established by Aiken (1973). Recaptured tagged lobsters, severely injured 

 individuals, and those <55 mm CI, were returned to the water untagged. All 

 others were returned to the laboratory and held in continuous-flow salt 

 water tanks. Each Friday, all lobsters were tagged with a numbered 

 international orange sphyrion tag (Scarratt and Elson 1965; Cooper 1970; 

 Scarratt 1970), and returned to the site of capture. Surface and bottom 

 water temperatures and salinities were recorded at each station during 

 each sampling trip with a Beckman salinometer. 



The size of the local lobster population was estimated using the 

 method of Jolly (1965) as modified by Seber (1965). This multiple census 

 method uses tag and recapture data collected from an open population 

 assuming the processes of birth, death and migration occur. The 

 Jolly-Seber model allows for parameter estimation of population size, 

 survival rates, recruitment, and capture probability. In addition, this 

 model was chosen because it is useful for long-term studies on open 

 populations. In our study individuals were considered recruits to the 

 population when they grew to a size vulnerable to capture by our traps. 



Methods for the collection of lobsters impinged on the intake 

 traveling screens are described in the Fish Ecology-Impingement Sampling 

 section of this report. A probability level of significance °c=0.05 was 

 used in all statistical tests. 



RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 



Abundance and Catch Per Unit Effort 



A total of 6376 lobsters were collected in the study area from May 

 through October 1983. Over all stations and months, catch per 100 pots 

 (CPUE) was 146 for all sizes of lobsters and 15 for legal-sized lobsters 

 (I81mm CL) . Since 1979, TT has had the highest total and legal CPUE of 

 the three stations; however, during 1983 JC had the highest total CPUE 

 (Table 1). The highest CPUE for total catch and legal catch occurred in 

 July at all stations (Table 2). In the Millstone Point area, as temperature 

 increased, catch increased, and as temperature decreased, catch decreased 

 (Fig. 2). This relationship between CPUE and water temperature has been 

 reported by other researchers (McLeese and Wilder 1958; Dow 1966, 1969, 

 1976; Flowers and Saila 1972). 



3 



