Project Period 3/03/2014-9/01/2015. Description (from Proposal) Project Summary (from Proposal) Summary of Accomplishments

(1)

Easygrants ID: 41114

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NFWF Project ID: 0304.13.041114

Fishing for Energy Fund 2013 - Submit Final Programatic Report (New Metrics)

Grantee Organization: College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science Project Title: Reducing Bycatch Mortality in Crab Pots (VA)

Project Period 3/03/2014 - 9/01/2015 Project Location

Description (from Proposal)

Chesapeake Bay

Project

Summary (from Proposal)

Employ commercial fishermen to test biopanels and use color avoidance mechanisms to reduce bycatch mortality of both actively fished regular pots and derelict peeler crab pots in the Chesapeake Bay.

Summary of Accomplishments

The outcome of these seawater lab experiments coupled with the results from field trials leads to the following conclusions. 1) BRDs are effective at reducing terrapin bycatch, as has been shown for many prior studies and 2)inclusion of the biopanel in peeler pots showed no significant adverse effects on the catch of peeler crabs at either site or during any season. Further, red BRDs do not seem to reduce the crab harvest or have a large effect on crab size. The mechanism leading to this apparent lack of an effect, however, is complex. BRDs do seem to decrease the rate at which crabs enter pots, relative to pots without BRDs. BRDs also appear to decrease the rate of escape of captured crabs, relative to pots without BRDs.

Lessons Learned Since BRDs appear to decrease the rate of escape of captured crabs, relative to pots without BRDs this decreased escape rate of crabs from pots equipped with BRDs can exacerbate crab mortality in lost or abandoned pots. The potential increased mortality of crabs in abandoned or lost pots could be reduced by the addition of biodegradable escape panels. In addition, incorporation of biodegradable panels in peeler pots should have no adverse impact on peeler harvest while providing a mechanism for escape for trapped crabs should the pots become lost.

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not

constitute their endorsement by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

(2)

Activities and Outcomes

Funding Strategy Habitat Conservation

Activity / Outcome Terrapin capture relative to crab pot funnel color

Required Optional

Description Other Metric

Other Metric - Description Comparison of terrapin catch of black, blue, orange, red, green, and magnetic lined crab pot entrance funnels (CPUE). Terrapin entry into pots with different colors was not significantly different than entry into pots with black funnels but some non-significant trends were noted particularly that orange funnels had fewer entries and red funnels had the fewest entries by terrapin.

Notes

Activity / Outcome Terrapin capture relative to BRD color

Required Optional

Other Metric - Description Comparison of terrapin catch of blue, orange, red, green, and black BRDs (CPUE). The smallest terrapin catch per unit effort was with red BRDs.

Notes

Activity / Outcome Blue crab capture relative to BRD color

Required Optional

Other Metric - Description Comparison of blue crab catch of blue, orange, red, green, and black BRDs (CPUE). The largest crab catch per unit effort was with red BRDs.

Notes

Funding Strategy Habitat Conservation Activity / Outcome Terrapin capture

Required Optional

Other Metric - Description Comparison of terrapin capture in crab pots fitted with BRDs vs crab pots without BRDs (CPUE). BRDs are effective at reducing terrapin bycatch and red BRDs seem most effective at deterring terrapin.

Notes

Funding Strategy Habitat Conservation Activity / Outcome Blue crab capture

Required Optional

(3)

Other Metric - Description Comparison of blue crab capture in crab pots fitted with BRDs vs crab pots without BRDs (average catch/pot). Crab pots fitted with red BRDs did not seem to reduce crab harvest or have a large effect on crab size. BRDs do appear to decrease the rate at which crabs enter pots but also decreased the escape rate from pots relative to pots without BRDs.

Notes

Funding Strategy Habitat Conservation Activity / Outcome Blue crab capture

Required Optional

Other Metric - Description Comparison of blue crab capture in peeler crab pots fitted with biodegradable escape panels vs standard peeler crab (average catch/pot). There was no significant adverse affect on catch of blue crabs between peeler pots with biodegradable escape panels and standard peeler pots.

Notes

Activity / Outcome Percent weight loss of biopanels

Required Optional

Other Metric - Description Average percent weight loss of biopanels in active peeler pots after 0.5 to 1 month fishing = 2.7%

Average percent weight loss of biopanels in pots simulating derelict pot conditions after 118 days = 13.1%, 190 days = 26.1%, 404 days = 32.9%, and 411 days = 36.6%.

Notes

(4)

Show Map Below

(5)

The following pages contain the uploaded documents, in the order shown below, as provided by the grantee:

Upload Type File Name Uploaded By Uploaded Date

Final Report Narrative - Marine

NFWF 4114 FINAL

PROGRAMMATIC REPORT NARRATIVE.pdf

Havens, Kirk 12/17/2015

Photos - Jpeg 1 mag funnel.JPG Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg 2.5 mag funnel.JPG Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg 5 mag funnel.JPG Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg blue funnels_resized.jpg Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg escape chimney_resized.jpg Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg green funnel_resized.jpg Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg marked terrapin_resized.jpg Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg mesocosm setup2_resized.jpg Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg orange funnel_resized.jpg Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg peeler pot with biopanel2_resized.jpg Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg pot with mag funnel.JPG Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg Red BRD1_resized.pdf Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg red funnels_resized.jpg Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg terrapin in pot.jpg Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Photos - Jpeg terrapin prep for mesocosm_resized.jpg

Photos - Jpeg terrapin release into mesocosm_resized.jpg

Photos - Jpeg checking pots.JPG Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

Other Documents Portland.pdf Havens, Kirk 12/15/2015

The following uploads do not have the same headers and footers as the previous sections of this document in order to preserve the integrity of the actual files uploaded.

(6)

Final Programmatic Report Narrative .

REDUCING MORTALITY IN ACTIVE AND DERELICT CRAB POTS FINAL REPORT TO THE NATIONAL FISH & WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

PROJECT 41114

Coastal Watersheds Program, Center for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary

Keck Environmental Lab, College of William & Mary December 2015

1. Summary of Accomplishments

In four to five sentences, provide a brief summary of the project’s key accomplishments and outcomes that were observed or measured. This can be duplicative to the summary provided in the reporting ‘field’ or you can provide more detail here.

 Bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) are effective at reducing terrapin bycatch, as has been shown for many prior studies. Red BRDs do not seem to reduce the crab harvest or have a large effect on crab size.

 BRDs do seem to decrease the rate at which crabs enter pots, relative to pots without BRDs.

 BRDs also appear to decrease the rate of escape of captured crabs, relative to pots without BRDs.

 The decreased escape rate of crabs from pots equipped with BRDs can exacerbate crab mortality in lost or abandoned pots.

 The potential increased mortality of crabs in abandoned or lost pots could be reduced by the addition of biodegradable escape panels.

 Inclusion of the biodegradable escape panel in peeler pots showed no significant adverse effects on the catch of peeler crabs.

 Biodegradable escape panels used during regular fishing operations remained intact while biodegradable escape panels placed on pots to simulate derelict pot conditions lost an average of 32.9% weight and broke or cracked after 190 days of submergence.

 Incorporation of biodegradable escape panels in peeler pots should have no adverse impact on peeler harvest while providing a mechanism for escape for trapped crabs should the pots become lost.

2. Project Activities & Outcomes Activities

 Describe the primary activities conducted during this grant and explain any discrepancies between the activities conducted from those that were proposed.

INTRODUCTION Actively fished and derelict crab pots, both hard crab and peeler crab pots, kill terrapins (Figure 1) as well as many other species. Crab pots are considered the largest threat to diamondback terrapin populations

(Malaclemys terrapin) in their range (Butler, Heinrich, and Seigel, 2006). In a recent occupancy analysis of coastal habitats in Chesapeake Bay, for example, the occurrence of terrapins was negatively influenced by the local density of active crab pots (Isdell et al. 2015). During a single year, it is estimated that recreational and commercial blue crab pots can capture 15 to 78 percent of a local population of diamondback terrapins, depending on the magnitude of the fishery (Roosenburg et al., 1997). Grosse and others (2009) found a crab trap in a Georgia marsh that contained 94 dead terrapins. Numerous additional studies conducted

throughout the Atlantic and Gulf coasts have documented the significant The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing Figure 1. Diamondback terrapins in a blue crab pot. the opinions or policies of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not

(7)

toll that blue crab pots can have on terrapin mortality. Terrapins are now endangered in Rhode Island, threatened in Massachusetts, and vulnerable or imperiled in eight other states (Bishop, 1983; Butler and Heinrich, 2007; Dorcas, Willson, and Gibbons, 2007; Hoyle and Gibbons, 2000; Rook et al., 2010; Roosenburg, 2004; Wood, 1997) and there is significant interest in developing technologies to reduce the negative impact of both types of gear (Hart and Crowder 2011, Bilkovic et al 2014).

This project continues past NFWF funded successful projects such as “The Mortality of Blue Crabs in the Chesapeake Bay Due to Derelict "Ghost" Crab Traps”, “Gear Modification Testing for Blue Crab Traps (VA)”, “Testing

Biodegradable Panels and Ferrous Metal “O” Rings for Lobster Pots in Maine & Massachusetts”, “Removal of Lost and Abandoned Blue Crab Pots from Virginia Chesapeake Bay Hotspots”, “Reducing Impacts of Lost Crab Traps on Fishery Resources”, and “Testing Biodegradable Crab Pot Cull-Ring Panels” to reduce the adverse impacts of derelict crab and lobster pots. This past NFWF funded work resulted in consideration of biodegradable escape panels for lobster pots in Maine and Massachusetts and testing of biodegradable escape panels for blue crab, stone crab, and Dungeness crab pots in Florida and Alaska for possible inclusion in pot regulations. In addition, as a result of the NFWF funded projects in Virginia, the Governor announced in his 2013 Marine Debris Proclamation that Virginia will develop a Marine Debris Management Plan “to find economically and socially feasible solutions for reducing marine debris, such as biodegradable components on fishing gear…”

Objective 1. To determine whether the color of BRDs and/or the crab pot funnels can be modified in such a way as to deter entry by terrapins and encourage entry by crabs.

Objective 2. To test biodegradable panels for peeler pots, two commercial watermen will modify thirty peeler pots with biodegradable panels to test whether the panels affect catch and to monitor biodegradation rates.

Outcomes

 Describe progress towards achieving the project outcomes as proposed. and briefly explain any discrepancies between your results compared to what was anticipated.

 Provide any further information (such as unexpected outcomes) important for understanding project activities and outcome results.

BYCATCH REDUCTION DEVICE (BRD) PROJECT

Objective: To determine whether the color of BRDs and/or the crab pot funnels can be modified in such a way as to deter entry by terrapins and encourage entry by crabs.

Commercial and recreational crabbers will deploy pots from March through November to catch both hard and soft shell crabs. These months represent a potential temporal overlap between crab pots and terrapin activity within these brackish habitats. Crab fishermen will also periodically lose pots when trap lines are broken from their marker buoys from old age, boat propellers, or storms (Havens et al., 2008). These derelict “ghost” pots pose threats to terrapin

populations year round (Guillory, 2001).

Male and young, small female terrapin are most vulnerable to mortality in crab pots (Dorcas et al. 2007). Female terrapin become too large to fit into crab pots at approximately eight years of age (Roosenburg et al. 1997). Thus, there is a male-biased ratio of entrapped terrapins, which has been correlated with shifts towards older, female-biased populations in the wild (Dorcas et al. 2007).

In 1992, Dr. Roger Wood developed the first bycatch reduction device (BRDs) for blue crab pots (Wood 1997). These rectangular devices--originally constructed from flexible, heavy-gauge wire but now made from rigid plastic—are fitted on all four funnels of crab pots (Figure 2). The BRD dimensions allow crabs to enter the pots freely, but restrict terrapin

Figure 2. Regular crab pot with entrance funnel color modification.

(8)

entry. Many studies have since experimented with different sizes and materials to maximize the effectiveness of the BRD with varying results depending on local terrapin and crab populations (Chambers et al. in press). Currently, no studies have examined the impact of different colored BRDs on the amount of crabs and terrapin caught in crab pots. Blue crabs have a dichromatic visual system, meaning their photoreceptors peak in the blue and green portions of the electromagnetic spectrum (Baldwin and Johnsen 2012). Terrapins have a tetrachromatic visual system, meaning their photoreceptors peak in the UV, blue, green and red portions of the electromagnetic spectrum (Dominy 2015). Most BRDs available are painted bright orange (a product of Top-ME^©). It is unclear how different colored BRDs may be perceived by crabs and terrapin. Our goals were to first conduct a pilot study to determine whether a specific color of BRD would maximize crab catch and minimize terrapin bycatch. Secondly, we wanted to test the resulting color in a large scale field experiment to determine its effectiveness. Finally, we wanted to observe the possible responses of crabs and terrapins to the chosen BRD color in a controlled laboratory environment.

METHODS Study Areas

Almost all field experiments were completed using crab pots deployed at either Felgates Creek or Indian Field Creek located in the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Virginia (37.2667 N, −76.5850 W). Indian Field and Felgates Creeks are both mesohaline tidal marsh creeks and are tributaries of the York River. Commercial and recreational crabbing or fishing have not been allowed in either of the two creeks for over 40 years (Rook et al., 2010). An additional study site that included a small number of experimental crab pots was located on the Virginia Eastern Shore in Assawoman Creek. All laboratory experiments were conducted in an indoor pool located in the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) Seawater Research Laboratory. The circular pool was 15-ft across and 4-ft deep and was filled with clean water from the York River. The light regime matched the outdoor day-night cycle.

First Field Experiment

The pilot field experiment testing different BRD colors was conducted over the period beginning 12 June 2014 and ending 2 July2014. A total of 29 galvanized wire crab pots were set for the pilot field experiment. A hole was cut out of the top of all pots and they were fitted with 120 cm tall chicken wire “chimneys” to prevent terrapins from drowning by allowing them to swim up for air once captured. At Felgates Creek, three groups of six crab pots (experimental groups) were deployed at different locations along the creek. Each group of six contained one trap fitted with a red plastic BRD on all four entrances (TopME^© Products), one trap fitted with blue plastic BRDs on all entrances, one trap fitted with orange plastic BRDs on all entrances, one trap fitted with 11-gauge copper wire BRDs on all entrances, one trap fitted with ceramic magnets around each entrance, and one trap without any BRDs or magnets acting as the control pot. Dimensions for all BRDs were 5 cm x 15 cm and were colored using Performix© Plasti Dip.

At Indian Field Creek, one experimental group of six pots was set and another group of only five pots was set without a trap containing any magnets. Crab pots were deployed at an approximate depth of 100 cm. This subtidal, shallow depth represents an overlap in recreational and commercial crabbing and terrapin habitat (Morris et al., 2011; Rook et al., 2010). Each trap was tethered to an anchored wooden stake so that there was no movement during the experiment.

All pots were baited with only Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) or Atlantic Croaker (Micropogonias undulates) each Monday during the experiment. The pots were all checked Tuesday through Friday of each week. All captured crabs were sexed and their shell width (point-to-point) was measured in centimeters. Caught terrapins were sexed and their shell height was measured in centimeters. Bait was refreshed every Wednesday and pots were left open during weekend and breaks.

Second Field Experiment

The second field experiment was conducted over the period beginning 5 June 2015 and ending 10 July 2015. Red BRDs were determined to be the most effective at simultaneously catching crabs and deterring terrapins (see Results). We fitted twelve crab pots with painted BRDs using marine grade red paint (Rustoleum^© Topside Paint). An additional twelve crab pots were left without of any bycatch reduction device (non-BRD pots).

(9)

We deployed six pairs of red BRD and non-BRD pots at Felgates Creek and deployed six pairs of red BRD pots and non- BRD pots at Indian Field Creek. All 24 pots were also set at an approximate depth of 100cm. The pots were tethered, baited, and data were collected using the same methods as described above.

Finally, three pairs of red BRD and non-BRD pots were deployed for three weeks during June 2015 in Assawoman Creek on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. The pots were tethered, baited, and data were collected using the same methods as described above.

Laboratory Experiments

A series of experiments in the VIMS pool were completed testing the response of terrapins to the presence of color on commercial crab pots. During 2014, terrapin responses to crab pots with different funnel colors were filmed, and the rate of terrapin entry into pots was recorded. During 2015, 20-40 crabs were placed in the pool without terrapins, and their responses to pots with and without red BRDs were filmed and recorded.

BIODEGRADABLE PANELS FOR PEELER POTS

Objective: To test biodegradable panels for peeler pots, two commercial watermen will modify thirty peeler pots with biodegradable panels to test whether the panels affect catch and to monitor biodegradation rates.

This project tested the incorporation of biodegradable panels in peeler crab pots and color avoidance behavior in terrapins to reduce target and by-catch species mortality of both actively fished and lost or abandoned regular and peeler crab pots. The long-term conservation outcome is the reduction of mortality in both target and non-target species and the reduction of economic loss of the resource to ‘ghost’ fishing.

Both actively fished and lost or abandoned crab pots function in capturing crabs and other animals. An effective mechanism to render the pots ineffective at capturing by-catch species during active fishing operations and prevent the continuing ‘ghost’ fishing of derelict pots will reduce the threat of by-catch and target species mortality.

On September 22, 2008 the Secretary of Commerce declared a commercial fishery failure for the Chesapeake Bay blue crab soft and

peeler fishery due to 41% decline in landings baywide. Peeler crabs are crabs preparing to shed (or “peel” off their hard shell) to become soft-shelled crabs, a highly prized cuisine product. Specialized pots are used to capture peeler crabs which are different from regular commercial-style pots in that they have a smaller mesh size and, in Virginia, are not required to have escape rings for smaller sized crabs. Peelers will often enter pots in an apparent search for shelter before shedding. The smaller mesh size, with no escape or cull rings, results in increased mortality of both the target species and by-catch species in derelict pots. Air breathing animals such

as diamondback terrapins, as described above, are

particularly susceptible to mortality (Hart & Crowder 2011).

In a four year program to remove lost and abandoned crab pots from the Chesapeake Bay, watermen in the program removed over 32,000 derelict crab pots (Havens et al. 2011, Bilkovic et al. 2014) of which over 3,600 were peeler pots

(Figure 3). The relative percentage of dead crabs was higher in the recovered peeler pots (43%) than regular pots (36%). In addition, during the project the remains of 45 terrapins were found in the derelict pots, six of which were in peeler pots

Figure 3. Location of derelict crab pots recovered containing terrapins during the Virginia Marine Debris Removal Program. Green dots represent lost or abandoned pots. Derelict pots were removed during the winter months.

Figure 4. By-catch in derelict peeler pots removed during the VA Marine Debris Removal Program.

(10)

Legal Male Crab CPUE

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

Terrapin CPUE

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Red Orange Blue

Magnet Wire None

Figure 6. Relative to control pots without BRDs, the largest crab catch per unit effort (CPUE) and smallest terrapin bycatch CPUE were found with the red BRDs. Pots fitted with wire BRDs tended to catch more crabs, but the terrapin bycatch was highest with the wire BRDs. (Figure 4). This is especially significant since these pots were

recovered during the winter when terrapin activity is expected to be low.

Since peeler pots do not have escape or cull rings and have smaller mesh sizes than regular pots (Kennedy 2007), their ability to capture and retain great numbers of animals is increased. Biodegradable escape panels have been shown to be effective at rendering regular crab pots ineffective at continuing to capture animals once the pot is lost but have no effect on catch rate of target species during regular fishing operations (Bilkovic et al. 2012). In the four year derelict crab pot removal program, over 30,000 animals were found captured in the recovered pots which included crabs, fish, diving ducks, reptiles, and mammals. Funding from previous NFWF grants allowed for the development of a truly biodegradable escape panel for inclusion in regular crab pots (and subsequently lobster pots) but peeler crab pots are regulated differently with smaller mesh and no requirement for cull rings. A different design type is required and needs to be tested in the

commercial fishery. Biodegradable panels designed for peeler crab pots are necessary to reduce mortality associated with these pots once lost or abandoned.

METHODS

To test biodegradable panels for peeler pots, two commercial watermen modified thirty peeler pots with biodegradable panels to test whether the panels affect catch and to monitor biodegradation rates. Each pot was outfitted with a biodegradable escape panel made of the polymer of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA). PHA is one of only two polymers certified by the American Society of Testing and Materials as biodegradable in a marine environment. The panel was attached on the sidewall of the upper chamber of the peeler pot. The 30 modified peeler pots were paired with 30 standard peeler pots and placed next to one another along a line (i.e. 1 standard, 1 modified, 2 standard, 2 modified, etc.) and pots were

actively fished during the peeler crab commercial season. One participant fished pots in lower Chesapeake Bay in Perrin Creek, York River in the spring and late summer/ early fall, while the other participant fished pots on the seaside of the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay in spring, summer, and late summer/early fall (Figure 5). Participants recorded the catch for each pot every time it was retrieved. This sampling method is similar to testing of biodegradable panels for regular hard blue crab pots in the Chesapeake Bay (Bilkovic et al. 2012). At the end of the season, participants removed the biodegradable escape panels for comparison to the starting weight and for determination of biodegradation rate estimates. In addition, 24 peeler pot biodegradable escape panels were deployed on pots simulating derelict pot

conditions. Three panels were removed at regular increments over the course of a year to determine percent weight loss over continually submerged panels. Commercial watermen were compensated $1,500 each for assisting in this project.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 5. Sampling locations for peeler pot experiment.

(11)

Figure 7. Average size of the total number of crabs caught in pots with BRDs and Control pots was not significantly different. The average size of legal crabs was 1 mm larger than crabs from BRD pots.

Do Funnel Features Alter Terrapin Capture?

ORANGE GREEN BLUE RED MAGNETS

Capture Terrapin-1 Hour-1

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 8. Terrapin capture rate in pots with different color funnels, relative to capture in paired pots with black funnels. No comparisons were significantly different.

Objective: To determine whether the color of BRDs and/or the crab pot funnels can be modified in such a way as to deter entry by terrapins and encourage entry by crabs.

For 2014, relative to control pots without BRDs, the pots with red BRDs caught the most crabs AND had the lowest bycatch of terrapins (Figure 6). If the goal is to maximize crab catch and minimize terrapin bycatch (see arrow on figure), these results suggest that red BRDs are most effective at achieving this goal.

For 2015, the study was focused exclusively on the performance of experimental pots fitted with red BRDs relative to control pots without BRDs. From the capture of over 2300 crabs, the catch was split almost evenly between experimental and control pots

(1164 vs 1140, respectively; Figure 7). Further, the number of legal crabs (carapace width ≥ 12.7 cm) was not

significantly different between experimental and control pots (623 vs 630, respectively). Thus, we saw no difference in the total and legal crab catch comparing pots without BRDs and pots fitted with red BRDs. With respect to legal crabs, the size of marketable crabs captured in control pots was on average 1 mm larger than crabs captured in pots fitted with red BRDs (14.0 ± 1.0 cm vs 13.9 ± 0.9 cm, respectively, t-test, p = 0.04; Figure 2).

The response of terrapins to different colored funnels was filmed. In all experiments, terrapin behaviors in response the color of entry funnels of one pot were compared with behaviors to control pots that had black funnels. Thus, each color response by terrapins was in comparison to their response to a control pot with black funnels. Although terrapin entry into pots with different colors of funnels was not

significantly different from entry into pots with black funnels, some non-significant trends were noted (Figure 8). Blue or green funnels had on average more terrapin entries than black funnels; likewise, black funnels fitted with magnets also had more terrapin entries. In contrast, funnels that were orange had fewer terrapin entries than black funnels, and red funnels had the least number of entries.

Crabs were placed in the VIMS pool with two pots: one fitted with red BRDs and control pot with no BRDs in the funnels. As has been suggested by watermen, crabs tend to move into and out of crab pots fairly freely through the funnels, despite their design to reduce the number of exits once crabs are caught. We counted the number of crabs that entered BRD and control pots, and also recorded the average time a crab once “caught” stayed in BRD and control

pots. Pots fitted with BRDs led to far fewer initial entries (71 entries in BRD pots; 127 entries in control pots without The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not

(12)

funnels). However, the average time spent in control pots without funnels was 1.57 ± 0.78 hours, whereas the average time spent in pots fitted with red BRDs was 7.96 ± 1.86 hours.

Objective: To test biodegradable panels for peeler pots, two commercial watermen will modify thirty peeler pots with biodegradable panels to test whether the panels affect catch and to monitor biodegradation rates.

In the spring sample, both locations showed no significant adverse impact on peeler crab catch (site 1, York River, p<0.05, N = 480, total crabs = 1,975; total crabs in the experimental pots = 1,160 and total crabs in the standard pots = 815, average catch per pot for experimental pots = 4.8; average catch per pot for standard pots = 3.4. Site 2, Seaside Eastern Shore, p<0.05, N = 240, total crabs 1,933; total crabs in the experimental pots = 987 and total crabs in the standard pots = 946, average catch per pot for experimental pots = 8.2; average catch per pot for standard pots = 7.9). In the summer sample (site 2, Seaside Eastern Shore only), there was no significant adverse impact on peeler crab catch (p<0.05, N = 107, total crabs = 543; total crabs in the experimental pots = 265 and total crabs in the standard pots = 278, average catch per pot for experimental pots = 4.5; average catch per pot for standard pots = 4.8).

In the late summer/early fall sample, both locations showed no significant adverse impact on peeler crab catch (site 1, York River, p<0.05, N = 400, total crabs = 812; total crabs in the experimental pots = 424 and total crabs in the standard pots = 388, average catch per pot for experimental pots = 2.1; average catch per pot for standard pots = 1.9. Site 2, Seaside Eastern Shore, p<0.05, N = 175, total crabs 696; total crabs in the experimental pots = 349 and total crabs in the standard pots = 347, average catch per pot for experimental pots = 3.9; average catch per pot for standard pots = 4.0).

The biodegradable escape panels on active peeler pots lost an average of 2.7% weight during the experiment (between ½ to 1 month of active fishing). This compares to weight loss of 13.1%, 26.1%, 32.9%, and 36.6% for peeler pot

biodegradable escape panels on pots that were left in the water for 118, 190, and 404, and 411 days, respectively, to simulate derelict pots. Eighty four percent of the biodegradable escape panels on simulated derelict pots had broken after 190 days of submergence.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of these seawater lab experiments coupled with the results from field trials leads to the following conclusions. BRDs are effective at reducing terrapin bycatch, as has been shown for many prior studies. Further, red BRDs do not seem to reduce the crab harvest or have a large effect on crab size. The mechanism leading to this apparent lack of an effect, however, is complex. BRDs do seem to decrease the rate at which crabs enter pots, relative to pots without BRDs. BRDs also appear to decrease the rate of escape of captured crabs, relative to pots without BRDs. However, the decreased escape rate of crabs from pots equipped with BRDs can exacerbate crab mortality in lost or abandoned pots. The potential increased mortality of crabs in abandoned or lost pots could be reduced by the addition of biodegradable escape panels.

The outcome of the peeler crab pot field experiments leads to the following conclusions. Inclusion of the biodegradable escape panels in peeler pots showed no significant adverse effects on the catch of peeler crabs at either site or during any season. Biodegradable escape panels used during regular fishing operations remained intact while biodegradable escape panels placed on pots to simulate derelict pot conditions lost an average of 32.9% weight and broke or cracked after 190 days of submergence. Incorporation of biodegradable escape panels in peeler pots should have no adverse impact on peeler harvest while providing a mechanism for escape for trapped crabs should the pots become lost.

Literature Cited

Baldwin, J., & Johnsen, S. (2009). The importance of color in mate choice of the blue crab Callinectes sapidus. Journal of Experimental Biology, 212(22), 3762-3768.

Baldwin, J., & Johnsen, S. (2012). The male blue crab, Callinectes sapidus, uses both chromatic and achromatic cues during mate choice. The Journal of experimental biology, 215(7), 1184-1191.

Bilkovic, D.M., Havens, K.J., Stanhope, D.M., & Angstadt, K.T. (2012). The use of fully biodegradable panels to reduce derelict pot threats to marine fauna. Conservation Biology 26 (6): 957-966. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing

the opinions or policies of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

(13)

Bilkovic, D.M., Havens, K.J., Stanhope, D.M., & Angstadt, K.T. (2014). Derelict fishing gear in Chesapeake Bay, Virginia: Spatial patterns and implications for marine fauna, Mar. Pollution Bulletin 80: 114-123.

Bishop, J. M. (1983). Incidental capture of diamondback terrapin by crab pots. Estuaries, 6(4), 426-430.

Butler, J.A., G.L. Heinrich, and R.A. Seigel. (2006). Third workshop on the ecology, status and conservation of diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin): Results and recommendations. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 5: 331 – 334

Butler, J. A., & Heinrich, G. L. (2007). The effectiveness of bycatch reduction devices on crab pots at reducing capture and mortality of diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) in Florida. Estuaries and Coasts, 30(1), 179-185.

Chambers, R.M. and J. Maerz. (In press). Terrapin bycatch in blue crab fisheries. In: Ecology and Conservation of the Diamond- backed Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) (W.M. Roosenburg and V.S. Kennedy, eds). Hopkins University Press.

Dominy, A. E. (2015). Modeling underwater visual ability and varied color expression in the diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) in relation to potential mate preference by females (Doctoral dissertation, Drexel University).

Dorcas, M. E., Willson, J. D., & Gibbons, J. W. (2007). Crab trapping causes population decline and demographic changes in diamondback terrapins over two decades. Biological Conservation, 137(3), 334-340.

Grosse, A. M., Dijk, J. D., Holcomb, K. L., & Maerz, J. C. (2009). Diamondback terrapin mortality in crab pots in a Georgia tidal marsh. Journal Information, 8(1).

Guillory, V. (2001). Blue crab derelict traps and trap removal programs (pp. 1-10). Ocean Springs, Mississippi: Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Hart, K. M., & Crowder, L. B. (2011). Mitigating by‐catch of diamondback terrapins in crab pots. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75(2), 264-272.

Havens, K. J., Bilkovic, D. M., Stanhope, D., Angstadt, K., & Hershner, C. (2008). The effects of derelict blue crab traps on marine organisms in the lower York River, Virginia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 28(4), 1194-1200.

Havens, K. J., Bilkovic, D. M., Stanhope, D., & Angstadt, K. (2011). Fishery failure, unemployed commercial fishers, and lost blue crab pots: an unexpected success story. Environ. Sci. Policy 14(4): 445-450.

Hoyle, M. E., & Gibbons, J. W. (2000). Use of a Marked Population of Diamondback Terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) to Determine Impacts of Recreational Crab Pots. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 3(4), 735-737.

Hines, A. H., Lipcius, R. N., & Haddon, A. M. (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 Progress Series, 36(1), 55-64.

Isdell, R.E., Chambers, R.M., Bilkovic, D.M. & Leu, M. (2015). Effects of terrestrial-aquatic connectivity on an estuarine turtle. Diversity and Distributions 21 (6): 643-653.

Kennedy, V.S., Oesterling, M., Van Engel, W.A. (2007). History of blue crab fisheries on the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. In: Kennedy, V., Cronin, I. (Eds.), The Blue Crab: Callinectes sapidus. Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, pp. 655-709.

Morris, A. S., Wilson, S. M., Dever, E. F., & Chambers, R. M. (2011). A test of bycatch reduction devices on commercial crab pots in a tidal marsh creek in Virginia. Estuaries and Coasts, 34(2), 386-390.

Rook, M. A., Lipcius, R. N., Bronner, B. M., & Chambers, R. M. (2010). Bycatch reduction device conserves diamondback terrapin without affecting catch of blue crab. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 409, 171-179.

Roosenburg, W. M. (1991). The diamondback terrapin: population dynamics, habitat requirements, and opportunities for conservation. In Proceedings of a Conference: New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A Research and Management Partnership Publication (No. 137, pp. 227-234).

Roosenburg, W. M., Cresko, W., Modesitte, M., & Robbins, M. B. (1997). Diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) mortality in crab pots. Conservation Biology, 1166-1172.

Roosenburg, W. M., & Green, J. P. (2000). Impact of a bycatch reduction device on diamondback terrapin and blue crab capture in crab pots. Ecological Applications, 10(3), 882-889.

Roosenburg, W. M. (2004). The impact of crab pot fisheries on terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) populations: where are we and where do we need to go. In Conservation and Ecology of Turtles of the Mid-Atlantic Region: A Symposium, Salt Lake City, UT (pp. 23-30). Wood, R. C. (1997). The impact of commercial crab traps on northern diamondback terrapins, Malaclemys terrapin. In Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles-An International Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 21-27). New York: New York Turtle and Tortoise Society.

3. Lessons Learned

Describe the key lessons learned from this project, such as the least and most effective conservation practices or notable aspects of the project’s methods, monitoring, or results. How could other conservation organizations adapt similar strategies to build upon some of these key lessons about what worked best and what did not?

The key lesson learned is involving local fishers in these types of projects as they provide a wealth of local knowledge.

(14)

4. Dissemination

Briefly identify any dissemination of project results and/or lessons learned to external audiences, such as the public or other conservation organizations. Specifically outline any management uptake and/or actions resulting from the project and describe the direct impacts of any capacity building activities.

The project was presented at the Coastal Estuarine Research Federation symposium in Portland, Oregon and is presently being formatted for a peer-review article. The work was also presented at the NOAA Marine Debris Reduction Plan Workshop at the Smithsonian Estuarine Research Center in Edgewater, MD I June 2015. This work has resulted in collaborative proposals with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources for US Fish & Wildlife State Wildlife Competitive Grant Program funds. In addition, information from this project will be included on the VIMS website http://ccrm.vims.edu/research/mapping_surveying/terrapin/index.html

CERF Poster

5. Project Documents

Include in your final programmatic report, via the Uploads section of this task, the following:

 2-10 representative photos from the project. Photos need to have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi. For each uploaded photo, provide a photo credit and brief description below;

 Report publications, Power Point (or other) presentations, GIS data, brochures, videos, outreach tools, press releases, media coverage;

 Any project deliverables per the terms of your grant agreement.

POSTING OF FINAL REPORT: This report and attached project documents may be shared by the Foundation and any Funding Source for the Project via their respective websites. In the event that the Recipient intends to claim that its final report or project documents contains material that does not have to be posted on such websites because it is protected from disclosure by statutory or regulatory provisions, the Recipient shall clearly mark all such potentially protected materials as “PROTECTED” and provide an explanation and complete citation to the statutory or regulatory source for such protection.