Index:

From 2004 NC BCFMP:  Section on Ghost Pots 

12.8  Appendix 8.     RETRIEVAL OF ABANDONED AND/OR LOST CRAB POTS

I.     Issue:

II.    Background:

III.   Discussion:

Table 1. County breakdown of pot disposal fees.

IV.   Current Authority:

SECTION 3I .0100 - GENERAL RULES

15A NCAC 3I .0105      LEAVING DEVICES UNATTENDED

SECTION 3J .0300 – Pots, Dredges, and other fishing devices

15A NCAC 3J .0301      POTS

V.    Management Options/Impacts & Recommendations

VI.    Literature Cited

 

From 2004 NC BCFMP:  Section on Protected Species Interactions with the Crab Fishery

10.3.5            Protected Species Interactions with the Crab Fishery

10.3.5.1         Issue/ Purpose  

10.3.5.2         Management Options

10.3.5.3         Recommended Management Strategy

10.3.5.4         Actions

12.11             Appendix 11.   PROTECTED SPECIES INTERACTIONS WITH THE                                                   CRAB FISHERY

I.     Issue

II.    Background

III.   Discussion

IV.   Current Rule

V.    Management Options/ Impacts & Recommendations

VI.   Research Needs

VII.  Literature Cited

Table 1. Monthly breakdown of sea turtle strandings (1990 – 2000) and crab trawl effort (1994 – 2002) for the Pamlico Sound complex*.

Table 2. Monthly breakdown of sea turtle strandings (1990 – 2000) and crab trawl effort (1994 – 2002) for Core Sound.

 

 

From 2004 NC BCFMP:  Section on Ghost Pots

12.8  Appendix 8.            RETRIEVAL OF ABANDONED AND/OR LOST CRAB POTS

I.     Issue:____________top

Retrieval of abandoned and/or lost crab pots by persons other than the gears owner.

II.    Background: ______top

One of the issues identified during the development of the revision of the Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan was ghost pots (see Appendix 7. Ghost Pots for a full discussion of issues).  These are pots that either through abandonment or loss (float lines cut by boats, storm events, etc.) continue to catch crabs and finfish.  Concern stems from the significant increase in the numbers of crab pots, the long life of vinyl coated pots, and the pot’s ability to continue to trap crabs and finfish. 

 

Historically, it was generally assumed that it was illegal to posses any gear that did not belong to you.  In the summer of 2002, this issue was clarified by Marine Patrol due to discussions generated by the aforementioned issue paper.  This clarification separates gear into two groups; abandoned and ghost.  Abandoned pots are those that carry an owners identification (marked buoy or tag), as the law requires, but their owner’s haven't checked them in seven days.  Only the Marine Patrol or owner of the pots can remove abandoned pots.  Ghost pots are those with no buoy or identifying tag attached to the pot.  Any person can collect and possess ghost pots at any time. 

 

The reported number of crab pots in North Carolina has increased from 350,379 in 1983 to 1,285,748 in 2000 (NCDMF Gear Survey).  McKenna and Camp (1992) reported annual estimates of 14% crab pot loss for Pamlico and Pungo rivers, N.C.  In a 1999 survey of crab license holders in North Carolina, statewide pot loss in 1998 for hard crab pots was 17%; while peeler pot loss was reported at 11%.  Total pot use for the same time frame was 853,766 hard crab pots and 163,151 peeler pots (DMF unpublished survey data, 1998).  Estimated crab pot loss for 1998 was 145,140 hard crab pots and 17,947 peeler pots.  Reported crab pot loss in N.C. due to Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd in 1999 was 111,247 (DMF unpublished data from NC Hurricane Floyd Relief Program).  Although it is unknown how many abandoned crab pots exist today, Marine Patrol identified 4,121 abandoned pots and 953 ghost pots during the 2003 clean-up period. 

 

This issue has generated a copious amount of public interest.  Staff have given over a dozen newspaper interviews and talked to representatives from saltwater fishing clubs, environmental groups, and many concerned citizens.  All groups and individuals have expressed a willingness to assist in removing abandoned and ghost gear. 

III.   Discussion: ______top

The original discussion of this issue was based on the premise that no gear could be retrieved by any person other than the gear’s owner or Marine Patrol.  From that discussion, several options were proposed:

 

1. Shorten attendance period from seven to 5 days (supported by DMF and the Crustacean Committee).

2. Extend pot cleanup period by nine days [current January 24 through February 7; proposed January 15 through February 7 (supported by DMF and the Crustacean Committee)].

3. Allow other users, under the supervision of Marine Patrol, to remove abandoned crab pots from the waters during the pot cleanup period (supported by DMF and the Crustacean Committee).

 

In addition to these three recommendations, the question of how to get rid off collected pots was discussed.  Possible solutions were the collection of a disposal fee from crabbers, and using grant monies to pay for disposal. 

 

Given the new interpretation of the current rule; recommendation #3 needs to be revisited along with the question of pot disposal.  The two most important issues that need to be addressed with regard to option 3 are: 1) how many abandoned pots are there in a given year; and 2) what effect would a rule change allowing pot retrieval by non-owners have on other law enforcement practices. 

 

While someone can be prosecuted anytime of the year for failing to fish his/her crab pots at least every 7 days (5 days if the MFC adopts the rule change in the revised Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan), the true number of abandoned pots is most likely to be determined by the number of pots left in the water during the cleanup period.  Determining the true number of abandoned pots is especially important since it will help define the extent of the problem.  If the problem is serious enough to require a rule change allowing non-gear owners to collect and posses abandoned gear, even for a short time, it could negatively impact Marine Patrol’s ability to deal with pot theft, which is a serious problem in this fishery.  However, this concern is only valid if people were able to keep the gear they found.  If all gear had to be turned over to Marine Patrol for disposal, the theft concern could be minimized.  Another concern was that if someone had a legitimate emergency and had notified Marine Patrol that their pots were still in the water, then there was no way to prevent someone else from picking up their pots.  This concern could be dealt with by, only allowing Marine Patrol to pick-up pots during the first two weeks and then allowing others to retrieve pots for the remainder of the time.  Although there are problems that would have to be worked out with this option it seems that documenting the extent of the problem should be the first priority.  Additionally, given the strong public support for wanting to help in solving this problem, efforts should be made to involve concerned citizens.  This could be accomplished through news releases and information on the Division web page explaining the difference between ghost and abandoned pots and providing contact numbers to report locations of abandoned gear and means of disposal. 

 

Since anyone may retrieve ghost pots, mechanisms need to be developed for pot disposal.  While people may be willing to bring in ghost pots, they might not want to haul them to the dump and pay for their disposal.  All contacted counties, with the exception of Beaufort, accept crab pots at their landfills or transfer stations.  Brunswick and Pender counties do not charge for pot disposal (Table 1).

Table 1. County breakdown of pot disposal fees.

 

Dockside disposal would allow for individuals to quickly dispose of ghost pots.  Trawlers (crab and shrimp) catch large amounts of ghost pots and having disposal sites at fish houses would give them a place to dispose of this gear instead of throwing it back in the water.  Many trawlers have expressed their willingness to dispose of this gear on land, if they had a convenient and free disposal site.   Dumpster rental is not cheap.  For example, one eight yard dumpster leased year round with weekly pick-up ranges from $112.11 a month to $139 a month.  Dumpsters could be rented for shorter time periods (the first three weeks of shrimp season), but we still need to find a way to pay for them.  Various grant programs (Fishery Resource Grant, Blue Crab Research Program, etc.) might be available for short term solutions, however a long term solution needs to be identified.  Given the state budget crunch state funds are not available.  Some have suggested that potters be charged a fee to help offset retrieval and disposal costs.  Further discussion on this issue needs to take place (DMF, MFC, Crustacean Committee, etc.).

IV.   Current Authority: ______top

SECTION 3I .0100 - GENERAL RULES

 

15A NCAC 3I .0105        LEAVING DEVICES UNATTENDED

 

(a)  It is unlawful to leave stakes, anchors, nets, buoys, or floating devices in any coastal fishing waters when such devices are not being employed in fishing operations except as otherwise provided by rule or General Statute.

 

(b) It is unlawful to leave pots in any coastal fishing waters for more than seven consecutive days, when such pots are not being employed in fishing operations, except upon a timely and sufficient showing of hardship as defined in Subparagraph (b)(2) of this Rule or as otherwise provided by General Statute.

 

(1)            Agents of the Fisheries Director may tag pots with a device approved by the Fisheries Director to aid and assist in the investigation and identification of unattended pots.  Any such device attached to a pot by agents of the Fisheries Director must be removed by the individual utilizing the pot within seven days of attachment in order to demonstrate that the pot is being employed in fishing operations.

 

(2)            For the purposes of Paragraph (b) of this Rule only, a timely and sufficient showing of hardship in a commercial fishing operation shall be written notice given to the Fisheries Director that a mechanical breakdown of the owner's vessel(s) currently registered with the Division of Marine Fisheries under G.S. 113-168.6, or the death, illness or incapacity of the owner of the pot or his immediate family, as defined in G.S. 113-168, prevented or will prevent employing such pots in fishing operations more than seven consecutive days.  The notice, specifying the time needed because of hardship, shall be received by the Fisheries Director before any pot is left in coastal fishing waters for seven consecutive days without being employed in fishing operations, and shall state, in addition to the following, the number and specific location of the pots, and the date on which the pots will be employed in fishing operations or removed from coastal fishing waters:

 

(A)            in case of mechanical breakdown, the notice shall state the commercial fishing vessel registration number, owner's N.C. motor boat registration number of the disabled vessel, date disabled, arrangements being made to repair the vessel or a copy of the work order showing the name, address and phone number of the repair facility; or

 

(B)            in case of the death, illness or incapacity of the owner of the pot or his immediate family, the notice shall state the name of the owner or immediate family member, the date of death, the date and nature of the illness or incapacity.  The Fisheries Director may require a doctor's verification of the illness or incapacity.

 

(3)            The Fisheries Director may, by proclamation, modify the seven day requirement, if necessary due to hurricanes, severe weather or other variable conditions.

 

Failure to employ in fishing operations or remove from coastal fishing waters all pots for which notice of hardship is received under this Rule within 14 days of the expiration of the hardship shall be violation of this Rule.

 

(c)  It is unlawful to set or have any fishing equipment in coastal fishing waters in violation of this Section or which contains edible species of fish unfit for human consumption.

 

 

 

SECTION 3J .0300 – Pots, Dredges, and other fishing devices

 

15A NCAC 3J .0301            POTS______top

 

(a)  It is unlawful to use pots except during time periods and in areas specified herein:

           

(1)            From November 1 through April 30, except that all pots shall be removed from internal waters from January 24 through February 7.  Fish pots upstream of U.S. 17 Bridge across Chowan River and upstream of a line across the mouth of Roanoke, Cashie, Middle and Eastmost Rivers to the Highway 258 Bridge are exempt from the January 24 through February 7 removal requirement.  The Fisheries Director may, by proclamation, reopen various waters to the use of pots after January 28 if it is determined that such waters are free of pots.

 

 

(b)  It is unlawful to use pots in a commercial fishing operation unless each pot is marked by attaching a floating buoy which shall be of solid foam or other solid buoyant material and no less than five inches in diameter and no less than five inches in length.  Buoys may be of any color except yellow or hot pink.  The owner shall always be identified on the attached buoy by using engraved buoys or by engraved metal or plastic tags attached to the buoy.  Such identification shall include one of the following:

 

(1)            gear owner's current motorboat registration number; or

(2)            gear owner's U.S. vessel documentation name; or

(3)            gear owner's last name and initials.

 

 

(c)            It is unlawful to use crab pots in coastal waters unless each pot contains no less than two unobstructed escape rings that are at least 2 5/16 inches inside diameter and located in the opposite outside panels of the upper chamber of the pot.  Peeler pots with a mesh size less than 1 1/2 inches shall be exempt from the escape ring requirement.  The Fisheries Director may, by proclamation, exempt the escape ring requirement in order to allow the harvest of peeler crabs or mature female crabs and may impose any or all of the following restrictions:

 

(1)            Specify areas, and

(2)            Specify time.

 

 

(d)      User Conflicts:

 

(1)            The Fisheries Director may, with the prior consent of the Marine Fisheries Commission, by proclamation close any area to the use of pots in order to resolve user conflict. The Fisheries Director shall hold a public meeting in the affected area before issuance of such proclamation.

 

(2)            Any person(s) desiring to close any area to the use of pots may make such request in writing addressed to the Director of the Division of Marine Fisheries.  Such requests shall contain the following information:

 

(A)  A map of the proposed closed area including an inset vicinity map showing the location of the proposed closed area with detail sufficient to permit on-site identification and location;

(B)  Identification of the user conflicts causing a need for closing the area to the use of pots;

(C)  Recommended method for resolving user conflicts; and

(D)  Name and address of the person(s) requesting the closed area.

 

 

(3)            Person(s) making the requests to close an area shall present their request at the public meeting.

 

 

(4)            The Fisheries Director shall deny the request or submit a proposed proclamation granting the request to the Marine Fisheries Commission for their approval.

 

 

(5)            Proclamations issued closing or opening areas to the use of pots under Paragraph (j) of this Rule shall suspend appropriate rules or portions of rules under 15A NCAC 3R .0107 as specified in the proclamation.  The provisions of 15A NCAC 3I .0102 terminating suspension of a rule as of the next Marine Fisheries Commission meeting and requiring review by the Marine Fisheries Commission at the next meeting shall not apply to proclamations issued under Paragraph (j) of this Rule.

 

 

(e)  It is unlawful to use pots to take crabs unless the line connecting the pot to the buoy is non-floating.

 

V.    Management Options/Impacts: ______top

(+ potential positive impact of action)

( - potential negative impact of action)

1.        No action.

+         No new regulations

 -         Continued problems with abandoned pots (crab and finfish mortality, conflicts)

 

2.        Document the number of abandoned pots collected during the pot cleanup period.

+           Get accurate numbers on the amount of abandoned pots.

+           Allow for informed management recommendations.

-            Possible burden for law enforcement.

 

3.        Educate fisherman and the general public about efforts to remove abandoned gear and encourage them to notify Marine Patrol of locations of said gear.

+          Significantly increase the number of eyes looking for abandoned gear.

+          Capitalize on strong public interest in helping to solve a problem and being part of the solution.

 -          Marine Patrol could be overwhelmed with reports.

 

4.         Allow other users to retrieve abandoned pots.

+           Reduce the number of abandoned pots.

 -           Reduce Marine Patrols ability to deal with pot theft.

 

 

Recommendations:___

 

            Marine Patrol should document the number of abandoned pots collected during the pot cleanup period.  DMF should educate fisherman and the general public about efforts to remove abandoned gear and encourage them to notify Marine Patrol of locations of said gear.

 

 

VI.    Literature Cited:______top

McKenna, S., and J. T. Camp.  1992.  An examination of the blue crab fishery in the Pamlico River estuary.  Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study Rep. No. 92-08. 101p.

From 2004 NC BCFMP:  Section on Protected Species Interactions with the Crab Fishery

10.3.5     Protected Species Interactions with the Crab Fishery______top

10.3.5.1  Issue/ Purpose         Crab gear interactions with endangered, threatened, and species of special concern.

Crab pots and trawls utilized to harvest blue crabs in North Carolina have various levels of interactions with endangered and threatened species, and species of special concern.  These species include bottlenose dolphins, sea turtles (Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, loggerhead, leatherback, and green), and diamondback terrapins.

10.3.5.2   Management Options______top

Bottlenose Dolphins:

1.            No regulatory action.

2.            Require the scope of crab pot lines be restricted to the minimum

__________length necessary in order to reduce the overall length of line in

__________the water column.

 

Option two would require rule changes by the MFC.

 

 

Sea Turtles:

1.            No regulatory action.

2.            Require Turtle Excluder Devices (TED’s) in crab trawls.

 

Option two would require rule changes by the MFC.

 

 

Diamondback terrapins:

1.            No regulatory action.

2.            Require terrapin excluders and/or modifications to crab pots

__________(hard and/or peeler) fished within a specified distance of shore

__________during the spring, within specified areas.

 

Option two would require rule changes by the MFC.  See Appendix 11 for an in-depth discussion of the issue and management options.

 

10.3.5.3   Recommended Management Strategy______top

With regard to bottlenose dolphin, fishermen should be educated on the potential problems of having too much free line in the water column.  For sea turtle interactions with crab pots, research should be conducted on ways to minimize sea turtle damage to crab pots and the results made available to the industry (see education section for recommendations to disseminate information to members of the industry).  Until more information is available on the extent of sea turtle bycatch in the crab trawl fishery, it is recommended that no state action be taken on this issue.  The research outlined in section 10.3.5.4 (Actions 4, 5, 6, and 7) needs to be conducted prior to the passage of any new regulations to minimize diamondback terrapin bycatch.  Additionally, the goals and objectives for the conservation of diamondback terrapins in North Carolina must be clearly defined.  Current information on ways to eliminate diamondback terrapin bycatch in crab pots and current distribution in North Carolina needs to be made available to crab potters.  This strategy would address objectives 4, 5, 7, and 9 of this plan.  If this management strategy is adopted by the MFC, the actions in Section 10.3.5.4 need to be implemented.

10.3.5.4    Actions______top

Action 1:      Test the effectiveness of inverted bait wells to alleviate the bait

_______________stealing behavior of bottlenose dolphin.

Action 2:      Develop sea turtle proof crab pots.

Action 3:      Determine the extent of sea turtle bycatch in crab trawls.

Action 4:      Compile data on diamondback terrapin distribution.

Action 5:      Problem assessment of crab pot diamondback terrapin bycatch

_______________and mortality by season, area, and gear (hard and peeler pots).

Action 6:      Determine the effect that terrapin excluders have on peeler and terrapin _____ catches in peeler pots.

Action 7:      Test the effectiveness of cable ties for excluding terrapins from crab pots.

Action 8:      Compile and distribute information on current distribution of

_______________diamondback terrapins and methods to eliminate diamondback

_______________terrapin bycatch in crab pots.

12.11  Appendix 11.   PROTECTED SPECIES INTERACTIONS WITH THE CRAB FISHERY

I.     Issue: ___________top

Crab gear interactions with endangered, threatened, and species of special concern.

II.    Background:______top

Crab pots and trawls utilized to harvest blue crabs in North Carolina have various levels of interactions with endangered and threatened species, and species of special concern.  These species include bottlenose dolphins, sea turtles (Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, loggerhead, leatherback, and green), and diamondback terrapins. 

 

The bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates) inhabits temperate and tropical waters throughout the world.  Bottlenose dolphin found in North Carolina are part of the western North Atlantic coastal stock.  This stock inhabits coastal, nearshore and estuarine habitats along the U.S. Eastern seaboard.  The western North Atlantic coastal stock of bottlenose dolphins is listed as depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).  A species is designated as depleted when it falls below its optimum sustainable population.  Bottlenose dolphins are active predators and eat a wide variety of fishes, squids, and crustaceans.  Females reach sexual maturity at 5 to 12 years, while males attain sexual maturity at 10 to 12 years.  Calves are primarily born in the spring or summer after a one year gestation period.  Bottlenose dolphins have been observed throughout the year in North Carolina estuarine waters, but will migrate offshore when water temperatures fall below 10^o C.  One of the requirements of the MMPA is that a Take Reduction Team, made up of fishermen, managers, scientists, and environmental groups, be convened to develop a Take Reduction Plan for this species.  The goal of the Take Reduction Plan, as defined by the 1994 reauthorization of the MMPA, is a “seven-year goal for reducing incidental serious injury and mortality of marine mammals to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rates”.

 

Bottlenose dolphins are occasionally taken in various kinds of fishing gear including gill nets, seines, long-lines, shrimp trawls, and crab pot lines.  Between 1994 and 1998, 22 bottlenose dolphin carcasses that displayed evidence of possible interaction with a trap/pot fishery (i.e., rope and/or pots attached, or rope marks) were recovered by the Stranding Network between North Carolina and Florida’s Atlantic coast [2002 Bottlenose Dolphin Stock Assessment, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)].  At least 5 other dolphins were reported to be released alive (condition unknown) from blue crab trap/pot lines during this time period.  Reports of strandings with evidence of interactions between bottlenose dolphins and both recreational and commercial crab pot fisheries have been increasing in the Southeast Region in recent years.

 

The Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) was listed as endangered in 1970.  The population status in North Carolina is unknown.  Most Kemp’s ridleys occur in the Gulf of Mexico, but they also occur along the Atlantic coast as far north as New England.  The Kemp’s ridley turtle is thought to be the most endangered sea turtle.  Current population estimates for this species are unknown, however this species appears to be in the early stages of recovery.  Juveniles occur year-round within the sounds, bays, and coastal waters of North Carolina.  Adult Kemp’s ridleys are generally restricted to more southern waters, particularly the Gulf of Mexico.  The Kemp’s ridley is primarily a bottom feeder, feeding on crabs, shrimp, urchins, starfish, jellyfish, clams, snails, and squid.  They may also feed on small fish and limited amounts of marine vegetation.

 

Incidental take by shrimp trawls has been identified as the largest source of mortality with between 500 and 5,000 killed annually (NMFS 1993a).  Manzella et al. (1988) estimated that 0.2% of the juvenile Kemp’s ridleys killed by fishing gear were killed as a result of interaction with crab pots.  In North Carolina 17% of the sea turtle strandings since 1990 were Kemp’s ridleys (NC Wildlife Resource Commission Sea Turtle Stranding Data; 1990-2000). 

 

The hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) was listed as endangered in 1970.  Its population status in North Carolina is unknown.  The hawksbill occurs in tropical and subtropical seas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans.  In the Atlantic Ocean they occur from southern Brazil, throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean.  Stragglers have been reported as far north as Massachusetts and as far south as northern Argentina.  Sightings of this turtle north of Florida are considered rare.  Hawksbill turtles have been reported off the coast of North Carolina during the months of June, July, October and November.  This species of turtle prefers shallow coastal water with depths not greater than 66 feet.  Preferred habitat includes rocky bottoms, reefs, and coastal lagoons.  Hawksbills are omnivorous, preferring invertebrates.  Identified food items include sponges, ectoprocts, urchins, algae, barnacles, mollusks, jellyfish, and fish.  Hawksbills exhibit a wide tolerance for nesting substrate type and nests are typically placed under vegetation.  Within the southeastern U.S., nesting occurs principally in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Within the continental U.S., nesting is restricted to the southeast coast of Florida and the Florida Keys. 

 

The extent to which hawksbills are killed or debilitated after becoming entangled in marine debris has not been quantified, but it is believed to be a serious and growing problem.  Hawksbills (predominantly juveniles) have been reported entangled in monofilament gill nets, fishing line, and synthetic rope.  Hawksbills are incidentally taken by several commercial and recreational fisheries.  Fisheries known or suspected to incidentally capture hawksbills include those using trawls, gill nets, traps, drift nets, hooks, beach seines, spear guns, and nooses (NMFS 1993b).  No strandings of the hawksbill sea turtle have been reported for North Carolina since 1990 (NC Wildlife Resource Commission Sea Turtle Stranding Data; 1990-2000). 

 

The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) was listed as endangered in 1970.  Leatherback turtles have a worldwide distribution in tropical and temperate waters.  Concentrations of this species can be found during the summer months off Massachusetts and in the Gulf of Maine.  Leatherbacks display a north-south migration pattern.  Current estimates of the number of female leatherbacks worldwide range from 20,000 to 30,000 individuals.  This species is found off the coast of North Carolina from April to October with occasional sightings into the winter.  The main prey species of leatherbacks are jellyfish and tunicates.  Other food items include urchins, squid, crustaceans, fish, seaweed, and blue-green algae.  Nesting occurs on mainland beaches characterized by coarse sand free of large rocks or debris.  There is one record of a nesting site at Cape Lookout in 1966 (Lee and Socci 1989), an additional nesting site was reported near Hatteras in 2000. 

 

Leatherbacks become entangled fairly often in longlines, fish trap warps, buoy anchor lines, and other ropes and cables (NMFS 1992).  Prescott (1988) implicated entanglement in lobster pot lines in 51 of 57 adult leatherback strandings in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts from 1977-1987.  Since 1990 there have been 12 leatherback strandings in North Carolina, none from inside waters (NC Wildlife Resource Commission Sea Turtle Stranding Data; 1990-2000). 

 

The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) was listed as threatened in 1978.  This species has a circumglobal distribution in tropical and subtropical waters.  In U.S. Atlantic waters, it occurs around the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico and from Texas to Massachusetts.  Total population estimates are unavailable.  Current estimates of females nesting on U.S. beaches range from 200 to 1,100 individuals.  Green turtles are sighted in oceanic waters and within the sounds of North Carolina during the period from May through October.  Adults and juveniles have been reported in North Carolina waters.  Green turtles are primarily herbivorous, feeding on various marine algae and seagrasses.  Other prey items include sponges, jellyfish, crustaceans, and mollusks.   Due to their food preference for submerged aquatic vegetation green turtles are normally found in lagoons, bays, and tidal inlets.  No major nesting sites are located along the U.S. coastline.  However, limited annual nesting occurs in Florida from April to July.  There have been two reported (1987, Baldwin Island and 1989, Cape Hatteras) and one confirmed (1979, Camp Lejeune) nesting sites in North Carolina. 

 

In the southeastern United States, the incidental capture and drowning in shrimp trawls is believed to be the largest single source of mortality on all life stages of this turtle (NMFS 1991a).  Other trawl fisheries (flounder, whelk, crab, and croaker) are possible sources of mortality for this species (NMFS 1991a).  Green sea turtles have been recovered entangled in trap lines with the trap in tow (NMFS 1991a).  However, the overall impact of this gear on green turtle populations is unknown.  Green turtles account for 18% of the sea turtle strandings in North Carolina (NC Wildlife Resource Commission Sea Turtle Stranding Data; 1990-2000). 

 

The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) was listed as threatened in 1978.  Its population status in North Carolina is unknown.  The geographic distribution of the loggerhead includes the subtropical (and occasionally tropical) waters and continental shelves and estuaries along the margins of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans.  It is rare or absent far from mainland shores.  In the Western Hemisphere, it ranges as far north as Newfoundland and as far south as Argentina.  The loggerhead turtle is present throughout the year in North Carolina with peak densities occurring from June to September.  Loggerhead turtles are omnivorous.  Their diet includes algae, seaweeds, horseshoe crabs, barnacles, various shellfish, sponges, jellyfish, squid, urchins, and fish.  Nesting occurs along the U.S. Atlantic coast from New Jersey to Florida.  However, the majority of nesting activity occurs from South Carolina to Florida.  In North Carolina nesting activity has been reported from April to September.  The highest nesting densities are reported south of Cape Lookout. 

 

In the southeastern United States, the incidental capture and drowning in shrimp trawls is believed to be the largest single source of mortality on all life stages of this turtle (NMFS 1991b).  Other trawl fisheries (flounder, whelk, crab, and croaker) are possible sources of mortality for this species (NMFS 1991b).  While the impact of pot fisheries on loggerhead populations has not been quantified, this species may be particularly vulnerable since they feed on species caught in traps and on organisms growing on the traps, trap lines, and floats (NMFS 1991b).  Loggerhead turtles account for 61% of the sea turtle strandings in North Carolina (NC Wildlife Resource Commission Sea Turtle Stranding Data; 1990-2000). 

 

Diamondback terrapins are found throughout North Carolina’s high salinity coastal marshes.  In a South Carolina study (Bishop 1983), terrapins were captured in salinities ranging from 4.3 to 22 parts per thousand (ppt), with most captures in 10.1 to 15 ppt.  Preferred habitats are the waters immediately adjacent to the marsh, small creeks, and mosquito control ditches.  Terrapins are a long-lived species, probably surviving in excess of forty years.  Females mature in 7 to 9 years, and fecundity is relatively low (Hildebrand 1932).

 

Populations of diamondback terrapins have declined throughout their range from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to southern Texas (Palmer and Cordes 1988, Seigel and Gibbons 1995).

Possible reasons for this decline (Grant 1997) are: (1) degradation and loss of habitat, (2) mortality on roads (Wood 1995), (3) raccoon predation (Seigel 1980), and (4) incidental drowning in trawls, nets, and crab pots (Bishop 1983, Wood 1995).  Blue crab pots may account for more adult diamondback terrapin mortalities than any other single factor (Bishop 1983).  The diamondback terrapin is included on the North Carolina listing of “Endangered and Threatened Species” as a “Species of Special Concern.”  The status of “Special Concern” does not provide any special protection under the federal Endangered Species Act.  The status may be upgraded to “Threatened” or deleted from the list as more information is collected on the species.

III.   Discussion:______top

In 2001, a Take Reduction Team was established for the western North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphin.  Recommendations from this group have been submitted to the NMFS for approval.  For the crab pot fishery, the team developed a set of non-regulatory recommendations.  The first recommendation encourages states to develop, implement, and enforce a program to remove derelict blue crab pots (ghost pots) and their lines from all waters frequented by bottlenose dolphins.  The management measures outlined in the ghost pot section of this plan (see section 10.3.2) should address this recommendation (also see Appendices 7 and 8).  The second recommendation has to do with gear modifications.  The group recommended the use of sinking or negatively buoyant line, and that the scope of the line be restricted to the minimum length necessary in order to reduce the overall length of line in the water column.  The first part of this recommendation was addressed in the 1998 Blue Crab Fishery Management Plan (BCFMP - McKenna et al. 1998) as a means of reducing ghost pots.  After the BCFMP was adopted in 1998, a Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) rule (NCAC 3J .0301 (k)) was passed that made it unlawful to use pots to take crabs unless the line connecting the pot to the buoy is non-floating.  The final recommendations of the Take Reduction Team deal with areas where bottlenose dolphin are tipping and stealing bait from crab pots.  It is recommended in areas where this is a problem that fishermen use inverted or modified bait wells.  This technique has worked in Georgia, although the overall effectiveness has not been tested. 

 

Sea turtles may be attracted to baited crab pots for food.  Sea turtle entrapment in a pot or trap is not likely, but entanglement in the buoy lines of crab, lobster, and fish pots has been documented (Epperly et al. 2002).  The entanglement of sea turtles in buoy lines is more problematic in pot fisheries that use bridles (lobster, and fish pots) as opposed to single line fisheries such as the North Carolina blue crab fishery (Cheryl Ryder personal communication NOAA/NMFS/NEFS).  As sea turtle populations begin to recover, the rates of interactions also will increase.  While there have been no reported strandings of sea turtles in North Carolina attributed to crab pots, there has been a major increase in crab pot damage caused by sea turtles.  In the Core Sound area, fishermen have estimated that 62% of all crab pot damage, and 37% of lost crab catch, is due to sea turtles (Marsh 2002).  Crab pot damage was also reported from the Outer Banks area in 2003.  Crab pot damage occurs when the turtle overturns the pot and tears up the bottoms and sides trying to get at the bait and/or crabs.  This damage results in higher operating costs and decreased catches.  In 2001, Marsh (2002) tested a low profile crab pot designed to limit the ability of sea turtles to overturn crab pots.  The overall dimensions were 34 x 24 x 13.5 inches.  This pot was tested against standard hexagonal mesh (22 x 24 x 19 inches), and square mesh pots (24 x 24 x 21 inches).  There was no difference between catch rates in the low profile pot and the square mesh pot, however there was a significant decrease in catch for the low profile pot compared to the hexagonal pot.  However, this decrease in catch was only seen in one of the three lines of pots.  Ten of each pot type was set in repeating order (low profile, square mesh, hexagonal) in three lines.  Marsh (2002) suggested that the low profile crab pot has the potential to maintain crab catch and reduce gear replacement costs. 

 

Although shrimp and flounder trawlers have been required to use Turtle Excluder Devices (TED’s) for a number of years, no such regulation exists for the crab trawl fishery.  Data on sea turtle and crab trawl interactions in North Carolina are limited.  Of the 528 crab trawl tows examined (1,056 catches from individual nets) since 1990; 50 characterization (McKenna and Camp 1992), 101 TED testing (Morris 2002), and 378 tailbag testing (McKenna and Clark 1993, Lupton 1996, and Hannah and Hannah 2000) only one loggerhead sea turtle has been captured (released alive).  The seasonality of turtle strandings in the Pamlico Sound complex (Pamlico, Roanoke, and Croatan sounds, and the Neuse, Bay, Pamlico, and Pungo rivers) along with trip data is given in Table 1.  There is a non-significant negative correlation (R = -0.47, p = 0.12) between sea turtle strandings and crab trawl effort in the Pamlico Sound complex.  The same type of correlation, although significant, is seen in the Core Sound area [R = -0.63, p = 0.04 (Table 2)].  One possible explanation for this relationship has to do with water temperature.  The majority of crab trawl effort takes place in the winter/spring when water temperatures and turtle numbers are low compared to the rest of the year.  Also, low water temperature increases the chance of survival of turtles after gear interactions. Additionally, crab trawl tows during the warmer months are usually less than ½ hour, as the crabs must be delivered to the dealer alive. 

 

Morris (2002) tested two types of TED’s, mini-super shooter and leatherback, in Bay River to determine the effect of TED’s on crab catches in crab trawls.  The mini-super shooter had a 14% reduction in the number of legal crabs (13% by weight), and a 31% reduction in sublegal crab weight.  The leatherback TED showed a 23% reduction in legal crabs (24% by weight) and a 39% reduction of sublegal crabs.  These significant reductions in legal crab catch would be detrimental to the crab trawl fishery. 

 

Various studies in New Jersey (Wood 1995), Maryland (Roosenburg et al. 1997), North Carolina [Grant 1997; Crowder et al. 2002; NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) unpublished; Tom Henson (WRC), pers. comm.], and South Carolina (Bishop 1983) have documented diamondback terrapin bycatch and mortality in crab pots.  In South Carolina, few captured terrapins were drowned when crab pots were checked daily, and estimated capture mortality amounted to 10% (Bishop 1983).  However, in a North Carolina study, Crowder et al. (2002) noted that terrapins can hold their breath for a maximum of 5 hours, and during the summer only 45 minutes.  Of the 12 terrapins captured in the North Carolina study, 58% were dead [24 – 48 hour soak time (Crowder et al. 2002)].  Bishop (1983) noted that the occurrence of ghost pots is perhaps far more detrimental to terrapin populations than actively fished pots.  Some observations suggest that once a terrapin is captured others may be attracted, particularly males to a female during the spring mating season.

 

Limiting factors affecting the catchability of terrapins in crab pots are:

(1) the abundance of terrapins,

(2) terrapin size (depth of shell),

(3) vertical height of the crab pot funnel,

(4) distance of the crab pot from shore, and

(5) season.

 

Each of these limiting factors and its relationship to crab pot catchability are discussed below.

 

Population size will influence catchability.  Estimates of capture rates and population size, by Roosenburg et al. (1997); suggest that 15-78% of a local population may be captured annually.  However, all coastal areas do not contain suitable terrapin habitat as outlined by Palmer and Cordes (1988). 

 

Male terrapins do not grow as large (shell depth and length) as females, and may remain vulnerable to entrapment throughout their life.  Female terrapins become too large to enter crab pots by the time they reach age eight (Roosenburg et al. 1997).  However, small terrapins of either sex are vulnerable to capture.

 

Rectangular wire excluders, which restrict the vertical and horizontal dimensions of crab pot funnels, have been used to reduce or eliminate terrapin bycatch.  A 90% reduction in terrapin captures and an increase in crab captures was reported by Wood (1995) in New Jersey for pots equipped with 2 X 4 inch excluders.  Grant (1997) conducted a study of the impacts of crab pots with and without excluder devices in North Carolina’s estuarine waters near Ocracoke, Sneads Ferry, and Wrightsville Beach.  Each area contained small populations of terrapins and active commercial crab pot fisheries.  The 2 X 4 inch excluder, tested in 1995-96, showed a 75.7% reduction in terrapin bycatch and a 19% reduction in legal-size crabs (Grant 1997).  In an effort to further reduce small terrapin bycatch, Grant (1997) tested a more restrictive vertical dimension (1 5/8 X 4 3/4 inch) excluder in 1997.  The 1 5/8 X 4 3/4 inch excluder eliminated all terrapin bycatch and reduced legal crab harvest by about 29%.  In 2000 – 2001, Crowder et al. (2002) examined three sizes of excluders in Jarrett Bay, North Carolina (2 x 6 inch; 1 1/2 x 6 inch; and 1 3/4 x 6 inch).  Excluders were tested in the entrance funnels (E) and in the internal entrances to the upper chamber of the pot (M).  While catch rates were not given for this study the authors indicated that the M pots had the lowest catch rates for legal and sublegal male crabs.  For legal sized males, only the spring 2001 tests showed a significant difference between the catch of E and M pots equipped with the 1 3/4 x 6 inch excluder (control pots caught more legal crabs by a factor of 1.064 for E pots and 1.158 for M pots).  There were no significant differences in the catches of legal males between control and E, and M pots tested in the Spring of 2000 (2 x 6 inch), and Fall 2000 (2 x 6 inch).  An alternative to excluders, a modified crab pot that maintains permanent access to air and prevents the drowning of terrapins, has been tested by Roosenburg et al. (1997) in Chesapeake Bay.  Roosenburg et al. (1997) reported that the modified crab pot caught more crabs than standard pots.

 

Grant (1997) showed a significant reduction in terrapin captures as distance from shore increased.  The majority of the terrapins (84.5%) were captured less than 27 yards from shore and 15.5% were taken between 28 and 55 yards offshore.  No terrapins were captured in pots more than 55 yards from shore.  He noted that few commercial crab pots are fished near-shore where most terrapins occur.  Generally the water is too shallow near-shore for commercial crabbing operations, except in the deeper tidal creeks and along the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW).  Most of the near-shore pots observed by Grant (1997) were along the edges of the ICW and within 22 yards of shore.  No diamondback terrapins were observed in the surveyed area of the ICW, Stump Sound, N.C.  In the Jarrett Bay study (Crowder et al. 2002), all terrapin captures were in the month of May and in pots set close to shore (depths and distance from shore was not given).  No terrapins were captured in pots equipped with excluders in the entrance funnels. 

 

Crab pot catch of terrapins was distinctly seasonal in South Carolina, with the majority of captures occurring during April and May.  The elevated catches in April and May were probably associated with post hibernation feeding and reproduction activity (Bishop 1983).  Pots may be concentrated in shallow near-shore waters, near terrapin habitat, during the spring to catch peeler crabs.  Pots in these areas decline during June through August (Tom Henson, WRC, pers. comm.).

 

New Jersey is the only state that requires the use of terrapin excluders in crab pots.  Other states may be considering terrapin excluders in the future.  New Jersey’s original rule (effective January 1, 1998) required that all commercial crab pots set in any body of water, less than 150 feet wide from shore to shore or any man-made lagoon, contain terrapin excluder devices attached to the inside of all pot entrance funnels which met the following criteria:

 

1)      The terrapin excluder device shall be rectangular and no larger than four inches wide and two inches high;

2)      The terrapin excluder device shall be securely fastened inside each funnel to effectively reduce the size of the funnel opening to no larger than four inches wide and two inches high; and

3)      Any similar device may be approved by the Division after consultation at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Marine Fisheries Council.

 

In May 1998, New Jersey modified their rule to allow rectangular and diamond shaped excluder devices no larger than six inches wide and two inches high.

 

A workshop on the Ecology, Status and Conservation of Diamondback Terrapins will be held in the fall of 2004.  One of the goals of this meeting is to develop a national Diamondback Terrapin Working Group and to begin to lay the foundation for a rangewide conservation plan.  Once this plan is developed then the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) and MFC will have a good idea on the direction to take on this issue.

IV.   Current Rule:______top

NCAC 3J .0301 (k)  It is unlawful to use pots to take crabs unless the line connecting the pot to the buoy is non-floating.

V.    Management Options/ Impacts:______top

(+ potential positive impact of action)

(- potential negative impact of action)

Bottlenose Dolphins:

1.        No regulatory action.

+           No additional regulations on fishery

+           No increased costs for crabbers to modify gear

-            Potential bottlenose dolphin mortality associated with crab pot lines

 

2.        Require the scope of crab pot lines be restricted to the minimum length

______necessary in order to reduce the overall length of line in the water column.

+           Reduce potential bottlenose dolphin and crab pot line interactions

-           Reduce crabbers flexibility in moving gear

-           Increased enforcement burden

 

Sea Turtles:

1.        No regulatory action.

+           No additional regulations on fishery

+           No increased costs for crabbers to modify trawls

+           No reduction in crab catch

-            Potential sea turtle bycatch and mortality in crab trawls

 

2.        Require Turtle Excluder Devices (TED’s) in crab trawls.

+           Reduce potential sea turtle bycatch in crab trawls

-            Significantly reduce legal blue crab catch

 

Option 2 would require rule changes by the MFC.

 

 

Diamondback terrapins:

1.        No regulatory action.

+           No additional regulations on fishery

+           No increased costs for crabbers to modify pots

+           No reduction in crab catch

-            Continued uncontrolled terrapin bycatch and mortality

 

2.        Require terrapin excluders and/or modifications to crab pots (hard and/or peeler) fished within a specified distance of shore during the spring, within specified areas.

+           Reduce terrapin bycatch and mortality

-            Additional pot regulations on fishery

-            Increased costs for crabbers to modify pots

-            Potential reduction in crab catch

-            Increased enforcement burden

 

Option 2 would require rule changes by the MFC.

Recommendations:_____

 

With regard to bottlenose dolphin, fishermen should be educated on the potential problems of having too much free line in the water column.  For sea turtle interactions with crab pots, the research outlined in section VI (2 and 3) should be conducted and the results made available to the industry (see education section for recommendations to disseminate information to members of the industry).  Until more information is available on the extent of sea turtle bycatch in the crab trawl fishery, it is recommended that no state action be taken on this issue.  The research outlined in section VI (4, 5, and 6) needs to be conducted prior to the passage of any new regulations to minimize diamondback terrapin bycatch.  Additionally, the goals and objectives for the conservation of diamondback terrapins in North Carolina must be clearly defined.  Current information on ways to eliminate diamondback terrapin bycatch in crab pots and current distribution in North Carolina needs to be made available to crab potters.  The DMF and Crustacean Committee support these recommendations.

 

VI.    Research Needs: ______top

1)     Test the effectiveness of inverted bait wells to alleviate the bait stealing behavior of _bottlenose dolphin.

2)___Develop sea turtle proof crab pots.

3)      Determine the extent of sea turtle bycatch in crab trawls.

4)      Diamondback terrapin distribution.

5)      Problem assessment of crab pot diamondback terrapin bycatch and mortality by ___season, area, and gear (hard and peeler pots).

6)      Determine the effect that terrapin excluders have on peeler and terrapin catches in _peeler pots.

VII.     Literature Cited:______top

Bishop, J.M.  1983.  Incidental capture of diamondback terrapin by crab pots.  Estuaries 6:426-430.

Crowder, L., K. Hart, and M. Hooper.  2002.  Trying to solve a bycatch and mortality problem: Can we exclude diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) from crab pots without compromising blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) catch?  North Carolina Fisheries Resource Grant. 00-FEG-23.  15 p.

Epperly, S., L. Avens, L. Garrison, T. Henwood, W. Hoggard, J. Mitchell, J. Nance, J. Poffenberger, C. Sasso, E. Scott-Denton, and C. Yeung.  2002. Analysis of sea turtle bycatch in the commercial shrimp fisheries of southeast U.S. waters and the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSSEFSC- 490, 88 pp

Grant, G.S.  1997.  Impact of crab pot excluder devices on diamondback terrapin mortality and commercial crab catch. North Carolina Fisheries Resource Grant. University of North Carolina, Wilmington, Dept. of Bio. Sci.,, NC, 9p.

Hannah, T. and P. Hannah.  2000.  Crab trawl tailbag testing.  North Carolina Fisheries Resource Grant.  FRG-98-10.  19 p.

Hildebrand, S.F.  1932.  Growth of diamondback terrapin size attained, sex ratio and longevity.  Zoologica 9:551-563.

Lee, D.S. and M. Socci.  1989.  Potential Impact of Oil Spills on Seabirds and Selected Other Oceanic Vertebrates off the North Carolina Coast.  Prepared by the North Cariolina State Museum of Natural Science for the State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, Raleigh, NC. 85 p.

Lupton, O., Jr.  1996.  Bycatch reduction in the estuarine crab trawl industry through manipulation of tailbag sizes. Pamlico Co. Schools, Bayboro, NC.  North Carolina Fisheries Resource Grant. N.C. FRG-94-11.  43p.

Manzella, S.A., C. Caillouet, Jr. and C.T. Fontaine.  1988. Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtle head start tag recoveries: distribution, habitat, and method of recovery. Mar. Fish. Rev. 50(3):24-32.

Marsh, J. C.  2002.  Reducing Sea Turtle Damage to Crab Pots Using A Low-Profile Pot Design in Core Sound, North Carolina.  North Carolina Fisheries Resource Grant. N.C. FRG-00-FEG-21.  37p.

McKenna, S., and J. T. Camp.  1992.  An examination of the blue crab fishery in the Pamlico River estuary.  Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study Rep. No. 92-08. 101p.

McKenna, S., and A.H. Clark.  1993.  An examination of alternative fishing devices for the estuarine shrimp and crab trawl fisheries. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study Rep. No. 93-11. 34p.

McKenna, S., L.T. Henry, and S. Diaby.  1998.  North Carolina Fishery Management Plan – Blue Crab.  North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division  of Marine Fisheries.  Morehead City. 73p. + Appendices.

Morris, B.  2002.  Use of TED’s in the Crab Trawl Fishery.  Pamlico Co. Schools, Bayboro, NC.  North Carolina Fisheries Resource Grant. 02-FEG-21.  Final report. 53p.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1991a.  Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of  Atlantic Green Turtle.  National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington D.C.. 52 p.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1991b.  Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of  Loggerhead Turtle.  National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington D.C.. 64 p.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1992. Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean , Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C..  65 p.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1993a.  Recovery Plan for the Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle.  National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida.  40 p.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  1993b. Recovery Plan for Hawksbill Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. 52 p.

Palmer, W.M. and C.L Cordes.  1988.  Habitat suitability index models: Diamondback

terrapin (nesting)--Atlantic Coast.  U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 82(10.151), 18p.

Prescott, R.L.  1988.  Leatherbacks in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, 1977-1987, p. 83-84. In B.A. Schroeder (comp.), Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-214.

Roosenburg, W.M., W. Cresko, M. Modesitte and M.B. Robbins.  1997.  Diamondback

terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) mortality in crab pots.  Conserv. Biol. 11(5):1166-1172.

Seigel, R.A.  1980.  Predation by raccoons on diamondback terrapins, Malaclemys terrapin tequesta.  J. Herpetol. 14:87-89.

Seigel, R.A. and J.W. 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 1:240-243.

Wood, R.  1995.  Terrapins, tires and traps.  New Jersey Outdoors.  Summer 1995:16-19.

Table 1.  Monthly breakdown of sea turtle strandings (1990 – 2000) and crab trawl effort (1994 – 2002) for the Pamlico Sound complex*.

*Pamlico, Roanoke, and Croatan sounds and Pamlico, Pungo, Bay, and Neuse rivers.

Table 2.  Monthly breakdown of sea turtle strandings (1990 – 2000) and crab trawl effort (1994 – 2002) for Core Sound.