2019 MBA Seafood Watch Blue Crab Report

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

The Terrapin Institute began in 1998 as a consortium of concerned citizens, scientists, resource managers, and educators dedicated to the understanding, persistence, and recovery of Diamondback Terrapins and other turtles through effective management, thorough research, and public outreach. We work to protect an abundance of adult turtle populations, preserve nesting and forage habitat, and improve recruitment. In return the terrapin has become the perfect metaphor for natural resource stewardship and public engagement; the face of estuarine restoration, and a gateway to the many wonders of our rich tidewater heritage.
Blue crab pot unit State pot fishery terrapin Atlantic pot unit crab pot
About Terrapin Institute

Blue crab pot unit State pot fishery terrapin Atlantic pot unit crab pot
Blue crab
Callinectes sapidus
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
United States
Pots and Trotline
May 06, 2019
Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher
Disclaimer
Seafood 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 its
recommendations 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
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  
7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  
9
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  
13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                     
13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                     
33
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                     
44
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                     
64
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  
70
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  
71
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  
83
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  
88
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: Management Factors for Ineffective States
2
About Seafood Watch
Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and
farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood
as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the
long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makes its
science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be
downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program's goals are to raise awareness of important ocean
conservation 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 Watch
Assessment. Each assessment synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem
science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program's conservation ethic to arrive at a
recommendation of "Best Choices," "Good Alternatives" or "Avoid." This ethic is operationalized in the Seafood
Watch standards, available on our website here. In producing the assessments, Seafood Watch seeks out
research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information
include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other
scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with
ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when
evaluating 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 the
underlying assessments will be updated to reflect these changes.
Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are
welcome to use Seafood Watch assessments in any way they find useful.
3
Guiding Principles
Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished  or farmed that can
maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected
ecosystems.
The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable
by 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 fishing
occurs.
Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life.
Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophic
cascades, or phase shifts.
Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect the
diversity, 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 score
Guidelines 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 and
the overall recommendation are color coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide
and 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 other
marine life or the environment.
"Fish" is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates
1
1
4
Summary
The following assessment focuses on the US domestic blue crab pot and trotline fisheries. These fisheries occur
in Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay (Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey), and the US Atlantic, including
North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas,
Florida). There has also been a historic winter dredge fishery in Virginia, which is currently (but not necessarily
permanently) closed, and therefore not included in this report. 
The blue crab stock in Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico is abundant, but in the Atlantic,
blue crab appears to be varying over time without any trends. As one of the most ecologically and economically
significant species in the country, there has been increasing attention given to more effective management of
these stocks. Maryland, Virginia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission are working closely to sustain
healthy fisheries in Chesapeake Bay. North Carolina has adopted an innovative stock assessment method (based
on Georgia's threshold management approach), and Gulf Coast states have been collaborating with the Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC) to develop a new fishery management plan (FMP) and an
updated stock assessment to help ensure that blue crab populations are healthy.
Blue crab management is working sufficiently in all states. Blue crab populations naturally fluctuate both spatially
and temporally, and in order to manage them effectively, adequate data needs to be gathered and shared, and
management targets established. In some states, fishery-independent data that informs management decisions
are lacking, as is information about the environment. Both anthropogenic and natural processes such as
harvesting, habitat quality/quantity, water quality, and recruitment strength greatly affect blue crab population
dynamics. Thus, more effective management depends on increased data collection and analysis so the relative
effects of these threats can be determined. 
Blue crabs are primarily caught using crab pots with bait. There is also a small trotline fishery in Chesapeake
Bay. Trotlines, unlike traditional longlines, do not operate with hooks; the bait is tied to a line and the crabs
grasp the bait and are subsequently hauled onto the boat. Trotline gear catches individual crabs and produces
no bycatch. However, blue crab pot fisheries have the potential to catch non-targeted species, and are known to
have some impact on endangered, threatened, and protected (ETP) species. Crab pot bycatch primarily consists
of sublegal blue crabs, as well as small amounts of non-targeted finfish (mostly released alive), and
diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin). The most significant bycatch impact from the crab pot fishery is
on diamondback terrapins, mainly because they are air-breathers; while they constitute only a small fraction of
catch the impact on their populations can be significant. Diamondback terrapins are listed as "endangered" in
Rhode Island, "threatened" in Massachusetts, a "species of concern" in North Carolina and Virginia, and a "rare"
species in Georgia. Under the Natural Heritage Program State Wildlife Action Plans and NatureServe, terrapins
are identified as "critically imperiled" in Alabama, "imperiled" in Mississippi, and "vulnerable" in Louisiana,
Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Texas, while Florida terrapins are categorized as "apparently secure." 
Bycatch management to reduce interactions with diamondback terrapins needs significant improvement, as
terrapin bycatch affects the scoring of all crab pot fisheries from Virginia southward. New Jersey requires that
terrapin bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) be used in the commercial fishery, while Delaware and Maryland, in
the Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay region have very strict spatial regulations regarding pot placement (only
in the main stem of the bays, not in tidal creeks) and only require terrapin BRDs in the recreational fishery.
These regulations somewhat mitigate the bycatch of terrapins, but there is still insufficient protection for
immature terrapins, as well as low compliance rates. Virginia, however, does not have any mandatory bycatch
mitigation measures for terrapins in the commercial fishery, but recently introduced a reduction in licensing fees
for recreational crabbers that use BRDs. The Atlantic states do not currently have any terrapin bycatch
mitigation regulations, and bycatch management is ranked as "ineffective." There is ongoing research regarding
the most effective way to minimize bycatch, whether it is through using excluder devices or by minimizing
fishing in areas of high terrapin abundance. However, until mandatory management measures are in place,
5
terrapins are still at risk. All five of the Gulf states are conducting ongoing research on the blue crab fishery's
interaction with terrapins, and share their individual research through the GSMFC Blue Crab Subcommittee. Of
the 13 locations where terrapin populations were identified, seven of those sites prohibit crab pots completely
(within Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge and Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge) and one site prohibits commercial
crabbing (Sabine NWR). Additionally, there are several derelict pot cleanup programs in the Gulf states, since
ghost fishing from derelict pots is also a source of mortality for diamondback terrapins. These programs have
removed large amounts of derelict pots; however, the actual number of such pots is unknown, and estimates
indicate that ghost fishing is still a problem. Closed areas to fishing account for only a small percentage of
potential terrapin habitat, and BRDs are not required; therefore, bycatch management in the Gulf is ineffective
except in Alabama where spatial closures have been implemented similar to those in Chesapeake Bay.
Crab pots are a passively fished gear type, but they impact the substrate because the wire structures rest on
the bottom. Trotlines, similar to bottom longlines (but without hooks), rest along the benthos and are held in
place at each end with anchors and chains. Trotlines are set primarily in sand and silt. Both the blue crab pot
and trotline fisheries in this report have minimal mitigation of gear impacts. 
Blue crabs play an important role as a potential keystone predator in all regions covered in this report. Each of
the FMPs address the need for evaluating impacts of ecosystem variables on blue crab population dynamics, as
well as the need for conducting further research for a future ecosystem-based assessment model. However,
there are currently no plans in any region to implement ecosystem-based management measures.  
6
Final Seafood Recommendations
SPECIES/FISHERY
CRITERION
1: IMPACTS
ON THE
SPECIES
CRITERION 2:
IMPACTS ON
OTHER
SPECIES
CRITERION 3:
MANAGEMENT
EFFECTIVENESS
CRITERION 4:
HABITAT AND
ECOSYSTEM
OVERALL
RECOMMENDATION
Blue crab
Georgia Western
Central At lant ic, Pots,
United States of
America
Yellow
(2.644)
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.678)
Blue crab
South Carolina
Western Central
At lant ic, Pots, United
States of America
Yellow
(2.644)
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.678)
Blue crab
Florida Western Central
At lant ic, Pots, United
States of America
Yellow
(2.644)
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.678)
Blue crab
Maryland Chesapeake
Bay, Trot line, United
States of America
Green
(3.410)
Green (5.000) Green (4.000)
Yellow (3.000) Best Choice
(3.782)
Blue crab
Virginia Chesapeake
Bay, Pots, United
States of America
Green
(3.413)
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.788)
Blue crab
North Carolina
Northwest At lant ic,
Pots, United States of
America
Yellow
(2.644)
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.678)
Blue crab
Florida Gulf of Mexico,
Pots, United States of
America
Green
(3.413)
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.788)
Blue crab
Alabama Gulf of
Mexico, Pots, United
States of America
Green
(3.413)
Red (1.000)
Yellow (3.000)
Yellow (3.000) Good Alternative
(2.354)
Blue crab
Mississippi Gulf of
Mexico, Pots, United
States of America
Green
(3.413)
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.788)
7
Scoring Guide
Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing
operations have no significant impact.
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 scores
Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch
Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and no
Critical scores
Avoid/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 Avoid
recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).
Blue crab
Louisiana Gulf of
Mexico, Pots, United
States of America
Green
(3.413)
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.788)
Blue crab
Texas Gulf of Mexico,
Pots, United States of
America
Green
(3.413)
Red (1.000)
Red (1.000)
Yellow (3.000) Avoid (1.788)
Blue crab
Maryland Chesapeake
Bay, Pots, United
States of America
Green
(3.413)
Red (1.000)
Green (4.000)
Yellow (3.000) Good Alternative
(2.529)
Blue crab
New Jersey Delaware
Bay, Pots, United
States of America
Green
(3.413)
Red (1.000)
Green (4.000)
Yellow (3.000) Good Alternative
(2.529)
Blue crab
Delaware Northwest
At lant ic, Pots, United
States of America
Green
(3.413)
Red (1.000)
Green (4.000)
Yellow (3.000) Good Alternative
(2.529)
2
8
Introduction
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation
The following analysis focuses on the US domestic blue crab pot and trotline fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay,
Delaware Bay, and Gulf of Mexico as well as the US eastern Atlantic:
Blue crab, Chesapeake Bay, and Delaware Bay (New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia), crab pot
Blue crab, Maryland, trotline 
Blue crab, Gulf of Mexico (Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), crab pot
Blue crab, Atlantic (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida), crab pot 
Species Overview
The blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, is a member of the swimming crab family, Portunidae, which inhabits
estuarine and coastal waters. This species is both ecologically and economically significant. Blue crabs
contribute to the ecological processes in estuarine and coastal food web dynamics as both prey and predator to
several other species. Economically, the fisheries also represent a great resource; blue crab is one of the most
significant domestic commercial fisheries nationally, as well as for many individual states, in terms of weight
and monetary value (NMFS 2016a).
Management of blue crab fisheries is governed by many federal policies, but direct management responsibilities
fall upon the states in which the fisheries are located (Guillory et al. 2001). State natural resource departments
are generally responsible for managing blue crab fisheries under the direction of their respective regulatory
commissions (ibid). Regional Fishery Management Councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act do not have a direct hand in management because almost all US landings
are in state waters. The primary influence of federal law on blue crab fisheries is the regulation of coastal
water quality, habitat protection, and pollution control (ibid).
Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay present slightly unique situations where there is jurisdiction overlap in the
estuarine waters. Although Maryland, Virginia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission each have their
own regulations within Chesapeake Bay, and the same exists for Delaware and New Jersey in Delaware Bay,
there is some coordination in information-gathering and sharing, as well as in management efforts. Maryland,
Virginia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission share the management of blue crab fisheries in
Chesapeake Bay and are coordinated as signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab FMP (CBP 1997). The first
FMP in 1989 recognized the importance of the blue crab resource, identified areas of concern, and
recommended strategies to stabilize fishing effort across the three jurisdictions (CBP 1989). A second FMP in
1997 focused on conserving the stock in the bay to maintain the ecological value and long-term use of the
resource (CBP 1997). The Delaware Bay Blue Crab FMP was prepared by the State of Delaware, in cooperation
with the State of New Jersey, as a result of decreased bay-wide landings in 1996 (DDFW 2009). Bay
jurisdictions also share a common stock, and the biology, including the life cycle and migratory patterns of
crabs, mandates coordination (E. Schwaab, personal communication 2017).
Blue crab landings from Chesapeake Bay accounted for over 50% of all US crab landings from the 1970s to the
early 1990s (CBP 1997). Landings increased with rising effort through the latter part of the century and peaked
in the mid-1990s, as gear became more efficient (ibid). In 1996, both Maryland and Virginia limited effort in the
blue crab pot fishery by implementing limited access programs and capping the number of licenses available
(ibid). In 2008, Virginia also closed its winter dredge fishery, which targeted overwintering mature female crabs
(VMRC 2008). New Jersey and Delaware landings peaked in the late 1980s to mid-1990s, but declined in the
early 2000s (Sartwell 2009). Although there was a spike in landings in 2012, landings in 2014 were one of the
lowest on record (R. Wong, personal communication 2016). North Carolina landings increased in 1999 as a
9
result of flooding from three consecutive hurricanes, but dropped significantly from 2000 to 2002, and again
from 2005 to 2007 (NCDENR 2014). Recent landings in South Carolina have been above the long-term, 10-year
average (SCDNR 2018c), whereas Georgia landings decreased in the late 2000s, but have increased slightly
since 2010 (GADNR 2017a). Landings in Florida have decreased since the late 1990s (FWC and FWRI 2015). 
Blue crab management in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) is regulated by the respective states where crabs are
caught, but there is also a collaborative management effort through the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
Commission (GSMFC). Evaluation and modification of management efforts in any Gulf state must consider the
activities of the neighboring states. The GSMFC can make management recommendations to a state, but
ultimately, the state remains responsible for management of the species (Guillory et al. 2001).
Production Statistics
US blue crab fisheries are the greatest in volume of all the domestic crab fisheries (NMFS 2016c), ranging
from approximately 200 million lb caught in 2000 to approximately 150 million lb caught in 2015 (see figure;
blue crab landings in 2010 made the fishery the eighth largest fishery in the nation). At least 75% of reported
blue crab landings during this period were from four states: Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Figure 1 U.S. Blue Crab Landings (lbs) in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, from 2000-2014 (NMFS 
2016a). 
Importance to the US/North American market.
The National Marine Fisheries Service reports imports of crabs from the Family Portunidae and
Genus Callinectes (swimming crabs). Imports of frozen and preserved "swimming crab" meat totaled over 24
million kg (~53,000 lb) in 2015 (see figures) (NMFS 2016b). 
10
Figure 2 Imports of swimming crab (Portunidae and Callinectes) into the U.S. (kilos), from 2000 to 2015 (NMFS 
2016b).
Figure 3 Imports of swimming crab into the U.S. by country (kilos) in 2015 (NMFS 
2016b). 
Common and market names.
Blue crabs are also known as hardshell crab and softshell crab (FDA Seafood List 2016). Within the industry,
11
crabs have specific names based on sex and maturity (Zinkski 2006). These are: 1) Jimmya male blue crab;
2) Sally or She-craban immature female; 3) Sooka mature female; and 4) Sponge Craban ovigerous
(egg-bearing) female crab, named for the appearance of her egg mass ("sponge"). Egg-bearing females are
also referred to as spawn crabs, blooming female crabs, and mother crabs (PRFC 2009). 
Crabs are categorized as hard, soft, or peeler crabs based on their stage of molting. Softie is another name for
a soft-shell crab, and bust crab, buster, or busted crab describes a crab that is in the process of shedding its
exoskeleton (Sea Grant Virginia 2006).
Primary product forms
Blue crabs are harvested as hard shell crabs, peeler crabs (crabs just prior to molting), and soft shell crabs
(crabs that have just molted) (CBP 1997). Most blue crab crabmeat is sold fresh, but some is frozen or
pasteurized (Guillory et al. 2001).
12
Assessment
This 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 Seafood
Watch assessments.
Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment
This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. When
abundance is unknown, abundance is scored based on the species' inherent vulnerability, which is calculated
using a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric
mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:
Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score 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
BLUE CRAB
Region | Method
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Score
Georgia/Western Central
Atlantic | Pots | United
States of America
2.33: Moderate Concern
3.00: Moderate Concern
Yellow (2.644)
South Carolina/Western
Central Atlantic | Pots |
United States of America
2.33: Moderate Concern
3.00: Moderate Concern
Yellow (2.644)
Florida/Western Central
Atlantic | Pots | United
States of America
2.33: Moderate Concern
3.00: Moderate Concern
Yellow (2.644)
Maryland/Chesapeake Bay
| Trotline | United States
of America
2.33: Moderate Concern
5.00: Low Concern
Green (3.410)
Virginia/Chesapeake Bay
| Pots | United States of
America
2.33: Moderate Concern
5.00: Low Concern
Green (3.413)
North Carolina/Northwest
Atlantic | Pots | United
States of America
2.33: Moderate Concern
3.00: Moderate Concern
Yellow (2.644)
13
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 impair
recruitment or productivity.
5 (Very Low Concern)  Strong evidence exists that the population is above an appropriate target
abundance 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 target
level, 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 abundance
level, OR abundance is unknown and the species is not highly vulnerable.
1 (High Concern)  Population is considered overfished/depleted, a species of concern, threatened or
endangered, OR abundance is unknown and species is highly vulnerable.
Florida/Gulf of Mexico |
Pots | United States of
America
2.33: Moderate Concern
5.00: Low Concern
Green (3.413)
Alabama/Gulf of Mexico |
Pots | United States of
America
2.33: Moderate Concern
5.00: Low Concern
Green (3.413)
Mississippi/Gulf of Mexico
| Pots | United States of
America
2.33: Moderate Concern
5.00: Low Concern
Green (3.413)
Louisiana/Gulf of Mexico |
Pots | United States of
America
2.33: Moderate Concern
5.00: Low Concern
Green (3.413)
Texas/Gulf of Mexico |
Pots | United States of
America
2.33: Moderate Concern
5.00: Low Concern
Green (3.413)
Maryland/Chesapeake Bay
| Pots | United States of
America
2.33: Moderate Concern
5.00: Low Concern
Green (3.413)
New Jersey/Delaware Bay
| Pots | United States of
America
2.33: Moderate Concern
5.00: Low Concern
Green (3.413)
Delaware/Northwest
Atlantic | Pots | United
States of America
2.33: Moderate Concern
5.00: Low Concern
Green (3.413)
14
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 sustainable
level, given the species ecological role, OR fishery does not target species and fishing mortality is low
enough to not adversely affect its population.
3 (Moderate Concern)  Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality
relative to a sustainable level is uncertain.
1 (High Concern)  Probable that fishing mortality from all source is above a sustainable level.
BLUE CRAB
Factor 1.1 - Abundance
GEORGIA/WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
In 2003, NMFS declared a fishery failure for Georgia blue crab in response to declining abundance levels from
five consecutive years of extreme drought (GADNR 2008a). Four tropical storms in the fall of 2004 officially
ended the drought and produced one of the highest spawner year classes in the history of the survey (since
1976), in the spring of 2005 (ibid). The 2008 FMP implemented the use of a threshold management system
that establishes thresholds for spawning stock from surveys and commercial catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE)
estimates (ibid).  
There are three thresholds, which are based on the confidence interval around the grand mean CPUE (for the
history of the fishery), and include the lower 95% confidence interval, and upper and lower 81% confidence
intervals (see figures (GADNR 2015a). If the average CPUE based on trip tickets and the monthly surveys for a
six-month period exceed the confidence interval thresholds, then there are several specific management
measures that will be implemented for a minimum of three consecutive months (ibid).  
The management measures vary in severity based on the threshold level that is exceeded, and include: 1)
seasonal restrictions on female harvest; and 2) a prohibition on all female harvest, or a complete harvest
moratorium (GADNR 2008a). Abundance levels have never fully recovered from the period of low rainfall, and
since 2011, there have been many months where CPUE and survey estimates have been below the lower 81%
confidence interval (see figures). However, both the fishery-independent trawl data and commercial catch and
effort data need to agree for a management action to be undertaken. This has not happened since the
drought of the early 2000s (P. Geer, personal communication 2017). There is no clear evidence as to whether
the Georgia blue crab stock is overfished or not, based on the limited data available, and in combination with
medium vulnerability, abundance results in a score of "moderate" concern. 
Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality
15
Figure 4 Catch-per-unit-effort (crabs per trawl) of female blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) caught in monthly
trawl surveys (GADNR 2015a).
Figure 5 Catch-per-unit effort (lbs per pot) of commercially harvested blue crab in Georgia. Shown are
monthly CPUE (green dots), six-month running average CPUE (blue line), grand mean (black line), and
management thresholds of upper and lower 81% CI and lower 95% CI (red dashed lines) (GADNR 2015a).
Justification:
16
The South Carolina (SC) Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has conducted fishery-independent
surveys of blue crab using crab pots since 1988 (SCDNR 2016f). The SC blue crab stock has fluctuated in
abundance over time, but has never fully recovered from a decline after periods of low rainfall between 1998
and 2002 (see figure) (DeLancey 2015) (SCDNR 2016b). Sampling is conducted in six sound systems with
samples stratified by small creek, sound proper, and coastal ocean waters (SCDNR 2016b). At each of the 42
sites presently sampled, total number of crabs, total weight, maturity, sex, ecdysis stage, and egg stage are
recorded from all specimens (ibid). However, the information on if and how these metrics have changed over
time is not publicly available. There are no reliable estimates of abundance compared to reference points;
therefore, data-limited indicators are used to estimate stock status. Catch-per-unit-effort in scientific surveys
has been increasing since 2015 (following a period of decline) (figure 3), and blue crabs have a medium
inherent vulnerability (PSA = 3.13; see PSA below for detailed scoring). As a result, SFW scores the SC blue
crab stock as a "moderate" concern (a minimum of two data-limited indicators are needed to show a positive
outcome for a score of "low" concern to be achieved for species of medium vulnerability [as determined by
the PSA]). 
Justification:
Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis  All stocks:
Scoring Guidelines
1.) Productivity score (P) = average of the productivity attribute scores (p1, p2, p3, p4 (finfish only), p5 (finfish
only), 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)
2 
2 
Productivity
Attribute
Relevant Information
Score (1 = low risk, 2
= medium risk, 3 =
high risk)
Average age at maturity 1-1.25 years (Van Engel
1958) (Perry 1975)
1
Average maximum age
3 years
1
Fecundity
3,200,000
eggs/year (Graham et al.
2012)
2
Average maximum size
(fish only)
N/A
-
Average size at maturity
(fish only)
N/A
-
Reproductive strategy
Demersal egg
layer (GSMFC 2015)
2
SOUTH CAROLINA/WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
17
Trophic level
3.2 (Christian and
Luczkovich 1999)
2
Density dependence
(invertebrates only)
Compensatory (Wahle
2003)
1
Susceptibility
Attribute
Relevant Information
Score (1 = low risk, 2
= medium risk, 3 =
high risk)
Areal overlap
(Considers all fisheries)
Crab pots are only fished
in shallow bays and
estuarine waters, and are
not fishable in deep waters
(Gandy, R.L. personal
communication 2016);
however, the amount of
blue crab populated area
that is unfished is
unknown. 
3
Vertical overlap
(Considers all fisheries)
Fishing for blue crab with
crab pots and trotlines
occurs exclusively on the
bottom, where blue crabs
are found. 
3
Selectivity of fishery
(Specific to fishery
under assessment)
In LA, FL, MS, and TX,
blue crab pots are required
to have a minimum of two
escape rings to allow for
the exit of undersized
crabs from the
pots (GSMFC 2015).  NC
requires the use of 3
escape rings in all crab
pots (NCDMF 2013).
2
Post-capture
mortality
(Specific to fishery
under assessment)
In most states, blue crab is
retained unless they are
under-sized or are egg
bearing females. However,
there is no evidence that
over 33% of species
caught in the blue crab
fishery are released. 
3
18
Vulnerability Score (V):
V = P + S
V = 1.5 + 2.75
V = 9.81
V = 3.13
Blue crabs are considered to have medium inherent vulnerability
Figure 6 Estimates of relative blue crab abundance from 2002 to 2018 based on catch per unit effort in
scientific surveys conducted in South Carolina (pers comm. SCDNR, 2019)
2
2
2
2
FLORIDA/WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
In Florida, the Atlantic coast and Gulf coast stocks are assessed separately. The Florida Gulf coast stock is
assessed as a part of the Gulf States Fisheries Commission blue crab assessment, and is considered below.
The 2015 assessment estimated MSY at 12 million crabs for the Atlantic coast (FWC and FWRI 2015).
Although estimates of current abundance are not available, the assessments have estimated indices for
young-of-the-year (the current measure of abundance for Florida blue crabs), which show that Florida blue
crabs were at near-historic lows in 2014 (see figure; ibid). However, the stock is not currently considered
overfished. Young-of-the-year abundance has varied cyclically over time based on freshwater inflow, so even
though abundance is low, there is not yet concern over the condition of the stock (ibid). Since fishery
managers classify crab stock abundance as low, but not overfished, Florida blue crab is ranked as "moderate"
concern. 
19
Figure 7 Proportion of fishery-independent monitoring sets that captured Florida Atlantic coast young-of-the-
year blue crab, from 1997-2014 (FWC and FWRI 2015).
MARYLAND/CHESAPEAKE BAY, TROTLINE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA/CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARYLAND/CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY/DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
The Chesapeake Bay blue crab population is not overfished (CBSAC 2015). Recent crab survey results found
that crab abundance has significantly increased, and the crab stock is healthy (VMRC 2016a). In 2008, the
U.S. Department of Commerce declared a failure of the blue crab fishery in Chesapeake Bay after a dramatic
downturn in the softshell and peeler segments of the fishery (CBP 2008). By 2016, there were 194 million
crabs, which is below the target of 215 million crabs, but above the threshold of 70 million crabs (see figure)
(CBSAC 2016). The female-specific, age 1+ abundance target and threshold were set accordingly at
abundance levels associated with 75% N
(target) and 50% N
(threshold; ibid). The 2016 blue crab
winter dredge survey, which also monitors the number of female age 1+ crabs in comparison to female-
specific abundance points, found that the population of blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay has increased by
35%, to a total of 553 million crabs (CBSAC 2016). The number of female age 1+ crabs nearly doubled to 194
million, and the male stock more than doubled, from 44 to 91 million crabs (VMRC 2016a). Due to the
uncertainty of the reference points, as they are based only on survey abundance and not on modeled biomass
levels, abundance is ranked as "moderate" concern.  
MSY 
MSY 
Justification:
The number of blue crabs over time in the winter dredge survey is shown below in the figure. Reference
points were modified in 2011 to be maximum sustainable yield (MSY)-based thresholds and targets based on
Justification:
20
the abundance of female age 1+ crabs, which is a more appropriate measure of the blue crab spawning stock
biomass (CBSAC 2015). The overfished abundance threshold is 70 million crabs, which is based on 50% of
female biomass of age 1+ crabs (135 million). The overfished abundance target is 215 million crabs, which is
based on 75% of female biomass of age 1+ crabs.
Figure 8 Winter dredge survey estimate of abundance of female blue crabs age one year and older (age 1+)
with female-specific reference points, from 1990-2016. These are female crabs measuring greater than 60
mm across the carapace and are considered the 'exploitable stock' that could spawn within this year (CBSAC
2016).
NORTH CAROLINA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
The North Carolina blue crab population has been in decline, and management actions are currently being
taken to improve stock condition (NCMFC 2016a). The stock is considered moderately vulnerable based on the
Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) below, which uses proxy information that considers the species' life-
history and characteristics of the fishery. There are also concerns that the stock is approaching an unfavorable
state based on North Carolina's Traffic Light Assessment System (described below) (ibid). North Carolina's
blue crab population has declined since record-high commercial landings from 1996 to 1999, and significant
reductions in commercial landings were experienced from 2000 to 2002, and from 2005 to 2007 (NCDMF
2013). However, blue crab abundance increased between 2014 and 2015 (NCMFC 2016a). Blue crab harvest
from Pamlico Sound and Core Sound are traditionally the lowest. Landings from Albemarle Sound make up
the majority of landings in the state, with over half of the state's commercial harvest in 2009 (NCDMF 2013).
The abundance characteristics for 2015 estimated that survey abundance is below the historical average, and
the 2015 stock assessment found that adult abundance and recruit characteristics had declined for three
consecutive years (additional explanation in the "justification" section below, and in the figure). 
Management actions have been put into place to minimize the decline in adult and recruit abundance (NCMFC
21
2016a). The management measures included: 1) adding one additional cull ring to crab pots; 2) eliminating
the harvest of v-apron immature female hard crabs (excluding peeler crabs), and that v-apron immature hard
crab females be included in the culling tolerance (currently only includes sublegal male and immature female
hard crabs); 3) prohibiting harvest of dark sponge crabs (brown and black) from April 1 to April 30, and
including dark sponge crabs in the cull tolerance; 4) lowering the cull tolerance to 5% for all crabs, except
mature females; and 5) prohibiting crab harvest with dredges, except incidental to lawful oyster
dredging (NCMFC 2016b). Although abundance, recruitment, and production characteristics were below the
average historical level in 2014 and 2015, indices have improved since, indicating that the stock may be
rebuilding (NCMFC 2016). As blue crab is a short-lived species, and since the fishery varies greatly from year
to year, it is too soon to tell if the stock is moving back towards historical levels. Since there is uncertainty over
the current stock status relative to a sustainable level, and blue crabs are considered to have a medium
vulnerability to fishing pressure (according to the PSA), abundance in North Carolina is scored as a
"moderate" conservation concern.  
Justification:
The most recent blue crab FMP, published in 2013, found that data was lacking for a traditional surplus
production model and catch survey analysis (NCDMF 2013). As a result, North Carolina decided to use an
index-based assessment called the Traffic Light Method (based on Georgia's threshold management
approach), which combines a variety of information to provide a qualitative description of stock
condition (ibid). The Traffic Light Assessment uses data from three surveys to create four different indices, in
order to assess the status of the stock (ibid). The abundance characteristic is based on adult abundance
in three different surveys throughout state waters, and the production characteristic is based on trends over
time in carapace width, spawning stock biomass, frequency of mature females, and length at 50% maturity
throughout different regions of North Carolina state waters (ibid). Based on the results, green is indicative of a
favorable stock condition, yellow of an uncertain or transitioning stock, and red of an unfavorable stock
condition (ibid). The adult abundance indicator is a composite of all the individual adult abundance survey
indices. Each year, each survey index is evaluated based on the relationship of that value to the historical
mean for that survey. If an index value is above the 95% confidence interval of the base year mean, it is 100%
green; if it is below the 95% confidence interval, it is 100% red. If the index value is within the 95%
confidence interval, it is assigned a percentage of green and yellow, or yellow and red, depending on how far
above or below the mean it is. Once this is done for each adult abundance index, the percentage of green,
yellow, and red are multiplied by a weighting factor (weighting factor is based on area and is determined by
the region the survey index is from) and combined into one indicator. Therefore, the adult abundance indicator
is representing the weighted percentage of green, yellow, and red from all the adult abundance surveys
combined. Amendment 2 to the FMP considers the blue crab stock to be in an overfished condition when the
proportion of red in the production characteristic of the Traffic Light Method is greater than or equal to the
third quartile (75% red) for three consecutive years. Although the North Carolina blue crab stock is not
overfished, it is currently below the historical average.  
22
Figure 9 Traffic Light Assessment for adult abundance, recruit abundance, and production characteristics,
from 1987-2015 (NCMFC 2016).
FLORIDA/GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA/GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI/GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS/GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
The GOM blue crab stocks in each state are assessed together as a part of the GSMFC blue crab stock
assessment. According to the most recent GSMFC stock assessment, the GOM blue crab population is not
overfished (GDAR 2013). GOM blue crab landings have gradually decreased over the past two decades, along
with juvenile abundance, while adult abundance has fluctuated (ibid). Blue crab in the GOM was last assessed
in 2013, using a catch-survey analysis and a surplus production model from both fishery-dependent (logbook)
and -independent (survey) data for the Western and Eastern GOM stocks, separately (Perry and VanderKooy
2015). The population estimates in both stocks are currently close to the estimated abundance for maximum
sustainable yield (MSY), though the Western GOM stock has showed a slight decline in the past few years
(GDAR 2013). For the Western GOM stock, N/N
= 0.95 (90% CI: 0.21 to 1.29; Figure 10) and N/N
= 3.13
(90% CI: 1.41 to 19.45) for the Eastern GOM stock (see figure; ibid); N>N
in both the Western and Eastern
stocks. Both stocks are currently not overfished, although the Western stock is in a depressed state and
approaching an overfished limit. Due to the above, a score of "moderate" concern is given.  
MSY
MSY
limit
23
Figure 10 Western GOM stock status relative to proposed control rule. All points below the control rule line are
not overfished or undergoing overfishing relative to the default limits proposed in the 2013 assessment
(GSMFC 2015).
Justification:
24
Figure 11 Eastern GOM stock status relative to proposed control rule. All points below the control rule line are
not overfished or undergoing overfishing relative to the default limits proposed in the 2013 assessment
(GSMFC 2015).
LOUISIANA/GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
The 2017 estimate for Louisiana blue crab is SSB/SSB
 = 1.36 or 25 million lb, which is below the target of
27.4 million lb, but above the SSB
 of 18.2 million lb (West et al. 2018), suggesting that the stock is currently
not overfished, and above 75% of the target. Louisiana blue crab is not overfished, but is a part of the wider
GOM western stock, and is therefore included in the GOM blue crab stock assessment. The Western stock, as
a whole, is in a depressed state and approaching an overfished limit; therefore, abundance is scored as
"moderate" concern.
limit
limit
25
Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality
Blue crab landings from the northern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) are primarily of Louisiana (LA) origin (part of the
Western GOM blue crab stock in the inclusive GOM stock assessment). For purposes of the LA stock
assessment, the blue crab unit stock is defined as those crabs occurring in LA waters (ibid).
In the previous assessment update (LDFW 2016), the Louisiana blue crab stock was considered overfished.
The state of Louisiana has a control rule that ensures management actions will be taken if the stock is defined
as overfished. Therefore, based on that status, the Louisiana Legislature and the Wildlife and Fisheries
Commission took actions to reduce harvest. These management actions included: 1) legislation to modify
escape rings and to expand crab trap cleanup abilities; 2) commission rule to provisionally ban harvest of
immature females from 2017 to 2019; 3) allowing seasonal closures of all crab harvest in 2017; and 4)
allowing seasonal closure of female crab harvest in 2018 and 2019 (ibid). The current assessment (2018) is
the first measure of the effectiveness of those management actions enacted prior to 2018 (ibid). 
Auditors of the LA blue crab fishery MSC re-assessment noted that there were significant increases in blue
crab SSB after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita (due to reduced fishing effort), and that the LA blue crab stock is
capable of recovering from the current low SSB with the potential to rebuild to the biomass TRP in about 3
years (Scott and Tremblay 2018). The initial closure and subsequent measures to protect female blue crabs
are expected to decrease landings by 5% each year (LDWF 2016), which will increase the percentage of crabs
that reproduce, and increase yield per recruit (ibid). It is therefore believed that it is highly likely that reducing
F as a rebuilding strategy will ensure rebuilding of the stocks within five years (ibid).
GEORGIA/WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
Georgia landings decreased in the late 2000s, but have increased slightly since 2010 (see Figure 12). Some of
the decline in landings is because of reduced effort, closure of all the blue crab picking houses, and an
industry-led reduction of latent effort by reducing available licenses from 159 to 100 (P. Geer, personal
communication 2016). Although fishing mortality is not calculated directly, there is no indication that
overfishing is occurring, and a score of "moderate" concern is given.  
Justification:
Justification:
26
Figure 12 Georgia hard crab landings, from 1989-2015 (GADNR 2016).
SOUTH CAROLINA/WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
South Carolina blue crab landings have been above the long-term, 10-year average, although lack of a formal
assessment of fishing mortality means that the overfishing status of the stock is unknown (see figure) (SDNR
2016c), or of "moderate" concern.
Justification:
Figure 13 Commercial catch of blue crab (lbs) in South Carolina compared to the 10-year average (SDNR
2016c).
27
FLORIDA/WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
Florida blue crabs are also not experiencing overfishing, and fishing mortality has decreased since the late
1990s (see figure) (FWC and FWRI 2015). Due to the lack of sufficient information from all states in the
Atlantic, but considering that overfishing does not appear to be occurring, fishing mortality is ranked as
"moderate" concern. 
Justification:
Figure 14 Total annual landings (lbs) of blue crab on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida, from 1982-2014
(FWC and FWRI 2015).
MARYLAND/CHESAPEAKE BAY, TROTLINE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA/CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARYLAND/CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY/DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Low Concern
Although there is no formal estimate of fishing mortality, the blue crab stock in Chesapeake Bay does not
appear to be experiencing overfishing. Estimates of fishing mortality are calculated using an exploitation
fraction, which is the annual harvest of female crabs in one year divided by the total number of female crabs
at age 0+ (CBSAC 2017). The most recently estimated abundance of female crabs removed by fishing is 16%,
which is below the target of 25.5%, and the threshold of 34%, for the ninth consecutive year (see first figure).
In addition, the exploitation rate on male crabs has been below the conservation trigger since 2005 (see
second figure; ibid). For this reason, blue crab fishing mortality is deemed as "low" concern. The Delaware
Bay (DE and NJ) blue crab stock does not have a separate assessment and is managed in conjunction with the
Chesapeake Bay stock. Blue crab catch in DE and NJ has decreased in the last decade, but has increased
slightly in recent years (see third figure) (NMFS 2016a). Fishing mortality is deemed a "low" concern for
28
Delaware Bay as well. 
Justification:
Figure 15 The percentage of female crabs removed from the population each year by fishing, relative to the
female specific target (25.5%) and threshold (34%) exploitation rates, from 1996-2016. Exploitation rate (%
removed) is the number of crabs harvested within a year, divided by the population of all crabs estimated at
the beginning of the year (CBSAC 2017).
Figure 16 The percentage of male crabs removed from the population each year by fishing, from 1990-2016.
Exploitation rate (% removed) is the number of male crabs harvested within a year, divided by the male
population estimate (age 0 and age 1+) at the beginning of the year (CBSAC 2017).
29
Figure 17 New Jersey (NJ) and Delaware (DE) commercial blue crab landings by state, from 1973-2015 (NMFS
2016a). Landings from 2015 are projected landings and have not yet been finalized (Richard Wong, personal
communication, 2016).
NORTH CAROLINA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
North Carolina uses carapace width, spawning stock, frequency of mature females, pre-recruit abundance,
and length at 50% maturity to assess the status of blue crab under the Traffic Light Method. Due to the lack of
a quantitative assessment, the overfishing status of blue crab in North Carolina cannot be estimated. Although
landings were low in 2013, they have increased in both 2014 and 2015 (see figure). Due to the condition of
adult and recruit abundance characteristics, management actions were taken that affect fishing mortality.
These included: 1) adding one additional cull ring to crab pots; 2) eliminating the harvest of v-apron immature
female hard crabs (excluding peeler crabs), and that v-apron immature hard crab females be included in the
culling tolerance (currently only includes sublegal male and immature female hard crabs); 3) prohibiting
harvest of dark sponge crabs (brown and black) from April 1 to April 30, and including dark sponge crabs in
the cull tolerance; 4) lowering the cull tolerance to 5% for all crabs, except mature females; and 5)
prohibiting crab harvest with dredges except incidental to lawful oyster dredging (NMFC 2016b). Since there is
no quantitative stock assessment, but overfishing is not likely to be occurring based on recent landings data, a
score of "moderate" concern is awarded.
30
Figure 18 Commercial hard crab landings in North Carolina waters, from 1987-2015 (millions of lbs) (NMFC
2016b).
FLORIDA/GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA/GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI/GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS/GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Low Concern
In both the Eastern and Western GOM stocks, F/F
was less than 1.0 (0.72 for the Western stock and 0.51
for the Eastern stock) (GSMFC 2013); therefore, overfishing is not occurring. To prevent overfishing, the
following management measures were implemented: 1) a ban on the take of immature females (went into
effect in January 2017); 2) seasonal crab closures (the first was held from February 20 to March 22, 2017); 3)
a rule implementing a minimum of three escape rings, and an increase in escape ring size to 2 3/8 in (which
took effect in November 2017; and 4) the removal of an exemption of escape rings in Lake Pontchartrain)
(LDWF 2017a) (LDWF 2017b). Since blue crab fishing mortality is variable from year to year, and is dependent
on environmental conditions (and management actions are being implemented), it is likely that overfishing will
be prevented and harvest will be controlled. Louisiana is the only state in the GOM that has conducted their
own recent assessment. Therefore, until the next Gulf-wide assessment, the GOM blue crab fishery is ranked
as "low" concern. 
MSY 
LOUISIANA/GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Low Concern
The 2016 estimate (F was not estimated by the model for the most recent year, 2017) for Louisiana blue crab
is F/F
= 0.82, suggesting that the stock is not currently experiencing overfishing (West et al. 2018). Yet, the
2014, 2015, and 2016 fishing mortality rate estimates were past their target and the 2014 value was very
close to the overfishing threshold (ibid). Because the stock is not undergoing overfishing, fishing mortality is
considered a "low" concern.
limit
Justification:
These estimates should be considered from a precautionary viewpoint given the upward trend in fishing
mortality, combined with the decrease in exploitable biomass observed in the most recent decade (ibid). The
Justification:
overfishing reference point estimate in this assessment (Flimit) is calculated assuming equilibrium conditions
and potentially overestimated given the below-average recruitment observed in the past 20 years. Estimates
of fishing mortality are not available for 2017 (ibid).
31
Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species
All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated under Criterion 2. Seafood Watch defines
bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include
discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. Species are evaluated using the same
guidelines as in Criterion 1. When information on other species caught in the fishery is unavailable, the fishery's
potential impacts on other species is scored according to the Unknown Bycatch Matrices, which are based on a
synthesis of peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type. The fishery
is also scored for the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. To
determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by
the discard/bait score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:
Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Score >2.2 and =3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score =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 and
assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.
BLUE CRAB - ALABAMA/GULF OF MEXICO - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
West Indian manatee
1.00:High Concern
5.00:Low Concern
Yellow (2.236)
BLUE CRAB - DELAWARE/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
Bottlenose dolphin
1.00:High Concern
3.00:Moderate Concern
Red (1.732)
32
BLUE CRAB - FLORIDA/GULF OF MEXICO - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
West Indian manatee
1.00:High Concern
5.00:Low Concern
Yellow (2.236)
BLUE CRAB - FLORIDA/WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
Bottlenose dolphin
1.00:High Concern
3.00:Moderate Concern
Red (1.732)
West Indian manatee
1.00:High Concern
5.00:Low Concern
Yellow (2.236)
BLUE CRAB - GEORGIA/WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
Bottlenose dolphin
1.00:High Concern
3.00:Moderate Concern
Red (1.732)
West Indian manatee
1.00:High Concern
5.00:Low Concern
Yellow (2.236)
BLUE CRAB - LOUISIANA/GULF OF MEXICO - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
West Indian manatee
1.00:High Concern
5.00:Low Concern
Yellow (2.236)
BLUE CRAB - MARYLAND/CHESAPEAKE BAY - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
Bottlenose dolphin
1.00:High Concern
3.00:Moderate Concern
Red (1.732)
33
BLUE CRAB - MARYLAND/CHESAPEAKE BAY - TROTLINE - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
5.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
5.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
No other main species caught
BLUE CRAB - MISSISSIPPI/GULF OF MEXICO - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
West Indian manatee
1.00:High Concern
5.00:Low Concern
Yellow (2.236)
BLUE CRAB - NEW JERSEY/DELAWARE BAY - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
Bottlenose dolphin
1.00:High Concern
3.00:Moderate Concern
Red (1.732)
BLUE CRAB - NORTH CAROLINA/NORTHWEST ATLANTIC - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
Bottlenose dolphin
1.00:High Concern
3.00:Moderate Concern
Red (1.732)
West Indian manatee
1.00:High Concern
5.00:Low Concern
Yellow (2.236)
BLUE CRAB - SOUTH CAROLINA/WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
Bottlenose dolphin
1.00:High Concern
3.00:Moderate Concern
Red (1.732)
West Indian manatee
1.00:High Concern
5.00:Low Concern
Yellow (2.236)
34
Gear used in the blue crab fishery has the potential to catch non-targeted species, and as a result, crab fishing
has had some impacts on endangered, threatened, and protected (ETP) species. Bycatch in the blue crab
fishery is minimal and consists primarily of invertebrates and small numbers of non targeted finfish (Guillory et
al. 2012) (Page et al. 2013). There has been some concern over marine mammal and sea turtle interactions
with crab pots due to entanglement in the float lines, but these interactions are thought to be very rare (NMFS
2017). The Atlantic blue crab pot fishery is listed as a Category II fishery and the GOM blue crab fishery is listed
as a Category III fishery under the NMFS list of fisheries (NMFS 2017), which means there are occasional or
rare interactions with marine mammals, respectively. The Atlantic blue crab fishery is listed as a Category II
fishery due to interactions with Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and manatees (ibid). Interactions with manatees are
minimal, and fishing mortality is ranked as "low" concern. Bottlenose dolphin populations, on the other hand,
are of unknown abundance, and it is not possible to identify a sustainable level of impact, or Potential Biological
Removal (PBR), in many cases (Waring et al. 2016). As a result, the impact of blue crab fisheries on Atlantic
bottlenose dolphins is unknown, or a "moderate" conservation concern, according to Seafood Watch.
Literature on bycatch in blue crab pots has shown that the pot fisheries do not have a significant impact on
finfish or invertebrate bycatch, but that diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) can become caught in
pots (Page et al. 2013) and cannot escape to breathe at the surface. Diamondback terrapin abundance is known
to decrease significantly as fishing effort increases (Grosse et al. 2011). Although diamondback terrapin
populations are threatened due to mortality in crab pots (both active and derelict), there is only a threat where
terrapin habitat and blue crab fishing overlaps. The main threat to terrapins is nest depredation and habitat
reduction/modification (Seigel and Gibbons 1995) (Pearson and Wiebe 2018a) (S. Vanderkooy, personal
communication 2018). Terrapins play a very important role in maintaining coastal saltwater marsh ecosystems
by aiding in seed dispersal, and controlling insects and snails that prey on seagrass (USFWS 2016). For all blue
crab pot fisheries, terrapin bycatch limits the score for Criterion 2 due to gear interactions and their importance
as potential keystone predators in estuarine ecosystems (Rook et al. 2010).
Criterion 2 Assessment
SCORING GUIDELINES
Factor 2.1 - Abundance
(same as Factor 1.1 above)
BLUE CRAB - TEXAS/GULF OF MEXICO - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
West Indian manatee
1.00:High Concern
5.00:Low Concern
Yellow (2.236)
BLUE CRAB - VIRGINIA/CHESAPEAKE BAY - POTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Subscore:
1.000
Discard Rate:
1.00
C2 Rate:
1.000
Species
Abundance
Fishing Mortality
Subscore
Diamondback terrapins
(unspecified)
1.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.000)
Bottlenose dolphin
1.00:High Concern
3.00:Moderate Concern
Red (1.732)
35
Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality
(same as Factor 1.2 above)
DIAMONDBACK TERRAPINS (UNSPECIFIED)
Factor 2.1 - Abundance
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
High Concern
Diamondback terrapins are highly inherently vulnerable, primarily because of their minimal reproductive
output, but also because they are a long lived species (Roosenburg 1991). In the early 20 century, terrapins
were hunted (as food) nearly to extinction, but the population is thought to have recovered to some extent
once the demand for them waned (Maerz and Grosse 2010). Two recent genetic studies of terrapins across
Louisiana's coast found low genetic diversity and potential bottlenecks in recent history, which is evidence of
the overharvest of terrapins in Louisiana (Drabeck et al. 2014) (Petre et al. 2015).
However, there are still many sources of mortality for diamondback terrapins, including habitat degradation,
pollution, predation by raccoons, feral hogs, foxes, coyotes, birds, otters, skunks, bald eagles, ants, stone,
ghost and blue crabs Seigel and Gibbons 1995} (Butler et al. 2006) (Rook et al. 2010) (Munscher et al. 2012)
(Drabeck et al. 2014) (Pearson and Wiebe 2018a), and being caught as bycatch in commercial and
recreational blue crab pots, both active and derelict (Gibbons et al. 2001) (Anderson and Alford 2015)
(Pearson and Wiebe 2018a). More than 90% of terrapin nests are destroyed by predators such as raccoons
(Procyon lotor), who predate on both terrapin eggs and adults (Mohrman and Tappa 2014) (Munscher et al.
2012). As a result, only a few diamondback terrapins survive to adulthood, and thus, impacts on the species
from any of the above-mentioned sources could have serious consequences. 
Considering the unknown population status of diamondback terrapins, the various listings in different states,
the considerable number of threats they face, and the fact that they are a keystone species (Silliman and
Bertness 2002), diamondback terrapins are highly vulnerable to fishing and are therefore ranked as a "high"
conservation concern.
th
Justification:
Diamondback terrapins live along the US Atlantic Coast from Cape Cod to Galveston Bay. In the
GOM (Roosenburg 1991) and throughout their range, the population sizes in the states are primarily unknown
or declining, and few are considered stable (Butler et al. 2006) (Seigel and Gibbons 1995). There are seven
distinct subspecies that are managed as different units. Moving south along the coast, population sizes tend to
decrease so that those in Cape Cod and Chesapeake Bay are the highest, and those in the GOM and south of
Chesapeake Bay are low, and of concern (Butler et al. 2006) (Seigel and Gibbons 1995). The Tortoise &
36
Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group of the IUCN and the Endangered Species List have classified this species as
"Near Threatened" (Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group 1996). Terrapins are listed as endangered
in Rhode Island and threatened in Massachusetts. Under the Natural Heritage Program, terrapins are identified
as critically imperiled in Alabama, imperiled in Mississippi, vulnerable in North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas,
and "apparently secure" in Maryland, Georgia, and Florida (see table) (Hackney 2010) (Selman et al. 2014). 
The total abundance of diamondback terrapins in US waters is unknown as there have been very few
population surveys, and those conducted recently found that terrapin populations tend to be localized
throughout creeks and brackish water wetlands (USFWS 2016). Therefore, obtaining accurate population
counts along the US east coast and in the GOM is difficult. A recent study in Georgia found that 88% of creeks
were populated with terrapins, and estimated the population to be approximately 92,000 individuals, one of
the largest populations recorded (Maerz and Grosse 2010). In Georgia, Kiawah island has the largest historical
terrapin population; however, there has been a 75% decline over the past two decades, which is likely
attributable to increased development on the island, among other things (Dorcas et al. 2007). In 2014, a
terrapin survey in Louisiana found terrapins in nearly all their historical localities, as well as in 12 new
localities; some areas were even considered locally abundant (Selman et al. 2014). Pearson and Wiebe
(2018b) also found patchy distribution with local areas of abundance in Louisiana's Deltaic marshes, similar to
those described in the Chenier Plain (Selman et al. 2014). In Pontchartrain and Terrebonne basins, the
authors found that highest CPUE sites were within remote locations, whereas the site with the highest CPUE in
Barataria Basin was in relative proximity to anthropogenic development (boat launch, fishing communities,
etc.), but where trapping for blue crab is prohibited (Pearson and Wiebe 2018b). Higher CPUE at these sites
could be attributed to a number of things: improved habitat quality (higher salinity near the Gulf of Mexico),
proximity to nesting habitats, or reduced pressure from fisheries in/around these sites (ibid). Further research
is needed to determine the drivers of terrapin abundance.
Nonetheless, terrapin abundance appeared to be the lowest in areas associated with crab pots, smaller marsh
State
Status
Reference
New Jersey
Special Concern
(NJDEP 2008)
Delaware
Rare to Uncommon (Tier II)
(DDNREC 2015)
Maryland
Apparently Secure (S4)
(MDDNR 2016)
Virginia
Very High Conservation Need (Tier II)
(VDGIF 2015)
North Carolina Vulnerable (S3)
(NCWRC 2015)
South Carolina High Priority 
(SCDNR 2014)
Georgia
Apparently Secure (S4)
(GADNR 2015b)
Florida
Apparently Secure (S4)
(FWC 2012)
Alabama
Critically Imperiled (S2 P1)
(ADCNR 2015)
Mississippi
Imperiled (S2)
(MMNS 2015)
Louisiana
Vulnerable (S3)
(LDFW 2015)
Texas
Vulnerable (S3)
(Natureserve 2016)
37
Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality
areas, and channels that no longer have a permanent connection to the Gulf of Mexico (ibid). In other words,
this study identifies crab pots as a possible cause for low terrapin abundance (not as a major source of
mortality), but ultimately identifies a need for more research on terrapin abundance throughout Louisiana and
the GOM.
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
High Concern
Mortality of diamondback terrapins is the result of a variety of factors (as described above). Since direct
harvest of terrapins has been prohibited in this region, fishing mortality of diamondback terrapins occurs only
as bycatch in crab pots in the blue crab fishery. Crab pots are considered to be one of the threats to
diamondback terrapin populations, along with habitat degradation and nest predation (Roosenburg 1991)
(Seigel and Gibbons 1995) (Pearson and Wiebe 2018a). Bycatch in crab pots can range from 0.0 to 0.49
terrapins/day/pot depending on the area fished and the water depth. Mortality rates range from 10 to 78%
depending on the time of year and the size of the individual (Roosenburg 2004) (Hart and Crowder 2011). If a
terrapin enters a crab pot, it can be trapped inside, and because pots are not monitored frequently (enough)
to allow for the release of any bycatch, the terrapin is likely to drown (Harden and Willard 2012). In addition,
terrapins can get caught in ghost (or derelict) pots that are abandoned by fishers, which increases fishing
mortality (Roosenburg 1991).  
It is complicated to assess the extent of terrapin bycatch in blue crab pots, as terrapins are only caught as
bycatch where their habitat overlaps with the blue crab fisheries (often small, shallow tributaries in estuarine
systems) (R. Gandy, personal communication 2016). While crab pots are set throughout bays and offshore,
terrapins are found in localized populations, primarily in tributaries and intertidal regions. In a Florida study,
no terrapins were caught in pots other than in the intertidal regions, where 10 shallow pots set in intertidal
zones (at the marsh edge) to simulate derelict pots, caught 65 terrapins over the course of 33 days (Gandy
and Turner 2014). Traps that were deployed from 30.5 m to 305 m from shore captured no terrapins over a
31-day period (in the Fall of 2012), and only two terrapins over 57 days the following Spring/Summer (ibid).
These results further support that proximity to the shoreline is the biggest contributor to pot interactions in
areas that have suitable habitat for terrapins. Deep water traps, actively fished or derelict, are not likely
posing a threat to terrapins (C. Blankenship, personal communication 2017).
The use of BRDs has been shown to reduce terrapin bycatch, while preserving blue crab catch (Hart and
Crowder 2011)(McKee et al. 2015). Although Maryland only requires BRDs in the recreational blue crab
fishery, they do not allow the commercial blue crab fishery to set crab pots in tributaries or waters less than 4
ft deep in the main stream (B. Davis, personal communication 2016). This minimizes the number of terrapins
caught as bycatch. However, studies have shown that BRDs are only effective where terrapin and blue crab
habitats overlap, and so implementation of BRDs throughout the entire fishery in a particular state may not be
necessary. Some states (in the management section below) are exploring implementation of BRD
requirements in areas where terrapins and blue crabs overlap, or during sensitive times of the year when
terrapin bycatch is high; however, no such regulations have been implemented yet. 
Since the current impact of fishing mortality on terrapin populations is unknown, but they are a highly
inherently vulnerable species, fishing mortality on diamondback terrapins in New Jersey, Delaware, and
Maryland is ranked as "high" concern. 
38
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
High Concern
Many states have distributed BRDs to commercial and recreational blue crab fishers, but use is voluntary (R.
Burris (MDMR) and P. Geer (GADNR), personal communication 2016).  
Florida, Virginia
There are no existing regulations in Florida or Virginia that require BRDs to reduce terrapin bycatch (D. Ellinor,
personal communication 2016) (NCDMF 2013).  
North and South Carolina
North and South Carolina have been working on finding a BRD that will minimize terrapin bycatch while
maintaining blue crab catch levels (Chavez and Willard 2017) (SCCR 2017). They are currently working to
determine critical conservation areas, and the most effective excluder device (C. Flora, personal
communication 2016). Arendt et al (2018) used morphometric measurements to model the effectiveness of
BRDs at excluding terrapin catch while retaining legal-sized crab (Arendt et al 2018). They found that a BRD
that measures 5.1 to 6.4 cm (height) by 7.3 cm (width) improves exclusion of terrapins relative to other tested
BRDs, and that extending the width of this BRD would result in a 99% capture probability of legal-sized crab
(Arendt et al 2018). It is important to note that this study is based on morphometric measurements of terrapin
and crab in South Carolina and similar studies would need to be conducted with state-specific measurements
to ensure effectiveness in other states (Arendt et al 2018).
Georgia
In Georgia, a study of terrapins in tidal creeks found that a decrease in terrapin abundance was correlated
with an increase in the number of crab pots (Grosse et al. 2011). In addition, a separate study suggested that
terrapin excluder devices would likely be effective at reducing terrapin bycatch, while effective at maintaining
larger crab catches (Belcher et al. 2007). Georgia has promoted the use of BRDs to all recreational and
commercial crabbers in creeks less than 100 ft wide (VCCRM 2017). They have purchased over 2000 BRDs
and have distributed them free of charge (P. Geer, personal communication 2016). Georgia promoted this
voluntary use of excluder devices in the recreational fishery, which is believed to have higher terrapin catch
per pot than the commercial fishery, due to proximity of the docks in the recreational fishery to the marsh
edge (P. Geer, personal communication 2017). However, it is unknown how many commercial crabbers are
currently using these BRDs, since there are no regulations requiring them. 
Louisiana
The Louisiana blue crab fishery has been conducting bycatch surveys in the Gulf of Mexico since 2012, as part
of its Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) re-certification. Preliminary results from the most extensive bycatch
39
study of blue crab pots in Louisiana waters to date (results through January 2015 are presented), found that
only six diamondback terrapins were caught as bycatch out of a total of 7,062 pots set; one in the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin, two in the Terrebonne Basin and three in the Vermilion/Teche River Basins (Audubon
Nature Institute 2016). 
From 2012 to 2013, a derelict crab pot bycatch study was conducted using the general public as citizen
scientists during the derelict pot cleanups/rodeos from Louisiana (Anderson and Alford 2014). In Cocodrie,
one of the four sampling locations, 70% of the bycatch recorded were diamondback terrapins. In the other
three sites, terrapin bycatch was 2% (Delacroix), 0% (Pointe as la Hache) and 35% (Hopedale) (ibid). The
few traps that did have terrapins had several, which included old shells, suggesting that the pot had been
there for a long period of time (C. Blankenship (and Anderson), personal communication 2017). Based on
communications with the author, the Delacroix site had the most accurate data collection and is likely more
representative of coast-wide derelict pots in Louisiana (L. Picariello, personal communication 2017). Between
2004 and Spring of 2016, Louisiana Sea Grant and LDWF have removed over 27,000 pots (Audubon Nature
Institute 2016). Overall, the varied results demonstrate that the impact of blue crab pots on terrapins is not
uniform across the fishery. Certain areas are likely to encounter higher rates of interaction with terrapins, and
identifying these areas should be a priority. 
Summary
Although both total bycatch numbers and terrapin populations are unknown, it is believed that the blue crab
fishery is a substantial contributor to declines in terrapin populations, and is potentially impeding their
recovery (Roosenburg 2004)(Bilkovic et al. 2012) (Pearson and Wiebe 2018). Although bycatch in blue crab
pots may not be the primary source of mortality for terrapins (nesting predation has a very high impact on
populations, as discussed above), there is evidence that crab pots (both active and derelict) are a known
source of mortality. As noted above in the New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland section, studies have shown
that BRDs are only effective where terrapin and blue crab habitats overlap, and so implementation of BRDs
throughout the entire fishery in a particular state may not be necessary (Gandy and Turner 2014). Some
states (see the management section) are exploring implementation of BRD requirements in areas where
terrapins and blue crabs overlap, or during sensitive times of the year when terrapin bycatch is high. However,
no such regulations have been implemented yet.
Since the impact of fishing mortality on terrapins is unknown, and there are currently no implemented BRD
regulations, fishing mortality for diamondback terrapins in Virginia, the Atlantic, and the GOM is ranked as
"high" concern. 
Justification:
Direct harvest of diamondback terrapins is either prohibited or severely limited throughout the Atlantic and the
GOM. Mississippi allows possession of no more than four terrapins per person with a valid Small Game
Hunting/Freshwater Fishing license (MDWFP 2018). In Louisiana, diamondback terrapins may not be taken in
pots of any kind, and may not be taken at all between 15 April and 15 June (LDWF 2018b). Commercial and
recreational possession, with the required license, is limited to terrapins measuring over six inches; there is
no bag limit (ibid). Florida allows a recreational possession of two terrapins per individual per day. Alabama
and Texas strictly prohibit any harvest of terrapins from their waters (FWC 2016).
Bycatch of terrapins in blue crab pots remains a source of mortality, however. Virginia, North and South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and the GOM do not have any mandatory BRD requirements in place to reduce
terrapin bycatch (NCDMF 2013). Though mandatory BRD requirements do not exist, some of these states have
closure areas (as a mitigation measure) that protect terrapin habitat by preventing commercial crabbing
and/or prohibiting all pots.
40
Factor 2.3 - Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use
Goal: Fishery optimizes the utilization of marine and freshwater resources by minimizing post-harvest loss. For
fisheries 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 use
divided by the total retained catch.
RATIO OF BAIT + DISCARDS/LANDINGS FACTOR 2.3 SCORE
<100%
1
>=100
0.75
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
< 100%
The overall ratio of bait + discards/landings in the blue crab fisheries is less than 100% (see table). Pots are
designed to trap crabs, but occasionally turtles, sublegal blue crabs, and finfish enter pots. Most states that
have an active blue crab fishery require cull rings, which allow most sublegal blue crabs to escape (VCCRM
2008). The amount of terrapin bycatch is unknown, but is thought to be a small portion of the blue crab
landing weight. However, given that terrapins are highly vulnerable, the impact can be notable. Ghost pots
contribute most significantly to unintended mortality from the blue crab fishery, but total mortality due to
derelict gear is low (Bilkovic et al. 2012). A two year survey of derelict fishing gear in Chesapeake Bay found
that blue crabs comprised just under 80% of the catch, while oyster toadfish, whelk, black seabass and
Atlantic croaker made up approximately 20% of the catch (ibid).
Gulf and Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia patronus and B. tyrannus, respectively) and striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus) are the main species used for bait in the GOM blue crab fishery (Perry and VanderKooy 2015),
where approximately 0.6 lb of bait are used per pot, for a total of 19 million lb annually (SCS 2012). Forty to
55% of blue crab catch by weight is caught using either Atlantic or Gulf menhaden (ibid). The traditional bait
for most crab fishermen in the Gulf was Atlantic menhaden; however, this bait supply has diminished over the
last decade as Atlantic menhaden populations have been afforded more protection (Anderson 2014). In
addition, the Gulf menhaden bait industry in the Gulf declined (C. Blankenship, personal communication 2017).
To address the needs of the crab fishery, efforts are underway to rebuild a Gulf bait industry in Louisiana and
Florida (Schueller 2016).  
Although Atlantic menhaden were in decline, the latest assessment indicated an increase in population
biomass and spawning stock biomass (compared to the 2013 assessment); hence, the stock is neither
41
overfished nor undergoing overfishing (Schueller 2016). The ratio of bait use to catch is considered similar to
the impact of discarded bycatch. Thus, overall discards and bait use is ranked as 40% to 60%, or <100%.
Table 1:  2014 Landings in blue crab pot gear (percentage by weight) (NMFS 2016a).
Species landed in blue crab pots Percentage of landings by weight (lb)
Blue crab
99.22%
Black drum
0.01%
American eel
0.01%
Southern flounder
0.01%
Striped mullet
0.01%
Shellfish (general)
0.02%
Sheepshead
0.01%
Snails (conch)
0.02%
Toadfish
0.01%
Channeled whelk
0.01%
42
Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness
Five factors are evaluated in Criterion 3: Management Strategy and Implementation, Bycatch Strategy, Scientific
Research/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 as
follows:
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 and
Implementation 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 Concern
Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score 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
Fishery
Management
Strategy
Bycatch
Strategy
Research
and
Monitoring Enforcement
Stakeholder
Inclusion
Score
Fishery 1: Maryland /
Chesapeake Bay | Pots |
United States of America
Highly
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Green
(4.000)
Fishery 2: Maryland /
Chesapeake Bay | Trotline |
United States of America
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Green
(4.000)
Fishery 3: Virginia /
Chesapeake Bay | Pots |
United States of America
Highly
Effective
Ineffective
Red
(1.000)
Fishery 4: New Jersey /
Delaware Bay | Pots | United
States of America
Highly
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Green
(4.000)
43
Criterion 3 Assessment
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 a
highly effective rating, there must be appropriately defined management goals, precautionary policies that are
based on scientific advice, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at
maintaining/rebuilding species.
Fishery 5: Alabama / Gulf of
Mexico | Pots | United States
of America
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Yellow
(3.000)
Fishery 6: Florida / Gulf of
Mexico | Pots | United States
of America
Moderately
Effective
Ineffective
Red
(1.000)
Fishery 7: Louisiana / Gulf of
Mexico | Pots | United States
of America
Highly
Effective
Ineffective NA
NA
NA
Red
(1.000)
Fishery 8: Mississippi / Gulf
of Mexico | Pots | United
States of America
Moderately
Effective
Ineffective
Red
(1.000)
Fishery 9: Texas / Gulf of
Mexico | Pots | United States
of America
Moderately
Effective
Ineffective
Red
(1.000)
Fishery 10: Delaware /
Northwest Atlantic | Pots |
United States of America
Highly
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Moderately
Effective
Highly
Effective
Highly
Effective
Green
(4.000)
Fishery 11: North Carolina /
Northwest Atlantic | Pots |
United States of America
Highly
Effective
Ineffective
Red
(1.000)
Fishery 12: Florida / Western
Central Atlantic | Pots |
United States of America
Moderately
Effective
Ineffective NA
Red
(1.000)
Fishery 13: Georgia /
Western Central Atlantic |
Pots | United States of
America
Moderately
Effective
Ineffective
Red
(1.000)
Fishery 14: South Carolina /
Western Central Atlantic |
Pots | United States of
America
Moderately
Effective
Ineffective
Red
(1.000)
44
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, TROTLINE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Highly Effective
The original Chesapeake Bay FMP was adopted in 1989 and recognized the importance of the blue crab
resource, identified areas of concern, and recommended strategies to stabilize fishing effort (CBP 1989). The
1997 revision has the same overall goal of managing blue crabs to conserve the bay wide stock, protect its
ecological value, and optimize long term use of the resource (CBP 1997). Management is aimed at reducing
exploitation fractions and focuses on conserving female crabs. From previous management recommendations,
female specific exploitation rate and female specific abundance reference points were established and
followed, resulting in a favorable response by the population (CBSAC 2015). The FMP process has been
iterative to recommend management options, test them, and update management, as a result.
A bay wide stock assessment committee was established to evaluate fisheries and identify data needed for
stock assessment models in Chesapeake Bay. Recommendations suggest improvements in collecting catch,
effort, and biological data from landings, and surveys for estimating abundances. Biomass and exploitation
thresholds, and exploitation target reference points, were established in 2001 (NOAA 2010). Nearly-annual
stock assessments, based on both fishery-dependent and -independent data are conducted, (most recently in
2015), and the status of the stock is determined relative to those reference points (CBSAC 2015). Managers
have been responsive to the assessment results and implemented management measures as appropriate, to
preserve the stock status (B. Goldsborough, personal communication 2016). Bushel limits set by scientific
assessments are routinely followed by fishers in each state (B. Davis, personal communication 2012). Bycatch
management programs have been in place for over 10 years in some states and have proven effective at
reducing bycatch of undersized blue crabs during this time. Bycatch of undersized blue crabs is minimized by
the use of excluder rings in crab pots throughout the region (CBSAC 2015). Due, in part, to management
efforts, blue crab stocks in Chesapeake Bay have increased since their very low abundance in the 1990s;
therefore, management strategy and implementation is deemed "highly effective."
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderately Effective
The 2001 FMP for the GOM provided basic management considerations and recommendations, as well as
research needs for management of blue crabs in the GOM (Guillory et al. 2001). A new stock assessment was
conducted in 2013, and the FMP was updated in 2015, which addressed research needs more so than
management recommendations. The 2013 stock assessment defined reference points and found that blue
crab stocks in the Western and Eastern GOM are not overfished or experiencing overfishing (GDAR 2013).
Although each state is ultimately responsible for implementing its own regulations, and accountability is at the
state level, the FMP recommended a regional approach to management to be implemented in coming
years (Perry and VanderKooy 2015). Fishery-independent monitoring is conducted in every Gulf state, and data
from each state program are included in the GSMFC stock assessment (ibid). Additionally, and for the past few
years, Mississippi (in partnership with the Gulf Coast Research Lab) and Alabama (ADCNR Marine Resources
Division) have been placing biologists on commercial vessels to conduct observations/collect data (since 2007
in MI and 2015 in AL).
45
Bycatch of undersized blue crabs has been minimized by the requirement to have circular escape rings in crab
pots in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas (ibid). The Blue Crab Task Force associated with the
assessment found that the current management measures are adequate to maintain the current level of
abundance; however, there is a lack of accountability to any of the states if the stock were to decrease below
an acceptable level (ibid). Most states do not have individual stock assessments, other than Louisiana, which
was required to complete an assessment in order to obtain Marine Stewardship Council certification (West et
al. 2011). Since the 2011 Louisiana stock assessment, Louisiana has established control rules that ensure
management actions are put into place if the stock appears to be overfished, and if overfishing is occurring
(LDWF 2016). 
Management of the blue crab fishery by the GSMFC and the individual Gulf state marine agencies has led to
maintenance of the stock thus far; however, there is a clear need for defined accountability measures (in
addition to Louisiana's), as well as increased precaution. Therefore, management strategy and
implementation for the GOM is deemed "moderately effective."
Justification:
Texas
Texas implemented a Blue Crab FMP in 1992 (Cody et al. 1992), as referenced in the 2007 Texas blue crab
stock assessment (Sutton and Wagner 2007). The recommendations in the FMP served as the basis for
regulations developed in subsequent years to ensure the sustainability of the blue crab fishery. Those
regulations are as follows:
1993: implementation of escape vent requirements in crab pots to reduce bycatch of sublegal crabs and
other species; regulation limiting crab harvesting activity to daylight hours
1994: further reduction of pot numbers to 200 maximum per fisher
1997: Crab License Management Program (implemented in 1998)
1998: degradable panel requirement to reduce ghost fishing by lost or abandoned pots
2002: implementation of the Abandoned Crab Trap Removal Program
The Crab License Management Program was instituted in 1998. Its purpose was to "stabilize fishing effort and
support a healthy fisheries stock" and "to conserve commercially important crab resources" (TPWD 2018).
This program included a license buyback system, which resulted in a 28% reduction in licenses between 1998
and 2005 (GDAR 2013).
The 2007 Texas blue crab stock assessment was designed to provide "recommendations of future
management measures and research needs to promote sustainable long-term yields of blue crabs in Texas"
including determination of both maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and E
 (optimal effort level) (Sutton and
Wagner 2007). Based on this assessment, it was determined that another 15% reduction in effort was
necessary for the long-term sustainability of the blue crab population. Continuation of the Blue Crab License
Buyback Program to reduce effort resulted in another 14% effort reduction between 2005 and 2011 (GDAR
2013).
MSY
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Highly Effective
Louisiana (LA) has an FMP, with clear fishery objectives, management measures, a harvest control rule, and
actions implemented in response to that rule (LDWF 2017b). In addition, as of 15 November 2014, to obtain a
commercial crab pot gear license, a fisher must either possess a valid commercial crab pot license during any
two license years between 2011 and 2014, or enroll in, and complete a professionalism program established
46
by the Commission. Among other elements, the program includes education on the proper placement of,
tending to, and maintenance of crab pots, regulatory requirements, and best practices for handling and
quality.
Reference points are estimated and are appropriate for the stock. Measures initiated prior to the 2016 stock
assessment (where LA blue crabs were considered overfished) are part of the rebuilding strategy: 1) to
reduce the number of active fishers (fishing effort) via the professionalization program (above); and 2) an
increase in the number of escape rings in the traps and their size (applicable from November 2017) (Scott and
Tremblay 2018). The harvest strategy (HS) consists of a number of elements: 1) a HCR with LRPs and TRPs;
2) a suite of measures that control various aspects of the fishery, including regulations on minimum size, the
protection of females, discards; 3) gear type and characteristics; 4) seasonal closures; 5) periodic stock
assessments using fishery independent surveys to obtain estimates of juvenile and adult crab abundance to
feed into the Collie-Sissenwine model; 6) fishery monitoring (e.g., trip tickets); 7) effective off-shore and on-
shore enforcement activities; 8) the removal of derelict traps; 9) direct stakeholder involvement in the
decision making process through the blue crab task force (BCTF) (see PI 3.2.2); and 10) collaboration in
habitat protection projects that support the recruitment process for blue crabs (ibid). A comprehensive range
of information (on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, fishery removals and
other information such as environmental information), including some that may not directly relate to the
current harvest strategy, is available (ibid). Fishery-independent and -dependent monitoring is in place. 
LDWF is also working with the blue crab industry to provide management options that will both reduce annual
landings and minimize negative impact on the industry (ibid). As such, there has been a change to Louisiana
blue crab commercial harvest regulations for 2019. The 30-day full closure and the 60-day restriction on
commercial harvest of female blue crab (LDWF 2018a) have been lifted and replaced by a thirty-five day
closure period from 9 September to 13 October 2019 (LDWF 2018e). In addition, LWFC has authorized crab
trap closures in 2019 for the removal of derelict crab traps (ibid). Five defined areas were designated for
closure with up to 14 days for any one area (LDWF 2018f).
The blue crab fishery in LA has a highly appropriate strategy and goals, and there is evidence that the strategy
is being implemented successfully; therefore, management strategy for LA is ranked as "highly effective." 
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Highly Effective
The North Carolina FMP was adopted in 1998, with amendments and revisions made in 2004, 2013, and 2016
(NCMFC 2016a). The stated FMP objectives include: 1) maintaining the stock at a level that maximizes
reproductive potential; 2) promoting harvesting practices that minimize waste; 3) protecting and restoring the
habitat; 4) distinguishing between conservation goals and allocation issues; 5) providing resource utilization
for all users; 6) minimizing conflict; 7) identifying and promoting biological, social, and economic research; 8)
maintaining the blue crab fisheries as a major source of income for commercial fishermen; and 9) promoting
education (NCDMF 2004).
In 2013, Amendment 2 to the North Carolina FMP set up a Traffic Light Assessment System, which assesses
the status of the stock on an annual basis. Under this system, if certain biological triggers are met, protective
management measures must be implemented. If adult abundance or production is at or above the 50% red
threshold level for three consecutive years, then moderate management actions are triggered. If either is at
or above 75% of the red threshold level for two of those years, then the more restrictive elevated
management actions are triggered. The moderate and elevated management actions were implemented as
part of Amendment 2 to the FMP (NCDMF 2016a). Examples of potential moderate and corresponding elevated
management actions include the following:   
47
The adult abundance trigger was met in 2015, and the moderate management measures were put into
place (ibid). Additionally, recruit abundance, which can augment management once a trigger is achieved, had
moderate and elevated management measures put into place (ibid). These new management measures are
expected to be effective at increasing abundance, since they directly target the cause of the stock decline. 
Furthermore, North Carolina has closures to the fishery for season, area, and gear. Five locations are
designated as crab spawning sanctuaries, which are closed from 1 March through 31 August (NCDMF 2013).
These areas were created to protect mature female crabs prior to and during sponge stage. Additionally,
lower Broad Creek is closed to crab pots from 1 June through 30 November (ibid). This area closure is to
reduce conflict between crab pot fishermen and shrimp trawlers. Finally, North Carolina has an annual pot
cleanup period, which is a statewide closure between 15 January and 7 February. This closure was enacted to
allow for removal of lost, derelict, or abandoned pots. 
The North Carolina blue crab fishery has a highly appropriate strategy and goals and there is evidence that the
strategy is being implemented successfully; therefore, management strategy for North Carolina is ranked as
"highly effective." 
Moderate management actions: 
Elevated management actions: 
Increase in minimum size limit 
Closure of the fishery (season and/or gear)
Reduction in tolerance of sub-legal size blue
crabs (to a minimum of 5%)
Reduction in tolerance of sub-legal size blue crabs (to a
minimum of 1%)
Closure of the crab spawning sanctuaries
from 1 September to 28 February
Closure of the fishery year-round
Restriction of trip-level sponge crab harvest
Prohibition of sponge crab harvest and/or requirement of
sponge crab excluders in pots for specific areas
Establishment of a seasonal size limit on
peeler crabs
Reduction of peeler harvest (no white line peelers and/or
peeler size limit)
 
 
 
 
 
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderately Effective
Georgia
Georgia has had limited entry in the blue crab fishery since 1998, which was capped at 159 licenses, with a
maximum of 200 pots each (GADNR 2008b). The number of licenses has been reduced by attrition and
voluntary relinquishment to 122, and recent legislation will reduce it to 100 commercial licenses (P. Geer,
personal communication 2016). In addition, a sponge crab moratorium has been in place since 2002 (GADNR
2008a). Abundance levels are updated annually and are presented to the Georgia DNR Board and the Blue
Crab Advisory Panel, which is a network of commercial and recreational crabbers, dealers, and academics
(see the FMP for more details: http://coastalgadnr.org/sites/uploads/crd/pdf/FMPs/BlueCrabFMP.pdf).
South Carolina
48
Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy
Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery
on bycatch species and when applicable, to minimize ghost fishing? How successful are these management
measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the fishery must have no or low bycatch, or if there are bycatch
or ghost fishing concerns, there must be effective measures in place to minimize impacts.
In South Carolina, there are no mandatory management measures other than size limits, prohibitions on
berried crabs, and crab seasons (SCDNR 2018a). In addition, there are currently no accountability measures
in place for when the stock shows signs of decline (A. Fowler, personal communication 2016). 
Florida
The Florida blue crab fishery is a limited entry fishery managed under a Blue Crab Effort Management Plan
(BCEMP) and pot limits are in place for each endorsement type (F.A.C. 68B45.007). The crab license
moratorium, and subsequent BCEMP have reduced endorsements down from over 6,000 endorsements in
1995, to 950 endorsements as of 2011 (GDAR 2013).
Gear requirements include escape rings and degradable panels (F.A.C. 68B45). Florida also conducts its own
stock assessments for both the Atlantic and Gulf (2001, 2007, and 2013). Nevertheless, there are currently no
accountability measures in place for when the stock shows signs of decline (A. Fowler, personal
communication 2016). 
Due to the above, management strategy and implementation for these Atlantic states is ranked as "moderately
effective."
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderately Effective
Bycatch of blue crabs, finfish, and invertebrates is managed in MD, NJ, and DE using BRDs, pot spatial
restrictions, and/or derelict pot removal programs. Some pots from the commercial fishery and the majority
of pots from the recreational fishery pose a serious threat to terrapins because the pots are set in shallow-
water habitats (shallow embayments and tidal marsh creeks) where terrapins are more common (Grubbs et
al. 2018). Additionally, in the recreational fishery, pots are checked less frequently (Hoyle and Gibbons 2000).
The placement of pots in these locations, and the resulting bycatch mortality of diamondback terrapins have
been shown to affect terrapin population size and demographics (Roosenburg et al. 1997) (Wood 1997)
(Grosse et al. 2009) (Wolak et al. 2010), as well as pose a threat to their conservation (Roosenburg 2004). 
Because the regulations in MD, NJ, and DE focus on limiting terrapin bycatch in these shallow waters where
interactions are of greatest concern, either by prohibiting fishing in those areas entirely or by requiring BRDs
when fishing in those areas, the regulations are expected to be "moderately effective" at reducing terrapin
bycatch.
New Jersey (NJ)
New Jersey requires BRDs (measuring 5.1  15.3 cm) in commercial crab pots that are in tributaries less than
150 ft wide, or within 23 m of shore, to help reduce terrapin bycatch (Grubbs et al. 2018). 
49
Delaware (DE)
In Delaware, all recreational crab pots, regardless of where they are set, must be equipped with a BRD
(usually measuring 4.5  12.1 cm), as described in 7 DE Admin Code 3721. Commercial crabbing in the
Delaware River and Bay is not authorized in any of the tidal creeks (7 Del. C. 2304; see "Justification" section
for more detail; ibid). There is one short tidal creek that drains into a coastal bay shared with Maryland where
commercial crabbing is authorizedRoy Creekhowever, there is no commercial blue crab fishery operating
there at present (S. Michels, personal communication 2018).
Maryland (MD)
Maryland has very strict spatial restrictions on crab pots (see (COMAR 2018) for details), which help minimize
terrapin bycatch. Since these restrictions are very specific, the general "rule of thumb" is that crab pots cannot
be set in most rivers/tributaries, but can be set in the main stem (in water > 4 ft deep) of the Chesapeake
Bay. Due to the habitat preferences of many turtles, only having pots set in the main stem of Chesapeake Bay
should reduce turtle encounters with this gear (G. McClair, personal communication 2018). BRDs (usually
measuring 4.5  12.1 cm) are only required in the recreational crab pot fishery, where private landowners in
Maryland are allowed to set up to two crab pots from their private dock or property (Grubbs et al. 2018) (MFG
2018). There have been long-term studies on public compliance with BRD use in the recreational pot fishery,
and compliance was 50% in the 2016 sample (S. Smith via G. McClair, personal communication, 23 July
2018). In addition, as per Maryland Department of Natural Resources population monitoring, it appears that, in
areas with good habitat, terrapin populations are rebounding since the commercial harvest of terrapins was
banned in 2017; in areas where shoreline hardening has occurred extensively, terrapins are not doing well
(especially the western shore; ibid). 
Summary
Ghost fishing is a real concern for all bycatch species, and particularly for diamondback terrapins (because
they are air-breathers). In 2005, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office established the Derelict Fishing Gear
Program (DFGP) to research the effects of derelict crab pots and implement a pot removal program (Giordano
et al. 2011).  
Although the exact impact of blue crab fisheries on terrapin populations is unknown, the strict spatial
restrictions of crab pots in Delaware and Maryland, the use of BRDs in the commercial pot fishery in New
Jersey, and in the recreational pot fisheries in Delaware and Maryland are likely reducing the number of
terrapins that are caught in blue crab pots. Although the effectiveness of the strict spatial restrictions and the
BRDs is uncertain, overall concern about terrapin bycatch in those states is lower than it was in the past (B.
Goldsborough and R. Wong, personal communication 2016).
Justification:
Delaware:
3721 Non-commercial Crab Pot Design; Bycatch Reduction Device (Penalty Section 7 Del.C. 1912) 1.0: It shall
be unlawful for the owner of any non-commercial crab pot to place said crab pot in the tidal waters of this
State unless said crab pot has a by-catch reduction device securely attached in each entrance such that each
crab entering said crab pot must pass through the bycatch reduction device. A bycatch reduction device shall
mean a metal or plastic rigid rectangle that measures on the inside no more than 1.75 inches by 4.75 inches
in width. A bycatch reduction device made of metal wire shall be no less than 11-gauge rigid wire.
 2304 Area permitted for commercial crabbing.
50
It shall be unlawful for any commercial crabber to catch or take, or attempt to catch or take, for commercial
purposes any hard-shell, soft-shell or peeler crabs from any waters of the rivers and bays of this State and
the tributaries thereof or sell, offer for sale or buy any hard-shell crabs taken from said waters, except the
Delaware Bay and the Delaware River and that area of Roy's Creek which lies south of Fenwick Island Ditch (7
Del. C. 1953,  2303, 2304; 51 Del. Laws, c. 151,  1; 57 Del. Laws, c. 587,  1, 2; 60 Del. Laws, c. 513, 
2; 61 Del. Laws, c. 352,  1).
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, TROTLINE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Highly Effective
Trotlines are not known to catch any bycatch other than undersized crabs (Seachoice 2016), which can be
returned alive and in good condition. Therefore, bycatch strategy is ranked as "highly effective."  
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ineffective
Virginia recently implemented BRD regulations for the recreational fishery, where fishers can purchase a
license for $36 if they use terrapin excluder devices in their pots, or for $46 if their pots do not have excluders
(VMRC 2016c). There are many locations where pots with BRDs are being sold throughout the state, but it is
unknown yet how many will end up being used (R. O'Reilly, personal communication 2016). There are
currently no BRD regulations in the commercial fishery, although some fishers use them voluntarily (VCCRM
2017). Even though the commercial fishery tends to operate in deeper waters most of the year, where there
are lower numbers of terrapins (R. O'Reilly, personal communication 2016), there are no enforceable
management measures controlling terrapin bycatch. Ghost fishing is also a problem in Virginia, where crab
pot losses were estimated to be 30% in the lower York River (Voss et al. 2015). Because of the sheer number
of ghost pots found in the Chesapeake Bay, VIMS scientists are investigating the properties of PHA, plastics
that are made and eaten by bacteria, for use in crab pots, as a way to disarm ghost traps (William and Mary
2015). However, due to the lack of management measures on terrapin bycatch in Virginia, bycatch
management is ranked as "ineffective."
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderately Effective
Bycatch in crab pots is reduced by the use of escape rings (cull rings) and escape panels in crab pots; hence,
the concern over bycatch, aside from diamondback terrapins, is minimal (GSMFC 1999). However, there are
currently no regulations for the use of BRDs in the GOM, even though bycatch of diamondback terrapins is
known to be minimized by their use (e.g., the use of BRDs in an Alabama salt marsh led to a 90% reduction in
terrapin bycatch (Coleman et al. 2011)). 
All of the Gulf States have closure areas, such as Wildlife Management Areas or Refuges, along the coast that
prohibit commercial fishing and/or use of crab traps in marshes and shallow water areas. These areas are
designed to protect wetlands, marshes, and estuarine areas, and in many cases overlap with potential or
known terrapin habitats providing protection to terrapin populations (Audubon Institute, personal
communication 2017).
Ghost fishing is a real concern for diamondback terrapins, as is bycatch in active fishing pots. In the GOM, the
loss of crab pots is greater than 25% (Voss et al. 2015), and it has been estimated that 12 million harvestable
51
blue crabs could be lost to ghost fishing every year, which was 10% of the annual landings in Louisiana in
2012 (Anderson and Alford 2014).  
Alabama
ADCNR created an area closure (Heron Bay closure west of Highway 193) in 2012 based on the above study
on causes for terrapin decline, which indicated that Cedar Point Marsh is a primary nesting area for
diamondback terrapins. The area closure prevents the use of pots within the marsh area to reduce
interactions between terrapins and crab pots ((ADCNR 2012) code r. 220-3.31 Crabs, #10). Additionally,
Alabama prohibits crab pots north of I-10 or Hwy 90 (whichever is southernmost) protecting the upper Mobile
delta area, and in several rivers, creeks, bayous, bays, canals, or their tributaries, as listed in the Alabama
Blue Crab Laws and Regulations (ADCNR 2013).
Pot removal programs are reported to have been highly successful in Alabama and Mississippi, and they also
now operate removal programs on an as-needed basis, between coordinated cleanups (Perry and VanderKooy
2015). From 2002 to 2007, the Derelict Crab Trap Retrieval Program successfully removed over 2,400
pots from Alabama waters (GSMFC 2008). Alabama has also recently received a grant from the NOAA Marine
Debris Program to conduct crab pot cleanups for the next three years; the first event was held in 2017 (NOAA
2017). In addition to these measures, Alabama has observers on boats monitoring incidence of high terrapin
catch in blue crab pots (LDWF 2014).
Because Alabama has closures to prevent crabbing in the upper Mobile delta area, and also identified a high-
risk area for terrapins and subsequently closed this area, bycatch strategy for this state is scored as
"moderately effective."
Justification:
The GSMFC held a symposium at their Annual Meeting on the topic of terrapins and their interactions with the
blue crab fishery (S. Vanderkooy, personal communication 2018). Members of the blue crab management
community and the terrapin research world came together to share information and discuss working together
on these issues in the region. In addition, the MS Department of Marine Resources has developed and
implemented a reporting application for commercial trap fishermen to help the GSMFC better identify "hot
spots" in state waters where terrapin habitat and blue crab fishing overlap; this will target outreach and
potentially reduce bycatch of terrapins (S. Vanderkooy, personal communication 2018). 
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ineffective
Bycatch in crab pots is reduced by the use of escape rings (cull rings) and escape panels in crab pots; hence,
the concern over bycatch, aside from diamondback terrapins, is minimal (GSMFC 1999). However, there are
currently no regulations for the use of BRDs in the GOM, even though bycatch of diamondback terrapins is
known to be minimized by their use (e.g., the use of BRDs in an Alabama salt marsh led to a 90% reduction in
terrapin bycatch (Coleman et al. 2011)). 
All of the Gulf States have closure areas, such as Wildlife Management Areas or Refuges, along the coast that
prohibit commercial fishing and/or use of crab traps in marshes and shallow water areas. These areas are
designed to protect wetlands, marshes, and estuarine areas, and in many cases overlap with potential or
known terrapin habitats providing protection to terrapin populations (Audubon Nature Institute, personal
communication, 2017). 
Ghost fishing is a real concern for diamondback terrapins, as is bycatch in active fishing pots. In the GOM, the
52
loss of crab pots is greater than 25% (Voss et al. 2015), and it has been estimated that 12 million harvestable
blue crabs could be lost to ghost fishing every year, which was 10% of the annual landings in Louisiana in
2012 (Anderson and Alford 2014).  
Florida
In Florida, a terrapin hot spot mapping project is being used to determine the next step forward in
implementing localized terrapin conservation projects (S. VanderKooy, personal communication 2016). 
In addition to using biodegradable materials, Florida has two types of pot removal programs: a volunteer
program, as well as an FWC coordinated cleanup where fishermen are contracted to remove pots during
closure periods (FWC 2017). Florida has dedicated zones that close annually for cleanup activities (three
zones in even years, three zones in odd years) covering the entire coastline (ibid). Commercial pots are
required to have FWC-issued pot tags and, as part of the FWC Spiny Lobster, Stone Crab and Blue Crab Trap
Retrieval Program, fishermen are also charged $10/pot for their pots if they are retrieved as derelict pots
during the closure period (ibid).
Florida prohibits crabbing in the Everglades National Park, Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee, J.N. Ding Darling,
and Hobe Sound NWR (NPS 2012) (USFWS 2017a) (USFWS 2017b) (USFWS 2018).  
Overall, the Gulf States are making headway in reducing the number of diamondback terrapins that are
incidentally caught in blue crab pots through closures, derelict pot removal programs, and the use of
biodegradable materials in pots. However, there are no mandatory regulations to minimize bycatch, such as
the use of BRDs. Because there are no mandatory regulations to minimize terrapin bycatch in Florida, and
closed areas likely account for only a small portion of terrapin habitat, bycatch strategy for this state is ranked
as "ineffective." 
Justification:
The GSMFC held a symposium at their Annual Meeting on the topic of terrapins and their interactions with the
blue crab fishery (S. Vanderkooy, personal communication 2018). Members of the blue crab management
community and the terrapin research world came together to share information and discuss working together
on these issues in the region. In addition, the MS Department of Marine Resources has developed and
implemented a reporting application for commercial trap fishermen to help the GSMFC better identify "hot
spots" in state waters where terrapin habitat and blue crab fishing overlap; this will target outreach and
potentially reduce bycatch of terrapins (S. Vanderkooy, personal communication 2018). 
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ineffective
Bycatch in crab pots is reduced by the use of escape rings (cull rings) and escape panels in crab pots; hence,
the concern over bycatch, aside from diamondback terrapins, is minimal (GSMFC 1999). However, there are
currently no regulations for the use of BRDs in the GOM, even though bycatch of diamondback terrapins is
known to be minimized by their use (e.g., the use of BRDs in an Alabama salt marsh led to a 90% reduction in
terrapin bycatch (Coleman et al. 2011)). 
All of the Gulf States have closure areas, such as Wildlife Management Areas or Refuges, along the coast that
prohibit commercial fishing and/or use of crab pots in marshes and shallow water areas. These areas are
designed to protect wetlands, marshes, and estuarine areas, and in many cases overlap with potential or
53
known terrapin habitats, providing protection to terrapin populations. Roughly 8% of LA state waters, including
freshwater, are closed to crabbing (see "Justification" section below for details; Audubon Nature Institute,
personal communication 2017). Of the 13 locations with terrapin populations identified by (Selman et al.
2014), 7 of those sites already prohibit crab traps completely (Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge and Marsh Island
Wildlife Refuge) and one site already prohibits commercial crabbing (Sabine NWR). 
Ghost fishing is a real concern for diamondback terrapins, as is bycatch in active fishing pots. In the GOM, the
loss of crab pots is greater than 25% (Voss et al. 2015), and it has been estimated that 12 million harvestable
blue crabs could be lost to ghost fishing every year, which was 10% of the annual landings in Louisiana in
2012 (Anderson and Alford 2014).  
Louisiana
In 2004, the Louisiana (LA) Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) implemented a voluntary derelict pot
removal program during a 10-day fishing closure each year (LDWF 2014). Since the program's inception,
volunteers have assisted in removing over 37,000 pots (LDWF 2018). In 2017, a 30-day statewide closure
period allowed LA to expand derelict pot cleanup efforts, which will continue through 2019 (KNOE 8 News
2017). Louisiana is also conducting identification and removal of submerged derelict pots using side scan
sonar, through a grant awarded by the NOAA Marine Debris Program (see page 22 of (Scott and Addison
2016)). Finally, LA conducted a multi-year survey of terrapin nest locations and depredation rates (LDWF
2014) (Pearson and Wiebe 2018a).
There is limited area of potential interaction between the fishery and terrapins, and LDWF biologists are
researching their distribution and abundance throughout coastal LA. This study includes: 1) trapping adult and
sub-adult terrapin in small bayous and appropriate shoreline habitats (Pearson and Wiebe 2018b); and 2)
surveying and monitoring terrapin nesting efforts (including reproductive productivity) along coastal beaches
(Scott and Tremblay 2018) (Pearson and Wiebe 2018a). Terrapins cannot be legally taken by any pots and
cannot be taken between 15 April and 15 June; there is an ongoing bycatch study to identify the risk to
terrapins from the blue crab pot fishery; and there is a closed season that will reduce the potential to catch
terrapins in active traps, while the removal of derelict traps during the closure will also reduce the risk of
bycatch (ibid).
Overall, the Gulf States are making headway in reducing the number of diamondback terrapins that are
incidentally caught in blue crab pots through closures, derelict pot removal programs, and the use of
biodegradable materials in pots. A study is underway to evaluate the impact of the blue crab fishery on
terrapins in LA, but the results are not yet known, and it is also unclear as to whether there will be any
mandatory mitigation measures implemented following publication of the report. Because bycatch
management measures are insufficient given the potential impacts of the fishery, bycatch strategy for this
state is ranked as "ineffective." 
Justification:
The GSMFC held a symposium at their Annual Meeting on the topic of terrapins and their interactions with the
blue crab fishery (S. Vanderkooy, personal communication 2018). Members of the blue crab management
community and the terrapin research world came together to share information and discuss working together
on these issues in the region. In addition, the MS Department of Marine Resources has developed and
implemented a reporting application for commercial trap fishers to help the GSMFC better identify "hot spots"
in state waters where terrapin habitat and blue crab fishing overlap; this will target outreach and potentially
reduce bycatch of terrapins (S. Vanderkooy, personal communication 2018). 
The following areas all prohibit commercial crabbing (only recreational allowed and must be attended at all
times) and refuges (in bold) are areas that completely prohibit crab pots (Audubon Institute, personal
54
communication 2017): 1) Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge (23,000 acres) (USFWS 2018b); 2) Big
Branch Marsh NWR (15,000 acres) (USFWS 2018c); 3) Breton National Wildlife Refuge (6,100 acres) (USFWS
2006); 4) Delta National Wildlife Refuge (48,800 acres) (USFWS 2018d); 5) Elmer's Island Wildlife Refuge
(1,145 acres) (LDWF 2018c), 6) Marsh Island Wildlife Refuge (76,664 acres)pots prohibited (ibid),
7) Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge (76,042 acres)pots prohibited (ibid); 8) Salvador Wildlife Management
Area (34,520 acres) (LDWF 2018d);  9) Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex (4 refuges: Carmon Prairie,
Lacassaine, Sabine and Shell Keys) (total of 185,338 acres) (ibid); 10) State Wildlife Refuge (13,000
acres)pots prohibited (LDWF 2018c). These closures were enacted to protect salt marsh resources,
which include terrapin habitat (J. Lively, personal communication, 6 Sept. 2018).
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ineffective
Bycatch in crab pots is reduced by the use of escape rings (cull rings) and escape panels in crab pots; hence,
the concern over bycatch, aside from diamondback terrapins, is minimal (GSMFC 1999). However, there are
currently no regulations for the use of BRDs in the GOM, even though bycatch of diamondback terrapins is
known to be minimized by their use (e.g., the use of BRDs in an Alabama salt marsh led to a 90% reduction in
terrapin bycatch (Coleman et al. 2011)). 
All of the Gulf States have closure areas, such as Wildlife Management Areas or Refuges, along the coast that
prohibit commercial fishing and/or use of crab traps in marshes and shallow water areas. These areas are
designed to protect wetlands, marshes, and estuarine areas, and in many cases overlap with potential or
known terrapin habitats providing protection to terrapin populations (Audubon Nature Institute, personal
communication 2017).
Ghost fishing is a real concern for diamondback terrapins, as is bycatch in active fishing pots. In the GOM, the
loss of crab pots is greater than 25% (Voss et al. 2015), and it has been estimated that 12 million harvestable
blue crabs could be lost to ghost fishing every year, which was 10% of the annual landings in Louisiana in
2012 (Anderson and Alford 2014).  
Mississippi
The Mississippi Crab Trap Bycatch Reduction Device/TED Program has distributed over 20,000 BRDs to both
commercial and recreational blue crab fishers, although the use of such BRDs is voluntary, and the rate of
actual use is unknown (R. Burris, personal communication 2018). In Mississippi, the Nature Conservancy and
the National Park Service are working together to document ghost pot locations and areas where terrapins are
commonly caught in commercial blue crab pots (Guillory et al. 2001). Work is also being done with commercial
crab fishermen to pilot a Diamondback Terrapin Reporting System, which has been providing useful
geospatially referenced data on terrapin locations in state waters (R. Burris, personal communication 2018).
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) initially collaborated with the Gulf Coast Research Lab
(GCRL) in 1999 on pot removals, and then added volunteer-based retrieval programs in 2003 and 2004
(GSMFC 2008). In 2007, commercial crab fishers were hired, utilizing Katrina recovery funds, to conduct
cleanups during a week-long closure (ibid). Commercial fishers were hired again in 2016, utilizing disaster
relief funds from the Bonne Carre Spillway opening, to conduct pot removals during a 10-day closure (MDMR
2016a). Since 1999, the MS Derelict Crab Trap Removal Program has removed 21,546 derelict pots from
Mississippi waters (MDMR 2016b), although it is unknown how many pots are lost annually. Fishers have also
started to incorporate the use of biodegradable materials in pots, such as untreated steel wire, jute, and sisal
twine that will decompose within 28 to 77 days (Bilkovich et al. 2012). These panels are currently mandated
by law in Florida and Texas (Perry and VanderKooy 2015).
55
Mississippi prohibits commercial crabbing north of the CSX bridge in the 3 coastal counties of MS and
recreational crabbing north of I-10 (includes Bay St. Louis, Back Bay and Pascagoula) (MDMR 2016). There is
also no commercial fishing or crabbing within one mile of shore around Petit Bois, Horn, and Ship Islands (Gulf
Islands National Seashore) (NPS 2018). 
Overall, the Gulf States are making headway in reducing the number of diamondback terrapins that are
incidentally caught in blue crab pots through closures, derelict pot removal programs, and the use of
biodegradable materials in pots. However, there are no mandatory regulations to minimize bycatch, such as
the use of BRDs. Because there are no mandatory regulations to minimize terrapin bycatch in MS, and closed
areas likely account for only a small portion of terrapin habitat, bycatch strategy for this state is ranked as
"ineffective." 
Justification:
The GSMFC held a symposium at their Annual Meeting on the topic of terrapins and their interactions with the
blue crab fishery (S. Vanderkooy, personal communication 2018). Members of the blue crab management
community and the terrapin research world came together to share information and discuss working together
on these issues in the region. In addition, the MS Department of Marine Resources has developed and
implemented a reporting application for commercial trap fishers to help the GSMFC better identify "hot spots"
in state waters where terrapin habitat and blue crab fishing overlap; this will target outreach and potentially
reduce bycatch of terrapins (S. Vanderkooy, personal communication 2018). 
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ineffective
Bycatch in crab pots is reduced by the use of escape rings (cull rings) and escape panels in crab pots; hence,
the concern over bycatch, aside from diamondback terrapins, is minimal (GSMFC 1999). However, there are
currently no regulations for the use of BRDs in the GOM, even though bycatch of diamondback terrapins is
known to be minimized by their use (e.g., the use of BRDs in an Alabama salt marsh led to a 90% reduction in
terrapin bycatch (Coleman et al. 2011)). 
All of the Gulf States have closure areas, such as Wildlife Management Areas or Refuges, along the coast that
prohibit commercial fishing and/or use of crab traps in marshes and shallow water areas. These areas are
designed to protect wetlands, marshes, and estuarine areas, and in many cases overlap with potential or
known terrapin habitats providing protection to terrapin populations (Audubon Nature Institute, personal
communication 2017). Roughly 1% of Texas (TX) state waters, including freshwater, are closed to crabbing
(ibid).
Ghost fishing is a real concern for diamondback terrapins, as is bycatch in active fishing pots. In the GOM, the
loss of crab pots is greater than 25% (Voss et al. 2015), and it has been estimated that 12 million harvestable
blue crabs could be lost to ghost fishing every year, which was 10% of the annual landings in Louisiana in
2012 (Anderson and Alford 2014).  
Texas
Texas is continuing to conduct their terrapin monitoring program, and state employees are working with
academic researchers to test the effectiveness of BRDs in a TX estuary (S. VanderKooy, personal
communication 2016). 
56
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has also been conducting abandoned trap removals for over 15
years. There is a 10-day closure every February for derelict pot removal (TPWD 2017). Prior to the 2017
removal, TX had removed over 32,000 pots through this program (ibid).
Texas prohibits commercial crab pots in Aransas Bay National Wildlife Refuge (114,657 acres) and J.D.
Murphree Wildlife Management Area (WMA; 24,498 acres of coastal marsh) prohibits commercial fishing in
most areas of the WMA except within Keith Lake (TPWD 2017) (TPWD 2018b). 
Overall, the Gulf States are making headway in reducing the number of diamondback terrapins incidentally
caught in blue crab pots through closures, derelict pot removal programs, and the use of biodegradable
materials in pots. However, there are no mandatory regulations to minimize bycatch, such as the use of BRDs.
Because there are no mandatory regulations to minimize terrapin bycatch in TX, and roughly only 1% of areas
are closed to fishing, bycatch strategy for this state is ranked as "ineffective." 
Justification:
The GSMFC held a symposium at their Annual Meeting on the topic of terrapins and their interactions with the
blue crab fishery (S. Vanderkooy, personal communication 2018). Members of the blue crab management
community and the terrapin research world came together to share information and discuss working together
on these issues in the region. In addition, the MS Department of Marine Resources has developed and
implemented a reporting application for commercial trap fishers to help the GSMFC better identify "hot spots"
in state waters where terrapin habitat and blue crab fishing overlap; this will target outreach and potentially
reduce bycatch of terrapins (S. Vanderkooy, personal communication 2018). 
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ineffective
North Carolina requires the use of two unobstructed cull rings that are at least 2 5/16 inches in diameter
(NCDMF 2014). However, cull rings are not large enough to allow diamondback terrapins to escape, and
studies in North Carolina and Georgia have shown that both active and derelict crab pots can have a significant
impact on terrapin populations (Grosse et al. 2011) (Harden and Willard 2012) (Voss et al. 2015). 
There have been several studies on the effectiveness of BRDs for reducing terrapin bycatch while maintaining
crab catch (Rook et al. 2010) (McKee et al. 2015), but there is not one specific device that ensures crab catch
is maintained at a level relative to crab pots without BRDs. To this end, there are currently several ongoing
research projects to find the optimal BRD (M. Arendt, personal communication 2017). North Carolina is also
currently working on determining the areas critical for diamondback terrapin conservation (and where
excluder devices will be required in the future). The paper will also determine the most effective terrapin
bycatch excluder device, with the goal of developing and implementing terrapin bycatch regulations in the blue
crab fishery once the study is completed (C. Flora, personal communication 2016). North Carolina has a
regulation in place that allows the Fisheries Director to require the use of terrapin excluder devices, as well as
implement area and time restrictions on the use of excluder devices, or crabbing in general (NCDMF 2014).
Ghost fishing is a real concern for all bycatch species, and particularly for diamondback terrapins. In North
Carolina, it is estimated that crab pot loss ranged from 12% to 17% in some years (NCDMF 2013). In North
Carolina, 45 different species were found in ghost pots, the most abundant of which were blue crabs and
Florida stone crabs, and the most concerning of which was the capture of five diamondback terrapins (Voss et
al. 2015). States in the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic regions with a blue crab fishery also now have a derelict
pot reduction program to address this issue (Roosenburg 2004). North Carolina's crab pot removal program
began in 2003, and from 2003 to 2011, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries removed a total of 22,430
pots out of the 170,000 pots lost annually (only 1.4%) from coastal waters (Voss et al. 2015). Currently, active
57
crab pots must be removed from North Carolina waters between 15 January and 7 February each year to
allow for the marine patrol's annual statewide derelict pot removal program (NCDMF 2013). In addition, North
Carolina law states that all blue crab pots must be marked with the owners identification, and if they do not
have any markings, they are considered ghost pots and can be removed from the water by anyone at any
time (ibid). This allows volunteers to remove any pots that have no identification.  
Because these regulations have not yet been implemented, Seafood Watch considers North Carolina's current
bycatch management to be "ineffective."
 
 
Justification:
Amendment 2 established the proclamation authority for requiring terrapin excluder devices in crab pots. It
also established a framework for developing criteria and excluder specifications to be used in such
proclamations. These criteria and specifications were in the process of being developed when the North
Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission requested moving up the timeline for a new blue crab FMP; therefore,
criteria and specifications will be addressed in Amendment 3 to the plan (C. Flora, personal communication
2017). Mandating use of reduction devices is dependent on these criteria and specifications; hence, there are
currently no required BRDs. 
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ineffective
Bycatch in crab pots is reduced by the use of escape rings (cull rings) and escape panels in crab pots; hence,
the concern over bycatch, aside from diamondback terrapins, is minimal (GSMFC 1999). However, there are
currently no regulations for the use of BRDs in the GOM, even though bycatch of diamondback terrapins is
known to be minimized by their use (e.g., the use of BRDs in an Alabama salt marsh led to a 90% reduction in
terrapin bycatch (Coleman et al. 2011)). 
All of the Gulf States have closure areas, such as Wildlife Management Areas or Refuges, along the coast that
prohibit commercial fishing and/or use of crab traps in marshes and shallow water areas. These areas are
designed to protect wetlands, marshes, and estuarine areas, and in many cases overlap with potential or
known terrapin habitats providing protection to terrapin populations (Audubon Institute, personal
communication 2017). Florida has closures to crabbing in Everglades National Park, Arthur R. Marshall
Loxahatchee, J.N. Ding Darling, and Hobe Sound NWR (NPS 2012) (USFWS 2017c) (USFWS 2017d) (USFWS
2018). 
Ghost fishing is a real concern for diamondback terrapins, as is bycatch in active fishing pots. In the GOM, the
loss of crab pots is greater than 25% (Voss et al. 2015), and it has been estimated that 12 million harvestable
blue crabs could be lost to ghost fishing every year, which was 10% of the annual landings in Louisiana in
2012 (Anderson and Alford 2014).  
Florida
In Florida, three cull rings at least 2 3/8 inches in diameter, as well as a degradable panel larger than 3 x 6
inches, are required per crab trap (FWC 2016). Florida does not currently have any ongoing regulations
requiring terrapin excluder devices, nor are there any closed areas associated with terrapins (D. Ellinor and R.
Gandy, personal communication 2016; 2017). 
Florida has yet to implement any regulations requiring BRDs, or any temporal or spatial restrictions associated
with diamondback terrapins. Although there are some ongoing studies on terrapin bycatch, regulations limiting
bycatch of terrapins are not imminent. Therefore, bycatch strategy in Florida is ranked as "ineffective."
58
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ineffective
Georgia requires two cull rings that are at least 2 3/8 inches in diameter to allow small, unwanted bycatch to
escape from crab pots (GADNR 2017b), but does not currently have any ongoing regulations requiring terrapin
excluder devices (M. Dodd (GA) and D. Ellinor (FL), personal communication 2016). However, there was
a study on the effectiveness of five BRDs in crab pots, with the objective of providing support and direction for
management recommendations, to reduce terrapin mortality rates in Georgia's commercial and recreational
blue crab fisheries (Belcher et al. 2007). A state-wide survey was also conducted in 2008 to assess Georgia's
terrapin population (Page et al. 2013). The study showed that terrapins are relatively abundant in Georgia, but
that the commercial crab pot fishery is, in fact, impacting their population. Finally, a study of terrapin bycatch
in crab pots in Georgia suggested that limiting the number of crab pots in shallow water tidal creeks during
the months of April, May, and June, may have an impact on the number of terrapins caught as bycatch
(Grosse et al. 2011). Terrapin bycatch may also be limited by shortening crab pot soak time to under 24 hours.
When crab pots are checked daily, the mortality rate is only 10%, but when they are soaked for one to two
days, mortality increases to 40%, and over two days, mortality is 100% (Grosse et al. 2011) (Hart and
Crowder 2011). Other than these exploratory studies, there have been no serious efforts to protect
diamondback terrapin populations from crab pot mortality in Georgia.
Georgia has yet to implement any regulations requiring BRDs, or any temporal or spatial restrictions
associated with diamondback terrapins. Although there are some ongoing studies on terrapin bycatch,
regulations limiting bycatch of terrapins are not imminent. Therefore, bycatch strategy in Georgia is ranked as
"ineffective."
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ineffective
South Carolina requires two cull rings that are at least 2 3/8 inches in diameter to allow small, unwanted
bycatch to escape from crab pots. Cull rings are effective at letting undersized crabs escape, although the
placement of the rings within the pot panels can have an impact on their effectiveness (Havens et al. 2009).
However, like in North Carolina, these cull rings are not effective at allowing larger bycatch, such as
diamondback terrapins, to escape.  
South Carolina recently launched a volunteer terrapin reporting form to understand more about their terrapin
populations (SCDNR 2016g). A number of studies have been conducted to test the effectiveness of bycatch
reduction devices (BRDs) (SDNR 2016d) (SCDNR 2016e) (Grubbs et al. 2017) (Arendt et al 2018). Most
recently Arendt et al (2018) modeled the effectiveness of different BRDs at excluding terrapins from traps
while maintaining harvest levels of legal-sized blue crab in South Carolina. This novel approach to testing
BRDs determined that a BRD of 5.1 to 6.4 cm (height) by 7.3 cm (width) was >30% more effective at
excluding terrapins, and that by increasing the width of the BRD, 99% of legal-sized crab could be
retained (Arendt et al 2018). Research such as this points to possible solutions to the problem of terrapin
bycatch; similar studies in other states (using local morphometric data) may help identify possible solutions for
other states. 
South Carolina, has yet to implement any regulations requiring BRDs, or any temporal or spatial restrictions
associated with diamondback terrapins. Although there are some ongoing studies on terrapin bycatch,
regulations limiting bycatch of terrapins are not imminent. Therefore, bycatch strategy in South Carolina is
ranked as "ineffective."
59
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 population
assessments must be conducted for target or retained species, and an adequate bycatch data collection
program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are met.
Factor 3.4 - Enforcement of Management Regulations
Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective
rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, TROTLINE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderately Effective
Blue crab stock assessments in Chesapeake Bay provide detailed scientific advice for management based on
very quantitative measures of the population. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Virginia
Institute of Marine Sciences monitor crab populations with a winter survey during the crabs' dormant period
each year (CBF 2016). However, very little is known about the nature of the blue crab fishery's impact on
diamondback terrapins and how effective the regulations in New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware have been
on minimizing bycatch. Therefore, scientific research and monitoring is ranked as "moderately effective."
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderately Effective
The assessment of blue crabs in Louisiana is based on catch survey analyses, which incorporate abundance
indices, harvest estimates and natural mortality (stock production models). Estimates of exploitable biomass
and recruitment, as well as fishing mortality, are produced from these models.  Indices of abundance are
derived from the LDWF fishery-independent trawl survey (LDWF 2016). A stock assessment was completed in
2015 for the entire GOM fishery, which includes fishery reference points (ibid). An additional stock assessment
was recently completed by the state of Louisiana for their blue crab population. Although a study is being
conducted on terrapin bycatch in Louisiana, and the most effective method for minimizing bycatch, the results
are not yet available. Since the GOM blue crab fishery is being assessed regularly, especially the Louisiana
population, but is not sufficient to meet a score of highly effective, scientific research and monitoring in the
GOM is ranked as moderately effective.
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, TROTLINE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Highly Effective
Regulation of the commercial blue crab fishery is set by the number of licenses, which limits the number of
pots. Trotline gear in the recreational fishery may not exceed 1,200 ft in length for the baited portion; there is
no limit on the length of trotline that can be used in the commercial fishery (MDDNR 2016a). When a reduction
in blue crab take is necessary, fishing effort (number of pots) is reduced; however, there are potential future
60
Factor 3.5 - Stakeholder Inclusion
Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are
individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management
of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management
process is transparent, if high participation by all stakeholders is encouraged, and if there a mechanism to
effectively address user conflicts.
issues of overcapacity, with over 5,000 licenses issued in Maryland (ibid). Although not all of the licenses are
in use, there is a significant amount of latent effort, which could result in overcapacity. In attempt to minimize
this risk, there is an effort to buy back unused licenses; so far, there has been a reduction of 1,000 female
harvest licenses and some additional male-only licenses (Davis, personal communication 2016). Enforcement
in the commercial fishery is based on a point system, where points are applied to a fishing license if an
individual is found guilty of violating a fishing regulation, or for individuals fishing without a commercial license
(MDDNR 2016b). A certain number of points can result in a suspension of licenses, which has made a large
impact on improving regulation compliance. The Virginia fishery is monitored by the Virginia Marine Police,
which monitors for compliance (VAMRC 2016). The Delaware Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural
Resources police officers monitor Delaware waters for compliance; in only one week in April 2016, five
citations were issued for unlicensed fishing (DDFW 2016). Since there is sufficient enforcement of regulations
in each state, enforcement is ranked as "highly effective."
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Highly Effective
Regulation of the commercial blue crab fishery is set by the number of licenses, and hence, the number of
pots, for each state (Perry and VanderKooy 2015). When a reduction in blue crab take is necessary, fishing
effort is reduced through a reduction in issued licenses (ibid). Management is enforced and information is
verified through trip ticket programs where dealers and fishermen report a variety of information about their
catch, including, but not limited to, gear; area fished; and species landed (ibid). The trip ticket program is
used to verify catch. Compliance officers manage enforcement of regulations in each state (ibid). A 2013
survey on enforcement, sent out to recreational blue crab anglers, found that less than a quarter of anglers
were concerned about enforcement (ibid). Therefore, enforcement is ranked as highly effective.
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, TROTLINE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Highly Effective
In an effort to improve industry leadership and coordination, as well as to increase co-management among
managers and industry, a stakeholder group (by region, interest and gear) was formed by the industry to
review, evaluate, and propose new blue crab management options (MBCIDT 2012). The Blue Crab Industry
Design Team is a volunteer, industry led group charged with assessing and thinking long term about the future
of the Chesapeake Bay commercial crab fishery (ibid). In addition, there are Blue Crab Management Advisory
Committee meetings, in which members of the industry and public can share input on the assessment and any
management measures proposed (ibid). This transparent process of management with a variety of
stakeholder involvement is ranked as "highly effective" for stakeholder inclusion.
61
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Highly Effective
Stakeholders can participate in the evaluation and recommended management of blue crabs in their home
state. In Louisiana, participation is through the Louisiana Crab Task Force. In addition, the GSMFC has a Crab
Subcommittee for public participation in the management process (GSMFC 2015). During the development of
the FMP, a survey was conducted in the entire crab fishing community, and included all licensed commercial
crab fishermen in the GOM fishery; the same survey was repeated in 1998 (Perry and VanderKooy 2015). The
GSMFC allows for public review of all management plans and assessments before they are published (GSMFC
2015). Therefore, stakeholder inclusion is highly effective in the Gulf of Mexico. 
62
Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem
This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are
measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery's overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the
use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries
Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the
environment. 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 as
follows:
Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern
Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern
Score 2.2=Red or High Concern
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of marine habitats where fishing
occurs.
Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life.
Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophic
cascades, or phase shifts.
Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect the
diversity, 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
Region / Method
Gear Type and
Substrate
Mitigation of
Gear Impacts
EBFM
Score
Alabama / Gulf of Mexico / Pots / United States
of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
Delaware / Northwest Atlantic / Pots / United
States of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
Florida / Gulf of Mexico / Pots / United States
of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
Florida / Western Central Atlantic / Pots /
United States of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
Georgia / Western Central Atlantic / Pots /
United States of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
Louisiana / Gulf of Mexico / Pots / United States
of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
Maryland / Chesapeake Bay / Pots / United
States of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
63
Crab pots are a passively fished gear type that have a light impact on benthic habitats. The primary threat
comes from lost or abandoned pots, which can be naturally swept across the habitat during a large storm or
tropical system. Derelict gear is also referred to as "ghost fishing" because abandoned pots often continue to
trap a variety of species, both blue crab and non target species. Unmaintained, they can contribute to
unnecessary mortality with the potential to alter ecosystem or food web dynamics. Trotlines, similar to bottom
longlines (but without hooks), rest along the benthos and are anchored at both ends with anchors and chains.
Trotlines are set primarily in sand and silt habitats.
Criterion 4 Assessment
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 associated
biological communities.
5 - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom
4 - Vertical line gear
3 - 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 trawl
that 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 bottom
longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Or bottom seine except on mud/sand. Or there is
known trampling of coral reef habitat.
1 - Hydraulic clam dredge. Or dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or
boulder)
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.
Maryland / Chesapeake Bay / Trotline / United
States of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
Mississippi / Gulf of Mexico / Pots / United
States of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
New Jersey / Delaware Bay / Pots / United
States of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
North Carolina / Northwest Atlantic / Pots /
United States of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
South Carolina / Western Central Atlantic / Pots
/ United States of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
Texas / Gulf of Mexico / Pots / United States of
America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
Virginia / Chesapeake Bay / Pots / United
States of America
3
0
Moderate
Concern
Yellow
(3.000)
64
Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts
Goal: Damage to the seafloor is mitigated through protection of sensitive or vulnerable seafloor habitats, and
limits 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/limited
and for trawled fisheries, expansion of fishery's footprint is prohibited. Or gear is specifically modified to
reduce damage to seafloor and modifications have been shown to be effective at reducing damage. Or there
is 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 trawl
fisheries, expansion of the fishery's footprint is prohibited. Or gear modification measures or other measures
are in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing that
are expected to be effective.
0 No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats or not applicable because gear used
is 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 a
functioning ecosystem and food web. Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided
by any retained species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction of
genetic diversity. Even non-native species should be considered with respect to ecosystem impacts. If a fishery
is managed in order to eradicate a non-native, the potential impacts of that strategy on native species in the
ecosystem should be considered and rated below.
5  Policies that have been shown to be effective are in place to protect species' ecological roles and
ecosystem functioning (e.g. catch limits that ensure species' abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to
provide food to predators) and effective spatial management is used to protect spawning and foraging
areas, and prevent localized depletion. Or it has been scientifically demonstrated that fishing practices do
not have negative ecological effects.
4  Policies are in place to protect species' ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but have not proven
to 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 detrimental
food web impacts are not likely or policies in place may not be sufficient to protect species' ecological roles
and ecosystem functioning.
2  Policies are not in place to protect species' ecological roles and ecosystem functioning and the likelihood
of detrimental food impacts are likely (e.g. trophic cascades, alternate stable states, etc.), but conclusive
scientific evidence is not available for this fishery.
1  Scientifically demonstrated trophic cascades, alternate stable states or other detrimental food web
impact are resulting from this fishery.
65
Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
3
Pots are less damaging than highly mobile gears, such as trawls or dredges. Although pots contact the
benthos, they are not very mobile and have contact with a substantially smaller area of the seafloor than do
other types of gear. Relative to blue crab habitat, pots are less likely to cause damage on sandy or muddy
substrates, as opposed to submerged aquatic vegetation or live bottom substrate (Barnette 2001). However,
pots can affect the benthic habitat because they do not always remain entirely stable on the seafloor
(Chuenpagdee et al. 2003). Therefore, Seafood Watch scores pots a 3 out of 5 for impacts on the habitat. 
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, TROTLINE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
3
Trotlines, similar to bottom longlines (without hooks), rest along the benthos and are anchored at both ends.
Along the mainline, there are a series of baits attached at intervals of two to six feet. The baits are attached
to the main line by slipknots or by shorter lines called dropper lines (also known as trots or snoods). At each
end of the line is an anchor with a line that goes to a float, and then another line that goes to a section of
about 10 links of chain for stability. Trotlines are set primarily in sand and silt habitats. Therefore, trotlines
score 3 out of 5 for impacts on the habitat.  
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
0
Factor 4.1 - Physical Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate
66
Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
Most states have had or currently have established derelict pot removal programs (Anderson and Alford 2014)
(Giordano et al. 2011) (Guillory et al. 2012). Since 2004, the LDWF has carried out voluntary derelict pot
removal programs during 10-day fishing closures each year. In 2012, there were 2,704 pots removed,
and in 2013 a total of 903 pots were removed (Anderson and Alford 2014). Pot removal programs have been
highly successful, and Alabama and Mississippi now operate removal programs on an as-needed basis, in
addition to annually (Perry and VanderKooy 2015). Furthermore, fishers have incorporated the use of
biodegradable materials into pots, such as untreated steel wire, jute, and sisal twine that decompose within
28 to 77 days. These panels are currently mandated by law in Florida and Texas (ibid). Quantifying and
identifying the location of ghost pots for their eventual removal can be considered mitigation, but since ghost
pots are still an issue that can affect bottom habitats, Seafood Watch considers the blue crab pot fishery to
have no mitigation.
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, TROTLINE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
0
There is no mitigation of habitat impacts in the trotline fishery. 
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, TROTLINE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
Blue crabs play an important role as potential keystone predators in the Chesapeake Bay, South Atlantic, and
GOM ecosystems (Perry and VanderKooy 2015). Therefore, their protection is important to maintain
ecosystem function. Limits on blue crab fishing throughout all regions, as well as accountability measures for
potential decreases in abundance and increases in fishing, will allow blue crab populations to remain healthy.
Although more work needs to be done in all regions to develop assessments with appropriate reference
points, blue crab populations are being adequately protected to allow for healthy ecosystem function. In
addition to recommendations to maintain regulations enacted by the stateslimiting access to the fishery,
preventing exploitation, and improving research and monitoringthe 1997 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab FMP
incorporates an enhanced habitat section recommending protection and restoration of bay grasses and water
quality (Chesapeake Bay Program 1997). These concerns are very important in Chesapeake Bay because it is
such a large and very productive estuary. In this system, which is more closed than many coastal
environments, the ecosystem and food web dynamics are crucial.
Outside of the Chesapeake, there are numerous restoration activities, but the efforts tend not to be specifically
67
coordinated as part of blue crab population management. Efforts to restore habitats are underway to support
a variety of species for the health of the entire ecosystem. In the GOM, some of the current management
plan's objectives are to evaluate impacts of ecosystem variables on blue crab population dynamics, as well as
to conduct further research on blue crab diets and predation in order to develop an ecosystem-based
assessment model in the future (Perry and VanderKooy 2015). In Louisiana, crab pots are prohibited in wildlife
management areas and refuges, and in many states, commercial fishing is restricted to upper bays, rivers,
and streams (LDWF 2018b). Although the overall percentage restricted to fishing is low, there is some
conservation effort to protect spawning and juvenile crabs, such as escape ring regulations and a minimum
size limit (5 in) (GSMFC, unpublished data). Additionally, prohibition of berried females (and immature females
in Louisiana) protects spawning crabs. Due to these efforts, management of the ecosystem and food web
impacts of the fishery is deemed as "moderate" concern.
68
Acknowledgements
Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program, or its seafood
recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the
conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researcher and author of this report, Rachel Simon, as well as
Chris Blankenship of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and several anonymous
reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.
69
References
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). 2012. Administrative Code. Chapter 220-
3. Ala. Admin. Code, r. 220-3.31 Crabs, #10. Available at:
http://www.alabamaadministrativecode.state.al.us/docs/con_/220-3.pdf.
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). 2013. Summary of Alabama
Recreational Blue Crab Laws and Regulations. Available at:
http://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/images/file/Crab%20Handout_Rec_Aug13.pdf.
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). 2015. Alabama Wildlife Action Plan.
Available at: http://www.outdooralabama.com/sites/default/files/AL-SWAP-DRAFT-30JULY_0.pdf.
Anderson, A.N. 2014. Development of an alternative bait for the Louisiana commercial blue crab (Callinectes
sapidus) fishery. LSU Masters Thesis. Available at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=4459&context=gradschool_theses.
Anderson, J.A., A.B. Alford. 2014. Ghost fishing activity in derelict blue crab traps in Louisiana. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 79, 261267.
Audubon Nature Institute (ANI). 2016. Full Assessment and Certification Report for the Louisiana Blue Crab
Commercial Fishery. Available at: https://www.audubongulf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GULF-Blue-Crab-
Full-Assessment-Report-Final.pdf.
Arendt, M.D., Schwenter, J.A., Dingle, J., Evans, C.A., Waldrop, E., Czwartacki, B., Fowler, A.E., & Whitaker, J.D.
2018. A "BRD" in the Hand Worthy of Four in the Trap: Validation of Optimal Bycatch Reduction Device (BRD)
Size to Maximize Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus Entry and Diamondback Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin Exclusion
through Theoretical Modeling and Application. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 38:411-423.
Barnette, M. C. 2001. A Review of the Fishing Gear Utilized within the Southeast Region and their Potential
Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat. 62 pp.
Belcher, C., L. Liguori, L. Gentit, T. Sheirling. 2007. Evaluation of Diamondback Terrapin Excluders For Use in
Crab Traps in Georgia Waters. Final Report. University of Georgia Marine Extension Service, Brunswick, GA.
Bilkovic, D., K. Havens, D. Stanhope, K. Angstadt. 2012. Use of Fully Biodegradable Panels to Reduce Derelict Pot
Threats to Marine Fauna. Conservation Biology 26:6, 957-966.
Butler, J. A., G. L. Heinrich, R. A. Seigel. 2006. Third Workshop on The Ecology, Status, and Conservation of
Diamondback Terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin): Results and Recommendations. Chelonian Conservation and
Biology 5:2, 331-334.
Butler, J.A., C. Broadhurst, M. Green, Z. Mullin. 2004. Nesting, nest predation and hatchling emergence of the
Carolina diamondback terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin centrata, in northeastern Florida. American Midland
Naturalist 152, 145155.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). 2016. Blue Crab: Back from the Brink or Still in Trouble? Available at:
http://www.cbf.org/about-the-bay/more-than-just-the-bay/creatures-of-the-chesapeake/blue-crabs.
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 1989. Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan. Annapolis, Maryland.
70
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 1997. 1997 Chesapeake Bay Crab Fishery Management Plan. In E. P. A. E. 903-
R-97-015 (Ed.).
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 2008. Bay Blue Crab Fishery Declared a State of Disaster. September 1 (by
Alicia Pimental). Available at:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/blog/post/bay_blue_crab_fishery_declared_a_state_of_disaster.
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC). 2015. 2015 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Advisory Report
Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/CBSAC_2015_Advisory_Report_6-30_FINAL.pdf.
Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC). 2016. 2016 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Advisory
Report.
Chavez, S., A.S. Willard. 2017. The effects of bycatch reduction devices on diamondback terrapin and blue crab
catch in the North Carolina commercial crab fishery. Fisheries Research 186:1, 94-101. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783616302636#!.
Christian, R. R., J. J. Luczkovich. 1999. Organizing and Understanding A Winter's Seagrass Foodweb Network
through Effective Trophic Levels. Ecological Modelling 117:1, 99-124.
Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, S. M. Maxwell, E. A. Norse, D. Pauly. 2003. Shifting Gears: Assessing Collateral
Impacts of Fishing Methods In U.S. Waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:10, 517-524.
Cody, T. J., T. Wagner, C. E. Bryan, L. W. McEachron, R. Rayburn, B. Bowling, J. Mambretti. 1992. Texas Blue
Crab Fishery Management Plan. Fisheries Management Plan Series Number 4, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, Coastal Fisheries Branch. Austin, Texas.
Maryland Blue Crab Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). 2018. Maryland Blue Crab Regulations. Available
at: http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/08/08.02.03.07.htm.
Delware Division of Fish and Wildlife (DDFW). 2009. 2009 Assessment of the Delaware Bay Blue Crab
(Callinectes sapidus) stock. Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control. Dover, DE.
Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (DDFW). 2016. Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife: Enforcement
Section Available at: http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/MP/leoverview.shtm.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DDNREC). 2015. The Delaware Wildlife
Action Plan 2015-2025. Dover, Delaware. USA.
DeLancey, L. 2015. Atlantic Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus. Available at:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/swap/supplemental/marine/atlanticbluecrab2015.pdf.
Delaware Fishing Guide. 2018. Blue Crabs, Clams, Conchs and Oysters. Available at:
http://www.eregulations.com/delaware/fishing/blue-crabs-clams-conchs-oysters/.
Dorcas, M. E., J. D. Willson, J. W. Gibbons. 2007. Crab Trapping Causes Population Decline and Demographic
Changes in Diamondback Terrapins Over Two Decades. Biological Conservation 137:3, 334-340.
Drabeck, D.H., M.W.H Chatfield, C.L Richards-Zawacki. 2014. The status of Louisiana's diamondback terrapins
(Malaclemys terrapin) populations in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Insight from population
genetic and contaminant analyses. Journal of Herpetology 48, 125136.
71
DWF. 2016. Notice of Intent: Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Wildlife and Fisheries Commission: Blue Crab
Harvest, Vol. 42 No. 7 C.F.R. 2016.
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 68B-45.007. 2007. Available at:
https://www.flrules.org/Gateway/View_notice.asp?id=4402362.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2012. Florida's Wildlife Legacy Initiative: Florida's
State Wildlife Action Plan. Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2017. Derelict Trap Retrieval and Debris Removal
Program. Available at: http://myfwc.com/fishing/saltwater/trap-debris/.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2018a. Manatee Mortality Statistics. Available at:
http://myfwc.com/research/manatee/rescue-mortality-response/mortality-statistics/.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2018b. The Commission. Available at:
http://myfwc.com/Commission.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and Florida Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI). 2015.
Blue Crab Species Account. Available at: http://myfwc.com/media/195795/blue-crab.pdf.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). 2008a. Management Plan: Blue Crab. In C. R. Division (Ed.).
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). 2008b. Management Plan: Blue Crab Updated June 2008.
Available at: http://coastalgadnr.org/sites/default/files/crd/RecFish/State_FMPs/BlueCrabFMP2008.pdf.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) Coastal Resources Division. 2015a. Georgia Blue Crab FMP
Update 2015.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). 2015b. Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan. Social Circle, GA:
Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) Coastal Resources Division. 2016. Georgia Blue Crab
Landings 1989-2013. Available at: http://coastalgadnr.org/sites/uploads/crd/pdf/marfish/allcrab.pdf.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). 2017a. Georgia Commercial Seafood Landings. Available
at: http://coastalgadnr.org/sites/default/files/crd/pdf/marfish/broadhis.pdf.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). 2017b. Commercial Saltwater Fishing Regulations. Coastal
Resources Division.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). 2018. Citizen Advisory Groups. Available at:
http://coastalgadnr.org/CitizenAdvisoryGroups.
Gandy, R. L., W. M. Turner. 2014. Investigations into the Interactions Between Terrapins and Crab Traps. Florida
Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.
Gulf Data, Assessment, and Review (GDAR). 2013. GDAR01 Gulf of Mexico Blue Crab Stock Assessment Report.
Gulf Data, Assessment, and Review. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Available at:
http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20215.pdf.
72
Gibbons, J. W., J. E. Lovich, A. D. Tucker, N. N. Fitzsimmons, J. L. Greene. 2001. Demographic and Ecological
Factors Affecting Conservation and Management of the Diamondback Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) in South
Carolina. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4, 1-2001.
Giordano, S., J. Lazar, D. Bruce, C. Little, D. Levin, H. Slacum Jr, J. Dew-Baxter, L. Methratta, D. Wong, R. Corbin.
2011. Quantifying the Impacts of Derelict Blue Crab Traps in Chesapeake Bay. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the Fifth International Marine Debris Conference, Technical Memorandum NOS OR&R-38,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Graham, D. J., H. Perry, P. Biesiot, R. Fulford. 2012. Fecundity and Egg Diameter of Primiparous and Multiparous
Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus (Brachyura: Portunidae) in Mississippi waters. Journal of Crustacean Biology
32:1, 49-56.
Grosse, A. M., J. D. Van Dijk, K. L. Holcomb, and J. C. Maerz. 2009. Diamondback terrapin mortality in crab pots
in a Georgia tidal marsh. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 8:98100.
Grosse, A. M., J. C. Maerz, J. Hepinstall-Cymerman, M. E. Dorcas. 2011. Effects of Roads nd Crabbing Pressures
on Diamondback Terrapin Populations in Coastal Georgia. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75:4, 762-770.
Grubbs, S.P., P. Myer, H. Funkhouser, R.M. Chambers. 2018. To BRD or Not to BRD? A Test of Bycatch Reduction
Devices for the Blue Crab Fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 38, 1823. DOI
10.1080/02755947.2017.1391899.
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). 1999. TCC Crab Subcommittee Minutes. Wednesday, March
16, 1999, New Orleans, Louisiana. Available at: http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/IJF/Mar_99_Crab.pdf.
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). 2008. Guidelines for Developing Derelict Trap Removal
Programs in the Gulf of Mexico. 2008 Revision. Available at:
http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20154.pdf.
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). 2013. Gulf of Mexico Blue Crab Stock Assessment Report.
Retrieved from Ocean Springs, MS.
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). 2015. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Available
at: https://www.gsmfc.org.
Guillory, V., H. M. Perry, S. VanderKooy. 2001. The Blue Crab Fishery of The Gulf of Mexico, United States: A
Regional Management Plan: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Guillory, V., A. McMillen-Jackson, L. Hartman, H. Perry, T. Floyd, T. Wagner, G. Graham. 2012. Blue Crab Derelict
Traps and Trap Removal Programs.
Hackney, A. D. 2010. Conservation Biology of the Diamondback Terrapin in North America: Policy Status, Nest
Predation, and Managing Island Populations. Clemson University.
Harden, L. A., A. S. Willard. 2012. Using Spatial and Behavioral Data to Evaluate the Seasonal Bycatch Risk of
Diamondback Terrapins Malaclemys terrapin in Crab Pots. Marine Ecology Progress Series 467, 207.
Hart, K. M., L. B. Crowder. 2011. Mitigating Bycatch of Diamondback Terrapins in Crab Pots. The Journal of
Wildlife Management 75:2, 264-272.
73
Havens, K. J., D. M. Bilkovic, D. Stanhope, K. Angstadt. 2009. Location, Location, Location: the Importance of
Cull Ring Placement in Blue Crab Traps. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:4, 720-724.
Hoyle M.E., J.W. Gibbons. 2000. Use of a Marked Population of Diamondback Terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) to
Determine Impacts of Recreational Crab Pots. Chelonian Conserv Biol 3, 735737.
Knoe 8 News. 2017. Over 5,600 Abandoned Traps Removed from Louisiana Waters. Press Release. Available at:
http://www.knoe.com/content/news/Over-5600-Abandoned-Traps-Removed-from-Louisiana-Waters-During-
LDWF-Derelict-Crab-Trap-Rodeos-418411283.html.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 2014. Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan.
Available at: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/page/37762-fishery-management-plans-
marine/finalbluecrabfmp11-7-14.pdf.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDFW). 2015. Wildlife Action Plan. Available at:
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/wildlife/wildlife-action-plan.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). 2016. Update Assessment of Blue Crab in Louisiana
Waters: 2016 Report. Available at: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/document/40572-
stock/labc_assessment_2016.pdf.
LDWF. 2017a. Commercial and For-Hire Fisheries Rules and Regulations. Available at:
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/publication/41063-2017-commercial-fishing-regulations-
brochure/commercial_fishing_brochure_2017_7-28-17.pdf.
LDWF. 2017b. LDWF Reminds Harvesters of New Blue Crab Fishing Regulations. Available at:
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/40777.
LDWF. 2018a. LDWF Reminds Crab Fishermen of Regulation Changes and Derelict Trap Closures. January 11.
Available at: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/41764.
LDWF. 2018b. 2018 Commercial Fishing Regulations. Available at:
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/page/41407-regulations/commercialfishingbrochure201810-
30-17.pdf.
LDWF. 2018c. Louisiana Wildlife Refuges. Available at: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/refuges.
LDWF. 2018d. Louisiana Wildlife Management Areas. Available at: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/wma.
LDWF. 2018e. LDWF Plans Five Crab Trap Closures Along Louisiana Coast in 2019. Release Date: 10/05/2018.
Available at: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/42321.
LDFW. 2018f. Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission to Modify Blue Crab Harvest Regulations. Release
Date: 09/07/2018. Available at: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/42274.
Maerz, J. C., A. M. Grosse. 2010. Report to Georgia Department of Natural Resources on: Relationship Between
Diamondback Terrapin Abundance and Road and Crabbing Pressures Along Coastal Georgia. In T. U. o. G. Daniel
B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources (Ed.). Athens, GA.
Maryland Blue Crab Industry Design Team (MBCIDT). 2012. Electronic Reporting and Monitoring Pilot Project.
Available at: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/18200/4_-_matt_mullin_-
74
_fish_git_pilot.overview_061112.pdf.
McKee, R. K., K. K. Cecala, M. E. Dorcas. 2015. Behavioural Interactions of Diamondback Terrapins with Crab
Pots Demonstrate That Bycatch Reduction Devices Reduce Entrapment. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR). 2015. Maryland State Wildlife Action Plan: Chapter 3
Maryland's Wildlife and Species of Greatest Conservation Need.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR). 2016a. Maryland Blue Crab Regulations. Available at:
http://dnr2.maryland.gov/fisheries/Pages/regulations/blue-crab.aspx.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR). 2016b. Penalty Page: Maryland Fishing Penalities
Available at: http://dnr2.maryland.gov/fisheries/Pages/regulations/penalty.aspx.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR). 2018. Commercial Chesapeake Bay Regulations. Available
at: http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Pages/regulations/bay_regs.aspx.
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR). 2016a. MDMR announces crab trap gear closure. News
Release. Available at: http://www.dmr.ms.gov/images/fisheries/shrimp-crab/16-21-MMS-with-maps.pdf.
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR). 2016b. Shrimp & Crab Derelict Crab Trap Removal
Program. Available at: http://www.dmr.ms.gov/index.php/marine-fisheries/shrimp-a-crab/90-derelict-crab-trap-
removal-program.
MDMR. 2016c. Guide to Mississippi Saltwater Fishing: Rules and Regulations. July. Available at:
http://www.dmr.ms.gov/images/publications/2016-17%20Combined%20cover%20%20pages-RulesRegs.pdf.
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP). 2018. Information on harvest of turles and
other non-game wildlife. Available at: https://www.mdwfp.com/fishing-boating/freshwater-commercial/turtle-
information/.
Maryland Fishing Guide (MFG). 2018. Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal Tributaries. Available at:
http://www.eregulations.com/maryland/fishing/blue-crabs/.
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science (MMNS). 2015. Mississippi State Wildlife Action Plan. Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi.
Mohrman, C. F., J, D. Tappa. 2014. First Documented Predation of Adult Mississippi Diamondback Terrapins
(Malaclemys terrapin pileata) by Raccoons (Procyon lotor).
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). 2015. Louisiana blue crab Surveillance report No. 3.
Munscher, E. C., E. H. Kuhns, C. A. Cox, J. A. Butler. 2012. Decreased Nest Mortality for the Carolina
Diamondback Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin centrata) Following Removal of Raccoons (Procyon lotor) from a
Nesting Beach in Northeastern Florida. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 7:2), 176-184.
NatureServe. 2016. Online Encyclopedia of Life: Malaclemys terrapin. Available at:
http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Malaclemys+terrapin.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2014. Blue Crab-2014. Available at:
75
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/37-blue-crabs-ssr-2014.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2018a. N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission Meetings.
Available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/mfc-meetings.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2018b. N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission Advisory
Committees. Available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/mfc-advisory-committees.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2018c. Blue Crab, Callinectes sapidus. Available at:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/blue-crab.
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). 2004. 2004 North Carolina Blue Crab Fishery Management
Plan.
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). 2013. North Carolina Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus)
Fishery Mangement Plan Amendment 2. In N. C. D. o. M. Fisheries (Ed.). Morehead City, NC.
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). 2013. North Carolina Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus)
Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 2.
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF). 2014. Crab Pots 15A NCAC 03L .0204.
North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC). 2016a. Blue Crab Traffic Light 2015 Update and
Management Options. Retrieved on March 23, 2016. Available at:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=fa7d07d3-dc55-47f4-9ae9-
91a66f6d1948&groupId=38337.
North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC). 2016b. Marine Fisheries Commission Adopts Stricter
Blue Crab Regulations [Press release]. Available at: https://deq.nc.gov/press-release/marine-fisheries-
commission-adopts-stricter-blue-crab-regulations.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 2015. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). 2008. New Jersey Wildlife Action Plan for Wildlife
of Greatest Conservation Need. Division of Fish and Wildlife.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016a. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. Available at:
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/index.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016b. NMFS Commercial Fisheries Statistics: U.S. Foreign Trade.
Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/index.html.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016c. Fisheries of the United States 2015. Fisheries Statistics
Division. Eds A. Lowther & M. Liddel.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2017. 2017 List of Fisheries. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/fisheries/2017_list_of_fisheries_lof.html.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010. Statement of Work: Blue Crab
Benchmark Stock Assessment - 2010. Available at: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/channel_files/17819/t020-
16_blue_crab_benchmark_assess_sow_draft_v9july2010-3.pdf.
76
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2017. Volunteer-Aided Derelict Blue Crab Trap
Removal Program in Alabama. Marine Debris Program. Available at:
https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/removal/volunteer-aided-derelict-blue-crab-trap-removal-program-alabama.
NPS. 2012. Everglades Fishing Regulations.June. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/ever/planyourvisit/upload/Ever-Fishing-Regulations-June-FY12.pdf.
National Park Service (NPS). 2018. Fishing in Mississippi. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/guis/planyourvisit/fishing-in-mississippi.htm.
Page, J. W., M. C. Curran, P. J. Geer. 2013. Characterization of the Bycatch in the Commercial Blue Crab Pot
Fishery in Georgia, November 2003-December 2006. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management,
and Ecosystem Science 5, 236-245.
Pearson, S.H. J.J. Wiebe. 2018b. Distribution, Sex Ratios, and Size Distributions of Diamond-Backed Terrapins
(Malaclemys terrapin) in the Deltaic Plain of Louisiana. Herpetologica 74:2, 135-140.
Pearson, S.H., J.J. Wiebe. 2018a. Considering diamond-backed terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) nesting habitat
and reproductive productivity in the restoration of Gulf of Mexico coastal ecosystems. Ocean and Coastal
Management 155, 814.
Perry, H. M. 1975. The Blue Crab Fishery in Mississippi. Gulf and Caribbean Research 5:1, 39-57.
Perry, H. M., S. J. VanderKooy. 2015. The Blue Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico: A Regional Management Plan.
Retrieved from Ocean Springs, MS.
Petre, C., W. Selman, B. Kreiser, S.H. Pearson, J.J. Wiebe. 2015. Population genetics of the diamondback
terrapin, Malaclemys terrapin, in Louisiana. Conservation Genetics. 16, 12431252.
Potomac River Fisheries Commision (PRFC). 2009. Summary of Potomac River Regulations Pertaining to
Commercial Crab Potting. Available at:
http://www.prfc.state.va.us/commercial/2009%20Summary%20of%20Crab%20Potting%20Regulations%20rev%20June_2009
Rook, M. A., R. N. Lipcius, B. M. Bronner, R. M. Chambers. 2010. Bycatch Reduction Device Conserves
Diamondback Terrapin Without Affecting Catch of Blue Crab. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 409 171-179.
Roosenburg, W. M. 1991. The Diamondback Terrapin: Population Dynamics, Habitat Requirements, and
Opportunities for Conservation. Paper presented at the New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A
Research and Management Partnership. Proceedings of a Conference. CRC Publication.
Roosenburg, W. M. 2004. The Impact of Crab Pot Fisheries on Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) Populations:
Where Are We and Where Do We Need to Go. Paper presented at the Conservation and Ecology of Turtles of
the Mid-Atlantic Region: A Symposium, Salt Lake City, UT.
Roosenburg, W. M., W. Cresko, M. Modesitte, and M. B. Robbins. 1997. Diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys
terrapin) mortality in crab pots. Conservation Biology 5:11661172.
Sartwell, T. 2009. What Can Be Done To Save The East Coast Blue Crab Fishery? Master's Thesis. Duke
University, Nicholas School of the Environment. Availablet at:
https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/1014/tws2_mp_fi..?sequence=1.
77
South Carolina Coastal Resources (SCCR). 2017. Designing a Turtle-Proof Crab Trap. Available at:
http://sccoastalresources.com/home/2017/4/13/brd.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2014. South Carolina's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP)
2015. October 14. Columbia, SC.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2016a. 2015-2016 Points and Suspension Systems.
Available at: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/regs/points.html.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2016b. Blue Crab-Abundance of Species. Available at:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/species/graphs/bluecrababund.html.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2016c. Blue Crab-Fishery Status. Available at:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/species/graphs/bluecrabstatus.html.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2016d. Diamondback Terrapin Available at:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/diamondbackterrapin/index.html.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2016e. Research-Fisheries Interactions and Bycatch
Reduction. Available at: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/diamondbackterrapin/research/fisheries.html.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2016f. Shellfish: Shrimp and Blue Crabs. Survey
Information. Available at: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/mrri/shellfish/bcrabshrimpsum.html.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2016g. Report sightings online to help diamondback
terrapins. April 14. Available at: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/news/2016/apr/apr14_terrapin.html.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2018a. 2017 - 2018 Saltwater Fishing Regulations -
Crab, Lobster & Shellfish. Available at: http://www.dnr.sc.gov/regs/crabregs.html.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2018b. Marine Advisory Committee. Available at:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/admin/committees/mac.html.
South Carolina Division of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2018c. Marine Species: Blue Crab. Available at:
http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/species/bluecrab.html.
Schueller, A. 2016. GDAR02 Gulf Menhaden Stock Assessment Update. Gulf Data, Assessment, and Review. Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commission. GSMFC Number 254. Available at:
http://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20254.pdf.
Scott, I., J. Addison. 2016. MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification. On-Site Surveillance Visit - Report For The
Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery. 4th Surveillance Audit. Available at: 82559.LouBluCrab 4thSA final.pdf.
Scott, I. and J. Tremblay. 2018. MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification of The Louisiana Blue Crab Fishery:
Final Report. June 2018. 120pp.
Science Certification Systems (SCS). 2012. Marine Stewardship Council Public Certification Report, Louisiana
Blue Crab Fishery. Available at: https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-
program/certified/western-central-atlantic/louisiana_blue_crab/assessment-downloads-
1/20120216_Final_report.pdf.
78
Seachoice. 2016. Blue Crab. Available at: http://www.seachoice.org/fish/blue-crab-2/.
Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR). 2013. Gulf of Mexico Menhaden Stock Assessment Report.
Retrieved from North Charleson, SC. Available at: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/Sedar_Workshops;jsp?
WorkshopNum=32A.
Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR). 2015. 2015 Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Report.
SEDAR, North Charleston SC. 643 pp. Available at:
http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/55089931S40_AtlMenhadenSAR_CombinedFINAL_1.15.2015-reduced.pdf
Seigel, R., J. Gibbons. 1995. Workshop on the Ecology, Status, and Management of the Diamondback Terrapin
(Malaclemys terrapin), Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, 2 August 1994: Final Results and Recommendations.
Chelonian Conservation and Biology 1:3, 240-243.
Selman, W., B. Baccigalopi, C. Baccigalopi. 2014. Distribution and Abundance of Diamondback Terrapins
(Malaclemys terrapin) in Southwestern Louisiana. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 13:2, 131-139.
Silliman, B.R., M.D. Bertness. 2002. A trophic cascade regulates salt marsh primary production. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 99, 1050010505.
Sutton, G., T. Wagner. 2007. Stock Assessment of Blue Crab (Callinectes Sapidus) in Texas Coastal Waters.
Management Data Series No. 249. Texas Parks and Wildlife. Available at:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_v3400_1440.pdf.
Tortoise & Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group (TFWTSG). 1996. Malaclemys terrapin (errata version published
in 2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 1996: e.T12695A97296146. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.1996.RLTS.T12695A3373885.en. Downloaded on 29 December 2017.
Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD). 2017. Annual Texas Abandoned Crab Trap Removal Dates Set for 2017.
Available at: https://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/?
req=20170201a&nrtype=all&nrspan=2017&nrsearch=trap.
Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD). 2017. Texas Commercial Fishing Guide. Available at:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_v3400_0074.pdf.
Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD). 2018a. Commercial Fishing License Buyback Programs. Available at:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/fishboat/fish/commercial/buyback.phtml.
TPWD. 2018b. J.D. Murphree WMA. Available at: https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/hunt/wma/find_a_wma/list/?
id=40.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus): Florida Stock
(Florida subspecies Trichechus manatus latirostris).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Diamondback Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) CITES Status.
Available at: http://www.fws.gov/international/cites/cop16/diamondback-terrapin.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Florida Manatee: Issues and Information.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017b. Species Profile for West Indian manatee. Available at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=A007.
79
USFWS. 2017c. Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge | Florida. October 24. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/refuge/ARM_Loxahatchee/visit/rules_and_regulations.html.
USFWS. 2017d. J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge | Florida. March 25. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/refuge/JN_Ding_Darling/visit/rules_and_regulations.html.
USFWS. 2018a. Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge | Florida. June 18. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Hobe_Sound/visit/rules_and_regulations.html.
USFWS. 2018b. Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge Hunting and Fishing Regulations 2018 - 2019. Available
at: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/regulations/bayou-sauvage-national-wildlife-refuge-hunt.pdf.
USFWS. 2018c. Big Branch Marsh National Wildlife Refuge Hunting and Fishing Regulations 2018-2019. August.
Available at: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/regulations/big-branch-marsh-national-wildlife-refuge-hunt-
fish.pdf.
USFWS. 2018d. Delta National Wildlife Refuge General Fishing and Hunting Regulations 2018 - 2019. August.
Available at: https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/regulations/delta-national-wildlife-refuge-hunt-fish.pdf.
Van Engel, W. 1958. The Blue Crab and its Fishery in Chesapeake Bay. Reproduction, Early Development, Growth
Migration. Commercial Fisheries Review 24, 6-17.
VanderKooy, S., J. W. Smith. 2015. The Gulf Menhaden Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico: A Regional Management
Plan. 2015 Revision.
Virginia Center for Coastal Resources Management (VCCRM). 2008. Study on Abandoned and Discarded Blue
Crab Traps.
Virginia Center for Coastal Resources Management (VCCRM). 2017. Research: Diamondback Terrapin Bycatch
Reduction Strategies for Commercial and Recreational Blue Crab Fisheries. Available at:
http://ccrm.vims.edu/research/mapping_surveying/terrapin/index.html.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) 2015. Virginia's 2015 Wildlife Action Plan. September
1, 2015. Henrico, VA.
Virginia, S. G. 2006. Crab Facts and Photos. Available at: http://web.vims.edu/adv/ed/crab/facts.html.
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) 2008. What's New Archive. Available at:
http://www.mrc.state.va.us/fmac/fmoverview.shtm.
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). 2016a. Scientific Survey Shows Solid Blue Crab Stock
Improvement [Press release]. Available at:
http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/news_releases/2016/2016_Blue_Crab_Winter_Dredge_Survey_Results_News_Release_04-
12-16.pdf.
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). 2016b. Terrapin Conservation Meausre Implemented for
Recreational Crab Pots Effecitve 7/1/16. Available at: http://mrc.virginia.gov/terrapin.shtm.
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). 2016c. Virginia Marine Police. Available at:
http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/MP/leoverview.shtm.
80
Voss, C. M., J. A. Browder, A. Wood, A. Michaelis. 2015. Factors Driving The Density of Derelict Crab Pots and
their Associated Bycatch in North Carolina Waters. Fisheries Bulletin 113, 378-390.
Wahle, R. A. 2003. Revealing StockRecruitment Relationships in Lobsters and Crabs: Is Experimental Ecology
the Key? Fisheries Research 65:1, 3-32.
Waring, G. T., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P .E. Rosel. 2016. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal
Stock Assessments 2015. Woods Hole, MA.
West, J., H. Blanchet, M. Bourgeois. 2011. Assessment of Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus in Louisiana waters.
West, J., H. Blanchet, P. Cagle. 2018. Update Assessment of Blue Crab in Louisiana Waters. 2018 Report.
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Available at:
https://www.gsmfc.org/publications/GSMFC%20Number%20215.pdf.
William and Mary. 2015. PHAs: 'Bacteria fat' that can help us save the Chesapeake. Available at:
https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2015/phas-123.php.
Wolak, M. E., G. W. Gilchrist, V. A. Ruzicka, D. M. Nally, and R. M. Chambers. 2010. A contemporary, sex-limited
change in body size of an estuarine turtle in response to commercial fishing. Conservation Biology 24:1268
1277.
Wood, R. C. 1997. The impact of commercial crab traps on northern diamondback terrapins, Malaclemys
terrapin terrapin. Pages 2127 in J. Van Abbema, editor. Proceedings: conservation, restoration, and
management of tortoises and turtlesan international conference. New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, New
York.
Zinkski, S. C. 2006. Blue Crab Identification. Available at: http://www.bluecrab.info/identification.html.
81
Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species
BOTTLENOSE DOLPHIN
Factor 2.1 - Abundance
Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
High Concern
There are several populations of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, that may interact with blue
crab pot fisheries in the Atlantic. The 2017 List of Fisheries states that it is not possible to determine the exact
population from which a stranded dolphin originates (NMFS 2017), therefore we consider these populations
together.
Of the several populations that may be encountered by blue crab fisheries in the Atlantic, some are listed as
depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), namely: 1) Central Florida Coastal; 2) Northern
Florida Coastal; 3) Northern Migratory Coastal; 4) South Carolina and Georgia Coastal; and 5) Southern
Migratory Coastal (Waring et al. 2016). Due to the depleted status of these bottlenose dolphin populations,
Seafood Watch considers abundance to be of "high" concern. 
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Moderate Concern
There is no systematic observer program for the blue crab fishery, which makes it difficult to estimate the
impact of the blue crab fishery on Atlantic bottlenose dolphin populations. However, there is evidence that
dolphins do interact with crab pots. For example, between 2009 and 2013 there were three known
interactions in the Indian River Lagoon region (Waring et al. 2016). These dolphins were released without
serious injury; however, stranded dolphins are found bearing evidence of interactions with crab pots and
associated lines. Between 2009 and 2013, seven stranded dolphins were found in the Jacksonville Estuarine
region that showed signs of having interacted with pots (ibid). 
As many of the populations have an unknown abundance, it is also impossible to identify a sustainable level of
impact, or Potential Biological Removal (PBR), in many cases (ibid). As a result, the impact of blue crab
fisheries on Atlantic bottlenose dolphins is unknown, or a "moderate" conservation concern.
82
Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate
MARYLAND / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NEW JERSEY / DELAWARE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DELAWARE / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VIRGINIA / CHESAPEAKE BAY, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
< 100%
The overall ratio of bait + discards/landings in the blue crab fisheries is less than 100% (see table). Pots are
designed to trap crabs, but occasionally turtles, sublegal blue crabs, and finfish enter pots. Most states that
have an active blue crab fishery require cull rings, which allow most sublegal blue crabs to escape (VCCRM
2008). The amount of terrapin bycatch is unknown, but is thought to be a small portion of the blue crab
landing weight. However, given that terrapins are highly vulnerable, the impact can be notable. Ghost pots
contribute most significantly to unintended mortality from the blue crab fishery, but total mortality due to
derelict gear is low (Bilkovic et al. 2012). A two year survey of derelict fishing gear in Chesapeake Bay found
that blue crabs comprised just under 80% of the catch, while oyster toadfish, whelk, black seabass and
Atlantic croaker made up approximately 20% of the catch (ibid).
Gulf and Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia patronus and B. tyrannus, respectively) and striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus) are the main species used for bait in the GOM blue crab fishery (Perry and VanderKooy 2015),
where approximately 0.6 lb of bait are used per pot, for a total of 19 million lb annually (SCS 2012). Forty to
55% of blue crab catch by weight is caught using either Atlantic or Gulf menhaden (ibid). The traditional bait
for most crab fishermen in the Gulf was Atlantic menhaden; however, this bait supply has diminished over the
last decade as Atlantic menhaden populations have been afforded more protection (Anderson 2014). In
addition, the Gulf menhaden bait industry in the Gulf declined (C. Blankenship, personal communication 2017).
To address the needs of the crab fishery, efforts are underway to rebuild a Gulf bait industry in Louisiana and
Florida (Schueller 2016).  
Although Atlantic menhaden were in decline, the latest assessment indicated an increase in population
biomass and spawning stock biomass (compared to the 2013 assessment); hence, the stock is neither
overfished nor undergoing overfishing (Schueller 2016). The ratio of bait use to catch is considered similar to
the impact of discarded bycatch. Thus, overall discards and bait use is ranked as 40% to 60%, or <100%.
Table 1:  2014 Landings in blue crab pot gear (percentage by weight) (NMFS 2016a).
Species landed in blue crab pots Percentage of landings by weight (lb)
Blue crab
99.22%
Black drum
0.01%
American eel
0.01%
Southern flounder
0.01%
Striped mullet
0.01%
Shellfish (general)
0.02%
83
WEST INDIAN MANATEE
Factor 2.1 - Abundance
Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality
Sheepshead
0.01%
Snails (conch)
0.02%
Toadfish
0.01%
Channeled whelk
0.01%
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
High Concern
The West Indian manatee, Trichechus manatus, is found in the coastal waters of North, Central, and South
America. There are two known sub-species, the Antillean manatee (Trichechus manatus manatus) and the
Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Here we discuss the Florida manatee and the potential
interactions with the US blue crab fishery. 
The Florida manatee is found in waters of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and the
Carolinas (USFWS 2017b). The Florida manatee is listed as Endangered under the ESA; however, it is
currently being considered for reclassification as "threatened" (USFWS 2017a). Seafood Watch considers all
threatened and endangered species a "high" concern.
Justification:
The most recent stock assessment for the Florida manatee considers data from 2008 to 2012 (USFWS 2014).
There is no statistically robust estimate of population size; however, a count of 4,834 individuals was recorded
in January 2011. Demographic studies suggest that the population is stable or increasing (ibid), leading to calls
for reclassification under the ESA. 
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
84
Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate
Low Concern
Human threats to the Florida manatee include collisions with watercrafts, water control structures, and
interactions with recreational and commercial fishing gear. The US blue crab pot fishery is considered a
Category II fishery by the National Marine Fisheries Service due to potential interactions with manatees, as
well as bottlenose dolphins (NMFS 2017). Most mortalities and serious injuries are caused by collisions with
watercrafts (FWC 2018a). Blue crab fisheries were known to cause injury to one manatee in the Gulf of
Mexico (Pinellas County in 2008; FWC/FWRI Marine Mammals Pathobiology Laboratory, personal
communication 2017) and two manatees in the Atlantic between 2008 and 2012 (USFWS 2014).  Each of
these manatees was successfully treated and returned to the wild. As such, total impact from the blue crab
fishery, and commercial fisheries as a whole, is considered insignificant and approaching zero (ibid). Thus,
Seafood Watch considers fishing mortality to be "low" concern. 
NORTH CAROLINA / NORTHWEST ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GEORGIA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
SOUTH CAROLINA / WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FLORIDA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LOUISIANA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ALABAMA / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MISSISSIPPI / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TEXAS / GULF OF MEXICO, POTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
< 100%
The overall ratio of bait + discards/landings in the blue crab fisheries is less than 100% (see table). Pots are
designed to trap crabs, but occasionally turtles, sublegal blue crabs, and finfish enter pots. Most states that
have an active blue crab fishery require cull rings, which allow most sublegal blue crabs to escape (VCCRM
2008). The amount of terrapin bycatch is unknown, but is thought to be a small portion of the blue crab
landing weight. However, given that terrapins are highly vulnerable, the impact can be notable. Ghost pots
contribute most significantly to unintended mortality from the blue crab fishery, but total mortality due to
derelict gear is low (Bilkovic et al. 2012). A two year survey of derelict fishing gear in Chesapeake Bay found
that blue crabs comprised just under 80% of the catch, while oyster toadfish, whelk, black seabass and
Atlantic croaker made up approximately 20% of the catch (ibid).
Gulf and Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia patronus and B. tyrannus, respectively) and striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus) are the main species used for bait in the GOM blue crab fishery (Perry and VanderKooy 2015),
where approximately 0.6 lb of bait are used per pot, for a total of 19 million lb annually (SCS 2012). Forty to
55% of blue crab catch by weight is caught using either Atlantic or Gulf menhaden (ibid). The traditional bait
for most crab fishermen in the Gulf was Atlantic menhaden; however, this bait supply has diminished over the
last decade as Atlantic menhaden populations have been afforded more protection (Anderson 2014). In
addition, the Gulf menhaden bait industry in the Gulf declined (C. Blankenship, personal communication 2017).
To address the needs of the crab fishery, efforts are underway to rebuild a Gulf bait industry in Louisiana and
Florida (Schueller 2016).  
Although Atlantic menhaden were in decline, the latest assessment indicated an increase in population
biomass and spawning stock biomass (compared to the 2013 assessment); hence, the stock is neither
overfished nor undergoing overfishing (Schueller 2016). The ratio of bait use to catch is considered similar to
the impact of discarded bycatch. Thus, overall discards and bait use is ranked as 40% to 60%, or <100%.
85
Table 1:  2014 Landings in blue crab pot gear (percentage by weight) (NMFS 2016a).
Species landed in blue crab pots Percentage of landings by weight (lb)
Blue crab
99.22%
Black drum
0.01%
American eel
0.01%
Southern flounder
0.01%
Striped mullet
0.01%
Shellfish (general)
0.02%
Sheepshead
0.01%
Snails (conch)
0.02%
Toadfish
0.01%
Channeled whelk
0.01%
86
Appendix B: Management Factors for Ineffective States
Factor 3.3 Scientific Research and Monitoring
Blue crab:  Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay (Virginia), crab pot
 
Moderately effective
 
Key relevant information:
Blue crab stock assessments in Chesapeake Bay provide detailed scientific advice for management based on
quantitative measures of the population. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Virginia
Institute of Marine Sciences monitor crab populations with a winter survey during the crabs' dormant period
each year (CBF 2016). However, very little is known about the nature of the blue crab fishery's impact on
diamondback terrapins and how effective the regulations in New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware have been on
minimizing bycatch. Therefore, scientific research and monitoring is ranked as "moderately effective."
Blue crab: Atlantic (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida), crab pot 
 
Moderately effective
 
Key relevant information:
The Pamlico Sound Survey and other North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries surveys are used to collect
fishery-independent and fishery-dependent data through the trip ticket program, and by sampling catches at
offloading sites (NCDENR 2018c). The stock has been characterized by a Traffic Light Stock Assessment Method,
which synthesizes a variety of information about the stock (NCMFC 2016a). South Carolina crab abundance
levels are measured by an annual survey conducted by the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources (SCDNR 2016c). Georgia has a monthly blue crab survey program and results are monitored
constantly to detect any decrease in blue crab survey abundance, as well as any changes in CPUE results
(GADNR 2015a). Florida conducts a state-wide blue crab survey approximately every three years, which is used
to measure abundance and fishing effort (D. Ellison, personal communication 2016). Management efforts can be
improved with the collection and use of more fishery-independent data, and the development of a stock
assessment methodology with reference points for all Atlantic states. Although a study is being conducted on
terrapin bycatch and the most effective method for minimizing bycatch in the Atlantic region, the results are not
yet available.  Scientific research and monitoring is therefore ranked as "moderately effective."
Blue crab: GOM (Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, crab pot)
 
Moderately effective
The assessment of blue crabs in Louisiana is based on catch-survey analyses, which incorporate abundance
indices, harvest estimates, and natural mortality (stock-production models). Estimates of exploitable biomass
and recruitment, as well as fishing mortality, are produced from these models. Indices of abundance are
derived from the LDWF fishery-independent trawl survey (LDWF 2016). A stock assessment was completed in
2015 for the entire GOM fishery, which includes fishery reference points (ibid). An additional stock assessment
was recently completed by the state of Louisiana for their blue crab population. Although a study is being
conducted on terrapin bycatch in Louisiana, and the most effective method for minimizing bycatch, the results
are not yet available. Since the GOM blue crab fishery is being assessed regularly, especially the Louisiana
population, but is not sufficient to meet a score of "highly effective," scientific research and monitoring in the
GOM is ranked as "moderately effective."
Factor 3.4 Enforcement of Management Regulations
87
Blue crab: Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay (Virginia), crab pot 
 
Highly effective
 
Key relevant information:
Regulation of the commercial blue crab fishery is set by the number of licenses, which limits the number of
pots. Trotline gear used from the boat may not exceed 1,200 ft in length for the baited portion (MDDNR 2016a).
When a reduction in blue crab take is necessary, fishing effort (number of pots) is reduced; however, there are
potential future issues of overcapacity, with over 5,000 licenses issued in Maryland (ibid). Although not all of the
licenses are in use, there is a significant amount of latent effort, which could result in overcapacity. In an
attempt to minimize this risk, there is an effort to buy back unused licenses; so far, there has been a reduction
of 1,000 female harvest licenses and some additional male-only licenses (Davis, personal communication 2016).
Enforcement in the commercial fishery is based on a point system, where points are applied to a fishing license
if an individual is found guilty of violating a fishing regulation, or for individuals fishing without a commercial
license (MDDNR 2016b). A certain number of points can result in a suspension of licenses, which has made a
large impact on improving regulation compliance. The Virginia fishery is monitored by the Virginia Marine Police,
which monitors for compliance (VAMRC 2016). The Delaware Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural
Resources police officers monitor Delaware waters for compliance; in only one week in April 2016, five citations
were issued for unlicensed fishing (DDFW 2016). Since there is sufficient enforcement of regulations in each
state, enforcement is ranked as "highly effective."
Blue crab:  Atlantic (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida), crab pot
 
Highly effective
 
Key relevant information:
Regulation of the commercial blue crab fishery in North Carolina is set by the number of licenses, which limits
the number of pots. When a reduction in blue crab fishing is triggered through the Traffic Light Assessment
System, possible management measures include: 1) restricting harvest of sponge crabs; 2) setting a size limit
for mature females; 3) closing crab spawning sanctuaries; 4) prohibiting harvest of sponge crabs; 5) expanding
the crab sanctuaries; or 6) closing the entire fishery (NCMFC 2016a). There are enforcement agents throughout
the state that monitor compliance with fisheries regulations, both on the water and at the dock, by issuing
citations for infractions (C. Flora, personal communication 2016). In South Carolina, enforcement is handled by
the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Division of Law Enforcement, which is responsible for
ensuring commercial fishers abide by the rules and regulations (SCDNR 2016a). Enforcement is managed by a
points system where each violation is assessed and assigned a number of points against one's record. After one
full year without receiving any additional points, those points are reduced by half. If one accumulates more than
18 points, that person is no longer allowed to fish within South Carolina's coastal waters (SCDNR 2016a). The
Law Enforcement Division of Georgia's Department of Natural Resources is responsible for enforcing Georgia's
commercial fishing regulations. Law enforcement implements a three-strike system where, if a fisher is
convicted of three violations, they lose their license permanently (GADNR 2016). Enforcement in Florida is
handled through the Fish and Wildlife Commission's Law Enforcement Division. All states have adequate
enforcement divisions, and therefore, enforcement is ranked as "highly effective." 
 
Blue crab: GOM (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas), crab pot  
 
Highly effective
 
Key relevant information:
Regulation of the commercial blue crab fishery is set by the number of licenses, and hence, the number of pots,
88
for each state (Perry and VanderKooy 2015). When a reduction in blue crab take is necessary, fishing effort is
reduced through a reduction in issued licenses (ibid). Management is enforced and information is verified
through trip ticket programs where dealers and fishers report a variety of information about their catch,
including, but not limited to: gear, area fished, and species landed (ibid). The trip ticket program is used to
verify catch. Compliance officers manage enforcement of regulations in each state (ibid). A 2013 survey on
enforcement, sent out to recreational blue crab anglers, found that less than a quarter of anglers were
concerned about enforcement (ibid). Therefore, enforcement is ranked as "highly effective."
Blue crab:  Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay (New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia),
crab pot
Highly effective
Key relevant information:
In an effort to improve industry leadership and coordination, as well as to increase co-management among
managers and industry, a stakeholder group (by region, interest, and gear) was formed by the industry to
review, evaluate, and propose new blue crab management options (MBCIDT 2012). The Blue Crab Industry
Design Team is a volunteer, industry-led group charged with assessing and thinking long-term about the future
of the Chesapeake Bay commercial crab fishery (ibid). In addition, there are Blue Crab Management Advisory
Committee meetings, in which members of the industry and public can share input on the assessment and any
management measures being proposed (ibid). This transparent process of management with a variety of
stakeholder involvement is ranked as "highly effective" for stakeholder inclusion.
Blue crab: Atlantic (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida), crab pot
Highly effective
Key relevant information:
All meetings of the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission and Advisory Committee are streamed live
(online) for the public (NCDENR 2018a). In addition, stakeholders can participate in the evaluation and
recommended management of blue crabs through the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission Regional
Stakeholder Advisory Committee system (NCDENR 2018b). South Carolina also has a Marine Advisory
Committee, which is made up of stakeholders and citizens interested in the management of marine fisheries
(SCDNR 2018b). Advisory meetings are open to the public, and the time and place of the meeting is published in
local newspapers (SCDNR 2018b). The Coastal Advisory Council in Georgia is made up of local government
representatives, research institutions, environmental groups, and members of the general public (GADNR 2018).
The Marine Fisheries Advisory Council is made up of representatives from sport fishing, commercial fishing, fish
processing, as well as members of the general public (ibid). A subgroup of Georgia's MFAC is the Blue Crab
Advisory Panel, which meets at least semi-annually to address blue crab issues. In Florida, the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission meets in different locations across the state to allow all stakeholders to
participate (FWC 2018b). Florida rulemaking is a public process in which activity is published and public
comments are accepted regularly (ibid). Stakeholder inclusion is therefore "highly effective" in the Atlantic
region.
Blue crab: GOM (Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas), crab pot 
Highly effective
Key relevant information:
Stakeholders can participate in the evaluation and recommended management of blue crabs in their home
state. In Louisiana, participation is through the Louisiana Crab Task Force. In addition, the GSMFC has a Crab
89
Subcommittee for public participation in the management process (GSMFC 2015). During the development of
the FMP, a survey was conducted in the entire crab fishing community, and included all licensed commercial
crab fishers in the GOM fishery; the same survey was repeated in 1998 (Perry and VanderKooy 2015). The
GSMFC allows for public review of all management plans and assessments before they are published (GSMFC
2015). Therefore, stakeholder inclusion is "highly effective" in the Gulf of Mexico. 
90