american lobster · eastern cape breton, eastern & south shore nova scotia 27–33 newfoundland...

American lobster

Homarus americanus

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Canada: Northwest Atlantic

Pots

November 14, 2018

Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports rev iewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology,fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific rev iew, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or itsrecommendations on the part of the rev iewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF3

®

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch

Guiding Principles

Summary

Final Seafood Recommendations

Introduction

Assessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species

Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species

Appendix B:

Appendix C:

Appendix D:

2

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

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood WatchAssessment. Each assessment synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystemscience on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at arecommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” This ethic is operationalized in the SeafoodWatch standards, available on our website here. In producing the assessments, Seafood Watch seeks outresearch published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of informationinclude government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and otherscientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly withecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations whenevaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic;as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and theunderlying assessments will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems arewelcome to use Seafood Watch assessments in any way they find useful.

3

Guiding PrinciplesSeafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished or farmed that canmaintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affectedecosystems.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that fisheries must possess to be considered sustainableby the Seafood Watch program (these are explained further in the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries):

Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management.Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant.Fish all affected stocks at sustainable levels.Minimize bycatch.Have no more than a negligible impact on any threatened, endangered or protected species.Managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all affected species.Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of aquatic habitats where fishingoccurs.Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life.Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophiccascades, or phase shifts.Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect thediversity, abundance, productivity, or genetic integrity of wild stocks.

These guiding principles are operationalized in the four criteria in this standard. Each criterion includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

1

4

SummaryThis report provides an analysis and recommendations for the commercial fishery for American lobster(Homarus americanus), hereafter referred to as "lobster") in Atlantic Canada. The Canadian fishery takes placefrom Newfoundland and Labrador (north) to New Brunswick (south), and includes Quebec, Prince EdwardIsland, and Nova Scotia. In Canada, lobster are harvested exclusively with traps (pots).

For Criterion 1, two of the five assessed lobster stocks are scored "yellow" and the other three areas are scored"green." Concerns include high exploitation rates, a reliance on new recruits, and a lack of indicators toadequately determine the stock status.

Several at-risk species are captured as bycatch in, or interact with, the lobster fishery. The lowest-scoringCriterion 2 species include herring and mackerel, which are assessed because of their use of bait in the lobsterfishery. The other lowest-scoring species, is an incidentally caught species, the endangered North Atlantic rightwhale. The majority of sightings occur in the Bay of Fundy and a growing number of sightings andentanglements are being observed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Overall, management is scored "yellow." There is a mixture of management measures, which are mostly effort-based. There are concerns for several aspects of the lobster management system, particularly regarding thepersistence of high exploitation rates; reliance on new recruits; a lack of fishery-independent data to determineabundance and fishing mortality; a reliance on landings data as a proxy for abundance; a lack of data collectionfor bycatch species; a lack of observer studies, and difficulties with enforcement. Recent improvements includeincreases in minimum legal sizes and a reduction in effort in some areas. Some of the regions have beenrecorded to have high compliance rates.

Lobster traps present a moderate impact on ocean bottom habitat, and the resilience of bottom habitat to theseeffects is considered moderate to high, depending on the specific substratum. At present there is no evidencethat the fishing method or the removal of Atlantic lobsters have severe habitat or ecosystem effects. Given thatlobster pots are considered to have relatively benign effects on habitat particularly when compared with mobilegear, there are few measures to reduce or mitigate effects of fishing practices on habitat.

In summary, all Atlantic Canadian lobster fisheries receive an overall recommendation of "good alternative" (i.e.,yellow).

5

Final Seafood Recommendations

Summary

All lobster fisheries in Atlantic Canada are scored a "Good Alternative." The main concerns identified areinteractions with endangered and threatened species, including turtles and whales, the use of overfishedspecies as bait, high exploitation rates, and a lack of appropriate data-limited indicators to determine the stockstatus in some of the lobster fisheries (particularly Newfoundland and Labrador).

Eco-Certification Information

The offshore fishery for lobsters in the Canadian Atlantic (LFA 41) is certified as sustainable to the MSCstandards and is therefore not assessed in this report.

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishingoperations have no significant impact.

SPECIES/FISHERY

CRITERION1: IMPACTSON THESPECIES

CRITERION2: IMPACTSON OTHERSPECIES

CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

CRITERION4: HABITATANDECOSYSTEM

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

American lobsterCanada NorthwestAt lant ic, Pots, Canada,Newfoundland & Labrador

Yellow(2.644)

Red (1.000) Yellow (3.000) Green(3.464)

Good Alternative(2.289)

American lobsterCanada NorthwestAt lant ic, Pots, Canada,Quebec Gulf andNorthern Gulf of St.Lawrence

Green(3.318)

Red (1.000) Yellow (3.000) Green(3.464)


American lobsterCanada NorthwestAt lant ic, Pots, Canada,Southern Gulf of St.Lawrence

Green(3.318)

Red (1.000) Yellow (3.000) Green(3.464)


American lobsterCanada NorthwestAt lant ic, Pots, Canada,Eastern Cape Breton

Yellow(2.644)

Red (1.000) Yellow (3.000) Green(3.464)


American lobsterCanada NorthwestAt lant ic, Pots, Canada,Southwest Nova Scot iaand Bay of Fundy

Green(3.318)

Red (1.000) Yellow (3.000) Green(3.464)


6

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

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

Because effect ive management is an essent ial component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoidrecommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

2

7

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

This report provides an analysis and recommendation for the commercial fisheries for American lobster(Homarus americanus, hereafter referred to as lobster) in Atlantic Canada. The Canadian fishery takes placefrom Newfoundland and Labrador (north) to New Brunswick (south), and includes Quebec, Prince EdwardIsland, and Nova Scotia. In Canada, lobster are harvested exclusively with traps (pots). Lobster fisheries aremanaged regionally and divided into a number of lobster fishing areas (LFAs). The recommendations in thisreport cover the following LFAs and are as follows:

Acronyms

Recommendation LFAs

Eastern Cape Breton, Eastern & South Shore Nova Scotia 27–33

Newfoundland & Labrador 3–14

Quebec & Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence 15–22

Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence 23–26

Southwest Nova Scotia & Bay of Fundy 34–36, 38

BMSY The biomass needed to produce MSY

CL Carapace Length HFA Herring fishing Area

CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort IdlM Iles-de-la-Madeleine Lobster

DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada IFMP Integrated Fisheries Management Plan

DMR Department of Marine Resources LFA Lobster Fishing Area

EA Enterprise Allocation LRP Limit Reference Point

EBSA Ecologically and Biologically Sensitive Areas MLS Minimum Legal Size

ECOLF Eastern Canada Offshore Lobster Fishery MSC Marine Stewardship Council

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

ETP Endangered, Threatened, Protected NL Newfoundland and Labrador

FFAW Fish, Food and Allied Workers PA Precautionary Approach

FL Fork Length PEI Prince Edward Island

PSA Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis

FRCC Fisheries Resource Conservation Council SAM Size-at-Maturity

FSCP Fisheries Science Collaborative Program SPA Sequential Population Analysis

SSB Spawning Stock Biomass

FSRS Fishermen and Scientists Research Society TAC Total Allowable Catch

8

Species Overview

Lobster is a large bodied crustacean distributed from the most southern tip of Labrador south to Cape Hatteras,North Carolina. They can be found from the intertidal zone out to onshore areas of approximately 500 m depth,although are most common from 4 to 50 m. Once mature, all lobsters make seasonal movements from deeper,winter areas to shallower, warmer summer areas for hatching eggs, mating, and growth. The migrationdistances vary based on location and oceanography; for example, migration east of Cape SableIsland/Shelburne (LFA 33–34) is generally restricted to the near shore, and the distances will vary dependingupon the bottom depths and water temperatures. Cold waters in the deeper areas just offshore restrict thesemovements.

The Canadian lobster fishery is managed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), which divides the lobsterfishing region into 45 Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs), numbered from 1 to 41 (Figure 1). Over time some havebeen divided (i.e., LFA 14 A, B, C) or are now jointly fished under licences from neighbouring LFAs (e.g., LFA37). Lobster stocks are assessed by LFA region rather than as Atlantic Canada as a whole.

Inshore lobster fisheries in Canada are managed mostly using a variety of input controls and some outputcontrols. Input controls include license limits, fishing seasons, and gear requirements (e.g., pots must be acertain size and require escape gaps to allow undersized lobsters to escape), while output controls includeprotection of egg-bearing (ovigerous) females, minimum and maximum lobster size limits. Some LFAs areclassified as "recruitment fisheries," meaning that they are heavily dependent on new recruits to the fishery (thesize of which depends on the LFA’s minimum legal size). Present conditions of environmental variables arebelieved to be positive for recruitment in the region given the high number of recruits present in the commercialfishery.

Over the last three to four decades, nominal fishing effort (i.e., trap limits and fishing season) has reduced inareas such as the sGSL (Rondeau et al. 2014) and Newfoundland and Labrador (DFO 2016b). Overall, landingsremained low throughout the 1960s and began to increase in the 1970s, particularly in the southern Gulf of St.Lawrence where the smaller minimum legal size (MLS) coupled with its lower size-at-maturity (SAM) allowedthe lobsters to enter the fishery sooner. This increase continued through the 1980s leading to a peak in 1990–1991 (Figure 2). Landings remained relatively constant through the 1990s, increasing late in the decade to thepresent day historical high. In the Maritime Region (LFA 27 to 41) the landings have trended upward since 1980.Nova Scotia accounts for the majority of lobster landings in Atlantic Canada.

URP Upper Reference Point

HAB Harmful Algal Blooms USR Upper Stock Reference

HCRs Hazard Control Rule VMS Vessel Monitoring System

9

Figure 1 Canadian Lobster Fishing Areas. Source: (FRCC 2007)

Production Statistics

The main producers of lobster are Nova Scotia and Maine (U.S). Maine is the largest landings producer withinUS states yielding 55,521mt in 2015 (NMFS 2016). In comparison, Canada produced 82,741t in 2015 (DFO2016e).

10

Figure 2 Historical Canadian lobster landings from 1890 -2013. Source (DFO 2015i)

Importance to the US/North American market.

Lobster, while fished during specifically regulated seasons in Canada, is generally available year round fromfacilities where lobsters are kept at low temperatures and can be distributed to buyers around the world. Inaddition, many lobsters are imported from the US for processing or storage, and can be later moved back to theUS for sale. Though the US has a year round fishery, landings during the winter are typically low.

In 2015, Canada exported 82,741 MT (DFO 2016e) of lobster worldwide with a value of $2,031,179,000 CAD(DFO 2016e) making lobster Canada’s most valuable seafood product. Around 78% of Canadian lobster exportsis destined for the US, followed by Asia (Japan and China) and the European Union (Belgium, France) (DFO2015i).

Common and market names.

Lobster is marketed as lobster, Atlantic lobster, Canadian lobster, American lobster, and Northern lobster.

Primary product forms

Lobsters are most commonly sold live because this is when they are most valuable. Smaller lobsters (known as“canners”) are cooked and either frozen whole in "popsicle packs" or shelled for meat. Canners are lobstersthat are above the MLS but below 82.5 mm and are only fished in LFA 23, 24, 25, and 26A (in the Southern Gulfof St. Lawrence) (where SAM is lower than other regions). Most of the lobsters caught in the waters of NovaScotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Quebec go to the live market and to the United States, which in turnmay be shipped to Europe and Asia via airports in New York and Boston. The lobster-processing industry isconcentrated in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Lobster tails and claws are sometimes soldseparately and uncooked lobster may also be frozen whole.

11

AssessmentThis section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries,available at www.seafoodwatch.org. The specific standard used is referenced on the title page of all SeafoodWatch assessments.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under AssessmentThis criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. Whenabundance is unknown, abundance is scored based on the species’ inherent vulnerability, which is calculatedusing a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometricmean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

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

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

Guiding Principles

Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant.Fish all affected stocks at sustainable level.

Criterion 1 Summary

AMERICAN LOBSTERRegion | Method Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Canada/NorthwestAtlantic | Pots | Canada |Newfoundland & Labrador

2.33: Moderate Concern 3.00: Moderate Concern Yellow (2.644)

Canada/NorthwestAtlantic | Pots | Canada |Quebec Gulf and NorthernGulf of St. Lawrence

3.67: Low Concern 3.00: Moderate Concern Green (3.318)

Canada/NorthwestAtlantic | Pots | Canada |Southern Gulf of St.Lawrence


Canada/NorthwestAtlantic | Pots | Canada |Eastern Cape Breton

2.33: Moderate Concern 3.00: Moderate Concern Yellow (2.644)

Canada/NorthwestAtlantic | Pots | Canada |Southwest Nova Scotiaand Bay of Fundy


12

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 1.1 - Abundance

Goal: Stock abundance and size structure of native species is maintained at a level that does not impairrecruitment or productivity.

5 (Very Low Concern) — Strong evidence exists that the population is above an appropriate targetabundance level (given the species’ ecological role), or near virgin biomass.3.67 (Low Concern) — Population may be below target abundance level, but is at least 75% of the targetlevel, OR data-limited assessments suggest population is healthy and species is not highly vulnerable.2.33 (Moderate Concern) — Population is not overfished but may be below 75% of the target abundancelevel, OR abundance is unknown and the species is not highly vulnerable.1 (High Concern) — Population is considered overfished/depleted, a species of concern, threatened orendangered, OR abundance is unknown and species is highly vulnerable.

Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality

Goal: Fishing mortality is appropriate for current state of the stock.

5 (Low Concern) — Probable (>50%) that fishing mortality from all sources is at or below a sustainablelevel, given the species ecological role, OR fishery does not target species and fishing mortality is lowenough to not adversely affect its population.3 (Moderate Concern) — Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortalityrelative to a sustainable level is uncertain.1 (High Concern) — Probable that fishing mortality from all source is above a sustainable level.

AMERICAN LOBSTER


CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR

Moderate Concern

The status of the stock relative to reference points for Newfoundland and Labrador (LFAs 3 to 12, 13 A & B,and 14 A–C) is unknown. Four assessment regions have been defined and the stocks were last assessed inthe 2016 assessment: Northeast (LFAs 3 to 6), Avalon (LFAs 7 to 10), South Coast (LFAs 11 and 12), and WestCoast (LFAs 13 and 14) (DFO2016b). LFA 11 is the most productive area, contributing around 45% in recentyears (Figure 3).

In all areas, mean CPUE has increased gradually and landings have overall remained stable. Nominal efforthas decreased by 45% since 2006 due to fewer active fishers, license retirements, shorter fishing seasons,and trap limit reductions. The Newfoundland and Labrador fishery is a recruitment fishery; landings arebelieved to reflect abundance (DFO2016b).

Seafood Watch deems abundance as a “moderate” concern: although CPUE data suggests that abundance isstable, there are no other data-limited assessments to support this conclusion, and lobsters have a mediumvulnerability to fishing pressure in this area (as indicated by the productivity and susceptibility analysis below).

Justification:

13

Figure 3 Map of Newfoundland Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs 3-14)

The key indicators used in Newfoundland and Labrador are landings, nominal effort, mean CPUE, and therelative survival fraction. The assessment uses fishery-dependent data from the following sources: reportedlandings, DFO logbooks, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union (FFAW) index logbooks, and at-sea samplingdata (DFO 2016b). Uncertainties exist due to many factors including the assessment only using fishery-dependent data, there being no account for local sales, poaching or other sources of mortality andenvironmental conditions (Pezzack et al. 2015).

In all areas, there has been a sharp decline in lobster abundance above the MLS, implying that the fishery is arecruitment fishery (DFO2016b).

Figure 4 Proportion of landings from each LFA (LFAs 4-14) in 2012. Source (DFO, 2016b)

14

The information from the following paragraphs is available from (DFO2016b):

Northeast (LFAs 3-6): The most recent assessment for the Northeast fishery was published in November2016 (DFO 2016b). Overall, the 2016 assessment indicates that reported landings have decreased from 750 tin the early 1990s to 225 t in 2015, and nominal effort declined by 16% since 2012 due to fewer fishers activein the fishery. CPUE has increased (based on logbook data) between 2004 to 2015. Survival rates of non-protected females (non-ovigerous) increased relative to protected (ovigerous) lobsters.

Avalon Region (LFAs 7-10): In the Avalon region, reported landings have steadily declined since the early1990s from 460 t to about 30 t in 2015 with the greatest declines in LFA 10. Nominal effort has decreased by32% since 2012 as a result of fewer fishers active in the fishery. Mean CPUE has increased from 2005.Compared to protected females, survival of male and non-protected (non-ovigerous) females has increasedfrom 10% (pre 2012) to about 30% since 2012.

South Coast (LFAs 11-12): About 90% of landings on the South Coast occur in LFA 11. Reported landingsincreased from the early 1990s, peaking in 2015 at 1,200 t before declining in 2011 and to 1,100 t in 2012.Since 2012, nominal effort has declined by 15% due to license retirements and fewer active fishers in thefishery. Mean CPUE was based on logbook data, which has increased gradually from 2005 to 2015. Comparedto protected females, survival of male and non-protected (non-ovigerous) females has fluctuated around 20%since 2004.

West Coast (LFAs 13-14): Landings have varied since the early 1990s and in 2015 were 1200 t. Nominaleffort decreased by 15% since 2012 (due to decreasing numbers of fishers and license retirements). MeanCPUE (which was based on logbook data) increased gradually from 2004 to 2015. Compared to protectedfemales, survival of male and non-protected (non-ovigerous) females fluctuated around 5% since 2004.

Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis

PRODUCTIVITYATTRIBUTE

RELEVANT INFORMATION SCORE (1 = LOW RISK, 2 =MEDIUM RISK, 3 = HIGH RISK)

Average age atmaturity

5 to 12 years /7 to 10 years (generation time)(Tremblay et al. 2012b)

Medium (2)

Average maximumage

>30 years (Lawton and Lavalli 1995) High (3)

Fecundity 10,000 to 100,000 eggs (Waddy et al. 1995) Low to medium (2)

Reproductivestrategy

Brooder (Factor 1995) Medium (2)

Trophic level 3.07 (Eddy et al. 2017) Medium (2)

Density dependence(invertebrates only)

No dispensatory or compensatory dynamicsdemonstrated or likely (Lawton and Lavalli 1995)

Medium (2)

Productivity scoretotal

2.167

15


V = √ P +S

V = √ 2.167 + 2.325

V = √ 4.709 + 5.406

V = √ 10.115

V = 3.178* = Medium Vulnerability

*Values shown are rounded to 3 decimal places for display purposes, actual values result in the vulnerabilityscore presented when entered into the formula.

SUSCEPTIBILITYATTRIBUTE RELEVANT INFORMATION

SCORE (1 =LOW RISK, 2= MEDIUMRISK, 3 =HIGH RISK)

Arealoverlap (Considersall fisheries)

Unknown High (3)

Verticaloverlap (Considersall fisheries)

High overlap High (3)

Selectivity offishery (Specific tofishery underassessment)

The species is targeted. Juveniles are likely to escape from escapevents, though berried females comprise about 20% of the catch(Criquet, Brêthes and Allain 2015a); additionally, undersized,ovigerous and v-notched females cannot be retained (DFO 2016b).

Medium (2)

Post-capturemortality

(Specific to fisheryunder assessment)

Post-capture mortality is unknown in this region. High (3)

Susceptibilityscore

2.325

2 2

2 2

CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR

Moderate Concern

Exploitation rates range from 71 to 96% (Collins et al. 2009) and the remaining stock structure is dominatedby incoming recruits (DFO 2013j). Fishing pressure is still high for LFA 3 to 6. Total landings in LFA 11 havebecome increasingly important, from contributing less than 15 % in the early 1990s to around 45% in years2010 to 2013 of the total landings in the fishery (DFO 2015f). Landings fluctuate rapidly and exploitation rates

16

are high in some LFAs. Nominal effort has decreased by 45% since 2006 over all Newfoundland LFAs (DFO2016b). Fishing mortality relative to a sustainable level is unknown due to a lack of reference points.Therefore, Seafood Watch considers fishing mortality to be a “moderate” concern.

Justification:

Although the most recent stock assessment does not include any estimates of exploitation rates, a 2009research document does so. Annual exploitation rate indices were obtained by determining the proportion of1-year recruits in the commercial catch for each year in the period 1999 to 2005 (Collins et al. 2009). Whenresults for males and females are combined, these values ranged from 73% to 91% in Eastport (LFA 5), from83% to 96% in Fortune Bay (LFA 11), and from 71% to 94% in St. John Bay (LFA 14B) (Collins et al. 2009).These figures have not been updated; the fishery maintains a high level of exploitation. However, landingshave decreased in the Avalon region, increased in the South and West Coast regions, and remain stable in theNortheast (Figure 10) (DFO 2013j).

Overall, the 2016 assessment indicates that nominal effort in Newfoundland declined by 45% since 2006(Figure 6); the reduction in effort was due to fewer fishers active in the fishery, license changes andreductions in season length and trap limits. CPUE has increased gradually. There is an apparent trend in whichreported landings are becoming increasingly concentrated in LFA 11. LFA 11 is the most productive region,contributing around 45% in recent years. Overall landings in Newfoundland have remained relatively steadysince the 1960s.

In all areas, there is a sharp decline in lobster abundance above MLS (DFO 2016b).

Figure 5 Landings (t) for each LFA 4a to 14bc from 2009-2012. Source (DFO 2013b)

One index of fishing mortality may indicate the beginnings of a reduction in mortality; however, few lobstersare achieving the second molt class (DFO 2016b).

These values indicate that the standing stock is largely removed every year. Size-frequency distributions from

17

at-sea sampling consist mostly of incoming recruits to the fishery. Few animals appear to survive the fisherypast recruitment, and there is a lack of larger animals in the population (DFO 2016b).

Natural mortality was considered in the last assessment, which was considered to be low at 10 to 15 % (DFO2013j).

Figure 6 Reported landings (t) and nominal effort for LFAs 3-14 from 1953- 2016, in the a) Northeast region;b) Avalon region; c) South Coast region; d) West Coast region. Source: (DFO 2016b).

18

AMERICAN LOBSTER


CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE

Low Concern

Stock assessments throughout the region show varying results: Generally, recent landings and CPUE valueshave been above 25-year averages (DFO 2016q) (DFO 2016r) (DFO 2016s). Average size-at-capture alsoappears stable, with the exception of LFA 19C (DFO 2016r). In LFAs 19 to 22 stock status is considered healthy(DFO 2016r), (DFO 2016s). Lobster are considered to have a medium vulnerability in this region, but data-limited indicators (CPUE and size-at-capture) are generally positive; therefore, Seafood Watch considersabundance to be a “low" concern.

Table 1. Stock status in LFAs 15–22

LFA Status

15 CPUE increasing, average size stable.



18 Landings increased 2011 to 2015.

19 CPUE increasing, slight decrease in average size

20 CPUE increasing, average size stable

21 CPUE increasing, general size increase since 2011

22 Slight CPUE increase, average size slightly increased. Egg production increases in recent years.

Justification:

Figure 7 Map showing lobster fishing areas (LFAs) in Quebec (LFAs 15 to 18: North Shore and Anticosti, LFAs19 to 21: Gaspé Peninsula and LFA 22: Magdalen Islands)

19

LFAs 15–18: Catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) in LFAs 15 and 16 has increased from 0.21kg/trap in 2011 to0.52kg/trap in 2015, and was above the 22-year average (0.22kg/trap) (DFO 2016q). The average size oflobsters caught in LFAs 15 and 16 has remained stable at 97 to 98 mm in recent years (with the exception of2013) and there has been an increase in the percentage of jumbo lobsters (>127 mm CL); however, due tothe low number of lobsters measured there is a substantial amount of uncertainty in these data (DFO 2016q).In LFA 17B CPUE was 2.57 kg/trap, an increase from 2011 (1.11 kg/trap) and the highest level since 2006(DFO 2016q). The stock status for LFA 18 cannot be assessed as there are a lack of data available for thefishery; landings have increased in the fishery from 1 t from 2001 to 2011, to 17 t in 2015 (DFO 2016q).

LFAs 19–21: In LFA 20 CPUE was 0.82 lobsters per trap in 2015, an increase from 0.58 in 2011 and abovethe 25-year average of 0.55 lobsters per trap (DFO 2016r). The CPUE in terms of weight per trap alsoincreased from 0.34 kg/trap in 2011 to 0.48 kg/trap in 2015 and was also above the 25-year average (0.29kg/trap) (DFO 2016r). The mean size and weight of lobsters in LFA 20 has remained stable at 88 mm and0.56 kg since 2011 (DFO 2016r). CPUE in the fall fishery in LFA 21B increased from 2.04 kg/trap in 2011 to2.54 kg/trap in 2015, which was one of the highest values recorded since the fishery began in 2001 (DFO2016r). The average size of lobsters in LFA 21B has been stable at around 102 mm from the spring fishery,and 97 mm from the fall fishery (DFO 2016r). In LFA 19C there has been a decrease in the p of jumbo lobsterin the catch from 5.2% in 2011 to 2.2% in 2015 (DFO 2016r). Average size and weight of lobsters landed inLFA19C has also decreased from 98.5 mm (0.79kg) in 2011 to 96.7 mm (0.74kg) in 2015 (DFO 2016r).

The lobster stock in LFAs 19 to 21 is considered healthy as it is above both Limit (LRP) and Upper ReferencePoints (URP). These reference points are based on landings from a productive period (1985 to 2009), suchthat the LRP is set at 325t and the URP is set at 650t. The URP is considered to be 80% of B and there isuncertainty associated with using landings as reference points. However, current landings are significantlyhigher than the URP at 3486 t (DFO 2016r).

LFA 22: In LFA 22 the CPUE in 2015 was 0.83 lobsters per trap, which was slightly lower (1.1%) than in 2011but higher (7.8%) than the series average (1985 to 2010) of 0.77 lobsters per trap (DFO 2016s). In terms ofweight, CPUE in 2015 (0.57 kg/trap) was higher than both 2011 and the series average (0.44kg/trap) (DFO2016s). A slight increase in the size of lobsters landed has been seen from 2011 to 2015, and the trawl surveysuggests that average size is stable (DFO 2016s).

Landings were 3486 t in 2015, which exceeds the URP of 1750 t (80% B ); therefore, the DFO considers thestock to be healthy in this LFA. There is some uncertainty over the appropriateness of the reference points dueto the use of average landings and because the URP is below MSY; however, landings are significantly higherthan the URP (DFO 2016s).

Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis:

Scoring Guidelines

1.) Productivity score (P) = average of the productivity attribute scores (p1, p2, p3, p4 (finfish only), p5 (finfishonly), p6, p7, and p8 (invertebrates only))

2.) Susceptibility score (S) = product of the susceptibility attribute scores (s1, s2, s3, s4), rescaled as follows:�� = [(��1 ∗ ��2 ∗ ��3 ∗ ��4) – 1/ 40 ] + 1 .

3.) Vulnerability score (V) = the Euclidean distance of P and S using the following formula: �� = √(P + S)

PSA score = 3.181. For this reason, the species is deemed high vulnerability (based on PSA scoring tool).Detailed scoring of each attribute is shown below.

MSY

MSY

2 2

20

ProductivityAttribute

Relevant Information Score (1 = low risk, 2 =medium risk, 3 = high risk)


5 to 12 years / 7 to 10 years (generation time)(Tremblay et al. 2012b)

Medium (2)

Average maximumage


Fecundity10,000 to 100,000 eggs (Waddy et al. 1995)

Low to medium (2)






Medium (2)

Productivity score (2+3+2+2+2+2)/6 = 2.167

SusceptibilityAttribute Relevant Information

Score (1 = low risk,2 = medium risk, 3= high risk)

Arealoverlap

(Considers allfisheries)

Areal overlap for this area is unknown. High (3)

Verticaloverlap



Selectivity offishery

(Specific tofishery underassessment)

The species is targeted. Juveniles are likely to escape from escapevents, though berried females comprise about 20% of the catch(Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain 2015a).

Medium (2)



Post-capture mortality are unknown in this region High (3)

21


V = √ P +S

V = √ 2.167 + 2.325

V = √ 4.709 + 5.406

V = √ 10.115



Susceptibilityscore

[((3*3*2*3)-1)/40]+1 = 2.325

2 2

2 2

CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE

Moderate Concern

Landings have increased to record highs, though exploitation rates have been reducing in some areas e.g., ofQuebec and Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence (nGSL), over recent years. Size structures for lobsters in LFA 17Bhave become less truncated over recent years due to strong recruitment years. LFA 17B also has beenexperiencing an increased number of jumbo females and stable fishing effort (DFO 2016q). In LFA 20 and 22,the stock remains truncated, indicative of high exploitation rates. However, LFA 20 have reduced theirexploitation rates to 71.6% between 2011 and 2014 (DFO 2016r). Exploitation rates in LFA 22 have also beenreduced, which has allowed for indicators to improve or stabilize (DFO 2016s). More data are required on thecatches in LFAs 15 to 18 and 21B to determine if the level of fishing mortality is suitable for the stock, thoughfishing effort data in LFAs 15 to 18 show increased average sizes and increased proportion of jumbo lobsters.Fishing mortality relative to a sustainable level is unknown due to a lack of reference points. Therefore,Seafood Watch considers fishing mortality to be a “moderate” concern.

Justification:

LFAs 15-18 Landings in 15, 16, and 18 account for only 1% of LFAs 15 to 22 landings, but landings havedramatically increased in LFAs 15 to 18 in recent years. The fishing effort in LFAs 15 to 18 is low, thoughavailable landings data are potentially incomplete (DFO 2016q). There are still few data available from thecatches due to the low level of lobsters being measured. More data are required on recruitment and eggproduction in these areas. Exploitation rates are suggested to be lower in LFAs 15 and 16 compared to otherlocal regions, and they have three modes in the size structure of commercial-size lobsters. The average sizehas remained around 97 to 98 mm CL recently, which has increased since the increase of MLS. Theprevalence of jumbo lobsters has increased, occurring at rates of 3.2% and 3.6% in 2014 and 2015,respectively (DFO 2016q).

LFA 17B Landings reached over 500 t in 2015 (an increase of 189% from 2011). Size distributions havebecome less truncated in recent years, and the mean size of commercial lobsters has increased by 1.9 mmsince 2011. This is due to a recent full recruitment of strong cohorts. There have also been a growing numberof jumbo females suggesting increased production. Fishing effort has generally remained stable between 2009

22

AMERICAN LOBSTER


and 2011 (DFO 2016q).

LFAs 19-21 In 2014 and 2015, a significant number of recruits entered the fishery in LFA 20 leading to sizestructures being truncated towards males sized 82 to 93 mm and females sized 82 to 89 mm. This isindicative of high exploitation rates. While the mean size and weight of landed lobsters remained stable since2011, the prevalence of jumbo lobsters remains low (around 0.2% and 0.3% in 2011 to 2015, respectively). Afishing pressure index or exploitation rate determined variable levels for males with average exploitation ratesof 71.6% for 2011 to 2014, a 7.2% decrease from the 78.8% rate in 2008 to 2010 (below the series average(1986 to 2013). There is a concern that the sex ratio could become more favored towards females as they arereleased when berried (DFO 2016r).

Compared to LFA 20, the size structures of LFA 19C was more spread, with several molt classes and a higherproportion of jumbo lobsters. However, the proportion of jumbo lobsters has decreased from 5.2% in 2011 to2.2% in 2015 and the average size and average weight of landed lobsters also decreased (98.5 mm/786 g in2011 to 96.7 mm/744 g in 2015), both due to an increased proportion of young molt classes. Exploitation ratesare much lower in LFA 19C, (around 30%) and sex ratios appear healthier for mating (DFO 2016r).

Similarly, LFA 21B stock structure was less truncated than found in LFA 20. The proportion of jumbo femalesdramatically fluctuated between 2011 and 2015, from 0.6% to 5.5%. However, the sample size of lobstersmeasured is low and therefore, fluctuations should be interpreted with caution. Exploitation rates areincalculable for LFA 21B, but are likely to be high (using size structures data). Sex ratios are strongly biasedtowards males (> 2.0) (DFO 2016r).

LFA 22 The size structures of commercial lobsters in LFA 22 are truncated and dominated by younger moltclasses from new recruits (DFO 2016s), indicating high exploitation rates. The average size and weight oflobsters has either been stable in the trawl survey or has slightly increased from 91.1 mm/619 g in 2011 to92.0 mm/640 g in 2015 (south) and 92.2 mm/640 g to 93.1 mm/662 g in the north. The proportion of jumbolobsters is generally less than 1%. The exploitation rate has declined since 2010 (65.4% in the south, which islower than the series average (1985 to 2009) at 67.6% and 63.8% in the north, which is higher than theseries average (1985 to 2009) at 60.3%). The sex ratio is currently appropriate for mating (DFO 2016s).

CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE

Low Concern

The most recent assessment of lobsters in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (sGSL; LFAs 23, 24, 25, 26A, and26B) was published in 2016. The 2016 assessment used a variety of fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data to generate a broad overview of trends in the stock's abundance and production. Multipleindicators were used in all LFAs to assess stock status (SCUBA, larvae collectors, landings). All indicators werepositive in all LFA except for one indicator in LFA 26A (DFO 2016t). The preliminary landings for 2015 showthat the landings are well above the precautionary approach’s USR (DFO 2016t). Indicators suggest thatlobster is in high abundance in all LFAs, except for sub region 26AD, which represents a small part of LFA26A(DFO 2016t). Landings are more than double the long-term median and the highest of the time series (DFO2016t). Fishery-independent recruitment indicators also indicate significant increases. Fishery-dependent dataare also positive with CPUE of berried females and pre-fishery recruits in their highest range for most areas,except sub-region 26AD (DFO 2016t). Although improvements in logbook requirements were implemented in2014, there is still concern over the accuracy and availability of catch data. This is due to some uncertaintyassociated with non-recorded lobster catches, which are due to other legal sales, personal consumption and

23

potential illegal fishing (DFO 2016t).

The PSA demonstrates that the lobster has a medium vulnerability to fisheries in this region. Data-limitedmethods suggest that the stock is experiencing mostly positive trends. Therefore, Seafood Watch deems theabundance to be a “low" concern.

Justification:

Figure 8 Map showing the sub-regions used for assessing the lobster stock status in the southern Gulf of St.Lawrence.

Landings from all LFAs (13,798 t) are significantly higher than the USR (Figure 4). Landings have increasedsince the last assessment (e.g., by 54% in LFA 24) and have reached or exceeded historical levels. Increasedprotection of highly fecund large females have been conducive to increased egg production andrecruitment (DFO 2016t). Most LFAs have collected data using at-sea sampling programs for data on lobstersize (CL), sex, egg stage and number of traps and their locations. Other data programs included arecruitment-index program and fishery-independent surveys such as trawl, SCUBA, and bio-collectors todetermine patterns of post-larval settlement (DFO 2016t).

24

Figure 9 Lobster landings (t) in the sGSL from 1892 to 2015. Horizontal solid (red) line is the median landingof the time series for 1947 to 2011 (10,933 t). The dashed (green) line represents the USR (13,798 t). Source(DFO 2016t).

LFA 23: Average CPUE from both the at-sea sampling and the recruitment-index programs show high valuesin recent years. Standardized abundance of all-size groups of lobster (SCUBA surveys) have increased steadilyand significantly in LFAs 23. Catch rates of berried females from the recruitment-index and at-sea samplingdata have reached their highest values in recent years (2013 to 2016) and sub-region 23BC had the highestincrease in CPUE (double those observed in 2012) (DFO 2016t).

LFA 24: Average CPUE from both the at-sea sampling and the recruitment-index programs show high valuesin recent years but LFA 24 is not as high a level as other LFAs. Similarly, catch rates of pre-fishery recruitmentsize lobsters have increased at a lower rate in LFA 24. However, bio-collector surveys showed extremely highlobster settlement in LFA 24 (DFO 2016t).

LFA 25: Average CPUE from both the at-sea sampling and the recruitment-index programs show high valuesin recent years. Sub-region 25N has some conflicting results: a 16% increase in CPUE from the recruitment-index program, but a decrease of 16% in CPUE from the at-sea sampling data (DFO 2016t). There are somereasons for these conflicts e.g., a sharp reduction in licences from 2011 to 2012 could cause higher catchrates, and a decrease in CPUE is perceived to be due to a high CPUE value in 2012. A fishery-independenttrawl survey yielded positive results: all-size lobster abundance increased by 1.9 and 3.3-fold (mean lobsterweight in kg per standardized tow) for sub-regions 25N and 25S, respectively and the modelled biomass indexfor LFA 25 increased 2.6-fold between 2012 and 2016. Also, all-size groups of lobster in SCUBA surveysshowed steady and significant increases between 2003 and 2016 in LFA 25. Sharp increases were found incatch rates of pre-fishery recruitment-size lobsters from the recruitment-index program in 25S. Theabundance of settlers in bio-collectors surveys showed extremely high lobster settlement in sub-region 25Nwith record high abundances (DFO 2016t).

LFA 26A: A trawl survey showed that mean lobster weight increased by 7.5-fold in 26AD and the modelledbiomass index for LFA26A has doubled between 2012 and 2016. Standardized abundance of all-size groups oflobster in SCUBA surveys show a low and unchanged abundance for LFA 26AD. Catch rates of pre-fishery

25

recruits sharply increased for 26AD. Berried females CPUE (recruitment-index and at-sea sampling data) havereached their highest values in recent years (2013 to 2016) with particularly large increases in 26ANS. Trawlsurveys indicate that biomass of sub-legal size lobsters has increased sharply by 71.8 times in 26AD between2012 and 2016. Abundances of 1-year old lobsters in SCUBA surveys (2003 and 2016) have significantlyincreased in all sub-regions, except 26AD. Sub-region 26AD has the lowest abundance of 1-year old lobsterswith no improvement (DFO 2016t).

LFA 26B: Landings have reached historical highs over the past 5 years, slightly exceeding early 1990's values.The percentage of empty traps is stable (~28% in 2016) from the recruit-index program (DFO 2016t).

Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (if Applicable):

Scoring Guidelines




PSA score = 3.181. For this reason, the species is deemed high vulnerability (based on PSA scoring tool).Detailed scoring of each attribute is shown below.

2 2




5 to 12 years/7 to 10 years (generation time)(Tremblay et al. 2012b)

Medium (2)

Average maximumage



Low to medium (2)






Medium (2)



Score (1 = low risk,2 = medium risk, 3= high risk)

26


V = √ P +S

V = √ 2.167 + 2.325

V = √ 4.709 + 5.406

V = √ 10.115



Arealoverlap


Areal overlap for this are is unknown High (3)

Verticaloverlap





Berried females represent around 8% of the spring fishery catchin LFAs 23, 24, 26A, 26B and 23% of the fall fishery catch in LFA25 (Criquet and Brêthes 2016a)

Medium (2)



Evidence of some (33 to 66%) individuals released and survivepost-capture. Post capture mortality is assumed to be near tozero (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a).

Medium (2)

Susceptibilityscore

[((3*3*2*3)-1)/40]+1 = 2.325

2 2

2 2

CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE

Moderate Concern

Previously, the fishery has experienced high exploitation rates (DFO 2013b). The sGSL region has seenincreased landings in recent years. This is due to favorable environmental factors and increased egg

27

AMERICAN LOBSTER


production (attributable to an increase in MLS and a maximum size protection for females), increasingrecruitment in the fishery (DFO 2016t).

Data are currently inadequate to suggest exploitation rates. Instead, fishing pressure indicators are used todetermine the level of effort in the fishery (using data on the proportion of empty traps, trends in nominaleffort using license or trap data) (DFO 2016t). Most areas have seen reductions in the percentage of emptytraps, though some areas, such as LFA 26A and B still have high levels of empty traps (>20%). Trap reductionprograms since 2012 have led to a 12% nominal decrease in number of traps (DFO 2014i).

The fishing mortality relative to a sustainable level is unknown since there are no reference points; therefore,Seafood Watch considers fishing mortality to be a “moderate” concern.

Justification:

In recent assessments, the only area with a weak or negative trend in landings was central NorthumberlandStrait (sub-regions 25S and 26AD). The percentage of empty traps has decreased in almost every LFA since2012 with an average of less than 20% empty traps per fishing trip. Subregion 26AD had slightly higher levels(23% in 2016) but have still seen decreases since 2011 (47%). LFA 26B has seen stable results of 28% in2016 (DFO 2016t).

There have been a significant reduction of licenses removed from the fishery as part of the Atlantic LobsterSustainability Measures program. The total number of licenses in the sGSL decreased by 1% from 2012 to2016. Additionally, trap allocations reduced from 250 to 225 within LFA 25 and from 275 to 255 in sub-LFA26A2. Since 2012, there was a decrease of more than 24,000 lobster traps, representing a 12% nominaldecrease in number of traps (DFO 2014i).

CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETON

Moderate Concern

The most recent stock status update for LFAs 27 to 33 was published in 2018. Abundance is unknown relativeto reference points and therefore, data-limited indicators (landings and catch rates) are used to determine thestock status. Across all three regions, recent landings have been much higher than the estimated URP (80% ofmedian 1985 to 2009 landings) (DFO 2017g). All indicators generally show a positive trend: landings were allabove the USRs for LFAs 28 to 32 at the end of the 2017 season and catch rates of legal and sublegal lobstersare high compared to their historic levels (DFO 2018e).

Lobster is considered to be of medium vulnerability to trap fisheries and data-limited indicators show generallypositive trends; however, the data-limited methods use similar data and parameters and as a result theuncertainty within one indicator is not taken into account by another. SFW requires that a fishery should havetwo or more data-limited indicators from independent data streams in order to score a low concern (if bothindicators suggest positive stock status). Where multiple indicators are available but are not independent, thedata sets are influenced by the same sources of uncertainty and the use of the multiple indicators does notprovide enough certainty that stock is healthy. Seafood Watch considers abundance of lobster to be a"moderate" conservation concern.

28

Figure 10 Map of the Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs) 27-33.

Figure 11 Map of the Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs) 27-33. Source: (DFO 2017g)

Reference points have been defined for LFAs 27, 28 to 32, and 33, which are created using landings data.Other abundance and biomass proxies are calculated using landings, commercial catch rates and catch ratesof sublegal sizes from Fishermen Scientists Research Society (FSRS) recruitment traps to the end of the 2017fishing season (2016–17 for LFA 33) (DFO 2018e).

LFA 27: Mean landings between 2014 to 2016 (3,837 t), were above the URP (at 1,629 t). Over the past fouryears, CPUE values in LFA 27 north and south were higher than those recorded for 2008 to 2012 and voluntarylog statistics. In LFA 27 north and south catch rates declined or were stable over the previous three years but

Justification:

29

increased for 2017. For LFA 27 north and south, CPUE of sublegals increased since 2013, when compared tothe 1999 to 2012 period. These increases are attributed to increases in MLS (which automatically classifiedmany formerly legal sized lobsters into the sublegal category but were still captured in the studies) (DFO2018e).

LFA 28 to 32: Commercial landings for LFAs 28 to 32 were all above long-term means. Mean landings duringthe period 2014 to 2016 (4,254 t) were substantially above the URP value (688 t). CPUEs increased in 2017from 2016 values and all were at or above the mean of the full time series. In LFAs 29 and 31A, sublegalcatch rates had increased throughout the last several years, but have subsequently stabilized or decreased in2017. In LFA 30, 31B and 32, catch rates were fairly stable over the past several years, and were at levelsabove those recorded between 1999 and 2004 (DFO 2018e).

LFA 33: Mean landings were among the highest on record in 2017. Landings during the period 2014 to 2016(7,651 t) were above the URP value (1,838 t). Commercial CPUE values are higher in the west compared tothe east, but CPUE values have increased consistently in both areas since 2008. However, values havesubsequently declined in 2017. In LFA 33E, catch rates were fairly stable over the past several years, at levelsabove those recorded between 1999 and 2004. In LFA 33W, sublegal CPUE gradually increased from the early2000s and 2015, but have declined since (DFO 2018e).


Scoring Guidelines




PSA score = 2.865. For this reason, the species is deemed medium vulnerability (based on PSA scoring tool).Detailed scoring of each attribute is shown below.

2 2




5 to 12 years/7 to10 years (generation time)(Tremblay et al. 2012b)

Medium (2)

Average maximumage



Low to medium (2)




30

V = 2.865 = Medium Vulnerability



Medium (2)



Score(1 =lowrisk, 2=mediumrisk, 3= highrisk)

Arealoverlap


Areal overlap is unknown in this area High (3)

Verticaloverlap





The species is targeted. Juveniles are likely to escape from escape vents,though berried females comprise about 20% of the catch (Criquet, Brêthes, andAllain 2015a).

Medium(2)



LFAs 27 to 33 show an average ratio of 0.54 (kg lobster discarded / kg lobsterlanded) = 54% (DFO 2014d). A recent study showed that all lobsters surviveddiscarding (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a); however, if an average of 89% survivediscarding (depending on handling and fishing method) (Revill 2012), then thereis a 48% survival rate in total. Thus, there is evidence that some (33 to 66%)individuals released survive post-capture.

Medium(2)

Susceptibilityscore

[((3*3*2*2)-1)/40]+1 = 1.875

31

CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETON

Moderate Concern

The most recent stock assessment update was published in 2018, but it did not include indices ofexploitation (DFO 2018e). However, in an assessment from 2012 an index of exploitation was estimated tohave remained stable or slightly declined for all LFAs, were less than historic levels, and were less thancandidate reference levels that were derived from the historical data (Tremblay et al. 2012a). Landings arecurrently high relative to historical landings, with landings in LFA 33 being the highest on record, increasingfrom 7,069 mt in 2015, to 10,049 t in 2016, and declining to 8,017 t in 2017 (DFO 2018e).

Fishing mortality relative to a sustainable level is unknown, since reference points have not been established.Seafood Watch therefore considers fishing mortality to be a “moderate” concern.

Justification:

The most recent assessment does not provide information relevant to fishing mortality, but the 2012assessment provides information summarized below. Unless otherwise noted, the source for information inthis section is (Tremblay et al. 2012a).

From the early 2000s through 2012, an index of exploitation did not increase for LFAs 27 to 33. For LFA 27,this index varied without trend, and the mean estimated exploitation rate index for 2008 to 2010 (0.77) wasessentially equal to the 1999 to 2007 median (0.76). The exploitation index for LFAs 29 and 30 showed ageneral decreasing trend in the past several years. No trend is apparent for LFAs 31 and 32. The meanexploitation index for LFAs 29 to 32 in 2008 to 2010 (0.61) was lower than the 2000 to 2007 median (0.70).For LFA 33, there was a slight decline in the exploitation index for females; the mean of the overallexploitation index for LFA 33 in 2008 to 2010 (0.67) was below the median value for 2000 to 2007 (0.76). Forall LFAs, recent landings are shown in Figure 40.

For many of the LFAs, trap hauls increased between 2004 and approximately 2008, and have remained eithersteady or have declined slightly in the years since (Figure 3.6 in (Tremblay et al. 2012a)). Mean days fishedper fisher show no trend for LFAs 27, 28, 30, and 32, and show increasing trends between approximately2002 and 2008 for LFAs 29, 31a, 31b, and 33 (Figure 3.8 in (Tremblay et al. 2012a)).

Median sizes for LFA 27 have steadily increased since the late 1990s (Figure 3.14 in (Tremblay et al. 2012a));the authors of the stock assessment attribute this trend to increases in the MLS. Median sizes have sometimesshown increasing and decreasing trends for LFAs 29, 31A and 31B, and 32, but for all of these LFAs the mostrecent values are similar to those at the start of the time series. Median sizes in LFA 33 have varied withoutshowing obvious trends.

Figure 12 Landings in Eastern Scotian LFAs. Source: (Criquet & Brêthes 2016a)


32

AMERICAN LOBSTER


CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDY

Low Concern

For both Southwest Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy, landings are at all-time highs (DFO 2017i}. LFA 34produces the highest landings of all LFAs in Canada (DFO 2018i). For LFAs 34, 35, 36 and 38, CPUE hasincreased in recent years (DFO 2017h)(DFO 2017i}. Both fishery-dependent and independent indices wereused to determine stock status: the fishery-dependent stock status was determined by calculating the landingsand CPUE and comparing to LRPs and URPs which are 40% and 80% of the median historical value (the URP isconsidered a proxy for B ). Recent landings in the Southwest Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy assessmentunits are well above B proxies. The stock in both Southwest Nova Scotia (LFA 34) and Bay of Fundy (LFAs35, 36 and 38) are considered by the DFO to be in the healthy zones. Fishery-independent data werecalculated using the mean lobster catch per tow from trawl data (ITQ and RV survey). The three-year runningmean for each index were above the URPs (DFO 2017h)(DFO 2017i}.

Since lobster is deemed to be of medium vulnerability in these regions and biomass is above the proxyreference points, the stock status of lobster in Southwest Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy is scored "low"concern.

MSY

MSY

33

Figure 13 Map of Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 34 and adjacent LFAs. Source: (DFO 2017h)

The authors of a recent stock assessment reviewed available information and determined that lobster insouthwest Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy can be defined as two assessment units: LFA 34 (SouthwestNova Scotia), and LFAs 35, 36 and 38 (Bay of Fundy). The most recent assessments are based on bothfishery-dependent and fishery-independent data.

Southwest Nova Scotia (LFA 34): Three indicators (landings, commercial catch rate (total landings pertotal trap hauls) and lastly, the mean number of lobsters per tow in the fishery-independent Inshore LobsterTrawl Survey) were used to determine that the stock is healthy and above the 3-year running mean. Landingsin the 2016-17 fishing season 22% lower than 2015-16 landings (which were the highest on record). The 3-year running mean of landings (25,325 t) were above the USR (8,867 t), defined as 80% of the median legallobster landings for the period 1984-1985 to 2008-2009 (Figure 7). The commercial catch rate increasedsubstantially since 1999-2000, peaking in 2016-2017 at 1.17 kg/trap haul. The current 3-year running mean(1.26 kg/trap haul) was substantially above the USR (0.62 kg/trap haul), where the USR was defined as 80%of the median catch rates for the reference period 1998-1999 to 2008-2009. The mean number of lobstersper tow independent survey was not updated in the most recent assessment (DFO 2018i). The previousassessment showed that observed increasing values with 3-year running mean (~75 lobsters/tow) in the 2016survey, above the USR (13.9 lobsters/tow) (DFO 2017h).

34

Figure 14 Annual lobster landings in the LFA 34 commercial fishery (1892 to 1975 (grey bars)) (seasonalcommercial landings (black bars) from 1976 to 2016-2017 season). The horizontal blue line or USR is the 80%of the median of landings (1985 to 2009 (8867 t)). The dashed red line is the 3-year running mean oflandings. The dashed green line is the 3-year running median. Source (DFO 2018i).

Bay of Fundy (LFAs 35, 36 and 38):

35

Figure 15 Lobster Fishing Areas (LFA) 35-38 in the Bay of Fundy. Lobster Fishing Area 37 is a shared fishingarea between LFAs 36 and 38. Source: (DFO 2017i)

LFAs 35-38 in the Bay of Fundy and are analyzed as one fishery unit. Similar to LFA 34, three biomassindicators are used in the stock assessment (landings, the commercial catch rate (total landings/total traphauls from logbook data) and the stratified mean of number of lobsters per tow is from fishery-independenttrawl survey data.

Total landings were the highest on record. However, landings have slightly decreased (6.5%) in LFA 35 andincreased in LFAs 36 (4%) and 38 (13%). In the fishing season 2015-2016, the 3-year running mean (12,206mt) was 7 times the USR (1,575 mt), defined as 80% of the median for the period 1984-1985 to 2008-2009.The commercial catch-per-unit-effort has increased since 1998-1999 with the 2015-2016 values at the thirdhighest on record. The current 3-year running mean is 2.37 kg/trap haul which is four times the USR (0.58kg/trap haul) and is defined as 50% of the median for the reference period 2005-06 to 2008-09 (DFO 2017i).

The survey area does not cover highly productive areas, such as those shallower than 50 meters in the Bay ofFundy. In the Bay of Fundy, the size at which 50% of the population reaches maturity (50% SAM) is > 90 mmCL, however, the minimum legal size is 82.5mm CL (DFO 2017i). The abundance of the stock shows arecruitment fishery (meaning that they are heavily dependent on new recruits (the size of which depends onthe LFA’s MLS) and monitoring broodstock abundance is recommended to reduce the risk of recruitmentoverfishing (DFO 2016u).


Scoring Guidelines




PSA score = 2.865. For this reason, the species is deemed medium vulnerability (based on PSA scoring tool).Detailed scoring of each attribute is shown below.

2 2




5-12 years /7-10 years (generation time)(Tremblay et al. 2012b)

Medium (2)

Average maximumage

>30 years (Lawton & Lavalli 1995) High (3)

Fecundity10 000 – 100 000 eggs (Waddy et al. 1995)

Low – medium (2)

Reproductive strategy Brooder (Factor 1995) Medium (2)

36



No dispensatory or compensatory dynamicsdemonstrated or likely (Lawton & Lavalli 1995)

Medium (2)



Score(1 =lowrisk, 2=mediumrisk, 3= highrisk)

Arealoverlap


Areal overlap is unknown in this area High (3)

Verticaloverlap





The species is targeted. Juveniles are likely to escape from escape vents,though berried females comprise about 20% of the catch (Criquet, Brêthes &Allain 2015a).

Medium(2)



By far, the majority of landings occurs in LFA 34. LFA 34 is the only LFA in theregion to determine its lobster discard rates were the kg lobster discarded / kglobster landed = 74% (DFO 2014d). If an average of 89% survive discarding(depending on handling and fishing method) (Revill 2012), then around 66% ofthose lobsters should survive. However, as mentioned in section 2.3, most oflobsters discarded are shorts, therefore, mortality is likely higher. Additionally,since the level of post-capture mortality nor discard rate is unknown in LFAs 35-38 (around 10,000mt), then there is evidence of some (33- 66%) individualsreleased and survive post-capture.

Medium(2)

Susceptibilityscore

[((3*3*2*2)-1)/40]+1 = 1.875

37


V = 2.865 = Medium Vulnerability

CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDY

Moderate Concern

Current landings in LFAs 34 and 36 to 38 are at record highs, though exploitation rates have not beendetermined or tested for their suitability since the 2013 assessment (DFO 2017h} (DFO 2017i). In the 2013assessment, exploitation rates in LFA 34 were estimated to be high relative to other LFAs, and were high formany years (Tremblay et al. 2013). This information, combined with the LFA 34 fishery's relatively recentexpansion to mid-shore and offshore waters and the unprecedentedly high landings of recent years (Figure 7),suggest that a cautious score is warranted for fishing mortality. Tremblay et al. (2013) estimated thatexploitation rates in the upper Bay of Fundy (LFA 35) were lower than LFA 34. Since fishing mortality relativeto reference points is unknown, fishing mortality for Southwest Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy is scored"moderate" concern.

Justification:

Southwest Nova Scotia (LFA 34):

The 2018 update assessment does not provide fishing mortality reference points or exploitation rates. The lastassessment that discussed exploitation rates for the fishery was in 2013 and is discussed below. Landings inLFA 34 have been increasing since the 1980's. They were at record highs in the 2015–2016 season but thendeclined by 22% between the 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 seasons (Figure 7) (DFO 2018i).

In the 2013 stock assessment, exploitation rates for LFA 34 were estimated using two different approaches:Continuous Change in Ratio (CCIR), and Length Cohort Analysis (LCA). The CCIR method was applied to thenearshore waters of LFA 34, and yielded results to indicate that exploitation rates in 2012 were high (0.81 to0.95, depending on grid group; (Tremblay et al. 2013) note that CCIR results should be interpreted as anindex, rather than as an estimate of absolute exploitation rate). The CCIR results also indicate that exploitationrates have increased in recent years for some grid groups, and have stayed essentially unchanged for others(Tremblay et al. 2013). The authors of the stock assessment note that CCIR exploitation rates are substantiallyhigher in LFA 34 than for other LFAs. The LCA results indicate that, as of 2009–2010, exploitation rates werehigher in nearshore waters (0.78) than in mid-shore (0.62) and offshore (0.40) waters (Tremblay et al. 2013).

Bay of Fundy (LFAs 35, 36, and 38):

While a lack of data precluded an assessment of exploitation rates for LFAs 35, 36, and 38, partial applicationof the CCIR method yielded results to indicate that exploitation rates in the upper Bay of Fundy (0.67) arelower than LFA 34 (Tremblay et al. 2013). LFAs 35 to 38 border the two biggest lobster fisheries in theNorthwest Atlantic (LFA 34, with annual landings nearing 30,000 MT and Downeast Maine with annual landingsaveraging 30,000 MT since 2012 (DFO 2017i).

38

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other SpeciesAll main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated under Criterion 2. Seafood Watch definesbycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples includediscards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. Species are evaluated using the sameguidelines as in Criterion 1. When information on other species caught in the fishery is unavailable, the fishery’spotential impacts on other species is scored according to the Unknown Bycatch Matrices, which are based on asynthesis of peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type. The fisheryis also scored for the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. Todetermine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied bythe discard/bait score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

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

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

Guiding Principles

Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant.Fish all affected stocks at sustainable level.Minimize bycatch.

Criterion 2 Summary

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

AMERICAN LOBSTER - CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC - POTS - CANADA - EASTERN CAPE BRETON

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

Species Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Atlantic herring 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Atlantic mackerel 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

North Atlantic right whale 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Humpback whale 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

Cusk 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

Atlantic cod 1.00:High Concern 5.00:Low Concern Yellow (2.236)

Wolffish (unspecified) 1.00:High Concern 5.00:Low Concern Yellow (2.236)

Fin whale 1.00:High Concern 5.00:Low Concern Yellow (2.236)

Atlantic rock crab 2.33:Moderate Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Yellow (2.644)

39

AMERICAN LOBSTER - CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC - POTS - CANADA - NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR











AMERICAN LOBSTER - CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC - POTS - CANADA - QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERNGULF OF ST. LAWRENCE











AMERICAN LOBSTER - CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC - POTS - CANADA - SOUTHERN GULF OF ST.LAWRENCE








40

Species considered in criteria 2 are either those which are Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP) species,species that represented >5% of the catch or species that are used for bait.

The data sources used to determine whether a species was an ETP species were either listed under theSpecies at Risk Act (SARA), the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), orwere listed as "Critically Endangered," "Endangered," "Vulnerable," or "Near Threatened" in the IUCN. Bycatchspecies were determined from independent bycatch studies or from studies conducted by the Department ofFisheries and Oceans, Canada.

The main bycatch species in the lobster fishery in Canada are wolffish, cusk and interactions were recordedwith large marine mammals including the North Atlantic Right Whale (NARW), fin whales, and leatherbackturtles.

Species that can be retained in lobster fisheries include rock crab, Jonah crab, green crab, sculpin and cunner(Table 4). However, the amount that is retained is generally low. Therefore, this report will not assess theseretained species.

Management measures are implemented that reduce the risk of the lobster fishery on whale species (Criquet





AMERICAN LOBSTER - CANADA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC - POTS - CANADA - SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA ANDBAY OF FUNDY








Cusk 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

White hake 1.00:High Concern 5.00:Low Concern Yellow (2.236)





41

and Brêthes 2016b). However, interactions with whales have been reported. NARW are listed as endangeredunder both the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) (NOAA inreview 2018a) and therefore are assessed in this report. Fin whales are also assessed in this report as they arelisted as a species of "special concern" by SARA (since 2005) (DFO 2017x) and are listed as "Endangered" bythe IUCN (Reilly et al. 2013). Though the level of concern for fin whale entanglement in fishing gear has beenconsidered to be "low" (Table 1; (DFO 2017x)), they have been assessed for all areas since there are signs thatsome whale species' distributions are changing (Pace et al. 2017).

The Western North Atlantic Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) population and Minke whales are not assessedin this report. Humpback whales are listed as “not at risk” in the last COSEWIC report (COSEWIC 2003) but theirSARA status is “special concern” (DFO 2018a). Minke whales are not assessed in this report as they are notlisted as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and the Canadian East Coast stock is notconsidered strategic under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Hayes et al. 2017). They are considered as "Notat Risk" by COSEWIC (DFO 2018b). The minimum detected average annual mortality and serious injury inCanadian fisheries between 2010 and 2014 was well below the calculated potential biological removal (PBR)(Hayes et al. 2017). Although mortality relative to PBR was low, much of the entanglement-related mortality forMinke whales occurred within an "unassigned" country and detected interactions in the strandings andentanglement data "represent a minimum estimate" (NOAA in review 2018a).

In addition to species caught alongside lobster in the pot fisheries, consideration of species used as bait is alsodescribed here. A variety of species are used as bait, but the most prominent are herring, mackerel, and rockcrab. There are a number of commercial herring fisheries along the Atlantic coast of Canada. It is not possibleto determine the source of herring used as bait in most regions, therefore herring is assessed collectively formost fisheries. However, in the sGSL, there is a gillnet fishery specifically to provide bait for the lobster fishery.This is one of the only regions were data on bait are available. This fishery is included separately to reflect theimpact of this activity on stocks in the region.

For the trap fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador and Eastern Cape Breton, mackerel and herring limit thescore for Criterion 2. Mackerel is considered to be in a critical state and harvest rates have been high in relationto scientific advice. Herring abundance has been a cause of concern in the West Coast of Newfoundland springfishery and fishing mortality with respect to reference points. Reference points may not be appropriate for thisspecies as it is a forage fish.

For the trap fishery in sGSL, Quebec and nGSL, and Southwest Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy, the NARW,mackerel, and herring limit the score for Criterion 2. NARW limit the score due to their high vulnerability, lowpopulations and the high potential to interact with this gear type (considering their low population levels).Mackerel is considered to be in a critical state and harvest rates have been high in relation to scientific advice.Herring abundance has been a cause of concern in the West Coast of Newfoundland spring fishery and fishingmortality with respect to reference points. Reference points may not be appropriate for this species as it is aforage fish.


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 2.1 - Abundance(same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality(same as Factor 1.2 above)

42

ATLANTIC MACKEREL



CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADORCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETONCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDY

High Concern

The Northwest Atlantic mackerel stock ranges from Newfoundland to North Carolina and is impacted by anumber of fisheries. Around half of mackerel used for bait is used in lobster fisheries in Canada; therefore, itis considered here as a main species in the fishery. The most recent assessment of mackerel in Canadianwaters was conducted by the DFO in 2017 and demonstrated that the stock is in a critical state. The 2017 SSBis estimated at 48,283 t which is below the LRP (103,000 t) (DFO 2017f). Due to the critical level of abundanceof mackerel in Canadian waters, Seafood Watch considers this a "high" conservation concern.

Justification:

The main indicators used to assess the state of the stock were: age structure and length frequency ofcatches, biological indicators (such as age-at-maturity), egg survey, and an abundance index. These datasources were used to create a censored catch-at-age statistical model. The model shows that thestock reached its lowest historical level in 2012, and since, has experienced slow growth (in years 2013 to2016). Catch-at-age data show slight improvement in the age structure, but no significant improvement inrecruitment since 1999 (DFO 2017f).

The model suggested that mackerel spawning biomass has decreased due to high exploitation rates (mainly inthe 1990s and 2000s) reaching its historical minimum in 2012 (20,000 t). The spawning biomass slowlyincreased to approximately 40,000 t in 2016. If TACs are maintained around 8,000 t, the model projects thatthere is an 81% probability of an increase in biomass, and a 30% probability of attaining the LRP by 2019(DFO 2017f).


High Concern

The most recent stock assessment of mackerel in Canadian waters was in 2017; it showed that landings ofmackerel had decreased over the last decade, from 54,621 t in 2005 to the lowest in the entire historicalseries at 4,143 t in 2015, followed by the fishery reaching its TAC of 8,000 t in 2016. Due to the critical level ofabundance, scientific advice was to limit landings to 800 t in 2014 and 2015 in an attempt to aid rebuilding ofthe stock. However, the TAC and reported landings breached this advice in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Additionally,unreported catches (occurring from the bait, recreational fishery, and discards) are estimated to representbetween 150% and 200% of reported catches (DFO 2017f). Due to the high levels of harvest relative toscientific advice and the unknown volumes caught and used as bait, Seafood Watch considers fishing mortalityto be a "high" conservation concern.

43

Factor 2.3 - Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use

Goal: Fishery optimizes the utilization of marine and freshwater resources by minimizing post-harvest loss. Forfisheries that use bait, bait is used efficiently.

Scoring Guidelines: The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait usedivided by the total retained catch.

Justification:

In previous years, population projections did not incorporate bait use in its landings data, since they gounreported, and have been estimated at 6,000 t between 2011 and 2016 (where recorded 2016 landings werearound 8000t). Because the use of mackerel as bait in the lobster fishery is not always reported, mackerellandings are underestimated. In lieu of these data, unrecorded catches have been estimated using availabledata and online survey for mackerel fishers (DFO 2017f).

RATIO OF BAIT + DISCARDS/LANDINGS FACTOR 2.3 SCORE

<100% 1

>=100 0.75

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR

< 100%

There is no discard and bait study for the region. In the absence of discard studies, similar studies (shownbelow), have found non-lobster bycatch rates between 5% (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain 2015b) to 17%(Criquet et al. 2015c).and lobster discards of up to 74% in LFA 34 (Table 3 in (DFO 2014d)). Post-capturemortality of lobster is assumed to be near to zero (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a); therefore, if they arediscarded, most are likely to survive except for soft-shell lobsters, which have higher mortality rates (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2015b).

Other fisheries in Atlantic Canada likely have a bait plus discards-to-landings ratio of below 100%; therefore,this region retains a score of 1.

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE

< 100%

There is no bycatch/discard and bait study for the region. However, neighboring fisheries (including the GaspéPeninsula Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment records that bait usually comprises mostly mackerel(75%), sGSL fall-spawning herring and some rock crab (Criquet et al. 2015c) where rock crab equated toaround 1% of lobster landings. In the Gaspésie MSC fishery, 823 t of mackerel bait were recorded to be usedin 2016 while 1,926 t lobster were landed (Criquet and Brêthes 2017b), which equates to nearly 43%. Bait usehas apparently decreased over the past 10 years. In 2012, it was estimated to equal around 92% of thelobster catch and from DFO e-log data from 2015, was considered to form around 62% of lobster catches(Criquet and Brêthes 2016b).

Bycatch species form around 17% from a previous bycatch study. Around 10% of these are rock crabs, butrock crabs are considered often to be discarded, which have high survivability rates (Criquet et al. 2015c).

44

Therefore, bait plus discards-to-landings ratio is assumed to be <100%; therefore, this region retains a scoreof 1.

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE

< 100%

Bait is mainly formed of mackerel and herring in this region. In the PEI MSC fishery, herring and mackerel baitrepresented 1,907 t and 1,687 t (totalling 3,594 t) in 2012. For the same area (PEI MSC fishery), 12,180 t oflobster were landed in 2012 (Criquet and Brêthes 2016c). Therefore, bait use represented 30% of lobsterlandings.

Around 95% of bycatch caught in the fishery is the target species and most discards are released alive, e.g.,berried females and rock crab (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain 2015b). Therefore, bait plus discards-to-landingsratio is assumed to be <100%; therefore, this region retains a score of 1.

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETON

< 100%

Throughout the Maritimes region (which includes LFAs 27 to 38), bait comprises the following species andamounts (mackerel, 8153 t; rock crab, 5512 t; herring, 7601 t), totaling 21,266 t in 2012 (Criquet, Brêthes,and Allain 2015b). Throughout this season, 40,862 t of lobster were landed in the Maritimes region (Criquetand Brêthes 2016a). Therefore, mackerel, herring and rock crab represented 20%, 19%, and 13% of lobsterlandings. Overall bait use represented 52% of lobster landings.

In previous bycatch studies conducted in LFAs 27 to 33, no bycatch species comprised 5% or more of thelobster catch. In another study, the non-lobster portion of the total catch ranged from 1.5% in LFA 31b to 13%in LFA 33 (DFO 2014d).

However, discards of lobster can be larger than the amount of those retained: in previous studies, 127% (LFA27), 79% (LFA 32) and 22 to 25% (LFAs 30–31b) were discarded (DFO 2014d). Lobsters are assumed to havehigh survival rates and traps are designed to avoid capturing juveniles and berried females are usuallyreleased alive (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain 2015b). However, in these studies, sublegal lobster represented alarge amount of lobster discards (90% in LFAs 27, 33 and 34; 72 to 79% in LFAs 30–31b; 53% in LFA 32). InLFA 27, the MLS has increased from 77.5 mm in 2007 and is currently at 82.5mm (Appendix C), which hasincreased the number of discards. However, discard mortality is assumed to be near zero (Criquet and Brêthes2017a).

Since bait use is approximately 50% of landings, lobster discard mortality is thought to be close to zero, andbycatch of non-target species is at most 13%, a total discard and bait use of <100% is assumed.

Justification:

To determine discard mortality, more studies are required to understand discard mortality of sublegal sizedlobsters. Natural mortality changes dependent on many factors including lobster size (Tremblay et al. 2013)and tagging studies show that multiple captures may increase the damage and stress of molting lobsters (aprocess that undersized lobsters frequently undergo) (Pezzack et al. 2014). When lobsters have finishedmolting, they have a soft shell and experience higher levels of mortality at this time (Blyth-Skyrme et al.2015b).

45

ATLANTIC HERRING


CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDY

< 100%

Throughout the Maritimes region (which includes LFAs 27 to 38), bait comprises the following species andamounts (mackerel, 8153 t; rock crab, 5512 t; herring, 7601 t), totaling 21,266 t in 2012 (Criquet, Brêthes,and Allain 2015b). Throughout this season, 40,862 t were landed in the Maritimes region (Criquet and Brêthes2016a). Therefore, mackerel, herring, and rock crab represented 20%, 19%, and 13% of lobster landings.Overall bait use represented 52% of lobster landings.

The non-lobster catch is 14% in LFA 34 (DFO 2014d).

Discards of lobster in LFA 34 represent between 70% (Worcester 2013) or 74% (Table 3 in (DFO 2014d)),mostly (97%) comprising undersize lobsters (DFO 2013c). Discard mortality of lobsters is assumed to be nearto zero (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a) and therefore, dead discards of lobster are assumed to be low.

Bait plus discards-to-landings ratio is likely to be under 100%; therefore, the score is multiplied by 1.

Justification:

To determine discard mortality, more studies are required to understand discard mortality of sublegal-sizedlobsters. Natural mortality changes dependent on many factors including lobster size (Tremblay et al. 2013)and tagging studies show that multiple captures may increase the damage and stress of molting lobsters (aprocess that undersized lobsters frequently undergo) (Pezzack et al. 2014). When lobsters have finishedmolting, they have a soft shell and experience higher levels of mortality at this time (Blyth-Skyrme et al.2015b).

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADORCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETONCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDY

High Concern

A number of herring stocks are targeted by commercial fisheries in the Canadian Atlantic.

Some stocks such as the West Coast of Newfoundland have established reference points while others do not.The status of stocks relative to reference points, where available, is also variable. A summary of stock statusfor herring in the Canadian Atlantic is provided in Table 2, and a thorough description is provided in AppendixD.

Available reference points are not consistent with Lenfest recommendations (as required in the SeafoodWatch standards), which states that where low amounts of information are available for fisheries, near to80% of virgin biomass should remain to prevent declines. This is not the case for herring described in thesefisheries. As many herring stocks have an unknown stock status, while others indicate cause for concern, andherring are an important forage species, Seafood Watch considers herring abundance to be a "high"conservation concern.

46

Detailed rationale:

Most herring fisheries discussed in Table 2 only have an LRP available as a reference point. LRP referencepoints are usually based on multi-year average spawning stock biomass (SSB) levels for particular years.Although various fishery-independent and fishery-dependent collection methods have been used to createthese reference points, some data indicators are inaccurate due to low data availability for certain years orvery low abundance in herring, which has lowered the sample size in stock assessments.

The "low" level information category within Lenfest recommendations is due to 1) the low level of informationabout the status, trends, and dependencies of predators on herring; 2) a lack of spatial patterns of foraging;3) little consideration for environmental variables within assessments (Guénette et al. 2014), and they are notfully understood (Gaudian et al. 2016). However, a natural mortality of M=0.2 is provided to account of theuncertainty of how the environment impacts the species (Guénette et al. 2014). New ecosystem models suchas the Extended Single-species Assessment Model (ESAM) are expected to examine the relationship betweenenvironmental conditions and herring variability (Gaudian et al. 2016).

Table 2. Summary of herring fishing area biomass, indicator, reference point and fishing mortality informationfrom Appendix D.

Stock Biomass BLimit BUpper Data-LimitedIndicators

FishingMortality

FREF Reference

West Coast ofNewfoundland: Spring

1,088 t 37,000 t Notdefined

Landings,acousticassessment data,and sequentialpopulationanalyses showthat stock hascollapsed

Unknown NotDefined

(DFO2016d)

West Coast ofNewfoundland: Fall

87,977 t 48,000 t 61,000 t

Landings,acousticassessment data,year-classanalysis(dominated by11+ years),sequentialpopulationanalyses showsrecent declines

UnknownNotDefined

(DFO2016d)

Justification:

47

East and SouthNewfoundland& Labrador

Reference points are not defined.

Fortune Bay: Poor recruitment,generallynegative trend inabundance

St. Mary’s Bay –Placentia Bay: Conflictingabundancetrends dependenton area.

Bonavista Bay –Trinity Bay: Broad age-distribution,increasingabundance trend,positiverecruitment.

White Bay –Notre DameBay: Lack ofdata to createabundance indexbut generalincreasingabundancetrends.

Conception Bay –Southern Shore:Increasing trendsin abundance,broad agedistribution in2015 season

UnknownNotDefined

(DFO2017b)

Quebec andnGSL

830 t(springspawners)21,477 t(fallspawners)

Unknown Unknown

Stock dominatedby age-10+herring, nosignificantrecruitment since2005 andabundanceshowing declines

Unknown NotDefined

(DFO2017c)

48

SouthwestNova Scotia &Bay of Fundy

416,200 t(3 yearmovingaverage)

377,272t

Notdefined

Declines in thespawning stockby 29%. The 3-year movingaverage was11% above LRPin 2016. Broadage rangeswithincommercialcatches.

UnknownNotDefined

(DFO2017a))

OffshoreScotian Shelf

Notdefined

Notdefined

Notdefined

Lack of data forthis stock. Thecatchpredominantlycomprises adultsage-4, 5, 6herring.

UnknownNotDefined

(DFO2017a)

Coastal NovaScotia

102,307* Notdefined

Notdefined

Mixed results forbiomass: LittleHope was belowthe 5-yearaverage;however, EasternShore biomasswas well abovethe 5-yearaverage.

Unknown NotDefined

(DFO2017a)

SouthwestNew Brunswick Unknown

Notdefined

Notdefined

Lack of dataregardingabundance

UnknownNotDefined

(DFO2017a)

*5-year average SSB for areas Little Hope/Port Mouton, Little Hope Allocation, Halifax/Eastern Shore,Halifax Allocation and Glace Bay.


High Concern

The main commercial herring fisheries found in Canadian waters are 1) West Newfoundland (4R stocks), 2) Eand SE Newfoundland (3KLPs stocks), 3) sGSL (4TVn stocks), 4) nGSL (4S stock) and 5) SW Nova Scotia andthe Bay of Fundy (complex of stock 4VWX). Stock assessments use a variety of fishery-dependent andindependent data. It is not possible to determine the source of herring used as bait in most regions; therefore,herring is assessed collectively for most fisheries. However, in the Southern Gulf of St Lawrence there is agillnet fishery specifically to provide bait for the lobster fishery. This fishery is included separately to reflect theimpact of this activity on stocks in the region.

49


Spring component: SSB has been below 22,000 t since 2004 (in the critical zone); however, uncertainty is high(Figure 12 in DFO 2016c). With zero removals of the stock between 2016 and 2017, models suggest that theSSB will only increase slightly with a very high probability (90%) that the stock will remain in the critical zone.The stock’s growth is limited by low recruitment rates and declines in abundance attributable to warmerwaters and incompatible plankton production and spawning seasons (Bourne et al. 2015) and decliningweight-at-age results (DFO 2016c).

Fall component: The median estimate of SSB at the start of 2016 was 165,000 t. The probability of SSB beingbelow the URP (172,000t) at the beginning of 2015 and 2016 was 22% and 60%, respectively. However,historically, the median estimate of the SSB has generally been in the healthy zone (SSB > 172,000 t) apartfrom one occasion where it has been in the cautious zone, including in 2016 and 2017 (based on modelledestimates) (DFO 2016c). This is partly due to poor recruitment at age 4 herring and reduced weight-at-age,for which the reasons are unknown. Models have previously disagreed with the SSB relative to the URP,though they both agree that the SSB is above Blim (DFO 2016c).

Since the spring component has a >99% probability of SSB being below the LRP abundance (under currentconditions) for sGSL herring is deemed a “high" concern.

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADORCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETONCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDY

High Concern

Canadian Atlantic

No fishing mortality reference points have defined for herring stocks in the Canadian Atlantic, and issues withlogbook reporting lead to significant uncertainty in exploitation rate estimates in the stock assessments. Asfishing mortality is essentially unknown, relative to a sustainable level, and herring are an important foragespecies in the marine ecosystem, Seafood Watch considers fishing mortality to be a "high" conservationconcern.

A more detailed analysis of fishing mortality can be found in Appendix D.


High Concern

Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence /Northwest Atlantic, gillnet.

Spring component: Although herring catches for bait are expected to be much lower than that for thecommercial fishery, there are the great uncertainties among catches. Catches in these fisheries are meant tobe recorded in logbooks, but logbook returns have been low, exacerbating the uncertainty found inassessments. The fishing mortality rate has declined over time to an average of 0.18 (exploitation rate of0.16) through period 2013 to 2015 for herring aged 6 to 8 years old. Fishing mortality is now low compared tohistorical mortality rates; however, this is still considered to be high for a stock in the critical zone (DFO2016c).

Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence /Northwest Atlantic, gillnet.

50




Fall component: The average fishing mortality rate on ages 5 to 10 has declined to an average of 0.19(exploitation rate of 17%) since 2012. Fishing mortality rates have historically exceeded the reference removalrate, F = 0.32 for the healthy zone from the mid-1990s to 2010, but were below the reference level since2011. If 2015 landings were continued for TACs in 2016 and 2017, (28,000 t) the probability of exceeding theremoval rate reference was 42% (DFO 2016c).

Fishing mortality has fluctuated in both fisheries, it has been low in recent years or below the reference level,but there is both major uncertainty in results, and mortality rates are still considered to be too high in thespring component; therefore, Seafood Watch deems fishing mortality as a “high" concern.


<100% 1

>=100 0.75


< 100%




< 100%


51




< 100%




< 100%





Justification:


52

NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE



< 100%





Justification:


CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDYCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETONCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR

High Concern

NARW occur in a single population moving seasonally between Canada and the USA. NARW are listed asendangered under both the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the US Endangered Species Act (ESA)(Hayes et al. 2017). Due to their endangered status, Seafood Watch deems abundance as a “high" concern.

Justification:

The 2017 Updated Report Card's best estimate for the living population of NARW is 451 individuals (with highand low estimates of photographed NARW ranging from 304 to 736 (Pettis et al. 2018a). The minimumnumber alive (MNA) is estimated at 445 individuals in the western North Atlantic population (NOAA in review,2018a). These values provided the best estimate for the living population; the MNA have both declined sincetheir previous reports (NARWC 2016) (Hayes et al. 2017), and their populations have been declining since2010 (Pettis et al. 2018a).

53

Calving rates have declined by nearly 40% since 2010, further exacerbating the NARW's recovery (Kraus et al.2016). There were five observed calves in 2017 and zero in 2018 (Hayes et al. 2018a). Reduced calving rateshave been observed to coincide with low prey availability Meyer Gutbrod and Greene 2018. However, evenwith low prey availability, Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene (2018) estimate that NARW populations should stillcontinue to grow, unless NARW mortality reaches 8 to 10 NARW per year (Meyer-Gutbrod and Greene 2018).

Trends generally show that the population growth rate is in decline: Waring et al. (2016) estimated populationgrowth at 2 to 3% per year; however, Pace et al. (2017) has estimated that the probability of the populationdeclining since 2010 is 99.99% (Pace et al. 2017).

Figure 16 Figure xxx. Map of NARW sightings (colored circles as defined in key) overlapping observation tracks(brown lines on map) for period January 1st 2018 - October 10th 2018. Available at:https://whalemap.ocean.dal.ca/WhaleMap/

54


CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDYCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETONCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR

High Concern

For the period 2012 through 2016, entanglement in Canadian waters (including records of unassignedmortalities, where the 1st sighting was in Canadian waters) caused an average of 2.5 mortality or seriousinjury per year (NOAA in review 2018a). The Potential Biological Removal (PBR) for NARW is 0.9 whale peryear, which is exceeded by fishing impacts (NOAA in review 2018a).

Since cumulative fishing mortality is exceeds the PBR, Seafood Watch considers fishing mortality to be a “high”concern.

Justification:

Major sources of mortality are entanglements and ship strikes (Hayes et al. 2017) (Daoust et al. 2017).Entanglement in fixed fishing gear continues to pose a significant threat to this population (NARWC 2016). InAtlantic Canada, between 2008 and 2014, there were 18 recorded interactions between NARW and fishinggear. In most cases (78%) the gear type could not be identified; however 11% of the interactions were knownto be with pot/trap gear (DFO 2016y).

North Atlantic right whales are not uniformly distributed across Canadian waters; therefore, interactions areconsidered to be more likely in some areas than others, for example, there are few sightings in theNewfoundland and Labrador and East Cape Breton regions. However, these areas have relatively lower levelsof surveillance and monitoring (likely due to low levels of historical abundance), and there are concerns thatas the distribution of whales changes, both spatially and temporally, the occurrence of whales and interactionswith fishing gear will not be identified.

The total level of human-caused mortality and serious injury is unknown (Hayes et al. 2017), since manyentanglements go unrecorded. The location of where the majority of entanglements occur is also unknown.The actual mortality is likely higher than the observed number because not all carcasses of NARW are found.For example, carcasses of NARW that die as a result of entanglements in fishing gear may be more likely tosink at sea because of the decreased health of the animals and subsequent energetic losses. Therefore, it hasbeen suggested that up to two thirds of human caused NARW deaths may go undetected (Brown et al. 2009).Additionally, around 83% of NARW show evidence of at least one gear entanglement event. Even whales thatsurvive these sub-lethal entanglements, may continue to suffer from prolonged poor health (including reducedforaging ability, reduced swimming performance and decreased reproduction) (Pettis et al. 2017). Pace et al.(2017) have observed reduced survival rates for adult females relative to adult males. However, Knowlton etal. (2012) found males and females entangled at similar rates. Juveniles were found to be more susceptible toentanglement than adults (Knowlton et al. 2012). Knowlton et al. (2012) found significant increases in theannual percentage of NARW observed with rope attached between 1980 and 2009.

The potential for the lobster fishery to interact with NARW may be increasing and requires observation: InAtlantic Canada, NARW have historically had two critical habitats: the Grand Manan Basin in the Bay of Fundyand Roseway Basin in Southwest Nova Scotia (Brown et al. 2009). However, this may be changing in light ofwhale behavior seen over the past number of years. NARW are present on the Scotian Shelf during the

55




summer months, and the mouth of the Bay of Fundy and Roseway Basin are known feeding grounds for thesemammals (Pezzack et al. 2009), so interaction with lobster gear is possible (Pezzack et al. 2009), thoughhighly unlikely in the case of the southwestern part of the fishery (the single-largest component of the Atlanticlobster fishery). Lobster Fishing Areas 33 and 34—which represent approximately 1700 vessels—are winterfisheries that operate from late November to late May, when whales are largely absent and thereforeexperience a minimal level of overlap with whale populations. However, with shifting distributions of NARW inrecent surveys in the sGSL, and recent high levels of entanglements throughout the Atlantic, sGSL is a regionof increasing concern (Daoust et al. 2017). Sightings and identification of individual NARW in the sGSL haveincreased over the last few years with large numbers of NARW observed in 2017 (Daoust et al. 2017). Thismay be due to changes in distribution (because of feeding) or increases in surveillance. In 2017 in the GSL, 12NARWs were found dead along with five live-entanglements (Daoust et al. 2017). As of 25 July 2018, 146individual NARW have been identified in Canadian waters (pers. comm., R. P. Jenkins, 10 August 2018), yetthere have so far been no recorded mortalities in Canadian waters (Withers 2018). However, as of October2018, there have been five recorded entanglements (Cooke 2018). Three of which were confirmedentanglements 13 July sighted with gear in Gulf (MacKay 2018) and then was sighted again later having shedthe gear alone; another was sighted on July 30th and was subsequently disentangled by a response team inBay of Fundy and sighted gear free (Sturgeon 2018), but has not been sighted since 7 September; anotherwas sighted on 20 August with gear attached in the Gulf and was later confirmed free of gear; and two hadevidence of recent scarring from entanglement (one was sighted on 6 June (Hardy 2018, preliminary as of 20September 2018), scar free, but was subsequently sighted on 21 July with scarring); another was sighted on5 July with scarring (Hardy 2018, preliminary as of 20 September 2018).


<100% 1

>=100 0.75


< 100%



56

< 100%





Justification:



< 100%





< 100%

Throughout the Maritimes region (which includes LFAs 27 to 38), bait comprises the following species andamounts (mackerel, 8153 t; rock crab, 5512 t; herring, 7601 t), totaling 21,266 t in 2012 (Criquet, Brêthes,and Allain 2015b). Throughout this season, 40,862 t of lobster were landed in the Maritimes region (Criquetand Brêthes 2016a). Therefore, mackerel, herring and rock crab represented 20%, 19%, and 13% of lobster


57

HUMPBACK WHALE


landings. Overall bait use represented 52% of lobster landings.




Justification:



< 100%



CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETONCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADORCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDY

High Concern

58


The Western Atlantic population of humpback whale comprises three distinct feeding groups in easternCanada: the Gulf of Maine (which includes animals from the Scotian Shelf), the Gulf of St. Lawrence, andNewfoundland/Labrador (which includes animals from the Strait of Belle Isle) (COSEWIC 2003). Kennedy andClapham (2017) suggest that there is sometimes mixing between feeding groups, causing uncertainty aboutthe size of these feeding groups.

The Gulf of Maine feeding group has recently been declared a "non-strategic stock," but their abundancerelative to their Optimum Sustainable Population (OSP) is unknown (NOAA in review, 2018a). The Gulf ofMaine feeding group is found throughout US and Canadian waters; thus, there is some uncertainty regardingthe health of the population found specifically in Canadian waters. There is no population status available forthe Gulf of Lawrence and Newfoundland/Labrador feeding groups. COSEWIC has determined the WesternNorth Atlantic population of humpback whales to be "not at risk" (COSEWIC 2003); however, this report waspublished in 2003 and there is a lack of up-to-date data to determine population estimates or a status forthese areas.

Though a recent population status has determined that the Gulf of Maine feeding group is no longer astrategic stock, there is a lack of up-to-date information to determine the population status of humpbackwhales for the rest of eastern Canada. In absence of information regarding the eastern Canadian humpbackwhale feeding groups, Seafood Watch automatically deems abundance as a "high" concern, due to theassumed vulnerability of humpback whales.

Justification:

There are some estimates for the various populations: the size of the Gulf of Maine feeding group, which hasestimated the humpback whale Minimum Number Alive (MNA) as 896 in 2015 (NOAA in review, 2018a). TheNorthwest Atlantic population was estimated to be around 4000 humpback whales (COSEWIC 2003) (DFO2018a). However, these estimates are over 15 years old.


High Concern

The number of interactions between the Canadian lobster fisheries and humpback whales is unknown.Interactions were reportedly increasing through 2008, coinciding with an increase in fishing effort as fishersswitched from the collapsed groundfish fisheries to lobster fishing (Benjamins et al. 2012).

There are concerns about interactions between the lobster fisheries and other whale species (North Atlanticright whale), and humpback whales are known to be vulnerable to trap fisheries in other regions. Due touncertainty regarding interactions and the high risk to humpback whales, Seafood Watch considers the impactto humpback whales to be a "high" concern.

59



<100% 1

>=100 0.75


< 100%





Justification:



< 100%

There is no discard and bait study for the region. In the absence of discard studies, similar studies (shownbelow), have found non-lobster bycatch rates between 5% (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain 2015b) to 17%(Criquet et al. 2015c).and lobster discards of up to 74% in LFA 34 (Table 3 in (DFO 2014d)). Post-capturemortality of lobster is assumed to be near to zero (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a); therefore, if they are



60

discarded, most are likely to survive except for soft-shell lobsters, which have higher mortality rates (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2015b).



< 100%





< 100%




< 100%



Discards of lobster in LFA 34 represent between 70% (Worcester 2013) or 74% (Table 3 in (DFO 2014d)),

61

mostly (97%) comprising undersize lobsters (DFO 2013c). Discard mortality of lobsters is assumed to be nearto zero (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a) and therefore, dead discards of lobster are assumed to be low.


Justification:


62

Criterion 3: Management EffectivenessFive factors are evaluated in Criterion 3: Management Strategy and Implementation, Bycatch Strategy, ScientificResearch/Monitoring, Enforcement of Regulations, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is scored as either‘highly effective’, ‘moderately effective’, ‘ineffective,’ or ‘critical’. The final Criterion 3 score is determined asfollows:

5 (Very Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for all five factors considered.4 (Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for ‘management strategy and implementation‘and at least ‘moderately effective’ for all other factors.3 (Moderate Concern) — Meets the standards for at least ‘moderately effective’ for all five factors.2 (High Concern) — At a minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy andImplementation and Bycatch Strategy, but at least one other factor is rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern) — Management Strategy and Implementation and/or Bycatch Management are‘ineffective.’0 (Critical) — Management Strategy and Implementation is ‘critical’.

The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

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

Rating is Critical if Management Strategy and Implementation is Critical.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE

The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all impacted species.

Criterion 3 Summary

FisheryManagementStrategy

BycatchStrategy

ResearchandMonitoring Enforcement

StakeholderInclusion Score

Fishery 1: Canada /Northwest Atlantic | Pots |Canada | Eastern CapeBreton

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Yellow(3.000)

Fishery 2: Canada /Northwest Atlantic | Pots |Canada | Newfoundland &Labrador

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Yellow(3.000)

Fishery 3: Canada /Northwest Atlantic | Pots |Canada | Quebec Gulf andNorthern Gulf of St. Lawrence

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Yellow(3.000)

63

Mostly effort-based, there is a mixture of management measures. Management has improved in recent years,for example, with increases in MLS. There has also been a reduction in effort, e.g., in LFAs 29 and 30; and inthe Newfoundland and Labrador region, landings have decreased in all LFAs except in LFA 12. However, there isa need for increased precaution (particularly with MLS being too low, which can cause recruitment overfishing),and there are ongoing concerns regarding high exploitation rates.

There is a lack of fishery-independent data to determine the abundance and fishing mortality in most fisheries.Uncertainty—caused by the survey methods and lack of up-to-date and reliable data—reduces the accuracy ofassessments and their efficacy for implementing appropriate management measures.

Bycatch in lobster fisheries is relatively low and some measures exist to prevent further bycatch, e.g., escapegaps. Due to the low levels of bycatch, the need to monitor the catch is reduced; however, there is a need forgreater understanding of interactions with ETP. Species of concern are known to interact with the fishery,including the NARW, which are caught at levels above their PBR. The majority of sightings occur in the Bay ofFundy, and a growing number of sightings and entanglements are being observed in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Enforcement is normally conducted through logbooks, at-sea inspections, and some dockside monitoring, butfew long-term observer programs are in existence. Enforcement programs are often variable or conducted atlow levels. Some fisheries have been recorded as having high compliance rates.

Stakeholders are included in an advisory process through advisory committees and can be active participants instock assessments. These typically consist of industry but can include a variety of stakeholders. Advisorycommittees typically allow discussion on and conflict management for issues on conservation, protection,science, and fisheries management. It is a transparent process with several mechanisms for stakeholder input.Fishers and scientists also have opportunities to collaborate on fisheries-science projects.


Factor 3.1 - Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals,and is there evidence that management goals are being met? Do manages follow scientific advice? To achieve ahighly effective rating, there must be appropriately defined management goals, precautionary policies that arebased on scientific advice, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

Fishery 4: Canada /Northwest Atlantic | Pots |Canada | Southern Gulf of St.Lawrence

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Yellow(3.000)

Fishery 5: Canada /Northwest Atlantic | Pots |Canada | Southwest NovaScotia and Bay of Fundy

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Yellow(3.000)

64


Moderately Effective

Canadian lobster is managed by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada within 45 LFAs. The lobster fishery ismanaged through input controls regulating the number of licenses, number of traps and duration of the fishingseason (DFO 2015f). Input controls as used in the past have not been successful at reducing exploitation ratesand have allowed exploitation rates to be too high (FRCC 2007).

All regions have received recent (less than five years old) updated or full stock assessments. Certain regionsincluding Newfoundland and Labrador (LFAs 3 to 14) and Quebec North Shore (LFA 15 to 18) have noreference points and no precautionary approach (DFO 2016b) (DFO 2016q). Though all the other stockassessments (LFA 19 to 21, 22, 29 to 33, 34, 35 to 38) have adopted the precautionary approach (DFO 2016r)(DFO 2016s) (DFO 2016t) (DFO 2017g) (DFO 2017) (DFO 2017i). Precautionary policies are available underIFMPs (Maritimes, Gulf) which are based on scientific advice and incorporate uncertainty, environmentalvariability, and risk aversion (DFO 2011b) (DFO 2015p).

No lobster stocks are considered depleted; the stock assessments show that regions with reference points(LFA 19 to 21, 22, 29 to 33, 34, 35 to 38) have stocks at "healthy" levels (DFO 2016r) (DFO 2016s) (DFO2016t) DFO 2017g} (DFO 2017h) (DFO 2017i).

Total lobster landings across all LFAs sharply increased from the late 1970s through the 1980s, and haveremained at relatively high levels since. Favorable environmental conditions have been suggested as possiblereasons for increased landings (DFO 2016t) (DFO 2016s) (DFO 2016r). However, the degree to which recentincreases in landings are due to natural fluctuations, successful management measures, or increasedeffort/exploitation rates/geographic coverage, has not been determined.

There have been some decreases in exploitation in some regions (example: Newfoundland). In the Avalonregion (LFAs 7 to 10), reported landings have steadily declined since the early 1990s, nominal effortthroughout the region decreased by 45% since 2006, because of license and trap reductions, fewer activefishers and shorter seasons (DFO 2016b). Despite reductions in effort, Newfoundland and Labrador andthe sGSL are regarded as recruitment fisheries (DFO 2016b) (DFO 2016r) (DFO 2016s) (DFO 2015s)—where alarge proportion of the stock are sub-legal size—and therefore, more needs to be done to reduce the risk ofrecruitment failure (DFO 2016b) (DFO 2015s). Few lobsters survive beyond MLS (examples: sGSL andNewfoundland). Fishing pressure is deemed too high in some areas (LFA 20 (DFO 2016r)) or reductions infishing pressure is likely beneficial (sGSL (DFO 2016t)). All conservation measures e.g., reductions to traplimits can be found in Appendix C.

Advice has been adopted from the FRCC report in 2007 to improve management but further improvementsare required. Progress had been made with the Conservation and Sustainability Plan in the Newfoundland andLabrador fishery, IFMPs in the Maritime (DFO 2011b), sGSL and Quebec fisheries (DFO 2015q) (DFO 2017l),and Conservation Harvesting Plans in Quebec and nGSL (DFO 2015r), although the challenges to the fishery'ssustainability had not been adequately addressed and progress has been uneven. Based on the most recentstock assessments, some of these reports' primary concerns (e.g., high exploitation rates and truncated agestructure) are still an issue. Production and/or abundance indices have generally been steady or haveincreased in recent years (see Criterion 1). Thus, it appears that the concerns raised in the 1995 and 2007reports have not been fully addressed, but that general progress is being made.

65

There is a lack of fishery-independent data to determine the abundance and fishing mortality in most fisheries.There are a mixture of management measures to protect the stock; however, there is a need for increasedprecaution (particularly with MLS in certain regions discussed above) and the ongoing concerns regarding highexploitation rates result in a conclusion that management is "moderately effective."

Justification:

There is currently too great a reliance upon fishery-dependent data, such as landings data; however, fishery-independent data are increasingly being used to determine the stock status. Stock assessments generallyfactor in some sources of uncertainty e.g., the amount of non-recorded lobster catches (DFO 2016t). However,it is not detailed regarding how the reference points account for uncertainty (DFO 2016r) (DFO 2016s) (DFO2016t) (DFO 2017g) (DFO 2017h) (DFO 2017i).

Stock assessments do not include estimates of absolute abundance, but instead rely upon proxy indicators ofstock abundance, demographics (e.g., proportion of pre-recruits or megaspawners), productivity, and/orexploitation. Table 5 (in C3.3) shows the mixture of data sources to produce these proxies. The main datasource is via landings data from logbooks (Table 5 in C3.3). Landings data host uncertainties: for example,there are time delays for obtaining landings data, and preliminary landings data from 2015 were used inrecent stock assessments (sGSL, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Gaspe) in lieu of the actual landings data (DFO 2016t)(DFO 2017g) (DFO 2016s) (DFO 2016r). Landings data, alone, are not considered a sensitive indicator ofbiomass (DFO 2011b).

More regions increasingly use fishery-independent data to estimate abundance proxies (DFO 2016q) (DFO2016s) (DFO 2016t) (DFO 2017h) (DFO 2017i). These data-sets improve the quality of proxies; however,fishery-independent data sources can have short time-series (~15 years).

Full stock assessments and update stock assessments are conducted regularly, and more urgent assessmentscan be conducted on an ad hoc basis (DFO 2015s). The DFO’s precautionary approach is applied throughindicators such as mean catch per tow, which have various boundaries applied to denote the health of thestock. However, these boundaries are variable (upper boundaries can be as low as 50% for the "number pertow in RV surveys" indicator. In stock assessments, there is little or no mention of alternative sources ofmortality or effects of environmental variability in assessments, apart from where favorable conditions haveyielded increased landings (DFO 2016s) (DFO 2016t) (DFO 2016r).

Management is currently based on general effort control and some escapement management. Increases inMLS are considered to yield increased egg production (e.g. (DFO 2016r)). Appendix C shows that someregions (e.g., Newfoundland and Labrador, sGSL) ensure lobsters are only retained when the MLS is at leastthe size at which 50% of the population reach maturity (50% SAM). Yet, in some LFAs the MLS is lower thanSAM; for example, in the Bay of Fundy maturity can occur at a large size (> 90 mm CL) while legal size is at82.5 mm CL (DFO 2017i) and SAM is >90mm CL in Lower North Shore (LFAs 15 and 16) and at AnticostiIsland (LFAs 17A and 17B), while the MLS is 82mm CL and 83mm CL, respectively (DFO 2016q). The variationbetween SAM and the MLS can be observed in Figure yyy. SAM varies with bottom temperature, lobsterdensity, and fishing pressure; therefore, it is sometimes difficult to determine an appropriate MLS (Silva et al.2012).

66

Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fisheryon bycatch species and when applicable, to minimize ghost fishing? How successful are these managementmeasures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the fishery must have no or low bycatch, or if there are bycatchor ghost fishing concerns, there must be effective measures in place to minimize impacts.

Figure 22 Figure yyy. Sizes at which lobsters mature (shown as blue error bars) compared with the MinimumLegal Size (as red dash line). Source: (DFO 2018k)

To increase potential egg production further, Newfoundland (Xu and Schneider 2012), Quebec and nGSL (DFO2016r), sGSL (Rondeau et al. 2014), and Southwest Nova Scotia have a maximum legal size. No retention ofberried females is allowed in any LFA (Appendix C). Most fisheries mandate that v-notched lobsters arediscarded: v-notching occurs in many LFAs, though in LFA 27 and 31A, V-notched lobsters can be legallyretained (DFO 2015k). In some areas V-notching occurs at very low rates, is voluntary, practiced at unknownrates (DFO 2016b) (DFO 2016r), and has declined in recent years (e.g., in Newfoundland and Labrador (DFO2016b). Some LFAs have implemented escapement strategies (where a proportion of the female catch isdiscarded) to improve egg production, for example in LFA 31B,110 lb of mature females must be released perlicense (Appendix C).

In the southern Gulf of St Lawrence between 2006 and 2012, the Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measuresprogram reduced the number of lobster fishing licenses by 9.1% and increased the MLS (Rondeau et al.2014). Since then, there has been little change in the number of licenses and trap allocations, yet, lobsterlandings from 2012 to 2015 have reached historically high levels (DFO 2016t).



67

Bycatch in lobster fisheries is generally low with target species making up for 90% of the catch (den Heyer etal. 2010). The main management measures to reduce the risk to bycatch species include gear mitigation;traps have size/material requirements and are fitted with escape vents and biodegradable panels to reducethe risk of ghost fishing (DFO 2011b).

Some species, including rock crab, Jonah crab, green crab, sculpin, and cunner, are retained (Table 4). Theamount that is retained is very low for some species, e.g., sculpin (Table 4). Developments in escape gapmechanisms are considered effective in reducing rock crab bycatch in lobster traps (Criquet and Brêthes2017c) (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a).

Species of concern caught in the Canadian lobster fishery include wolffish (spotted and northern), cod, andcusk. Despite the conservation status of cod and the wolffishes caught in lobster traps, they represent a verylow level of bycatch and therefore, have been scored as "low" concern in Criteria 2. However, cusk was scoredas a "moderate" concern due to its higher proportion of catch rates in Maritime lobster fisheries. Wolffishesare protected under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), which prohibits landing the species and requires that theyare safely returned to the water if caught alive (Table 4 below).

The Canadian lobster fisheries interact with large marine fauna such as whales and turtles. Entanglementsremain a major cause of injury and mortality (DFO 2015t), and Pettis and Hamilton have demonstrated adecline in NARW abundance based on two out of three survey methods (annual estimates of presumed livingright whales, minimum number alive, and report cards) (Pettis and Hamilton 2015). Management measuresimplemented to reduce the impact of the lobster fishery on minke whales and NARW are underpinned by theCanadian Fisheries Act Part I, Section 6 and Part II, Section 22 (Canadian Fisheries Act 2018a) (CanadianFisheries Act 2018b). They are implemented throughout all regions and include the timing of the fishingseasons to minimize overlap with their migration times, trap and license limits, mandatory reporting of ETPspecies interactions, and a recovery strategy (DFO 2016l) (Table 3). Despite these measures, in 2017, thethreat to NARW mortality was not sufficiently reduced to allow for population growth; therefore, a stated goalof the Recovery Strategy has not been achieved and the Action Plan has not been finalized (OAG 2018a).

To further mitigate the risk of entanglement in the 2018 season, the DFO has implemented extensive staticand dynamic closures: with respect to the former, DFO instituted a static fishing closure in the Gulf of St.Lawrence of almost 6500 square km in size, a closure that lasted the entire fishing season. With respect tothe latter, for dynamic closures, when a NARW is identified, an area closure is implemented around the whale,and license holders must remove non-tended fixed gear from the closed area (see the justification for furtherinformation (DFO 2018d)). However, closures are considered to be relatively small and, considering theamount of line in the fishery, may not be sufficient at reducing the risk of entanglement (Hayes et al. 2018a).They are also adaptive and dynamic and therefore rely on adequate detection of NARW in adequate timeframes.

In addition to dynamic closures, the following regulations have been implemented in 2018 to reduce the risk ofNARW entanglements: regulations to reduce the amount of rope floating on the surface of the water and themandatory reporting of all lost gear (DFO 2018c). However, it is unknown if these measures have been fullyadopted.

As of 25 July 2018, 146 individual NARW have been identified in Canadian waters (pers. comm., R. P. Jenkins10 August 2018). No mortalities have been reported in Canadian waters (Withers 2018), but fiveentanglements have been reported (Cooke 2018). One entanglement was reported in the Gulf and was notseen again (MacKay 2018) and another was reported entangled, and subsequently successfully disentangled(Sturgeon 2018). It is unknown what gear types were associated with these interactions.

68

DFO passed amendments to the Marine Mammal Regulations, which set minimum set-back distances tominimize disturbances of marine mammals throughout Canada, and established reporting requirements foraccidental contact that is not otherwise captured in logbook information (Canada Fisheries Act 2018c). Theinitial rate of return of marine mammal report forms has not been very high (Canada Fisheries Act 2018c);this is partially because fishers spot fewer entanglements compared to seaplanes.

DFO has invested $1 million CAD in ongoing funding for investments in marine mammal response programs(Donkin 2018) and a further $1.5 million CAD over three years for further capacity development in this area(REF). Furthermore, monitoring of NARW and their interactions with fishing gear have substantially increasedin 2018 (see Criteria 3.3. for further details) and further improvements in monitoring are expected. Insouthwestern Nova Scotia, a major roll-out of a bycatch monitoring initiative is starting with the fishingseason, starting this fall, for LFAs 33, 34, and 35, for some 1800 vessels, e.g., (DFO 2018l) (DFO 2018m).Finally, a substantial amount of experimental pilot project work is underway to test the effectiveness ofropeless gear, weak lines, hydrophonic detection and monitoring of whales, and innovative fishing practicetechniques, all intended to reduce risks of marine mammal entanglement (DFO 2018j).

The main measures to mitigate ghost fishing include biodegradable traps. The Atlantic Fishery RegulationsAct mandates that no person may leave fishing gear unattended in the water for more than 72 consecutivehours (Atlantic Fishery Regulations, Part 11, Section 115.2) and the Bay of Fundy has a voluntary gearretrieval project to remove ghost traps (DFO 2016z).

Bycatch in lobster fisheries is relatively low. There are some initiatives regarding bycatch in certain regions,but there is a general lack of consideration for the catch of non-target species in fisheries management. Thecatch of ecologically important species and species-at-risk is unknown due to a lack of bycatch studies andobserver data in some regions. Lobster fisheries do interact with species of concern: entanglements in fishinggear remain a major cause of injury and mortality of NARW, which is caught at levels above their PBR. Toreduce the risk to NARW, the DFO have significantly increased their surveillance of NARW and management inthe lobster fishery in the 2018 season, for example, by using static and dynamic closures. There has been aconsiderable effort to reduce the risk to NARW in the 2018 season fishery and although there is uncertaintyaround their efficacy, there is no definitive evidence to show that they have not been effective at reducingNARW mortalities (since there have been no NARW mortalities recorded in Canadian waters in 2018). SeafoodWatch deems the bycatch strategy as “moderately effective."

Justification:

Crab: The rock and Jonah crab attract varying levels of management across regions. There have been nostudies regarding post-release survival, though this is assumed to be high when there are short handlingtimes (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2015a). Since 2010, there has been a decline in the Jonah crab commercial fisherydue to decreased catch rates and market demands (Bedford Institute of Oceanography 2015). The directedrock crab fishery is managed using effort control (number of licenses, individual trap allocation, restrictions ongear characteristics, and limited fishing seasons), with individual catch allocations, an MLS, and femalescannot be landed. Individual trap allocations are not based on the stock status or biomass estimates (DFO2016x).

Turtles: The leatherback turtles have been listed as endangered through SARA since 2003 (DFO 2013h).During most years, the fishery is managed for time, area, and effort such that the inshore lobster fisheries areless likely to interact with leatherback turtles. The lobster season is usually approaching the closed season bythe time leatherback turtles arrive. However, the Scotian shelf and LFA 25 remain open when leatherbackdensities are high, resulting in entanglements. In some years, when turtles arrive early or leave the area late,more entanglements have occurred. The number of turtles killed by the fixed-gear fishery is "grosslyunderestimated"; there is not enough evidence to show that current management is effective at sufficientlyreducing the risk of interactions (Hamelin et al. 2017).

69

Whales: General management strategies that all interactions with ETP species are reported; there is arecovery strategy for NARW, management plans, and the lobster fisheries are managed through seasons, areaclosures, and effort (e.g., licenses/ traps) resulting in reduced capture of marine mammals. However, alllicense holders in area 38B (Grey Zone), are eligible to fish in June to November, which overlaps with themonths when NARW are present in the Bay of Fundy) (Page 158; (Criquet et al. 2015b)). Ropes are currentlytoo strong for whales to release themselves; ropes have been increasing in strength over time (Knowlton etal. 2016). Meanwhile, NARW population and health has declined, with reproductive health decreasing (e.g.,(Rolland et al. 2016)). Survival of entangled NARW is low (Robbins et al. 2015). Analysis of rope strengths infishing gear removed from 72 entangled large whales representing four species showed clear patterns thatsmaller whale species and whales of younger age cannot successfully break free from the stronger ropes(Knowlton et al. 2016). Therefore, to reduce the risk of harming NARW, the potential interactions throughoverlapping lobster fisheries and NARW distribution needs to be monitored, and improved managementmeasures (such as those advised below) need to be implemented (DFO 2016z).

The Action Plan (DFO 2016z), which attributed fishing-related entanglements to the majority of recentmortalities and serious injuries, has not recommended removing fishing gear to prevent entanglements. Yet,removing fishing activities within critical habitats has been suggested as the best method to reduce NARWmortality and injury (DFO 2017u).

The following measures are recommended to reduce and/or mitigate NARW entanglement:

Sinking groundlines in lobster pot trawls to reduce the chance of entanglement in that part of the fishinggear (DFO 2017u) Ropes or rope sleeves with 1700 lb breaking strength for endlines (lower breaking strength than ropescurrently used) at all times of year (Knowlton et al. 2016)Ropeless fishing: (Ropeless fishing refers to devices that use an acoustic trigger for releasing a buoyattached to submerged pots that would then float to the surface for gear retrieval. This eliminates verticallines in the water column (Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction 2016). To develop and adopt best fishing practices in LFAs (DFO 2017u)Potentially eliminate lobster fishing in 38B due to the overlapping of fishing seasons with whale occurrencein this area (Page 158; (Criquet et al. 2015b))Establish a region-wide system to identify and communicate whale locations quickly to fishers and improvedata sharing (DFO 2017u)Increase the understanding of distribution of NARW and evaluate the risk in these areas (Brillant et al.2017). This is particularly important as there may be an increasing risk of lobster gear to NARW as theirdistribution shifts (Pace et al. 2017). Entanglements in lobster gear are occurring but go unreported.To exclude fishing in Grand Manan and Roseway Basins in July, August, and September (Brillant et al.2017).

In the 2018 lobster season, dynamic closures have been implemented to reduce the likelihood ofentanglement of NARW. When a NARW is seen, the DFO creates a buffer zone around the location of thewhale sighting (consisting of nine grids). License have 48 hours to remove their fishing gear prior to theclosure being implemented (DFO 2018d). The closure is implemented for a minimum of 15 days, but may beextended if there are additional sightings of NARW (DFO 2018d). These closures covered areas within the Gulfof St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy (Grand Manan critical habitat area), and off the southern tip of Nova Scotia(Roseway Basin critical habitat area) (pers. comm., R. P. Jenkins 10 August 2018). A review of theeffectiveness of the new management measures will be conducted in late 2018 (pers. comm., R. P. Jenkins 10August 2018). This review will inform the following seasons' management, which may be different from the2018 season. The DFO are researching further measures to reduce the risk of entanglement, such as weaklinks in buoy lines, lower-strength lines and hydrophone-trap technology (DFO 2018c).

70

There are concerns over the lack of coordination and transparency between DFO regions (particularly theGulf, Quebec and Maritimes) on implementing management relating to NARW (pers. comm., S. Arnold 16October 2018).

LFAS INTERACTION WITH RIGHT WHALES AND MITIGATION

3-14This area receives few of the recording sightings relative to sightings in Atlantic Canada (Figure38). The SARA Action Plan with Campobello Island Whale rescue team rescues whales throughoutAtlantic Canada.

15-22

There are no lobster fishing activities in the SGSL during the summer and the fall, except in LFA 25where the lobster fishing season lasts from mid-August to mid-October (Criquet et al. 2015b). Thehighest concentration occurs in Gaspé Peninsula (Criteria 2), though this migration occurs at a timewhen the fishery is closed (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain 2015a). There is a whale entanglementmitigation and response plan (using Coast Guard aerial and sea-based surveys and a marinemammal emergency response network) and the Group for Research and Education on MarineMammals (GREMM), which manages the Quebec Marine Mammal Emergency Response Networkand the online portal, Whales Online. The SARA Action Plan with Campobello Island Whale rescueteam rescues whales throughout Atlantic Canada.

23-26

Marine Mammal Response Program from 2011 to 2014 In Gulf Region. The requirement of aminimum of 6 traps per trap line in LFA 26A and fishing practices in place in LFAs 25 (traps set perlines even if not required) reduces the total number of buoy lines in the water column, therebyreducing the number of possible interactions with marine mammals and sea turtles (Criquet et al.2015b). The SARA Action Plan with Campobello Island Whale rescue team rescues whalesthroughout Atlantic Canada.

71

34,36-38

The inshore lobster season in LFA 33 and LFA 34 runs from the end of November to the end ofMay, when NARW are rarely in those areas. However, the risk of interaction may be higher at thestart and end of the season (DFO 2016z). LFAs 36, 37, and 38, have been considered to present arelatively low risk to NARW (DFO 2016z). However, there are NARW found in LFA 38 at thebeginning of the fishing season where the risk is much higher. There are whale location alerts, awhale hotline number (Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association in LFA’s 36 and 38), and sightings arereported to alert fishers. There is a voluntary agreement so that fishers do not operate in an areawhere a NARW is known and there is a "Voluntary Code of Conduct for Fishermen Working nearWhales" (GMFA 2016).

NARW Conservation Areas Roseway Basin and Grand Manan Basin are designated as criticalhabitat (DFO 2014c) (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2015a), but fishing still occurs and Brillant et al. (2017)recommends that it should be closed to fishing.

Fundy North Fishermen’s Association ran a voluntary project to reduce ghost gear and marinedebris in 2013 to prevent injury or mortality in marine mammals (e.g., (DFO 2016z)). WWF have avoluntary partnership in LFAs 33 and 34 to reduce the amount of rope in the water column(therefore, reducing the likelihood of entangling whales) (WWF 2009).

Fishers are updated about the whale’s location via Marine Traffic services (Association2013). Aerial surveillance is conducted to notify fishers of late-season whales (DFO 2015t).

The SARA Action Plan with Campobello Island Whale rescue team rescues whales throughoutAtlantic Canada. A NARW voluntary mitigation strategy was implemented for the first time in LFAs36 and 38 in 2007; this strategy is reviewed annually and remains in practice (GMFA 2013)(Criquet et al. 2015b).

SPECIES RETAINEDSPECIES

MANAGEMENT

Quebec &nGSL

Rock Crab Yes

In Gaspésie, rock crabs are usually discarded (Criquet and Brêthes 2017b) andlikely survive, since invertebrates usually have very high survival rates. Theregion (Quebec and nGSL) have a conservation harvest plan that aims to protectthe trophic links in the fishery (Criquet and Brêthes 2017b). The last stockassessment was published in 2013. The assessment had uncertainties (e.g.,unknown levels of total removals though the level of fishing effort does notappear to cause a risk to the rock crab stock in Gaspésie (Criquet and Brêthes2017b).

SGSL

72

Rock Crab Yes

In the sGSL, rock crab landings have been required to be recorded in logbookssince 2014 (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a). A recent sGSL bycatch study showed noimmediate mortality for discarded rock crab (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a). Onlymale rock crab can be retained in the sGSL (Criquet and Brêthes 2017c). Thedirected rock crab fishery has a management plan (Criquet and Brêthes 2017c).

Cunner Yes

Although cunner are allowed to be retained, they are usually discarded, and in away that causes the least harm (Criquet and Brêthes 2017c). Additionally, in a2015 bycatch study conducted in the sGSL, no immediate mortality was observedamong bycatch species (Criquet and Brêthes 2017c). In LFA 22, any fish caughtincidentally must be returned to the water, and, if the fish is still alive, with aslittle harm as possible (DFO 2015q). In the sGSL, cunner landings have beenrequired to be recorded in logbooks since 2014 (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a).

Sculpin Yes

Although cunner are allowed to be retained, they are usually discarded, and in away that causes the least harm (Criquet and Brêthes 2017c). Additionally, in a2015 bycatch study conducted in the sGSL, no immediate mortality was observedamong bycatch species (Criquet and Brêthes 2017c). In LFA 22, any fish caughtincidentally must be returned to the water, and, if the fish is still alive, with aslittle harm as possible (DFO 2015q). In the sGSL, sculpin landings must berecorded in logbooks since 2014 (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a).

WolffishNo-SARAspecies

Wolffish (spotted and northern) do not inhabit the PEI lobster fishery waters(Criquet and Brêthes 2017a). There are no management measures per se toreduce the catch of threatened species. Under the Species at Risk Act (SARA)wolffish are not allowed to be landed and must be returned to the water (DFO2017n).

Maritimes

Rock CrabYes (Criquetand Brêthes2017a)

It is illegal to retain female rock crab (DFO 2011b). License holders are requiredto record crab use for bait on reporting documents. All crab landings must bereported on the crab monitoring document (DFO 2011b). The Maritime regionhas a conservation strategy to keep fishing mortality at a moderate level forbycatch species (DFO 2011b). License holders in all Maritime LFAs may retainmale Rock Crab bycatch for bait (DFO 2011b). Under license conditions andactual fishing practices, rock crabs are the only retained species in the NewBrunswick and Nova Scotia lobster fishery (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a).

Jonah Yes (Criquetand Brêthes2017a)

Jonah crab can only be retained when ≥130 mm in LFAs 34 to 38 (Criquet andBrêthes 2017). Male Jonah crab fisheries MLS is 121mm CW in LFA 33 to 35(Bedford Institute of Oceanography 2015). It is illegal to retain female Jonah crab(DFO 2011b). License holders are required to record crab use for bait onreporting documents. All crab landings must be reported on the crab monitoringdocument (DFO 2011b). The Maritime region has a conservation strategy to keepfishing mortality at a moderate level for bycatch species (DFO 2011b). Licenseholders in all Maritime LFAs may retain male Jonah crab bycatch for bait (DFO2011b). Under license conditions and actual fishing practices, rock crabs are theonly retained species in the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia lobster fishery(Criquet and Brêthes 2017a).

73

Factor 3.3 - Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the fishery’s impact on the species?Is there adequate monitoring of bycatch? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, regular, robust populationassessments must be conducted for target or retained species, and an adequate bycatch data collectionprogram must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are met.

Green crabYes (Criquetand Brêthes2017a)

Green crab is an invasive species (DFO 2018f). License holders in all MaritimeLFAs may retain Green crab bycatch for bait (DFO 2011b).

CunnerYes (Criquetand Brêthes2017a)

Cunner can only be retained when ≥ 10 cm (LFA 27). Under license conditionsand actual fishing practices, rock crabs are the only retained species in the NewBrunswick and Nova Scotia lobster fishery (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a).

SculpinYes (Criquetand Brêthes2017a)

Sculpin is not usually a retained species (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a). Therefore,it requires little management. Under license conditions and actual fishingpractices, rock crabs are the only retained species in the New Brunswick andNova Scotia lobster fishery (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a). License holders in allMaritime LFAs may retain sculpin bycatch for bait (DFO 2011b).

Cusk No

There are no management measures per se to reduce the catch of threatenedspecies (cusk, cod, wolffish). Compared with the bycatch in other fisheries, thebycatch of cusk in the lobster fisheries is regarded as low (Harris and Hanke2010). Cusk are not allowed to be landed and must be returned to the water(DFO 2013l).

WolffishNo- SARASpecies

There are no management measures per se to reduce the catch of threatenedspecies (cusk, cod, wolffish). The wolffish are returned to the sea with care, assoon as possible (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a). Under the Species at Risk Act(SARA) northern wolfish and spotted wolffish are not allowed to be landed andmust be returned to the water (DFO 2013)

Cod No Cod are not allowed to be landed and must be returned to the water (DFO2013l).


74


The DFO conducts regular stock assessments. The frequency of lobster stock assessments varies to accountfor the variability of the stock; where the stock is more variable assessments are conducted more frequently.

Most regions use both fishery dependent and independent data to estimate the abundance, however fisheryindependent studies have limited spatial coverage. There is still too much reliance upon fishery-dependentdata, such as landings data; however, fishery-independent data are increasingly being used to determine thestock status. Fishery-independent data sources included at-sea-sampling surveys, monitoring traps, trawlsurveys, diving surveys, and video surveys. Stock assessments do not generate estimates of lobsterabundance, but instead use other sources of information (e.g., landings, effort, trawl survey data, etc.) to infertrends in stock status (Table 5).

Data-limited methods used in the stock assessment process are deemed to have mixed effectiveness: landingsdata are not typically considered an appropriate indicator of abundance because they can be impacted by arange of different factors including market demand and improved fishing technologies. North Shore Quebec(LFA 15 to 18) assessments use both fishery-dependent and independent indicators to determine abundance(Table 5), which reduces the uncertainty in the assessment. However, Newfoundland and Labradorassessments only use fishery-dependent data (Table 5), precluding the ability to accurately estimateabundance. DFO stock assessments have been peer reviewed; therefore, assessments that are underpinnedby landings data have generally been accepted. Nonetheless, in the most recent peer review meeting, manyparticipants rejected the statement "landings reflect abundance," stating that it was not accurate because"factors such as gear change, unreported landings and temperature may affect reported landings."Subsequently, the statement "landings reflect abundance" was removed from the report. Participants furtheradded that "there was insufficient data to fully assess the status of the resource" (DFO 2017w). SeafoodWatch recommends that a fishery should have two or more data-limited indicators from independent datastreams to account for uncertainty associated with data-limited approaches. Where multiple indicators areavailable, but are not independent, data sets are influenced by the same sources of uncertainty and the use ofmultiple indicators does not provide enough certainty that stock is healthy. Other monitoring methods havemixed effectiveness (see Justification below); therefore, a mixture of data sources are required to counteractsources of uncertainty.

There are significant sources of uncertainty exhibited in the assessment caused by using fishery-dependentdata, such as the short length of data series, and because alternative sources of mortality are not calculated,e.g., non-recorded lobster catches (occurring from personal consumption, and potential illegal fishing) (DFO2016t). In the sGSL, there is concern for the accuracy of catch data and the delay for the availability of thesedata (DFO 2016t). Within regions, fishery-independent surveys have only been conducted in certain LFAs, andnot throughout the whole region; thus, they may not represent regional trends (Table 5). There areinadequate data to determine fishing effort for most areas. Although LFAs possess mandatory logbookprograms, some LFAs do not enforce dockside monitoring programs (Table 5); therefore, landings data hosthigher levels of uncertainty.

Monitoring programs are temporally and spatially sporadic and not standardized (Criquet and Brêthes 2016b).However, this is improving; there are MSC-certified fisheries covering vast areas of Canadian fisheries, whichhave on-going monitoring programs, e.g,. an at-sea bycatch monitoring program in LFAs 23 to 33 (Criquet andBrêthes 2016a).

Bycatch in lobster fisheries in Canada is low (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a); therefore, the need for continuousbycatch monitoring is reduced. Some areas lack regular bycatch monitoring, though there have been recentincreases in bycatch monitoring programs, such as those in Newfoundland, sGSL, Quebec, and nGSL.

75

More monitoring is required to determine the overlap between the lobster fishery and ETP species. Currently,leatherback turtles attract limited monitoring (observer coverage ranges between 0.3 and 6% by area inthe offshore lobster fishery in the Maritimes Region), which has led to their reported deaths throughentanglement in fixed-gear being "grossly underestimated" (Hamelin et al. 2017). It has been suggested thatup to two thirds of human caused NARW deaths may go undetected (Brown et al. 2009). There is monitoringin place for NARW (particularly through reporting hotlines, aerial, sea-based surveillance and rescue servicesand hydrophones). The DFO Science team has substantially increased surveillance efforts in 2018 (CISION2018) (DFO 2018h) and the DFO Conservation and Protection (and partners including Transport Canada andNOAA) conduct surveillance to report whale sightings (DFO 2018g) (Daoust et al. 2017). However, recentconcerns have been expressed over the methods used to conduct surveillance and their efficacy in detectingmigratory whales, for example, the time and duration at which surveillance is conducted. This is partly due tothe time and duration of the surveillance method as well as the difficulty of spotting right whales when theyare below the surface (pers. comm., Arnold, S. 16 October 2018).

The lobster fishery is selective, which reduces the need for bycatch monitoring, however greater monitoring isrequired for ETP species. Data-limited methods are used to determine abundance, some of which containconsiderable uncertainty, and there is a lack in fishery-independent data to estimate abundance. Therefore,Seafood Watch deems bycatch strategy as a "moderate" concern.

Justification:

Data-limited indicators may not be appropriate for many reasons: trawls are not considered an effectivemethod to measure lobster abundance (e.g., because trawling is incompatible with lobster swimming speed,making it hard to count lobster, and it is not feasible to trawl a rocky substrate. SCUBA surveys may beinappropriate because the range of the fishery is too large to monitor (Comeau et al. 2007). Where data-limited indicators have not had enough confidence to create proxies, multiple data-limited indicators havebeen used to infer trends; for example, since all three data-limited indicators used in LFAs 34, 35 to 38assessments all showed positive trends, there was enough confidence to conclude that the biomass washealthy (DFO 2017h) (DFO 2017i). There are some additional collaborative ongoing surveys to fill in data gaps.This has recently improved through the implementation of the Conservation and Sustainability Strategydeveloped in the Newfoundland and Labrador lobster fishery (Newfoundland and Labrador Department ofFisheries and Aquaculture 2015). The Strategy considers that monitoring in the region has been highlyeffective in addressing data gaps in the fishery. This includes monitoring bycatch and ecosystem impacts datathrough mandatory logbooks and a fisheries stewardship program (Table 5).

Monitoring of ETP species may not be adequate to determine whether mortality caused by the lobster fisheryis sufficiently low. Reporting of entanglements of leatherback turtles through logbooks has proved ineffectiveat recording interactions. Two interactions were reported in logbooks in the 2012 DFO Leatherback turtleinteraction report (CSAS 2012), yet dozens of interactions were reported through other means discussed in arecent study (Hamelin et al. 2017). Deaths through entanglement in fixed-gear are considered to be "grosslyunderestimated" and the true level of mortality is unknown (Hamelin et al. 2017). There is minimal observercoverage in the fishery (Hamelin et al. 2017), with the offshore lobster fishery in the Maritimes Regionreporting observer coverage of ranging 0.3 to 6% by area. Therefore, monitoring of the lobster fishery forleatherbacks is too low to determine if the risk of the lobster fishery to the leatherback turtle is sufficiently low(CSAS 2012) (Hamelin et al. 2017). In Quebec and nGSL (LFAs 15 to 22), NARW monitoring is completed via awhale reporting hotline, logbooks, a whale entanglement mitigation and response plan (which includes CoastGuard aerial and sea-based surveys, hydrophones, and a marine mammal emergency response network)(GMFA 2016). In 34, and 36 to 38 there is a NARW entanglement mitigation plan (aerial surveys for whalesand hotline to report sightings), which began in 2007 and is reviewed annually (Brown et al 2008) (Criquet,Brêthes, and Allain 2015a) (Association 2013).

Table 5. Monitoring methods employed in LFAs 3 to 38. Dates are provided for when programs have run for

76

certain periods and then discontinued.

LFA LOG-BOOK TRAP AT-SEASAMPLE

DOCKSIDEMONITOR

RECRUITMENT TRAWL OBSERVER SOURCE

3–6

Yes No Yes NoYes (throughmodified trapstudies)

No No

All data used in the stock assessment are fishery-dependent (DFO 2016b),includingreported landings,nominal effort; DFO logbooks, and Fish, Food and Allied WorkersUnion (FFAW) indexlogbooks (DFO 2016b) (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture 2015). FFAWcollect data from modified traps to aid abundance and recruitment indices, such as the number of commercial size berried females, number of v-notched females caug

77

ales caug

ht and several categories of undersized animals including berried females and non-berried females and males (Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries andAquaculture 2015).

Monitoring measures are found in theCHP (DFO 2017o). Area 17 licence holders musthave a functional VMS on board all vessels above of 6.4 m (DFO 2017p). Catch sampling is insufficient especially in LFAs 15 and 16. There are noindicators of stock productivity in terms of egg produ

78

15,–18

Yes Unknown Yes No No No No

ction andrecruitment for these stocks. Due tolack of data, the stock status in LFA 18 cannot be assessed. Given that there is no more at-sea sampling (since 2004)or fishery-independent surveys for these stocks, fishing pressure and productivity are notevaluated(spawningand recruitment) in Quebec LFAs 19 to 22. Abundance indicators include the landings recorded on processing plant purchase slips and catch rates of commercial-sizelobsters obtained from at-sea (1993 to 2004) and docks

79

ide (2005to 2011) sampling and from logbooks filled out daily by fishermen on an initiallyvoluntarybasis, which became mandatory in 2004 in LFA 17B and 2007 in LFAs 15 and16. Demographic indicators were taken from size-structure analysis of lobsters and includemean size, jumbo abundance (≥ 127 mm) and sexratio. For LFAs 15and 16, these indicators are compiled from at-sea (1993 to 2004) and dockside (since 2005)sampling data (DFO

Monitoring measures are found in Gas

80

19

Electronicmandatorylogbooks butalso nologbooks *1

Noexcept19C

2001–2011,2016and2008–2010AND2015for 19C

2005–2015 No No No

pésie fishery (LFAs 19, 20,21) (DFO2017n)(Table 6; (Criquet and Brêthes2017b)): since 2012, mandatory electronic logbook is now implemented in every boat. Otherdata sources include at-seaand dockside sampling programs, sampling research (after seasonpre-recruit estimates for Gaspé lobster). There is no observer coverage in this fishery. An estimated 84% ofGaspé landings came from LFA 20, 9% from LFA 21 Monitoring measures are found in Gaspésie fishery (LFAs 19, 20, 21) (DFO 2017n

81

DFO 2017n)(Table 6; (Criquet and Brêthes 2017b)): since 2012, mandatory electronic logbookis now implementedin every boat. Other data sources include at-sea and dockside sampling programs, sampling research (after season pre-recruit estimates for Gaspélobster).There is no observer coverage in this fishery. An estimated 84%of Gaspé landings came fromLFA 20, 9% from LFA 21

20

Experimentaltrap logbookfrom 2006–2015 *2

Yes

1986–2015but2008–2010AND2015 in20A1

No

2006–2016(In seasonrecruitmentindex) and2011–2016(Postseasonrecruitmentindex)

No NoSame as above

82

21

Yes *2 butanotherreport saysno *1.

No1997-2004 2005-2016 No No No

Same as above

22 Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No

Monitoring methodsare foundin (DFO 2015q). The stock assessment, conducted every three years, is based on the review of indicators based on a) fishery-dependent data: landings frommandatorylogbooks and dockside sizing and weighting, and b) fishery-independent data: crabs caught during the annual trawl survey for the lobster assessment are sexed and measured.Logbooks are mandatory as of the 2015 fishing

83

5 fishingseason. There is no observer coverage in thisfishery. Methods of the at-sea sampling, falltrawl survey and SCUBA diving surveywere identical for2015 and 2016 (Criquet and Brêthes 2016c).

Yes, atrawlsurvey

Monitoring methodsare foundin (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain 2015a). In the sGSL, there hasbeen an at-sea-sampling program since 1983, arecruitment index program (with escape vent block on traps) since 1999, and a trawl surveysince 2001. Both fishery-based (landings, at-sea sampl

84

23-26 Yes Yes Yes Voluntary

Yes and avoluntaryrecruitment-index logbookprogram

in LFA25and LFA26A(2001-2009,2012)

No apartfrom abycatchstudy in2015

sea sampling, and recruitment index logbooks)and fishery-independent (trawl and SCUBA surveys) dataare used in this science response (DFO2016t). The fishery-independent dataconsist of a trawlsurvey inLFA 25 and part ofLFA 26A, SCUBA survey indices from LFAs 25 and 26A andbio-collectors (Criquet andBrêthes 2017a).

All at-sea data are collected by independent technicians in LFAs 27. Commercial catch rateand catchrate of sublegal-sized lobsters in standardized traps

85

33 Yes

Yes -standardtrap datafrom

Yes inLFA 27

Compulsorylogbookdataentered bydocksidemonitoringfirms *3

In LFA 33 in2016 as partof the FSRSrecruitmenttraps

No No

(DFO 2017g). LFAs 27 to 33:They are primarilyfishery-dependent data thatconsist of landings and effort data from the fishery, port and at-sea samples of the commercial catch, and data from standard traps maintained by the Fishermen and Scientist Research Society (FSRS) study participants. Landinglevels are a function of abundance and a widerange of other factors, butare stillthought to be indicative ofgeneral trends andpatterns of abundance. Catch rates (CPUE) arealso affected by f

86

cted by factors other than abundance. Commercial CPUE for LFAs 27 to 33 comes from two sources: mandatory logs and voluntary logs (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a). This ScienceResponse updates key

abundanceindicators: landings, commercial catch rates and catchrate of sublegal sizes fromFishermenScientists Research Society(FSRS) recruitmenttraps to the end of the 2016 fishingseason (2015–16 for LFA 33)(DFO 2017g).

*3: Dataentered by Dockside Monitoring companies (Tre

87

nies (Tremblay et al. 2011).

Fishery dependent data consist of landings and effort data fromthe fishery, port and at-sea samplesof the commercial catch, and data from standard traps maintained by FSRSstudy participants. Landings data are a data source todetermineabundance, but arestill thought to be indicative of general trends and patterns of abundance. CPUEsare also affected by factors other than abundance. Fishery-independent data include the regular summer DFO r

88

34 Yes Yes Yes

Compulsorylogbookdataentered bydocksidemonitoringfirms

No Yes No

mer DFO research survey, a trawl survey carried on by the industry (ITQ survey), and the scallop survey, which records lobstercatches (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a) (Fishermen and

Scientists Research Society2013.). All at-seadata collected by independent technicians in LFAs 31A,31B, 32.

*4: Data are entered by dockside monitoring companies (Tremblayet al. 2011), based on three primaryindicators (landings, commercial catch rate, and trawlsurvey catch rate)(DFO 2017h).

89

h).

35-38

Yes Yes Yes20%DocksideMonitoring

No Yes No

Area 38B collects VMS data.Commercial catch rate is calculated as total landings/total trap hauls in LFAs 35to 38 from complete logbookrecords, related to the abundance ofthe legalportion of the stock. The other indicator is related to population abundance and was basedon the stratified mean of number of lobsters per tow in a fishery-independent trawl survey(DFO Summer Research Vessel[RV] Survey) (DFO 2017i).

90

Factor 3.4 - Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.



All LFAs have some level of enforcement overseen by regional DFO offices. Enforcement methods includeaerial surveillance, at-sea inspections, and dockside monitoring (Table 6 below), but enforcement is eitheremployed at a low level, is incomplete, or variable. All fisheries lack complete enforcement methods such asobserver coverage, or have low levels of dockside monitoring; therefore, they will be rated collectively as"moderately effective."

Justification:

All LFAs have some level of enforcement such as logbook inspection, at-sea inspections, and docksidemonitoring (Table 6), though these are employed sporadically and are sometimes at a low level, e.g., at-seasampling programs conducted in sGSL covered approximately 0.12%, 0.05%, 0.12 %, and 0.23% of thefishing trips in LFA 23, LFA 25, LFA 26A and 26B respectively (Criquet et al. 2015b). Prosecutions areperformed and fines have increased in LFA 22, 23, 25, and 26A & B. The Eastern Cape Breton, Eastern- andSouth-Shore Nova Scotia region yielded little concrete evidence of the efficacy of enforcement, beyondnumbers of violations in recent years and associated judicial decisions and fines (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain2015).

Compliance has remained "very high" with recidivism at "extremely low" levels in LFAs 23 to 38 (Criquet andBrêthes 2017a).

Table 6. Enforcement measures employed in LFAs 3 to 38

LFAs Logbook CompulsoryVMS

At-seainspections

Fines Observers Dockside References

3–14 Yes No Yes Yes No No

(Newfoundland andLabrador Departmentof Fisheries andAquaculture 2015)(DFO 2015i) (DFO2017q)

91

Factor 3.5 - Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the managementof the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the managementprocess is transparent, if high participation by all stakeholders is encouraged, and if there a mechanism toeffectively address user conflicts.

* Apart from between May–June and August–October 2015 when independent observers collected data for abycatch study (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a).

15–22

Yes

Required in LFA17 for vessels> 6.4m. Not inLFAs 15, 16,18l, 19–21.

Low YesNot in 15,16, 18l,19–21.

Not in 15,16, 18l,19–21

(Murray et al. 2013)(Criquet, Brêthes, andFrechette 2015) (DFO2017o) (DFO2017p) (DFO 2017n)(DFO 2015q)

23–26 Yes No

Low (0.12%,0.05%, 0.12 %,and 0.23% inLFA 23, LFA 25,LFA 26A and26B)

Yes No* Yes(Criquet, Brêthes, andAllain 2015) (Criquetand Brêthes 2017a)

27–33

Yes No Yes and aerialsurveillance

Yes No* Yes

(DFO 2017g) (DFO2011b) (Page 33;(Criquet and Brêthes2017a)

34–36,38

YesNo, apartfrom LFA 38B

Yes and aerialsurveillance Yes No*

Yes (plusthere is20%docksidemonitoringin 38B)[REF]

(DFO 2017i) (DFO2011b) (Criquet,Brêthes, and Allain2015)(Page 33;(Criquet and Brêthes2017a)


Highly Effective

Stakeholders are included in the advisory process through advisory committees (typically consisting ofindustry, aboriginal communities, provincial governments, community stakeholders, non-governmentalorganizations, and the DFO) and are active participants in stock assessments. Fishers are often representedby their elected port representatives (or an alternate). These advisory committees provide an interface fordiscussion on issues such as conservation, protection, science, and fisheries management. Additionally, formal

92

and informal discussions surrounding science and enforcement, and issue-specific consultation, occur on anon-going basis; therefore, the management process is transparent and has several mechanisms forstakeholder input. Projects proving highly effective stakeholder inclusion include a collaborative researchproject in the sGSL (Criquet and Brêthes 2016a), projects with the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society,the Fisheries Science Collaborative Program (FSCP), at-sea sampling studies, recruitment index program, andbio-collector surveys.

Since multiple stakeholders are involved throughout the assessment and management process in atransparent manner, and there are opportunities to address user conflicts, Seafood Watch deems stakeholderinclusion as "highly effective."

93

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and EcosystemThis Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there aremeasures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and theuse of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based FisheriesManagement aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on theenvironment. The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (factor 4.1 +factor 4.2) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 4 rating is determined asfollows:

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

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of marine habitats where fishingoccurs.Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life.Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophiccascades, or phase shifts.Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect thediversity, abundance, productivity, or genetic integrity of wild stocks.Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Lobster traps present low- to-moderate effects on seafloor habitats, and the resilience of bottom habitat tothese effects is considered moderate to high, depending on the specific substratum. At present there is noevidence that the fishing method or the removal of Atlantic lobsters have severe habitat or ecosystem effects.Given that lobster traps are considered to have relatively benign effects on habitat, particularly when comparedwith mobile gear, there are few measures to reduce or mitigate effects of fishing practices on habitat. Measures

Region / MethodGear Type andSubstrate

Mitigation ofGear Impacts EBFM Score

Canada / Northwest Atlantic / Pots / Canada / EasternCape Breton

3 0 LowConcern

Green(3.464)

Canada / Northwest Atlantic / Pots / Canada /Newfoundland & Labrador

3 0 LowConcern

Green(3.464)

Canada / Northwest Atlantic / Pots / Canada / QuebecGulf and Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence

3 0 LowConcern

Green(3.464)

Canada / Northwest Atlantic / Pots / Canada /Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence

3 0 LowConcern

Green(3.464)

Canada / Northwest Atlantic / Pots / Canada /Southwest Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy

3 0 LowConcern

Green(3.464)

94

in place include gear design (biodegradable panels, buoyant groundlines, mesh sizes), fishing seasons, MPAs,designated critical habitat, voluntary measures to prevent ghost fishing, and laws to ensure that ETP species arereleased carefully and quickly to the water when caught. There are few studies to ensure that fishing practicesare causing minimal impact to habitat and ecosystems, and those completed are small scale.


SCORING GUIDELINES

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

Goal: The fishery does not adversely impact the physical structure of the ocean habitat, seafloor or associatedbiological communities.

5 - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom4 - Vertical line gear3 - Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap)and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Or bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or midwater trawlthat is known to contact bottom occasionally. Or purse seine known to commonly contact the bottom.2 - Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or gillnet, trap, or bottomlongline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Or bottom seine except on mud/sand. Or there isknown trampling of coral reef habitat.1 - Hydraulic clam dredge. Or dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble orboulder)0 - Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain,the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Goal: Damage to the seafloor is mitigated through protection of sensitive or vulnerable seafloor habitats, andlimits on the spatial footprint of fishing on fishing effort.

+1 —>50% of the habitat is protected from fishing with the gear type. Or fishing intensity is very low/limitedand for trawled fisheries, expansion of fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear is specifically modified toreduce damage to seafloor and modifications have been shown to be effective at reducing damage. Or thereis an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.+0.5 —At least 20% of all representative habitats are protected from fishing with the gear type and for trawlfisheries, expansion of the fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear modification measures or other measuresare in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing thatare expected to be effective.0 —No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats or not applicable because gear usedis benign and received a score of 5 in factor 4.1

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Goal: All stocks are maintained at levels that allow them to fulfill their ecological role and to maintain afunctioning ecosystem and food web. Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services providedby any retained species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction ofgenetic diversity. Even non-native species should be considered with respect to ecosystem impacts. If a fisheryis managed in order to eradicate a non-native, the potential impacts of that strategy on native species in theecosystem should be considered and rated below.

95

5 — Policies that have been shown to be effective are in place to protect species’ ecological roles andecosystem functioning (e.g. catch limits that ensure species’ abundance is maintained at sufficient levels toprovide food to predators) and effective spatial management is used to protect spawning and foragingareas, and prevent localized depletion. Or it has been scientifically demonstrated that fishing practices donot have negative ecological effects.4 — Policies are in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but have not provento be effective and at least some spatial management is used.3 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but detrimentalfood web impacts are not likely or policies in place may not be sufficient to protect species’ ecological rolesand ecosystem functioning.2 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning and the likelihoodof detrimental food impacts are likely (e.g. trophic cascades, alternate stable states, etc.), but conclusivescientific evidence is not available for this fishery.1 — Scientifically demonstrated trophic cascades, alternate stable states or other detrimental food webimpact are resulting from this fishery.

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


3

The trap fishery has contact with the seabed. In Canada, lobsters are caught using traps that are generallythought to have small- to-moderate effects on the habitat (Fuller et al. 2008). Given that lobster traps are notdeployed year round, their location changes from season to season, and the majority of the fishery occurs in arelatively high energy environment (i.e., inshore), impacts on the seafloor, as compared to bottom trawlinggears, are considered to be low. The spatial extent of these impacts is also considered to be small relative tomobile fishing gears. The fishery footprint of LFA 34 has been calculated to be <0.1% for the whole area peryear, and <2% in the inshore area (DFO 2013e). The fishery footprint in LFAs 35 to 38 is calculated at lessthan 0.05% of the total area (Criquet et al. 2015a).

Various sources show that substrates in Atlantic Canada comprise a mixture of sand, mud, gravel, and rockhabitats in the Bay of Fundy (Shaw et al. 2012), German Bank (Todd and Kostylev 2011), sGSL (Mateo et al.2017), SW Newfoundland (Shaw 2012), and Scotian shelf (Fader et al. 2004). These habitats are notparticularly sensitive. For this reason a score of 3 is given.

Justification:

The impact on the local flora and fauna will vary according to the nature of the sediment (e.g., sand, hardgravel, soft clay/silt), presence of a slope, extent of water movement, etc. The bulk of the lobster fisherytakes place inshore where water movement is high and thus one may expect the damage of traps to theseafloor to be small, as organisms in this region have adapted to regular disturbances.

The main damage caused to the habitat is through crushing organisms when dropped to the seafloor andwhen traps are dragged along the bottom due to storms, or when pulled to the surface (Chuenpagdee et al.2003). Vulnerable habitats such as corals receive significantly more damage when traps are dragged acrossthe seabed, as opposed to crushing (Shester and Micheli 2011). Crushing and dragging can occur whenretrieving traps or in strong currents (Criquet et al, 2015) (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain 2015a). There is

96

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

minimal dragging of traps when they are hauled correctly but this will depend on sea conditions.

Traps are usually heavy enough to minimize movement due to bottom currents (Pezzack et al. 2009).

Relative to the size of impact of mobile fishing gears, one can expect the damage caused by lobster traps tobe minimal. Several reviews conclude that it would be small, but could increase with the density andfrequency of traps being hauled (Pezzack et al. 2009). A study conducted in southern England and westernWales found that after four weeks of fairly intensive fishing for crabs and lobsters using traps, there were noobvious detrimental effects on the abundance of the species studied (Eno 2001). The study concluded that thedirect impact of the traps on bottom flora and fauna was likely to be less important than the intensity andfrequency of bottom contact. The location of lobster traps is likely to vary with the season and thus repeatedimpact in a particular area is unlikely, allowing areas to recover from any damage.

However, there are specific habitats that are fundamental to the survival of ETP species (discussed in Criteria2). SARA has designated areas of “critical habitat” to ensure survival and recovery for species such aswolffish, which are caught predominantly in sand, shell, and rock habitats. The fishery does operate in someessential fish habitats, though limited by depth, which protects deep EFH (often inhabited by deep-waterspecies such as wolffish) (DFO 2008a).

The Canadian lobster fishery comprises areas of either low (southwest Nova Scotia) or low- to-intermediatesensitivity (e.g., edges of Georges Bank) (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2015a). The footprint of the fishery has declinedthrough time due to a decrease in number of hauls allowing recovery for vulnerable habitats. Previous studieshave noted recoveries among vulnerable species when given time to recover (Eno 2001).


0

There is insufficient mitigation to reach the moderate mitigation score. Some mitigation measures have beenimplemented (including biodegradable trap panels, MPAs (one MPA protects coral communities and othersprevent fishing on vulnerable deep-water habitats (DFO 2007)), fishing seasons that provide the habitat withtime to recover and effort limits (through limited entry). However, MPAs do not cover a substantial proportionof the LFAs and their efficacy has not yet been proven. Additionally, uncertainty exists around where criticalhabitats are and the efficacy to protect them. Therefore, these are unlikely to reduce effort or allow recoveryto a level similar to that which an MPA would provide. Therefore, it is deemed that “no mitigation” is applied.

Justification:

Some regions have sufficient data to determine that a lobster fishery poses a low risk to the habitat. This ispartly attributable to their adoption of management measures. The Government of Canada currently protects5% of its marine and coastal areas (DFO 2017r). MPAs have been implemented for many reasons, including toprotect lobsters (Table 7 below), e.g., to protect coral communities (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2015a) or reduce theimpact of gear conflicts. All MPAs in Eastern Canada are shown in Figures 35, 36, and 19 and have beenimplemented to protect juvenile lobster (such as those in Les Demoiselles nursery, Plaisance Bay in theMagdalen Islands, and the Magdalen Islands lagoons). MPAs to protect lobster habitat include Saguenay FjordUpstream, where all otter trawl fishing is prohibited. However, these areas do not cover a substantial

97

proportion of the regions and their efficacy has not yet been proven as effective at mitigating lobster fishingimpacts on habitats.

Figure 23 MPAs in Eastern Canadian waters. Source: (DFO 2017v)

Table 7. MPAs related to assessed regions and the lobster fishery and their reasons for protection (DFO2017s)

PROVINCE NAME PROTECTING

New Brunswick Scallop Buffer Zone – SFA 21 juvenile lobster habitat

New Brunswick,Prince Edward Islandand Nova Scotia

Scallop Buffer Zone – SFA 22 juvenile lobster habitat

Prince Edward Islandand Nova Scotia

Scallop Buffer Zone – SFA 24 juvenile lobster habitat

Newfoundland andLabrador

7 Lobster Area closures in Trout River, Shoal Point,Penguin Islands, Gooseberry Island, Glovers Harbour,Mouse Island, and Gander Bay

the area to increaselobster spawning andegg production

Quebec Magdalen Islands lagoons (6 overlapping closures) lobster habitat

Quebec Les Demoiselles nursery (Plaisance Bay), MagdalenIslands

habitat nursery groundfor juvenile lobster.

98

Figure 24 MPAs in Eastern Canada. (DFO 2017v)

99

Figure 25 LFA 40 (6,654 km2), which was closed in 1979 to protect lobster broodstock. LFA 40 represents1.4% of the total area of DFO Maritimes Region (475,174 km2).

Overall factor 4.1 receives a score of 3, or a "moderate" conservation concern.

100


Low Concern

Although some recent stock assessments include brief overviews of relevant ecological issues, there is ageneral dearth of scientific research regarding the relationships between the lobster fisheries and marineecosystems. Potentially important avenues through which the lobster fisheries and marine ecosystems mayaffect each other include the effect of reduced groundfish predation on lobsters, and the effects of lobster baiton lobsters and benthic trophic relationships.

The lobster fishery does not catch species that play exceptional ecological roles, but recent research indicatesthat the lobster fisheries' relationship to broader ecosystem processes may still be multi-faceted. Fisheries-mediated reductions in groundfish, especially Atlantic cod (Steneck et al. 2004), may have released lobsterfrom predation pressure and facilitated increased lobster abundance in the Canadian Gulf of Maine (Boudreauand Worm 2010). Lobster fisheries' use of bait may be an avenue for ecosystem effects: in the American Gulfof Maine lobster fishery, lobster bait may subsidize growth of sub-legal lobsters (Grabowski et al. 2010).

Some recent lobster stock assessments include sections for ecosystem considerations; these sections identifyavenues by which the lobster fishery and the larger marine ecosystem may interact. These sections mayinclude rough estimates of lobster fisheries' seafloor footprints and the effect of other species on lobstermortality (Tremblay et al. 2013). Some lobster assessments also include sections on the identity andestimated weights of species caught incidentally in the lobster fisheries.

The fishery catches ETP species, and though there are spatial measures applied to the fishery, including MPAsto protect vulnerable habitats and deep-water areas, the efficacy of these measures have not been assessed.Management measures are designed to reduce the risk of fishing on habitats, ghost fishing, capture andmortality of ETP species including area closures, trap requirements, technical conservation measures andinvasive species management (see Justification for details).

The lobster fisheries are scored "low" concern for ecosystem-based fishery management, based on SeafoodWatch criteria's requirements for fisheries, since policies exist to protect ecosystem functioning, though theecological role of lobsters are not yet understood well enough to ensure that management effectively protectsany ecological roles. There is spatial management, though their efficacy has not been proven as effective inprotecting ecosystem functioning.

Justification:

The lobster fisheries are considered as highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to the ecosystemstructure and function. Management measures include:

Precautionary management measures to protect other species within the food web, such as protectedareas for mammals and a network of MPAs (Figure 20) (DFO 2017s).Trap reduction programs, e.g., in sGSL (DFO 2017t).Protecting broodstock by V-notching to protect egg-bearing female lobsters and hence eggs for predationand enforcing a MLS and female size window (Appendix C).Spatial and temporal measures: closed areas, closed times (Appendix C) and fishing prevented in deepwater environments (DFO 2008a).Biodegradable panels and escape vents, which allow certain non-target species to escape (Appendix C).

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

101

Minimum number of traps per line, and removal of endlines (Appendix C).Biodegradable traps and protected areas have been efforts implemented and being developed to mitigatethe risk of ghost fishing (DFO 2017t).Inshore Lobster harvesters are allowed to retain green crab (Carcinus maenas), e.g., in LFAs 27 to 38(Criquet and Brêthes 2017a), which helps maintain ecosystem balance because they are an invasivespecies that competes with and preys upon lobster (DFO 2010b).

Other regions have attracted studies regarding environmental impacts including PEI lobster size composition,benthic communities, diversity, food web, and habitat impacts. The study also found that there was noconcern that the fishery caused serious or irreversible harm to the ecosystem function or structure (Criquetand Brêthes 2014).

A conservation plan has been designated to prevent trophic cascades. Rock crab are caught in many of thelobster fisheries; this is a key species in the Gaspésie ecosystem since it forms an important prey species forlobster and other predators. A recent assessment concluded that the fishery does not pose a significant risk tothe rock crab in Gaspésie. The diameter of the circular escape vents in lobster traps was increased to 65 mmfor the 2016 fishing season, which is a standardized size within the fisheries, thereby allowing increasedescapement of rock crab. Interactions between the Gaspésie lobster trap fishery and ETP species are low andthere is a low level of risk of the fishery causing serious or irreversible harm to ETP species. During the 2015Merinov study, the Atlantic wolffish has been observed in catches only in one area, Newport, and represented2% of bycatches in weight. Individuals are released alive (Criquet and Brêthes 2016b).The lobster fisheries inthis region are considered highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to the ecosystem structure andfunction.

102

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

Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researcher and author of this report, Bev O'Kane, as well asseveral anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

103

ReferencesAllard, J., Claytor, R.R. & Tremblay, M.J., 2012. Temperature-corrected abundance index of sub-legal lobsters inLFA 33 - 1999-2000 to 2008-2009. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/347209.pdf

Altman, P.L. & Dittmer, D.S., 1962. Growth, including reproduction and morphological development., Federationof American Societies for Experimental Biology.

Anthony, V.C., 1972. Population dynamics of the Atlantic herring in the Gulf of Maine. Univer. of Washington,Seattle.

Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team, 2006. Recovery Strategy for Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelyscoriacea) in Atlantic Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada,Ottawa. Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/En3-4-14-2006E.pdf

Bedford Institute of Oceanography, 2015. Jonah Crab. Available at: http://www.bio.gc.ca/science/research-recherche/fisheries-pecheries/managed-gere/jonah-nordique-en.php [Accessed June 6, 2016].

Benjamins, S., W. Ledwell, J. Huntington, and A.R. Davidson. 2012. Assessing changes in numbers anddistribution of large whale entanglements in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 28(3):579–601.

Benoît, H.., Swain, D.P. & Hammill, M.O., 2011. A risk analysis of the potential effects of selective and non-selective reductions in grey seal abundance on the population status of two species at risk of extirpation, whitehake and winter skate in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Ottawa. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2011/2011_033-eng.pdf.

Blyth-Skyrme, R., Addison, J. & Angel, J., 2015a. Eastern Canada Offshore Lobster Fishery Final DeterminationReport.

Blyth-Skyrme, R., Addison, J. & Angel, J., 2015b. Eastern Canada Offshore Lobster Fishery V.5 – Publiccertification report, Derby.

Boudreau, S. & Worm, B., 2010. Top-down control of lobster in the Gulf of Maine: insights from local ecologicalknowledge and research surveys. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 403, pp.181–191. Available at:http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v403/p181-191/.

Bourne, C., Mowbray, F. Squires, B. Croft, J. 2015. 2014 Assessment of Newfoundland East and South CoastAtlantic Herring (Clupea harengus). St John's, NL.

Brillant, S.W. Wimmer, T. Rangeley, R.W., Taggart, C.T. 2017. A timely opportunity to protect North Atlantic rightwhales in Canada. Marine Policy 81:160–166.

Brown, M.W. Fenton, D., Smedbol, K., Merriman, C., Robichaud-Leblanc, K., and Conway, J.D. 2009. RecoveryStrategy for the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Atlantic Canadian Waters [Final].,

Canadian Fisheries Act. 2018c. Regulations Amending the Marine Mammal Regulations: SOR/2018-126. CanadaGazette, Part II, Volume 152, Number 14. June 22, 2018. SOR/93-53. Available at: http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2018/2018-07-11/html/sor-dors126-eng.html

Canadian Fisheries Act. 2018a. Fishery (General) Regulations. Periods of Time and Variation of Close Times,

104

Fishing Quotas and Size and Weight Limits of Fish. Canada Gazette, Part I, 30th May 2018. SOR/93-53.Retrieved 13th August 2018.

Canadian Fisheries Act. 2018b. Documents and Registrations. Canada Gazette, Part II, 30th May 2018. SOR/93-333, s. 4. Retrieved 13th August 2018.

Chuenpagdee, R., Morgan, L.E., Maxwell, S.M., Norse, E.A., Pauly, D. 2003. Shifting Gears: Assessing CollateralImpacts of Fishing Methods in US Waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(10), p.517. Available at:http://doi.wiley.com/10.2307/3868162.

CISION 2018. Government of Canada unveils its plan for protecting North Atlantic right whales in 2018. [online]Available at: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-unveils-its-plan-for-protecting-north-atlantic-right-whales-in-2018-678176243.html [Accessed 13 Aug. 2018].

Clark, D.S. & Emberley, J., 2011. Update of the 2010 summer Scotian Shelf and Bay of. Fundy research vesselsurvey. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. St. Andrews, NB.

Coffen-Smout, S., Shervill, D., Sam, D., Denton C., Trembla J. 2013. Mapping Inshore Lobster Landings andFishing Effort on a Maritimes Region Modified Grid System, Dartmouth. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library/348229.pdf

Collins, R. Stansbury, D., Veitch, P. and Janes, J. 2009. Recent trends and management changes in the Americanlobster (Homarus americanus) fishery in Newfoundland. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2009/096. iv + 29p.,

Comeau, M., Mallet, M., and Smith, M. 2007. Variability in lobster, Homarus americanus, trap catches. Can.Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2757: v + 20 p.

Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction. 2016. Rope-less fishing technology development. Available at:http://www.bycatch.org/articles/rope-less-fishing-technology-development. [Accessed on 30.10.2017]

Cooke, A. 2018. Fisheries Department searching for entangled right whale off New Brunswick. The Globe andthe Mail. [online] Available at: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-fisheries-department-searching-for-entangled-right-whale-off-new/ [Accessed 10 Oct. 2018].

COSEWIC, 2000. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Atlantic Wolffish Anarhichas lupus in Canada,Ottawa. Available at: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_atlantic_wolffish_1100_e.pdf.

COSEWIC. 2003. Assessment Summary - Humpback Whale, Western North Atlantic population.

COSEWIC, 2010. Atlantic cod in Eastern Canada has been assessed as Endangered by the Committee on theStatus of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), Ottawa. Available at:http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_Atlantic Cod_0810_e1.pdf.

COSEWIC, 2012a. COSEWIC Assessment and status report on the Atlantic wolffish Anarhichas lupus in Canada.Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa.

COSEWIC, 2012b. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the cusk Brosme brosme in Canada. Committeeon the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada., Ottawa.

COSEWIC, 2012c. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys

105

coriacea Atlantic population Pacific population in Canada, Ottawa. Available at:http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr-LeatherbackSeaTurtle-v00-2012-eng.pdf.

COSEWIC, 2012d. COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Spotted Wolffish Anarhichas minor inCanada, Ottawa. Available at:http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_loupe_tachete_spotted_wolffish_1113_e.pdf

COSEWIC 2012. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) inCanada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 41 pp. (www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm)

Criquet, G. & Brêthes, J. 2016c. Marine Stewardship Council 3rd Surveillance (Review of Information) ReportFor The Îles-de-la-Madeleine Lobster (Homarus americanus) Trap Fishery. Co. Louth, Ireland.

Criquet, G. & Brêthes, J. 2017a. Marine Stewardship Council 2nd Surveillance Report for the Bay of Fundy,Scotian Shelf and Southern Gulf of St Lawrence lobster trap fishery. MSC013/SUR02

Criquet, G. & Brêthes, J.2017b. Marine Stewardship Council 2nd Surveillance Report For The Gaspésie lobstertrap fishery. Co. Louth, Ireland.

Criquet, G. & Brêthes, J. 2017c. Marine Stewardship Council 2nd Surveillance Report For The Prince EdwardIsland lobster trap fishery

Criquet, G. & Brêthes, J.-C., 2014. Marine Stewardship Council Assessment Public Certification Report For thePrince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association (PEIFA) Prince Edward Island Seafood Producers Association(PEISPA) Lennox Island First Nation (LIFN) Abegweit First Nation (AFN). Prince Edward Island lobster (Homarusamericanus) Trap Fishery. Dundalk, Ireland.

Criquet, G. & Brêthes, J.-C., 2015. MSC 2 nd Surveillance Report For The Îles-de-la-Madeleine Lobster(Homarus americanus) Trap Fishery Facilitated By the Association des Pêcheurs Propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (APPIM), Dundalk.

Criquet, G. & Brêthes, J.-C., 2016a. Marine Stewardship Council 1st Surveillance Report For The Bay of Fundy,Scotian Shelf and Southern Gulf of St Lawrence lobster trap fishery, Dundalk.

Criquet, G. & Brêthes, J.-C., 2016b. Marine Stewardship Council 1st Surveillance Report For The Gaspésielobster trap fishery.

Criquet, G., Brêthes, J.C. 2016. Marine Stewardship Council 1st Surveillance Report For The Prince EdwardIsland lobster trap fishery. Co. Louth, Ireland.

Criquet, G., Brêthes, J.-C. & Allain, R.J., 2015a. Marine Stewardship Council Assessment Final Report andDetermination For the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Lobster Eco-Certification Society Bay of Fundy, ScotianShelf and Southern Gulf of St Lawrence lobster (Homarus americanus) Trap Fisheries, Dundalk.

Criquet, G., Brêthes, J.-C. & Allain, R.J., 2015b. Public Certification Report For the Nova Scotia and NewBrunswick Lobster Eco-Certification Society Bay of Fundy, Scotian Shelf and Southern Gulf of St Lawrencelobster (Homarus americanus) Trap Fisheries, Dundalk.

Criquet, G., Brêthes, J.-C. & Fréchette, J., 2015. Marine Stewardship Council Assessment Public CertificationReport For the Regroupement des Pêcheurs Professionnels du Sud de la Gaspésie (RPPSG) Gaspésie lobster

106

(Homarus americanus) Trap Fishery, Dundalk.

CSAS, 2012. Assessment of leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) fisheries and non-fisheries relatedinteractions in Atlantic Canadian waters. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2012/063.

Daoust, P.Y., Couture, E.L., Wimmer, T., and Bourque, L. 2017. Incident Report: North Atlantic Right WhaleMortality Event in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 2017. Collaborative Report Produced by: Canadian Wildlife HealthCooperative, Marine Animal Response Society, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 224 pp.

Delorey, S., 2011. Overview of incidental bycatch and live discards for areas LFA 31a and LFA 31b. Based onGuysborough county inshore fishermen’s association at sea sampling data from 2009-2011, Canso, NS.

den Heyer, C.E., Bundy, A. & MacDonald, C., 2010. At-Sea Catch Analysis of Inshore Scotian Shelf LobsterFishery and 4VsW Commercial Index Groundfish Sentinel Fishery. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2890.

DFO, 2003. Newfoundland Lobster, Newfoundland Lobster. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2003/SSR2003_022_e.pdf. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2003/SSR2003_022_e.pdf.

DFO, 2004. Rock crab of the inshore waters of Quebec in 2003, Quebec.DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Stock StatusRep. 2004/029.

DFO, 2006a. Framework assessment for lobster (Homarus americanus) in lobster fishing area (LFA) 34. DFOCan Sci Advis Sec Sci Advis Rep 2006/024.

DFO, 2006b. Proceedings of a benthic habitat classification workshop meeting of the Maritimes RegionalAdvisory Process – Maintenance of the diversity of ecosystem types – Phase II: classification andcharacterization of Scotia-Fundy benthic habitats. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2006/006. Dartmouth,NS.

DFO, 2008a. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish(Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) in Canada, Ottawa. Availableat: https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/mp_Atlantic_Northern_and_Spotted_Wolffish_0208_e.pdf.

DFO, 2008b. ST. Mary’s Bay Longhorn Sculpin (Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus) Assessment, Dartmouth.DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2008/051. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/SAR-AS/2008/SAR-AS2008_051_e.pdf.

DFO, 2009a. Assessment of Jonah crab in Lobster Fishing Area 41 (4X + 5Zc),DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci.Advis. Rep. 2009/034.

DFO, 2009b. Assessment of Lobster in Lobster Fishing Area 41 (4X+5Zc). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis.Rep. 2009/033.

DFO, 2010. Rock crab of the coastal waters of Quebec in 2009. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep.2010/010.

DFO 2010b. ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE INVASIVE EUROPEAN GREEN CRAB (CARCINUS MAENAS) INNEWFOUNDLAND 2007-2009. 2010/033.

107

DFO, 2011. Stock Assessment of Subdivision 3Ps cod, October 2011. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep.2011/079,Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2011/2011_079-eng.pdf.

DFO. 2011b. Inshore Lobster Integrated Fishery Management Plan (Summary) Lobster Fishing Areas 27 - 38Scotia-Fundy Sector - Maritimes Region - 2011. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp-gmp/maritimes/insholob-2011-eng.htm

DFO, 2012a. Assessment of Lobster Stocks of the Gaspé (LFAs 19, 20 and 21), Quebec in 2011. DFO Can. Sci.Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/015.

DFO, 2012b. Assessment of Lobster Stocks of the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22), Quebec in 2011. DFO Can. Sci.Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/012.

DFO, 2012e. Lobster stock status in the coastal waters of Québec (LFAs 15 to 22) in 2011 and determination ofreference points for the implementation of a precautionary approach in the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22), Mont-Joli. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/010. xvii+ 143 p. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2012/2012_010-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2012f. Stock Status assessment of lobster on the North shore (LFAs 15, 16 and 18) and at Anticosti Island(LFA 17), Quebec, in 2011, Mont-Joli. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/020. Available at: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/SAR-AS/2012/2012_020-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2012g. Stock status assessment of lobster on the North Shore (LFAs 15, 16 and 18) and at Anticosti Island(LFA 17), Quebec, in 2011. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2012/020,

DFO, 2012d. Evaluation of the Integrated Fisheries Resource Management Program Activity: CommercialFisheries, Recreational Fisheries & the Fisheries Science Collaborative Program. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ae-ve/evaluations/11-12/IFRM-eng.htm. [Accessed July 8, 2016].

DFO, 2013. Assessment of American lobster in Newfoundland. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, ScienceAdvisory Report 2013/068.

DFO, 2013a. American lobster, Homarus americanus, stock status in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence: LFA 23,24, 25, 26A and 26B. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/029.

DFO, 2013b. American lobster Homarus Americanus stock status in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence: LFA 23,24, 25, 26A and 26B. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/029. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library/348839.pdf

DFO, 2013c. Assessment of lobster (Homarus americanus) in LFA 34, Dartmouth. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci.Advis. Rep. 2013/024. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2013/2013_024-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2013d. Assessment of lobster (Homarus americanus) in lobster fishing area (LFA) 34. DFO Can. Sci. Advis.Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/024.

DFO, 2013e. Assessment of Lobster (Homarus americanus) in Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 34. DFO Can. Sci.Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/024.

DFO, 2013f. Assessment of the Rock Crab (Cancer irroratus) fishery in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence for2006 to 2011. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/030.

108

DFO. 2013d. Assessment of the Rock Crab (Cancer irroratus) fishery in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence for2006 to 2011. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2013/030.

DFO, 2013i. Development of reference points in the context of a precautionary approach (PA) for lobster of TheGaspé (LFAs 19, 20 and 21). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2013/027. Available at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2013/2013_027-eng.pdf

DFO 2013h. Report on the Progress of Recovery Strategy Implementation for the Leatherback Sea Turtle(Dermochelys coriacea) in Canada for the Period 2007-2012. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy ReportSeries. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa.

DFO. 2013k. Assessment of rock crab stock status in Quebec in 2012. 2013/007. Available at:http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/mpo-dfo/Fs70-6-2013-007-eng.pdf

DFO. 2013l. Report on the Progress of Implementation of the Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolffish(Anarhichas denticulatus) and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish(Anarhichas lupus) in Canada for the Period 2008- 2013. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Report Series.Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vi + 16 pp.

DFO. 2013m. Info Source: Institutional Functions, Programs and Activities - Atlantic Lobster SustainabilityMeasures Program: Atlantic Lobster Sustainability Measures Program. Available at: http://www.inter.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/atip/infosource_e/sub-activity_e/ALSMP-e. [Accessed on 10.11.2017]

DFO. 2013n. ASSESSMENT OF LOBSTER (HOMARUS AMERICANUS) IN LOBSTER FISHING AREAS (LFA) 35-38.2013/023. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/348828.pdf

DFO, 2014a. 2014 Stock status update of lobster fishing area 41 (4X +5Zc) lobster. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec.Sci. Resp. 2014/05. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/scr-rs/2014/2014_051-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2014b. Assessment of lobster (Homarus americanus) in lobster fishing area 41 (4X + 5Zc). Can. Sci. Adv.Sec. Sci. Adv. Rep. 2014/034. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/364163.pdf.

DFO, 2014c. Assessment of the Atlantic Mackerel stock for the Northwest Atlantic (Subareas 3 and 4) in 2013,Mont-Joli. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2014/030. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/sar-as/2014/2014_030-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2014d. Overview of By-catch and Discards in the Maritimes Region Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs) 27-33based on Species at Risk Act (SARA) At-sea Sampling 2009-2010, Dartmouth. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res.Doc. 2014/040. v + 27 p. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2014/2014_040-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2014e. Reference point options for the Southern Gulf of St.Lawrence lobster stock (Lobster Fishing Areas23,24,25,26A,26B). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2014/027. Available at: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/scr-rs/2014/2014_027-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2014f. Reproductive Status of the American Lobster in Southwest Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy(Lobster Fishing Areas 34-38), Dartmouth. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2014/045. v + 30 p. Available at:http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2014/2014_045-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2014g. Update to the recovery potential for cusk in Canadian waters, DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis.

109

Rep. 2014/04. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/364365.pdf.

DFO. 2014h. Canadian Atlantic Herring (Clupea harengus) -SWNS Rebuilding Plan - Atlantic Canada - 2013.Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/FM-GP/PECHES-FISHERIES/IFMP-GMP/HERRING-HARENG/HERRING-HARENG-2013-ENG.HTM. [Accessed on 10.11.2017]

DFO 2014i. Reference point options for the southern gulf of st. Lawrence lobster stock (lobster fishing areas 23,24, 25, 26a, 26b). 2014/027. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/363534.pdf

DFO, 2015a. 2014 4X5Yb Atlantic cod stock status update, DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2015/010.Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2015/2015_010-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2015b. 2015 Assessment of 4VWX Herring. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2015/040. Availableat: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/sar-as/2015/2015_040-eng.pdf

DFO, 2015d. 4X5Yb Atlantic cod stock status update. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2015/01. Available at:DFO. 2015. 2014 4X5Yb Atlantic Cod Stock Status Update. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2015/010.

DFO, 2015e. An assessment of American Lobster (Homarus americanus) in Newfoundland in 2012, St. John’s.DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2015/057. vi + 41 p. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/362085.pdf

DFO, 2015g. Assessment of Newfoundland east and south coast herring stocks to the spring of 2014, St. John’s.DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2015/028. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/364890.pdf.

DFO, 2015j. Lobster (Homarus americanus) off Southwest Nova Scotia (LFA 34): 2015 Stock status update,Dartmouth. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2015/029. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/scr-rs/2015/2015_029-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2015k. Lobster (Homarus americanus) off the Atlantic Coast of Nova Scotia (Lobster Fishing Areas 27-33):2015 stock status update, Quebec. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2015/017.

DFO, 2015l. Lobster (Homarus Americanus) off the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia (lobster fishing areas 27-33)2015 stock status update, Dartmouth. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2015/017.

DFO, 2015m. Status of Cusk (Brosme brosme) in NAFO Divisions 4VWX5Z under the Precautionary ApproachFramework, DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2015/005.

DFO, 2015n. Update of stock status indicators for Quebec North shore (Division 4S) herring in 2014, Mont-Joli.DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec., Sci. Resp. 2015/026. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2015/2015_026-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2015c. 2J3KLPs Herring Management Plan 2015-16. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2015-gp/atl-006-eng.htm [Accessed June 7, 2016].

DFO, 2015h. Atlantic Cod (Laurentian South population). Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/atlantic-cod-morue-laurentian-laurentienne-south-sud-eng.html [Accessed June 8,2016].

DFO, 2015i. Lobster. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/sustainable-durable/fisheries-

110

peches/lobster-homard-eng.htm [Accessed June 7, 2016].

DFO 2015o. Herring - 16A to 16G CONSERVATION AND HARVESTING PLAN FOR THE SOUTHERN GULF OF ST.LAWRENCE HERRING FISHERIES. Available at: https://inter-l01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/applications/opti-opei/notice-avis-detail-eng.php?pub_id=871&todo=view&type=1&region_id=4&sub_type_id=5&species=200&area=1915.[Accessed on 10.11.2017]

DFO. 2015f. Lobster: Species at a Glance. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/sustainable-durable/fisheries-peches/lobster-homard-eng.htm. Accessed on [12.11.2017].

DFO. 2015p. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan: Lobster in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence LobsterFishing Areas 23, 24, 25, 26A, 26B. Available at: http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Gulf/FAM/IMFP/2014-Lobster-Gulf-Region. [Accessed on 01.11.2017]

DFO. 2015q. Notices to Fish Harvesters: Lobster - 22 - Magdalen Islands Extension of the 2010-2014 IntegratedFishery Management Plan (2015-08-27). Available at: https://inter-l01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/applications/opti-opei/notice-avis-detail-eng.php?pub_id=438&todo=view&type=1&region_id=4&sub_type_id=5&species=700&area=1863. [Accessed on03.11.2017]

DFO. 2015r. Notices to Fish Harvesters. Available at: https://inter-l01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/applications/opti-opei/notice-avis-eng.php?region_id=4&sub_type_id=5&type=1&display_option=1. [Accessed on 0.11.2017]

DFO. 2015s. Integrated Fisheries Management Plan: Lobster in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence:MANAGEMENT ISSUES. Available at: http://www.glf.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Gulf/FAM/IMFP/2014-Lobster-Management-Issues. [Accessed on 10.11.2017].

DFO. 2015t. Response Statement - North Atlantic Right Whale. Available at: https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/statements/rs-bnannarw-0115_e.pdf

DFO, 2016a. 4VWX herring 2016 update report. . DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2016/036. Available at:http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2016/2016_036-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016b. Assessment of American lobster in Newfoundland, St. John’s. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis.Rep. 2016/052. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_052-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016c. Assessment of the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (NAFO DIV. 4T) spring and fall spawnercomponents of Atlantic herring (Clupea Harengus) with advice for the 2016 and 2017 fisheries. DFO Can. Sci.Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2016/036. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_036-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016d. Assessment of the west coast of Newfoundland (division 4R) herring stocks in 2015, Mont-Joli. DFOCan. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2016/024. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_024-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016e. Canada’s Fisheries: Fast facts 2015, Ottawa. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/FastFacts_15-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016f. Lobster (Homarus Americanus) in Lobster Fishing Area 41 (4X +5Zc): stock status update,Dartmouth. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2016/004. Available at: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-

111

sccs/publications/scr-rs/2016/2016_004-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016g. Lobster (Homarus Americanus) in lobster fishing area 41 (4X + 5Zc): 2015 stock status update,Dartmouth. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2016/004. Available at:http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/mpo-dfo/Fs70-7-2016-004-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016h. Lobster (Homarus americanus) off the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia (LFA 27-33): 2016 Stock statusupdate, Dartmouth. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2016/025. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2016/2016_025-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016i. Lobster (Homarus americanus) off the Atlantic Coast of Nova Scotia (Lobster Fishing Areas 27-33):2016 Stock Status Update. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2016/025. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2016/2016_025-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016k. Recovery potential assessment for white hake (Urophycis tenuis): population of Atlantic andnorthern Gulf of St. Lawrence. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2016/035. Available at:http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_035-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016n. Status of cusk (Brosme brosme) in NAFO divisions 4VWX5Z under the precautionary approachframework, Dartmouth. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2016/014. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2016/2016_014-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016o. Stock assessment of NAFO subdivision 3PS Cod, St. John’s. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis.Rep. 2016/005. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_005-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016p. Stock assessment of Northern cod (NAFO DIVS. 2J3KL) in 2016, St. John’s. DFO Can. Sci. Advis.Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2016/026. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_026-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016q. 2015 Lobster Stock Assessment on the North Shore (LFAs 15, 16, and 18) and at Anticosti Island(LFA 17), Quebec Area. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2016/044. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/SAR-AS/2016/2016_044-eng.pdf

DFO, 2016r. 2015 Lobster stocks assessment in the Gaspe Quebec Area (LFAs 19, 20, 21). DFO Can. Sci. Advis.Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2016/043. Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/mpo-dfo/Fs70-6-2016-043-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016s. 2015 Lobster stock assessment in the Magdalen Islands (LFA 22), Quebec area. DFO Can. Sci.Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2016/045. Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/mpo-dfo/Fs70-6-2016-045-eng.pdf.

DFO, 2016t. Update of the stock status indicators for the American lobster (Homarus americanus) stocks in theSouthern Gulf of St. Lawrence. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2016/051. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2016/2016_051-eng.pdf

DFO, 2016u. 2015 Stock status update of lobster (Homarus americanus) in the Bay of Fundy (Lobster FishingAreas 35-38). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2015/030. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/363792.pdf.

DFO, 2016j. MPA network development. Available at: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa-zpm/network-reseau-

112

eng.html [Accessed June 10, 2016].

DFO, 2016l. Recovery Strategy for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Canadian Waters[FINAL]. Available at: http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=717856D0-1 [AccessedJune 10, 2016].

DFO, 2016m. Regional Statistics. Available at: http://www.nfl.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/NL/Landings-Values [AccessedDecember 12, 2016].

DFO 2016. Species at Risk Public Registry, 2016. A to Z Species Index. Available at: http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm [Accessed June 6, 2016].

DFO. 2016v. NAFO Division 4R - Herring Fishing Areas 13 and 14 (Western Newfoundland and SouthernLabrador) 2016-2017. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2016-gp/atl-09-eng.htm. [Accessedon 10.11.2017]

DFO. 2016x. Update of the fishery indicators for rock crab (cancer irroratus) in the southern gulf of st.Lawrence. 2016/053. Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/mpo-dfo/Fs70-7-2016-053-eng.pdf

DFO. 2016y. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF HUMAN-INDUCED INJURY TO AND MORTALITY OF CETACEANS INATLANTIC CANADA. 2016/029.

DFO 2016z. Action Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in Canada: Fishery Interactions[Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Action Plan Series.Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. v + 35 pp.

DFO. 2017a. Stock status update of 4VWX herring. 2017/037. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40626337.pdf

DFO 2017b. Assessment of Newfoundland east and south coast herring to the spring of 2016. 2017/028.Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40614931.pdf

DFO. 2017c. Assessment of the Quebec North Shore (division 4s) herring stocks in 2016. 2017/027. Available at:http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/4061492x.pdf

DFO. 2017d. 2J3KLPs Herring Management Plan 2017-18. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2017-gp/atl-07-eng.htm. [Accessed on 10.11.2017]

DFO. 2017e. Conservation Harvesting Plan - 2017 HERRING - AREA 15 - NORTH SHORE. Available at:https://inter-l01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/applications/opti-opei/notice-avis-detail-eng.php?pub_id=1259&todo=view&type=1&region_id=4&sub_type_id=5&species=200&area=1914. [Accessed on10.11.2017].

DFO. 2017f. Assessment of the Atlantic mackerel stock for the Northwest Atlantic (subareas 3 and 4) in 2016.2017/034. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40619576.pdf

DFO. 2017g. Lobster (Homarus americanus) off the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia (lobster fishing areas 27-33):2017 stock status update. 2017/026. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2017/2017_026-eng.pdf

DFO. 2017h. Stock status update of lobster (Homarus americanus) off southwest nova scotia (lobster fishing

113

area 34). 2017/038. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2017/2017_038-eng.pdf

DFO. 2017i. Stock status update of lobster (homarus americanus) in the bay of fundy (lobster fishing areas 35-38). 2017/039. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ScR-RS/2017/2017_039-eng.pdf.

DFO. 2017j. Jonah Crab. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/jonah-crab-crabe-nordique-eng.html. [Accessed on 09.11.2017].

DFO. 2017k. Status of cusk (brosme brosme) in nafo divisions 4vwx5z under the precautionary approachframework. 2017/005. Available at: http://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/40622940.pdf

DFO. 2017l. Integrated Fisheries Management Plans. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp-gmp/index-eng.htm. [Accessed on 09.11.2017]

DFO. 2017m. Lobster Fishing Area 3 – 14C, Newfoundland and Labrador, 2017 Dates of season (subject tochange). Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/decisions/fm-2017-gp/atl-04-eng.htm. [Accessed on10.11.2017]

DFO. 2017n. Notices to Fish Harvesters: Lobster - 19 to 21 - Gaspe-Lower St. Lawrence: ConservationHarvesting Plan 2016-2018 (May 2017). Available at: https://inter-l01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/applications/opti-opei/notice-avis-detail-eng.php?pub_id=1189&todo=view&type=1&region_id=4&sub_type_id=5&species=700&area=1862. [Accessed on10.11.2017]

DFO. 2017o. Notices to Fish Harvesters: Lobster - 15, 16, 18I - North Shore Conservation harvesting plan 2016-2018 (12/05/2016). Available at: https://inter-l01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/applications/opti-opei/notice-avis-detail-eng.php?pub_id=730&todo=view&type=1&region_id=4&sub_type_id=5&species=700&area=1860. [Accessedon 10.11.2017]

DFO. 2017p. Notices to Fish Harvesters: Lobster - 17A-B, 18B - C- D- G-H - North Shore Conservation harvestingplan 2016 to 2018 (22/04/2016). Available at: https://inter-l01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/applications/opti-opei/notice-avis-detail-eng.php?pub_id=695&todo=view&type=1&region_id=4&sub_type_id=5&species=700&area=1861.[Accessed on 10.11.2017]

DFO. 2017q. Newfoundland and Labrador Region: Newfoundland and Labrador region convictions under theFisheries Act. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/charges-inculpations/nl-tnl-eng.htm. [Accessed on10.11.2017]

DFO 2017r. Canada reaches 5% marine conservation target. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/mct-ocm/five-cinq-eng.html. [Accessed on 10.11.2017]

DFO. 2017s. List of marine refuges. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/oeabcm-amcepz/refuges/index-eng.html. [Accessed on 10.11.2017]

DFO. 2017t. The lobster fishery in the Gulf region. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/comm/atl-arc/report-stat-rapport/lobster-homard/index-eng.htm. [Accessed on 15.11.2017]

DFO. 2017u. Review of the Effectiveness of Recovery Activities for North Atlantic right whales. Available at:http://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/whalereview-revuebaleine/review-revue/narightwhale-baleinenoirean/index-eng.html.

114

DFO. 2017v. Marine Conservation Targets Map. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/maps-cartes/conservation-eng.html. [Accessed on 18.09.2017]

DFO. 2017. Proceedings of the Regional Peer Review of the Assessment of American Lobster (Homarusamericanus) in Newfoundland; May 10-11 and May 16, 2016. DFO Can. Sci.Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2017/015.

DFO. 2017x. Management Plan for the fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Atlantic population in Canada, Speciesat Risk Act Management Plan Series, DFO, Ottawa, iv +38 p.

DFO 2018a. Species Profile - Humpback Whale Western North Atlantic population. Available at:https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=160. [Accessed on 6 January2018].

DFO 2018b. Species Profile - Common Minke Whale North Atlantic subspecies. Accessible at:http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=894 [Accessed on 6 January 2018]

DFO 2018c. Fisheries management. Available at: http://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/mammals-mammiferes/narightwhale-baleinenoirean/fm-gp/index-eng.html [accessed on 23rd July 2018]

DFO 2018d. Notice to fish harvesters: Lobster conservation harvesting plan – New management measures for2018 and beyond (LFA 23, 24, 25, 26A AND 26B). Available at: http://dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/comm/atl-arc/lobster-notice-avis-homard-en.html. [accessed on 23rd July 2018]

DFO. 2018e. Stock Status Update of American Lobster (Homarus americanus) in Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs)27-33. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2018/030.

DFO. 2018f. European Green Crab, Carcinus maenas. DFO. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/europeangreencrab-crabevert-eng.html [Accessed 4 May 2018].

DFO. 2018g. North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis): recovery strategy progress report 2009 to 2014.Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/species-risk-public-registry/recovery-strategies/north-atlantic-right-whale-report-2009-2014.html [Accessed 10 Aug. 2018].

DFO 2018h. Government of Canada unveils its plan for protecting North Atlantic right whales in 2018 -Canada.ca. [online] Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-oceans/news/2018/03/government-of-canada-unveils-its-plan-for-protecting-north-atlantic-right-whales-in-20180.html [Accessed 13 Aug. 2018].

DFO. 2018i. Stock Status Update of American Lobster (Homarus americanus) in Lobster Fishing Area 34. DFOCan. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Resp. 2018/044.

DFO. 2018j.What we heard report.

DFO 2018k. Inshore Lobster: Integrated Fishery Management Plan for Lobster Fishing Areas 27 - 38 (Scotia-Fundy Sector - Maritimes Region - 2011). Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/ifmp-gmp/maritimes/inshore-lobster-2011-eng.htm

DFO 2018l. Conditions of Licence for LFA 34 for 2018/ 2019.

DFO 2018m. Conditions of Licence for LFA 35 for 2018/ 2019.

Donkin, K. 2018. Fisheries officials violated labour code by not providing 'protective headgear' to whale rescuer

115

who died. CBC. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/howlett-labour-code-investigation-1.4793296

Eddy, T.D., Araujo, J.N., Bundy, A., Fulton, E.A. and Lotze, H.K., 2017. Effectiveness of lobster fisheriesmanagement in New Zealand and Nova Scotia from multi-species and ecosystem perspectives. ICES Journal ofMarine Science: Journal du Conseil, p.fsw127.

Eno, N., MacDonald, D.S., Kinnear, J.A.M., Amos, S.C., Chapman, C.J., Clark, R.A., Bunker, F.St P.D., Munro, C.2001. Effects of crustacean traps on benthic fauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 58(1), pp.11–20. Availableat: https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article-lookup/doi/10.1006/jmsc.2000.0984.

Factor, J.R., 1995. Introduction, anatomy, and life history. in Biology of the Lobster Homarus americanus, JanRobert Factor (editor), Academic Press Inc. San Diego, CA.

Fader, G B J; Lynds, T; Miller, R O; Parrott, D R; Hynes, S; Sherin, A. 2004. Geological Survey of Canada, OpenFile 4671,1 CD-ROM. Available at: https://geoscan.nrcan.gc.ca/starweb/geoscan/servlet.starweb?path=geoscan/downloade.web&search1=R=215682

Fishbase, 2015a. Myoxocephalus octodecemspinosus - Longhorn sculpin. Available at:http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Myoxocephalus-octodecemspinosus.html [Accessed June 10, 2016].

Fishbase, 2015b. Tautogolabrus adspersus - cunner. Available at:http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=3672&AT=cunner [Accessed June 10, 2016].

Fishbase, 2016. Clupea harengus. Available at: http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=24&AT=herring [Accessed December 10, 2016].

Fishermen and Scientists Research Society, 2013. Lobster Recruitment Index Project. Available at:http://www.fsrs.ns.ca/recruit.html [Accessed June 12, 2016].

FRCC, 1995. A conservation framework for Atlantic lobster: Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.FRCC 95.R.1.

FRCC, 2007. Sustainability framework for Atlantic lobster 2007: Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.FRCC.07.R1.

Gaudian, G., Brand, A. & Allain, B., 2016. MSC sustainable fisheries certification Canadian 4VWX Purse SeineHerring Fishery Public Certification Report, Dartmouth. Available at:https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/canadian-4vwx-purse-seine-herring-fishery/@@assessments.

GMFA 2016. Mitigation Strategy 2014-2015 Right Whale / Lobster Fishing Gear Interactions Lobster FishingAreas 36, 37, & 38 . Available at: http://www.fundynorth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LFA36-38-WhaleLobster-Gear-Interaction.pdf

Grabowski, J.H., Clesceri, E.J., Baukus A.J., Gaudette, J., Weber, M., Yund, P.O. 2010. Use of Herring Bait to FarmLobsters in the Gulf of Maine J. F. Bruno, ed. PLoS ONE, 5(4), p.e10188. Available at:http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010188.

GMFA, 2013. Mitigation Strategy 2012-2013: Right Whale / Lobster Fishing Gear Interactions Lobster FishingAreas 36, 37, & 38, Available at: http://gmfa.nb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Right-Whale-Mitigation-Strategy-2013.pdf.

116

Grieve, C., Brady, D.C. & Polet, H., 2015. Best practices for managing, measuring and mitigating the benthicimpacts of fishing. Marine Stewardship Council Science, 3, pp.81 – 120.

Guénette, S., Melvin, G. & Bundy, A., 2014. A review of the ecological role of forage fish and managementstrategies, Dartmouth, NS.

Hamelin, K.M., James, M.C., Ledwell, W., Huntington, J., Martin, K. 2017. Incidental capture of leatherback seaturtles in fixed fishing gear off Atlantic Canada. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst. 2017;1–12.

Hanson, J.M., 2009. Predator-prey interactions of American lobster (Homarus americanus) in the southern Gulfof St. Lawrence, Canada. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 43(1), pp.69–88.

Hardy, R. 2018. Workshop with sGSL stakeholders: 2018 DFO Science Efforts in support of mitigation measuresto protect the NARW in Canadian Waters on October 4-5 2018. Report for DFO Gulf.

Harnish, L. & Willison, J.H.M. 2009. Efficiency of bait usage in the Nova Scotia lobster fishery: a first look.Journal of Cleaner Production. 17:345-347.

Harris, L.E. & Hanke, A.R., 2010. Assessment of the status, threats and recovery potential of cusk (Brosmebrosme). DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2010/004.

Hayes, S.A., Gardner, S., Garrison, L., Henry, A., Leandro, L., 2018a. North Atlantic Right Whales - EvaluatingTheir Recovery Challenges in 2018. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Woods Hole,Massachusetts

Hayes, S.A., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., Rosel, P.E. 2017. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine MammalStock Assessments - 2016. Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

Heaslip, S.G., Iverson, S.J., Bowen, W.D., Jame, M.C. 2012. Jellyfish Support High Energy Intake of LeatherbackSea Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea): Video Evidence from Animal-Borne Cameras D. Hyrenbach, ed. PLoS ONE,7(3), p.e33259. Available at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033259.

Johnston, T.L., Smedbol, R.K. Serdynska, A. Vanderlaan, A., Helcl, N., Harris, L. and Taggart, C.T. 2007. Patternsof fishing gear in areas of the Bay of Fundy and southwest Scotian Shelf frequented by North Atlantic rightwhales. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 52, p.2745.

Kennedy, A. and Clapham, P. 2017. From Whaling to Tagging: The Evolution of North Atlantic Humpback WhaleResearch in the West Indies. Marine Fisheries Review, 79(2), pp.23-37.

King, M. Shackell, N. Greenlaw, M., Allard, K. Moor, H. and D. Fenton. 2013. Marine protected area networkplanning in the Scotian Shelf bioregion: offshore data considerations. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc.2013/064. vi + 24 p.

Kinnie, S., 2001. Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Herring Fishery, Antigonish. Available at:http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Factsheet4.pdf.

Knapman, P., Nichols, J., Hough, A. 2017. 2nd Surveillance Audit - Report for NAFO Division 4R Atlantic HerringPurse Seine Fishery.

Knowlton, A. R., Robbins, J., Landry, S., McKenna, H. A., Kraus, S. D. and Werner, T. B. 2016. Effects of fishingrope strength on the severity of large whale entanglements. Conservation Biology, 30: 318–328.

117

Knowlton, A.R., Hamilton, P.K., Marx, M.K., Pettis, H.M., Kraus, S.D. 2012. Monitoring North Atlantic right whaleEubalaena glacialis entanglement rates: a 30 yr retrospective. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 466: 293–302.

Knowlton, A.R., Marx, M.K., Pettis, H.M., Hamilton, P.K., Kraus, S.D. 2005. Analysis of scarring on North AtlanticRight Whales (Eubalaena glacialis): Monitoring Rates of Entanglement Interaction.

Kostylev, V.E., 2004. Habitat management template for Scotian shelf habitat mapping. Natural ResourcesCanada, Progress report for horizontal NRCan – DFO habitat mapping project.

Kraus, S.D., Kenney, R.D., Mayo, C.A., McLellan W.A., Moore, M.J., Nowacek, D. P. 2016. Recent ScientificPublications Cast Doubt on North Atlantic Right Whale Future. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 137.https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2016.00137

Kulka, D., Hood, C. & Huntington, J., 2007. Recovery Strategy for Northern Wolffish (Anarhichas denticulatus)and Spotted Wolffish (Anarhichas minor), and Management Plan for Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) inCanada., St. John’s, NL.

Lawson. J.W., and Gosselin, J.-F. 2009. Distribution and preliminary abundance estimates for cetaceans seenduring Canada’s marine megafauna survey - A component of the 2007 TNASS. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res.Doc. 2009/031. vi + 28 p.

Lawton, P. & Lavalli, K.L., 1995. Postlarval, juvenile, adolescent, and adult ecology, in Biology of the LobsterHomarus americanus, Jan Robert Factor (editor), Academic Press Inc. San Diego, CA.,

MacKay, C. 2018. DFO unable to find entangled right whale off northeast N.B. | CBC News. [online] CBC.Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-dfo-north-atlantic-right-whale-spotted-entangled-1.4747257 [Accessed 14 Jul. 2018].

Mateo, I., Ennis, G., Dunne, E. 2017. Marine Stewardship Council 1st Re-assessment Public Certification Report(PCR) For The Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Snow Crab (Chionoecetes opilio) Trap Fishery. Dundalk, Ireland.

Meyer-Gutbrod EL, Greene CH. 2018a. Uncertain recovery of the North Atlantic right whale in a changing ocean.Glob Chang Biol 24(1):455-464.

Munehara, H., 1992. Utilization of polychaete tubes as spawning substrate by the sea raven Hemitripterusvillosus (Scorpaeniformes). Environ. Biol. Fish., 33(4), pp.395–398.

Murdy, E.O., Birdsong, R.S. & Musick, J.A., 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay, Washington and London:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Murray, C. Allain, R.J., Brêthes, J.C., Criquet, G., Garforth, D. 2013. Public Certification Report For TheAssociation des Pêcheurs Propriétaires des Îles-de-la-Madeleine (APPIM) Îles-de-la-Madeleine lobster (Homarusamericanus) Trap Fishery, Dundalk.

North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (NARWC). 2016. 2016 Annual Report Card. Available at:http://www.narwc.org/pdf/2016%20Report%20Card%20final.pdf

Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, 2015. The Evaluation of the Conservationand Sustainability Plan for the Newfoundland Lobster Fishery.

NMFS, 2016. Commerical Fisheries Statistics. Available at: www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commerical-

118

fisheries/commercial-landings/ [Accessed June 8, 2016].

NOAA, 2016a. North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis): Western Atlantic Stock, Available at:http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/stocks/atlantic/2015/f2015_rightwhale.pdf.

NOAA, 2016b. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2015, Woods Hole. Availableat: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/atlantic2015_final.pdf.

NOAA 2017a. Interactive North Atlantic Right Whale Sightings Map. Available at:https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/. Accessed on [5 December 2017]

NOAA. in review 2018a. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2018. Availableat: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports

OAG. 2018a. 2018 Fall Reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to theParliament of Canada. Report 2—Protecting Marine Mammals.

Pace, III R.M., Corkeron, P.J., Kraus, S.D. 2017. State–space mark–recapture estimates reveal a recent declinein abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecol Evol. 7:8730–8741

Pettis, H., 2012. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2012 Annual Report Card. Report to the North AtlanticRight Whale Consortium, November 2012.

Pettis, H.M. and Hamilton, P.K. 2015. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 2015 Annual Report Card. Report tothe North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, November 2015.

Pettis, H.M., Pace, R.M., Schick, R.S., Hamilton, P.K. 2018a. North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium annual reportcard. Amended Report to the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium, October 2017.

Pettis, H.M., Rolland,M.R., Hamilton, P.K., Knowlton, A.R., Burgess, E.A., Kraus, S.D. 2017. Body conditionchanges arising from natural factors and fishing gear entanglements in North Atlantic right whales Eubalaenaglacialis. Endang Species Res 32: 237–249.

Pezzack, D.., Denton, C.. & Tremblay, M.J., 2014. Overview of bycatch and discards in the Maritimes regionlobster fishing areas (lfas) 27-33 based on the Species at risk act (SARA) at-sea sampling 2009-2010,Dartmouth. Available at: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2014/2014_040-eng.pdf.

Pezzack, D.S., C. Denton, M. Cassista-Da Ros and M.J. Tremblay. 2015. Assessment of the Canadian LFA 41Offshore Lobster (Homarus americanus) Fishery (NAFO Divisions 4X 5Zc). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc.2015/066. v + 79 p.

Pezzack, D.S., C.M. Frail, A. Reeves, and M.J. Tremblay. 2009. Offshore Lobster LFA 41 (4X and 5Zc). DFO Can.Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2009/023. vi + 118 p.

Pezzack, D.S., Frail, C.M., Reeves, A. and Tremblay, M.J. 2010. Assessment of the LFA 41 Offshore Jonah Crab(Cancer borealis) (NAFO 4X and 5Zc). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2010/113: viii + 52 p

Phillips, B. F., Melville-Smith, R., Kay, M. C. and Vega-Velázquez, A. 2013. Panulirus Species, in Lobsters:Biology, Management, Aquaculture and Fisheries, Second Edition (ed B. F. Phillips), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,Oxford, UK. doi: 10.1002/9781118517444.ch10

119

Picco, C. Ford, J. Fuller, S. Hangaard, D., Tsao, C., Morgan, L., and Chuenpagdee, R. 2015. What we don’t knowabout bycatch in Canadian fisheries, Seattle. Available at:http://www.howwefish.ca/images/downloads/ford_final_bycatch_poster.pdf.

Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J.,Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. 2013. Balaenoptera physalus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species2013: e.T2478A44210520. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013- 1.RLTS.T2478A44210520.en

Revill, A. 2012. Survival of discarded fish: A rapid review of studies on discard survival rates. Available at:http://nsrac.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/EU-discard-survival-short-study-version-0011.pdf.

Robbins, J., Knowlton, A.R. Landry, S. 2015.Apparent survival of North Atlantic right whales after entanglementin fishing gear. Biological Conservation 191 (2015) 421–427.

Robichaud, D.A. & Frail, C.M., 2006. Development Of The Jonah Crab, Cancer borealis and Rock Crab, Cancerirroratus, Fisheries in the Bay of Fundy (LFAs 35-38) and off Southwest Nova Scotia (LFA 34): Exploratory toCommercial Status (1995-2004)., Available at: thttp://www.xn--dfompo-dg0c.gc.ca/Library/326113.pdf.

Robins, C.R. & Ray, G.C., 1986. A field guide to Atlantic coast fishes of North America, Boston: Miffen Company.

Rondeau, A., Comeau, M. & Surette, T., 2014. Assessment of the American Lobster (Homarus americanus)Stock Status in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (LFA 23, 24, 25, 26A and 26B), Moncton. Available at:http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/Publications/ResDocs-DocRech/2014/2014_036-eng.pdf.

SARA, 2012. Species profile: Leatherback sea turtle. Available at: http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=274. [Accessed June 10 2016].

Serchuk, F. & Cole, C., 1974. Age and growth of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus (Waldbaum), Pisces(Labridae), in the Weweantic River Estuary, Massachusetts. Chesapeake Sci., 15(4), pp.205–213.

Shaw, J., 2012. Preliminary notes on the marine geology off southwest Newfoundland, based on a mergedmultibeam/LiDAR data set; Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 6977, 24 p. doi:10.4095/290202

Shaw, J. Todd, B.J., Li, M.Z. 2012. Seascapes, Bay of Fundy offshore Nova Scotia/ New Brunswick; GeologicalSurvey of Canada, Open File 7028 scale 1:350 000. Doi 10.4095/292047

Shester, G.. & Micheli, F., 2011. Conservation challenges for small-scale fisheries: Bycatch and habitat impactsof traps and gillnets. Biological Conservation, 144, pp.1673–1681.

Silva, M.A., Tremblay, M.J. & Pezzack, D., 2012. Recent Studies of Lobster, (Homarus americanus), Size atOnset of Sexual Maturity in Nova Scotia 2008-2011: Canso, Tangier, Port Mouton and Lobster Bay - A ProgressReport, Dartmouth. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2012/2012_059-eng.pdf.

Simon, J., Rowe, S.L. & Cook, A., 2012. Pre-COSEWIC Review of Atlantic Wolffish (Anarhichas lupus), Northernwolffish (A. denticulatus), and Spotted Wolffish (A. minor) in the Maritimes Region. DFO. Can. Sci. Advis. Sec.Res. Doc. 2011/088.

Steneck, R.S., Vavrinec, J. & Leland, A. V., 2004. Accelerating trophic-level dysfunction in kelp forest ecosystemsof the Western North Atlantic. Ecosystems, 7(4), pp.323–332.

120

Sturgeon, N. 2018. North Atlantic right whale disentangled 1 week after being spotted | CBC News. [online]CBC. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/north-atlantic-right-whale-disentangled-1.4775276 [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].

Todd, B.J., Kostylev, V.E., 2011. Surficial geology and benthic habitat of the German Bank seabed, Scotian Shelf,Canada. Cont. Shelf Res. 31, S54–S68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2010.07.008

Tremblay, M.J., Pezzack, D., Denton, C., Reeves, A., Smith, S., Silva, A., and Allard, J. 2011. Framework forAssessing Lobster off the Coast of Eastern Cape Breton and the Eastern and South Shores of Nova Scotia (LFAs27-33). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2011/058: viii + 180 p.

Tremblay, M.J., Pezzack, D.S., and Gaudette, J. 2012. Development of Reference Points for Inshore Lobster inthe Maritimes Region (LFAs 27-38). DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2012/028. iv + 18 p.

Tremblay, M.J., Pezzack, D.S., Denton, C., Cassista-Da Ros, M., Smith, S., Reeves, A., Silva, A., and Armsworthy,S. 2012. Assessment of lobster off the coast of eastern Cape Breton and the eastern and south shores of NovaScotia (LFAs 27-33). Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Research Document2012/022.

Tremblay, M.J., Pezzack, D.S., Gaudette, J., Denton, C., Cassista-Da Ros, M., and Allard, J. 2013. Assessment oflobster (Homarus Americanus) off southwest Nova Scotia and the Bay of Fundy (LFA 34-38). DFO Can. Sci.Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2013/078. viii + 125 p.

Waddy, S.L., Aiken, D.E. & De Kleijn, D.P.V., 1995. Control of growth and reproduction Biology of. AcademicPress, ed., Toronto.

Warfel, H.E. & Merriman, D., 1994. The spawning habits, eggs and larvae of the sea raven, Hemitripterusamericanus in southern New England. Copeia, 4, pp.197–205.

Waring, G.T., Josephson, E., Maze-Foley, K., Rosel, P.E. 2012. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal StockAssessments – 2012., Woods Hole, MA.

Watson, F.L., Miller, R.J., Stewart, S.A. 2013.Spatial and temporal variation in size at maturity for femaleAmerican lobster in Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 70:1240-1251.

Wheeler, J., Purchase, C.F., Macdonald, P.D.M., Fill.R., Jacks, L., Wang, H., and Ye, C. 2009. Temporal changes inmaturation, mean length-at-age, and condition of spring-spawning Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) inNewfoundland waters. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 66, pp.1800–1807. Available at:http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/8/1800.abstract.

Withers, P. 2018. U.S. considers further measures to protect North Atlantic right whales | CBC News. [online]CBC. Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/north-atlantic-right-whales-conservation-u-s-1.4848141 [Accessed 9 Oct. 2018].

Worcester, T., 2013. Proceedings of a Maritimes Science Peer Review of the Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs) 34- 38Lobster (Homarus americanus) Assessment, Dartmouth. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/pro-cr/2014/2014_041-eng.pdf.

World Animal Protection, 2014. Fishing’s phantom menace, London. Available at:http://www.worldanimalprotection.se/sites/default/files/se_files/sea-change-campaign-tackling-ghost-fishing-gear.pdf.

121

WWF. 2009. Lobster fishermen testing new measures for right whale conservation. Available at:http://www.wwf.ca/?5300/. [Accessed on 10.11.2017]

Xu, C. & Schneider, D.C., 2012. Efficacy of conservation measures for the American lobster: Reproductive valueas a criterion. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69(10), pp.1831–1839.

122

Appendix A: Extra By Catch SpeciesATLANTIC ROCK CRAB



Moderate Concern

The last stock assessment for Quebec was published in 2013 and showed that in most areas, the sizestructure and average size were stable for previous years, except for the northern Gaspé Peninsula, whichexperienced decreased average size and abundance of large crabs since 2006 (DFO 2013k).

In the sGSL, there are no estimates for total biomass and landings. The only data-limited indicator that isavailable for the fishery is the bio-collector survey conducted on the PEI, which suggests very low or decliningabundance (LFAs 24, 25, 26A) (DFO 2016x).

There no stock assessments available for the East Cape Breton and South Nova Scotia or the Newfoundlandand Labrador fishery.

Rock crab are considered to have a medium vulnerability to pot fisheries in Canada (see detailed rationale forcalculation). Due to the uncertainty in the data used in the stock assessments and the lack of biologicalreference points, Seafood Watch considers the abundance of Atlantic rock crabs to be a “moderate"conservation concern.

Justification:

Assessments of rock crab stocks in Canada are generally conducted using fishery-dependent data such asCPUE, landings and logbook data. There is uncertainty associated with the logbook data, since some areconsidered to be incomplete (DFO 2016x).

sGSL: The most recent assessment gave no estimates of abundance or biomass, but suggested that becauselandings had remained fairly constant at an annual average of 4,301 t between 2000 and 2011, and becausethe total individual allocation for all licenses issued of 6,480 t was not reached, the Atlantic rock crab stockswere abundant. According to the assessment, in 2011, there was room for increased harvest as only 62% ofthe total allocation was landed (DFO 2013d).

Quebec and nGSL: In LFA 22, there is no biomass estimate, though stock assessments are conducted everythree years. Assessments use fishery-dependent data (landings from mandatory logbooks and docksidemonitoring) and fishery-independent data (from annual trawl surveys). The most recent stock assessmentshowed an average of a 33% decreases in CPUE for the years 1998 to 2011. Lower densities from trawlsurvey were detected compared to previous assessments. The size structure of the population has remainedstable since 2001 in certain areas. There were low recruitment rates in 2012 with no trend of increasingrecruitment. This has led to a decrease in quota from 558.82 t in 2013 to 486.17 t for 2014 and 2015 (Criquetand Brêthes 2015).

123

Productivity Attribute Relevant Information Score (1 = low risk, 2 = mediumrisk, 3 = high risk)

Average age at maturity 3 to 5 years (DFO 2004) Low (1)

Average maximum age 7 Years (DFO 2004) Low (1)

Fecundity 125,000 to 500,000 eggs ((DFO2004)

Low (1)

Reproductive strategy Brooder Medium (2)

Trophic level Unknown -


No density dependencedemonstrated (DFO 2004)

Medium (2)

Productivity score (1+1+1+2+2)/5 = 1.4

SusceptibilityAttribute

Relevant Information

Score (1= lowrisk, 2 =mediumrisk, 3 =high risk)

Arealoverlap


Exact overlap unknown, found in shallow coastal waters into depths of 2600 ftfrom Newfoundland to the Carolinas (DFO 2004), fished throughout its range High (3)

Verticaloverlap


Benthic invertebrate targeted using bottom-set traps. High (3)



Adults are able to escape gear through escape gaps (pers. comm., DFO2018); however, they are also retained as secondary catch or for use as bait.

Medium(2)



There are a lack of data (discards, bait use, and survival) across thesefisheries to determine the PCM. In the sGSL, all lobster licence holders (2,931in 2015) can land rock crab as bycatch or it can be used as bait. Discards arenot known in the sGSL fishery and no estimates are available for the amountof rock crab caught for bait in the lobster fishery (DFO 2016x).

High (3)

124


PSA score for rock crab in Canadian pot fisheries is calculated as follows:

Vulnerability (V) = 2.714 Therefore vulnerability of rock crab to Canadian pot fisheries is considered to be"medium."

Susceptibilityscore

[((3*3*2*3)-1)/40]+1 = 2.325


Moderate Concern

No exploitation rates or fishing mortality reference points are available for rock crabs in the regionsconsidered below. In all regions discussed, recorded landings of rock crab caught in the bycatch fishery havedeclined, which has been attributed to improvements in lobster gear (where increases in the size of escapegaps allow more rock crab to escape). However, rock crabs may represent a significant proportion of bait insome areas. There are a lack of data on the amount of rock crab used as bait. Specific to their occurrence inthe lobster fishery, studies often report that rock crab are one of the most common species captured. In manyLFAs retaining and using legal sized male rock crab as bait is very common e.g., (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain2015b).

The precise scale of rock crab caught and used as bait in the lobster fishery is unknown. Information fromdirected crab fisheries suggest that the lobster fishery is not having a negative impact on the crab stocks; yet,due to the uncertainty associated with the impact of the lobster fishery, Seafood Watch considers fishingmortality to be unknown and is scored as a “moderate" conservation concern.

Justification:

sGSL: There are no estimates of exploitation rates of rock crab in the sGSL. Data on the amount of rock crabcaught as bycatch in the lobster fishery have been collected through sales transactions. Landings of rock craboccurring as bycatch from the lobster fishery have declined steadily since 2004 (from around 1,000 t reportedin 2012 to 76 t reported in 2015 (Figure 2; (DFO 2016x)). This is most likely due to the improvements inlobster traps, which allow more rock crabs to escape; however, this has not been tested in all LFAs (DFO2016x).

These declines have also been observed in bycatch studies: the proportion of rock crabs compared to lobstercatches declined from 5.6% (216.8 MT) in 2012 to 2.2% (73.3 MT) in 2014 (Criquet and Brêthes 2016a). Rockcrab represent less than 5% of bycatch in LFAs 23, 24, 26A and 26B and 8.3% of bycatch in LFA 25 (Criquetand Brêthes 2017a).

Lobster licence holders are eligible to land rock crab as bycatch, but the proportion of lobster licence holderswho report rock crab landings has declined from 13% in 2011 to 4% in 2015 (DFO 2016x).

125

Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate

The proportion of rock crabs taken as bycatch compared to those taken in the directed fishery has declined(from 17% in 2000 to 2% in 2015). This has occurred even though the landings in the direct rock crab fisheryhave been declining (which has been managed conservatively under an individual catch allocation) (DFO2016x).

There is no estimate for the amount of rock crab caught and used as bait in the lobster fishery (DFO 2016x).In certain areas, Atlantic rock crabs are frequently used as bait, especially when access to other traditionalbaits (e.g., herring and mackerel) is difficult (DFO 2013f). There is concern that market demands for Atlanticrock crab products could drive the lobster fleet to substantially increase fishing pressure for crabs as bycatch(DFO 2013f).

Quebec: Data show that rock crab are the most abundant bycatch species by weight in the Gaspé Peninsulaand Magdalen Islands (DFO 2013k). In LFAs 19, 20, and 22 rock crab represent over 90% of the bycatch byweight in lobster traps (DFO 2012a). Since 2009, no rock crab landings that occurred through bycatch in thelobster fishery have been reported in the Quebec fishery. However, these landings data do not account for rockcrabs that have been retained for bait. There are no available data on the quantity of rock crab used for baitin the lobster fishery, yet rock crabs potentially represent significant bait quantities in certain areas (DFO2013k).

East Cape Breton: Along the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia (27, 29, 30, 31A, 31B, 32, and 33), rock crabtotaled between 0.13 to 0.5 kg/trap and was found in 20.1% of traps. It can be estimated that per 1034.78 kgof lobster retained, 29.34 kg of rock crab are also retained (or 3%) (den Heyer et al. 2010). Though studiesfrom LFA 31a and LFA 31b (Southwest Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy region) estimate that bycatch of the rockcrab can be as high as 9% (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain 2015a). The Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen'sAssociation estimates that the amount of rock crab caught as bycatch and retained as bait is approximately 18to 75% in LFA 31AB (Delorey 2011).

Southwest Nova Scotia & Bay of Fundy: Between 2014 and 2015, crab landings (including Jonah and rockcrabs) for LFA 27 to 38 were 391,137 kg. The amount that are caught in the lobster fishery is unknown.However, reports suggest that the level of exploitation is not likely to impact crab resources (considering theirconservation measures such as MLS mandatory discarding of female crabs) (Criquet and Brêthes 2016a).


< 100%




< 100%

126





< 100%




< 100%




127

ATLANTIC COD



Justification:



< 100%





Justification:



High Concern

Atlantic cod in Eastern Canada has been assessed as "endangered" by the Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (COSEWIC 2010). Therefore, Seafood Watch deems Atlantic codto be of “high” concern.

Justification:

The Atlantic cod stocks in Eastern Canada have suffered extreme biomass declines; therefore, a moratorium

128

was implemented in the early 1990s to reduce pressure on the population. Several of the more viable stocksare seeing small improvements in the health of the stock (DFO 2012b) but, in general, most stocks have yet tosee significant rebuilding.

In 2010, Atlantic cod was re-assessed and COSEWIC split the Maritimes region into two populations, theLaurentian South population and the Southern population. Both populations were considered "endangered"due to a decline in abundance and an increase in natural mortality (COSEWIC 2010) and this status stillremains in a recent report (DFO 2016w). SARA has not listed either Laurentian South or Laurentian North codpopulations (Figure 13) but the species’ enlisting has recently been considered (DFO 2016w).

Atlantic cod in the Newfoundland and Labrador region (includes 2GH, 2J3KL, and 3NO) was determined to be"endangered" in 2003 by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). In 2010,COSEWIC re-assessed the status of this population and confirmed the "endangered" status (COSEWIC 2010).This status also remains (DFO 2016w). They also determined that the Laurentian North population, whichincludes part of the southern Newfoundland area (subdivision 3Ps) and the nGSL (3Pn4RS), is "endangered."

Figure 17 Distribution of Atlantic cod in NAFO management areas: 3Ps, 3Pn, 4RS, 4X, 4V, 4W, 5Y, 5Z. Source(DFO 2015h).

129

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, QUEBEC GULF AND NORTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE

High Concern

Atlantic cod in Eastern Canada has been assessed as "endangered" by the Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (COSEWIC 2010). Therefore, Seafood Watch deems Atlantic codto be of “high” concern.

Justification:

The Atlantic cod stocks in Eastern Canada have suffered extreme biomass declines; therefore, a moratoriumwas implemented in the early 1990s to reduce pressure on the population. Several of the more viable stocksare seeing small improvements in the health of the stock (DFO 2012b) but, in general, most stocks have yet tosee significant rebuilding.

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETONCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDY

High Concern

Atlantic cod in Eastern Canada has been assessed as Endangered by the Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (COSEWIC 2010). Therefore, Seafood Watch deems Atlantic codto be of “high” concern.

Justification:

The Atlantic cod stocks in Eastern Canada have suffered extreme biomass declines; therefore, a moratoriumwas implemented in the early 1990s to reduce pressure on the population. Several of the more viable stocksare seeing small improvements in the health of the stock (DFO 2012b), but, in general, most stocks have yetto see significant rebuilding.

In 2010, Atlantic cod was re-assessed and COSEWIC split the Maritimes region into two populations, theLaurentian South population and the Southern population. Both populations were considered "endangered"due to a decline in abundance and an increase in natural mortality (COSEWIC 2010) and this status remains(Species at Risk Public Registry 2016). SARA has not listed either Laurentian South or Laurentian North codpopulations (Figure 13) but the species’ enlisting has recently been considered (Species at Risk Public Registry2016).

Cod abundance has been fluctuating at a historically low level since 2010 with little sign of recovery (DFO2015d). The 4X5Yb cod stock assessment found that the SSB=10,600 t, which is below the LRP (24,000 t)(DFO 2015a).

130


Figure 18 Distribution of Atlantic cod in NAFO management areas: 3Ps, 3Pn, 4RS, 4X, 4V, 4W, 5Y, 5Z. Source(DFO 2015h).


Low Concern

North of the Laurentian Channel, the largest threat to the recovery of cod is fishing mortality, yet south of theLaurentian Channel, increased natural mortality rates have overtaken fishing mortality as the primary threat(COSEWIC 2010). Although the bycatch of cod in commercial fisheries contributes to overfishing concerns(COSEWIC 2010), recent information suggests that lobster traps catch Atlantic cod infrequently (<1% ofobserved trap hauls, (den Heyer et al. 2010) and more recently in Eastern Nova Scotia, cod were estimated toonly represent 0.18% of the total catch weights (Criquet et al. 2015b). In a three-year SARA bycatch project,

131


cod represented 1% of the lobster catch in LFA 34 (Criquet et al. 2015b). Since there are few recentcalculated fishing mortality values for all the cod stocks (Steneck et al. 2004) in eastern Canada, but lobsterfishing forms a low contribution to total mortality (particularly compared to other gears), it is not deemed asubstantial contributor to fishing mortality of cod and therefore is deemed a "low" concern across all lobsterfishing areas.

Justification:

Fishing has been low in 3L and 3Ps in recent years (~0.01) (Figure 14) (DFO 2016p). In the 3Ps, the TAC for2016/17 is recommended at 13,043 t (DFO 2016o). Estimated total mortality has been increasing since 1997.Annual mortality is considered to be high, though traps are not expected to cause mortality as much as othergears such as gill nets (DFO 2016p).

Figure 19 Trends in population-weighted fishing mortality rates (fishing mortality, F, left panel) and naturalmortality (M, right panel). Dark lines are the age-aggregated model estimates (solid lines for ages 5-14),dashed lines in left panel for ages 7-9) and grey lines are the 95% CI’s. Source (DFO 2016p).


< 100%




< 100%

There is no bycatch/discard and bait study for the region. However, neighboring fisheries (including the GaspéPeninsula Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment records that bait usually comprises mostly mackerel(75%), sGSL fall-spawning herring and some rock crab (Criquet et al. 2015c) where rock crab equated to

132

around 1% of lobster landings. In the Gaspésie MSC fishery, 823 t of mackerel bait were recorded to be usedin 2016 while 1,926 t lobster were landed (Criquet and Brêthes 2017b), which equates to nearly 43%. Bait usehas apparently decreased over the past 10 years. In 2012, it was estimated to equal around 92% of thelobster catch and from DFO e-log data from 2015, was considered to form around 62% of lobster catches(Criquet and Brêthes 2016b).




< 100%




< 100%





133

LEATHERBACK TURTLE


Justification:



< 100%





Justification:



High Concern

Leatherback turtle is listed as endangered under the SARA, which has a recovery strategy for the species(Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team 2006). It is also listed by the IUCN Red list as a "CriticallyEndangered" species of wild fauna and flora, and is listed in CITES under Appendix I (Criquet, Brêthes, andAllain 2015a).

134

Due to its conservation status, Seafood Watch deems leatherback turtle abundance as a "high" concern.

Justification:

Leatherback turtles are protected in Canada under SARA. They nest predominantly in French Guiana andSuriname in South America, but migrate to Atlantic Canadian waters to forage. The majority of turtles arepresent from June to November. Leatherbacks are specialist animals who feed largely on jellyfish (Heaslip etal. 2012) and other soft bodied invertebrates (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team 2006). The majorityof the threat (70%) to the leatherback turtle population occurs in their nesting area; their nests aresusceptible to flooding and erosion (Atlantic Leatherback Turtle Recovery Team 2006).

One of the key challenges in the recovery of the Atlantic leatherback turtle is the lack of information regardingtheir biology, distribution, habitat preferences, and threats. Specifically, the size of the leatherback populationhas yet to be determined; however, 300 leatherback turtle sightings were documented by the Nova ScotiaLeatherback Turtle Working Group (NSLTWG) during 1998 and 1999. The NSLTWG group was initiated inAtlantic Canada to investigate the distribution of leatherback turtles in the northwest Atlantic (James 2000).Most of the information collected comes from sightings by commercial fishers (Atlantic Leatherback TurtleRecovery Team 2006).

Population estimates in the North Atlantic range from 34,000 to 94,000 adults (both for males and females)and show stable or increasing trends (COSEWIC 2012a). The leatherback turtle population in Atlantic Canadais "cautiously considered stable" with 15,000 females (SARA 2012).

The Gulf of St. Lawrence, off Eastern Cape Breton Island, including Sydney Bight, the Cabot Strait, areaswithin the Magdalen Shallows, and areas near the Laurentian Channel have been identified as suitable andvisited habitat by the leatherback turtle (DFO 2011a). They have a high probability of inhabiting the CapeBreton area (Figure 15) (Criquet, Brêthes, and Allain 2015a).

135


Figure 20 Relative probability of residency estimated from 70 leatherback turtles equipped with satellite tags.Red polygons are areas of aggregated residency probabilities of =0.4 for all satellite tracked turtles Source(Criquet, Brêthes & Allain 2015a).


Moderate Concern

There is a dearth of reliable information due to lack of observer coverage for the lobster fisheries. Roughestimates of mortality rates for fixed-gear fisheries are 20 to 70% (DFO 2013h).

A recent study evaluating the causes of leatherback sea turtle entanglements estimated that of 174 reportedturtle entanglements, 85% were reported to be alive and successfully released. However, the reports showstrong biases towards reporting successful releases, and the study found that the number of deaths resultingfrom entanglements in fixed-gear fisheries have been “grossly underestimated”; the true mortality rate isunknown. Pot fisheries account for over 44% of entanglements in fishing gear and inshore lobster pot gearwas the second most commonly reported fishing gear. Though pot fisheries often cannot be attributed to their

136


specific type (i.e., lobster, crab, or whelk), leatherback turtles have been reported entangled in the offshorelobster fishery (Hamelin et al. 2017).

Since the level of fishing mortality is unknown, but unlikely to be a major contributor to overall mortality,Seafood Watch deems fishing mortality as a “moderate" concern.

Justification:

There is very little information regarding the interactions of leatherback turtles and fixed gear in general andwith lobster gear specifically. Incidental entanglement of endangered (schedule 1, SARA) leatherback turtles(Dermochelys coriacea) in lobster gear (primarily via buoy lines encircling the front flippers and often also theneck) has occurred in many LFAs including LFA 25, 27, 30 to 34, and 41 (Hamelin et al. 2017). Sightings ofleatherback turtles are concentrated on the Scotian Shelf, but extend to the coast of Quebec, the north coastof Newfoundland, and the slope south of Nova Scotia (CSAS 2012).

The proportion of entangled leatherbacks found alive versus dead is not known; however, since inshorelobster gear is normally checked daily, many turtles are released alive. Entanglement around the neck, and/orrepeated rolling, a response to entanglement that results in additional wraps of line around the limbs, etc.,can prove fatal, even in a short time period, particularly when turtles are initially caught at low tide. Onceentangled, turtles are typically unable to free themselves, and even if they do break free, they exhibit reducedfeeding efficiency, impaired locomotion, exertion myopathy, and deadly infections. True mortality rate isunknown, but mortality is assumed to be higher among fixed gear-associated interactions compared to othergears (Hamelin et al. 2017).


< 100%




< 100%


137




< 100%




< 100%





Justification:

To determine discard mortality, more studies are required to understand discard mortality of sublegal sizedlobsters. Natural mortality changes dependent on many factors including lobster size (Tremblay et al. 2013)and tagging studies show that multiple captures may increase the damage and stress of molting lobsters (aprocess that undersized lobsters frequently undergo) (Pezzack et al. 2014). When lobsters have finishedmolting, they have a soft shell and experience higher levels of mortality at this time (Blyth-Skyrme et al.

138

CUSK


2015b).


< 100%





Justification:


CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDYCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETON

High Concern

Cusk is caught as bycatch in the lobster fishery and is considered an endangered species under COSEWIC. Itis not listed under SARA (DFO 2017k). In the last stock assessment (2017), based in the 4VWX5Z region, thecurrent 3-year geometric mean (2013 to 2015) of the cusk biomass index was estimated to be 15.1 kg, whichis slightly above the LRP (13.3kg) (DFO 2017). Due to its conservation status, Seafood Watch scores cuskabundance as a “high" concern.

Justification:

Cusk are most abundant in the Gulf of Maine and the southern Scotian Shelf of southwest Nova Scotia,extending from the Fundian Channel and Browns Bank to Emerald, Western, and Sable island banks. Theyoccur rarely in the deep waters along the edge of the continental shelf of Newfoundland and Labrador(COSEWIC 2012b).

Cusk in the Gulf of Maine and Scotian shelf have been declining since 1970, with the mature portion decliningby approximately 85% over three generations (COSEWIC 2012b). The DFO multi-species trawl survey reportsthat catches of cusk have declined throughout the series in all areas. In 4X East, biomass remained low for

139


2010, but in 4X West biomass increased to its highest level since 2001 (Clark and Emberley 2011). Althoughthe abundance of cusk has declined over the course of the trawl survey time series (beginning in 1970, (Clarkand Emberley 2011), it is estimated that the Scotia-Fundy region has experienced a 93% decline in cuskpopulations from 1970 to 2001. There are some unknowns regarding the degree to which it has declined(Harris and Hanke 2010).

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDYCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETON

Moderate Concern

Cusk caught in lobster pots must be discarded, and as a result lobster fisheries are no longer a main source oflandings and landings have been declining in recent years (at 165 MT in 2016 in area 4VWX5Z (DFO 2017k)) (DFO 2016n). Groundfish longline and lobster pots are considered to be the greatest threats (using recordedlandings and discard data respectively) (DFO 2014g). There is a lack of recent evidence to show that cuskbycatch in lobster fisheries has reduced across all areas: the most recent data are from 2009 and show thatcusk bycatch in LFA 34 represented around 44.38% of cusk landings from area 4X5YZ (DFO 2016n).

The last stock assessment showed that mean cusk CPUE is at or above the LRP for the last 3 years (Kinnie2001), but considers that the population can sustain these levels of fishing mortality, since their population hasfluctuated largely with no trends for 14 years (DFO 2014b) (Criquet, Brêthes and Allain 2015a).

Subsequent discarding of cusk in lobster fisheries is "likely" to represent a significant proportion of totalcatches of cusk across all fisheries (COSEWIC 2012b). The lobster fishery is potentially still a substantialcontributor to cusk mortality in some areas. In the absence of data regarding recent bycatch of cusk inMaritimes, this cannot be determined. Fishing mortality relative to reference points is not known for thefisheries. Therefore, bycatch of cusk is scored "moderate" concern.

Justification:

The recent COSEWIC assessment states that overfishing remains the most important threat to cusk. There isessentially no directed fishing for the species, but in years previous to the last assessment, approximately 500t/year were landed in fisheries for cod, haddock, pollock, and Atlantic halibut (COSEWIC 2012b). Althoughcusk landings are highest in the Maritimes region, landings in the Gulf and Newfoundland are minimal (DFO2014c).

Cusk represent a small proportion of lobster bycatch: Pezzack et al (2014) estimated that cusk represented 8 t(0.03 %) of bycatch in LFAs 27 to 33 and 219 t (1.1%) in LFA 34. From 2000 to 2010, cusk bycatch variedbetween 215 to 255 t in LFA 34; catches in LFA 33 were generally <10 t/year during this period (COSEWIC2012b).

Cusk bycatch in LFA 34 in 2009 were 219.5 t while cusk landings in 2009 for 4X5YZ (LFA 33 to 40) were 535 t(DFO 2016n). However, cusk landings have been steadily decreasing in recent years from 1018 MT in 2007 to189 MT in 2015 (DFO 2017k).

Mortality rates of cusk caught in lobster traps were, at a minimum, 49% and 86% for LFA 34, respectively;these estimates are likely low considering the potential for post-release mortality of remaining cusk (Harrisand Hanke 2010).

140


Figure 21 The green dashed line represents the USR, the red dotted line represents the LRP, the bluediamonds represent the biomass for the cusk in the habitat survey (with 95% confidence interval) and heavyblue line represents the 3 year-geometric mean of the index. Source (DFO 2016n).


< 100%





Justification:


141

WHITE HAKE



< 100%





Justification:



High Concern

The Atlantic and nGSL population is considered threatened by COSEWIC and the Southern Gulf of St.Lawrence population is endangered (COSEWIC) (Species at Risk Public Registry 2016).

In Division 4Z5Z (which covers the much of the Southwest Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy fishery), recruitmentof juveniles remains high over the past two decades. Adult abundance is above the recovery target (whereabundance targets correspond to an increase to sustained abundance at or above 40% B ) when currentfishing rates continue. Across all sizes, there has been a 68% reduction over the 31 years when surveys wereconducted. Adult and juvenile abundance has fluctuated dramatically over the study period. Recent DFO advicesuggests that white hake biomass is expected to increase at under recent fishing mortality rates (DFO 2016k).

MSY

142



Due to the species conservation status, Seafood Watch deems the abundance as “high" concern.


Low Concern

The amount of adult white hake are reported to be very rarely encountered through the trap fishery (Benoît etal. 2011). The vast majority of white hake is caught in trawl and bottom-set gillnet and longline fisheries(Simon et al. 2012).

In the NAFO management area 4X5Zc, around 600t of white hake were landed in 2014 (DFO 2016k). The LFA34 lobster fishery caught around 223kg of white hake in 2009–2010 (DFO 2014d) while ~1200 t of white hakewere caught in the 4X5Zc over this time (DFO 2016k). This corresponds to ~0.02% of white hakecatches. The relative fishing mortality of white hake is below the long-term average since 2005.

The precise amount of white hake caught in the lobster fishery compared to white hake landings is unknown;however, the lobster fishery is not considered a substantial contributor to white hake mortality. Therefore,fishing mortality is considered as a “low" concern.

Justification:

Within the Southwest Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy area, division 4X5Zc has an 84% probability ofmaintaining SSB above the recovery target under current fishing mortality, which is a similar probabilityencountered when F = 0. The primary source of mortality in division 4X5Zc was natural mortality. This wassuggested due to the occurrence of high mortality estimates, while maintaining low relative fishing mortalityvalues (DFO 2016k).


< 100%





Justification:

To determine discard mortality, more studies are required to understand discard mortality of sublegal-sizedlobsters. Natural mortality changes dependent on many factors including lobster size (Tremblay et al. 2013)and tagging studies show that multiple captures may increase the damage and stress of molting lobsters (a

143

WOLFFISH (UNSPECIFIED)



process that undersized lobsters frequently undergo) (Pezzack et al. 2014). When lobsters have finishedmolting, they have a soft shell and experience higher levels of mortality at this time (Blyth-Skyrme et al.2015b).

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETONCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDY

High Concern

Three species of wolffish are found in the Canadian Atlantic and are known to interact with lobster fisheries.

Atlantic Wolffish

The Atlantic wolffish are a species of special concern under the SARA register. The Atlantic wolffish has nobiological reference points. The estimated abundance in Canadian waters is > 49 million including five millionmature individuals. Abundance estimates host high levels of uncertainty. There is currently no sign of acontinuing decline of mature individuals and the factors contributing to their population decline have ceased(COSEWIC 2000).

Spotted Wolffish

The spotted wolffish is estimated to have an abundance of >5 million individuals (mature and juveniles) (DFO2016o). The spotted wolffish is designated as threatened under the SARA register.

Northern Wolffish

The northern wolffish is designated as threatened under the species at risk act (SARA) following declines inabundance during the 1980s (COSEWIC 2012e). Populations appear to have stabilized; however, it is unclearwhether the causes for the decline have been removed, and although there are no targeted fisheries (wolffishhas no commercial value) bycatch in other fisheries is considered a continued threat to their populations(COSEWIC 2012e).

Due to the conservation concerns surrounding the three wolffish species, Seafood Watch considers abundanceto be a "high" concern.

CANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, EASTERN CAPE BRETONCANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCECANADA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, CANADA, SOUTHWEST NOVA SCOTIA AND BAY OF FUNDY

Low Concern

There are no fishing mortality rates available as recording of wolffish species is not required in many fisheries(Criquet and Brêthes 2014). Based on the information from SARA logbooks for 2012 to 2014, there are about1–2 interactions per year with SARA species, most of which are with wolffish, which are swiftly and carefullyreturned to the water, alive (Criquet and Brêthes 2016a).

144


Kulka et al (2007) recorded that a yearly average (between 1995 and 2012) of 1537kg of wolffish (~1% of allwolfish landings) were caught in pots (Kulka et al. 2007). From 2007 to 2011, 4 spotted wolffish, 3 Northernwolffish and 7 Atlantic wolffish were caught by PRI lobster harvesters (Criquet and Brêthes 2014). In the 3Lmanagement region (LFAs 5 to 8) pots were responsible for 1% of wolffish catches (DFO 2008a). Therefore,the lobster fishery is not a substantial contributor to wolffish mortality. Seafood Watch deems fishing mortalityas a “low" concern.

Justification:

The largest threats to the spotted wolffish are mainly via bycatch in commercial fisheries, though fishingintensity has decreased substantially after closure of groundfish fisheries and the implementation of a landingban. Climate change is also considered to contribute to their decline (COSEWIC 2012d). There is no directfishery for wolffish in Canada. Mortality is largely attributable to incidental capture, particularly in trawlfisheries, though the scale of mortality is not known (Kulka et al. 2007). Although management plans requirethat wolffish are returned back to the water quickly and carefully to ensure maximum survival rates, theirpost-release mortality rate is unknown. (Grant et al. 2005) suggests that their survival rates are highercompared to other fish species (COSEWIC 2000) and a recent study showed that post-capture mortality forthese species was zero (Criquet and Brêthes 2017a).


< 100%





Justification:

To determine discard mortality, more studies are required to understand discard mortality of sublegal sizedlobsters. Natural mortality changes dependent on many factors including lobster size (Tremblay et al. 2013)and tagging studies show that multiple captures may increase the damage and stress of molting lobsters (aprocess that undersized lobsters frequently undergo) (Pezzack et al. 2014). When lobsters have finished

145

FIN WHALE


molting, they have a soft shell and experience higher levels of mortality at this time (Blyth-Skyrme et al.2015b).


< 100%




< 100%





Justification:


146




High Concern

Fin Whales are listed as a species of "special concern" by SARA (since 2005) (DFO 2017x). They are listed inAppendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)(DFO 2017x) and are listed as "Endangered" by the IUCN (Reilly et al. 2013).

The most recent estimate of their total population in Atlantic Canadian waters (based on aerial surveys) is 890individuals (off the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador), and 462 individuals (GSL and the ScotianShelf) (Lawson and Gosselin 2009).

Due to their conservation status, fin whales are deemed as a "high" conservation concern.


Low Concern

Between 2010 and 2014, the incidental fishery interaction in Canadian waters averaged 0.8 per year, withcumulative fisheries interactions resulting in an average of 1.8 serious injuries or mortalities. The PBR iscalculated at 2.5 (Hayes et al. 2017). Since both lobster fishery and cumulative fisheries impacts are belowthe PBR, Seafood Watch deems fishing mortality as a "low" concern.

In a recently published management plan for the fin whale in Atlantic Canada, the level of concern forentanglement in fishing gear was deemed to be "low" (Table 1;(DFO 2017x)). Entanglement in fishing gearwas not "believed to seriously threaten the population" (DFO 2017x).

Justification:

It is difficult to determine the extent of entanglement, and therefore fishing mortality, because manyentanglements go unreported or unnoticed (DFO 2017x). Four confirmed human-caused mortality and seriousinjury records of fin whales were reported between 2010 and 2014 (Hayes et al. 2017). Fin whales areconsidered more likely to escape from fishing gears when entangled (compared to smaller-bodied whales);however, entanglement may still cause considerable injury to fin whales (DFO 2017x).


< 100%

Throughout the Maritimes region (which includes LFAs 27 to 38), bait comprises the following species andamounts (mackerel, 8153 t; rock crab, 5512 t; herring, 7601 t), totaling 21,266 t in 2012 (Criquet, Brêthes,

147

and Allain 2015b). Throughout this season, 40,862 t of lobster were landed in the Maritimes region (Criquetand Brêthes 2016a). Therefore, mackerel, herring and rock crab represented 20%, 19%, and 13% of lobsterlandings. Overall bait use represented 52% of lobster landings.




Justification:



< 100%




< 100%

There is no bycatch/discard and bait study for the region. However, neighboring fisheries (including the GaspéPeninsula Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment records that bait usually comprises mostly mackerel(75%), sGSL fall-spawning herring and some rock crab (Criquet et al. 2015c) where rock crab equated toaround 1% of lobster landings. In the Gaspésie MSC fishery, 823 t of mackerel bait were recorded to be usedin 2016 while 1,926 t lobster were landed (Criquet and Brêthes 2017b), which equates to nearly 43%. Bait use

148

has apparently decreased over the past 10 years. In 2012, it was estimated to equal around 92% of thelobster catch and from DFO e-log data from 2015, was considered to form around 62% of lobster catches(Criquet and Brêthes 2016b).




< 100%




< 100%





Justification:


149

Appendix B:In the Bay of Fundy, Scotian Shelf, and Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence lobster trap fisheries, new researchprograms are running from (2014 to 2018) and were planned by the DFO, industry, and the provincialgovernments. The six research activities concern monitoring and lobster stock assessment and include an at-sea sampling program, recruitment index monitoring program, benthic recruitment monitoring program, fishery-independent trawl survey, coastal temperature monitoring program and an assessment and science advicescheme. There are eleven additional research projects including:1. Lobster Fishery Bycatch (2015 to 2017)2. Female Reproductive Biology (2014 to 2017)3. Research on Adaptation to Climate Changes (2014 to 2017)4. Interaction between Aquaculture and Lobster Habitat (2015 to 2018)5. New Method to Collect Benthic Recruitment Indices (2014 to 2018)6. Population Connectivity (2014 to 2018)7. Larval seeding (2014 to 2018)8. Environment quality (2014 to 2018)9. Ecological bait (2014 to 2018)10. Lobster quality assessment (BRIX) (2014 to 2016)11. Electronic logbook (2014 to 2018) (Criquet and Brêthes 2016a).

150

Appendix C:

Region

FishingSeason(LFAdependent)

No. ofLicenses

TrapLimit

MLS(mm)

50%SAM(mm)

MLS>SAM? Max. legalsize

Releaseofberriedfemales

Newfoundlandand Labrador

April–July 2450 100–300

82.5 80.5–81.5

Yes

127mm (Xuand Schneider2012)

Yes

151

Quebec andNorthern Gulfof St.Lawrence

May–August ~475

Mixed(435inLFAs20,21)

82 mm inLFAs 15and 16and at 83mm inLFAs 17,18, 19

90(withinLFAs15–18)

~82(LFAs19–21)

79–84(LFA22)

Yes and NoOnly in LFA20(145mm)

Yes

153

Southern Gulfof St.Lawrence

April–July.LFA 25extends toOctober

~2386 >300 82.5 ~72 Yes 114mm inLFA 25

Yes

Eastern CapeBreton,Eastern &South ShoreNova Scotia

Nov–May(LFA 34) 1611

250–275

82.5–84dependingon LFA

70–101 to*2

Unknown135mm inLFA 30 Yes

154

SouthwestNova Scotiaand Bay ofFundy

35: Fall:Oct–Dec & Feb–July 36: Nov–Dec &March–June.38B: June–Nov

408(LFAs35–38) +985 (LFA34)

>400 82.5

90mm–105mm

No No Yes

155

Appendix D:Detailed analysis of herring stock status and the impact of commercial fisheries in the Canadian Atlantic.

West coast of Newfoundland Factor 2.1 AbundanceKey relevant information: A sequential population analysis (SPA) found that the spring-spawning stock has collapsed and the spawningbiomass is below the LRP of 37,000 t. The total biomass index for spring-spawning stock using the 2015acoustic survey was estimated at 1088 t (DFO 2016d). Alternatively, the SPA for the fall-spawning stock has experienced a strong increase from 2003 to 2010, buthas experienced a subsequent decrease until 2015. However, model outputs vary depending on the data used,which creates uncertainty in the current biomass estimates. Two main models agree that the current SSB isabove the LRP (48,000 t) and URP (61,000 t) (Figure 21). The total biomass index was 87,997 t and hasremained between 77,111 t and 110,677 t since 2009. However, if the older fish populations continue to decline,with an absence of significant recruitment, the likelihood of the biomass being above the URP may decreaseover the next two years (DFO 2016d).

Figure 26 SSB estimated using sequential population analysis for the spring and fall spawers using acousticsurvey data from 1989 to 2015. The dashed line represents the retrospective pattern observed when excludingthe 2015 acoustic survey. Horizontal dashed lines: upper reference points. Horizontal dashed lines: limitreference points. Source: (DFO 2016d)

.

Since the spring component has crashed, Seafood Watch deems the abundance as a “high" concern. The fallcomponent is above the URP and LRP, though there is no evidence to ensure that this is compatible with theabundance requirements for forage species, which ensures that reference points are appropriate for thespecies’ ecological role (there must be at least 40% of virgin or unfished biomass (B ) left in the water)(DFO2016d). There is also some uncertainty in the assessments. Factor 2.2 Fishing MortalityKey relevant information: High Concern

0

156

Herring are managed by a TAC of 20,000 t. The average annual landings have been around 16,000 t since1975, caught mainly by purse seine gears (~13,000 t) (Figure 22). Traps contribute to the least landingscontributing to around 2.95%; gillnet contributes to 5.4% of annual herring catches (Table 2 in (DFO 2016d)).The volume that has been used for bait is not discussed. Since fishing mortality is unknown and the species is aforage species, Seafood Watch deems fishing mortality as a “high" concern.

Figure 27 Herring cumulative commercial landings (t) per fishing gear for the west coast of newfoundland NAFOdivision 4R from 1966 to 2015. Source: (DFO 2016d)

.

East and South Newfoundland and Labrador Factor 2.1 AbundanceKey relevant information: Moderate Concern Trends are summarized for each area using the table below (Table 8). There are no reference points for theEast and South Coast herring stocks; however, data are available to identify trends. Generally, there are positivetrends except for Fortune Bay.

In 2015, there was a broad age distribution and multiple year classes above the long-term mean except inFortune Bay. The L decreased from late 1980s to 1990s, but has generally increased since 1996. The size-at-age has been stable since the 2000s. Various data sources exhibit positive abundance trends in all areas exceptFortune Bay. Recruitment shows positive trends in Bonavista Bay – Trinity Bay, but negative trends in FortuneBay. Due to changing environmental conditions, the herring spawning stock has changed from being dominatedby a spring spawner stock to a fall spawner stock in all areas except Fortune Bay (DFO 2017b).

There is a mix of positive and negative biomass indicators. A PSA has determined the vulnerability of thespecies as medium (DFO 2015g). Since the species is not highly vulnerable, but there are conflicting data-limited indicators, Seafood Watch deems abundance as a “moderate” concern.

Table 8. Stock status trends per HFA Source: (DFO 2015g)

50

AREA STOCK STATUS AND INDEX TRENDS

157

Productivity Score

Fortune Bay

The spring research gillnet program stock status index showed a declining trend since2010.Projections for the stock based on catch rates at ages 4 to 6 are poor.Commercial catch is dominated (80%) by age-11+ herring spring spawners in 2014 and2015.Gillnet fisheries show declining abundance (2001 to 2015).Bar seine fisheries have shown increasing abundance since 2013.The spring research gillnet program have shown combined catch rates at well below thetime series average since 2011 and is highly skewed towards age-11+ spring spawnerssince 2013.Recruitment of age 4 herring has been extremely poor (2003 to 2015) but was aboveaverage in 2016.

St. Mary’sBay –Placentia Bay

Acoustic survey in 2016 showed a biomass of slightly below the mean acoustic surveyvalues in Placentia Bay from 1986 and 2000.Commercial samples were dominated by age-11+ fall spawners, while bait samples hada broad age range, over half of which were fall spawners.Purse seine fisheries showed an increase in abundance (2013 to 2015).Gillnet fisheries showed a decrease in abundance (2012 to 2015).

BonavistaBay – TrinityBay

The age distribution is stable with several strong year classes and broad age ranges.Recruitment is above average for fall spawners and average for spring spawners.The stock status index shows an increasing trend in abundance over the past 5 years.

White Bay –Notre DameBay

Stock status could not be assessed, since there is no fishery-independent dataabundance index.Purse and tuck seine fisheries show increasing abundance in 2015.Gillnet fisheries show increasing abundance (2011 to 2014), but decreasing in 2015.

ConceptionBay

No stock status due to no fishery-independent index of abundance.Age distribution in the commercial fishery dominated by the 2008 fall year class, but witha broad distribution in 2015.All fleets show increasing abundance (2014–2015).


RELEVANT INFORMATION SCORE (1 = LOW RISK, 2 = MEDIUM RISK, 3= HIGH RISK)


2.8 years (Wheeler et al. 2009) Low (1)

Average maximumage

15 to 18 years (Anthony 1972) Medium (2)

158

Susceptibility Score Table

V = √ P +S V = √ 1.43 + 2.325V = √ 2.04 + 5.406V = √ 7.446V = 2.72 = Medium Vulnerability Factor 2.2 Fishing Mortality

Key relevant information: High Concern

Average maximumsize

45.0 cm SL male/unsexed (Fishbase2016)

Low (1)

Average size atmaturity

25cm (Wheeler et al. 2009) Low (1)

Fecundity 20,000 to 100,000 oocytes (Gaudianet al. 2016)

Low (1)


Broadcast spawner Low (1)

Trophic level 3.87 (Gaudian et al. 2016) High (3)

Productivity score (1+2+1+1+1+1+3)/7 = 1.43



Areal Overlap >30% of the species concentration is fished, considering all fisheries. High (3)

Vertical Overlap High degree of overlap between fishing depths and depth range ofspecies

High (3)


Individuals are retained below size at maturation. For example, 60% ofoverall TAC by number in 2010 were two-year-olds (Gaudian et al. 2016).However, gill nets in the fishery are very size selective with a substantialproportion of the catch (96%) being age 5 or over (DFO 2015b)

Medium (2)


Species is retained High (3)

Susceptibilityscore

[((3*3*2*3)-1)/40]+1 = 2.325

2 2

2 2

159

The bait fishery landings are not reported, and instead are estimated via annual telephone survey, and logbookshave been required to be completed as part of licence conditions since 2017. Bait removals (Table 9), representaround 702t or 11% of landings. Discard levels are high and extremely variable (representing between 5% toover 50% in recent years (DFO 2017b).

Since fishing mortality isn’t known, there remains high uncertainty in mortality assessments, and herring are aforage species, Seafood Watch deems fishing mortality as a “high" concern.

Justification

The current combined TAC for all stock areas is 14,291 t, mainly caught using purse and tuck seines (Figure23). The gillnet bait fishery occurs in the spring (DFO 2017b).

Table 9. Herring bait and where it has been landed. Source (DFO 2017b).

Figure 28 Commercial landings by stock areas and total TAC (left) and gear type since 1988 (right) (note 2016landings are preliminary. Source (DFO 2017b)

AREAAMOUNT LANDEDAS BAIT (YEAR)

TOTALLANDINGS

% OFTOTALLANDINGS

ESTIMATED DISCARDS ANDSURVIVAL

Fortune Bay 128 t (2016) 137 t 93% No information available

St. Mary’s Bay –Placentia Bay

180 t (2016) 539 t 33% Purse seine fishers estimated 60 t ofdiscards in 2013 with 90% survival.

Bonavista Bay –Trinity Bay


White Bay –Notre Dame Bay


Conception Bay-Southern Shore

81 t (2016) 480 t 17% No information available

160

.

Quebec and Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, trap. Factor 2.1 AbundanceKey relevant information: High ConcernThis stock assessment does not look at the whole Quebec area, and instead reflects the area of LFAs 15–18.Catches are dominated by age-10+ herring. There has been no significant recruitment since 2005. The coastalacoustic survey in fall 2016 in 4S showed that the total biomass index is estimated at 830 t for spring spawnersand 21,477 t for fall spawners. Since it was the first survey, there are no trends in the population available. Inacoustic surveys conducted in area 4Sw between 2009 and 2016, there has been almost a completedisappearance of spring-spawning herring and a sharp decrease in fall-spawning herring abundance (DFO2017c).

Since the stock is dominated by age-10+ herring, there has been no significant recruitment since 2005 andabundance (indicated by 4Sw acoustic surveys) has shown declines, Seafood Watch deems abundance as a“high" concern. Factor 2.2 Fishing MortalityKey relevant information: High ConcernFishing mortality is unknown relative to reference points. There have been significantly increasing catches since2011, reaching 4,022 t in 2016, slightly exceeding the TAC (4,000 t). The stock assessment states that thecurrent catch levels in 4Sw may result in local depletion of the herring stock. Bait catches have not beenconsidered in this figure and therefore mortality may be underestimated. The majority of catches occur in thepurse seine fishery in area 4Sw. The stock assessment recommends that the TAC should not be increased andif effort is not reduced in 4Sw, the TAC should be reduced (DFO 2017c).

Reference points are unknown and herring are a forage fish; therefore, Seafood Watch deems fishing mortalityas a “high" concern. Eastern Cape Breton, Eastern & South Shore Nova Scotia /Northwest Atlantic, trap.Southwest Nova Scotia and Bay of Fundy /Northwest Atlantic, trap 4VWX herring (SWNS/BoF spawning component, Offshore Scotian Shelf spawning component,Coastal NS spawning component, SWNB migrant juveniles) Factor 2.1 AbundanceKey relevant information: Moderate ConcernThe 4VWX herring fishery comprises four components (Table 10). For most areas, biomass is unknown relativeto reference points and two areas lack enough data-limited indicators to determine stock trends. Areas thathave undergone biomass surveys show mixed results: the Southwest Nova Scotia / Bay of Fundy SpawningComponent shows declines in 3-year moving average spawning stock biomass but broad age ranges, while theCoastal Nova Scotia show increases in biomass in one area, and declines in the other (DFO 2017a).

Biomass relative to reference points is unknown and herring are a forage fish, therefore Seafood Watch deemsabundance as a “high" concern.

Table 10. Abundance trend per HFA. Source: (DFO 2017a).

161

Figure 29 Relative SSB index, the calculated 3-year moving average, the average since 1999, and the LRP forSouthwest Nova Scotia/ BoF spawning component (German Bank and Scots Bay). Source: (DFO 2016a)

.}

SPAWNINGCOMPONENT

TREND

SouthwestNova Scotia /Bay of Fundy

Acoustic surveys showed general declines in the spawning stock by 29%. The 3-year movingaverage decreased from 13% above the LRP in 2014 to 11% above LRP in 2016. There havebeen broad age ranges within commercial catches.

OffshoreScotian Shelf

There are a lack of data for this stock. The catch predominantly comprises adults age-4, 5,6 herring.

Coastal NovaScotia

There were mixed results for trends in biomass: biomass in Little Hope was below the 5-year average; however, biomass in Eastern Shore was well above the 5-year average. Nodata are available for the Bras d’Or Lakes since 2000; however, this area is closed to herringfishing.

SouthwestNewBrunswickMigrantJuveniles

There are a lack of data regarding abundance.

162

Figure 30 Herring landings (000't) from Southwest New Brunswick weird and shutoff fishery from 1963-2015with long-term average and 10-year moving average. Source: (DFO 2016a)

.}

A recent MSC report (Gaudian et al. 2016) shows that the Southwest Nova Scotia / Bay of Fundy (SWNS/BoF)spawning component has been of concern over recent decades. Stock status reports have shown a need toallow the stock to rebuild in numerous reports: (DFO 2001, 2002, 2003a, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009b,2010, 2011, 2013). However, apart from in 2010, the 3-year moving average has been above the LRP since2001 (Gaudian et al. 2016).

There are mixed results for abundance: the SW Nova Scotia / Bay of Fundy show that the 3-year movingaverage for the acoustic surveys estimate is slightly over the LRP, though most areas have unknown abundance,a PSA has been used and has determined its vulnerability status as medium. Since there are conflicting results,abundance is deemed a “moderate” concern. Productivity Score


RELEVANT INFORMATION SCORE (1 = LOW RISK, 2 = MEDIUM RISK, 3= HIGH RISK)


2.8 years (Wheeler et al. 2009) Low (1)

Average maximumage

15 to 18 years (Anthony 1972) Medium (2)

Average maximumsize

45.0 cm SL male/unsexed (Fishbase2016)

Low (1)

Average size atmaturity

25 cm (Wheeler et al. 2009) Low (1)

Fecundity 20,000 to 100,000 oocytes (Gaudianet al. 2016)

Low (1)

163

Susceptibility score table

V = 2.72 = Medium Vulnerability Factor 2.2 Fishing MortalityKey relevant information: High ConcernIn the Maritimes region, there are around 1200 bait license holders though the number of licenses for theSouthwest Nova Scotia / Bay of Fundy area is unknown.

The average exploitation rate for this area has ranged between 10 to 25% between 1999 and 2012. Values for2012 were similar to those in years 2014 (Gaudian et al. 2016) (Figure 26) and 2015 (DFO 2016a). However,relative exploitation rates (based on acoustic SSB and landings data), had increased in 2016 from 2015values (DFO 2017a). In the Southwest New Brunswick Migrant Juveniles component, landings data showedgeneral declines since the early 1990’s. However, the 2016 landings show recent improvements since itshistorically low landings in 2015. In the offshore Scotian Shelf Spawning Component, landings have decreasedfrom averages of 38,000 t (average in 1970 to 1979) to 1,000 t (2016) (DFO 2017a).


Broadcast spawner Low (1)

Trophic level 3.87 (Gaudian et al. 2016) High (3)

Productivity score (1+2+1+1+1+1+3)/7 = 1.43



Areal overlap

>30% of the species concentration is fished, considering all fisheries. High (3)

Verticaloverlap

High degree of overlap between fishing depths and depth range ofspecies High (3)


Individuals are retained below size at maturation. For example, 60% ofoverall TAC by number in 2010 were two-year-olds (Gaudian et al.2016). However, gill nets in the fishery are very size selective with asubstantial proportion of the catch (96%) being age 5 or over (DFO2015b).

Medium (2)


Species is retained (Gaudian et al. 2016) High (3)

Susceptibilityscore

[((3*3*2*3)-1)/40]+1 = 2.325

164

Figure 31 Relative exploitation rate for the SWNS/BoF spawning component using overall catch as a proportionof overall acoustic SSB. Source: (Gaudian et al. 2016)

.}

Although exploitation rates have been determined for some components of the stock, the recent stockassessment deems fishing mortality as unknown (DFO 2017a). Since herring are a forage fish, Seafood Watchdeems fishing mortality as a “high" concern.

165