Status of the Fishery Management Plan

The Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was approved and adopted by the Commission on October 22, 1998. The goal of the FMP is to conserve and protect the horseshoe crab resource to maintain sustainable levels of spawning stock biomass to ensure its continued role in the ecology of coastal ecosystems, while providing for continued use over time. The FMP contains a monitoring program that includes mandator monthly reporting, continuing existing benthic sampling programs, establishing pilot programs to survey spawning horseshoe crabs and egg density, evaluating post-release mortality of horseshoe crabs used by the biomedical industry, and identifying potential horseshoe crab habitat in each state. The FMP maintains the controls on the harvest of horseshoe crabs recently put in place in NJ, DE and MD. This measure is necessary to protect horseshoe crab spawning within and adjacent to the Delaware Bay, which isthe epicenter of spawning activity along the Atlantic Coast. However, these conservation efforts were largely ated by increased landings in other states. A large portion of these landings were harvested from the exclusive economic zone. The FMP includes recommendations that the Secretary of Commerce address and initiate controls over the harvest and use of horseshoe crabs in federal waters but no measures have been implemented at this time. Further measures to control the commercial bait harvest of horsehoe crabs by establishing a coastwide cap on landings are necessary to fulfill the goals and objectives of the M nd are scheduled to be developed during 1999 for implementation in 2000.

Status of the Stock

The status of the stock is unknown. The Stock Assessment Committee (SAC) and the Peer Review Panel (PRP) concluded that there was inadequate information for a coastwide stock assessment. Informaion is not available to establish biological reference points, fishing mortality rates, or recruitment estimates. The Technical Committee and PRP, based on their assessment of the available data, recommended a conservative, risk-averse management approach. This recommendation was based on localized population declines, increased catch and effort, slow maturation, susceptibility of spawning crabs to harvest, population resiliency, and the need for a superabundance of horseshoe crab eggs.

Status of the Fishery

Reported coastwide landings were 2,756,949 horseshoe crabs in 1998. Restrictions imposed on the horseshoe crab fisheries in NJ, DE and MD substantially reduced landings in those states. These conservation efforts were largely negated by increased landings in other states. Landings in VA increased from an estimated 203,326 horseshoe crabs to 1,015,700 in 1998. Pennsylvania, with no prior history of orseshoe crab landings, reported 75,000 horseshoe crabs landed in 1998. A large portion of the VA landings and all of the PA landings were harvested from the Exclusive Economic Zone and were most likely comprised of horseshoe crabs that spawn in the Delaware Bay. Thus, management efforts in NJ, DE, and MD to reduce exploitation on the Delaware Bay spawning population were not fully realized.

A further expansion of the horseshoe crab bait fishery occurred inthe Florida panhandle where an estimated 48,289 horseshoe crabs were landed in 1999. These horseshoe crabs were reported to have been distributed to the mid-Atlantic region for bait use. Harvest levels of this magnitude are probably not sustainable, given the relatively low levels of spawning that occur in this area. It should be noted that FL dealers voluntarily halted the purchase of horseshoe crabs and PA adopted regulations to prevent subsequent horseshoe crab landings.

The horseshoe crab continues to be an important resource for research and manufacture of materials used for human health. Scientists have used horseshoe crabs in eye research, surgical sutures, wound dressing development, and detection of bacterial endotoxins in drugs and intravenous devices. In addition, horseshoe crab blood is beneficial in cancer research; the Limulus Amoebocyte Lysate could lead to controlled cancer therapy. Endotoxins and other substances in horseshoe crab blood may have the potential for diagnosing leukemia. The Technical Committee completed a Biomedical Questionnaire in 1999 among five biomedical companies. Approximately 345,250 horseshoe crabs were supplied to the biomedical industry in 1998. The biomedical companies accepted 281,663 horseshoe crabs and rejected 63,586 horseshoe crabs. The biomedical companies are generally requiring that rejected crabs be returned to the water. Assuming a 10 percent mortality associated with bleeding, there is an estimated loss of 28,166 horseshoe crcoast-wide due to the biomedical industry in 1998.

Recent developments in alternative baits and gear modifications could substantially reduce the demand for horseshoe crabs as bait. Conch fishermen indicate that bait bags can reduce horseshoe crab use by as much as 50% and increase conch catches by preventing bait loss to non-target species (extending the bait’s effective fishing time). The Ecological Research and Development Group, a nn-government organization in Delaware, has manufactured 500 bait bags and distributed them to Virginia conch fishermen. University of Delaware researchers have isolated the compound from horseshoe crabs that attracts American eel. Development of a suitable matrix for the compound is underway and field testing is anticipated in early 2000. The compound would serve as a bait extender, until a cost-effective synthetic version could be produced. A researcher at VIMS through Sea Grant is experimenting with the ue of bait bags, methods to incorporate surf clam waste and horseshoe crab components, including hemolymph byproduct frthe lysate industry, into a suitable matrix for conch bait. The successful use of these innovations could significantly reduce horseshoe crab exploitation.

Status of Assessment Advice

A coastwide quantitative horseshoe crab stock assessment has not been completed. A review of the vailable data by the SAC was completed in August 1998, and reviewed by an external PRP in October 1998. Both groups concluded that there was inadequate data to conduct a coastwide stock assessment. As such, a model for determining stock status has not been identified.

The SAC and PRP advised a conservative, risk-averse approach to the management of the horseshoe crab, and identified research needs to facilitate future assessments. Although the FMP maintainedthe risk-averse management initiated in NJ, DE, and MD, failure to cap harvest in other states resulted in a redistribution of landings and negated conservation efforts. Further, the failure of some states to require mandatory reporting by the 1999 fishing season hampered the development of strategies to reduce exploitation and may further delay a quantitative stock assessment. Many of the research needs identified by the SAC and PRP were incorporated into the FMP and acted upon; however, these programs lac the long-term funding needed to adequately monitor the population.

Status of Research and Monitoring

The Horshoe Crab FMP set forth an ambitious research and monitoring strategy for 1999 in an effort to facilitate future management decisions. Despite limited time and funding there were many accomplishments in 1999. These accomplishments were largely made possible by forming partnerships between stae, federal and private organizations, and the support of over a hundred public volunteers. Statistically robust spawner and egg count surveys were designed and implemented in the Delaware Bay. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to coordinate the coastwide horseshoe crab tagging program. A horseshoe crab benthic survey design workshop was conducted in July 1999 and the SAC is currently developing a protocol for an offshore benthic sampling program which could provide a population estimate or relative bundance index of the adult offshore horseshoe crab population. The U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division initiated a genetics project to evaluate whether or not regional horseshoe crab populatioexist along the Atlantic coast. Several migratory shorebird research and monitoring activities were conducted in the Delaware Bay, Arctic breeding grounds and South American wintering areas. Many other research programs which are not mentioned here were also initiated in 1999.

The ASMFC Horseshoe Crab Management Board, Technical Committee and Advisory Panel recently reviewed the FMPs research needs and monitoring components. These programs were also reviewed in October 1999 by the ASMFC Horseshoe Crab SAC and Spawner and Egg Count Survey Workgroup in an effort to develop a comprehensive horseshoe crab monitoring program and funding strategy for the year 2000 and beyond. Each of these reviews did not result in any significant changes to research needsand monitoring components of the FMP. However, despite these significant accomplishments there currently are no reliable sources of funds to support these programs in the year 2000, including the Delaware Bay spawning and egg count surveys. This fact is striking in light of the emergence of multiple threats to the long-term stability of horseshoe crabs and the potential for effects of population decline to ripple through the mid-Atlantic coastal ecosystem. The following funding programs have been discussed s potential funding sources: Ctal Ocean Program administered by NOAA-NOS; US FWS; USGS cyclical funds; NMFS; State non-game funds; Sea Grant; Fish and Wildlife Foundation; and a landing tax. However, none of the programs were viewed as likely sources of funds.

Status of Management Measures and Issues

The Technical Committee completed updating the Reference Period Landings data for all states withi the ASMFC. The Technical Committee made recommendations to the Management Board to adopt and implement a state-by-state cap on horseshoe crab bait landings in 2000 with a 25% reduction in mid-Atlantic states (NJ, DE, MD, VA). The Technical Committee also recommends implementation of de minimis for states with 1 percent or less (#30,000 horseshoe crabs) of the total Reference Period Landings. The FMP requires that the Management Board develop a cap on landings for commercial bait fisheries with consieration of an effort cap during 1999, to be implemented in 2000. The coastwide cap would be implemented through the adaptive management procedures of the FMP via an addendum to the FMP.

The management of horseshoe crabs is a coastwide issue and involves many user groups including horseshoe crab, eel, and conch (whelk) fishermen, the biomedical industry, and migratory bird advocacy organizations (e.g., Audubon Society). There continues to be significant concen regarding the sustainability of the current commercial bait harvest of horseshoe crabs by many user groups. Several shorebird conservation organizations disagree with the recommendation of the Technical Committee and are urging the Management Board and Governors of the States to implement a coastwide cap on landings 60-80% below the Reference Period Landings.

Current State-by-State Implementation of FMP Compliance Reqirements as of June 1, 1999

The compliance requirements of the Horseshoe Crab FMP can be divided into two categories: 1) harvest control measures; and 2) monitoring components.

Harvest Control Measures: Harvest control measures were only required in NJ, DE and MD, and included maintaining their existing state laws and regulations relative to the harvest and landig of horseshoe crabs. These harvest control measures were maintained by NJ, DE and MD in 1999.

Monitoring Components: Several monitoring components were included as compliance requirements in the FMP to ensure that the necessary information would be collected to facilitate future management decisions. These monitoring components were to be implemented by March 15, 1999. However, several states did not have the authority, time and/or funding to implemnt these monitoring components, in particular mandatory reporting, by the compliance date. This resulted in an extension of the compliance date to September 1, 1999 by the Management Board. The Management Board also provided some states with alternatives to mandatory reporting or exemptions after learning more about the nature and size of each state’s horseshoe crab fishery. A summary of the compliance issues and dates are presented below.

• March 199 - Management Board approved NJ, DE, MD, VA and SC management proposals.

• May 1999 - Management Board approved NH, CT, NY, PA and GA management proposals.

• August 1999 - Management Board approved ME, RI, DC, PRFC, NC and FL management proposals, subject to the qualifications and stipulations expressed by the Technical Committee (except that NC and FL are not requird to implement mandatory reporting or a daily possession limit of 25 horseshoe crabs or less for personal use) with an implementation date of November 1, 1999.

Implications of Postponing the March 15, 1999 Compliance Date: An accurate determination of each state’s harvest in 1999 to assist in the development of a coastal cap for the year 2000 will not be possible because the majority of states were unable to implement mandatory mothly reporting by the compliance date of March 15, 1999.

Coastwide Cap

The Plan Review Team (PRT) recommends that the Management Board take a conservative, risk-averse approach as recommended by the Technical Committee, Advisory Panel, SAC, and the PRP. As such, the PRT recommends that a stat-by-state cap on horseshoe crab bait landings at 25% below the revised Reference Period Landings be implemented by April 1, 2000. This recommendation is similar to the recommendation of the Technical Committee, except that the PRT recommends that the reduction in landings be extended coastwide, not just for NJ, DE, MD, and VA. Due to large reported harvests in MA, NY and possibly RI, the PRT believes a reduction in landings coastwide is necessary to maintain a conservative, risk-averse approach and to meet he goal and objectives of the FMP.

The PRT also recommends that VA move forward toward implementing a reduction in commercial bait harvest based on Reference Period Landings by January 1, 2000 through emergency action or other appropriate action to avoid significant and potential unsustainable harvest as occurred in 1998 and 1999.

If the coastwide cap is not implemented in 2000, the PRT recommends that the Scretary of Commerce limit the harvest of horseshoe crabs in federal waters consistent with the Technical Committee’s recommendations.

De Minimis

The PRT supports the Technical Committee’s recommendation that implements de minimis criteria in the FMP, where states would qualify for de minimis status if, for the last two years, its combined average commercial landngs (by number) constitute less than one percent of coastwide commercial landings for the same two-year period (for 2000, Reference Period Landings would be used and for 2001, the average of Reference Period Landings and 2000 landings would be used.). The PRT also supports the Technical Committee’s recommendation that de minimis states would be exempt from any harvest management measures, but would be required to implement mandatory reporting of all harvest to determine if a state remains de inimis in the following year.

Shorebird Issues

The PRT recommends that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service form a Shorebird Technical Committee to work in conjunction with the ASMFC Horseshoe Crab Management Program in order to improve communications between fishery and shorebird researchers and managers. The PRT also recommends that this Committee consist of the following representatives: 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 2) National Marine Fisheries Service; 3) Delaware Bay Shorebird Workgroup; 4) International Shorebird Team; 5) ASMFC Horseshoe Crab Technical Committee Chairperson; and 6) Scientific Advisor of the National Audubon Society or other shorebird conservation organization.

Funding for Research and Monitoring Activities

The PRT recommends that the states and federal aencies begin to work together immediately to develop a funding strategy for implementing horseshoe crab research and monitoring activities for the year 2000 and beyond.

 Alternate Bait - Trap Design

The PRT strongly supports the recommendations of the Alternative Bait - Trap Design Workshop and encourages the states to fully support and implement these recommendations immediately. The PRT believes that the implementation of alternative bait and gear modifications, in conjunction with the establishment of a coastwide cap on landings 25% below the Reference Period Landings has the potential for reducing coastwide landings by 40-60% in 2000.

Amendments

No amendments to the current FMP are in development. The adaptive maagement process within the FMP is appropriate for any changes in target fishing mortality rates and harvest restrictions. Such changes would be put in place via an addendum. The procedures to implement an addendum are listed on page 29 of the FMP and are summarized below:

1) The Management Board after review of the PRT report may direct the PRT to prepare an addendum to affect changes it deems necessary.

2) PRT prepares a draft addendum and distributes it to all states and federal agencies for review and comment.

3) Public hearings are held in all states that requests one.

4) After a 30-day review period, the PRT summarizes the comments and prepares a final version of the addendum for the Management Board.

5) anagement Board reviews the final version of the addendum, and considers the public comments and recommendations of the Technical Committee, SAC, and the Advisory Panel.

6) Management Board decides whether to adopt or revise the addendum.

7) Upon adoption of an addendum, states prepare plans to carry out the addendum and submit t