CTFishTalk.com: So. New England Lobster Fisheries Collapse of 1898 - IMEP 53 - Connecticut Saltwater Reports ( CT Saltwater Reports ) - A Community Built for Connecticut Fisherman.

BlueChip

The Southern New England Lobster Fisheries Collapse of 1898-1905
IMEP #53 Habitat Information for Fishers and Fishery Area Managers
Understanding Science Through History
(IMEP History Newsletters can be found indexed by date – Title on the BlueCrab.info™ website: Fishing, Eeling and Oystering thread) and on Connecticut Fish Talk™ (See Saltwater Reports thread)
The Sound School ISSP – Capstone Series
Do Climate Factors Lead to Habitat Failures?
The Rhode Island Narragansett Bay Lobster Die-Off Case History
Timothy C. Visel, Coordinator
The Sound School Regional Vocational Aquaculture Center
60 South Water Street
New Haven, CT 06519
Revised for Capstone/SAE Proposals, July 2015
ASTE Standards Aquaculture #6 Natural Resources #6, #7, #9

Aquaculture and Restoration: A Partnership
N.A.C.E., M.A.S. and I.C.S.R.
December 12-15, 2012
Groton, CT USA

Preface
Preface – July 2015
Of the southern New England states, Rhode Island, I believe, has the best historical records detailing the collapse (die-off) of the lobster fishery a century ago. When you examine some of the Rhode Island historical records (1890-1910), you get a sense of the frustration and questions from both fishers and fishery managers during this time; cold water fisheries, bay scallops, lobsters and quahogs were disappearing, while soft shell clams, oysters and blue crabs suddenly surged – to levels not previously recorded. Every time Rhode Island officials felt that they had a list of “native” species, the list was changed. When Tarpon were caught in Narragansett Bay that seemed to put fishery managers on edge and lead to the commission of the Narragansett Bay Biological Survey, which was used to find out what was going on; that survey continues today.

Footnote #1 – Fishes Known to Inhabit the Waters of Rhode Island by Henry C. Tracy, Biological Assistant, Wickford Station, 1909; E.L. Freeman, Camping State Rhode Island Printers, 1910, 176 pages

“In the year 1898, the Commission of Inland Fisheries began a ‘systematic examination of the physical and biological conditions of Narragansett Bay”

The first List of Fishes of Narragansett Bay developed by Dr. H.C. Bumpus in 1900 (Dr. Bumpus was to lead in the development of lobster aquaculture at Woods Hole) was revised the second time by Dr. Tracy in 1910 was first revised in 1905.

As each list was to be finished, it had to be amended the capture of Tarpons in 1906 (pg. 72) caused a review after Block Island fishers noted strange fish not observed before (pg. 39-40) and from the tropics – “schools of fish not seen before (pg. 42).”

Some of the current biologists, fishery managers and shellfishers then were asking the same questions until the heavy rains of July 1898 hit the Providence, Rhode Island area sending, it is thought, thousands of tons of organic matter: manure, leaf and forest litter and human sewage into the upper Narragansett Bay. Professor A.D. Mead of Brown University wrote an article, “An Investigation of the Plaque Which Destroyed Multitudes of Fish and Crustacean(s) During the Fall of 1898.” In this article, which appeared in Science Magazine in 1899 (and was reprinted in part by S. Nixon in 1992), describes the event:

Upper Narragansett Bay Fish Kill of 1898 – A Classic Tannin/Sapropel Case History

After heavy July 1898 rains – Dr. Mead Reports the following:

“During the last two months the inhabitants of Rhode Island witnessed the following remarkable phenomenon. The water of a considerable portion of the Bay became thick and red, omitting an odor almost intolerable to those living nearby. The situation became alarming when, on the 9th and 10th of September {1898}, thousands of dead fish, crabs and shrimps were found strewn along the shores or even piled up in windrows.

During the last of August, throughout September and a part of October streaks of red or ‘chocolate’ water were observed from near Quonset Point and Prudence Island, north to Providence, and, on the flood tide, up to Seekonk River, nearly to Pawtucket, a range of about fifteen miles. In other parts of the Bay, as far as could be learned, the phenomenon had not been observed.

On the 8th and 9th of September the water became extremely red and thick in various localities from East Greenwich to Providence, and the peculiar behavior of the marine animals attracted much attention. Myriads of
shrimps and blue crabs, and vast numbers of eels, menhaden, tautog and
flatfish came up to the surface and to the edge of the shore as though struggling to get out of the noxious water. Indeed, the shrimp and crabs were observed actually to climb out of the water upon stakes and buoys and even upon the iron cylinders which support one of the bridges and which must have been very hot in the bright sun.

And even though that was written over a century ago, it fits the descriptions found today for similar low oxygen/high sulfide events. The 1898 “Plaque” was the last straw in a habitat battle that vanquished the lobster from upper Narragansett Bay. These shallow water habitats contained the highest heat and organic deposits. Ammonia generation from them not only caused pH so high (basic), but it most likely killed larval stages and also killed adult fish in low oxygen events, adding to sulfide smells – and sulfide waters were so toxic, they were termed, “black water deaths.”

Rhode Island and other southern New England states soon felt the impact of larval, stage 4 habitat failure. The kelp/cobblestone forests in cooler water and colder areas (like eastern Connecticut) most likely held lobster populations longer, but eventually catches collapsed as recruitment failures were felt in the lobster fishery; with no “year classes “ being recruited into the fishery, catches dropped and then ended. Rhode Island’s response was to close its lobster fishery for a brief time in 1904. By 1905, all New England states (even later, New York) built lobster hatcheries. The heat had taken the lobster fishery to “ruin,” but its ruin can be examined in habitat reports. It got very hot and sulfur-reducing bacteria now likely had “plenty” to eat during this warm water/low oxygen period. A habitat battle between bacteria strains out of sight and leaving few clues happened in the shallows. Organic matter was reduced by types of bacteria that didn’t need oxygen; they used sulfate and likely changed habitat quality for small lobsters into a toxic killing field. At first the lobster fishers were blamed for the “ruin” of the fishery (overfishing), but eventually fishery managers agreed there were just no lobsters of any size; they seemed to have vanished. Even lobster tagging studies were discouraging. In 1904 through 1906, Rhode Island tagged several hundred lobsters in Narragansett Bay. Returns indicated that nearly without exception lobsters were leaving Narragansett Bay for deeper water. This was surprising and raised more questions (its ironic that during this “Great Heat” of the 1890s that those who could rushed to the shore for relief of the summer heat with breezes and cool waters. The concept that fish or lobsters would do the same and seek cooler waters is rarely mentioned in the historical literature. – Tim Visel)

Footnote #2 – State of Rhode Island Annual report of the Commissions of Inland Fisheries, 1905, Providence, Rhode Island, January Session, 1906, E.L. Freeman and Sons, State Printers, 336 pages
Liberation of Tagged Lobsters – page 114 – 115:
“The total number of tagged lobsters liberated in 1905 was 385 (pg. 114) and more went to the south (out of Narragansett Bay) with one lobster liberated at the same time (multiple tag released) traveled 11 miles in five days.” Of the 49 tags returned with the date in tack, 47 had moved south out of the Bay (Narragansett), 2 had moved north; one lobster had traveled 4 miles in one day (toward deeper, cooler water – Tim Visel).”

[Although the tagging program showed lobsters were all moving south, the concept that warming water may have impacted lobster movement was not mentioned – T. Visel]

While most of the research in recent times has targeted aqueous nitrogen compounds for removal, they represent a far less toxic or rapid (ready) nitrogen cycle – quickly used by algae and distributed by tides flushing and subject to dilution. It is the long (composting) nitrogen cycle, one that releases nitrogen compounds in high heat by sulfur-reducing bacteria, that is so damaging to inshore habitats. It is the long cycle by way of Sapropel that sheds ammonia in hot summers and purges sulfides in cold winters that is so toxic to fish and shellfish, especially the larval forms. It is not subject to distribution (except by storm energy or dredging) and kills by direct burial and then the byproducts of bacterial sulfate digestion. In fact, most recent information suggests (strongly) that the ready forms of nitrogen (nitrite and nitrate) buffer the impacts from the long Sapropel cycle fishers called marine humus or mussel mud. Some of the shallow inshore habitats likely failed a century ago for lobsters. The upper Narragansett Bay was one of the first from available printed historical accounts.

This paper was developed for the N.A.C.E. conference in 2012 and looks at climate issues that precede habitat failures. It is a case history of the southern New England lobster fishery collapse of the 1900s and reviews habitat quality discussions that include temperatures.

A much larger paper, “The Northern Lobster Fishery and Climate Change,” is also available from the Sound School Adult Outreach and Education program. A previous post, “Lobster Die off of 1898 and The Great Heat” IMEP #6, describes Rhode Island’s response to the lobster die-off with first in the nation lobster larval upwellers. A Complex lobster hatchery and rearing facility was constructed in Wickford, Rhode Island in 1899. In 1905, Rhode Island was clearly leading the nation in aquaculture technology with its lobster larval upwellers. respond to all emails at tim.visel@new-haven.k12.ct.us.

Abstract
A little more than a century ago, the southern New England lobster fisheries collapsed. The lobstering industry was blamed for the decreased productivity (canneries, size regulation enforcement) and regulations enacted to prevent additional fishery losses. These regulations were ineffective and later modified. At the same time, New England states (and New York much later) built lobster hatcheries and designed rather sophisticated upwellers and larval grow-out culture bags (1905). Much research time and financial resources were dedicated to raising lobster larvae and later stage four lobsters for release into preselected habitat types. The efficacy of such large hatcheries (Booth Bay Harbor, Maine had the largest) remains in question today but as for the missing critical lobster life history segment, they were absolutely correct – stage four. As winters turned colder and the number of storms that raked the coast increased, habitat conditions improved hatcheries were closed except for Massachusetts.

In southern New England, our lobster fishery depends on a critical kelp/cobblestone habitat type that fluctuates from climate – temperature and energy conditions. In colder energy-filled periods, thousands of acres of glacier cobblestones, the remains of a retreating shoreline, provide the near-shore habitat structure services for kelp forests. These kelp/cobblestone forests contained the essential stage four lobster habitat. In times of high heat and low energy, these kelp cobblestone habitats silt over and fail, precluding a lobster fishery failure. Kelp/cobblestone transitions from smooth bottoms may be critical habitat types for stage four lobsters and other species as well but are largely dependent upon climate and energy cycles. Inshore areas that warm fastest may have become unstable for the larval stages, followed by a lack of substrate in deeper water.

Governments often turn to aquaculture when habitat failures lead to fishery failures as in the late 1890s. Today, a century later, during a period of recognized high heat and few storms, the southern New England lobster fishery has failed again. Interest has been renewed in lobster hatchery work that focuses upon stage four but habitat research should include kelp forests and habitat quality of estuarine soils as well.

Introduction

The Historical Importance of Kelp Forests to Lobster Populations
It is foolish to underestimate the impact we have had on the planet. In time we may know and reflect upon the extent of that impact. Until then, fishery history is one of the few instruments that can provide that reflection, and that history is not only about us but the natural world as well. Although many researchers have looked at the Narragansett Bay fish and shellfish populations (“A Century of Fishing and Fish Fluctuations in Narragansett Bay.” (Oviatt et al, 2003) Few have made a direct climate and energy connection. This is surprising as to the huge volumes of historical material pertaining to Narragansett Bay, including the long running biological survey and Rhode Island early lobster culture experiments exist.

In this instance the failure in the lobster fishery is not from “us” or harvesters, but a long climatic cycle. The crisis in the Southern New England lobster fishery is a classic current example. The problem is that our capacity for understanding our long term ecological impacts habitat succession from natural cycles are far too short. For example, a severe storm may uproot large trees sending a cascade of small branches, twigs, and leaves to the forest floor. In several years, this wood becomes tinder dry; perhaps dry wood has accumulated in the area for decades. On a windy day, a poorly built campfire starts a horrific forest fire, the campsite is blamed for the fire, but for the conditions and amount of tinder, i.e. the huge amounts of dry combustible material is likely the result of the previous storm, and there is often no connection to these long ago natural conditions. It is natural to have forest fires; it is unnatural not to have them. We may not like them, or choose to fight them, but they are part of a natural cycle connected to climate and temperature. Forest fire capacity is enhanced in heat and dry periods, in times of above average rainfall and cool periods less forest fire capacity exists. We often forecast when extremely dry conditions are present and “issue red flag warnings” and grow up listening to “Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires”. The truth of the matter is heat lightning is responsible for the greatest number of forest fires, not us or “you”. It is also natural to have fishery failures following a habitat failure and for the Southern New England Lobster Fishery both have occurred after long periods of extended heat – 1898-1905 and again in 1998-2003.

The Law of Habitat Succession

But what happens after the fire, massive amounts of carbon are released (some would say recycled) land cleared and in time new habitats grass meadows emerge. That is natural; it is natural to have storms and forest fires and habitats experience this terrestrial energy cycle. To “protect us” from this energy cycle takes an enormous effort on our part and as terrestrial beings we constantly crave that habitat stability. We want the same habitat conditions to exist forever but sadly they cannot—that is not natural. A visit to a forest fire several years later with adequate rainfall we will see different yet healthy habitats, perhaps new species that were not there before and perhaps an absence of those who were there before, but again that is natural. As one habitat clock ends another often begins. We call that the natural law of habitat succession. It is easy to see if an historical habitat history is kept and reviewed over decades such as those observations after a forest fire. If the energy pathway is large enough and the habitat clock limited by any number of factors, a habitat extinction event can occur, even extinction as it is most difficult for many to accept, is in fact, natural, and a series of extinction events can lead to a species eventual extinction; it is rarely one extinction event, however, but a series of habitat setbacks over time.

The chief advantage over terrestrial natural succession is that we can observe it on land and the impacts of climate and temperature upon species. It is known that examining the “rings” of cut trees for example, can tell us much about past climate conditions, a thick wide ring signifies good growing conditions, a series of narrow tightly grouped rings, not so good, perhaps dry or cool periods. We know that conditions change over time and what we see today may not have been so in the past, a past we often had little influence. It’s not always about us, although that is often the perception after decades of public environmental policy debate. That is the largest challenge of the environmental community today is to accept the fact that we may impact the ecological balance of our planet but natural conditions must also be acknowledged and the environmental habitat history explained just as often as the negative human impacts, which seems today to be the only environmental message heard. (My view) The case history of the Southern New England lobster failure is a case in point –not many reports reference it even today.

And it is easy policy-wise to accuse resource user groups such as the lobster fisheries of overharvesting as resource use is often the first place historically we seek to explain such resource “failures” as “overfishing.” A second area to blame is of course pollution bet even that concept over time does not hold up constantly. While lobsters in upper Narragansett Bay were leaving and dying, blue crab populations exploded. Few, if any reports would link increased pollution to the increase of blue crabs? With the lobster fishery this overfishing response is simply not the case. While it appears that overfishing is the reason for the decline, it is changed habitat conditions that caused the lobster fishery to collapse. In fact, our lobster fishing practices has increased the habitat carrying capacity by removing the largest of lobsters, freeing up habitat space and providing additional food for more yet smaller lobsters, a biological cannibalistic attribute of lobsters.

The Collapse of the Southern New England Lobster Fishery – Again
In the marine environment the environmental message is far more complicated and much more dangerous policy wise. In the case of the lobster fishery it has been highly regulated for over a century accepted and management practices promoted by both the fishers and regulatory community. Management measures include rules such as the female V notch, a large “oversize” spawning population and overall size of capture retention regulations. Many of these measures were supported by fishers and fishery managers however they could not stop habitat succession – that followed high heat, nothing could have prevented that.

In the late 1970s as our climate again entered a second warming period, New England winters warmed, and the number of coastal storms declined, it became hot with a few significant energy events we call hurricanes. Hurricanes acted as forest fires, changing conditions for many species just as marine forest fires on shorelines often destructive for existing habitats but creating conditions for new robust (energized) habitats. Hurricanes in colder weather scoured hundreds of miles of shorelines of silt, clearing near shore cobble stone habitats in which kelp often grew, clinging to cobblestones in five to fifteen feet of water. It is the long frond of ribbon like brown sea weed, a valuable crop for forage and protection that grips this cobblestone, cleaned and tumbled in the surf. Tens of thousands of acres of kelp/cobblestone habitat was created (or many might call “restored”) in New England coastal areas in the 1940s and 1950s, and significant kelp forests grew upon these exposed cobbles. A review of the current “recent lobster fishery failure” does provide on insight as to what happened a century ago.

In Southern New England this habitat provided critical habitat for Stage 4 lobsters, as our shores lack the enormous habitat capacity of Maine’s rocks and reefs, but for Southern New England Stage 4 lobsters, the kelp forests provided this essential habitat, at a critical life cycle time, both forage and protective cover. I used to set green crab traps in these kelp forests and would catch numerous small lobsters in them. Decades later I would begin to learn how important those kelp forests were but fifty years ago they were although annoying for me when flounder fishing in the 1960s and 1970s. A flounder hook back then would snag the hold fast of the kelp and instead of a large winter flounder, a cobblestone and entire kelp blade came inboard, and many winter flounder fishermen at that time experienced this, which is why the flounder were also interested in what these kelp forests held – I guess even the small lobsters were food for winter flounder as well.

By the late 1970s the kelp “forests” started to fail in Connecticut, the cobblestones during a warmer period became buried in silt and by the mid 1980s, this habitat failed, and the shallow water kelp forests disappeared and with it, essential critically vital habitat for small lobsters especially that Stage 4 size, a critical size for our future lobster fisheries. The extent of the habitat failure would not be felt in the fishery for almost a decade; it takes about 7-10 years for a lobster to reach a size subject to legal harvesting. If a habitat failure happened it just wouldn’t be known or connected to the loss of cobblestone kelp habitat many years before. The lobster industry has suffered habitat extinction events, and then a series of habitat failure episodes as waters continued to warm and near shore waters contained less and less suitable kelp habitat. It was getting too warm for the larger lobsters and they left the near shore shallows for the deeper water (shorts also), making them easier to catch and catches actually increased and then quickly collapsed. Higher temperatures drove very small lobsters from the shallows completely and caused them to suffer new and intense predator/prey relationships. This would extenuate the extent of the recruitment failure and then the eventual fishery collapse. Although some fishery regulators termed it overfishing, but with the regulatory controls on effort, size, escapement panels, and egg bearing females protected, it was a fishery failure that followed a habitat failure.

[In all probability one of the management/regulatory features of this habitat failure that worked against the lobster industry was to return “shorts” (undersized, sublegal) lobsters back to the marine environment during daylight. Here the blackfish (Tautog) and black sea bass which thrive in warmer water consumed most of the returnees which I personally observed in shallow water lobstering off the coast of Madison with my brother Raymond in the 1970s. In shallow water released lobsters were predated upon by blackfish that would dart out behind rocks and attack lobsters from the back, punching them hard and biting their tails, but it was so fast the returned lobster didn’t stand a chance, especially if they landed on clear sand between rock ledges in blinding daylight. We felt badly and stopped emptying old lobster bait over them which actually chummed additional Tautog to the site and began throwing shorts up on the rocks that still had kelp so they could hide until dark, but even then a quick seagull could make short work of these shorts. Although we did not observe this activity in deeper water, we suspected it was a factor including predatory loss, we often thought about an evening haul (against conservation laws) so at least small lobsters would have some time to hide in darkness before the light. (It appeared on some occasions in shallow water Tautog appeared to be waiting for us.)

From my modest observations many decades ago, the attack from the blackfish was strategic, a large bite from above to the tail, from behind, and just in back of the solid carapace, in a few seconds the lobsters would quickly bleed to death, and then numerous small blackfish and some cunners (Tautogolabrus adspersus) would emerge and tear and rip the lobster body to shreds. The debate over daylight releases is something that has never been adequately addressed by the research community until present times, but the predation upon sub legal lobsters is real and increases in significance in the absence of kelp forests. It is thought that kelp cobblestone habitats often fringed the lobster rocks and ledges in the eastern part of Connecticut and provided some protection to thrown overboard shorts that today may not be the case. Some discussions have included the creation and study of rubble reefs in deeper waters (artificial reefs) to increase Stage 4 capacity, even in Maine. (See Capstone proposal for reef ball studies). Rhode Island has conducted some very successful experiments in this area.]

From an environmental history viewpoint, this habitat failure is not new, far from it, the lobster fishery; in Southern New England experienced that same type of habitat failure during The Great Heat 1880-1920. In this period (which is very similar to today’s warmer winters) lobster recruitment levels sharply fell after decades of hot temperatures and few large storms, and strict regulations were enacted to prevent over fishing (many of the regulations today governing the lobster fishery had their beginnings during The Great Heat) and they include:

• Returning of berried or egg carrying females (Maine also had an oversize limit)
• An accurate way to measure lobsters- the lobster gauge – sublegal lobsters returned – called “shorts” today replaced length of lobsters.
• Seasons-Maine and Rhode Island only – Rhode Island in 1905 prohibited a fall fishery and reversed this decision in 1906. Maine allowed some communities to enact local management laws.
• Possession of lobster “parts”- must be whole and not mutilated.
• Licensing

What wasn’t addressed was the climate and energy conditions during this period which were known for brutally hot summers (and extreme high water temperatures in shallow critical lobster Stage 4 habitat areas) and almost a total absence of hurricanes/strong storms. In this 40 year period only four significant storms, one blizzard (1888), the Portland Gale 1898 (category 2 hurricane wind gusting to 90 mph) and two summer gales 1903 and 1904 were known.

Compare this to the New England (North Atlantic) Oscillation a cooler more some filled time of 1951-1965 which saw some 27 named and severe storms. Long Island Sound would frequently freeze over or nearly so. This period would and did have significant lobster habitat impacts. It would destroy most of the deep water eelgrass meadows established during The Great Heat and replace them with kelp/cobblestone forests. The habitats created in the 1940s and 1950s (kelp forests) would sustain the lobster fishery for nearly a half century. Lobster populations in Southern New England – recovered.
The Collapse of The Southern New England Lobster Fishery in 1905
In 1888, the lobster industry in Southern New England centered then in Noank, CT, began to fail and much blame was placed at lobster canneries and poor harvest restrictions at the time. The lobster canneries closed as lobster supplies diminished, but habitats continued to warm and the catch per unit effort measured by the number of lobster traps set rose accordingly. It took more and more lobster traps to catch the same number of lobsters and eventually more traps to catch fewer lobsters – a symptom of overfishing. But what was really happening was habitats favoring lobsters were declining but those favoring the blue crab were increasing. As summers warmed and the kelp forests waned, a new vegetation appeared – eelgrass and with it, the blue crab. As the habitat quality for lobsters declined, the habitat quality for blue crabs increased. Blue crab populations surged at this time in Southern New England, especially in Narragansett Bay.

The increase in the blue crab was noticed in Narragansett Bay shortly after the turn of the century and blue crab population greatly increased in the bay into the teens. At the same time lobster habitat continued to decline setting up a collapse in the Southern New England lobster stocks. Maine lobster production did fall but nearly not as much as Connecticut and Rhode Island and south of Cape Cod as declines were devastating and would take decades to “recover”. (See Appendix 5).

The dramatic collapse of the Southern New England (1896) lobster fishery alarmed federal researchers, fishermen and the United States Fish Commission. By 1910, all of the New England states had built lobster hatcheries, all targeting that critical stage 4 lobsters. Millions of lobsters were released into the environment apparently with some success. Below is a short quote from “Report of Commissioners of Inland Fisheries,” State of Rhode Island, (pg 5. 1905)

“The practical result of this planting of young lobsters is unquestioned. Reports from the lobster fishermen show that more small lobsters were present in the localities where the fry were liberated than have been seen before for many years. It will be but a few years before these small lobsters will be of marketable size and then the expense of developing the lobster rearing plant of the Commission will be returned to the inhabitants of the state many times over.

Such results as these are very gratifying, especially when we consider that nowhere else in the world have any such results been obtained. Indeed, nowhere else has it been possible to rear lobster fry at all successfully, and the results of your Commission’s work have attracted the attention of those interested in promoting the fishery interests in all parts of the world.

In this country our work has been watched by the United States Bureau of Fisheries and the commissioners of other maritime states, and now that our efforts are crowned with success both the national Bureau and the commissioners of other states are ready to follow our example. Indeed, the neighboring State of Connecticut has already appropriated $10,000 to establish a hatchery, and a committee has visited our laboratory at Wickford to secure the information necessary to begin operations in their own waters.”

The book issued by the State of Rhode Island in 1905 details the lobster hatchery upweller operations in a lengthy bulletin titled, “State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Thirty-Sixth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Fisheries” which details in 150 pages, some of the regional lobster replenishment efforts of that period, Rhode Island’s work was a huge achievement- they developed the first larval upwellers.

The end of The Great Heat saw eelgrass meadows spread into deeper and deeper waters in warm temperatures and ample nutrients dense monocultures came into being, the meadows became so thick at times to impede navigation. Special propellers were designed for vessels so that they may travel bays and coves now filled with eelgrass. In extremely hot weather and after a stormy night, beachgoers arose to find mountains of loose eelgrass on shorelines. In Massachusetts eelgrass was removed so beach goers could even walk to the water line. In the hot temperatures eelgrass worked against several colder water inshore species, by slowing tidal exchange flows and created habitat conditions (too hot low oxygen) unfavorable for lobsters. In the end, vegetation rotted on the bottom in sluggish poorly flushed coves drawing oxygen from already high temperature oxygen depleted waters. The teens are remembered for some of the most horrific fish kills (winter flounder) on the South Shore of Long island during this time.

In areas such as Southern New England the inshore habitats are limiting and greatly susceptible to fluctuations in the kelp/cobblestone habitat. Created habitats although rarely studied do provide an increase in habitat capacity. Habitat creation for the small lobsters are critical because of life history parameters mentioned above, when small the predator/prey relationship is huge and habitats required for protection when lobsters mature it becomes a food/territory issue, and a struggle for habitat against other lobsters, rather than direct predators. This issue would be changed with the invention of the wire trap, lobster habitat capacity would be enhanced by the structure lobster pots provide even the feeding of sublegal lobsters has been compared to terrestrial bird feeders and resembles extensive “aquaculture” production systems. There is little doubt that lobster fishing practices have helped lobster habitat carrying capacity.

Capstone Proposal
Longer lived species are able to overcome short term habitat disruptions – lobsters and hard shell clams have relatively long life spans, even longer than ours. One of the questions is why and some answers can be found in reproductive capacity, habitat capacity and habitat quality. For example, a long life span has been attributed to hard shell clams because heavy reproductive (recruitment) success is periodic after hurricanes and colder temperatures. The largest hard shell clam sets occur after strong storms and in cooler sea water temperatures, as habitat quality is then enhanced- a more alkaline soil and an absence of larval veliger predators dislodged by the previous storm or storms.

For lobsters in our area, cooler storm filled periods cleaned and sustained kelp/cobblestone habitats critical to the post larval sets, the crucial Stage 4. There can be plenty of eggs/larval presence in the water column available from plankton net tows but imagine if the critical Stage 4 habitat was gone, the predation would be immense, and a recruitment failure would most likely occur. This often happens with hard shell clams, they spawn every year and most years good quantities of clam veligers observed in the water column, but if the habitat conditions are negative (acid soil, high populations of predators) little if any “set” will mature into a clam fishery.

The same is true for the Southern New England Lobster Fishery; lobsters will continue to breed and produce eggs to viable fry but with hot temperatures and limited critical habitat most will perish and populations will decline. That is why lobsters are known as a “cold water species” but that explanation is far too simple, it’s more than just warmer temperatures, it’s the combination of warmer temperatures and declines in energy dependent habitat quality of a type suitable for lobsters. There is a direct climate and energy habitat link that few researchers today will acknowledge and fewer still understand and our lobster fishery has most likely the ability to make this connection from historical landing statistics more complete.

Figure 1.
INDEX OF LOBSTER HABITAT QUALITY – SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND
HIGH
E2

ENERGY
LEVEL A B C
LOW
E1

HIGH TEMP LOW TEMP
T1 T2

T1- LETHAL LIMIT AT WHICH LOBSTERS SUFFER RESPIRATORY COLLAPSE – TOO HOT
T2- TEMPERATURE AT WHICH LOBSTER EGGS FAIL TO DEVELOP – TOO COLD
E1- ONE STORM/DECADE – INSUFFICIENT ENERY – TOO LITTLE
E2- TEN STORMS OR MORE/DECADE – HABITAT INSTABILITY – TOO MUCH ENERGY
A - BETTER FOR YOUNGER LOBSTERS TO STAGE 4- FASTER GROWTH UP TO A POINT.
B - BETTER OVERALL POPULATION
C - FAVORS FEWER BUT LARGER LOBSTERS – COLD SLOWS GROWTH.

It is the near shore habitats that drive habitat carrying capacity for the Southern New England Lobster Fishery.
It is also strongly suggested a direct movement of larval stages is to the north- due to prevailing summer winds and entrainment of larval stages held along the coast by offshore currents. If that is true an increase in water temperatures and decrease in enemy levels (storms) even wind direction and intensity would impact the southern areas first which it did at the turn of the century when it warmed noticeably from the 1870s. It was the Connecticut and Rhode Island lobster fisheries that noticed the reduction in Stage 4 lobsters: first, long before Maine and northern Massachusetts, but as the warming continued even these areas showed marked declines, lobsters could not live in the shallows as it became extremely hot (see Rhode Island Report of the Wickford Lobster Hatchery in Appendix 6) and lobsters derived of habitat cover protection persisted with new and different predatory/prey relationships often suffering much high mortality rates.

New England Lobster Landing Compared to Habitat Indexes on Figure 1
Table A RHODE ISLAND Final Landings to Habitat Index

YEAR LANDINGS HERITAGE VALUE HABITAT INDEX low CATEGORY
lbs
1962 575,000 (LOW) Cold/energy C

1977 3.4 million + Transition increase B to C

1986 5.5 million ++ cobblestone/kelp fails heritage
B to A

1999 8.1 million lbs ++ cobblestone/kelp failure heat Above heritage high B to A

2009 2.9 million . fishery failure heat/low energy- loss of shallow habitats declining A-

CONNECTICUT
YEAR LANDINGS HERITAGE VALUE HABITAT INDEX CATEGORY
lbs
1962 250,000 (LOW) cold/energy Low C
1977 750,000 + transition increase B to C
1986 1.2 million + cobblestone kelp fails in warming/low energy conditions heritage B to A
1991 2.6 million ++ cobblestone kelp failure high heat continues growth/maturation rate higher Above heritage A to B+
1999 3.5 million +++ high habitat failure shallow water Very high A/B-
2009 400000 . fishery failure loss of shallow habitats declining A-

Table A MASSACHUSETTS Final Landings to Habitat Index

YEAR LANDINGS HERITAGE VALUE HABITAT INDEX CATEGORY
lbs
1962 3.8 million (LOW) cold/storms Low C

1977 8.0 million + Transition Heritage C to B

1986 11.8 million ++ cobblestone /kelp* failure (heat Above heritage B to A

1991 11.0 million + habitat failure South - habitat faiure North Above heritage B to A
B
1999 15.8 million .+++high Habitat failure South Habitat failure North Very high A B to A

2009 10.9 million fishery failure South habitat failure North declining A A

MAINE
YEAR LANDINGS HERITAGE VALUE HABITAT INDEX CATEGORY
lbs
1962 22 million low Colds storms Low C
1977 20 million low cold storms Stable C
1986 20 million low transition South Stable low C to B
1991 27 million + South Central North Heritage B C C
1999 50 million .++ South Central North Above heritage B B B
2009* 90 million .+++ South Central North Very high B to A B B

* Southern Mass. Fishery - Buzzards Bay /Vineyard Sound * Expect Maine landings to continue unless habitat catches in South regions begin to fail - could signify habitat failure for critical Stage 4 habitats

In times of habitat failure the fishery often improves as what may be ideal recruitment habitat quality may not be the same as mid or end cycle life history. Once lobsters had molted beyond the critical Stage 4 and reached one year old, they were able to compete in deeper water by nocturnal instincts. A period of warmth and few storms would favor the adult stages yet devastate the recruitment (year classes) of the young. Eventually, there would be no smaller lobsters to replace those harvested and catches soon (naturally) would decline. If it became too hot even for the adults which it did in Long Island Sound in the 1990s--even adult lobsters would perish, a habitat extinction episode on top of all larger long term habitat extinction events. That is how lobster production soared from 1.7 million lbs in 1983 to 3.5 million lbs in 1998 but crashed when habitat conditions failed for both small lobsters and adults reducing industry harvests to under 500 thousand pounds in 2004.

Therefore, temperature energy and climate conditions must take into account local water depths. The impacts would be first felt in the shallow coves and bays – those which warmed first, and the spread out eventually to even deeper waters.

Lobsters would naturally seek out colder waters, but those trapped in warm oxygen depleted waters would have only a few minutes at best to seek (some would say run) to deeper cooler waters. That is what happened during The Great Heat and the late 1990s again in response to warmer temperatures. Often lobsters trapped in lobster pots and unable to escape localized lethal oxygen depletion events and would perish in the lobster trap itself. This frequently happened during periods when oxygen depletion is most strong, just before sunrise.

During The Great Heat, 1880-1920, lobster production at first went up, and then dropped like a rock. It would take decades for lobster habitats to recover. That only happened after a period of cold and more “habitat” energy. The same pattern happened again (see chart #1).

As such the beginnings of massive habitat shifts at first are difficult to detect. In fact increases of catches of adults can often occur and those of a regulated size that enter the fishery actually increases as shown in figure one (B & C). Warmer temperatures for lobsters at first helps smaller lobsters survive (usually indicative of less damaging storms also) or are beneficial to habitat cover protection or availability of food (A & B). Colder temperatures most likely restrict larval production and over time, generally favors much fewer but much larger lobsters. This partially explains the first settler reports of giant lobsters in shallow waters – the first Colonists arrived during a harsh mini ice age and most likely approximated the natural carrying capacity of extreme cold or the C area of Figure 1 – extreme cold would restrict larval production but be offset by the extremely long life span of lobsters. In a higher temperature more juveniles could survive but increasing habitat competition if the adult habitats were limiting—less space and limited food availability. Due to the age and size restrictions, a movement to the left – adult numbers would rise and landings also masking for a while, the shift in habitat quality until catches fell off the left edge. In a climate/temperature habitat quality scenario, southern areas would experience a sudden surge in production first, followed by a dramatic collapse which is exactly what happened. It just got too hot and the juveniles’ could not adapt and survive such conditions. That would be reflected in recruitment “failures” that preceded fishery failures.

The lobster fisheries of Southern Mass – RI and CT all show historic rapid rises in production, habitat index shifts to the left and then far to the left – to much heat for a fishery collapse. Larger lobsters who survive will seek out colder deeper waters. Many of the female V-notched lobsters in eastern CT according to some lobster fishermen at a Sound School meeting July 2010 were reported to be caught off Block Island Sound. Those Long Island Sound lobsters that remained would tend to move to the deepest, cooler waters as possible.

Secondary Mortality Features
When lobster mortalities hit Connecticut in the late 1890s (1898 being the worst) black tail was described to me by Jeff Wilcox of Stonington CT. Oral history recalls by Mr. Wilcox reports of lobsters dying in heat on the way to Fulton Fish Market then on trains after the Civil War, with lobster showing “black tail” which could be red tail – a bacterial disease that collapses the circulatory system and the tail meat appears dark red. It is known that in waters so warm heat stress can weaken lobsters promoting diseases and related mortalities. Certain disease organisms thrive in warmer waters filled with organic matter and induce oyster and blue crab diseases as well. Waters with contaminants also have a role, any substance that could weaken or harm lobsters (like pesticides) in warm or hot water is far more dangerous. Organisms already stressed by environmental conditions (low oxygen) have reduced disease fighting capacity, may be too stressed to feed or even too weak to avoid predators. Lobstermen in Connecticut refer to lobsters in 1998 as lifeless and lethargic that was why. All of these factors should be taken into consideration.

With the continued warm temperatures and recruitment failures in the Southern New England Lobster fishery – (CT lobster production has fallen to below 300,000 lbs –an historic low).

In 2009 Southern Massachusetts Fishery (Buzzards Bay and Vineyard Sound) landed 177,000 lbs also historic lows for that region.
However, the lobster fishery in Maine continues to improve indicating enhanced growth rates and enhanced habitat reproductive capacity. It is also known that the warmer temperatures in Maine have favored the growth of kelp – thought to be habitat limiting in our region. The 2011 catch in Maine is now over 100 million lbs or four times its estimated heritage or baseline value of 25 million lbs. It is thought that wire lobster traps have enhanced habitat carrying capacity (i.e. feeding stations for sublegal lobsters). Warmer water has enhanced kelp and may have improved juvenile survival. It is also shown that warmer waters lobsters do grow faster and sexually mature quicker. In Long Island Sound’s western region in the 1970s and 1980s had 30% of sublegal female lobsters were sexually mature and often egg bearing. All of these factors including low cod predator populations should be considered in Maine’s tremendous surge in production.

But what about the other states, Southern Mass, Rhode Island and Connecticut could it be just coincidence that all three states reached record landings in 1999. No, I don’t believe so, all indicate massive habitat failures for several cold water species not just lobsters, and they include bay scallops, winter flounder and lobster share most of not all of that critical shallow water habitat during part of a critical life cycle stage; all have had “fishery failures” after “habitat failures”. Good fisheries management policies (regulations) could not stop region wide climate/energy shifts or impacts habitat losses continued, just as it could not a century ago during the period 1880-1920 when the New England states all built lobster hatcheries after a similar habitat failure occurred- Boothbay Harbor, Maine being the site of the largest US Lobster hatchery ever built to date.

Capstone Questions
(1) Is it possible to build a habitat history for Connecticut lobsters – most of our fisheries history records still exist in storage at the DEEP Marine headquarters in Old Lyme, CT.
(2) Can we build or demonstrate opportunities for increasing Stage 4 lobster habitats- in deeper cooler waters, such as reef balls or rubble reefs similar to similar reefs built in Rhode Island.
(3) What is the historical importance of kelp forests to lobster populations – current reports or papers on the subject are available.
Thank you for considering the Connecticut lobster fishery as a possible Capstone project. If you have questions about the State of Connecticut high school graduating requirement – “Capstone Project” you should contact your guidance counselor. ASTE students please contact your FFA-SAE advisor.

Appendix 1 Predator/Prey Relationships
There is some evidence that in western Long Island Sound, other habitat types also helped lobsters – oyster beds both cultivated and natural and soft mud bank burrows in rivers and creeks. In cooler temperatures, lobsters frequently dug in soft clay sediments have making extensive lobster burrows. In times of high heat these habitats would also fail, (sulfide and ammonia purging) and if temperature were high enough would stress and perhaps kill adults who often left small lobsters to the predatory impacts of libina, the spider crab with this long tapered claws could reach in and capture small lobsters. Reports in the 1980s include reports from Connecticut lobstermen that huge populations of the spider crabs “had overrun” rock ledge habitats once known to contain thousands of shorts (lobsters). It was felt that the larger lobsters that defended territories and tended to keep spider crabs from juvenile nursery areas left the shallows leaving small lobsters defenseless against enhanced spider crab populations.

Appendix 2
United States Dept of Interior Statistics Digest 59
Fishery Statistics of the United States 1965
Charles H. Lyles GPO 1967
Washington, DC
History Fishery Statistics for New England Northern Lobster Catch
1879-1965

The Collapse of the New England Lobster Stocks during the Great Heat 1880-1920

All states Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut total pounds of lobsters landed – 1924 being the base of the collapse except RI 1889 base year

Maine 1889 – 25 Million lbs *1
1924 – 5.5 Million lbs
1965 – 19 Million lbs

Massachusetts 1889 – 3.3 million lbs
1924 – 1.6 Million labs
1965 – 6.5 Million lbs

Rhode Island 1889 – 500,000 lbs *2
1924 – 1.5 Million lbs
1965 – 1.8 Million lbs

Connecticut 1889 – 1.6 Million lbs *3
1924 - 700,000 thousand lbs
1965 – 743,000 thousand lbs

*1 Maine’s Heritage Production value is suspected being 25 million lbs.
*2 Rhode Island collapse started in 1886 – closed lobster fishery in 1905 – from the 15 of November to the 15th of April – repealed in 1906.
*3 Reflects landing from New York and Rhode Island waters also
-------------

Appendix #3
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
Thirty–Sixth Annual Report
Of the
Commissioners of Inland Fisheries
Made to the
General Assembly
At Its
January Session, 1906
Providence:
E. L Freeman & Sons, State Printers
1906
Report of Commissioners of Inland Fisheries
VIII. The Propagation of Lobsters Fry for the Purpose of Increasing the Supply of Lobsters in the Waters of the State. Methods of Artificial Propagation and Cultivation.
Lobster Culture in 1905
By Earnest W. Barnes,
Assistant Superintendent of the Wickford Experiment Station

The first mature lobster eggs were scraped into a hatching bag about noon on the 21st of May, and by 1pm of the same day nearly all had hatched. These eggs were obtained from one egg lobster, and no more lobsters with mature eggs were found till the 24th. The hatching then proceeded quite rapidly. The last lot of eggs was hatched on the 21st of July. By August 1st al the fry had reached the fourth stage, except a few weak undersized ones. Consequently, after a continuous run of 71 days, the engine was shut down and the season closed. The work usually closes by the middle or last of July, and it is quite remarkable that the season should last till the first of August.

The weather conditions throughout the season were very good. The absence of any bad storms and the many bright warm days made the season one of the best the station has had.

Introduction

The success in lobster culture attained by the Commission of Inland Fisheries, at their Experiment Station at Wickford, is one of those few remarkable successes in artificial marine culture which have been reached through a long course of slow and, at times, disheartening experiments. The ordinary method employed in the artificial propagation of fishes, the mere hatching the eggs, has been of little avail in the case of the lobster. Its failure may be stated, briefly, as due to two causes: The first and most important of these is the slow growth of the lobster, the length of time required to reach maturity and propagate itself naturally; the second is the prolonged period of larval helplessness.
If we leave out of consideration the helpless larval period we find that the lobster in its natural state is not materially handicapped in its struggle for maintenance, except in the particular fact of its slow growth. With reference to the natural advantages it might be stated that its life on the sea bottom, together with the instinct of hiding in burrows in the mud or under rocks, affords much better protection than fishes seem to posses. Besides, there is perhaps no external part, unless it is the eye, which can be lost in injured without the lobster being able to replace it. The loss of a fin or the upturning of a few scales will often be sufficient cause for the death of a fish. The lobster also has the advantage of having its eggs more surely fertilized and afterwards cared for by the parent until hatched. The eggs of most fishes are thrown into the water, and depend on chance fertilization and favorable circumstances for their fostering. But against the human foe the lobster in powerless, and there has been a rapid decrease in their abundance since there was a demand for them in the market.

Because the lobster possesses, in a high degree, natural advantages for protecting itself, except in its larval helplessness, it seemed necessary to adopt some measure of rearing them through this latter period. For more than a decade experiments were pushed with vigor by the various States, the United States Government, and also by European governments. The many difficulties, however, prevented success till 1900, when the honor of having offered the first and, up to the present time, the only solution of the problem was won by a Rhode Island Commission at Wickford. It has taken, nevertheless, since the discovery of the principle, five years of slow and tedious experiments to develop the scheme to the point where it is practical and economical.
Fifty per cent in round numbers (48.2 per cent actually) have been reared from the first to the fourth stage in lots of 20,000. It is in this stage that the fry commence to burrow and are, therefore, more able to care for themselves. These figures will be appreciated when it is recalled that the best result in Europe was 6.6 per cent from an estimated 3,000 fry in the first stage of Woods Hole.

Appendix 4 REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND FISHERIES
SHORT LOBSTERS.
There was a greater number of small lobsters caught last season tan there has been before for a great many years. It is quite significant that this reported increase in number comes almost entirely from that part of the Bay where the Commission has liberated its fourth stage lobsters. Because of its nearness, the region about Conanicut Island has received the greater part of the output in the past years. Walter H. Munroe, who sets lobster pots along the west shore of Conanicut, reports that during the past year he very seldom pulled in his pots but that four or five small lobsters would slip out between the slats. At Dutch island harbor, somewhat near the central part of the island, the lobsters under nine inches area so numerous that the lobster deputies have had considerable difficulty in preventing their sale. It is the common opinion that, in spite of their vigilance, barrels of “shorts” have found their way into the market from this place. The two deputies are very much handicapped in their efforts by having such an extensive shore to cover, especially considering that their only means of getting to the pots is in what boats they can get on the nearest shore. The great number of small-sized lobsters looks very promising for the future supply of lobsters in Narragansett Bay, and extremely encouraging for the scheme of rearing used at Wickford.

RECORDS.
A careful record of each lot of lobsters, with conditions under which they were reared, was made and filed in a card catalog. From this catalogue the following tables are taken:

REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND FISHERIES.
LIBERATION OF FOURTH STAGE LOBSTERS, 1905.
Date Locality. Number Character of Shore
13-Jun East Poplar Point 400 Rocky
26-Jun Little Tree Point 3000 Very rocky, abundance of rockweed
27-Jun East Poplar Point 9000 Rocky
28-Jun Wickford Cove 200 Muddy Bottom
6-Jul Point Judith Pond, Billings' Cove 15000 Stony, light seaweed
11-Jul Warwick Neck, below Rocky Point 10000 Rocky
13-Jul Portsmith 10000 Rocky, rockweed
13-Jul Kickemuit River 15000 Rocky, rockweed
17-Jul Conanicut Island 12000 Rocky ledge, rockweed below
21-Jul Dutch Island Harbor 20000 Muddy Bottom
29-Jul Conanicut Island 6000 Muddy bottom

Total liberated 100600
Used for experimental purposes 2972

*This number is that of the fourth stage lobsters actually counted. In addition to these there were many first, second and third stage lobsters preserved for study, and some fourth lobsters were liberated in the cove by accident to the bags.
Total Number of Fourth Stage Lobster Reared Each Year Since 1900.

1900 3425
1901 8974
1902 27300
1903 13500
1904 50597
1905 103572

Total 207368