12.50
%

14.30
%

9.10%

0.00%

14.30
%

9.10%

25.00
%

25.00
%

5.60%

7.10%

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

5 to 9

1 to 100

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

101 to 300

9.10%

20.00
%

12.50
%

14.30
%

0.00%

14.30
%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

5.60%

0.00%

20.00
%

12.50
%

14.30
%

9.10%

0.00%

14.30
%

18.20
%

16.70
%

8.30%

5.60%

14.30
%

20.00
%

25.00
%

14.30
%

9.10%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

16.70
%

11.10
%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

22.20
%

21.40
%

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

5 to 9

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

5 to 9

301 to 500

27.30
%

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

5 to 9

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

9.10%

9.10%

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

25.00
%

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

10 to 14

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

10 to 14

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.60%

0.00%

ME

41

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.60%

0.00%

15 to 19

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

9.10%

10.00
%

14.30
%

9.10%

8.30%

8.30%

5.60%

7.10%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME
ME

41
42

Maine Nearshore Zone E 3-6 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)
Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

1 to 100

9.10%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

14.30
%

12.50
%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

12.50
%

14.30
%

0.00%

501 to 700

14.30
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

37.50
%

11.10
%

28.60
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

22.20
%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

701+

14.30
%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

25.00
%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

14.30
%

12.50
%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

555

Stat
e
ME
ME

Region
ID
42
42

Region_Name
Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

Traps per Trawl
15 to 19
15 to 19

Traps Group
101 to 300
301 to 500

Jan
0.00%
0.00%

Feb
0.00%
0.00%

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

701+

28.60
%

28.60
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

14.30
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

42

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

ME
ME
ME
ME
ME

42
42
42
42
43

Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone F 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

20 to 39
20 to 39
20 to 39
20 to 39
3 to 4

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

301 to 500

0.00%

14.30
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

0.00%

501 to 700

14.30
%

14.30
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

25.00
%

701+

14.30
%

0.00%

12.50
%

101 to 300

1 to 100

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.50
%

5.90%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

20.00
%

18.80
%

15.80
%

11.80
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

15.80
%

5.00%

11.80
%

0.00%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

101 to 300

15.40
%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

6.30%

10.50
%

11.80
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

10.50
%

15.00
%

5.90%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

5.30%

15.00
%

17.60
%

25.00
%

36.40
%

13.30
%

12.50
%

15.80
%

17.60
%

18.80
%

18.80
%

15.80
%

15.00
%

17.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

10.50
%

5.00%

0.00%
0.00%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

3 to 4

701+

23.10
%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

5 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

12.50
%

7.70%

12.50
%

ME
ME
ME

43
43
43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

5 to 9
5 to 9
10 to 14

501 to 700
701+
1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

6.70%
0.00%

5.30%

5.90%

6.30%

12.50
%

6.30%

5.30%

11.80
%

6.30%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%
10.00
%

5.90%

6.30%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

10.50
%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

10.50
%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

6.30%

5.30%

5.90%

6.30%

12.50
%

5.30%

5.00%

5.90%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

5.90%

6.30%

6.30%

10.50
%

5.00%

5.90%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

10 to 14

701+

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

11.80
%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

13.30
%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

5.90%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

15 to 19

701+

7.70%

12.50
%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

43

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

556

Stat
e
ME
ME

Region
ID
43
44

Region_Name
Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

Traps per Trawl
20 to 39
1

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

701+

15.40
%

25.00
%

18.20
%

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Apr
6.70%
0.00%

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

12.50
%

10.50
%

10.00
%

17.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

5.30%

5.90%

12.50
%

0.00%

10.50
%

5.90%

6.30%

11.80
%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

1

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

6.30%

10.50
%

6.30%

6.30%

10.50
%

5.00%

5.90%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

1

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

0.00%

5.30%

5.90%

6.30%

12.50
%

5.30%

5.00%

5.90%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

1

701+

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

5.30%

5.00%

0.00%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

2

1 to 100

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

2

101 to 300

7.70%

0.00%

9.10%

6.70%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

6.30%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

2

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

5.30%

5.90%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

2

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

5.30%

5.00%

11.80
%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

2

701+

15.40
%

25.00
%

27.30
%

13.30
%

12.50
%

15.80
%

17.60
%

18.80
%

12.50
%

10.50
%

10.00
%

11.80
%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

5.30%

11.80
%

6.30%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

101 to 300

7.70%

0.00%

9.10%

20.00
%

12.50
%

15.80
%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

10.50
%

10.00
%

11.80
%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

301 to 500

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

18.80
%

5.30%

11.80
%

6.30%

12.50
%

10.50
%

5.00%

5.90%

501 to 700

7.70%

25.00
%

9.10%

13.30
%

12.50
%

10.50
%

5.90%

6.30%

0.00%

5.30%

15.00
%

11.80
%

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

ME

44

Maine Nearshore Zone G 3-6 Miles (Southern Maine Trawl Limits)

3 to 4 adjusted for max tpt
-3

701+

38.50
%

50.00
%

36.40
%

26.70
%

18.80
%

15.80
%

23.50
%

25.00
%

31.30
%

31.60
%

30.00
%

35.30
%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.40%

2.30%

4.40%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

9.10%

6.10%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

4.70%

6.50%

8.30%

0.00%

14.30
%

4.50%

12.10
%

0.00%

6.80%

2.20%

6.00%

4.20%

9.30%

6.50%
3.20%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

301 to 500

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

501 to 700

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

13.60
%

6.10%

8.10%

2.30%

6.70%

4.00%

8.30%

14.00
%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

12.10
%

18.90
%

31.80
%

26.70
%

22.00
%

18.80
%

9.30%

6.50%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.10%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

5.40%

0.00%

4.40%

0.00%

4.20%

2.30%

3.20%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

2.70%

2.30%

4.40%

4.00%

2.10%

0.00%

9.70%

7.10%

4.50%

6.10%

8.10%

0.00%

4.40%

2.00%

4.20%

4.70%

3.20%

3.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

701+

0.00%

14.30
%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

8.30%

0.00%

7.10%

4.50%

28.60
%

14.30
%

13.60
%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

16.70
%

9.10%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

2.10%

0.00%

3.20%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

5.40%

0.00%

2.20%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

3.00%

5.40%

9.10%

17.80
%

14.00
%

10.40
%

20.90
%

6.50%

557

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

2.30%

2.20%

2.00%

2.10%

2.30%

0.00%

101 to 300

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

3.00%

5.40%

2.30%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.50%

22.70
%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

25.00
%

0.00%

14.30
%

9.10%

0.00%

9.10%

2.20%

4.00%

4.20%

2.30%

0.00%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

8.30%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

6.10%

8.10%

2.30%

2.20%

4.00%

4.20%

4.70%

9.70%

ME

45

Maine Nearshore Zone A 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

701+

16.70
%

14.30
%

7.10%

4.50%

9.10%

18.90
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

30.00
%

29.20
%

18.60
%

22.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

10.50
%

4.80%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

15.80
%

9.50%

16.70
%

8.70%

11.10
%

14.80
%

14.30
%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

6.70%

26.70
%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

101 to 300

20.00
%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

301 to 500

26.70
%

40.00
%

33.30
%

26.70
%

6.70%

10.50
%

9.50%

11.10
%

8.70%

14.80
%

7.40%

23.80
%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

501 to 700

6.70%

40.00
%

16.70
%

20.00
%

33.30
%

31.60
%

23.80
%

11.10
%

17.40
%

14.80
%

33.30
%

9.50%

701+

13.30
%

6.70%

6.70%

10.50
%

23.80
%

50.00
%

39.10
%

29.60
%

11.10
%

14.30
%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

101 to 300

6.70%

0.00%

8.30%

6.70%

13.30
%

0.00%

4.80%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

4.80%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

13.30
%

20.00
%

0.00%

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

7.40%

14.80
%

4.80%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

4.80%

6.70%

0.00%

5.30%

4.80%

0.00%

4.30%

3.70%

7.40%

4.80%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

701+

6.70%

0.00%

16.70
%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.50%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

3.70%

0.00%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

701+

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

0.00%

4.80%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

5.30%

4.80%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

46

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

6.70%

6.70%

5.30%

4.80%

11.10
%

8.70%

7.40%

3.70%

4.80%

ME

47

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles (Waters Around Mount Desert Rock)

5 to 9 adjusted for max tpt

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.50
%

9.50%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

13.30
%

40.00
%

21.10
%

14.30
%

16.70
%

8.70%

14.80
%

14.80
%

19.00
%

ME

47

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles (Waters Around Mount Desert Rock)

5 to 9 adjusted for max tpt

101 to 300

26.70
%

ME

47

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles (Waters Around Mount Desert Rock)

5 to 9 adjusted for max tpt

301 to 500

40.00
%

60.00
%

33.30
%

40.00
%

13.30
%

15.80
%

14.30
%

11.10
%

17.40
%

22.20
%

22.20
%

38.10
%

ME

47

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles (Waters Around Mount Desert Rock)

5 to 9 adjusted for max tpt

501 to 700

13.30
%

40.00
%

16.70
%

20.00
%

33.30
%

31.60
%

28.60
%

11.10
%

17.40
%

18.50
%

40.70
%

14.30
%

ME

47

Maine Nearshore Zone B 6-12 Miles (Waters Around Mount Desert Rock)

5 to 9 adjusted for max tpt

701+

20.00
%

0.00%

33.30
%

26.70
%

13.30
%

21.10
%

33.30
%

61.10
%

52.20
%

44.40
%

22.20
%

28.60
%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

8.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

101 to 300

10.50
%

7.70%

8.30%

11.80
%

17.40
%

10.70
%

8.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

301 to 500

10.50
%

15.40
%

0.00%

5.90%

8.70%

14.30
%

8.00%

0.00%

4.50%

7.10%

10.00
%

7.70%

558

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
48

Region_Name
Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

Traps per Trawl
5 to 9

Traps Group

Jan

501 to 700

15.80
%

701+

10.50
%

Feb
7.70%

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

8.30%

5.90%

17.40
%

17.90
%

4.00%

4.50%

9.10%

7.10%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

23.50
%

4.30%

10.70
%

28.00
%

22.70
%

27.30
%

25.00
%

16.70
%

7.70%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

5 to 9

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

101 to 300

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

4.30%

14.30
%

8.00%

9.10%

9.10%

3.60%

3.30%

3.80%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

5.30%

0.00%

16.70
%

5.90%

8.70%

7.10%

4.00%

4.50%

9.10%

14.30
%

10.00
%

11.50
%

16.70
%

5.90%

8.70%

3.60%

8.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

11.50
%

0.00%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

5.30%

38.50
%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

701+

10.50
%

15.40
%

16.70
%

11.80
%

4.30%

17.90
%

16.00
%

31.80
%

27.30
%

21.40
%

36.70
%

30.80
%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

1 to 100

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

4.30%

0.00%

4.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

3.30%

7.70%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

7.10%

3.30%

0.00%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

8.70%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.30%

0.00%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

701+

10.50
%

7.70%

16.70
%

11.80
%

4.30%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

4.50%

7.10%

6.70%

11.50
%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

48

Maine Nearshore Zone C 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

8.00%

3.70%

3.60%

0.00%

0.00%

14.80
%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

1 to 100

13.30
%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

101 to 300

6.70%

0.00%

6.30%

18.80
%

21.70
%

13.00
%

12.00
%

7.40%

7.10%

10.30
%

13.80
%

11.10
%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

20.00
%

22.20
%

31.30
%

18.80
%

21.70
%

17.40
%

8.00%

7.40%

3.60%

6.90%

13.80
%

3.70%

17.40
%

17.40
%

16.00
%

11.10
%

14.30
%

13.80
%

20.70
%

25.90
%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

12.50
%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

701+

40.00
%

55.60
%

37.50
%

37.50
%

34.80
%

47.80
%

40.00
%

55.60
%

60.70
%

58.60
%

41.40
%

33.30
%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

11.10
%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

701+

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

7.40%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

3.70%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

3.60%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

4.00%

3.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

49

Maine Nearshore Zone D 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

701+

6.70%

11.10
%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

7.10%

3.40%

6.90%

0.00%

ME

50

Maine Nearshore Zone E 6-12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

10 to 14

1 to 100

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

20.00
%

28.60
%

18.20
%

0.00%

8.30%

5.60%

7.10%

559

Stat
e
ME

Region
ID
50

Region_Name
Maine Nearshore Zone E 6-12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

Traps per Trawl
10 to 14

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

101 to 300

18.20
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

28.60
%

27.30
%

30.00
%

14.30
%

27.30
%

60.00
%

50.00
%

42.90
%

36.40
%

30.00
%

28.60
%

36.40
%

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

8.30%

0.00%

27.80
%

28.60
%

33.30
%

16.70
%

11.10
%

14.30
%

ME

50

Maine Nearshore Zone E 6-12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

10 to 14

301 to 500

36.40
%

ME

50

Maine Nearshore Zone E 6-12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

10 to 14

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

27.30
%

20.00
%

37.50
%

28.60
%

18.20
%

10.00
%

14.30
%

9.10%

50.00
%

66.70
%

38.90
%

35.70
%

ME

50

Maine Nearshore Zone E 6-12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

ME

50

Maine Nearshore Zone E 6-12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.60%

0.00%

ME

50

Maine Nearshore Zone E 6-12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.60%

0.00%

15 to 19

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

0.00%

9.10%

10.00
%

14.30
%

9.10%

8.30%

8.30%

5.60%

7.10%

28.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

12.50
%

ME
ME

50
51

Maine Nearshore Zone E 6-12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)
Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

1 to 100

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

11.10
%

0.00%

25.00
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

11.10
%

0.00%

12.50
%

ME

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

101 to 300

0.00%

14.30
%

ME

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

25.00
%

14.30
%

12.50
%

ME

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

28.60
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

50.00
%

11.10
%

28.60
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

14.30
%

25.00
%

ME

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

701+

14.30
%

14.30
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

14.30
%

37.50
%

25.00
%

28.60
%

37.50
%

ME

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%
0.00%

ME
ME
ME

51
51
51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

15 to 19
15 to 19
15 to 19

101 to 300
301 to 500

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

28.60
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

14.30
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

701+

28.60
%

ME

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

ME

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

14.30
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

51

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

14.30
%

14.30
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

25.00
%

0.00%

11.10
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

701+

14.30
%

0.00%

12.50
%

14.30
%

0.00%

ME
ME

51
52

Maine Nearshore Zone F 6-12 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

20 to 39
10 to 14

1 to 100

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

17.60
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

15.80
%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

20.00
%

25.00
%

26.30
%

11.80
%

18.80
%

12.50
%

26.30
%

15.00
%

17.60
%

0.00%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

101 to 300

15.40
%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

13.30
%

18.80
%

15.80
%

23.50
%

18.80
%

25.00
%

15.80
%

20.00
%

11.80
%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

501 to 700

7.70%

25.00
%

18.20
%

13.30
%

6.30%

5.30%

0.00%

6.30%

6.30%

10.50
%

20.00
%

23.50
%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

10 to 14

701+

38.50
%

37.50
%

36.40
%

20.00
%

25.00
%

21.10
%

35.30
%

31.30
%

37.50
%

36.80
%

25.00
%

23.50
%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

560

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

13.30
%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

5.90%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

15 to 19

701+

7.70%

12.50
%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

18.20
%

6.70%

6.30%

5.30%

5.90%

12.50
%

12.50
%

10.50
%

10.00
%

17.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

52

Maine Nearshore Zone G 6-12 Miles

20 to 39

701+

15.40
%

ME

53

Maine Nearshore Zone A +12 Miles

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

ME

53

Maine Nearshore Zone A +12 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

53

Maine Nearshore Zone A +12 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

10.00
%

ME

53

Maine Nearshore Zone A +12 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

8.30%

12.50
%

18.20
%

15.40
%

18.20
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

22.20
%

7.70%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

16.70
%

ME

53

Maine Nearshore Zone A +12 Miles

15 to 19

701+

18.20
%

8.30%

20.00
%

ME

53

Maine Nearshore Zone A +12 Miles

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

ME

53

Maine Nearshore Zone A +12 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

9.10%

25.00
%

18.20
%

7.70%

18.20
%

8.30%

30.00
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

33.30
%

15.40
%

8.30%

25.00
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

25.00
%

37.50
%

33.30
%

53.80
%

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

ME

53

Maine Nearshore Zone A +12 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

62.50
%

63.60
%

69.20
%

63.60
%

75.00
%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00
%

16.70
%

0.00%

100.00
%

50.00
%

0.00%

ME

53

Maine Nearshore Zone A +12 Miles

20 to 39

701+

72.70
%

ME

54

Maine Nearshore Zone B +12 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

301 to 500

20.00
%

ME
ME

54
54

Maine Nearshore Zone B +12 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone B +12 Miles

15 to 19
15 to 19

0.00%

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

0.00%

25.00
%

50.00
%

40.00
%

33.30
%

16.70
%

40.00
%

25.00
%

ME

54

Maine Nearshore Zone B +12 Miles

15 to 19

701+

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

54

Maine Nearshore Zone B +12 Miles

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00
%

ME

54

Maine Nearshore Zone B +12 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

20.00
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

16.70
%

16.70
%

20.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

701+

40.00
%

25.00
%

40.00
%

16.70
%

16.70
%

20.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

0.00%

60.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

33.30
%

0.00%

50.00
%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

20.00
%

ME
ME

54
55

Maine Nearshore Zone B +12 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone C +12 Miles

20 to 39
15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

ME

55

Maine Nearshore Zone C +12 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

14.30
%

ME

55

Maine Nearshore Zone C +12 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

33.30
%

28.60
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

57.10
%

33.30
%

20.00
%

25.00
%

25.00
%

25.00
%

40.00
%

40.00
%

ME

55

Maine Nearshore Zone C +12 Miles

15 to 19

701+

50.00
%

ME

55

Maine Nearshore Zone C +12 Miles

20 to 39

101 to 300

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

55

Maine Nearshore Zone C +12 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

55

Maine Nearshore Zone C +12 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

561

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

25.00
%

16.70
%

0.00%

16.70
%

20.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

10.50
%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

ME

55

Maine Nearshore Zone C +12 Miles

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

28.60
%

ME

56

Maine Nearshore Zone D +12 Miles

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

9.50%

10.50
%
15.80
%

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

0.00%

40.00
%

40.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

7.10%

6.30%

11.80
%

12.50
%

14.30
%

14.30
%

12.50
%

5.90%

0.00%

ME

56

Maine Nearshore Zone D +12 Miles

15 to 19

101 to 300

4.30%

12.50
%

ME

56

Maine Nearshore Zone D +12 Miles

15 to 19

301 to 500

13.00
%

18.80
%

15.80
%

4.80%

ME

56

Maine Nearshore Zone D +12 Miles

15 to 19

501 to 700

17.40
%

12.50
%

10.50
%

9.50%

21.10
%

31.60
%

6.30%

7.10%

7.10%

12.50
%

17.60
%

18.80
%

50.00
%

63.20
%

61.90
%

42.10
%

42.10
%

68.80
%

64.30
%

57.10
%

50.00
%

64.70
%

50.00
%

ME

56

Maine Nearshore Zone D +12 Miles

15 to 19

701+

56.50
%

ME

56

Maine Nearshore Zone D +12 Miles

20 to 39

101 to 300

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

7.10%

7.10%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

56

Maine Nearshore Zone D +12 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

0.00%

6.30%

5.30%

9.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

56

Maine Nearshore Zone D +12 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

5.30%

10.50
%

0.00%

7.10%

7.10%

12.50
%

0.00%

6.30%

ME

56

Maine Nearshore Zone D +12 Miles

20 to 39

701+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

ME

57

Maine Nearshore Zone E +12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

57

Maine Nearshore Zone E +12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

20.00
%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

ME

57

Maine Nearshore Zone E +12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

301 to 500

0.00%

14.30
%

28.60
%

28.60
%

0.00%

60.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

33.30
%

33.30
%

25.00
%

0.00%

100.00
%

85.70
%

71.40
%

71.40
%

80.00
%

20.00
%

50.00
%

75.00
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

50.00
%

100.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

50.00
%

0.00%

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

66.70
%

ME

57

Maine Nearshore Zone E +12 Miles Zone E (Trap Limits)

15 to 19

501 to 700 adjusted for
max traps

ME

58

Maine Nearshore Zone F +12 Miles

20 to 39

1 to 100

0.00%

101 to 300

50.00
%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

50.00
%

25.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

25.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

0.00%

33.30
%

ME
ME

58
58

Maine Nearshore Zone F +12 Miles
Maine Nearshore Zone F +12 Miles

20 to 39
20 to 39

301 to 500

ME

58

Maine Nearshore Zone F +12 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

25.00
%

ME

58

Maine Nearshore Zone F +12 Miles

20 to 39

701+

50.00
%

25.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00
%

50.00
%

66.70
%

100.00
%

33.30
%

ME

59

Maine Nearshore Zone G +12 Miles

20 to 39

101 to 300

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

59

Maine Nearshore Zone G +12 Miles

20 to 39

301 to 500

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

ME

59

Maine Nearshore Zone G +12 Miles

20 to 39

501 to 700

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

75.00
%

75.00
%

100.00
%

33.30
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

12.50
%

0.00%

3.70%

23.50
%

39.50
%

41.40
%

38.80
%

32.80
%

18.10
%

3.30%

2.40%

0.00%

1.50%

2.40%

1.30%

0.70%

0.70%

1.10%

1.70%

2.40%

6.40%

11.70
%

9.80%
17.10
%

ME

59

Maine Nearshore Zone G +12 Miles

20 to 39

701+

75.00
%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

1

1 to 100

0.00%

1 to 100

10.50
%

0.00%

11.10
%

101 to 300

31.60
%

25.00
%

11.10
%

11.10
%

12.50
%

11.10
%

25.90
%

7.40%

4.80%

3.90%

4.60%

5.10%

9.60%

15.00
%

NH
NH

60
60

NH Atlantic Exempt
NH Atlantic Exempt

10 to 15
10 to 15

4.40%

2.40%

2.60%

3.30%

5.10%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

10 to 15

301 to 500

10.50
%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

10 to 15

501 to 800

21.10
%

25.00
%

22.20
%

14.80
%

13.20
%

8.90%

5.90%

5.90%

6.60%

8.50%

18.30
%

22.00
%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

10 to 15

801+

10.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

10.30
%

8.90%

9.20%

9.90%

10.20
%

13.80
%

13.30
%

7.30%

562

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

16+

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

16+

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

2.10%

1.70%

0.00%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

16+

501 to 800

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

16+

801+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

4.40%

5.60%

7.90%

8.60%

8.00%

3.20%

1.70%

2.40%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

2

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.70%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

3

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

2.40%

3.30%

1.30%

1.50%

3.20%

1.70%

0.00%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

3

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

0.80%

0.70%

0.70%

0.70%

1.10%

0.00%

0.00%

10.60
%

10.00
%

7.30%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

4 to 5

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

4.40%

6.50%

7.20%

9.90%

10.20
%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

4 to 5

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.40%

0.80%

0.70%

0.70%

0.70%

1.10%

5.00%

4.90%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

4 to 5

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

0.80%

0.70%

0.70%

0.70%

1.10%

0.00%

2.40%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

4 to 5

501 to 800

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.30%

1.30%

1.50%

2.10%

1.70%

0.00%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

6 to 9

1 to 100

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.40%

5.60%

3.30%

3.30%

5.10%

7.40%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

14.80
%

2.90%

2.40%

4.60%

4.60%

3.60%

3.20%

3.30%

12.20
%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

6 to 9

101 to 300

5.30%

12.50
%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

6 to 9

301 to 500

5.30%

0.00%

11.10
%

0.00%

1.50%

0.80%

1.30%

1.30%

1.50%

2.10%

5.00%

2.40%

11.10
%

3.70%

7.40%

3.20%

2.60%

2.00%

2.20%

4.30%

5.00%

2.40%

0.00%

3.70%

1.50%

1.60%

1.30%

1.30%

1.50%

1.10%

1.70%

0.00%

44.80
%

50.90
%

49.20
%

50.00
%

49.20
%

48.90
%

44.00
%

20.00
%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

6 to 9

501 to 800

0.00%

12.50
%

NH

60

NH Atlantic Exempt

6 to 9

801+

0.00%

0.00%

1

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

NH Inland Bays Exempt

1

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

1.70%

2.10%

0.00%

0.00%

NH Inland Bays Exempt

10 to 15

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

1.60%

1.70%

1.70%

2.10%

4.00%

10.00
%

NH Inland Bays Exempt

10 to 15

101 to 300

0.00%

25.00
%

20.00
%

0.00%

3.40%

1.80%

4.80%

5.20%

5.10%

6.40%

8.00%

0.00%

301 to 500

33.30
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

3.40%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

40.00
%

0.00%

3.40%

3.60%

1.60%

1.70%

1.70%

2.10%

12.00
%

30.00
%

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

NH

61

NH

61

NH

61

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

10 to 15

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

10 to 15

501 to 800

33.30
%

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

10 to 15

801+

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

6.90%

5.50%

7.90%

5.20%

6.80%

6.40%

8.00%

10.00
%

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

2

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

13.80
%

12.70
%

11.10
%

10.30
%

8.50%

8.50%

8.00%

10.00
%

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

2

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

12.50
%

3.40%

1.80%

4.80%

3.40%

3.40%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

3

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

1.60%

5.20%

5.10%

4.30%

4.00%

0.00%

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

4 to 5

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

17.20
%

16.40
%

15.90
%

13.80
%

15.30
%

12.80
%

8.00%

0.00%

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

4 to 5

101 to 300

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

563

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

4 to 5

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

6 to 9

301 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

NH

61

NH Inland Bays Exempt

6 to 9

501 to 800

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.70%

1.70%

2.10%

4.00%

10.00
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

27.30
%

15.80
%

36.70
%

25.70
%

17.20
%

12.00
%

7.10%

11.10
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.30%

2.90%

6.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

1

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

1

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

2.90%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

1

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

3.30%

2.90%

3.40%

4.00%

7.10%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.90%

3.40%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

3.30%

2.90%

0.00%

4.00%

7.10%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

17.20
%

12.00
%

0.00%

11.10
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

11.40
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

33.30
%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

7.10%

0.00%

9.10%

5.30%

3.30%

2.90%

3.40%

4.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.90%

3.40%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

10 to 14

800+

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

11.10
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

15 to 19

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

3.30%

2.90%

3.40%

4.00%

7.10%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

5.30%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

18.20
%

10.50
%

6.70%

5.70%

6.90%

8.00%

14.30
%

22.20
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

20+

100 to 299

33.30
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

20+

300 to 499

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

2.90%

3.40%

4.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

15.80
%

3.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

62

Mass State Area 1 Exempt

20+

800+

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

16.70
%

9.10%

15.80
%

16.70
%

28.60
%

24.10
%

24.00
%

21.40
%

22.20
%

564

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

11.10
%

10.10
%

8.10%

5.60%

4.90%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

1

0 to 99

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

1.30%

6.90%

10.30
%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.70%

5.10%

0.90%

2.80%

2.60%

4.00%

4.40%

1.90%

0.00%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

1

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.70%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

2

0 to 99

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

1.70%

1.40%

1.30%

1.30%

2.90%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

2

100 to 299

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

4.70%

5.10%

6.00%

4.80%

3.90%

3.40%

2.90%

2.80%

4.90%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.70%

0.70%

0.70%

0.90%

0.00%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.70%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

2

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

4.00%

4.50%

2.30%

2.60%

1.70%

2.80%

3.30%

3.40%

2.90%

1.90%

0.00%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

3

100 to 299

4.70%

4.00%

0.00%

2.30%

1.30%

3.40%

3.40%

3.90%

5.40%

2.90%

4.60%

7.30%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

3

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

2.80%

2.00%

2.00%

2.20%

1.90%

1.20%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

3

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

2.00%

2.00%

2.20%

0.90%

1.20%

4.70%

3.80%

4.30%

3.40%

2.00%

2.00%

2.20%

1.90%

4.90%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

7.00%

4.00%

13.60
%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

2.30%

4.00%

4.50%

7.00%

2.60%

1.70%

1.40%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

2.40%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

9.30%

4.00%

4.50%

2.30%

5.10%

0.90%

1.40%

1.30%

1.30%

1.50%

2.80%

1.20%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

4.70%

4.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

100 to 299

14.00
%

24.00
%

18.20
%

14.00
%

7.70%

3.40%

2.80%

2.00%

2.70%

2.90%

3.70%

3.70%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

10 to 14

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

5.10%

7.80%

9.00%

9.20%

11.40
%

8.80%

9.30%

4.90%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

4.00%

4.50%

2.30%

3.80%

7.80%

8.30%

9.20%

8.70%

10.30
%

8.30%

8.50%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

6.90%

9.00%

6.50%

6.70%

5.90%

6.50%

6.10%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

2.60%

2.80%

2.60%

2.70%

2.20%

0.90%

0.00%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

2.30%

4.00%

4.50%

2.30%

1.30%

1.70%

0.70%

2.00%

0.70%

0.70%

1.90%

4.90%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

15 to 19

500 to 799

4.70%

8.00%

9.10%

2.30%

2.60%

2.60%

1.40%

0.70%

1.30%

2.20%

4.60%

3.70%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

15 to 19

800+

2.30%

8.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.30%

0.90%

1.40%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.70%

0.90%

1.20%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

20+

100 to 299

9.30%

8.00%

9.10%

9.30%

12.80
%

5.20%

4.10%

3.90%

2.70%

3.70%

5.60%

8.50%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

20+

300 to 499

7.00%

4.00%

0.00%

9.30%

10.30
%

4.30%

4.10%

3.30%

3.40%

5.10%

6.50%

7.30%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

20+

500 to 799

7.00%

8.00%

13.60
%

7.00%

9.00%

9.50%

4.10%

4.60%

4.70%

5.90%

7.40%

9.80%

565

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

8.00%

13.60
%

16.30
%

14.10
%

14.70
%

14.50
%

17.60
%

17.40
%

17.60
%

17.60
%

13.40
%

MA

63

Mass State Area 2 Exempt

20+

800+

16.30
%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.90%

5.90%

6.00%

3.70%

4.10%

2.20%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

1.20%

3.00%

1.90%

2.00%

2.20%

2.30%

2.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

1

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

2.40%

2.00%

2.80%

2.00%

2.20%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

1

800+

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

0.00%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.10%

2.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.90%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

8.20%

4.00%

3.70%

3.10%

4.30%

2.30%

2.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

1.20%

2.00%

1.90%

2.00%

1.10%

0.00%

2.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

3.00%

1.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

2

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.80%

2.40%

3.00%

2.80%

1.00%

3.20%

4.60%

6.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

3

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

2.40%

2.00%

1.90%

2.00%

1.10%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

3

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

1.00%

0.90%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

2.40%

2.00%

2.80%

3.10%

2.20%

4.60%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

2.00%

1.90%

2.00%

2.20%

2.30%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

0.00%

1.20%

1.00%

1.90%

0.00%

1.10%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

5.90%

3.50%

4.00%

3.70%

5.10%

4.30%

3.40%

4.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

11.80
%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

2.00%

3.50%

4.00%

5.60%

6.10%

7.50%

5.70%

2.00%

9.70%

11.50
%

16.00
%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

5.90%

4.70%

9.00%

6.50%

10.20
%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

2.00%

3.50%

3.00%

2.80%

3.10%

3.20%

2.30%

2.00%

14.30
%

4.80%

2.00%

4.70%

3.00%

2.80%

3.10%

2.20%

1.10%

2.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

5.90%

14.30
%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

2.00%

4.70%

4.00%

2.80%

4.10%

4.30%

3.40%

2.00%

500 to 799

11.80
%

14.30
%

14.30
%

9.50%

3.90%

4.70%

2.00%

4.70%

4.10%

3.20%

2.30%

6.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

15 to 19

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

3.90%

4.70%

4.00%

3.70%

3.10%

2.20%

2.30%

4.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.10%

1.10%

2.00%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

20+

100 to 299

23.50
%

28.60
%

42.90
%

23.80
%

13.70
%

8.20%

7.00%

7.50%

6.10%

9.70%

10.30
%

10.00
%

566

Stat
e
MA
MA

Region
ID
64
64

Region_Name
Mass State Area 3 Exempt
Mass State Area 3 Exempt

Traps per Trawl
20+
20+

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

300 to 499

5.90%

14.30
%

500 to 799

11.80
%

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

9.50%

13.70
%

5.90%

8.00%

7.50%

7.10%

6.50%

8.00%

8.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

4.70%

3.00%

1.90%

1.00%

1.10%

3.40%

2.00%

28.60
%

14.30
%

19.00
%

17.60
%

12.90
%

15.00
%

18.70
%

17.30
%

19.40
%

20.70
%

20.00
%

MA

64

Mass State Area 3 Exempt

20+

800+

17.60
%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

1.80%

3.60%

6.70%

9.00%

6.50%

7.80%

3.30%

1.90%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

3.60%

3.60%

2.90%

2.70%

1.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.90%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.80%

1.90%

0.00%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

1.80%

2.40%

1.90%

0.90%

0.90%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.90%

0.90%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

1.90%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.00%

0.90%

0.90%

2.00%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

2.40%

4.80%

1.80%

1.90%

1.00%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

3.70%

10.00
%

3.20%

1.80%

1.20%

1.00%

0.90%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.90%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

6.70%

20.00
%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

0.00%

1.20%

1.90%

1.80%

2.80%

2.00%

3.30%

3.70%

16.10
%

5.50%

6.00%

3.80%

6.30%

7.50%

7.80%

4.40%

9.30%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

6.70%

0.00%

10.00
%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.50%

6.00%

2.90%

1.80%

1.90%

1.00%

1.10%

5.60%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

7.30%

7.10%

6.70%

9.00%

9.30%

8.80%

7.80%

3.70%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

1.90%

0.90%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

6.70%

20.00
%

10.00
%

6.50%

1.80%

1.20%

1.90%

1.80%

1.90%

1.00%

2.20%

3.70%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

7.30%

6.00%

6.70%

5.40%

6.50%

7.80%

7.80%

3.70%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

7.30%

3.60%

6.70%

5.40%

7.50%

8.80%

8.90%

9.30%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

3.80%

3.60%

3.70%

3.90%

4.40%

3.70%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.90%

100 to 299

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

12.90
%

7.30%

3.60%

5.80%

8.10%

5.60%

6.90%

5.60%

9.30%

10.00
%

16.10
%

14.50
%

11.90
%

5.80%

7.20%

9.30%

8.80%

11.10
%

11.10
%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

20+

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

20+

300 to 499

6.70%

20.00
%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

20+

500 to 799

26.70
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

19.40
%

12.70
%

10.70
%

8.70%

8.10%

6.50%

6.90%

13.30
%

7.40%

MA

65

Mass State Area 4 Exempt

20+

800+

26.70
%

20.00
%

10.00
%

9.70%

18.20
%

20.20
%

21.20
%

19.80
%

18.70
%

18.60
%

17.80
%

16.70
%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

0.00%

3.80%

5.30%

7.40%

9.10%

8.10%

1.70%

5.70%

2.80%

567

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

3.50%

2.90%

3.00%

3.20%

3.40%

1.90%

5.60%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

1

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

1.60%

1.70%

1.90%

2.80%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

1.90%

2.80%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

3

0 to 99

14.30
%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

1.80%

1.50%

1.50%

1.60%

1.70%

3.80%

5.60%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

3

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.70%

8.80%

5.90%

7.60%

8.10%

3.40%

1.90%

8.30%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.40%

8.80%

7.40%

6.10%

6.50%

5.10%

7.50%

5.60%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

5.30%

1.50%

1.50%

1.60%

1.70%

3.80%

0.00%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

6 to 9

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

1.50%

3.00%

1.60%

1.70%

3.80%

2.80%

33.30
%

9.10%

9.40%

8.80%

8.80%

6.10%

6.50%

8.50%

7.50%

5.60%

7.50%

8.80%

5.90%

7.60%

9.70%

11.90
%

7.50%

8.30%

3.80%

3.50%

4.40%

6.10%

6.50%

6.80%

3.80%

2.80%

10.20
%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%
25.00
%

0.00%

18.20
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

14.30
%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.70%

7.00%

10.30
%

9.10%

11.30
%

5.70%

8.30%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

15 to 19

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

1.80%

2.90%

3.00%

3.20%

3.40%

3.80%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

18.20
%

1.90%

0.00%

2.90%

3.00%

3.20%

5.10%

5.70%

2.80%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

14.30
%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

1.80%

2.90%

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

5.60%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

3.50%

1.50%

1.50%

1.60%

3.40%

1.90%

2.80%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

1.80%

1.50%

3.00%

3.20%

3.40%

1.90%

8.30%

300 to 499

14.30
%

75.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

3.80%

0.00%

1.50%

1.50%

3.20%

1.70%

3.80%

2.80%

13.20
%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

20+

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

20+

500 to 799

28.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

18.20
%

5.30%

1.50%

3.00%

1.60%

1.70%

7.50%

5.60%

MA

66

Mass State Area 5 Exempt

20+

800+

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

17.00
%

22.80
%

23.50
%

19.70
%

16.10
%

16.90
%

15.10
%

11.10
%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.50%

4.10%

6.80%

5.50%

3.40%

7.50%

6.80%

0.00%

568

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

8.20%

6.80%

7.30%

6.90%

3.80%

2.30%

7.40%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

1

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

3.60%

3.40%

1.90%

2.30%

0.00%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

1

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

1.80%

1.70%

1.90%

2.30%

0.00%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

2.00%

1.70%

1.80%

0.00%

1.90%

4.50%

3.70%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

2.00%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

2.30%

0.00%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

4.10%

3.40%

7.30%

3.40%

5.70%

4.50%

0.00%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

3.80%

0.00%

3.70%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

5.10%

5.50%

8.60%

0.00%

0.00%

18.50
%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.50%

10.20
%

8.50%

9.10%

8.60%

7.50%

9.10%

3.70%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

14.30
%

6.80%

7.30%

8.60%

5.70%

11.40
%

3.70%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

6 to 9

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

4.10%

5.10%

3.60%

3.40%

3.80%

2.30%

3.70%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

0.00%

1.90%

2.30%

0.00%

50.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

7.50%

6.10%

5.10%

5.50%

6.90%

5.70%

4.50%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

14.30
%

8.50%

7.30%

5.20%

9.40%

6.80%

7.40%

11.90
%

12.70
%

12.10
%

13.20
%

18.20
%

7.40%

5.10%

3.60%

6.90%

7.50%

2.30%

3.70%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

50.00
%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.50%

10.20
%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

2.00%

50.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

50.00
%

5.00%

2.00%

3.40%

3.60%

5.20%

5.70%

6.80%

3.70%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

0.00%

1.70%

1.80%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

2.00%

1.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

3.70%

0.00%

1.70%

1.80%

1.70%

1.90%

2.30%

0.00%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

MA

67

Mass State Area 6 Exempt

20+

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

6.10%

8.50%

9.10%

8.60%

5.70%

6.80%

11.10
%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

13.00
%

7.80%

8.10%

7.00%

7.90%

6.30%

14.30
%

13.00
%

15.60
%

16.10
%

15.80
%

18.40
%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

1

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

9.50%

13.00
%

9.40%

9.70%

8.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

1

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

9.50%

3.70%

4.70%

4.80%

5.30%

5.30%

0.00%

569

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

1

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

4.80%

3.70%

3.10%

3.20%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

0.00%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

2

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

3.20%

3.50%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

3

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

3

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

3.70%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

3

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

3.70%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

0.00%

18.80
%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

5.60%

3.10%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

6 to 9

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

3.20%

3.50%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

7.10%

7.40%

7.80%

8.10%

8.80%

5.30%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

4.80%

5.30%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

5.30%

0.00%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

4.20%

4.80%

3.70%

1.60%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

20+

100 to 299

100.00
%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

3.10%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

7.10%

3.70%

3.10%

3.20%

5.30%

5.30%

6.30%

MA

68

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3) Exempt

20+

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

7.10%

7.40%

9.40%

12.90
%

12.30
%

15.80
%

6.30%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

13.00
%

7.80%

8.10%

7.00%

7.90%

6.30%

570

Stat
e
MA
MA

Region
ID
69
69

Region_Name
Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

Traps per Trawl
1
1

Traps Group
100 to 299
300 to 499

Jan
0.00%
0.00%

Feb
0.00%
0.00%

Mar
0.00%
0.00%

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

16.70
%

14.30
%

13.00
%

15.60
%

16.10
%

15.80
%

18.40
%

6.30%

0.00%

16.70
%

9.50%

13.00
%

9.40%

9.70%

8.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

1

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

9.50%

3.70%

4.70%

4.80%

5.30%

5.30%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

1

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

4.80%

3.70%

3.10%

3.20%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

0.00%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

2

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

3.20%

3.50%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

3

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

3

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

3.70%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

3

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

3.70%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

0.00%

18.80
%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

5.60%

3.10%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

3.20%

3.50%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

7.10%

7.40%

7.80%

8.10%

8.80%

5.30%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

4.80%

5.30%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

5.30%

0.00%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

100 to 299

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

4.20%

4.80%

3.70%

1.60%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

3.10%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

571

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

7.10%

3.70%

3.10%

3.20%

5.30%

5.30%

6.30%

12.30
%

15.80
%

6.30%

MA

69

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

7.10%

7.40%

9.40%

12.90
%

16.00
%

21.20
%

16.70
%

12.20
%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

5.40%

9.10%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.10%

4.80%

4.90%

2.70%

9.10%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

1

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

12.00
%

6.10%

7.10%

4.90%

5.40%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

1

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.10%

2.40%

2.40%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

3.00%

2.40%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

8.00%

6.10%

4.80%

4.90%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

3

100 to 299

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

2.40%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

5.40%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.40%

7.30%

5.40%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

300 to 499

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

6.10%

4.50%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

4.00%

3.00%

7.10%

4.90%

5.40%

3.00%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.10%

4.80%

2.40%

2.70%

3.00%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.40%

7.30%

8.10%

6.10%

0.00%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.10%

9.10%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

0 to 99

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

8.30%

8.00%

9.10%

2.40%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

8.30%

8.00%

3.00%

7.10%

2.40%

5.40%

9.10%

13.60
%

MA
MA

70
70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

20+
20+

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

20+

300 to 499

12.50
%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

4.00%

3.00%

4.80%

4.90%

5.40%

6.10%

18.20
%

MA

70

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3) Exempt

20+

800+

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

16.70
%

16.00
%

18.20
%

26.20
%

29.30
%

35.10
%

36.40
%

31.80
%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

16.00
%

21.20
%

16.70
%

12.20
%

5.40%

9.10%

0.00%

572

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.10%

4.80%

4.90%

2.70%

9.10%

0.00%

6.10%

7.10%

4.90%

5.40%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

1

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

12.00
%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

1

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.10%

2.40%

2.40%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

3.00%

2.40%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

8.00%

6.10%

4.80%

4.90%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

2.40%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

3

100 to 299

12.50
%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

5.40%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.40%

7.30%

5.40%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

6.10%

4.50%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

12.50
%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

4.00%

3.00%

7.10%

4.90%

5.40%

3.00%

0.00%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.10%

4.80%

2.40%

2.70%

3.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.40%

7.30%

8.10%

6.10%

0.00%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

12.50
%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.10%

9.10%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

0 to 99

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

8.30%

8.00%

9.10%

2.40%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

8.30%

8.00%

3.00%

7.10%

2.40%

5.40%

9.10%

13.60
%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

300 to 499

12.50
%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

4.00%

3.00%

4.80%

4.90%

5.40%

6.10%

18.20
%

MA

71

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1/OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

800+

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

16.70
%

16.00
%

18.20
%

26.20
%

29.30
%

35.10
%

36.40
%

31.80
%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

16.00
%

21.20
%

16.70
%

12.20
%

5.40%

9.10%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.10%

4.80%

4.90%

2.70%

9.10%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

1

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

12.00
%

6.10%

7.10%

4.90%

5.40%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

1

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.10%

2.40%

2.40%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

573

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

3.00%

2.40%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

8.00%

6.10%

4.80%

4.90%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

3

100 to 299

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

2.40%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

5.40%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.40%

7.30%

5.40%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

6.10%

4.50%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

4.00%

3.00%

7.10%

4.90%

5.40%

3.00%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.10%

4.80%

2.40%

2.70%

3.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.40%

7.30%

8.10%

6.10%

0.00%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

12.50
%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.10%

9.10%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

0 to 99

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

100 to 299

12.50
%

8.30%

8.00%

9.10%

2.40%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

300 to 499

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

8.30%

8.00%

3.00%

7.10%

2.40%

5.40%

9.10%

13.60
%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

4.00%

3.00%

4.80%

4.90%

5.40%

6.10%

18.20
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

16.70
%

16.00
%

18.20
%

26.20
%

29.30
%

35.10
%

36.40
%

31.80
%

MA

72

Mass State Area 8 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

800+

12.50
%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

1

0 to 99

13.30
%

13.30
%

13.30
%

13.30
%

13.30
%

14.30
%

14.30
%

15.90
%

10.80
%

9.70%

40.90
%

50.00
%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

1

100 to 299

46.70
%

46.70
%

46.70
%

46.70
%

46.70
%

17.10
%

19.00
%

15.90
%

13.50
%

19.40
%

27.30
%

25.00
%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

1

300 to 499

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

25.70
%

19.00
%

18.20
%

27.00
%

25.80
%

4.50%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

1

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.60%

7.10%

9.10%

8.10%

6.50%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.70%

4.50%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

2

500 to 799

6.70%

6.70%

6.70%

6.70%

6.70%

8.60%

9.50%

9.10%

8.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

3

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

0.00%

0.00%

574

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

3

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

2.70%

3.20%

4.50%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.70%

2.40%

4.50%

5.40%

3.20%

4.50%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.90%

2.40%

2.30%

2.70%

3.20%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

25.00
%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.70%

4.80%

4.50%

5.40%

3.20%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

3.20%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

2.30%

2.70%

3.20%

4.50%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

20+

100 to 299

6.70%

6.70%

6.70%

6.70%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

20+

300 to 499

6.70%

6.70%

6.70%

6.70%

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

3.20%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.40
%

9.50%

11.40
%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

73

Mass State Area 9 Exempt

20+

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

4.50%

5.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0 to 99

20.00
%

0.00%

10.00
%

7.70%

21.40
%

17.60
%

15.40
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
25.00
%

MA
MA
MA
MA

74
74
74
74

Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

1
1
2
2

100 to 299
0 to 99
100 to 299

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

11.80
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

MA

74

Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

MA

74

Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

7.10%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

74

Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

MA

74

Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

15.40
%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA
MA
MA
MA
MA

74
74
74
74
74

Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14
10 to 14
10 to 14
15 to 19
15 to 19

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

20.00
%

0.00%

20.00
%

20.00
%

15.40
%

7.10%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

25.00
%

300 to 499

0.00%

25.00
%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

15.40
%

7.10%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

74

Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

74

Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

17.60
%

15.40
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

MA

74

Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

20+

300 to 499

20.00
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

23.10
%

21.40
%

23.50
%

23.10
%

30.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

575

Stat
e
MA
MA

Region
ID
74
75

Region_Name
Mass State Area 10 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

Traps per Trawl
20+
1

Traps Group

Jan

500 to 799

0.00%

0 to 99

20.00
%

Feb
0.00%
0.00%

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

20.00
%

15.40
%

21.40
%

23.50
%

23.10
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

7.70%

21.40
%

17.60
%

15.40
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

25.00
%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.80
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

25.00
%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

7.10%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

15.40
%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

0.00%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

20.00
%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

15.40
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

20.00
%

0.00%

20.00
%

7.10%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

25.00
%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

15.40
%

7.10%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

17.60
%

15.40
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

MA
MA

75
75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19
20+

300 to 499
0 to 99

0.00%
0.00%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

300 to 499

20.00
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

23.10
%

21.40
%

23.50
%

23.10
%

30.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

MA

75

Mass State Area 10 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

15.40
%

21.40
%

23.50
%

23.10
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

17.60
%

15.40
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

1

0 to 99

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

7.70%

21.40
%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.80
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
25.00
%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

7.10%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

15.40
%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

20.00
%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

20.00
%

0.00%

20.00
%

20.00
%

15.40
%

7.10%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

25.00
%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

576

Stat
e
MA
MA

Region
ID
76
76

Region_Name
Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

Traps per Trawl
15 to 19
15 to 19

Traps Group

Jan

100 to 299

20.00
%

300 to 499

0.00%

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

15.40
%

7.10%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

17.60
%

15.40
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

76

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt

20+

300 to 499

20.00
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

23.10
%

21.40
%

23.50
%

23.10
%

30.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

20.00
%

15.40
%

21.40
%

23.50
%

23.10
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

7.70%

21.40
%

17.60
%

15.40
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
25.00
%

MA
MA
MA
MA
MA

76
77
77
77
77

Mass State Area 11 - LMA 2 (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+
1
1
2
2

500 to 799

0.00%

0 to 99

20.00
%

100 to 299
0 to 99
100 to 299

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

11.80
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

MA

77

Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

MA

77

Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

7.10%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

77

Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

15.40
%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA
MA
MA
MA
MA

77
77
77
77
77

Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

6 to 9
10 to 14
10 to 14
10 to 14
15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

7.10%

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

20.00
%

0.00%

20.00
%

20.00
%

15.40
%

7.10%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

25.00
%

300 to 499

0.00%

25.00
%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

15.40
%

MA

77

Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

7.10%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

77

Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

77

Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

17.60
%

15.40
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

300 to 499

20.00
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

23.10
%

21.40
%

23.50
%

23.10
%

30.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

20.00
%

15.40
%

21.40
%

23.50
%

23.10
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

7.70%

21.40
%

17.60
%

15.40
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA
MA
MA
MA
MA

77
77
78
78
78

Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 11 - LMA OC (0-3) Exempt
Mass State Area 12 Exempt
Mass State Area 12 Exempt
Mass State Area 12 Exempt

20+
20+
1
1
2

500 to 799

0.00%

0 to 99

20.00
%

100 to 299
0 to 99

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

MA

78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.80
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

25.00
%

MA

78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt

3

100 to 299

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

7.10%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

577

Stat
e
MA
MA

Region
ID
78
78

Region_Name
Mass State Area 12 Exempt
Mass State Area 12 Exempt

Traps per Trawl
6 to 9
6 to 9

Traps Group

Jan

0 to 99

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

100 to 299

Feb

Mar
0.00%
0.00%

Apr

May

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

15.40
%

Jun
0.00%
7.10%

Jul
0.00%
0.00%

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

MA

78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

MA

78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

20.00
%

0.00%

20.00
%

20.00
%

15.40
%

7.10%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

25.00
%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA
MA
MA

78
78
78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt
Mass State Area 12 Exempt
Mass State Area 12 Exempt

15 to 19
15 to 19
20+

300 to 499
0 to 99

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

15.40
%

7.10%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

17.60
%

15.40
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

0.00%

MA

78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

MA

78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt

20+

300 to 499

20.00
%

25.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

23.10
%

21.40
%

23.50
%

23.10
%

30.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

MA

78

Mass State Area 12 Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

15.40
%

21.40
%

23.50
%

23.10
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

1

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

21.10
%

18.80
%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

20.00
%

22.20
%

10.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

10.00
%

5.60%

5.30%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

11.10
%

21.10
%

12.50
%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

16.70
%

MA
MA

79
79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt
Mass State Area 13 Exempt

1
2

300 to 499
0 to 99

0.00%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

2

100 to 299

0.00%

20.00
%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

3

100 to 299

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

5.60%

0.00%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

40.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

10.00
%

5.60%

5.30%

6.30%

0.00%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

10.00
%

10.00
%

5.60%

5.30%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

10.00
%

10.00
%

5.60%

5.30%

6.30%

16.70
%

20.00
%

66.70
%

33.30
%

MA
MA

79
79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt
Mass State Area 13 Exempt

6 to 9
10 to 14

300 to 499
100 to 299

0.00%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

20.00
%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

16.70
%

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

15 to 19

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

5.60%

5.30%

6.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

20+

300 to 499

25.00
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

10.00
%

10.00
%

11.10
%

10.50
%

12.50
%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

578

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

5.60%

10.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

MA

79

Mass State Area 13 Exempt

20+

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

25.00
%

25.00
%

23.10
%

15.80
%

15.80
%

14.30
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

1

0 to 99

20.00
%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

1

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

23.10
%

31.60
%

31.60
%

28.60
%

25.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

16.70
%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

1

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

16.70
%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100 to 299

20.00
%

50.00
%

25.00
%

7.10%

12.50
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

16.70
%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

2

0.00%

7.70%

5.30%

0.00%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

12.50
%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.30%

5.30%

7.10%

12.50
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

3

100 to 299

20.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

3

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

5.30%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

15.40
%

10.50
%

10.50
%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

25.00
%

5.30%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%
16.70
%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

8.30%

7.70%

5.30%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

15 to 19

100 to 299

20.00
%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

15 to 19

300 to 499

20.00
%

25.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

7.70%

5.30%

5.30%

14.30
%

12.50
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

5.30%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

80

Mass State Area 14 Exempt

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

5.30%

5.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA
MA

80
81

Mass State Area 14 Exempt
Mass State Area 2

20+
2

800+
0 to 99

0.00%
4.70%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.40
%

11.40
%

11.00
%

5.60%

4.90%

2.30%

3.80%

8.60%

11.70
%

6.90%

7.60%

6.50%

7.40%

7.40%

4.60%

4.90%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

2

100 to 299

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

9.30%

10.30
%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

1.40%

1.30%

0.70%

0.70%

0.90%

0.00%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.70%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

2

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

3

0 to 99

0.00%

4.00%

4.50%

2.30%

2.60%

1.70%

2.80%

3.30%

3.40%

2.90%

1.90%

0.00%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

3

100 to 299

4.70%

4.00%

0.00%

2.30%

1.30%

3.40%

3.40%

3.90%

5.40%

2.90%

4.60%

7.30%

579

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

3

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

2.80%

2.00%

2.00%

2.20%

1.90%

1.20%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

3

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.40%

2.00%

2.00%

2.20%

0.90%

1.20%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

6 to 9

100 to 299

7.00%

4.00%

13.60
%

4.70%

3.80%

4.30%

3.40%

2.00%

2.00%

2.20%

1.90%

4.90%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

6 to 9

300 to 499

2.30%

4.00%

4.50%

7.00%

2.60%

1.70%

1.40%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

2.40%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

6 to 9

500 to 799

9.30%

4.00%

4.50%

2.30%

5.10%

0.90%

1.40%

1.30%

1.30%

1.50%

2.80%

1.20%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

10 to 14

0 to 99

4.70%

4.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

100 to 299

14.00
%

24.00
%

18.20
%

14.00
%

7.70%

3.40%

2.80%

2.00%

2.70%

2.90%

3.70%

3.70%

9.20%

11.40
%

8.80%

9.30%

4.90%

8.70%

10.30
%

8.30%

8.50%

MA
MA

81
81

Mass State Area 2
Mass State Area 2

10 to 14
10 to 14

300 to 499

81

Mass State Area 2

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

6.90%

9.00%

6.50%

6.70%

5.90%

6.50%

6.10%

81

Mass State Area 2

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

2.60%

2.80%

2.60%

2.70%

2.20%

0.90%

0.00%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

15 to 19

300 to 499

2.30%

4.00%

4.50%

2.30%

1.30%

1.70%

0.70%

2.00%

0.70%

0.70%

1.90%

4.90%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

15 to 19

500 to 799

4.70%

8.00%

9.10%

2.30%

2.60%

2.60%

1.40%

0.70%

1.30%

2.20%

4.60%

3.70%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

15 to 19

800+

2.30%

8.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.30%

0.90%

1.40%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.70%

0.70%

0.90%

1.20%

9.30%

12.80
%

5.20%

4.10%

3.90%

2.70%

3.70%

5.60%

8.50%

4.30%

4.10%

3.30%

3.40%

5.10%

6.50%

7.30%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

20+

300 to 499

7.00%

8.00%

9.10%

4.00%

0.00%

9.30%

10.30
%

7.80%

9.00%

MA

9.30%

3.80%

7.80%

MA

100 to 299

2.30%

5.10%

10 to 14

20+

4.50%

2.30%

Mass State Area 2

Mass State Area 2

4.00%

0.00%

81

81

0.00%

0.00%

MA

MA

500 to 799

2.30%

8.30%

9.20%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

20+

500 to 799

7.00%

8.00%

13.60
%

7.00%

9.00%

9.50%

4.10%

4.60%

4.70%

5.90%

7.40%

9.80%

MA

81

Mass State Area 2

20+

800+

16.30
%

8.00%

13.60
%

16.30
%

14.10
%

14.70
%

14.50
%

17.60
%

17.40
%

17.60
%

17.60
%

13.40
%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.90%

5.90%

7.00%

4.70%

5.10%

2.20%

1.10%

2.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.90%

9.40%

7.00%

5.60%

5.10%

6.50%

4.60%

4.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.80%

3.50%

4.00%

4.70%

4.10%

3.20%

1.10%

2.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

3.00%

1.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

2

800+

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

1.00%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.10%

2.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.80%

2.40%

3.00%

2.80%

1.00%

3.20%

4.60%

6.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

3

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

2.40%

2.00%

1.90%

2.00%

1.10%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

3

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.10%

0.00%

580

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

6 to 9

0 to 99

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

1.00%

0.90%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

2.40%

2.00%

2.80%

3.10%

2.20%

4.60%

0.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

2.00%

1.90%

2.00%

2.20%

2.30%

0.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

0.00%

1.20%

1.00%

1.90%

0.00%

1.10%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

5.90%

3.50%

4.00%

3.70%

5.10%

4.30%

3.40%

4.00%

300 to 499

11.80
%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

2.00%

3.50%

4.00%

5.60%

6.10%

7.50%

5.70%

2.00%

9.70%

11.50
%

16.00
%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

10 to 14

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

5.90%

4.70%

9.00%

6.50%

10.20
%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

2.00%

3.50%

3.00%

2.80%

3.10%

3.20%

2.30%

2.00%

14.30
%

4.80%

2.00%

4.70%

3.00%

2.80%

3.10%

2.20%

1.10%

2.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

15 to 19

100 to 299

5.90%

14.30
%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

2.00%

4.70%

4.00%

2.80%

4.10%

4.30%

3.40%

2.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

15 to 19

500 to 799

11.80
%

14.30
%

14.30
%

9.50%

3.90%

4.70%

2.00%

4.70%

4.10%

3.20%

2.30%

6.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

3.90%

4.70%

4.00%

3.70%

3.10%

2.20%

2.30%

4.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.10%

1.10%

2.00%

28.60
%

42.90
%

23.80
%

13.70
%

8.20%

7.00%

7.50%

6.10%

9.70%

10.30
%

10.00
%

14.30
%

0.00%

9.50%

13.70
%

5.90%

8.00%

7.50%

7.10%

6.50%

8.00%

8.00%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

20+

100 to 299

23.50
%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

20+

300 to 499

5.90%

500 to 799

11.80
%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

4.70%

3.00%

1.90%

1.00%

1.10%

3.40%

2.00%

28.60
%

14.30
%

19.00
%

17.60
%

12.90
%

15.00
%

18.70
%

17.30
%

19.40
%

20.70
%

20.00
%

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

20+

MA

82

Mass State Area 3

20+

800+

17.60
%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

1.80%

6.00%

8.70%

10.80
%

8.40%

7.80%

4.40%

1.90%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.50%

5.50%

6.00%

4.80%

3.60%

2.80%

2.00%

1.10%

1.90%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.90%

0.90%

1.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

1.10%

1.90%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.00%

0.90%

0.90%

2.00%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

2.40%

4.80%

1.80%

1.90%

1.00%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.00%

0.00%

3.70%

10.00
%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

6 to 9

500 to 799

6.70%

20.00
%

3.20%

1.80%

1.20%

1.00%

0.90%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.90%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

10 to 14

0 to 99

6.70%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

0.00%

1.20%

1.90%

1.80%

2.80%

2.00%

3.30%

3.70%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

10 to 14

100 to 299

6.70%

0.00%

10.00
%

16.10
%

5.50%

6.00%

3.80%

6.30%

7.50%

7.80%

4.40%

9.30%

581

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.50%

6.00%

2.90%

1.80%

1.90%

1.00%

1.10%

5.60%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

7.30%

7.10%

6.70%

9.00%

9.30%

8.80%

7.80%

3.70%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.20%

1.90%

0.90%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

0.00%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

15 to 19

100 to 299

6.70%

20.00
%

10.00
%

6.50%

1.80%

1.20%

1.90%

1.80%

1.90%

1.00%

2.20%

3.70%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

7.30%

6.00%

6.70%

5.40%

6.50%

7.80%

7.80%

3.70%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

7.30%

3.60%

6.70%

5.40%

7.50%

8.80%

8.90%

9.30%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

3.80%

3.60%

3.70%

3.90%

4.40%

3.70%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

1.00%

1.10%

1.90%

100 to 299

13.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

12.90
%

7.30%

3.60%

5.80%

8.10%

5.60%

6.90%

5.60%

9.30%

10.00
%

16.10
%

14.50
%

11.90
%

5.80%

7.20%

9.30%

8.80%

11.10
%

11.10
%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

20+

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

20+

300 to 499

6.70%

20.00
%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

20+

500 to 799

26.70
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

19.40
%

12.70
%

10.70
%

8.70%

8.10%

6.50%

6.90%

13.30
%

7.40%

MA

83

Mass State Area 4

20+

800+

26.70
%

20.00
%

10.00
%

9.70%

18.20
%

20.20
%

21.20
%

19.80
%

18.70
%

18.60
%

17.80
%

16.70
%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

9.10%

3.80%

5.30%

8.80%

9.10%

8.10%

3.40%

7.50%

5.60%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

3.50%

2.90%

3.00%

3.20%

3.40%

1.90%

5.60%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

1.50%

1.60%

1.70%

1.90%

2.80%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

3

0 to 99

14.30
%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

1.80%

1.50%

1.50%

1.60%

1.70%

3.80%

5.60%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

3

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.70%

8.80%

5.90%

7.60%

8.10%

3.40%

1.90%

8.30%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.40%

8.80%

7.40%

6.10%

6.50%

5.10%

7.50%

5.60%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

5.30%

1.50%

1.50%

1.60%

1.70%

3.80%

0.00%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

6 to 9

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

1.50%

3.00%

1.60%

1.70%

3.80%

2.80%

33.30
%

9.10%

9.40%

8.80%

8.80%

6.10%

6.50%

8.50%

7.50%

5.60%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%
25.00
%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

10 to 14

300 to 499

14.30
%

0.00%

18.20
%

7.50%

8.80%

5.90%

7.60%

9.70%

11.90
%

7.50%

8.30%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

3.50%

4.40%

6.10%

6.50%

6.80%

3.80%

2.80%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.70%

7.00%

10.30
%

9.10%

11.30
%

10.20
%

5.70%

8.30%

582

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

15 to 19

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

1.80%

2.90%

3.00%

3.20%

3.40%

3.80%

0.00%

18.20
%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

15 to 19

300 to 499

14.30
%

0.00%

16.70
%

1.90%

0.00%

2.90%

3.00%

3.20%

5.10%

5.70%

2.80%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

1.80%

2.90%

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

3.80%

5.60%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

3.50%

1.50%

1.50%

1.60%

3.40%

1.90%

2.80%

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

1.80%

1.50%

3.00%

3.20%

3.40%

1.90%

8.30%

300 to 499

14.30
%

75.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

3.80%

0.00%

1.50%

1.50%

3.20%

1.70%

3.80%

2.80%

500 to 799

28.60
%

0.00%

18.20
%

13.20
%

5.30%

1.50%

3.00%

1.60%

1.70%

7.50%

5.60%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

17.00
%

22.80
%

23.50
%

19.70
%

16.10
%

16.90
%

15.10
%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

6.10%

8.50%

7.30%

3.40%

9.40%

11.40
%

3.70%

10.20
%

MA
MA

84
84

Mass State Area 5
Mass State Area 5

20+
20+

MA

84

Mass State Area 5

20+

800+

14.30
%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.20
%

7.30%

6.90%

7.50%

4.50%

7.40%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

3.60%

3.40%

1.90%

2.30%

3.70%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

1.80%

1.70%

1.90%

2.30%

0.00%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

4.10%

3.40%

7.30%

3.40%

5.70%

4.50%

0.00%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.40%

3.80%

0.00%

3.70%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

5.10%

5.50%

8.60%

0.00%

0.00%

18.50
%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.50%

10.20
%

8.50%

9.10%

8.60%

7.50%

9.10%

3.70%
3.70%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

14.30
%

6.80%

7.30%

8.60%

5.70%

11.40
%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

6 to 9

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

4.10%

5.10%

3.60%

3.40%

3.80%

2.30%

3.70%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

0.00%

0.00%

1.80%

0.00%

1.90%

2.30%

0.00%

50.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

7.50%

6.10%

5.10%

5.50%

6.90%

5.70%

4.50%

11.10
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

14.30
%

8.50%

7.30%

5.20%

9.40%

6.80%

7.40%

11.90
%

12.70
%

12.10
%

13.20
%

18.20
%

7.40%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

10 to 14

100 to 299

50.00
%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.50%

10.20
%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

2.00%

5.10%

3.60%

6.90%

7.50%

2.30%

3.70%

50.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

5.00%

2.00%

3.40%

3.60%

5.20%

5.70%

6.80%

3.70%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

15 to 19

300 to 499

50.00
%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

0.00%

1.70%

1.80%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.70%

583

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

2.00%

1.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

3.70%

0.00%

1.70%

1.80%

1.70%

1.90%

2.30%

0.00%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

MA

85

Mass State Area 6

20+

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.00%

6.10%

8.50%

9.10%

8.60%

5.70%

6.80%

11.10
%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.50%

14.80
%

9.40%

9.70%

7.00%

7.90%

12.50
%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

14.30
%

13.00
%

18.80
%

16.10
%

17.50
%

18.40
%

6.30%

0.00%

16.70
%

9.50%

13.00
%

9.40%

9.70%

8.80%

2.60%

0.00%

11.90
%

5.60%

6.30%

4.80%

7.00%

7.90%

6.30%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

2

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

7.10%

5.60%

4.70%

4.80%

3.50%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

3.20%

3.50%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

3

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

3

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

3.70%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

3

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

3.70%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

0.00%

18.80
%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

5.60%

3.10%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

6 to 9

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

3.20%

3.50%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

7.10%

7.40%

7.80%

8.10%

8.80%

5.30%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

4.80%

5.30%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

5.30%

0.00%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

20+

100 to 299

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

4.20%

4.80%

3.70%

1.60%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

3.10%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

584

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

7.10%

3.70%

3.10%

3.20%

5.30%

5.30%

6.30%

12.30
%

15.80
%

6.30%

MA

86

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1 (0 -3)

20+

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

7.10%

7.40%

9.40%

12.90
%

9.40%

9.70%

7.00%

7.90%

12.50
%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.50%

14.80
%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

14.30
%

13.00
%

18.80
%

16.10
%

17.50
%

18.40
%

6.30%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

9.50%

13.00
%

9.40%

9.70%

8.80%

2.60%

0.00%

11.90
%

5.60%

6.30%

4.80%

7.00%

7.90%

6.30%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

2

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

7.10%

5.60%

4.70%

4.80%

3.50%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

3

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

3

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

3.20%

3.50%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

3

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

3

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

3.70%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

3

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.80%

3.70%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

0.00%

18.80
%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

5.60%

3.10%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

6 to 9

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

3.10%

3.20%

3.50%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

7.10%

7.40%

7.80%

8.10%

8.80%

5.30%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

4.80%

5.30%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.60%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

1.60%

3.20%

1.80%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

1.90%

1.60%

1.60%

1.80%

5.30%

0.00%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

20+

100 to 299

100.00
%

4.20%

4.80%

3.70%

1.60%

1.60%

0.00%

0.00%

6.30%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

1.90%

3.10%

0.00%

1.80%

2.60%

6.30%

MA

87

Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

7.10%

3.70%

3.10%

3.20%

5.30%

5.30%

6.30%

585

Stat
e
MA

Region
ID
87

Region_Name
Mass State Area 7 - LMA 1/OC (0-3)

Traps per Trawl
20+

Traps Group
800+

Jan
0.00%

Feb
0.00%

Mar
0.00%

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

12.30
%

15.80
%

6.30%

0.00%

4.20%

7.10%

7.40%

9.40%

12.90
%

16.00
%

21.20
%

16.70
%

14.60
%

5.40%

9.10%

0.00%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

2

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

2

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

4.00%

9.10%

7.10%

4.90%

5.40%

9.10%

4.50%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

2

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

12.00
%

6.10%

7.10%

4.90%

8.10%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

2

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

12.00
%

12.10
%

7.10%

7.30%

2.70%

0.00%

4.50%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

2.40%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

3

100 to 299

12.50
%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

6 to 9

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

5.40%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

6 to 9

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.40%

7.30%

5.40%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

6 to 9

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

6 to 9

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.70%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

10 to 14

100 to 299

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

10 to 14

300 to 499

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

4.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.40%

0.00%

6.10%

4.50%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

4.00%

3.00%

7.10%

4.90%

5.40%

3.00%

0.00%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.00%

6.10%

4.80%

2.40%

2.70%

3.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

0.00%

4.00%

3.00%

2.40%

7.30%

8.10%

6.10%

0.00%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

15 to 19

300 to 499

12.50
%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

6.10%

9.10%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.00%

0.00%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

20+

0 to 99

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

20+

100 to 299

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

8.30%

8.00%

9.10%

2.40%

2.40%

0.00%

0.00%

4.50%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

20+

300 to 499

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

8.30%

8.00%

3.00%

7.10%

2.40%

5.40%

9.10%

13.60
%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

4.00%

3.00%

4.80%

4.90%

5.40%

6.10%

18.20
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

12.50
%

16.70
%

16.00
%

18.20
%

26.20
%

29.30
%

35.10
%

36.40
%

31.80
%

MA

88

Mass State Area 8 - LMA 1 (0-3)

20+

800+

12.50
%

MA

89

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA 2 (3-12)

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

25.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

50.00
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

75.00
%

66.70
%

100.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

6.90%

12.50
%

5.00%

0.00%

21.40
%

MA

89

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA 2 (3-12)

20+

800+

100.00
%

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

10 to 14

0 to 99

0.00%

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

10 to 14

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

4.30%

7.40%

9.70%

10.30
%

4.20%

0.00%

5.90%

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.70%

7.40%

6.50%

3.40%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

586

Stat
e
MA

Region
ID
90

Region_Name
Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

Traps per Trawl
15 to 19

Traps Group
100 to 299

Jan
0.00%

Feb
0.00%

Mar
0.00%

Apr
0.00%

May
7.10%

Jun
8.70%

Jul
3.70%

Aug
6.50%

Sep
6.90%

Oct

Nov

Dec

4.20%

10.00
%

0.00%
11.80
%

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.30%

7.40%

6.50%

3.40%

8.30%

10.00
%

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

15 to 19

500 to 799

9.10%

11.10
%

10.00
%

8.30%

7.10%

4.30%

7.40%

9.70%

13.80
%

4.20%

5.00%

5.90%

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

4.30%

11.10
%

3.20%

6.90%

4.20%

5.00%

17.60
%

300 to 499

9.10%

11.10
%

10.00
%

0.00%

14.30
%

13.00
%

7.40%

12.90
%

10.30
%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

20.00
%

33.30
%

28.60
%

13.00
%

22.20
%

16.10
%

17.20
%

29.20
%

30.00
%

17.60
%
41.20
%

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

20+

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

20+

500 to 799

27.30
%

MA

90

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (3-12)

20+

800+

54.50
%

44.40
%

50.00
%

33.30
%

21.40
%

34.80
%

25.90
%

25.80
%

20.70
%

25.00
%

35.00
%

MA

91

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

25.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

50.00
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

75.00
%

66.70
%

100.00
%

MA

91

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

800+

100.00
%

MA

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

100 to 299

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

9.10%

MA

921

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14

100 to 299

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

9.10%

MA

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

9.10%

7.10%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

9.10%

7.10%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

MA

921

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

MA

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

7.10%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

MA

921

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

7.10%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

7.70%

7.10%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

7.10%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

921

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

7.70%

14.30
%

11.80
%

15.40
%

18.20
%

11.80
%

15.40
%

18.20
%

MA

921

MA
MA
MA
MA

921

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

7.70%

14.30
%

MA

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

18.20
%

14.30
%

15.40
%

14.30
%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

14.30
%

15.40
%

14.30
%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

MA

921

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

18.20
%

MA

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

MA

921

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

18.20
%

MA

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

MA

921

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

18.20
%

MA

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

500 to 799

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

45.50
%

35.70
%

30.80
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

38.50
%

18.20
%

587

Stat
e
MA

Region
ID
921

Region_Name
Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

Traps per Trawl
20+

Traps Group

Jan

500 to 799

25.00
%

Feb
0.00%
100.00
%

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

45.50
%

35.70
%

30.80
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

38.50
%

18.20
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

0.00%

18.20
%

21.40
%

23.10
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

23.10
%

18.20
%

MA

920

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

800+

25.00
%

MA

921

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (6-12)

20+

800+

25.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

0.00%

18.20
%

21.40
%

23.10
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

23.10
%

18.20
%

MA

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

10 to 14

100 to 299

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

9.10%

MA

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

9.10%

7.10%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

MA

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

7.10%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

7.70%

7.10%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

11.80
%

15.40
%

18.20
%

MA

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

MA

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

7.70%

14.30
%

MA

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

18.20
%

14.30
%

15.40
%

14.30
%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

MA

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

MA

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

18.20
%

MA

93

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)

20+

500 to 799

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

45.50
%

35.70
%

30.80
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

38.50
%

18.20
%

800+

25.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

0.00%

18.20
%

21.40
%

23.10
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

23.10
%

18.20
%

100 to 299

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

9.10%

9.10%

7.10%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

7.10%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

7.70%

7.10%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

MA
MA

93
94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (3-12)
Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

20+
10 to 14

MA

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

MA

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

MA

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

MA

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

7.70%

14.30
%

11.80
%

15.40
%

18.20
%

MA

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

18.20
%

14.30
%

15.40
%

14.30
%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

MA

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

18.20
%

MA

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

MA

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

20+

500 to 799

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

45.50
%

35.70
%

30.80
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

38.50
%

18.20
%

MA

94

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 3 (3-12)

20+

800+

25.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

0.00%

18.20
%

21.40
%

23.10
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

23.10
%

18.20
%

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

10 to 14

100 to 299

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

9.10%

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

9.10%

7.10%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

7.10%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

7.70%

7.10%

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

588

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

11.80
%

15.40
%

18.20
%

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

0.00%

7.70%

14.30
%

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

18.20
%

14.30
%

15.40
%

14.30
%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

18.20
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

45.50
%

35.70
%

30.80
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

38.50
%

18.20
%

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

500 to 799

25.00
%

MA

95

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

800+

25.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

0.00%

18.20
%

21.40
%

23.10
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

23.10
%

18.20
%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

0 to 99

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

2.50%

2.10%

1.00%

1.90%

1.00%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14

0 to 99

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

2.50%

2.10%

1.00%

1.90%

1.00%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

100 to 299

2.90%

7.70%

5.90%

4.50%

7.10%

4.70%

4.80%

3.80%

3.10%

5.90%

4.70%

2.00%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14

100 to 299

2.90%

7.70%

5.90%

4.50%

7.10%

4.70%

4.80%

3.80%

3.10%

5.90%

4.70%

2.00%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

300 to 499

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.70%

7.80%

11.30
%

8.80%

10.30
%

6.90%

5.70%

5.10%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14

300 to 499

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.70%

7.80%

11.30
%

8.80%

10.30
%

6.90%

5.70%

5.10%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

800+

1.50%

5.10%

5.90%

2.30%

1.40%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

1.00%

1.00%

0.90%

1.00%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14

800+

1.50%

5.10%

5.90%

2.30%

1.40%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

1.00%

1.00%

0.90%

1.00%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

15 to 19

100 to 299

1.50%

2.60%

2.90%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

1.00%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

15 to 19

100 to 299

1.50%

2.60%

2.90%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

1.00%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

15 to 19

300 to 499

2.90%

7.70%

8.80%

6.80%

0.00%

4.70%

4.80%

2.50%

4.10%

4.00%

2.80%

2.00%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

15 to 19

300 to 499

2.90%

7.70%

8.80%

6.80%

0.00%

4.70%

4.80%

2.50%

4.10%

4.00%

2.80%

2.00%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

15 to 19

500 to 799

2.90%

5.10%

2.90%

2.30%

2.90%

1.60%

0.00%

1.30%

1.00%

1.00%

1.90%

3.10%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

15 to 19

500 to 799

2.90%

5.10%

2.90%

2.30%

2.90%

1.60%

0.00%

1.30%

1.00%

1.00%

1.90%

3.10%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

15 to 19

800+

5.90%

0.00%

2.90%

4.50%

1.40%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

1.00%

3.00%

3.80%

4.10%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

15 to 19

800+

5.90%

0.00%

2.90%

4.50%

1.40%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

1.00%

3.00%

3.80%

4.10%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

0 to 99

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

20+

0 to 99

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

100 to 299

5.90%

5.10%

2.90%

4.50%

8.60%

4.70%

3.20%

3.80%

1.00%

3.00%

1.90%

2.00%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

20+

100 to 299

5.90%

5.10%

2.90%

4.50%

8.60%

4.70%

3.20%

3.80%

1.00%

3.00%

1.90%

2.00%

589

Stat
e
MA
MA

Region
ID
960
961

Region_Name
Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)
Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

Traps per Trawl
20+
20+

Traps Group
300 to 499
300 to 499

Jan
8.80%

Feb
5.10%

Mar

Apr

5.90%

11.40
%
11.40
%

8.80%

5.10%

5.90%
14.70
%

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

8.60%

10.90
%

3.20%

7.50%

6.20%

6.90%

5.70%

9.20%

8.60%

10.90
%

3.20%

7.50%

6.20%

6.90%

5.70%

9.20%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

500 to 799

7.40%

10.30
%

9.10%

14.30
%

7.80%

11.30
%

3.80%

8.20%

7.90%

6.60%

9.20%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

20+

500 to 799

7.40%

10.30
%

14.70
%

9.10%

14.30
%

7.80%

11.30
%

3.80%

8.20%

7.90%

6.60%

9.20%

MA

960

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

800+

51.50
%

51.30
%

47.10
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

57.80
%

54.80
%

62.50
%

61.90
%

59.40
%

62.30
%

60.20
%

51.30
%

47.10
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

57.80
%

54.80
%

62.50
%

61.90
%

59.40
%

62.30
%

60.20
%

MA

961

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (6-12)

20+

800+

51.50
%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

10 to 14

0 to 99

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

2.50%

2.10%

1.00%

1.90%

1.00%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

10 to 14

100 to 299

2.90%

7.70%

5.90%

4.50%

7.10%

4.70%

4.80%

3.80%

3.10%

5.90%

4.70%

2.00%

8.80%

10.30
%

6.90%

5.70%

5.10%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

10 to 14

300 to 499

5.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5.70%

7.80%

11.30
%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

10 to 14

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

1.60%

1.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

0.00%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

10 to 14

800+

1.50%

5.10%

5.90%

2.30%

1.40%

0.00%

1.60%

0.00%

1.00%

1.00%

0.90%

1.00%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

15 to 19

100 to 299

1.50%

2.60%

2.90%

2.30%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.90%

1.00%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

15 to 19

300 to 499

2.90%

7.70%

8.80%

6.80%

0.00%

4.70%

4.80%

2.50%

4.10%

4.00%

2.80%

2.00%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

15 to 19

500 to 799

2.90%

5.10%

2.90%

2.30%

2.90%

1.60%

0.00%

1.30%

1.00%

1.00%

1.90%

3.10%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

15 to 19

800+

5.90%

0.00%

2.90%

4.50%

1.40%

0.00%

0.00%

2.50%

1.00%

3.00%

3.80%

4.10%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

0 to 99

1.50%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

100 to 299

5.90%

5.10%

2.90%

4.50%

8.60%

4.70%

3.20%

3.80%

1.00%

3.00%

1.90%

2.00%

11.40
%

8.60%

10.90
%

3.20%

7.50%

6.20%

6.90%

5.70%

9.20%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

300 to 499

8.80%

5.10%

5.90%
14.70
%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

500 to 799

7.40%

10.30
%

9.10%

14.30
%

7.80%

11.30
%

3.80%

8.20%

7.90%

6.60%

9.20%

MA

97

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA OC (3-12)

20+

800+

51.50
%

51.30
%

47.10
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

57.80
%

54.80
%

62.50
%

61.90
%

59.40
%

62.30
%

60.20
%

MA

980

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

100 to 299

8.30%

10.00
%

0.00%

11.10
%

14.30
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

14.30
%

0.00%

11.10
%

14.30
%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

25.00
%

16.70
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

25.00
%

16.70
%

20.00
%

12.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

981

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14

100 to 299

8.30%

10.00
%

MA

980

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

MA
MA
MA

981
980
981

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (6-12)
Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (3-6)
Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14
10 to 14
10 to 14

300 to 499
500 to 799
500 to 799

0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%
0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

MA

980

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (3-6)

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

981

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (6-12)

10 to 14

800+

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

980

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

100 to 299

8.30%

10.00
%

14.30
%

11.10
%

14.30
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

590

Stat
e
MA
MA

Region
ID
981
980

Region_Name
Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (6-12)
Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (3-6)

Traps per Trawl
20+
20+

Traps Group
100 to 299
300 to 499

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

8.30%

10.00
%

14.30
%

11.10
%

14.30
%

10.00
%

25.00
%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

20.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

22.20
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

981

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (6-12)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

MA

980

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

500 to 799

16.70
%

10.00
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

981

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (6-12)

20+

500 to 799

16.70
%

10.00
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

22.20
%

0.00%

70.00
%

57.10
%

77.80
%

71.40
%

60.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

60.00
%

62.50
%

66.70
%

85.70
%
85.70
%

MA

980

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (3-6)

20+

800+

66.70
%

MA

981

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (6-12)

20+

800+

66.70
%

70.00
%

57.10
%

77.80
%

71.40
%

60.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

60.00
%

62.50
%

66.70
%

MA

99

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

25.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

50.00
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

75.00
%

66.70
%

100.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

6.90%

12.50
%

5.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

13.00
%

11.10
%

16.10
%

17.20
%

5.90%

MA

99

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

800+

100.00
%

MA

100

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (12+)

15 to 19

0 to 99

0.00%

MA

100

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (12+)

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

8.30%

10.00
%

MA

100

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (12+)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

13.00
%

14.80
%

12.90
%

6.90%

12.50
%

10.00
%

11.80
%

MA

100

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (12+)

15 to 19

500 to 799

9.10%

11.10
%

10.00
%

8.30%

7.10%

8.70%

7.40%

9.70%

13.80
%

4.20%

5.00%

5.90%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

6.90%

4.20%

5.00%

17.60
%

MA

100

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

0 to 99

0.00%

MA

100

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

4.30%

11.10
%

MA

100

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

300 to 499

9.10%

11.10
%

10.00
%

0.00%

14.30
%

13.00
%

7.40%

12.90
%

10.30
%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

20.00
%

33.30
%

28.60
%

13.00
%

22.20
%

16.10
%

17.20
%

29.20
%

30.00
%

17.60
%
41.20
%

MA

100

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

500 to 799

27.30
%

MA

100

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

800+

54.50
%

44.40
%

50.00
%

33.30
%

21.40
%

34.80
%

25.90
%

25.80
%

20.70
%

25.00
%

35.00
%

MA

101

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

15 to 19

0 to 99

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

6.90%

12.50
%

5.00%

0.00%

MA

101

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

15 to 19

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

28.60
%

13.00
%

11.10
%

16.10
%

17.20
%

8.30%

10.00
%

5.90%

MA

101

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

13.00
%

14.80
%

12.90
%

6.90%

12.50
%

10.00
%

11.80
%

9.10%

11.10
%

10.00
%

8.30%

7.10%

8.70%

7.40%

9.70%

13.80
%

4.20%

5.00%

5.90%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

6.90%

4.20%

5.00%

17.60
%

MA
MA

101
101

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2/3 (12+)
Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

15 to 19
20+

500 to 799
0 to 99

0.00%

MA

101

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

4.30%

11.10
%

MA

101

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

20+

300 to 499

9.10%

11.10
%

10.00
%

0.00%

14.30
%

13.00
%

7.40%

12.90
%

10.30
%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

33.30
%

20.00
%

33.30
%

28.60
%

13.00
%

22.20
%

16.10
%

17.20
%

29.20
%

30.00
%

17.60
%

MA

101

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

20+

500 to 799

27.30
%

MA

101

Mass Nearshore Area 16 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

20+

800+

54.50
%

44.40
%

50.00
%

33.30
%

21.40
%

34.80
%

25.90
%

25.80
%

20.70
%

25.00
%

35.00
%

41.20
%

MA

102

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA 2/3 Overlap (12+)

20+

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

33.30
%

25.00
%

33.30
%

0.00%

MA

102

Mass Nearshore Area 17 - LMA 2/3 Overlap (12+)

20+

800+

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

50.00
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

66.70
%

75.00
%

66.70
%

100.00
%

591

Stat
e
MA

Region
ID
103

Region_Name
Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (12+)

Traps per Trawl
20+

Traps Group

Jan

100 to 299

50.00
%

Feb
0.00%

Mar
0.00%

Apr

May

0.00%

14.30
%

Jun

Jul

0.00%

14.30
%

9.10%

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

7.70%

7.10%

11.80
%

7.70%

9.10%

7.10%

15.40
%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

36.40
%

MA

103

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (12+)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

57.10
%

MA

103

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (12+)

20+

500 to 799

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

54.50
%

42.90
%

38.50
%

50.00
%

47.10
%

61.50
%

36.40
%

MA

103

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 1 (12+)

20+

800+

25.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

0.00%

36.40
%

35.70
%

38.50
%

42.90
%

35.30
%

30.80
%

18.20
%

MA

104

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (12+)

15 to 19

100 to 299

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

14.30
%

7.70%

7.10%

11.80
%

0.00%

9.10%

9.10%

7.10%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

18.20
%

MA

104

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (12+)

15 to 19

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

MA

104

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (12+)

15 to 19

500 to 799

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

9.10%

7.10%

7.70%

21.40
%

17.60
%

23.10
%

18.20
%

MA

104

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (12+)

15 to 19

800+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

18.20
%

14.30
%

15.40
%

14.30
%

5.90%

7.70%

0.00%

MA

104

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

100 to 299

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.70%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

18.20
%

MA

104

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

MA

104

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

500 to 799

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

45.50
%

35.70
%

30.80
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

38.50
%

18.20
%

MA

104

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2 (12+)

20+

800+

25.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

0.00%

18.20
%

21.40
%

23.10
%

28.60
%

29.40
%

23.10
%

18.20
%

MA

105

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

20+

100 to 299

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

14.30
%

7.70%

7.10%

11.80
%

7.70%

9.10%

9.10%

7.10%

15.40
%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

36.40
%

MA

105

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

57.10
%

MA

105

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

20+

500 to 799

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

54.50
%

42.90
%

38.50
%

50.00
%

47.10
%

61.50
%

36.40
%

MA

105

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA 2/3 (12+)

20+

800+

25.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

0.00%

36.40
%

35.70
%

38.50
%

42.90
%

35.30
%

30.80
%

18.20
%

MA

106

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (12+)

20+

100 to 299

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

14.30
%

0.00%

14.30
%

7.70%

7.10%

11.80
%

7.70%

9.10%

9.10%

7.10%

15.40
%

0.00%

5.90%

0.00%

36.40
%

MA

106

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (12+)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

57.10
%

MA

106

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (12+)

20+

500 to 799

25.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

28.60
%

54.50
%

42.90
%

38.50
%

50.00
%

47.10
%

61.50
%

36.40
%

MA

106

Mass Nearshore Area 18 - LMA OC (12+)

20+

800+

25.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

0.00%

36.40
%

35.70
%

38.50
%

42.90
%

35.30
%

30.80
%

18.20
%

MA

107

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (12+)

20+

0 to 99

2.90%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.20%

2.50%

2.10%

1.00%

1.90%

1.00%

100 to 299

10.30
%

15.40
%

11.80
%

11.40
%

15.70
%

9.40%

8.10%

7.50%

4.10%

8.90%

7.50%

5.10%

12.80
%

14.70
%

18.20
%

14.30
%

23.40
%

19.40
%

18.80
%

20.60
%

17.80
%

14.20
%

16.30
%

MA

107

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (12+)

20+

MA

107

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (12+)

20+

300 to 499

17.60
%

MA

107

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (12+)

20+

500 to 799

10.30
%

15.40
%

17.60
%

13.60
%

17.10
%

9.40%

12.90
%

6.30%

9.30%

8.90%

9.40%

12.20
%

MA

107

Mass Nearshore Area 19 - LMA 1 (12+)

20+

800+

58.80
%

56.40
%

55.90
%

56.80
%

52.90
%

57.80
%

56.50
%

65.00
%

63.90
%

63.40
%

67.00
%

65.30
%

MA

108

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (12+)

20+

100 to 299

16.70
%

20.00
%

14.30
%

22.20
%

28.60
%

20.00
%

25.00
%

16.70
%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

14.30
%

MA

108

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (12+)

20+

300 to 499

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

25.00
%

33.30
%

40.00
%

37.50
%

0.00%

0.00%

MA

108

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (12+)

20+

500 to 799

16.70
%

10.00
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

10.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

22.20
%

0.00%

MA

108

Mass Nearshore Area 20 LMA 1 (12+)

20+

800+

66.70
%

70.00
%

71.40
%

77.80
%

71.40
%

60.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

60.00
%

62.50
%

66.70
%

85.70
%

592

Stat
e
RI

Region
ID
109

Region_Name
RI 538 / 539 Bays Exempt

Traps per Trawl
1

Traps Group
1 to 100

Jan
5.60%

Feb
9.10%

Mar
6.70%

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

7.10%

11.80
%

23.00
%

28.10
%

25.70
%

12.00
%

5.40%

6.30%

3.60%

10.10
%

8.10%

10.00
%

5.40%

3.10%

3.60%

5

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

3.60%

7.80%

12.20
%

RI 538 / 539 Bays Exempt

5

101 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

1.40%

1.10%

1.40%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

RI 538 / 539 Bays Exempt

10

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

5.90%

6.80%

6.70%

6.80%

4.00%

0.00%

3.10%

0.00%

RI 538 / 539 Bays Exempt

10

101 to 500

5.60%

9.10%

13.30
%

7.10%

3.90%

4.10%

5.60%

4.10%

4.00%

5.40%

3.10%

3.60%

9.10%

6.70%

10.70
%

3.90%

2.70%

5.60%

5.40%

6.00%

10.80
%

15.60
%

17.90
%

RI

109

RI 538 / 539 Bays Exempt

RI

109

RI

109

RI

109

RI

109

RI 538 / 539 Bays Exempt

15

1 to 100

16.70
%

RI

109

RI 538 / 539 Bays Exempt

15

101 to 500

27.80
%

9.10%

40.00
%

28.60
%

31.40
%

21.60
%

18.00
%

18.90
%

22.00
%

24.30
%

28.10
%

35.70
%

RI

109

RI 538 / 539 Bays Exempt

15

501 to 800

44.40
%

63.60
%

26.70
%

35.70
%

31.40
%

28.40
%

24.70
%

29.70
%

40.00
%

48.60
%

40.60
%

35.70
%

RI

109

RI 538 / 539 Bays Exempt

15

801+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

7.10%

11.80
%

23.00
%

28.10
%

25.70
%

12.00
%

5.40%

6.30%

3.60%

10.10
%

RI

110

RI 538 / 539 Atlantic Exempt

1

1 to 100

5.60%

9.10%

6.70%

RI

110

RI 538 / 539 Atlantic Exempt

5

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

6.70%

3.60%

7.80%

12.20
%

8.10%

10.00
%

5.40%

3.10%

3.60%

RI

110

RI 538 / 539 Atlantic Exempt

5

101 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

2.00%

1.40%

1.10%

1.40%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

RI

110

RI 538 / 539 Atlantic Exempt

10

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

5.90%

6.80%

6.70%

6.80%

4.00%

0.00%

3.10%

0.00%

9.10%

13.30
%

7.10%

3.90%

4.10%

5.60%

4.10%

4.00%

5.40%

3.10%

3.60%

3.90%

2.70%

5.60%

5.40%

6.00%

10.80
%

15.60
%

17.90
%

RI

110

RI 538 / 539 Atlantic Exempt

10

101 to 500

5.60%

9.10%

6.70%

10.70
%

RI

110

RI 538 / 539 Atlantic Exempt

15

1 to 100

16.70
%

RI

110

RI 538 / 539 Atlantic Exempt

15

101 to 500

27.80
%

9.10%

40.00
%

28.60
%

31.40
%

21.60
%

18.00
%

18.90
%

22.00
%

24.30
%

28.10
%

35.70
%

RI

110

RI 538 / 539 Atlantic Exempt

15

501 to 800

44.40
%

63.60
%

26.70
%

35.70
%

31.40
%

28.40
%

24.70
%

29.70
%

40.00
%

48.60
%

40.60
%

35.70
%

RI

110

RI 538 / 539 Atlantic Exempt

15

801+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.60%

2.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

42.90
%

33.30
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

RI

111

RI 611 Exempt (Northeast)

1

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

40.00
%

RI

111

RI 611 Exempt (Northeast)

5

1 to 100

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

50.00
%

20.00
%

14.30
%

16.70
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

RI

111

RI 611 Exempt (Northeast)

10

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

20.00
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

RI

111

RI 611 Exempt (Northeast)

10

101 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

RI

111

RI 611 Exempt (Northeast)

15

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

RI

111

RI 611 Exempt (Northeast)

15

101 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

28.60
%

33.30
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

RI

112

RI 611 Exempt (Mid-Atlantic)

1

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

40.00
%

42.90
%

33.30
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

RI

112

RI 611 Exempt (Mid-Atlantic)

5

1 to 100

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

50.00
%

20.00
%

14.30
%

16.70
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

RI

112

RI 611 Exempt (Mid-Atlantic)

10

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

20.00
%

14.30
%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

RI

112

RI 611 Exempt (Mid-Atlantic)

10

101 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

16.70
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

RI

112

RI 611 Exempt (Mid-Atlantic)

15

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

593

Stat
e

Region
ID

Region_Name

Traps per Trawl

Traps Group

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

28.60
%

33.30
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

20.00
%

4.20%

4.50%

5.00%

0.00%

7.10%

0.00%

14.30
%

8.30%

RI

112

RI 611 Exempt (Mid-Atlantic)

15

101 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

20.00
%

RI

113

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (3-12)

10

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

RI

113

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (3-12)

15

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

0.00%

0.00%

11.10
%

RI

113

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (3-12)

10

101 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.20%

4.50%

5.00%

5.60%

0.00%

0.00%

RI

113

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (3-12)

15

101 to 500

50.00
%

20.00
%

83.30
%

41.70
%

44.40
%

31.60
%

29.20
%

27.30
%

30.00
%

27.80
%

28.60
%

41.70
%

80.00
%

16.70
%

41.70
%

50.00
%

68.40
%

58.30
%

63.60
%

60.00
%

55.60
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

5.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

21.40
%

8.30%

RI

113

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (3-12)

15

501 to 800

50.00
%

RI

113

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (3-12)

15

801+

0.00%

RI

114

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (12+)

15

1 to 100

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

4.50%

5.00%

11.10
%

20.00
%

83.30
%

41.70
%

44.40
%

31.60
%

33.30
%

31.80
%

35.00
%

33.30
%

28.60
%

41.70
%

RI

114

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (12+)

15

101 to 500

50.00
%

RI

114

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (12+)

15

501 to 800

50.00
%

80.00
%

16.70
%

41.70
%

50.00
%

68.40
%

58.30
%

63.60
%

60.00
%

55.60
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

RI

114

RI 539 Nearshore - LMA 2 (12+)

15

801+

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

8.30%

5.60%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

RI

115

RI 613 Nearshore LMA 2/3 (12+)

20

101 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

50.00
%

0.00%

RI

115

RI 613 Nearshore LMA 2/3 (12+)

20

801+

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

100.00
%

50.00
%

0.00%
100.00
%

RI

116

RI 613 LMA 4 (12+)

15

101 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

RI

116

RI 613 LMA 4 (12+)

15

801+

100.00
%

RI

117

RI Area 613 LMA 2/3 Overlap Mid-Atlantic

15

101 to 500

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

50.00
%

50.00
%

0.00%

801+

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

100.00
%

50.00
%

50.00
%

100.00
%

RI

117

RI Area 613 LMA 2/3 Overlap Mid-Atlantic

15

594

CHAPTER 6 APPENDICES
Appendix 6.1 Gear Conversion Cost Methodology
This appendix describes the methods used to estimate the equipment cost associated with
configuring gear to comply with minimum trawl length proposals included under Regulatory
Alternative 2 and Three. Figure 6.1.1 summarizes the procedure used to estimate the incremental
costs associated with converting to longer trawls. For each set of vessels, the method uses unit cost
information and useful life information to estimate the annual costs of employing the baseline
configuration of gear and the new configuration. The difference between these two annual costs
represents the incremental cost of complying with the trawling requirement under consideration.
The calculation of annualized costs is based on a 7 percent annual discount rate, consistent with
current guidance from the Office of Management and Budget.
The estimation of gear conversion costs requires information on certain gear characteristics that are
not specified in the Vertical Line Model. Table 6.1.1 summarizes these parameters. 5 As shown, the
typical configuration of gear employed in trap/pot fisheries varies by region; this variation affects
the cost of complying with the proposed trawling requirements. For example, Maine Zone A is
characterized by strong tidal currents; to counter the potential effect of these currents, lobster
vessels fishing in the area frequently use weights or anchors to keep their gear in place. Similarly,
vessels in state waters commonly fish at shallower depths than do vessels in federal waters, and
therefore require less line to connect trawls to surface buoys. While highly generalized, the
assumptions summarized in the exhibit allow a more detailed estimate of the potential change in
annual gear costs associated with the trawling requirements.
Table 6.1.2 summarizes all the essential gear cost data collected from multiple gear manufacturers
and equipment suppliers in New England Area using 2019 average price.

5

Most of the information in this table is adapted from a recent study developed by the Maine Lobstermen’s
Association (McCarron and Tetreault, 2012); some supplementary information comes from other sources.

595

Figure 6.1.1: Methodology for Calculating Costs of Gear Reconfiguration

596

Table 6.1.1: Gear Specifications for Major Areas Affected by Trawling Proposals

State

Zone

Waters

Average
Depth
(m)

ME

A

State

29.4

percent
of VL
that is
Sink
Line
33%

ME

A

Nearshore

135.6

25%

1.5

1

18

1.8

1

ME

B

State

33%

1.25

1

B

Nearshore

25%

1.25

1

16x36

13x28

18

N/A

N/A

C

State

33%

1.3

1

1

13x28

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ME

C

Nearshore

25%

2

1

1

18x36

13x28

18

N/A

N/A

ME

D

State

33%

1.2

1.1

1.1

13x28

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ME

D

Nearshore

25%

1.25

1.1

1.1

23x41

13x28

18

N/A

N/A

ME

E

State

33%

1.15

1.1

1.1

13x28

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ME

E

Nearshore

25%

1.15

1.1

1.1

23x41

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ME

F

State

33%

1.15

1.1

1.1

13x28 (double)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ME

F

Nearshore

25%

1.5

1.1

1.1

13x28

13x28

18

N/A

N/A

ME

G

State

33%

1.5

1

1

18x36

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ME

G

Nearshore

25%

1.68

1

1

23x41

9x16

18

N/A

N/A

NH

N/A

State

33%

1.2

1

1

13x28

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

MA

N/A

State

33%

1.1

1

1

13x28 (double)

13x28

18

N/A

N/A

MA

N/A

Nearshore

25%

1.1

1

1

23x41

13x28

18

N/A

N/A

RI

N/A

State

33%

1.1

1

1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8

1

ME

27
27
14.4
27
13.5
22.5
13.5
27
18.9
27
27
21.6
18
28.8
28.8
30.9
30.9

1

ME

34.2
137.1
31.2
129.9
29.1
127.5
30.3
143.4
17.7
154.5
28.8
124.8
21
17.7
62.7
16.2
36

13x28
152 cm
Polyball
13x28

1

13x28

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

RI
Nearshore
25%
1.1
1
1
23x41
13x28
18
N/A
N/A
Notes: 1. Average depth data were collected from the NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service.
2. Slack factor represents the ratio of buoy line length to average water depth (e.g., 100 ft. depth * 1.5 slack factor = 150 ft. buoy line). Buoy line consists of a portion of
sinking rope and a portion of floating rope.
3. A double 5x11 is two 5x11 buoys that are attached to the same stick. Correspondingly, the price is twice that of a single 5x11 buoy.
4. Data for Rhode Island vessels were not available. The figures applied are extrapolated from Massachusetts.
Sources: McCarron and Tetreault, 2012

N/A

4

VL
Slack
Factor2

VL
Diam
(cm)

Distance
Between
Traps (m)

Gangion
Length
(m)

Groundline
Diam.
(cm)

1.5

1

18

1.8

1

597

First Buoy (cm
x cm)

Second
Buoy
13x28

Length
of Line
to 2nd
Buoy
(m)
18

13x28
Toggle

3

Anchor
(kg)

Length
of
Anchor
Line (m)

18.

6

18

18.

6

18

N/A

N/A

Table 6.1.2: Gear Price Used in Estimation of Economic Impacts
Equipment
Category
Rope

Weak Links

Surface System
Elements

Other

2019
Average
Price
$0.11

Unit

Useful
Life

per foot (30 cm)

6

$0.15

per foot (30 cm)

6

$0.26

per foot (30 cm)

6

$0.34

per foot (30 cm)

6

$1.77

per weak link

2.5

$2.13

per weak link

2.5

$1.53

per weak link

5

$5.00

per weak link

5

Toggle

$2.25

per toggle

10

Polyball 60" (152 cm)
Bullet Buoy 5x11 (13x28 cm)
Bullet Buoy 6x14 (16x36 cm)
Bullet Buoy 7x14 (18x 36 cm)
Bullet Buoy 9x16 (23x41 cm)
Acorn Buoy 7x7(18x18 cm)
High Flyer

$55.62
$4.77
$7.62
$10.05
$19.55
$4.65
$51.00

per buoy
per buoy
per buoy
per buoy
per buoy
per buoy
per flyer

10
10
10
10
10
10
10

22 lb (10 KG)Danforth anchor
40 lb (18 KG)Danforth anchor
25 lb (11 KG)Danforth anchor
43 lb (20 KG)Danforth anchor
gear mark using duct tape
labor (in 2017 dollars)
gear marking with 1 min labor
South Shore sleeve
Sleeve with 5 min labor

$98.54
$178.61
$119.54
$203.32
$0.04
$25.15
$0.46
$2
$4.10

per anchor
per anchor
per anchor
per anchor
per foot (30 cm)
per hour
per foot (30 cm)
per sleeve
per sleeve

10
10
12
12
5
6
6
6
6

Description
3/8" (1 cm) sink rope, regular
3/8" (1 cm) sink rope, 1700 lb (771
kg)strength
3/4" (2 cm) sink rope, regular
3/4" (2cm) sink rope, 1700 lb (771 kg)
strength
600 lb (272 kg)light-weight plastic weak
link
600 lb (272 kg) plastic swivel weak link
1,100 lb (499 kg) light-weight plastic weak
link
1,500 lb (680 kg) light-weight plastic weak
link

598

Appendix 6.2 Vessel Trip Report Data Processing Method
The VTR data used in calculating catching impacts were downloaded from NFMS NEFSC
database and processed in following steps:
1.
Keep records with gear code “PTL”, which is pot/trap lobster;
2.
Remove records without “gear size” information. “Gear size” represents total number of
traps in the water;
3.
Remove records with larger “gear quantity” than “gear size”. “Gear quantity” represents
trawl size;
4.
Keep records only from Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine
vessels;
5.
Assign Lobster Management Area (LMA) to each record according to the coordinates
provided
6.
Keep only records in LMA 1, LMA 2, OCC and LMA 3.
7.
When there is no coordinates, we use “carea” to assign the LMA. “Carea” represent
fishery statistical areas. We assign 511-514 to LMA1, 538 and 539 to LMA 2, 515 and 522 to
LMA 3.
8.
Calculate total traps fished in one trip by multiply “gear quantity” and “nhaul”. “Nhaul”
represents the number of hauls in a trip;
9.
Collapse data, sum the landing pounds, and average the trawl size by state, LMA, permit,
and year. After collapsing, each record contains information of a permitted vessel’s yearly
landing pounds and average fished traps per trip by state and LMA ;
10.
Calculate the catch per trap data by dividing cumulative yearly catch by each trap fished;
11.
Remove records with the first and last 1 percent catch per trap.
12.
Summarize the catch per trap data by LMA.

599