903R89007
TD
225
.C54
Chesapeake Executive Council
Chesapeake Bay
Blue Crab
Management Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region HI Information Resource
Center (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Chesapeake
Bay
Program
Agreement Commitment Report
July 1989
-------
Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan
An Agreement Commitment Report from
the Chesapeake Executive Council
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III information Resource
Center (3PM52)
Ml Chestnut Sired
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Annapolis, Maryland
July 1989
-------
-------
ADOPTION STATEMENT
We, the undersigned, adopt the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan, in
fulfillment of Living Resources Commitment Number 4 of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay
Agreement:
"...by July 1989, to develop, adopt, and begin to implement Bay-wide
management plans for oysters, blue crabs, and American shad."
We agree to accept the Plan as a guide to conserving and protecting the blue crab
resource for long-term ecological, economic, and social benefits. We further agree to work
together to implement, by the dates set forth in the Plan, the management actions recommended
to address: (1) increased fishing effort; (2) wasteful harvesting practices; (3) stock assessment
deficiencies; (4) regulatory issues; and (5) habitat degradation.
We recognize the need to commit long-term, stable financial support and human
resources to the task of conserving and protecting the blue crab fishery. In addition, we direct
the Living Resources Subcommittee to review and update the Plan yearly and to prepare an
annual report addressing the progress made in achieving the Plan's management
recommendations.
Date Q/y//^ /?/
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the United States of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
U.S. Environment?.! Protection Agency
Re2'cn III information Resource
Csntsr (3?:\i!52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
INTRODUCTION vi
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND 1
Blue Crab - Introduction 1
FMP Status and Management Unit 2
Fishery Parameters 2
Biological Profile 2
Habitat Issues 4
The Fisheries 4
Economic Perspective 4
Resource Status 7
Laws and Regulations 7
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches 11
Data and Information Needs 12
References 13
SECTION 2. BLUE CRAB MANAGEMENT 15
A. Goals and Objectives 15
B. Problem Areas and Management Strategies 16
1. Fishing Effort is Increasing 16
2 . Wasteful Harvesting Practices 19
3. Stock Assessment Deficiencies 21
4 . Regulatory Issues 24
5 . Habitat Degradation 26
FIGURES
1. Maryland Commercial Landings for Blue Crabs from the
Chesapeake Bay 5
2. Virginia Commercial Landings for Blue Crabs from the
Chesapeake Bay 6
Preparation of this document was funded in part by the Coastal
Resources Division, Tidewater Administration, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, through a grant from the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Development of this management plan is the result of concerted
efforts by members of the Fisheries Management Plan Workgroup
(FMPW), particularly by providing direction for and review of the
plan. Staff from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), Tidewater Administration, and the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (VRMC) authored the plan and addressed comments on the
draft versions. Contributing DNR staff included Nancy Butowski,
Harry T. Hornick, Phil Jones, Randy Schneider, and Harley Speir.
Mark Bundy provided assistance with economic aspects of the
fishery. VRMC staff included Erik Barth, Lewis Gillingham, Roy
Insley, Robert O'Reilly, Randy Owens, Ellen Smoller, Jack
Travelstead, and Lyle Varnell. Thanks are also due to Verna
Harrison and Ed Christoffers for guiding the plan through the
development and adoption process. Finally, we are grateful to
members of other committees and workgroups associated with the
Chesapeake Bay Program and the public who commented on the plan.
Members of the Fisheries Management Plan Workgroup are:
Dr. Erik Barth, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Mr. K.A. Carpenter, Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Mr. James Collier, D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
Mr. William Goldsborough, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Mr. J. W. Gunther, Jr., Virginia Waterman
Mr. Robert Hesser, Pennsylvania Fish Commission
Dr. Edward Houde, UMCEES/Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Mr. W. Pete Jensen, MD Department of Natural Resources
Mr. J. Claiborne Jones, Chesapeake Bay Commission
Dr. Victor Kennedy, UMCEES/Horn Point Environmental Laboratory
Dr. Romauld N. Lipcius, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Dr. Robert Lippson, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
Dr. Joseph G. Loesch, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Dr. Charles F. Lovell, Jr., M.D., Virginia
Dr. Roger L. Mann, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Mr. Richard Novotny, Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen1s Assoc.
Mr. Ed O'Brien, MD Charter Boat Association
Mr. James W. Sheffield, Atlantic Coast Conservation Assoc. of Va.
Mr. Larry Simns, MD Watermen's Association
Dr. William Van Heukelem, UMCEES/Horn Point Environmental Lab.
Ms. Mary Roe Walkup, Citizen's Advisory Committee
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
One of the strategies for implementing the Living Resources
Commitments of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to develop and
adopt a series of Bay-wide fishery management plans (FMPs) for
commercially, recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable
species. The FMPs are to be implemented by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, State of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia, District
of Columbia, and Potomac River Fisheries Commission as appropriate.
Under this strategy, a timetable was developed for completion of
fishery management plans for several important species. Oysters,
blue crabs, and American shad were given highest priority, with
plans due for these species in July 1989.
A comprehensive approach to managing Chesapeake Bay fisheries
is needed because biological, physical, economic, and social
aspects of the fisheries are shared among the Bay's jurisdictions.
A Fisheries Management Plan Workgroup (FMPW), under the Chesapeake
Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee, was formed to address
the commitment in the Bay Agreement for Bay-wide management plans.
The FMPW is composed of members from government agencies, the
academic community, and public interest groups from Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
Development of Fishery Management Plans
A fishery management plan is a dynamic, ongoing process to
wisely use a fishery resource. Each of the fishery management
plans prepared under the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is a concise
summary of the fishery under consideration, problems and issues
that have arisen, and recommended management actions.
The process of developing a management plan incorporates
public and scientific evaluation, and appropriate governmental
approvals. After an FMP is adopted by the Executive Committee, an
implementation plan will be developed to provide more detail on
actions that participating jurisdictions will take and the
mechanisms for taking these actions. In some cases, regulatory
and legislative action will have to be initiated, while in still
others, additional funding will be required. An annual review of
each FMP will be conducted, under the auspices of the Living
Resources Subcommittee, to incorporate new information and to
update management strategies.
iii
-------
Goal of the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan
The goal of the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Management Plan is
to manage blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay to conserve and protect the
ecological value of the stock and concurrently generate the
greatest long-term economic and social benefit from using the
resource.
Problem Areas and Management Strategies
Problem 1: Fishing Effort is Increasing. The total amount of gear
used in the crab fishery is increasing over time and, as a result,
an increasing fraction of the crab stock can be harvested each
year. Escalating fishing effort is also increasing competition
among commercial and recreational crabbers both within and between
the states of Maryland and Virginia.
Strategy 1: The number of young produced (recruitment) is
influenced by the number of adult spawners and by environmental
factors. "Good" recruitment requires optimum spawning stock size
and favorable environmental conditions. To protect the
reproductive potential of the blue crab stock, appropriate fishing
levels are needed. Specific levels of fishing effort for both the
commercial and recreational fisheries are currently being
determined. Commercial blue crab harvests are being analyzed to
determine safe levels of harvest. Possible management actions to
be considered include changes in harvest season, gear restrictions,
catch limits and size limits.
Problem 2: Wasteful Harvesting Practices. Harvesting small crabs
or crabs of poor quality precludes maximizing the best economic
value of the resource. Other marginal harvesting practices include
taking egg-bearing females which decreases the reproductive
potential of the population and green crabs (any peeler crab
without red or pink coloration in the swim fin).
Strategy 2: Optimum use of the blue crab resource can be promoted
by eliminating and/or minimizing wasteful harvest practices. This
will be accomplished by protecting the reproductive potential of
blue crabs and reducing the harvest of sublegal and poor quality
crabs.
Problem 3: Additional stock Assessment Information Is Needed.
There has been a considerable amount of blue crab data collected
in recent years. The information derived from these data have
significantly improved our understanding of blue crab biology.
These studies have also been valuable in providing direction as to
the kinds of information needed to manage the blue crab fishery.
There still are specific areas where information is lacking.
iv
-------
Strategy 3: Accurate catch and effort data from both the
recreational and commercial fishery is fundamental for stock
assessment. Several issues concerning blue crab population
dynamics require further research. There will be a baywide effort
to research specific topics such as blue crab stock abundance,
population dynamics and recreational catch and effort to aid
management decisions.
Problem 4: Regulatory Issues. The blue crab regulatory process in
Chesapeake Bay is based on biological and conservation concerns
as well as long standing social, economic and political
considerations.
Strategy 4: The blue crab fishery consists of recreational,
commercial, and non-commercial fractions which provide economic,
social, and recreational benefits to the community. Conflicts
among crab harvesting user groups and the general boating public
can be minimized by rational application of time, area, and gear
restrictions to allocate space and harvest of the resource.
Coordinated interstate management and standardized regulations are
necessary to insure optimal baywide usage. Protecting any living
resource also requires educational programs to increase public
awareness of its potentials and problems.
Problem 5: Habitat Degradation. Crabs appear to be one of the more
resilient species in the Bay, however the loss of habitat,
including submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and intertidal
wetlands, and periodic anoxia in deeper water do have an impact on
the species.
Strategy 5: By maintaining strict environmental standards and
protecting prime habitats, the blue crab population will benefit.
This will be accomplished by following the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
plans for improving water quality in spawning and hatchery areas
and by protecting prime habitat areas.
-------
INTRODUCTION
MANAGEMENT PLAN BACKGROUND
To protect and manage the natural resources of Chesapeake Bay,
the jurisdictions are developing and will implement a series of
fishery management plans under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This
agreement adopted a schedule for the development of Bay-wide
fishery management plans for commercially, recreationally, and
selected ecologically valuable species. The strategy for
implementing the Living Resources Commitments in the 1987 Agreement
listed the priority of each species and a timetable for completion
of fishery management plans:
0 oysters, blue crabs and American shad by July 1989
0 striped bass, white perch, bluefish, weakfish, and spotted
trout by 1990
0 croaker, spot, summer flounder and American eel by 1991
0 red and black drum by 1992
A comprehensive approach to Bay problems and a means to
coordinate the various state and federal groups was also necessary.
Bay fisheries are managed separately by the States of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission. There is also a federal Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) which has jurisdiction for
management planning over offshore fisheries (3-200 miles), and a
coast-wide organization, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC), which coordinates the preparation of plans for
migratory species in state coastal waters from Maine to Florida.
The state/federal Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee (CBSAC)
is responsible for developing a Bay-wide Stock Assessment Plan
which includes collection and analysis of fisheries information but
does not include the development of fishery management plans.
Consequently, a Bay-wide Fisheries Management group, under the
Living Resources Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program, was
formed to address the commitment in the Bay Agreement for
management plans.
The Fisheries Management group is responsible for developing
and writing the fishery management plans and includes:
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division;
Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Office of Chief Counsel, Planning and
Environmental; Potomac River Fisheries Commission; Virginia
Marine Resources Commission, Fisheries Management Division; and
Washington, D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs,
Fisheries Management Division. The management workgroup also
included representatives from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
vi
-------
Chesapeake Bay Commission, University of Maryland, College of
William and Mary/Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Maryland
Watermen's Association, Virginia Watermen's Association, Charter
Boat Association, and Maryland Saltwater Sportsfishermen's
Association. Plans developed by this group reflect the
multijurisdictional management requirements appropriate to the
species.
WHAT IS A FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN?
A management plan is a dynamic process of analyzing the complex
biological, economic and social components of a particular finfish
or shellfish fishery, defining problems, identifying solutions, and
implementing decisions regarding habitat problems and human usage
of the resource.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
The goal of fisheries management is to protect the reproductive
capability of the resource and provide for optimal harvests.
Fisheries management must include biological, economic and
sociological considerations in order to be effective. It requires
an adaptive management scheme which responds to the most current
status of the stock, therefore, it is of primary importance to
prepare a plan which provides a means of regular review and
reevaluation of current management actions. Three simply stated
objectives to protect the reproductive capabilities of the resource
while allowing optimal harvest include:
0 quantify biologically appropriate levels of harvest
° monitor current and future resource status to ensure harvest
levels are conserving the species while maintaining an
economically viable fishery, and
° adjust resource status if necessary through management efforts.
MANAGEMENT PLAN FORMAT
The background section for each management plan summarizes:
° biological profile
° habitat requirements
historical fishery trends
° economic profile
VII
-------
° current stock status
current regulations (in effect as of September 1988), and
° data needs
This information was modified from the Chesapeake Bay Fisheries:
Status. Trends. Priorities and Data Needs document. Including this
section as part of the management plan provides historical
background and basic biological information for each of the
species.
The management section of the plan defines:
0 specific goals and objectives for each species
0 problem areas for each species
0 management strategies to address each problem area, and
0 action items with a schedule of implementation.
These plans are concise summaries that consider interjurisdictional
issues and recommend regulations which will be subject to public
review and appropriate approvals. Management planning provides the
opportunity for public and scientific evaluation, and debate of
management options and regulation strategies prior to actual
regulatory proposals. As the management plan review process
continues, changes will be necessary. The strategies will be
further defined as new information becomes available and,
therefore, must reflect some flexibility.
Once the plan has been adopted by the Executive Committee,
appropriate regulatory and legislative action will be initiated.
An annual review of the management plans will be reguired to
continually update management strategies and actions. A workgroup
will be established to annually review the plan. Completed
management plans will follow the schedule set forth by the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The process of fishery management plan
review and acceptance is presented in the flow chart below.
viii
-------
COMMITMENT PREPARATION AND ADOPTION FLOW CHART
WORKGROUP
DRAFTS
DOCUMENT
DRAFT TO
I.C.
LIVING RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE
REVIEW
CBLO DISTRIBUTES
TO CBP MAILING
LIST
CBLO DISTRIBUTE
TO LIBRARIES
PUBLIC MEETINGS
IF REQUIRED
30 DAY PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
BRIEFINGS
WORKGROUP
REVISES/PREPARES
SECOND DRAFT
LRSC REVIEWS
2ND DRAFT
SHORT SECOND
PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD
2ND DRAFT MAILED
TO P.S.C.
I.C. REVIEWS
RECOMMENDS
CHANGES/ADOPTS
I
2ND DRAFT MAILED
TO CBP MAILING
LIST, ETC.
FMP WORKGROUP
MAKES FINAL
REVISIONS
FINAL DRAFT
DISTRIBUTED TO
I.C.
1C (Implementation Committee)
CBLO (Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office)
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program)
LRSC (Living Resources Subcommittee)
PSC (Princioal Staff Commi
LRSC APPROVES
FINAL DRAFT
FINAL DRAFT
DISTRIBUTED TO
P.S.C.
EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE
ADOPTION
IX
-------
SECTION 1. BACKGROUND
Blue Crab Introduction
Blue crabs occur from Nova Scotia to Uruguay and are commonly found
in rivers, estuaries, sounds and near-shore waters of the Atlantic.
A commercial fishery for this species exists from New Jersey to
Florida and along the Gulf Coast of Mexico.
Blue crabs are distributed throughout the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries and are managed as a distinct stock, separate from
other Atlantic coast populations. Male blue crabs are found in
lower salinity than females. Most mating occurs in mid-Bay where
salinity preferences overlap. Mature female blue crabs migrate down
the Bay, and spawning occurs around the mouth of the Bay from May
to September. Larval transport occurs from the Bay mouth out over
the coastal shelf waters, and then back into the Bay. The larval
phase of blue crab is subjected to a host of environmental
pressures such as wind driven circulation patterns, tidal currents,
temperature, salinity and extensive predation. These factors affect
how young crabs recruit or reenter the Chesapeake Bay fishery.
Blue crabs are currently the most valuable commercial species in
Chesapeake Bay. The reported 1988 commercial harvest of about 82.7
million pounds was worth approximately 38.5 million dollars at
dockside, and several times that amount to retailers. These values
include both hard crab and soft/peeler crab harvests. The
recreational blue crab harvest from the Chesapeake Bay is not well
known. In Maryland, the recreational harvest has been estimated for
two years, 1983 and 1988, and represented a large portion of the
total Maryland blue crab harvest. In 1983, the estimated commercial
blue crab harvest in Maryland was 52.5 million pounds. The total
estimated recreational harvest was 41.2 million pounds or 44% of
the combined harvest of 93.7 million pounds. In 1988, the estimated
commercial catch was 45.4 million pounds. The total estimated
recreational catch was 21.5 million pounds or 32.1% of the combined
harvest of 66.9 million pounds. The recreational blue crab fishery
appears to be a very important component of the total blue crab
harvest from Maryland and probably for all of the Chesapeake Bay.
Commercial catch statistics and fishery independent data indicate
that the blue crab population has not declined significantly and
consistently over recent years and appears to be cyclic. When such
cyclic populations are harvested, there is the potential for
overexploitation during any year of low relative abundance. There
has been growing concern in recent years that declines of the
magnitude witnessed in other important Chesapeake Bay resources
(e.g. oysters, striped bass and American shad) will also occur in
blue crabs due to fluctuations in blue crab abundance.
-------
FMP Status and Management Unit
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay agreement contains a commitment to develop,
adopt and begin to implement this Baywide FMP for blue crabs by
July 1989.
The management unit is defined as all blue crabs (Callinectes
sapidus) in Chesapeake Bay waters.
Fishery Parameters
Status of exploitation:
Long term potential catch:
Importance of recreational
fishery:
Importance of commercial
fishery:
Fishing mortality rates:
Appears to be fully exploited.
First approximations of MSY indicate
that the long term potential catch
is in the range of 69 -77 million
pounds.
Apparently significant however,
harvest statistics have not yet been
analyzed for the fishery.
Currently the most valuable fishery
in the Chesapeake Bay.
Unknown.
Biological Profile
Natural mortality rate:
Fecundity;
Longevity:
Currently unknown.
Females produce 0.5 to 3.3 million
eggs per sponge. Nearly all females
are capable of spawning two to three
times.
3 or 4 years.
Spawning and larval development
Spawning season:
Spawning area:
Location:
May to September.
Principally, Virginia bay; also ocean
waters near the Virginia Capes.
Based on the distribution of early
stage zoeae, spawning appears to be
-------
Salinity:
Temperature:
Young-of-vear
Location:
Subadults and adults
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved oxygen:
concentrated in the channel region
between Cape Henry and Cape Charles.
A substantial amount of spawning may
also occur outside the Bay. Late
stage zoeae and megalopae are
abundant in the lower Bay and coastal
shelf waters up to 40 miles from the
mouth of Chesapeake Bay.
23-33 ppt.
66°-84° F.
Lower and central Chesapeake Bay and
coastal shelf waters up to 30-40
miles seaward of the bay mouth.
Megalopae and young juveniles enter
the lower Bay from August through
November. Migration to the upper
Chesapeake Bay may begin as early as
October and November. In most years,
many juveniles overwinter south of
the Potomac River. During the next
spring and summer, these juveniles
continue their northern migration,
concentrating in lower and mid-Bay
nursery areas.
Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia
Capes to tidal freshwater.
0 to 33 ppt; males are most abundant
in waters of 3 to 15 ppt salinity,
while females are most ofter found
in salinities above 10 ppt. Most
mating occurs in mid-Bay where the
salinity preferences of males and
females overlap.
Upper limit - approximately 90° F.
The critical lower limit is about
2.5 ppm. At less than 1 ppm, death
occurs in 12 to 24 hours.
-------
Habitat Issues
Blue crabs appear to be one of the more resilient Bay species.
However, they are not immune to the effects of habitat loss and
degradation. The widespread loss of submerged aquatic vegetation
has resulted in a loss of important crab habitat, particularly
during the juvenile and molting stages. In addition, the loss of
wetlands has reduced the maximum potential size of the blue crab
population. The continued alteration and removal of shoreline
vegetation in the Bay and destruction of marshlands impacts the
blue crab population by removing important blue crab feeding and
molting areas. Habitat loss caused by low dissolved oxygen levels
sometimes results in direct mortality and increases interspecies
and intraspecies competition in areas of suitable habitat. In some
areas of the bay, hypoxic and anoxic events are a major cause of
mortality of crabs captured in pots.
The Fisheries
Blue crabs are harvested as hard crabs, peelers and soft crabs.
The principal commercial hard crab gears include trotlines, crab
pots and dredges. Trotlines are an important gear in Maryland but
are not commonly used in Virginia; crab pots are widely used in
both states, and dredging is restricted to Virginia waters. The
major soft crab and peeler gears include scrapes, peeler pots and
crab pound nets. Scrapes and peeler pots are fished extensively in
Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds and crab pound nets are most common in
the lower Maryland bay and in Virginia waters.
Blue crab landings in Chesapeake Bay have increased from the 1930s
to the present (Figures 1 and 2) . Beginning in 1981, Maryland
changed its method of blue crab data collection. Data prior to 1981
are not directly comparable to data after that date. Although the
long term trend in landings has been one of general increase,
harvests have been subject to extensive fluctuations over short
and long periods of time. Both short term fluctuations and long
term trends in landings are similar for Maryland and Virginia.
Economic Perspective
The total dockside value of the 1987 hard crab harvest in Maryland
was $20.5 million. An additional $3.14 million worth of production
from all industries in the State was generated from the blue crab
industry. This amount of activity associated with the harvesting
of hard crabs in Maryland produced $0.112 million worth of indirect
taxes to local, State and Federal governments. Maryland's soft crab
harvest, worth $5.8 million generated $0.73 million worth of
production from all industries and $0.222 million in wages to all
employess. The processing of crabs in Maryland, valued at $47.378
million produced an additional $27.7 million of output and $8.7
million of employee wages from all industries within the State.
-------
CO 05
D)QQ
05
0
05
0
— Q.
05 05
g 8
0
E O
E
o
o •*-
E
o
.o
2
b
0
L
CE
LLI
-------
0) ctf
E CD
05
c\
-1
Cfl Q.
"
o
1
DC
<
LU
-------
Indirect taxes to local, State and Federal governments totaled
$1.75 million.
Harvesting of blue crab in Virginia, valued at $33.6 million
generated gross output from all industries worth $1.5 million and
employee wages of $.5 million. Processing activities of blue crab,
worth $37.5 million produced an additional $25.8 million worth of
products and employee wages of $8.1 million throughout the State.
Indirect taxes to local, State and Federal governments for Virginia
blue crab harvesting and processing totaled $1.7 million.
Total landings and dollar value for blue crabs are not the best
indicators of economic health for the blue crab industry.
Economists have developed several indices related to profits which
are a good measure of economic health. It has been determined that
low costs of production coupled with higher prices for crabs has
resulted in high profitability for this fishery. It is estimated
that total fishery profits have increased 63% since 1981. The
increase in profits would not have been possible if fishing effort
had increased more than it did over the period. According to an
analysis of the Maryland fishing industry from 1981 to 1987, an
increase in blue crab fishing effort would have lessened the
increase in productivity and lowered profits.
Resource Status
Commercial catch statistics and fishery independent data indicate
that the blue crab stock fluctuates considerably. Analysis of
Maryland DNR trawl survey data, which has been collected annually
since 1977, indicates that blue crab abundance was relatively high
in 1977, was low from 1978-1980 and has been relatively high since
1981. The significant increase after 1981 can be attributed to a
change in the Maryland reporting system. Analysis of the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) trawl survey data from 1972-1988
indicates major interannual fluctuations in blue crab abundance;
lowest abundance in 1974-1977 and 1985-1988, and highest abundance
in 1972-1973 and 1978-1984. Commercial catch and effort data, when
expressed as CPUE, correlates well with the results of the trawl
survey and suggests that abundance has been relatively stable in
recent years. However, catch and effort data for MD commercial
trotlines and crab pots indicates a trend of increasing effort with
concurrent declines in CPUE and catch.
Laws and Regulations
Limited entry: Maryland - After August 31, 1988
previously unlicensed applicants must
wait two years after registering with
MDNR before a license to fish more
than 50 pots will be issued.
-------
Minimum size limit:
Creel limit:
Harvest quotas:
By-catch restrictions:
Virginia - not in effect.
Potomac River Fisheries Commission
(PRFC) - Only Maryland and Virginia
residents may commercially crab.
Maryland - Peelers, 3"; soft crabs,
3.5"; male hard crabs, 5" (10 per
bushel tolerance limit); mature
females have no minimum size.
Virginia - Male and immature female
hard crabs, 5" (tolerance limit 10
per bushel or 35 per barrel) ; no
minimum size limits for peelers, soft
crabs or mature females.
PRFC - Male hard crabs, 5" (4 per
bushel or 10 per barrel tolerance
limit); peelers, 3"; no minimum size
limits for soft crabs or mature
female hard crabs.
Maryland - Unlicensed sport crabbers
- 1 bushel per person per day or no
more than 2 bushels per boat per day.
Licensed sport crabbers - 2 bushels
per day.
Virginia - No license required for
the taking of 1 bushel of hard crabs
and 2 dozen peeler crabs per person
per day for household use by dip net
or two crab pots.
PRFC - No license required for taking
of 1 bushel of hard crabs and 3 dozen
soft or peeler crabs per person per
day. Licensed crabbers have no limit.
Maryland - Not in effect.
Virginia - There is a catch limit of
25 barrels per boat per day during
the winter crab dredge fishery, and
a catch limit of 51 bushels or 17
barrels per boat per day for the
spring crab pot fishery (March 15 -
May 31).
PRFC - None.
None for Maryland or Virginia.
8
-------
PRFC - Crabbers may not possess any
sponge crab, spawn crab, blooming
female crab, mother crab, or female
crab from which the egg pouch or
bunion has been removed.
Gear restrictions: Maryland - Crab pots, both cubic and
rectangular pots are permitted. Cubic
pots cannot exceed 24" on a side.
Rectangular pots cannot exceed 12"
in height, 24" in width and 48" in
length. All pots must be constructed
of wire having a mesh of one inch or
more. Tidewater shoreline property
owners may fish 2 or 4 pots
(depending on the county of
residence) if they are attached to
their pier or to a pole set within
200 feet of shore and if crabs are
for personal consumption. Trot lines -
sport crabbers fishing a trotline
longer than 500 feet must have a
license. Scrapes or dredges - total
width may not exceed 60" and may not
have teeth or any diver, chain or
other device to hold it to the
bottom; no more than two scrapes or
dredges per boat. Bank traps -
enclosure no more than 4' long by
4' wide with one row of hedging no
more than 75' long. Channel pounds -
enclosure no more than 8' long and
4' wide; no more than two rows of
hedging each of which must be no more
than 100' long. Seines - maximum
length 50' ; must be hauled up in the
water. Collapsible traps - license
required for six or more traps.
SCUBA diving - capture of crabs using
diving apparatus prohibited.
Virginia - Crab pots can be made of
wire or thread net with a mesh size
of at least 1 1/2". All crab pot
buoys must display the assigned
number. Peeler pots - a wire mesh pot
(no mesh size limitations) baited
with only live adult male blue crabs
and food for these crabs. Scrapes -
mouth not to exceed four feet overall
and no teeth on the bar; may be
hauled only by hand; limit of two
-------
scrapes per boat overboard at one
time; no tolerance for hard crabs.
Dredges -inside mouth width not to
exceed eight feet and may have teeth;
when two or more dredges are fixed
together their total width may not
exceed sixteen feet; unlawful to use
more than two dredges at any time,
and such boat may use only one dredge
on each side of the boat or join two
dredges together for use over the
stern; unlawful to use hydraulic
methods to dislodge the crabs from
the bottom. Rakes. dredges and
scrapes or other devices other than
hand rakes, may not be used for
crabbing on the seaside of the
Eastern Shore in water less than four
feet deep at mean low tide.
PRPC - Crab pots, trotlines, dip
nets, patent trotlines, and peeler
traps are permitted. Dredges or
scrapes are prohibited. Each vessel
shall be equipped with a culling
container.
Area Restrictions: Maryland - crab pots can be set in
waters of Chesapeake Bay proper,
Pocomoke Sound and Somerset county
waters of Tangier Sound. In general
crab pots are prohibited in all other
bays, sounds and tributaries.
Except in designated areas, pots may
not be set in less than 4' of water.
From May 1 to September 30, pots
cannot be set within 200 yards of a
public beach.
Virginia - unlawful to place, set or
use crab traps or crab pounds within
100 yards of any other crab trap or
pound, and placing crab pots in
marked navigational channels is
prohibited. Use of dredges
prohibited in rivers, estuaries,
inlets or creeks except on the ocean
side of Accomack and Northampton
Counties. It is unlawful to take
crabs for resale from certain areas
of the lower Bay near the mouth of
Hampton Roads from June 1 to
10
-------
September 15, inclusive. It is
unlawful to set, place or fish a
fixed fishing device of any type
within 300 yards of the Chesapeake
Bay Bridge Tunnel. A designated area
north of Tangier Island is closed for
the setting of crab pots, being
reserved for crab scraping only.
PRFC - Crabbers may not crab within
200 yards of any public bathing beach
during May, June, July, August and
September.
Season/Time Restrictions: Maryland - closed season for hard
crabs - January 1 through March 31.
Closed season for crab scrapes -
November 1 through April 14.
Virginia - Crab dredging on Saturday
is prohibited, as is commercial
crabbing on Sunday or between sunset
and sunrise (does not apply to peeler
crab traps or floats, pens or onshore
facilities for soft crab shedding
operations). Closed season for crab
dredges - April 1 to December 1.
PRFC - Commercial crabbing between
sunset and one hour before sunrise
is prohibited. There is no closed
season.
Status of Traditional Fishery Management Approaches
Catch-Effort: Existing catch and effort data for
the hard crab fishery is apparently
a reasonable indicator of stock size.
Statistics for the peeler and soft
crab fishery are thought to be low.
However, the relationship between
these data and actual harvests are
not known.
Estimates of mortality Unknown - no information on age based
on the abundance specific relative abundance over
of successive age groups: time.
11
-------
Yield-Per-Recruit:
Stock-Recruitment
Relationship:
Maximum Sustainable Yield:
Virtual Population Analysis;
First approximations indicate that
at F = 1.25, yield-per-recruit is
maximized by delaying fishing until
crabs reach 5.5 inches.
A Ricker-type recruitment curve
provides a good fit to a time series
of recruits and stock developed from
Smith Island crab scrape data
collected over the period 1948-72.
These data indicate two
environmentally distinct periods: one
from 1948-1952 and during the mid
1970s that favored high recruitment,
and the second from the mid 1950s
through the 1960s that was less
favorable to recruitment. The VIMS
trawl survey abundance time series
from 1972-1988 significantly fits the
Ricker stock/recruitment model. Both
data sets offer strong evidence for
a significant stock/recruitment
relationship in Chesapeake Bay.
Estimates derived from Schaefer,
Pella-Tomlinson and Fox surplus
production models ranged from 69 -
76 million pounds for Chesapeake Bay.
Has not been carried out - no
information on estimates of catch.
Data and Information Needs
1. Reliable Chesapeake Bay-wide estimates of catch and effort by
life history stage and sex by gear type in the commercial and
recreational fisheries.
2. Estimates of natural and fishing mortality rates.
3. Reliable measures of year class strength at several key stages
in the life history.
4. Determination of the relationship between spawning stock and
year class strength and availability.
5. Economic information on the trotline, pot (both hard crab and
peeler), scrape, dredge, crab pound net and recreational
fisheries and of the wholesale, retail and processing sectors
of the industry.
12
-------
6. Develop an ecological model to quantify the carrying capacity
of habitats for different sizes of blue crabs.
References
Cronin, L.E. (Ed.) 1987. Report of the Chesapeake Bay blue crab
management workshop. Tidewater Adm., Tawes State Office Bldg., 580
Taylor Avenue, Annapolis MD. 21401.
Hines, A.M., R.N. Lipcius and A.M. Haddon. 1987. Population
dynamics and habitat partitioning by size, sex, and molt stage of
blue crabs Callinectes sapidus in a subestuary of central
Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progess Series 36: 55-64.
Jones, P., D. Heimbuch and C. Stagg (Eds.) 1982. Report of the
workshop on blue crab stock dynamics in Chesapeake Bay. University
of Maryland, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies,
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, UM-CEES Editorial Series #ES-01-
03.
Lipcius, R.N. and W.A. Van Engel. In Press. Blue crab population
dynamics in Chesapeake Bay: Variation in abundance (York River,
1972-1988) and stock-recruit functions. Bulletin of Marine Science.
Lipton, D. 1987. The Status of Maryland's Fishing Industry.
University of Maryland, Sea Grant Extension. Publ. No. UM-SG-MAP-
89-02.
Millikin, Mark R. and Austin B. Williams. 1984. Synopsis of
biological data on the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun. FAO
Fisheries Synopsis No. 138.
Rothschild, B.J., C.M. Stagg, K.S. Knotts, G.T. DiNardo and A.
Chai. 1988. Blue crab stock dynamics in Chesapeake Bay. University
of Maryland, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies,
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, UMCEES[CBL] Ref. No. 88-51.
Stagg, Cluney. 1986. An evaluation of the information available
for managing Chesapeake Bay fisheries: preliminary stock
assessments, volume I and II. University of Maryland, Center for
Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory, UMCEES[CBL] Ref. No. 85-29.
Tang, Q. 1985. Modification of the Ricker stock recruitment model
to account for environmentally induced variation in recruitment
with particular reference to the blue crab fishery in Chesapeake
Bay. Fisheries Research. 3:13-21.
13
-------
SECTION 2. BLUE CRAB MANAGEMENT
The source documents for this plan (Cronin (1987), Jones et. al.
(1983), Milliken and Williams (1984) and Tang (1985)) discuss the
problems associated with the current status of the Chesapeake Bay
stock and fisheries for blue crabs. There is concern about the
increasing fishing pressure that is exerted year round on the blue
crab fishery. Current catch and effort data suggest a need to
control harvest. The collapse of other fisheries in the Chesapeake
Bay and elsewhere dictate the need for temperate management
practices. Blue crab problems have been grouped into categories and
serve as the basis for identifying the management goal and
objectives. The recommended strategies for managing the Chesapeake
Bay blue crab stock have been developed with incomplete knowledge
of blue crab population dynamics and incomplete knowledge about the
environmental factors that affect larval stages. The plan,
therefore, reflects a prudent approach to managing the resource.
Current regulations regarding the harvest of blue crabs will
continue to be enforced with specific changes as recommended by the
management plan.
Fishery activity on the tidewater portion of the Potomac River is
managed by the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, a six member
body empowered under the Maryland-Virginia Potomac River Compact
of 1958. The Commission meets quarterly to establish and maintain
a program of conservation and improvement of the seafood resources
of the Potamac River and to regulate and license fisheries in the
river. The Commission will develop appropriate Actions and
Implementation plans to address the Problems and Strategies
identified in this Management Plan which are within the purview of
the Commission by July 1990.
A. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this plan is:
Manage blue crabs in Chesapeake Bay in a manner which
conserves and protects the ecological value of the stock and
at the same time, generates the greatest long term economic
and social benefits from using the resource. The management
plan for blue crab will be adaptive and involve continuous
responses to new information about the current state of the
resource.
In order to achieve the goal, the following objectives must be met:
1. Maintain the spawning stock at a size which eliminates low
reproductive potential as a cause of poor spawning success.
2. Promote protection of the resource by maintaining a clear
distinction between conservation goals and allocation issues.
15
-------
3. Minimize conflicts among user groups and between jurisdictions
by coordinating management efforts throughout Chesapeake Bay.
4. Promote a program of education and publicity to help the
public understand the causes and nature of problems in the
blue crab industry and the rationale for management efforts
to solve these problems.
5. Promote a baywide regulatory process which provides adequate
resource protection, optimizes the commercial harvest,
provides sufficient opportunity for recreational crabbers, and
considers the needs of other user groups.
6. Promote harvesting practices which minimize waste and maximize
the economic return from the resource.
7. Determine and adopt standards of environmental quality and
habitat protection necessary for the maximum reproduction and
survival of blue crabs.
8. Promote research to improve the understanding of blue crab
biology and population dynamics.
9. Promote studies to collect necessary economic, social, and
fisheries data to effectively monitor the status of the blue
crab fishery.
B. PROBLEM AREAS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Problem-Fishing Effort is Increasing: The total amount of gear used
in the crab fishery is increasing over time and, as a result, an
increasing fraction of the crab stock can be harvested each year.
Escalating fishing effort is also increasing competition among user
groups both within and between the states of Maryland and Virginia.
Strategy-Fishing Effort: There is a significant stock/recruitment
relationship in the Chesapeake Bay blue crab population. The number
of young produced (recruitment) is influenced by the number of
adult spawners and by environmental factors. "Good" recruitment
requires optimum spawning stock size and favorable environmental
conditions. In order to protect the reproductive potential of the
blue crab stock, appropriate fishing levels are needed. Specific
levels of fishing effort for both the commercial and recreational
fisheries are currently being estimated. Blue crab commercial
harvests are being analyzed to determine safe levels of harvest.
PROBLEM 1.1
There is growing concern that continued increases in
fishing effort will lead to over-exploitation of the stock
and over-capitalization of the fishery. With the exception of
16
-------
Maryland's Delayed Entry Program, there are no laws or
regulations in effect which limit the total amount of gear
that can be fished and none which regulate the total harvest.
Consequently, the blue crab spawning stock could be reduced
below an optimum level.
STRATEGY 1.1
Maryland will establish catch limits to regulate blue
crab fishing effort and harvest based on biological
information. Virginia will establish a daily catch limit
for the crab pot fishery and will reduce the 25 barrel
limit for the crab dredge fishery.
ACTION 1.1.1
Maryland and Virginia will contain the commercial
harvest of blue crabs at present levels. Types of
management actions which will be considered in the
regulation of blue crabs are as follows:
° Harvest season- For example, seasonal patterns of
catch for hard crabs and peelers suggest a
possible crab-fishing strategy which would target
peelers from May to July then hard crabs the
remainder of the year. In Maryland, the blue crab
season is closed between January 1 and April 1.
° Gear restrictions- For example, limit the number
of commercial crab pots and length of trotline per
license. Restrictions on where crab pots and
trotlines can be fished are currently being
implemented.
0 Catch limits- For example, set a catch limit for
crab pots, trotlines and scrapes. Catch limits
would be based on current catch per unit effort
data, historical harvest data and stock/
recruitment information. Catch limits would be
modified as new information is acquired.
0 Size limits to maximize yield per recruit- For
example, develop the optimal size at first entry
into the fishery. Currently, Maryland has the
following minimum size limits: 5 inches, spine to
spine, for male hard crabs; 3 inches for peeler
crabs; 3 1/2 inches for soft crabs; and no size
limit for mature female crabs. Virginia has the
following size limits in effect: 5 inches, male
and immature female hard crabs; and, no minimum
size limits for peelers, soft crabs or female
mature crabs.
17
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.1
1991
ACTION 1.1.2
Maryland will continue the delayed entry program and
Virginia will establish a delayed entry program
similar to Maryland's.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.1.2
Maryland currently has a delayed entry program
in effect. Virginia is developing a similar
delayed entry program and will be implemented
by 1991.
PROBLEM 1.2
Because non-residents can be licensed to crab in Maryland
or Virginia waters of Chesapeake Bay, and because all Bay
fishermen are harvesting the same stock of crabs, inter-
jurisdictional allocation is an issue.
STRATEGY 1.2
Maryland and Virginia will work to clarify
interjurisdictional allocation issues by improving
estimates of harvest and effort, and by evaluating the
impacts of harvest by individual states on the crab
population.
ACTION 1.2
Maryland and Virginia will determine Baywide
regulations concerning the harvest of peeler crabs,
soft crabs, hard crabs, and female crabs and size
limits on all crabs based on yield per recruit data.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.2
1991
PROBLEM 1.3
Competition for the blue crab resource is a cause of
conflict between the commercial, non-commercial and
recreational crabbers in Maryland. Economic and social
benefits from each user group are not fully known.
STRATEGY 1.3.1
Maryland will reduce the conflict between commercial and
recreational crabbers through gear and license
requirements.
18
-------
ACTION 1.3.1
A clear distinction between commercial and
recreational crabbers will be defined by reducing
the bushel limit for the non-commercial crabbing
license.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3.1
1991
ACTION 1.3.2
The economic and social impacts of commercial,
non-commercial and recreational crabbing in the
Chesapeake Bay will be evaluated in order to resolve
conflicts between user groups.
IMPLEMENTATION 1.3.2
1990
Problem-Wasteful Harvesting Practices: Harvesting small crabs or
crabs of poor quality precludes maximizing the best economic value
of the resource. Other marginal harvesting practices include taking
egg-bearing females which decreases reproductive potential and
green crabs (any peeler crab without red or pink coloration in the
swim fin).
Strategy-Wasteful Harvesting: Optimum use of the blue crab resource
will be promoted by eliminating and/or minimizing wasteful harvest
practices.
PROBLEM 2.1
The economic yield of crabs is not always optimized if
buckrams, which yield small amounts of meat, and dredge
crabs, which can yield poor quality meat in late winter, are
harvested and brought to market.
STRATEGY 2.1
The harvest of poor quality crabs will be reduced.
ACTION 2.1
A) Maryland will promote the release of buckram
(papershell) crabs by increasing the general
awareness of commercial and recreational crabbers
of the economic advantages of being more
selective.
B) Virginia will consider design limitations on crab
dredges and establish management or sanctuary
areas to avoid wastage problems in the crab
dredge fishery.
19
-------
IMPLEMENTATION 2.1
1990
PROBLEM 2.2
Sublegal crabs generally have a small amount of meat compared
to legal size crabs.
STRATEGY 2.2
The harvest of sublegal crabs will be reduced.
ACTION 2.2
A) Maryland and Virginia will promote the use of
cull rings to allow sublegal crabs to escape from
crab pots.
B) The effectiveness of using cull rings will be
evaluated from crab pot studies.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.2
1989
PROBLEM 2.3
The practice of harvesting sponge crabs (and females of
any other life history stage as well) results in a loss of
reproductive potential.
STRATEGY 2.3
The reproductive potential of blue crabs will be
protected.
ACTION 2.3
A) Maryland will prohibit the harvest of egg-bearing
females (sponge crabs) and examine methods of
controlling fishing mortality on females during
other life history stages. For example, size at
maturity is necessary to determine minimum
harvestable size.
B) Virginia will monitor the harvest of female crabs
to study the effect of female harvest on crab
population dynamics, especially in the winter
dredge fishery. This data will be used to
determine management measures that protect the
reproductive potential of blue crabs.
C) Maryland and Virginia will investigate the extent
of mortality on mature female crabs used as bait
in the Chesapeake Bay eel fishery.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.3
A) 1990; B) 1993; C) 1990
20
-------
PROBLEM 2.4
Lost and abandoned crab pots may trap and eventually kill
significant numbers of crabs.
STRATEGY 2.4
The problem of abandoned crab pots will be addressed.
ACTION 2.4
A) Virginia law prohibits abandonment of crab pots
in navigable water less than six feet deep.
B) Maryland law requires the removal of all crab
pots by the last day of the fishing season. A
regulation specifically addressing the problem
of abandoned pots will be considered.
C) Maryland will consider the use of biodegradable
sections in crab pots.
D) Both Maryland and Virginia will improve the
enforcement of existing regulations.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.4
Virginia law currently in effect. Maryland will
consider a regulation addressing abandoned crab
pots by 1990.
PROBLEM 2.5
The mortality rate of green crabs (a peeler crab without red
or pink coloration in the swim fin) held in shedding floats
is high compared to peelers that are close to molting.
STRATEGY 2.5
The mortality rate of green crabs will be reduced.
ACTION 2.5
Maryland and Virginia will promote the reduction of
peeler mortalities associated with holding practices
in peeler floats and shedding operations by
providing the most up-to-date technical information
to the owners. Any necessary regulatory changes will
be made and implemented.
IMPLEMENTATION 2.5
1991
Problem-Stock Assessment Deficiencies: There has been a
considerable amount of blue crab data collected in recent years.
The information derived from these data have significantly improved
our understanding of blue crab biology. These studies have also
been valuable in providing direction as to the kinds of information
needed to manage the blue crab fishery. There still are specific
areas where information is lacking.
21
-------
Strategy-Stock Assessment Deficiencies: Accurate catch and effort
data from both the recreational and commercial fishery is
fundamental for stock assessment. Several issues concerning blue
crab population dynamics require further research. There will be
a baywide effort to research specific topics to improve monitoring
efforts and aid management decisions.
PROBLEM 3.1
The commercial crab fishery catch and effort data collection
program carried out by Virginia and Maryland do not collect
adequate information on the composition of the catch by life
history stage (e.g. peelers, soft crabs, buckrams, male hard
crabs and sooks). More precise data on the amount of effort
expended by gear type in the commercial fishery is also
needed.
STRATEGY 3.1
Maryland and Virginia will maintain both fishery
dependent and independent stock abundance surveys to
provide data for timely management measures.
ACTION 3.1
A) Maryland and Virginia will continue the crab
trawl survey to monitor blue crab abundance and
distribution. (In progress)
B) Maryland and Virginia will continue the blue crab
winter dredge survey through 1990.
C) Maryland will implement a modified crab reporting
system to obtain an accurate measurement of
effort by gear and fisherman. (1990)
D) Virginia will design and implement a mandatory
reporting program for all species, including blue
crabs, that will effectively monitor harvest and
effort levels as well as the biological
characteristics of the harvest. (1990)
E) Both the Virginia and Maryland reporting system
will be compatible with one another to facilitate
a Baywide effort to obtain catch and effort data.
(1991)
IMPLEMENTATION 3.1
Variable, depending on the specific project.
PROBLEM 3.2
There is a lack of information about the blue crab
recreational catch and effort and the economic impact of
recreational crabbing on the Chesapeake Bay blue crab stock.
22
-------
STRATEGY 3.2
There will be a Baywide effort to collect recreational
catch and effort data and to evaluate the economic impact
of the recreational harvest on blue crabs industry.
ACTION 3.2
A) Maryland and Virginia will utilize information
obtained from the National Marine Fisheries
Service's "Marine Recreational Fishery
Statistics Surveys" (MRFSS) in order to determine
effective management options.
B) Maryland will continue a survey on recreational
crabbing and Virginia will investigate survey
methods for the recreational blue crab fishery.
Virginia will institute a survey to determine
recreational harvest and effort at the conclusion
of the study.
C) Management strategies will be implemented based
on the information from Baywide recreational
surveys. Methods of controlling effort will be
similar to management measures described in
Action 1.1.1.
IMPLEMENTATION
1991
PROBLEM 3.3
The population dynamics of the blue crab stock is not fully
understood and could be improved by obtaining additional
information on natural and fishing mortality rates, the stock
-recruitment relationship, and the effects of environmental
variables and anthropogenic change on year class strength and
availability.
STRATEGY 3.3
There will be a Baywide effort to design an effective
program to collect population data on blue crabs.
ACTION 3.3
Maryland and Virginia will support cooperative
research to address and define the stock/recruitment
relationship, natural and fishing mortality rates
and the environmental parameters that effect short
-term and long-term fluctuations in crab
populations.
IMPLEMENTATION 3.3
1990
23
-------
PROBLEM 3.4
Information on the current status of the eel resource is
needed to address concerns that over-exploitation may be
occurring as a result of increasing demand for eels as bait
in the blue crab trotline fishery and as an export product.
STRATEGY 3.4
Maryland and Virginia will delay action on regulating the
use of eels for bait until the status of the eel
population is investigated more fully.
ACTION 3.4
Delayed
IMPLEMENTATION
Open
Problem-Regulatory Issues: The blue crab regulatory process in
Chesapeake Bay is based on biological and conservation concerns
as well as long standing social, economic and political
considerations.
Strategy-Regulatory Issues: The blue crab fishery consists of
recreational, commercial, and non-commercial fractions which
provide economic, social, and recreational benefits to the
community. Conflicts among user groups and the general boating
public can be minimized by rational application of time, area, and
gear restrictions to allocate space and harvest of the resource.
Coordinated interstate management is necessary to insure optimal
baywide usage. Protecting any living resource requires educational
programs to increase public awareness of its potentials and
problems.
PROBLEM 4.1
Conflict between crab potters and recreational boaters has
become a serious problem in some of the more densely
populated areas of Virginia and Maryland. From the
recreational boater's point of view, crab pot floats are
interfering with recreational boating. From the commercial
waterman's perspective, recreational boaters are
interfering with crab potting because they inadvertently
run over and cut off crab pot floats.
STRATEGY 4.1
Maryland and Virginia will continue to monitor conflicts
between crabbers and recreational boaters and enforce
existing regulations on open and closed crabbing areas
and pot-free channels.
24
-------
ACTION 4.1
A) Maryland will actively investigate placing crab
pots on lines in order to reduce the number of
floats.
B) Maryland will increase the number of float-free
areas.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.1
1990
PROBLEM 4.2
The interstate shipment of peelers and soft crabs may
circumvent efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay stock from
illegal fishing activities. The major problem is that
undersized crabs are illegally harvested and then either
marketed in state as out-of-state crabs or shipped to
states which have no minimum size limits.
STRATEGY 4.2
Maryland and Virginia will investigate the biological and
economic effects of regulated size limits on the soft
crab fishery and the need to coordinate soft and peeler
crabs size limits.
ACTION 4.2
As previously stated in section 1.2, Maryland and
Virginia will determine Baywide regulations
concerning the harvest of peeler crabs, soft crabs,
hard crabs, and female crabs and size limits on all
crabs based on yield per recruit data and a better
understanding of economic effects.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.2
1991
PROBLEM 4.3
Recreational licensing requirements are inconsistent in
that a license is required for some types of sport crabbing
but is not needed for others. For example, a Maryland
license is required to fish more than 5 collapsible traps,
but is not needed to fish 2 to 4 crab pots from a pier
(depending on the county of residence), or to fish less
than 500 feet of trotline for noncommercial purposes.
STRATEGY 4.3
Maryland will standardize regulations regarding
permissible gear types for all recreational licensing.
Virginia will delay action on recreational licensing
requirements, but will utilize surveys to determine
recreational harvest and effort.
25
-------
ACTION 4.3
Maryland will consider the use of crab pots for
commercial harvest only.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.3
1990
PROBLEM 4.4
Bay-wide penalties are inconsistent and are generally
considered inadequate to deter violations except for the
Maryland DNR Point Assignment System which serves as a
deterrent rather than functioning as an additional busines
cost.
STRATEGY 4.4
There will be a Baywide reassessment of enforcement
practices as a means of deterring violations.
ACTION 4.4
A) Maryland will continue the Point Assignment
System which serves as a deterrent to crabbing
violations.
B) Virginia will investigate implementing a point
schedule system, similar to Maryland's, to
address inconsistent and inadequate penalties
currently assessed for illegal crab harvesting
practices.
C) Maryland and Virginia will adopt consistent
enforcement policies and practices insofar as
state laws permit, and continuously seek
uniformity.
IMPLEMENTATION 4.4
Maryland system currently in effect. Virginia
system to be developed.
Problem-Habitat Degradation: Crabs appear to be one of the more
resilient species in the Bay, however the loss of habitats, such
as declines in submerged vegetation, destruction of wetlands and
periodic anoxia in deeper water do have an impact on the species.
Strategy-Habitat Degradation: The effects of pollution and hypoxic
conditions on the blue crab population are unclear. The
jurisdictions will maintain strict environmental standards and
protect prime habitats to benefit the blue crab population.
PROBLEM 5.1
There has been a loss in blue crab habitat, an increase in
intraspecies competition, and an increase in crab mortality
from crabs caught in pots due to low dissolved oxygen
levels in bottom waters.
26
-------
STRATEGY 5.1
Maryland and Virginia will pursue research to demonstrate
the effect of reduced water quality on blue crabs as a
means of developing more effective water quality criteria
and controls for spawning and hatching areas.
ACTION 5.1
The first three action items are commitments under
the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Maryland DNR and
VMRC will not carry out the specific commitments,
but are involved in setting the objectives of the
programs to fulfill the commitments and reviewing
the results of the action programs. The achievement
of these commitments will lead to improved water
quality and enhanced biological production.
A) Develop and adopt a basinwide plan that will
achieve a 40% reduction of nutrients entering the
Chesapeake Bay by the year 2000.
1) Construct public and private sewage
facilities.
2) Reduce the discharge of untreated or
inadequately treated sewage.
3) Establish and enforce nutrient and
conventional pollutant limitations in
regulated discharges.
4) Reduce levels of nutrients and other
conventional pollutants in runoff from
agricultural and forested lands.
5) Reduce levels of nutrients and other
conventional pollutants in urban runoff.
B) Develop and adopt a basinwide plan for the
reduction and control of toxic materials entering
the Chesapeake Bay system from point and nonpoint
sources and from bottom sediments.
1) Reduce discharge of metals and organic
compounds from sewage treatment plants
receiving industrial wastewater.
2) Reduce the discharge of metals and organic
compounds from industrial sources.
3) Reduce levels of metals and organic
compounds in urban and agriculture runoff.
4) Reduce chlorine discharges to critical
finfish areas.
C) Develop and adopt a basinwide plan for the
management of conventional pollutants entering
the Chesapeake Bay from point and nonpoint
sources.
27
-------
1) Manage sewage sludge, dredge spoil and
hazardous wastes.
2) Improve dissolved oxygen concentrations in
the Chesapeake Bay through the reduction of
nutrients from both point and nonpoint
sources.
3) Continue study of the impacts of acidic
conditions on water quality.
4) Manage groundwater to protect the water
quality of the Chesapeake Bay.
5) Continue research to refine strategies to
reduce point and nonpoint sources of
nutrient, toxic and conventional pollutants
in the Chesapeake Bay.
IMPLEMENTATION 5.1:
Variable, depending on the specific project.
PROBLEM 5.2
The loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and intertidal
wetlands has resulted in the loss of blue crab habitat,
particularly during the juvenile and molting stages.
STRATEGY 5.2
Maryland and Virginia will identify prime habitat areas
for blue crabs and actively protect these areas from the
effects of dredging, development, and pollution.
ACTION 5.2
Maryland and Virginia will establish crab
sanctuaries where harvest may be controlled and
environmental modifications are restricted. These
areas will be determined using the abundance and
distribution data collected from trawl and other
fishery independent surveys.
IMPLEMENTATION 5.2
1991
PROBLEM 5.3
Rigorous water quality standards for the spawning grounds
and major nursery areas cannot be determined because
the environmental requirements of larval and juvenile crabs
are not well known.
STRATEGY 5.3
Maryland and Virginia will continue to support research
to investigate the environmental requirements for
juvenile and larval blue crabs, which includes critical
habitats such as SAV beds and intertidal wetlands.
28
-------
ACTION 5.3
A) Protect and restore submerged aquatic vegetation
1) Conduct an annual survey of the distribution
and abundance of SAV throughout the
Chesapeake Bay
2) Develop new remote sensing techniques to
improve data quality
3) Implement a shallow water habitat monitoring
program
4) Develop a centralized data base
5) Establish regional ambient water quality
requirements based on SAV needs
6) Set submerged SAV acreage, abundance and
diversity restoration goals
7) Develop a managment plan for the restoration
of SAV based on a watershed approach
8) Implement best land management practices
which will promote improvements in SAV
habitat quality
B) Support tidal and non-tidal wetlands management
strategies
C) Support the development of the "Use of Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources"
document which would be used to distribute
geographically specific information on critical
or sensitive areas for living resources,
including blue crabs, to water quality and land
use management personnel.
IMPLEMENTATION 5.3
Variable, depending on the specific project.
29
------- |