903R94021
CBP/TRS 122/94
December 1994
Chesapeake Bay
and Atlantic Coast
Horseshoe Crab
Fishery Management Plan
TD
225
.C54
H673
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fujon III !r formation Resource
Center (JPM52)
?M Chestnut St-cet
Phcociobiiio, PA 19107
Agreement Commitment Report 1994
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed on
Recycled Paper
-------
Regional Center foi Environmental Information
US EPA Region III
11,50 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast
Horseshoe Crab
Fishery Management Plan
Agreement Commitment Report
U S. Eiwisoamental Protection Agency
Region HI Information Resource
Certsr (3PM52)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
October 1994
Edited By Nancy H. Butowski
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Adoption Statement
We, the undersigned, adopt the 1994 Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Horseshoe
Crab Fishery Management Plan, as a continuing effort to fulfill the Living Resources
Commitment of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
We agree to accept the Horseshoe Crab Plan as a guide to protecting the resource in the
Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast, insuring its continued role in the ecology of coastal
ecosystems, and providing for its commercial, recreational and medical usage over time We
further agree to work together to implement, by the dates set forth in the Plan, the management
actions recommended to address its ecological value, stock status, the fishery, and habitat
considerations.
We recognize the need for long-term, stable financial support and human resources for the
task of enhancing the horseshoe crab resource. In addition, we direct the Living Resources
Subcommittee to review and update the Horseshoe Crab Plan yearly and to prepare an annual
report addressing the progress made in achieving the Plan's management recommendations
Signatures
For the Commonwealth of Virginia
For the State of Maryland
For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
For the United Slates of America
For the District of Columbia
For the Chesapeake Bay Commission
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' iii
THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS iv
SECTION 1. BIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 1
Biological Profile 4
The Fishery 5
Habitat Issues 11
Stock Status 12
Current Laws and Regulations 12
References 14
SECTION 2. HORSESHOE CRAB MANAGEMENT 16
Goal and Objectives 16
Ecological Value 16
Stock Status 18
The Fishery 18
The Habitat 19
Implementation Matrix 21
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Horseshoe crab landings from the NE Atlantic region,
1962-1992 7
2. Dockside value of horseshoe crabs from the NE region,
1962-1992 8
3. Maryland commercial horseshoe crab landings and dockside
value 9
4. Virginia commercial horseshoe crab landings and dockside
value 10
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast Horseshoe Crab Fishery
Management Plan was developed under the direction of the Fisheries
Management Plan Workgroup. Staff from the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR), Tidewater Administration, Fisheries
Division were responsible for writing the plan and addressing
comments on the draft versions. Support was provided by staff from
the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC). Thanks are due to
members of the Living Resources Subcommittee, the Virginia Finfish
Subcommittee, and to the public who reviewed and commented on the
plan.
Members of the Fisheries Management Workgroup were:
Mr. K.A. Carpenter, Potomac River Fisheries Commission
Mr. James O. Drummond, Maryland citizen representative
Mr. William Goldsborough, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Dr. Edward Houde, UMCEES/Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
Mr. W. Pete Jensen, Chair, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Dr. R. Jesien, Horn Point Environmental Lab
Dr. Ron Klauda, MDNR, Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring
Ms. Anne Lange, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office
Mr. Richard Novotny, Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen's Assoc.
Mr. Ed O'Brien, Maryland Charter Boat Association
Mr. Ira Palmer, D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Dr. Carl N. Shuster, Jr., Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Mr. Larry Simns, Maryland Watermen's Association
Ms. Benjie Lynn Swan, Limuli Laboratories
Mr. Jack Travelstead, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
Ms. Mary Roe Walkup, Citizen's Advisory Committee
Col. Franklin I. Wood, MDNR Natural Resources Police
Staff to the Fisheries Management Workgroup were:
Ms. Nancy Butowski, MDNR
Mr. James Casey, MDNR
Ms. Sonya Davis, VMRC
Mr. Lewis Gillingham, VMRC
Mr. Roy Insley, VMRC
Mr. Thomas O'Connell, MDNR
Ms. Ellen Smoller, VMRC
Mr. Harley Speir, MDNR
Mr. Alan Weishe, MDNR
-------
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 baywide fishery management plans (FMPs) for
commercially, recreationally, and selected ecologically valuable
species. The FMPs are to be implemented by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of Virginia, District of Columbia,
Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and State of Maryland as
appropriate. The original FMP development schedule was amended to
include horseshoe crabs with a completion date of 1994. The
Horseshoe Crab FMP was drafted by staff from the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) with support from the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) staff. A FMP workgroup
consisting of members from government agencies, the academic
community, the fishing industry and public interest groups reviewed
and commented on the plan. The management plan contains a summary
of the fishery under consideration, a discussion of problems and
issues that have arisen, and recommended management actions.
Goal and Objectives
The goal of the Horseshoe Crab Fishery Management Plan is:
Protect the horseshoe crab resource in the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast to insure
its continued role in the ecology of coastal ecosystems, while providing the opportunity
for commercial, recreational and medical usage over time.
In order to meet this goal, a number of objectives must be met.
These objectives are incorporated into the areas of concern and
management strategies summarized below.
Areas of Concern and Management Strategies
Ecological Value: Horseshoe crabs play an important ecological role
in the food web. Adult horseshoe crabs are a major item in the diet
of juvenile loggerhead turtles. Several shorebird species rely on
horseshoe crab eggs to replenish their fat supply on their way to
Canadian breeding grounds. Horseshoe crab eggs are also a
seasonally preferred food item of several finfish species. The
jurisdictions will protect the ecological role of horseshoe crabs
by protecting horseshoe crab spawning areas and monitoring harvest.
The hand collection of horseshoe crabs from beaches, and the
trawling, scraping and dredging of crabs from the Bay and within 1
mile of the coast, will be prohibited in Maryland from May 1
through June 7. Virginia will prohibit the hand collection of
horseshoe crabs during the same time period and continue their ban
on trawling in state waters.
111
-------
Stock Status: The present status of the horseshoe crab stock is
unclear. The stock was relatively stable between 1975 and 1983.
Neither commercial exploitation nor medical usage have changed
significantly over the last 9 years. Recent spawning stock
estimates and fishery independent trawl data from Delaware indicate
a drop in the number of horseshoe crabs. There is a need to obtain
better information on horseshoe crab population dynamics. The
jurisdictions will coordinate with Delaware and develop a spawning
stock census in the Chesapeake Bay region which will serve as the
basis for determining management recommendations as appropriate.
The Fishery: Current levels of commercial harvest along the
northeastern Atlantic coast are approximately 1.0 million pounds.
Horseshoe crabs are commercially harvested for use as eel, conch,
and catfish bait. Crabs are also used for medical research and bled
to obtain Limulus amoebocyte lysate, a clotting agent used to
detect human pathogens in drugs. Horseshoe crabs are vulnerable to
overfishing because of their late maturity (9-11 years), their
dependence on coastal and bay spawning beaches, the selective
nature of the bait fishery for egg-bearing females, and their
seasonally abundant, inshore spawning aggregations. The
jurisdictions will monitor the commercial and medical harvest of
horseshoe crabs and improve the quality of data obtained from the
commercial fishery.
The Habitat: Horseshoe crabs are generalists and not as severely
restricted by environmental conditions as many other aquatic
species. Protected beach areas are essential habitat for horseshoe
crab spawning. Activities which impact spawning areas will have a
negative impact on the horseshoe crab population. The jurisdictions
will define and protect horseshoe cr.ab spawning areas, and work to
define water quality requirements.
IV
-------
THE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS
What is a fishery management plan?
A Chesapeake Bay fishery management plan provides a framework
for the Bay jurisdictions to take compatible, coordinated
management measures to conserve and utilize a fishery resource. A
management plan includes pertinent background information,
management strategies, recommended actions, and an implementation
date.
A fishery management plan is not an endpoint in the management
of a fishery but part of a dynamic, changing process consisting of
several steps. The first step consists of analyzing the complex
biological, economic and social aspects of a particular finfish or
shellfish fishery. The second step includes defining the concerns
of a fishery, identifying potential solutions, and choosing
appropriate management strategies. Once specific goals have been
defined, it is important to measure progress towards meeting the
goals, establish accountability and engage the general public.
Plans must be adaptive and flexible to meet the changing needs of
a particular resource. They are annually reviewed and updated in
order to respond to the most current information on the fishery.
Management Plan Background
As part of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement's commitment to
protect and manage the natural resources of the Chesapeake Bay, the
Bay jurisdictions developed a series of fishery management plans
for commercially, recreationally, and selected ecologically
valuable species. A comprehensive and coordinated approach by the
various local, state and federal groups in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed is necessary for successful fishery management. Bay
fisheries are traditionally managed separately by Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission. There is also a federal Mid-Atlantic fishery
Management Council (MAFMC) which has management jurisdiction for
offshore fisheries (3-200 miles), and a coastwide organization, the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), which
coordinates the management of migratory species in state waters
(internal waters to 3 miles offshore) from Maine to Florida.
A Fisheries Management Workgroup, under the auspices of the
Chesapeake Bay Program's Living Resources Subcommittee, was formed
to develop baywide fishery management plans. The workgroup's
members represent fishery management agencies from the District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the Potomac River Fisheries
Commission, Virginia, and the federal government; the Bay area
academic community; the fishing industry; conservation groups; and
interested citizens. Establishing Chesapeake Bay FMPs, in addition
to coastal FMPs, creates a forum to specifically address problems
v
-------
that are unique to the Chesapeake Bay. They also serve as the basis
for implementing regulations in the Bay jurisdictions.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Fishery Management Planning Process
The planning process starts with initial input by the
Fisheries Management Workgroup and development of a draft plan.
This is followed by a review of the management proposals by Bay
Program committees, other scientists and resource managers, and the
public. Comments are incorporated into a final draft of the
management plan. It is endorsed by the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Living Resources Subcommittee (LRSC), the Implementation Committee
(1C) , and the Principal Staff Committee (PSC). Finally, the plan is
sent to the Executive Council (EC) for adoption.
Upon adoption by the EC, the appropriate management agencies
implement the plan. In 1990, the Maryland legislature approved
Section 4-215 of the Natural Resource Article giving the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources authority to regulate a fishery
once a FMP has been adopted by regulation. In Virginia, FMP
recommendations are pursued either by legislative changes or
through a public regulatory process conducted by the Commission. A
periodic review of each FMP is ' conducted by the Fisheries
Management Workgroup to incorporate new information and to update
management strategies as needed.
The first group of fishery management plans was completed in
1989. Additional plans have been completed each year encompassing
16 finfish and shellfish species. With time and changes, it became
apparent that a substantive review of each FMP at regular intervals
would be necessary. The FMP workgroup developed a review schedule
to upgrade each plan (Table 1) . The revised FMP must be sent
through the regular Chesapeake Bay Program's fishery management
planning and adoption process. Since the major review schedule
extends over a 5-year period, important minor changes are addressed
through an amendment procedure. This entails developing a
description of the proposed changes and sending it through the FMP
workgroup for endorsement. The amendment must be published for
public comment and reviewed by the LRSC and the 1C for their
comment and approval. The PSC has been given authority by the EC to
approve amendment changes.
VI
-------
Table 1. Schedule for reviewing fishery management plans
SPECIES
Shad/Herring
Blue Crab
Oysters
Striped Bass
Weakf ish/ Seatrout
Bluef ish
Croaker /Spot
American Eel
Summer Flounder
Black Drum
Red Drum
Catfish
Mackerel
Black Sea Bass
Tautog
Horseshoe Crabs
ADOPTION
DATE
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1991
1991
1991
1993
1993
July 1995
1994
July 1995
December
1995
1994
REVIEW DATE
June 1995
1994
1994
August 1995
March 1996
June 1995
1996.
1996
March 1996
1997
2000
1998
2000
2000
1999
Vll
-------
Section 1. Biological Background
Horseshoe crabs, Limulus polyphemus. are benthic or bottom-
dwelling organisms that utilize both estuarine and continental
shelf habitats. The horseshoe crab belongs to the largest group of
all living animals, the phylum known as arthropods. This group
includes insects, spiders, scorpions and crabs. Although it is
called a "crab," it is not a true crab. Crabs have two pairs of
antennae, a pair of mandibles or jaws, and five pairs of legs.
Horseshoe crabs lack antennae and mandibles and have seven pairs of
legs (chelicera, 5 pairs of ambulatory/gustatory legs, and
chilaria). The presence of chelicera and book gills, and lack of
jaws and antennae make horseshoe crabs more similar to spiders and
scorpions than to "true" crabs. There are three genera and four
species which comprise the living members of the subclass
Xiphosura. Of these living species, Limulus is the only member
common to the northwestern Atlantic'coast and Gulf of Mexico. All
the other members (Tachypleus tridentatus, T. gigas, and
Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda) are found along the Asian coast from
Japan and Korea south through the East Indies and Philippines.
Serological data from three of the four extant species indicates
they are con-generic (Shuster 1962). Horseshoe crabs are the
closest living relatives of trilobites and their external
appearance has remained relatively unchanged over the last 360
million years.
Limulus ranges from the Yucatan peninsula to northern Maine.
Each major estuary along the coast is believed to have a discrete
horseshoe crab population (Shuster 1979). These populations can be
distinguished from one another by adult size, carapace color, and
eye pigmentation. They can also be distinguished by their
serological responses and through protein electrophoresis (Cohen
1979). Along the Atlantic coast, horseshoe crabs are most abundant
between Virginia and New Jersey with Delaware Bay at the center of
the species distribution. Within Delaware Bay, the largest
concentration of horseshoe crabs is found along the Cape May shore
of New Jersey (Shuster and Botton 1985). Although populations are
believed to be discrete from estuary to estuary, gene flow between
Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay populations is probable. Adult
horseshoe crabs have been found as far as 56 kilometers offshore.
This distribution pattern would allow an overlap between Delaware
and Chesapeake individuals.
Horseshoe crabs are well known for their highly visible mating
activities. Migrating adults move inshore from deep bay and coastal
waters in late spring to spawn. Inshore movement appears to be
related to lengthening daylight hours. Spawning in the Chesapeake
and Delaware areas usually begins during the latter part of May
when large numbers of horseshoe crabs move onto beaches to mate and
lay eggs. The peak in spawning activity usually coincides with the
full moon and evening spring tides. Adults prefer beach areas
-------
within bays and coves which are protected from surf. Spawning areas
are limited by the availability of sandy beach habitat. Wave height
also affects spawning activity with rough water (waves over 12")
preventing spawning. Eggs are laid in clusters or nest sites along
the beach, usually between the tide marks. In a Delaware study, the
average number of eggs per cluster was 3,650 (Shuster and Botton
1985). Several nests are made during one beach trip and females
will return on successive tides to lay more eggs. Fecundity, the
total number of eggs per female per year, is approximately 88,000
(Shuster 1982). Egg development is dependent on temperature,
moisture and oxygen and usually takes a month or more. Upon
hatching, the larvae are motile and spend about a week swimming
around until they settle to the bottom and molt. Although there is
the possibility of wide dispersion during the free-swimming period,
most larvae settle in shallow, intertidal areas near the beaches
where they were spawned. There is some evidence from a Maryland
geological core survey that small horseshoe crabs bury themselves
in intermittently submergent shoal areas in the coastal bays (J.
Casey, pers. comm.). Juvenile horseshoe crabs generally spend their
first and second summer on the intertidal flats (Shuster 1982).
Only 1 juvenile (horseshoe crabs between 1" and 5" carapace width)
has been caught in Maryland's coastal bay area in over 20 years of
trawling and seining. Juvenile crabs have been observed in the
Chesapeake Bay but more information-is needed on this life stage.
Older crabs move out of intertidal areas and are found several
kilometers offshore except during breeding migrations (Botton and
Ropes 1987a).
Limited data on the distribution and abundance of horseshoe
crabs in the Chesapeake Bay exist but are largely unpublished.
Horseshoe crabs are present year-round near the mouth of the Bay
and have been documented in the Rappahannock River, the Miles
River, Eastern Bay, the Chester and Choptank rivers. Horseshoe crab
exoskeletons are a common occurrence on Bay beaches north of the
Bay bridges. Spawning has been observed around the mouth of the
Patuxent River (H. Hornick, MDNR, pers. comm.) and probably occurs
in other areas throughout the Bay. Spawning areas in the Bay have
not been well documented because spawning does not occur in easily
observed, large concentrations and prime spawning habitat is
scattered throughout the Bay (Shuster 1985). Horseshoe crabs have
been observed spawning in the coastal bay areas in early June (J.
Casey, MDNR, pers. comm.). Horseshoe crab eggs and developing young
have been found subtidally, in the sandy substrate in the Isle of
Wight Bay during May and June (A. Wesche, MDNR, pers. comm.).
In order to grow, the horseshge crab must molt or shed its
chitinous exoskeleton. Molting occurs several times during the
first two to three years. As the horseshoe crab grows larger there
is more and more time between molts. It usually takes at least 16
to 17 molts to reach sexual maturity over a period of 9 to 12
years. Males develop specialized clasping claws during their final
molt for holding the female during reproduction. Females reach
-------
maturity one year later than males and consequently, go through an
additional molting stage. Once sexual maturity is reached,
horseshoe crabs no longer molt and can live an average of 14 to 18
years in the northern part of their range. Adult horseshoe crabs
feed mainly on marine worms and shellfish including razor clams and
soft-shell clams (Shuster 1950, Botton 1984). Because they lack
jaws, horseshoe crabs crush and grind their food items using the
spiny bases of their legs then push the small food particles into
their mouths. Horseshoe crabs can tolerate a wide range of
temperatures and have special physiological processes that enable
them to survive low oxygen environments. Adult horseshoe crabs have
been found burrowed into anoxic muds on intertidal flats at low
tide but spawning adults will avoid anaerobic sediments in beach
areas (Botton et al. 1988). They can move out of the water during
spawning and survive extended periods of time out of the water if
their book gills are kept moist. Effects of temperature on Limulus
were reported by Shuster (1978) from Mayer (1914). Mayer observed
differences in thermal response between specimens collected from
northern and southern locations. Limulus from Florida could
tolerate warmer temperatures (46.3°C) than Limulus from
Massachusetts (41°C) . Maximum activity was reported at 41°C for
Florida individuals and 38°C for Massachusetts individuals.
Horseshoe crabs play an important ecological role in the food
web for migrating shorebirds and juvenile Atlantic loggerhead
turtles (Botton 1983, Keinath et al. 1987). Delaware Bay is the
principal breeding location for horseshoe crabs and is also the
second largest staging area for shorebirds in North America.
Migratory shorebirds arrive in Delaware Bay and Maryland's Atlantic
coast at the peak of horseshoe crab mating in mid-May and June and
typically spend two weeks in the area. At least 20 species of
migratory birds rely on horseshoe crab eggs to replenish their fat
supply during their trip to Canadian breeding grounds. The food
supply provided by the eggs has been estimated at 320 tons
(Delaware Dept. of Nat. Res. 1987) . The importance of this feeding
area has been recognized by Delaware and New Jersey and,
consequently, twenty-five miles of shoreline have been set aside as
a reserve for shorebirds and horseshoe crabs. The reserve is the
first in a proposed International Shorebird Reserve System. Eleven
sites have been identified as critical stop-over areas used by
shorebirds during their flights between southern wintering sites
and northern breeding grounds. Beca'use these areas are regularly
used by large numbers of shorebirds at specific times of the year,
they are particularly vulnerable to disruption. The collection of
horseshoe crabs by hand from spawning beaches disturbs the feeding
of shorebirds. A decrease in the number of horseshoe crabs would
leave a large portion of migrating shorebirds without the necessary
food resources to complete their trip to the breeding grounds.
Adult horseshoe crabs also form a significant part of the diet
of juvenile Atlantic loggerhead turtle, a threatened species that
-------
utilizes the Chesapeake Bay as a summer nursery area (Keinath et
al. 1987, Lutcavage and Musick 1985). Horseshoe crab eggs and
larvae are also a seasonally preferred food item of invertebrates
and finfish. All crab species and .several gastropods, including
whelks, feed on horseshoe crabs. In the Delaware River from May
through August, striped bass and white perch eat horseshoe crab
eggs. Eggs and larvae are also eaten by American eels, killifish,
silver perch, weakfish, kingfish, silversides, summer flounder and
winter flounder (Shuster 1982).
Biological Profile
Spawning and Larval Development
Spawning season:
Spawning area:
Location:
Juveniles
Location:
Salinity:
Temperature:
Dissolved oxygen:
Varies latitudinally but in the Delaware
Bay area, generally peaks in late May-
June during the high tide and full moon.
Have been observed spawning in the
Maryland coastal bay areas in early June.
Center of abundance is in Delaware Bay
with adults occurring as far north as
Maine and as far south as the Gulf coast
of Florida and the Yucatan peninsula.
Protected sandy beaches between
marks within bays and coves.
tide
Inhabit intertidal and shallow waters
associated with tidal marshes, usually
near breeding beaches. They move further
and further from the beaches with
increasing age.
Can tolerate lower salinities than
adults, 5 ppt to 32 ppt. (Shuster 1982).
Can withstand a wide range of
temperatures, probably similar to adults,
15-40°C (Shuster 1982) .
Specific oxygen requirements have not
been cited in the literature. The rate of
oxygen consumption is inversely related
to body weight, thus smaller animals have
a greater oxygen consumption than larger
ones (Shuster 1982).
-------
Adults
Location:
Fecundity:
Age at maturity:
Longevity:
Age Estimate:
Temperature:
Salinity:
Dissolved oxygen:
Fishery
In the Chesapeake Bay, coastal bays and
several kilometers offshore except during
breeding migrations.
88,000 eggs per female
9 to 12 years
14 to 18 years
Since adults do not molt, the appearance
of the carapace is a general indicator of
age. With increasing age, carapace
abrasion from sand-abrasive environments
and abundance of epibionts changes.
Epibionts are organisms that attach to
the shell and include crustaceans
(barnacles), coelenterates (jellyfish),
mollusks, and algae. Based on this
information, the following age estimates
can be made:
9-10 years old—clean, lustrous carapace;
10-15 years old—moderate erosion of
carapace usually with epibionts;
15+ years—carapace nearly or entirely
blackened; with epibionts (These darkened
individuals are preferred as bait by
watermen).
15-40°C with an optimum between 25-30°C
Usual range is from 11 to 31 ppt but
encounter salinities up to 35 ppt on the
continental shelf.
Specific oxygen requirements have not
been cited in the literature. Given the
horseshoe crabs physiology, it is assumed
they can survive low oxygen environments.
Spawning adults will avoid anoxic
sediments.
Historical records (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries) from the
Delaware Bay indicate that commercial horseshoe crab landings were
over 4.0 million crabs in the 1800's. By the 1920's the harvest had
dropped to 1.8 million and continued to decline. During the 1940's
and 1950's, horseshoe crab stocks were exhausted and brought a low
-------
dockside value. Historically, horseshoe crabs were harvested for
fertilizers and poultry and livestock food. Currently, horseshoe
crabs are commercially harvested for use as eel, conch, and catfish
bait along the Atlantic coast. The bait eel fishery prefers female
horseshoe crabs with eggs. Commercial harvest from the northeastern
Atlantic coast has ranged between 10,000 pounds and 2.0 million
pounds over the last thirty years (Figure 1). Since 1988,
commercial landings have averaged 950,000 pounds. The commercial
statistics are based on an average weight of 4 pounds per horseshoe
crab. Reported dockside value from the northeastern Atlantic coast
has ranged between $300 (1967) and $132,000 (1989) (Figure 2).
Fishery statistics probably underestimate the catch of horseshoe
crabs because the sale of crabs for bait is often arranged between
private individuals rather than through centralized dealers (Botton
and Ropes 1987b).
Maryland has been responsible for harvesting between 23% and
78% of the total commercial catch of horseshoe crabs from the
northeastern Atlantic coast since 1980 (Figure 1) . The Maryland
harvest comes from a small directed ocean fishery and bycatch from
the clam fishery. Between 1978 and 1992, the commercial harvest of
horseshoe crabs has ranged between 50,000 pounds (1984) and 746,000
pounds (1989) with a 10 year average of 357,000 pounds. Preliminary
1993 landings indicate Maryland harvest has increased to 1.0
million pounds. Reported dockside value has ranged between $1000
(1977) and $121,000 (1993) (Figure 3). In the last 10 years, over
half of the commercial catch was reported between August and
October when adult horseshoe crabs are migrating offshore. Over 33%
of the catch was reported between April and May as horseshoe crabs
are moving into beach areas to spawn. Historically, horseshoe crabs
have been caught by clam dredges, otter trawls and hand clam rakes.
In Maryland, most of the horseshoe crab harvest is taken by otter
trawls. Currently, trawling is banned in the Chesapeake Bay and
within 1 mile of the Maryland coast. In Virginia, the commercial
harvest of horseshoe crabs averaged 190,000 pounds between 1980 and
1988. Since the ban on trawling within state waters (to 3 miles
offshore) was implemented in 1989,- horseshoe crab landings have
decreased considerably with landings averaging 22,000 pounds .
Reported dockside value has ranged between $200 (1976) and $26,000
(1987) (Figure 4). To date, Virginia has limited their conch pot
fishery to 20 permits which limits the amount of horseshoe crabs
used for baiting pots.
Horseshoe crabs have been an important animal for medical
research. Scientists have used horseshoe crabs in eye research,
surgical sutures and wound dressing development, and detection of
bacteria in drugs. The discovery of Limulus amoebocyte lysate
(LAL) , a clotting agent in horseshoe crab blood, has made it
possible to detect human pathogens like spinal meningitis and
gonorrhea in patients and in drugs. Any drug produced by a
pharmaceutical company must pass an LAL test. In order to obtain
LAL, manufacturing companies catch large horseshoe crabs and bleed
-------
E
2CM
- O)
CO O)
D)
O)
LL
(D
o en
CD S^
o
81
co J5
o <
CD
LLI
Q
2
i
03
4-»
03
T3
CO
LL
E
o
-------
§CM
w
0
2 c\i
O CD
C O)
O
"
§
O LU
O
CM
0) V)
&"§
il o
03
-------
CD
O
CO
CO
CD
CD
CO J
O CO
CO
0
E
c
1"°
O
"O (/)
0)
LL
CM
O)
O)
O
O)
O)
CO
oo
O)
CO
CD
C\J
CO
O)
O
CO
O)
CO
N,
O)
co
CD
CO
O)
C
•5
C
CC
O
_a
03
>
O
•u
'co
^d
O
O
Q
CO
TJ
CO
LJ_
E
o
-------
CD
O
CO _
o g
_ CD
o co
0 -
E
E
o
o
j£
.Q
05
D)
LL
CM
O)
O>
O
O)
00
00
o>
CO
00
O)
00
O)
CM
00
O)
o
00
i i i r i
oooooooo
ID O lO O LO O lO
CO CO CM CM T- T-
03
CO
CO
CO
O)
c
T3
c
03
Q)
"cd
CD
'co
o
o
Q
I
OJ
+-•
03
CO
c
CD
v_
Q.
CO
o>
O)
•a
CO
E
o
10
-------
them. The extracted blood is centrifuged to separate the
amoebocytes from the blood plasma, freeze-dried and processed for
pharmaceutical uses. In 1989, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) reported 130,000 horseshoe crabs were bled for the production
of LAL. Although the exact number of horseshoe crabs bled by each
company is considered confidential information, the current
estimate of medical usage is 200,000 horseshoe crabs (B. Swan,
pers. comm.). There is a mandated conservation measure by the FDA
requiring the return of bled horseshoe crabs to the environment.
Although the adults are released alive, they have approximately a
10% greater mortality than unbled horseshoe crabs (Rudloe 1983).
Horseshoe crabs caught for medical use comprise an additional
source of mortality and are not included in the commercial catch
statistics.
Habitat Issues
Since horseshoe crabs undertake inshore and offshore
migrations, they are potentially affected by environmental
degradations in both estuarine and oceanic habitats. Activities
which alter protected sandy beaches will ultimately have a negative
impact on the horseshoe crab population since these areas are used
for spawning. Many of the sites utilized by horseshoe crabs and
shorebirds are also utilized by man. The rate at which coastal
wetlands and beach areas are lost is directly related to the
density of human population (Gosselink and Baumann 1980). Coastal
land development and beach erosion 'practices such as bulkheading
and placing rip-rap, alter beach topography and make beaches
unsuitable for spawning. Beach replenishment activities may also
have an effect on horseshoe crab habitat. Tidal flat areas are
extremely important to newly-hatched larvae. Landfills and
revetment activities turn tidal flats into pebble beaches which
larvae cannot use. Channel dredging and overboard spoil disposal
could also have unknown effects. In Japan, extensive diking, polder
(an area of low-lying land that has been reclaimed from a body of
water and is protected by dikes) construction and pollution have
reduced the Japanese horseshoe crab, Tachypleus tridentatus.
population to the status of endangered species (Itow 1993) . The
Japanese horseshoe crab is ecologically similar to the American
horseshoe crab.
Water quality requirements for horseshoe crabs have not been
well defined. There is little information on the effects of toxics,
contaminants, and inorganic compounds on horseshoe crabs. Limulus
is relatively tolerant to petroleum hydrocarbons but the tolerance
decreases with increasing temperature. Horseshoe crab eggs and
juveniles exhibited delayed molting and elevated oxygen consumption
after exposure to oil and chlorinated hydrocarbons (Laughlin and
Neff 1977). A high incidence of deformities in horseshoe crab eggs
and larvae was noted in the Seto Island Sea, Japan, and related to
11
-------
elevated levels of arsenic, chromium, cadmium, lead, and mercury.
Horseshoe crabs are physiologically adapted to tolerate low oxygen
levels and can probably withstand short-term, anoxic conditions.
Stock Status
Data from the Northeast Fisheries Center (NEFC) bottom trawl
and ocean clam surveys (Georges Bank to Cape Fear, North Carolina),
indicate that horseshoe crab abundance was relatively stable
between 1975 and 1983. During this time period, the horseshoe crab
population was estimated between 2.3 and 4.5 million individuals
and the commercial fishery harvested an average of 176,000
individuals (approximately 700,000 pounds). Medical companies
utilized about 160,000 individuals which contributed an additional
10% mortality or 16,000 individuals to the total annual
exploitation. Current fishery statistics suggest that exploitation
has not increased over the last 9 years (1984-1992) with commercial
exploitation averaging 184,000 individuals or 737,000 pounds.
Medical usage has increased slightly to approximately 200,000
individuals or an additional mortality of 20,000 individuals. Mean
number of horseshoe crabs per tow from the NEFC bottom trawl survey
was greatest north and south of Delaware Bay and off the Maryland
coast (Botton and Ropes 1987b). Seasonal surveys suggest that
horseshoe crabs found between Virginia and New Jersey consist of
Chesapeake and Delaware Bay individuals.
The spawning horseshoe crab population in Delaware is
currently being monitored by an annual census which started in
1990. Recent population estimates from Delaware beach surveys
indicate a drop in horseshoe crabs from 1.2 million in 1990 and
1991 to less than 400,000 in 1992 and 1993 (Swan et al. 1991).
Spawning population estimates, however, are not statistically
robust. Trawl surveys were conducted by the Delaware Division of
Fish and Wildlife in Delaware Bay during April to December, 1990-
1993. The Delaware trawl survey indicated a decrease in catch per
unit of effort (CPUE) from 18.6 in 1990 to 3.71 in 1992. "How the
migration of adults between estuaries and the continental shelf
affect the trawl catch is unknown. Approximately 90% of the
standing stock of horseshoe crabs is located between Virginia and
New Jersey (Botton and Ropes 1987a).
Current Laws and Regulations
Virginia
There are no specific laws or regulations that pertain to horseshoe
crabs. There is a ban on trawling within state waters (up to 3
miles offshore). Most horseshoe crabs are taken by dredge as
incidental catch but some are taken directly for use as bait.
Special scientific collection permits have been issued to trawlers
to catch horseshoe crabs for medical purposes.
12
-------
Maryland
There are no specific laws or regulations that pertain to horseshoe
crabs. There is a ban on trawling within the Chesapeake Bay and
coastal bays, up to 1 mile off the Maryland Atlantic coast. There
is some directed trawling for horseshoe crabs for bait and for use
in medical research.
Delaware
Horseshoe crab regulations were adopted in January 1992 and include
the following restrictions: prohibition on the collection or
dredging of horseshoe crabs between May 1 and June 7 unless one
holds a valid scientific permit; prohibition on dredging horseshoe
crabs from leasable shellfish grounds unless it is your own leased
ground; prohibition on the possession of more than 6 horseshoe
crabs for persons under the age of 16 unless accompanied by a
person who has been issued a valid permit; a limitation on the
number of persons who may assist the holder of a commercial
collecting permit to three; prohibition on the possession of more
than 6 horseshoe crabs unless that person has a valid receipt from
a person who holds a valid horseshoe crab commercial permit; and an
exemption for commercial eel licensees from horseshoe crab limits
so long as an annual report on horseshoe crab catch is submitted to
the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and
the crabs are only used for bait.
New Jersey
Horseshoe crab regulations were implemented in May 1993 and
include: requirement of a free horseshoe crab permit in order to
harvest crabs by hand or by any lawful gear; collection of
horseshoe crabs for scientific purposes is legal so long as a
scientific collection permit is obtained; prohibition on the taking
of crabs from the Cape May Canal to Stow Creek in Cumberland County
(the area considered to be the most important horseshoe crab
spawning areas) from May 1 through June 7 except on Monday,
Wednesday and Friday from one hour after sunset until one hour
before sunrise; and a requirement for horseshoe crab harvesters to
provide monthly reports on the size of harvest, area of collection,
gear usage, and any other information the Department deems
necessary.
13
-------
References
Botton, M.L. and J.W. Ropes. 1987a. Populations of horseshoe
crabs, Limulus Polyphemus, on the northwestern Atlantic
continental shelf. Fish. Bull. 85(4):805-812.
Botton, M.L. and J.W. Ropes. 1987b. The horseshoe crab, Limulus
polyphemus, fishery and resource in the United States.
Mar.Fish. Rev. 49(3):57-61.
Botton, Mark L. 1984. Diet and food preferences of the adult
horseshoe crab, Limulus polyphemus in Delaware Bay, New
Jersey, USA. Marine Biology 81:199-207.
Botton, M.L., R.E. Loveland and T.R. Jacobsen. 1988. Beach
erosion and geochemical factors: influence on spawning success
of horseshoe crabs (Limulus polvphemus) in Delaware Bay. Mar.
Bio. 99: 325-332.
Cohen, E. (ed.). 1979. Biomedical Applications of the Horseshoe
Crab (Limulidae). Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York. 688 p.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
1987. Shorebirds and the Delaware Bay. Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, Dover, Delaware.
Gosselink, J.G. and R.H. Baumann. 1980. Wetland inventories:
Wetland loss along the Unite States coast. Z. Geomorphol. N.F.
Suppl. 34:173-187.
Itow, Tomio. 1993. Crisis in the Seto Inland Sea: The decimation
of the horseshoe crab. EMECS Newsletter No. 3:10-11.
Keinath, John A., J.A. Musick, and R.A. Byles. 1987. Aspects of
the biology of Virginia's sea turtles: 1979-1986. VA J. Sci.
38(4):329-336.
Laughlin, R.B. and J.M. Neff. 1977. Interactive effects of
temperature, salinity shock and chronic exposure to No. 2 fuel
oil on survival, development rate and respiration of the
horseshoe crab, Limulus polyphemus. In D.A. Wolff (ed), Fate
and effects of petroleum hydrocarbons in marine organisms and
ecosystems, p. 182-194. Pergammon, Oxford.
Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of
sea turtles in Virginia. Copeia (2):449-456.
Mayer, A.G. 1914. I. The effects of temperature upon tropical
marine animals. Papers Tortugas Lab Carnegie Inst. Pub.
183(6):l-24.
14
-------
Rudloe, A. 1983. The effect of heavy bleeding on mortality of the
horseshoe crab, Lixnulus polyphemus. in the natural
environment. J. Invert. Pathol. 42:167-176.
Shuster, C.N.,Jr. 1950. Observations on the natural history of
the American horseshoe crab, Limulus polyphemus. 3rd Rept.,
Investigations of Methods of Improving the Shellfish Resources
of Massachusetts, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Contr.
No. 564:18-23.
Shuster, C.N.,Jr. 1962. Serological correspondence among
horseshoe "crabs" (Limululidae). Zoologica 47(1):1-8.
Shuster, C.N.,Jr. 1979. Session I: Biology of Limulus polyphemus.
In: Elias Cohen et al. (editors), Biomedical Applications of
the Horseshoe Crab (Limulidae). Alan Liss, Inc. (NY):l-26.
Shuster, C.N.,Jr. 1982. A pictorial review of the natural history
and ecology of the horseshoe crab, Limulus polyphemus. with
reference to other Limulidae. In: (eds) J. Bonaventura et al.
Physiology and biology of horseshoe crabs: Studies on normal
and environmentally stressed animals, p.1-52. Alan R. Liss,
Inc. New York
Shuster, C.N.,Jr. 1985. Introductory remarks on the distribution
and abundance of the American horseshoe crab, Limulus
polyphemus, spawning in the Chesapeake Bay area. In: Valerie
Chase (editor), The Chesapeake: Prologue to the Future, Proc.
Chesapeake Bay Symposium, National Marine Educators
Conference: 34-38.
Shuster, C.N.,Jr. and M.L. Botton. • 1985. A contribution to the
population biology of horseshoe crabs, Limulus polyphemus
(L.), in Delaware Bay. Estuaries 8(4):363-372.
Swan, B.L., W.R. Hall, Jr. and C.N. Shuster Jr. 1991. Limulus
spawning activity on Delaware Bay shores 25 May 1991.
University of Delaware, Sea Grant Program, Lewes, Delaware.
15
-------
Section 2. Horseshoe Crab Management
There is currently no coastal management plan for horseshoe
crabs. The source documents for the development of the Chesapeake
Bay and Atlantic Ocean Fishery Management Plan for Horseshoe Crabs
were definitive works by C. N. Shuster, Jr., M.L. Botton and J.W.
Ropes, and A. Rudloe. The following management strategies have been
developed and serve as the basis for identifying the goal and
objectives.
A. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The goal of this plan is to:
Protect the horseshoe crab resource in the Chesapeake Bay and
Atlantic Coast to insure its continued role in the ecology of
coastal ecosystems, while providing the opportunity for
commercial, recreational and medical usage over time.
In order to achieve the goal, the following objectives must be met:
1) Promote harvesting practices which minimize waste and maximize
the biological and economic return from the horseshoe crab
resource.
2) Promote studies to improve the understanding of life history
aspects and population dynamics of horseshoe crabs.
3) Determine the optimum spawning stock biomass for horseshoe crabs
that can support harvest practices, medical research, and migratory
shorebird populations.
4) Improve collection of catch and effort statistics for the
commercial horseshoe crab fishery.
5) Make Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic coast management actions
compatible where possible with Delaware and New Jersey actions.
6) Develop guidelines for identifying and protecting horseshoe crab
spawning, juvenile and adult habitat.
B. HORSESHOE CRAB MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
1) Ecological Value: Horseshoe crabs play an important ecological
role in the food web of migrating shorebirds. At least 20 species
of migratory birds rely on horseshoe crab eggs to replenish their
fat supply on their way to Canadian breeding grounds. Migratory
shorebirds are present in the Delaware/Chesapeake Bay region from
mid-May through June. During this time, horseshoe crabs leave the
water to deposit their eggs on certain spawning beaches. Horseshoe
16
-------
crabs are vulnerable to human disturbances when they are out of the
water. Shorebirds are also affected by human disturbances when they
are feeding on the beaches. A decrease in the number of horseshoe
crabs would leave a large portion of migrating shorebirds without
the necessary food resources. Horseshoe crab eggs are also a
seasonally preferred food item of several finfish species. In the
Chesapeake Bay, adult horseshoe crabs are a major item in the diet
of juvenile loggerhead turtles, a threatened species. Both Delaware
and New Jersey have implemented regulations to protect migratory
shorebirds and horseshoe crabs. Their regulations include: a
prohibition on taking horseshoe crabs between May 1 and June 7
during the peak in shorebird migration and horseshoe crab spawning;
a recreational possession limit; and a commercial permit. Limits on
horseshoe crab harvest in Delaware and New Jersey could increase
fishing pressure in Maryland due to market demand. The offshore
distribution of horseshoe crabs suggests that there may be some
gene flow between Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Bay populations.
Strategy 1.1
Maryland and Virginia will protect the ecological role of
horseshoe crabs by protecting horseshoe crab spawning areas
and monitoring harvest.
Action 1.1
Maryland and Virginia will prohibit the hand collection
of horseshoe crabs from beaches during the peak time of
shorebird migration, May 1 through June 7.
Implementation 1.1
1995
Action 1.2
a) Maryland will prohibit the scraping, trawling or
dredging of horseshoe crabs between May 1 and June 7
within the Chesapeake Bay, coastal bay areas, and 1 mile
of the Atlantic coast.
b) Virginia will continue its ban on trawling within
state waters (up to 3 miles offshore).
Implementation 1.2
a) 1995 b) Continue
Action 1.3
Virginia will prohibit a directed horseshoe crab fishery
between May 1 and June 7, continue mandatory reporting in
the conch dredge fishery and monitor the bycatch of
horseshoe crabs.
Implementation 1.3
1995
17
-------
2) Stock Status: Data from trawl and clam surveys indicate
horseshoe crab abundance was relatively stable between 1975 and
1983. During the same time period, an average of 700,000 pounds of
horseshoe crabs was harvested from the northeastern Atlantic coast.
Commercial exploitation has not significantly changed over the last
9 years (1984-1992) and landings have averaged 736,000 pounds.
Medical usage has slightly increased from 160,000 individuals to
approximately 200,000 individuals. There is about a 10% mortality
associated with bleeding crabs. Most horseshoe crabs are caught
during the spring and summer, the time when they are reproductively
active. Egg-bearing females are targeted for the eel and conch bait
fisheries. Recent spawning stock estimates and fishery independent
trawl data from Delaware indicate a drop in the number of horseshoe
crabs. There is a need to improve the spawning stock survey so it
is statistically robust. There is also a need to obtain better
information on horseshoe crab population dynamics, especially from
the Chesapeake Bay area.
Strategy 2.1
Maryland and Virginia will coordinate with Delaware and begin
to develop a spawning stock census of horseshoe crabs which
will serve as the basis for determining management
recommendations as appropriate.
Action 2.1
Maryland and Virginia will coordinate and implement a
horseshoe crab spawning stock census in the Chesapeake
Bay, coastal bays and along the Atlantic coast.
Implementation 2.1
1995
Action 2.2
Maryland and Virginia will promote and encourage research
on horseshoe crab estimates of population abundance, age
and size composition, mortality estimates, and migration.
Implementation 2.2
Open
3) The Fishery: Since 1987, the commercial harvest of horseshoe
crabs along the northeastern Atlantic coast has gradually
increased. Current levels (1989-1992) of harvest are approximately
1.0 million pounds. Commercial horseshoe crab statistics are
incomplete, especially in Maryland. Preliminary data indicate the
Maryland harvest increased to 1.0 million pounds during 1993.
Increased landings may be the result of better reporting methods
but information on fishing effort is needed in order to evaluate
commercial landings statistics. Horseshoe crabs are commercially
harvested for use as eel, conch, and catfish bait. Horseshoe crabs
are also important laboratory animals for medical research. They
are captured and bled to obtain Limulus amoebocyte lysate (LAL), a
18
-------
clotting agent used to detect human pathogens in drugs. Although
the crabs are released alive, they experience a greater mortality
than unbled horseshoe crabs. Horseshoe crabs are particularly
vulnerable to being overfished because of their late maturity (9-11
years), their dependence on coastal and bay spawning beaches which
are being lost as a result of the development of coastal areas, the
selective nature of the bait fishery for egg-bearing females, and
their seasonally abundant, easily harvested, inshore spawning
aggregations. The evidence for overharvest of a year-class would
not be apparent for at least 9 or 10 years. Under these
circumstances, prudent management recommendations are warranted.
Strategy 3.1
Maryland and Virginia will monitor the commercial and medical
harvest of horseshoe crabs and improve the quality of data
obtained from the commercial fishery.
Action 3.1
a) Maryland will require horseshoe crab harvesters to
provide monthly reports on the size of harvest, area of
collection, gear usage and any other information the
Department deems necessary.
b) Maryland will determine if a special permit to harvest
horseshoe crabs is necessary after evaluating the new
federal reporting system and the results of the monthly
reports.
Implementation 3.1
1995
Action 3.2
Virginia will continue their mandatory reporting
procedures implemented in January, 1993.
Implementation 3.2
Continue
Action 3.3
Maryland and Virginia will survey American eel harvesters
and their use of horseshoe crabs by sex for bait.
Implementation 3.3
1995
4) The Habitat: Limulus is a generalist and is not as severely
restricted by environmental conditions as many other aquatic
species. Protected beach areas are essential habitat for horseshoe
crab spawning. Beach stabilization practices such as the placement
of "clean fill," i.e., bricks, cinderblocks and coarse gravel, in
the intertidal zone may seriously affect egg-laying habitat.
19
-------
Activities which impact spawning areas will have a negative impact
on the horseshoe crab population. Habitat destruction has seriously
reduced the horseshoe crab population in Japan.
Strategy 4.1.1
The jurisdictions will define and protect horseshoe crab
spawning areas and areas that are used by migrating
shorebirds.
Action 4.1
Maryland and Virginia will initiate a study to delineate
the geographic distribution of horseshoe crab spawning
habitat in the Chesapeake Bay and coastal bays if funding
is available.
Implementation 4.1
Dependent on funding
Action 4.2
The jurisdictions will promote research to define the
water quality requirements for horseshoe crabs.
Implementation 4.2
Open
Action 4.3
The jurisdictions will continue to work with the
Chesapeake Bay Program, the Coastal Bay Initiative and
water quality improvement goals for the Bay and coastal
areas.
Implementation 4.3
Continue
20
-------
i
i
o
u
Q
ACTION
W
1
M
1 . 1 MD & VA will prohibit the hand collection of horseshoe crabs from beaches duri
the peak time of shorebird migration, May 1-June 7.
4)
c
§ 6
c •£
1 .2 a) MD will prohibit the scraping, trawling or dredging of horseshoe crabs betwee
May 1 and June 7 within the Chesapeake Bay, coastal bay areas and within 1 mile of
Atlantic coast.
b) VA will continue its ban on trawling within state waters.
Wl
ON
ON
O
B
1 .3 VA will prohibit a directed horseshoe crab fishery between May and June 7, cont
mandatory reporting in the conch dredge fishery and monitor bycatch.
J3
73
o
'5)
°o
w
""
ON
CA
2.1 MD & VA will coordinate and implement a horseshoe crab spawning stock censu
the Chesapeake Bay, coastal bays and along the Atlantic coast.
c
2.2 MD & VA will promote and encourage research on horseshoe crab estimates of
population abundance, age and size composition, mortality estimates and migration.
I
S
m
|
0)
1
i
S S
3.1 a) MD will require horseshoe crab harvesters to provide monthly reports on the si
of harvest, area of collection, gear usage and any other information the Department di
necessary.
b) MD will determine if a special permit to harvest horseshoe crabs is necessary after
evaluatinng the new federal reporting system and the results of the monthly reports.
m
—
£
CO
i
c
'i
i
4>
1
O
O
U
3.2 VA will continue their mandatory reporting procedures.
V)
o\
r«i
3.3 MD & VA will survey American eel harvesters and their use of horseshoe crabs 1
sex for bait.
£•
J=
V)
£
0
p
f*
m
M
B
1
a
§
£
1
1
C
4)
§•
8
4. 1 MD & VA will initiate a study to delineate the geographic distribution of horsesh
crab spawning habitat in the Bay and coastal bays if funding is available.
e
4>
t.
4.2 The jurisdictions will promote research to define the water quality requirements ft
horseshoe crabs.
0
s
.S
o
U
3
•g
«
4.3 The jurisdictions will continue to work with the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Co
Bay Initiative, and water quality improvement goals for the Bay and coastal areas.
3
'S
X
0
p
~
"*"
21
------- |