AND. Northern razor clam. Siliqua patula. Oregon Department of Fish and Game. Northeast Pacific: Alaska and Bri sh Columbia

Transcription

1 AND Northern razor clam Siliqua patula Oregon Department of Fish and Game Northeast Pacific: Alaska and Bri sh Columbia Hand collected October 3, 2016 The Safina Center Seafood Analysts Disclaimer Seafood Watch and The Safina Center strive to ensure that all our Seafood Reports and recommenda ons contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at the me of publica on. All our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scien sts with exper se in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture.scien fic review, however, does not cons tute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or of The Safina Center or their recommenda ons on the part of the reviewing scien sts.seafood Watch and The Safina Center are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome addi onal or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Founda on and other funders.

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents About The Safina Center About Seafood Watch Guiding Principles Summary Final Seafood Recommendations Introduction Assessment Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment Criterion 2: Impacts on other species Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem Acknowledgements References

3 About The Safina Center The Safina Center (formerly Blue Ocean Ins tute) translates scien fic informa on into language people can understand and serves as a unique voice of hope, guidance, and encouragement. The Safina Center (TSC) works through science, art, and literature to inspire solu ons and a deeper connec on with nature, especially the sea. Our mission is to inspire more people to ac vely engage as well-informed and highly mo vated cons tuents for conserva on. Led by conserva on pioneer and MacArthur fellow, Dr. Carl Safina, we show how nature, community, the economy and prospects for peace are all intertwined. Through Safina s books, essays, public speaking, PBS television series, our Fellows program and Sustainable Seafood program, we seek to inspire people to make be er choices. The Safina Center was founded in 2003 by Dr. Carl Safina and was built on three decades of research, wri ng and policy work by Dr. Safina. The Safina Center s Sustainable Seafood Program The Center s founders created the first seafood guide in Our online seafood guide now encompasses over 160-wild-caught species. All peer-reviewed seafood reports are transparent, authorita ve, easy to understand and use. Seafood ra ngs and full reports are available on our website under Seafood choices. tsc s sustainable seafood program helps consumers, retailers, chefs and health professionals discover the connec on between human health, a healthy ocean, fishing and sustainable seafood. Our online guide to sustainable seafood is based on scien fic ra ngs for more than 160 wild-caught seafood species and provides simple guidelines. Through our expanded partnership with the Monterey Bay Aquarium, our guide now includes seafood ra ngs from both The Safina Center and the Seafood Watch program. We partner with Whole Foods Market (WFM) to help educate their seafood suppliers and staff, and provide our scien fic seafood ra ngs for WFM stores in the US and UK. Through our partnership with Chefs Collabora ve, we created Green Chefs/Blue Ocean, a free, interac ve, online sustainable seafood course for chefs and culinary professionals. Our website features tutorials, videos, blogs, links and discussions of the key issues such as mercury in seafood, bycatch, overfishing, etc. Check out our Fellows Program, learn more about our Sustainable Seafood Program and Carl Safina s current work at nacenter.org. The Safina Center is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organiza on based in the School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University, Long Island, NY. nacenter.org admin@sa nacenter.org

4 About Seafood Watch Monterey Bay Aquarium s Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as origina ng from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase produc on in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makes its science-based recommenda ons available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from The program s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conserva on issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommenda on on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this informa on against the program s conserva on ethic to arrive at a recommenda on of Best Choices, Good Alterna ves or Avoid. The detailed evalua on methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of informa on include government technical publica ons, fishery management plans and suppor ng documents, and other scien fic reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scien sts, and members of industry and conserva on organiza ons when evalua ng fisheries and aquaculture prac ces. Capture fisheries and aquaculture prac ces are highly dynamic; as the scien fic informa on on each species changes, Seafood Watch s sustainability recommenda ons and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Par es interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture prac ces and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more informa on about Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling

5 Guiding Principles The Safina Center and Seafood Watch define sustainable seafood as origina ng from sources, whether fished or farmed, that can maintain or increase produc on in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch and the Safina Center have developed four sustainability criteria for evalua ng wild-catch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are: How does fishing affect the species under assessment? How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species? How effec ve is the fishery s management? How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem? Each criterion includes: Factors to evaluate and score Guidelines for integra ng these factors to produce a numerical score and ra ng Once a ra ng has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommenda on. Criteria ra ngs and the overall recommenda on are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and the Safina Center s online guide: Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause li le harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alterna ve/yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they re caught. Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment. 1 1 Fish is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates 6

6 Summary The Pacific or northern razor clam (Siliqua patula) is a marine bivalve found along the North American West Coast on surf-swept sand beaches from Pismo Beach, CA to the Aleu an Islands in Alaska. Pacific razor clam can grow to over 6 in (16 cm) in length, typically lives for 9 11 years, and matures fairly quickly. Commercial fishing for Pacific razor clams occurs in Oregon, Washington, Bri sh Columbia, and Alaska. This assessment covers the Alaska and Bri sh Columbia fisheries. In Alaska, the current commercial Pacific razor clam fishery occurs at Upper Cook Inlet. There have been no formal popula on assessments of this Pacific razor clam popula on, so abundance and fishing mortality levels are unknown. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) aims to keep catches to a maximum of 350, ,000 lbs annually. There is also a minimum size limit of 4.5 inches (11.4 cm) in shell length as an effort to preserve juvenile clams. In Bri sh Columbia, the commercial fishery occurs at Haida Gwaii and is jointly managed by the Council of the Haida Na on and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Annual popula on studies of the Pacific razor clam popula on at Haida Gwaii indicate that the abundance of razor clam has remained at a healthy level over the years, and that current fishing levels are sustainable. Managers use annual es mates of abundance to set the catch limit each year, and have established a maximum fishing level of 22% of the available clam abundance. Because of its close proximity to the shore, razor clam can be dug with hand gear around low de. In Alaska and Bri sh Columbia, fishers dig for Pacific razor clam using clam tubes/guns and shovels. These hand gears allow fishers to be very selec ve about their catch and to return unwanted species alive to their habitats. Thus the fisheries have negligible effects on other oceans species; however, these gears can cause low to moderate damage to the beach habitats where razor clams live. Overall, the hand harvest fisheries for Pacific razor clam in Alaska and Bri sh Columbia are rated Green or Best Choice. Final Seafood Recommenda ons SPECIES/FISHERY Northern razor Alaska Northeast Pacific, Hand collected Northern razor Bri sh Columbia Northeast Pacific, Hand collected CRITERION 1: IMPACTS ON THE SPECIES CRITERION 2: IMPACTS ON OTHER SPECIES CRITERION 3: MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS CRITERION 4: HABITAT AND ECOSYSTEM OVERALL RECOMMENDATION Yellow (2.644) Green (5.000) Yellow (3.000) Yellow (3.122) Best Choice (3.335) Green (3.831) Green (5.000) Green (4.000) Yellow (3.122) Best Choice (3.932) Scoring Guide Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing opera ons have no significant impact. 7

7 Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4). Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Cri cal scores Good Alterna ve/yellow = Final score > , and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Cri cal scores Avoid/Red = Final Score 2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Cri cal scores. 2 Because effec ve management is an essen al component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommenda on for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3). 8

8 Introduc on Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommenda on This report evaluates the Pacific or northern razor clam (Siliqua patula) fisheries in Alaska and Bri sh Columbia. Gears evaluated in this report include hand-operated clam guns/tubes and shovels. The Pacific razor clam fisheries in Washington and Oregon have been evaluated in a separate report. Species Overview The Pacific or northern razor clam is a marine bivalve found along the North American West Coast on inter dal and sub dal exposed sandy beaches from Pismo Beach, California to the Aleu an Islands in Alaska (Weymouth et. al. 1925) (Lassuy and Simons 1989). It can range from 4 below the high- de line to 180 (55 m) deep (ADFG 2015a). Razor clam feeds on ny plants and animals called plankton that it filters from the seawater (ADFG 2015a). Pacific razor clam can grow to a length of over 6 in (16 cm) and reaches sexual maturity between 2 and 4 years of age. Growth rates vary with la tude, and northern popula ons typically have slower growth rates and longer life spans than those in more southern la tudes (Weymouth and McMillian 1930). Predators of razor clam include gulls, ducks, crabs, and various fish species (Lassuy and Simons 1989). Pacific razor clam is commercially and recrea onally harvested in Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Bri sh Columbia. This report only covers the fisheries in Alaska and Bri sh Columbia. The fisheries are managed by state or province and tribal governments because fisheries occur in state or province waters and areas subject to treaty rights. Historically, the state of Alaska had a significant razor clam fishery. By the early 1960s, the razor clam fishery began to decline, and in 1964, Alaska experienced an earthquake near Cordova, where razor clams were heavily harvested. The earthquake caused moderate mortality to razor clams in Cordova; since then, the popula on has not returned to previous numbers (Nelson 1994) (Bishop and Powers 2003). The only current commercial fishery in Alaska is on the western beaches of Upper Cook Inlet (see Figure 1) (Bishop and Powers 2003) (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). The fishery is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) (ADFG 2010). The commercial fishery in Bri sh Columbia mainly occurs on Haida Gwaii North Beach (see Figure 2) and has been jointly managed by the Council of the Haida Na on and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) since 1994 through a Razor Clam Subagreement (DFO 2013). The razor clam popula on on Haida Gwaii is the largest in Bri sh Columbia and supports commercial, recrea onal, and Haida noncommercial fisheries (DFO 2013). 9

9 Figure 1 The area open for commercial razor clam harvest on the west side of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Image from Shields and Dupuis Figure 2 Pacific razor clam management areas at Haida Gwaii, Bri sh Columbia. Image from CHN and DFO Produc on Sta s cs Commercial harvest of razor clam has occurred in Alaska since the early 1900s, historically in both Cordova and Cook Inlet. From the 1950s through 1963, Pacific razor clam landings in Alaska were very high, reaching over 1 million lbs (454 MT). But the large 1964 earthquake altered the beach habitat and razor clam landings did not return to previous numbers (Bishop and Powers 2003). The current commercial Pacific razor clam fishery occurs only in Upper Cook Inlet. Over a recent decade ( ), catches in the commercial fishery in Cook Inlet ranged from a low of 189,200 lbs (86 MT) to a high of 391,000 lbs (177 MT), with an overall 10

10 annual average of 338,100 lbs (153 MT) (Shields and Dupuis 2015). All clams must be sold for human consump on, except for the small percentage (< 10% of the catch) of clams with broken shells, which must be dyed and sold as bait (Shields and Dupuis 2015). In Bri sh Columbia, Canada, catches of Pacific razor clams were high in the 1920s and 1930s when a cannery was in opera on. Since then, catches have fluctuated with changes in market demand and abundance. Currently, the only commercial fishery in Bri sh Columbia exists at Haida Gwaii, where commercial harvest has occurred since Over the past decade ( ), catches in the commercial fishery at Haida Gwaii ranged from a low of 44,000 lbs (20 MT) to a high of 440,900 lbs (200 MT), with an overall annual average of 245,150 lbs (111 MT) (pers. comm., Haida Na on 2016) (CHN and DFO 2013). In Bri sh Columbia, most commercially harvested razor clams are used as bait in the crab fishery, but in recent years, there has been increasing demand again for razor clams as a food product (CHN and DFO 2013) (DFO 2013). See the image below for the long-term landings of Pacific razor clam in Upper Cook Inlet, AK and Haida Gwaii, BC, where commercial fishing currently occurs. Figure 3 Commercial landings for Pacific razor clam at upper Cook Inlet, Alaska from Data from Shields and Dupuis

11 Figure 4 Commercial landings for Pacific razor clam at Haida Gwaii Beach, BC from Data from Jones et al and pers. comm., Haida Na on Importance to the US/North American market. Pacific razor clam is found in U.S. and Canadian waters and sold regionally and locally (pers. comm., Pat Shields 2015). Besides Alaska and Bri sh Columbia, significant commercial fisheries for Pacific razor clam also occur in Washington, by the state and the Quinualt Indian Na on. There is also a small fishery for Pacific razor clam in Oregon. For further informa on on these fisheries, see the Washington and Oregon Pacific Razor Clam report. Common and market names. Common names for razor clam include Pacific razor clam, northern razor clam, and giant pod. There is also an Atlan c razor clam (Ensis directus) that is unrelated to the Pacific razor clam (Siliqua patula). Only the Pacific razor clam is covered in this report. Primary product forms The Pacific razor clam is harvested for both human consump on and for bait. Pacific razor clams are commonly fried, baked, and used to make clam chowder. 12

12 Assessment This sec on assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) rela ve to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at h p:// Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing ra ng influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 ra ng is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern Score 2.2=Red or High Concern Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cri cal Criterion 1 Summary NORTHERN RAZOR Region / Method Alaska/Northeast Pacific Hand collected Bri sh Columbia/Northeast Pacific Hand collected Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score 2.00: Medium 3.00: Moderate Concern 2.33: Moderate Concern Yellow (2.644) 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.831) Pacific razor clam in Bri sh Columbia and Alaska is considered to have a medium inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure. In Alaska, clam abundance is monitored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) by tracking catch per unit effort. But there are no es mates of Pacific razor clam abundance rela ve to target abundance reference points. Fishing mortality on razor clam in Alaska is unknown, but ADFG manages the commercial fishery to achieve a maximum annual catch of 350, ,000 lbs. In Bri sh Columbia, commercial fishing occurs at Haida Gwaii, and the Haida Fisheries program has conducted popula on studies since Abundance has fluctuated over the years, but has generally remained at a healthy level. Managers have established a maximum harvest rate of 22% of the available clam abundance, and fishing levels have remained below this level in recent years. In Alaska, because of the unknown levels of abundance and fishing mortality, the fishery is considered to have a moderate impact on the Pacific razor clam. In Bri sh Columbia, popula on assessments have been completed and fishing is occurring at a sustainable level, so the impact of this fishery on the Pacific razor clam is considered low. Criterion 1 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor Inherent Vulnerability Low The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteris cs that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing). 13

13 Medium The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteris cs that make it neither par cularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain). High The FishBase vulnerability score for species is , OR species exhibits life history characteris cs that make is par cularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduc on rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spa al behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggrega ng for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduc on) and geographic range. Factor Abundance 5 (Very Low Concern) Strong evidence exists that the popula on is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass. 4 (Low Concern) Popula on may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished 3 (Moderate Concern) Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing. 2 (High Concern) Popula on is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing. 1 (Very High Concern) Popula on is listed as threatened or endangered. Factor Fishing Mortality 5 (Very Low Concern) Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribu on to the mortality of species is negligible ( 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality) (Low Concern) Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribu on to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the popula on is healthy and the species has a low suscep bility to the fishery (low chance of being caught) (Moderate Concern) Fishing mortality is fluctua ng around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high suscep bility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place. 1 (High Concern) Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place. 0 (Cri cal) Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing. NORTHERN RAZOR Factor Inherent Vulnerability 14

14 ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Medium In the Pacific Northwest, the maximum age of the Pacific razor clam can vary by loca on, but it typically lives for 9 11 years (Lassuy and Simons 1989) (Weymouth and McMillian 1930). Razor clam in the northern range of its distribu on has a slower growth rate, because of cooler environmental temperatures, than razor clam in southern la tudes (Weymouth and McMillian 1930). Razor clam is a broadcast spawner and a female can produce between 300,000 and million eggs, depending on her size (ADFG 2015a). Because fer liza on occurs in the water column, spawning/reproduc ve success is depressed at low popula on sizes, and Allee effects are likely (Bishop and Powers 2003) (Lassuy and Simons 1989). Overall, the life history a ributes of the Pacific razor clam indicate that it has a "medium" inherent vulnerability to fishing. Ra onale: Results from the Seafood Watch fish vulnerability rubric (SFW criteria document, p. 4). A ribute scores can range from 1 3, with higher scores signifying more resilient life history a ributes. Species with average a ribute scores of are deemed to have a "medium" vulnerability. Figure 5 Factor Abundance ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderate Concern Currently, the only commercial razor clam fishery in Alaska occurs on the west side of Cook Inlet just north of Tuxedni Bay (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) began monitoring the popula ons of clams in Cook Inlet in 1965 a er an earthquake in 1964 adversely affected razor clam popula ons and halted commercial fishing (Nelson 1994) (Szari et al. 2010) (Kerkvliet and Booz 2015). ADFG collects informa on on the number of diggers, number of days fishing occurs, and total catch, to iden fy the catch per unit effort (CPUE). There have not been any significant changes over me to indicate that there are any issues with the sustainability of the fishery; however, no formal popula on studies have been conducted (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015) (Shields and Dupuis 2015). ADFG has iden fied assessing the popula on at west Upper Cook Inlet as a priority a er managers recently had to issue an emergency closure for the recrea onal fishery on the east Upper Cook Inlet because of low abundance (see Detailed Ra onale) (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015) (ADFG 2015c). Because Pacific razor clam has a medium vulnerability to fishing and there are no es mates of Pacific razor clam abundance rela ve to target abundance reference points, we have awarded a score of "moderate" concern. 15

15 Ra onale: On February 14, 2015, an emergency closure was ordered by ADFG for the Pacific razor clam recrea onal fishery on east Cook Inlet beaches from the mouth of the Kenai River to the south p of Homer Spit, for March 1 to December 31, 2015 (ADFG 2015c). A 2014 popula on study of east Cook Inlet beaches es mated that the abundance of mature razor clams ( 80 mm) was approximately 82% below the average at Ninilchik South and 89% below the average at Clam Gulch. The abundance of immature razor clams (< 80 mm) was approximately 36% below the average at Ninilchik South and 86% below the average at Clam Gulch. Assessments of most east Cook Inlet beaches found similar trends. The cause of the decline in the Pacific razor clam popula ons in east Cook Inlet is unknown but is poten ally a result of poor spawning and/or se ling success (Kerkvliet and Booz 2015) (ADFG 2015c). BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Low Concern The largest Pacific razor clam popula on in Bri sh Columbia is on Haida Gwaii between Masset and Rose Spit, which is where the majority of commercial fishing occurs (Jones and Garza 1998). The Haida Fisheries Program has conducted popula on studies for the Pacific razor clam since 1994 (CHN and DFO 2013). Pacific razor clam abundance has fluctuated over the years but appears to have generally remained at a healthy level. A 2009 assessment of Pacific razor clam es mated the fishable biomass at maximum sustainable yield (B M SY) to be 1,404,000 lbs (637 MT) (Jones et al. 2009). There were some concerns with the methods used in this assessment, but based on this study, managers have established a provisional upper abundance reference point of 1,124,000 lbs (510 MT) (80% B M SY), and a provisional limit abundance reference point of 562,179 lbs (255 MT) (40% B M SY) (DFO 2010). At the end of 2011, the es mated abundance dropped to 1,047,000 lbs (475 MT), which was below the upper abundance reference point, but abundance has since returned to and been maintained at a level above the upper abundance reference point (CHN and DFO 2016). Abundance was es mated to be 2,165,000 lbs (982 MT) at the beginning of the 2015 season (CHN and DFO 2013) (pers. comm., Haida Na on 2016). Because it is probable that the razor clam popula on at Haida Gwaii is not overfished, and recent abundance has been above threshold levels, we have awarded a "low" concern score. Ra onale: 16

16 Figure 6 The abundance of razor clam (> 90 mm) in numbers from at Haida Gwaii by area. Data from pers. comm., Haida Na on Figure 7 The es mated exploitable biomass of Pacific razor clam at Haida Gwaii from (blue line) rela ve to the es mated biomass at maximum sustainable yield (B M SY) (gray line). Data from Jones et al and pers. comm., Haida Na on Factor Fishing Mortality ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderate Concern 17

17 There have been no formal assessments of Pacific razor clam at west Cook Inlet Alaska where the commercial fishery occurs, so fishing mortality is unknown. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) manages the commercial razor clam fishery to achieve a catch of no more than 350, ,000 lbs (Shields and Dupuis 2015). Over the past 10 years ( ), catches in the commercial fishery have remained below this level, with an overall annual average of 338,115 lbs (153 MT) (Shields and Dupuis 2015). In 2014, the commercial razor clam catch was 348,000 lbs (158 MT). Nineteen diggers par cipated in the commercial fishery in 2014 and digging occurred over a total of 61 days from May 11 to July 30 (Shields and Dupuis 2015). Because there are no es mates of fishing mortality rela ve to sustainable fishing reference points, we have awarded a "moderate" concern score. Ra onale: Figure 8 Commercial landings of Pacific razor clams in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska from Data from Shields and Dupuis BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Low Concern 18

18 Over the past decade ( ), catches in the commercial fishery at Haida Gwaii have varied from a low of 44,092 lbs (20 MT) to a high of 440,924 lbs (200 MT), with an overall average of 245,154 lbs (111 MT) (pers. comm., Haida Na on 2016). Catches have varied because of market demand, fishing effort, and abundance (CHN and DFO 2013). Catch limits were first introduced in 2000, and from 2001 to 2009 were set based on a maximum harvest rate of 12.3% of the forecasted clam abundance. The 12.3% maximum harvest rate was es mated from a 2001 study and was considered equivalent to two-thirds of the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (F M SY) (Jones et al. 2009). A 2009 study provided updated es mates for several common fishing mortality reference points/targets (F M SY, F 0.1, and F 0.2) (Jones et al. 2009). Based on this study, managers established a new maximum harvest rate of 22% (equivalent to the F 0.2 reference point and well below F M SY). Some scien sts had concerns about the methods used in the updated study and concerns about increasing the harvest rate (DFO 2010), but so far it has not nega vely affected the razor clam popula on (CHN and DFO 2016). Managers established a control rule so that if clam abundance falls below the upper abundance reference point of 1,124,000 lbs (510 MT), the harvest rate is decreased, and if abundance falls below the limit reference point of 562,179 lbs (255 MT), all fishing is stopped (CHN and DFO 2013). From 2001 to 2009, fishing mortality exceeded the established 12.3% harvest rate several mes, but since the new harvest rate was implemented, fishing mortality has remained below established goals (pers. comm., Haida Na on 2016). In 2012, the harvest rate was dropped from 22% to 19% to reflect cau on because of a drop in abundance below the upper abundance reference point. Since 2013, razor clam abundance has returned to and remained above the upper abundance reference point, and the 22% harvest rate has remained in effect (CHN and DFO 2016) (pers. comm., Haida Na on 2016). For 2016, the overall catch limit is set at 416,000 lbs (188.7 mt) (CHN and DFO 2016). We have awarded a "low" concern score. Ra onale: Figure 9 Commercial landings of Pacific razor clam from at Haida Gwaii. Data from pers. comm., Haida Na on

19 Figure 10 The es mated fishing mortality of Pacific razor clam at Haida Gwaii from Data from pers. comm., Haida Na on

20 Criterion 2: Impacts on other species All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is mul plied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use rela ve to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern Score 2.2=Red or High Concern Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cr cal Criterion 2 Summary Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 sec on; a full list and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix B. NORTHERN RAZOR - ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC - HAND COLLECTED Subscore: Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore No other main species caught NORTHERN RAZOR - BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC - HAND COLLECTED Subscore: Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore No other main species caught Legal clam fishing gear is restricted to hand-operated clam guns/tubes and shovels. Shovels are typically narrow-bladed and guns/tubes are 4- to 6-inch diameter pipes or tubes with a handle or vent. Digging is a highly labor-intensive process {pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015}. A razor clam is found by a small depression ("show") in the sand, le by the clam when it retreats its siphon. Clams are dug individually, and the gun or shovel is pushed down over the depression in the sand made by the clam, and then retracted to bring the clam onto the beach. Hand-digging for clams allows fishers to be quite selec ve about their catch and to return unwanted species alive to their habitats, resul ng in negligible bycatch. 21

21 Criterion 3: Management Effec veness Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of nonretained species (bycatch strategy). The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 ra ng is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern Score 2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern Ra ng is Cri cal if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ra ngs are Cri cal. Criterion 3 Summary Region / Method Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score Alaska / Northeast Pacific / Hand collected Yellow (3.000) Bri sh Columbia / Northeast Pacific / Hand collected Green (4.000) Pacific razor clams are managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) in Alaska, and by the Council of the Haida Na on (CHN) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in Bri sh Columbia. In Alaska, the fishery is managed to achieve a maximum catch of 350,000 to 400,000 lbs annually and is regulated by a minimum size limit. Because of limited monitoring of razor clam abundance and a lack of official conserva on goals, the effec veness of these management regula ons remains uncertain. In Bri sh Columbia, managers conduct regular popula on assessments of razor clams, and this scien fic informa on is used to determine the annual catch limits. Management has a history of adjus ng catch levels if needed and have set catch limits at precau onary levels, based on recent available science. Overall, the Alaska fishery is considered moderately well-managed, while the Bri sh Columbia fishery is considered to have highly effec ve management in place. There is no bycatch in the Alaska or Bri sh Columbia razor clam fisheries. Criterion 3 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scien fic Research/Monitoring, Following of Scien fic Advice, Enforcement of Regula ons, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ineffec ve, moderately effec ve, or highly effec ve. 5 (Very Low Concern) Rated as highly effec ve for all seven subfactors considered 4 (Low Concern) Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated highly effec ve and all other subfactors rated at least moderately effec ve. 3 (Moderate Concern) All subfactors rated at least moderately effec ve. 2 (High Concern) At minimum, meets standards for moderately effec ve for Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ineffec ve. 1 (Very High Concern) Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ineffec ve. 22

22 0 (Cri cal) No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring. Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy Factor 3.1 Summary FACTOR 3.1: MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIES Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion Alaska / Northeast Pacific / Hand collected Bri sh Columbia / Northeast Pacific / Hand collected Moderately Effec ve Highly Effec ve N/A N/A Moderately Effec ve Highly Effec ve Subfactor Management Strategy and Implementa on Moderately Effec ve Highly Effec ve Moderately Effec ve Moderately Effec ve Moderately Effec ve Moderately Effec ve Highly Effec ve Highly Effec ve Considera ons: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effec ve ra ng, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately Effec ve The commercial fishery for Pacific razor clam in Alaska is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). All commercial fishing for razor clam in Alaska occurs on the west side of Cook Inlet just north of Tuxedni Bay, while the east side of the inlet is reserved for recrea onal clamming (Szari et al. 2010) (Shields and Dupuis 2015). There is a minimum size limit of 4.5 inches (114 mm) in shell length as an effort to preserve juvenile clams. If undersized clams are dug and the shell remains intact, they must be reburied (ADFG 2015d). Broken clams must be dyed and sold for bait. A limit of 10% shell breakage is allowed (Shields and Dupuis 2015). A permit is required to catch, buy, sell, or process razor clam. Fishing for razor clam is limited to hand harvest (including the use of shovels or clam guns), unless a specific permit is issued for the use of mechanical or hydraulic dredging (ADFG 2015d). ADFG manages the fishery to achieve an annual maximum catch of 350,000 to 400,000 lbs ( MT) (Shields and Dupuis 2015). There is no limit on the number of permits, diggers, or days that clams are fished, although it appears that there has not been a need for these to be limited. For example, in 2014, in the Upper Cook Inlet Management Area where commercial fishing occurs, there were 14 commercial diggers and harvest occurred over 61 days (Shields and Dupuis 2015). Because the razor clam commercial fishery is limited to a small area, there is a single processing plant for clams caught in the fishery, and ADFG works closely with the plant to monitor catches and catch per unit effort (CPUE) in the fishery (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). Addi onally, in areas where razor clams are caught with the intent for human consump on, they are analyzed weekly for paraly c shellfish poisoning (PSP) (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). Although management regula ons are in place for the Pacific razor clam fishery in Alaska, the effec veness of these regula ons remains uncertain. There have been no formal assessments of the Pacific razor clam popula on on the west side of Cook Inlet and no conserva on goals have been established. A "moderately effec ve" score was awarded. 23

23 BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Highly Effec ve Commercial fishing for Pacific razor clam primarily occurs on Haida Gwaii North Beach, and the fishery is jointly managed by the Council of the Haida Na on (CHN) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The commercial fishery is managed through a total allowable catch (TAC), limited entry license, a minimum size limit of 3.5 in (90 mm) to protect the juvenile popula on, and seasonal closures (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). The razor clam fishery is managed in season by the In-Season Management Commi ee on a beach-by-beach basis, and the commercial fishery closes a er the annual catch limit has been reached (DFO 2013). The TAC is determined annually, based on abundance es mates and the established sustainable harvest rate, and is set at 416,000 lbs (189 MT) for 2016 (CHN and DFO 2016). From 2001 to 2009, the catch limit was based on a sustainable harvest rate of 12.3% of the es mated fishable abundance (this harvest rate was considered equivalent to two-thirds of the es mated fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, F M SY). But in 2010, a new sustainable maximum harvest rate of 22% was approved, along with provisional abundance reference points, based on an updated study (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). There were some concerns with the study, but the adopted harvest rate appears fairly conserva ve, and is well below the new es mate of the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (Jones et al. 2009) (DFO 2010). Addi onally, if abundance falls below the upper abundance reference point (80% of the biomass at maximum sustainable yield, B M SY), the harvest rate is decreased, and if abundance falls below the lower abundance reference point (40% B M SY), all fishing is prohibited (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). There is also a small recrea onal fishery at North Beach near Masse, Long Beach, and other beaches on the west coast of Vancouver Island (DFO 2013). The recrea onal fishery requires a license, and fishers are limited to 50 clams daily and 100 clams total. There currently is not a size limit in the recrea onal fishery, but fishers are encouraged to obey the commercial size limit. Recrea onal surveys are conducted from July to August to es mate catch. Overall, surveys of recrea onal diggers have indicated that the annual recrea onal catch is less than 1,000 lbs (0.45 MT) from North Beach, and catches are assumed to be low in other regions (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). There are no limits placed on the Haida noncommercial (food, social, and ceremonial) fisheries, but they are encouraged to respect the minimum size limit in the commercial fishery (CHN and DFO 2016). Because a precau onary management strategy is in place and the Pacific razor clam popula on on Haida Gwaii has been maintained at a healthy level, we have awarded a "highly effec ve" score for management strategy and implementa on. Subfactor Recovery of Species of Concern Considera ons: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a ra ng of Highly Effec ve, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate meframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED N/A There are no overfished, depleted, threatened, or endangered species targeted or retained in the Pacific razor clam fisheries. Subfactor Scien fic Research and Monitoring Considera ons: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the popula on and 24

24 the fishery s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, popula on assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the popula on status. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately Effec ve There has not been a stock assessment completed for the Pacific razor clam popula ons on the west side of Upper Cook Inlet, where commercial fishing occurs, but it has been iden fied as a goal by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). Managers monitor catches and fishing effort in the commercial fishery and track the trends of catch per unit effort (CPUE) over me, providing some indica on of the health of the popula on. But there is currently no fishery-independent monitoring of abundance. Recently, a stock assessment was completed for the Pacific razor clam popula ons on the east side of Upper Cook Inlet, where there is a large recrea onal fishery (Kerkvliet and Booz 2015). The east and west beaches are considered separate popula ons, but recent declines in the abundance of razor clam on the east beaches that were shown by the stock assessment could indicate some cause for concern for the health of razor clam on the west Cook Inlet beaches. Though there is some monitoring of the razor clam popula on in the west Upper Cook Inlet, further monitoring is needed to ensure the long-term health of the popula on. Therefore, a "moderately effec ve" score is awarded. BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Highly Effec ve In Bri sh Columbia, Canada, razor clam popula ons have been es mated through a variety of techniques including mark-recapture studies, tagging, and hydraulic sampling (Jones et. al 2001). The largest Pacific razor clam popula on occurs on Haida Gwaii between Masset and Rose Spit (Jones and Garza 1998). The Haida Gwaii popula on supports commercial, recrea onal, and social/ceremonial fisheries. The Haida Fisheries Program has conducted standardized annual popula on surveys for Pacific razor clam since In 2001, fishers began to report landings on beach slips by beach sec on, and the amount of beach surveyed at Haida has increased over me to gather data where significant fishing effort was recorded. Abundance es mates produced from the popula on surveys are used to determine the annual catch limits (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). This factor is rated "highly effec ve." Subfactor Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien fic recommenda ons/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately Effec ve To date, there have been no formal assessments of Pacific razor clam in west Upper Cook Inlet, where the commercial fishery takes place, so there has been li le scien fic advice provided on how to manage the fishery. The fishery is managed with a recommended maximum catch of 350, ,000 lbs, and catches have rarely exceeded this level (Shields and Dupuis 2015). Popula on studies of Pacific razor clam have been completed for the east Cook Inlet beaches, where there is a high intensity of recrea onal fishing. A er a 2014 popula on study showed that Pacific razor clam abundance was well below average on the east Cook Inlet beaches, managers issued an emergency closure of the recrea onal fisheries (ADFG 2015c). Managers appear to make appropriate management decisions based on science, when available, but because of the limited informa on, a "moderately effec ve" score is awarded. 25

25 BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Highly Effec ve The razor clam fishery in Bri sh Columbia is managed through a total allowable catch limit (TAC), which is determined from recent abundance es mates, and through an established maximum harvest rate. The maximum harvest rate is set to reflect cau on and reduce the risk of a fishery closure (Jones et al. 2009) (CHN and DFO 2013). The harvest rate and catch limit are adjusted if Pacific razor clam abundance falls below the recommended threshold level (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). Because the annual catch limits are based on scien fic advice and reflect cau on, this factor is scored as "highly effec ve." Subfactor Enforcement of Management Regula ons Considera ons: Do fishermen comply with regula ons, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, there must be regular enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately Effec ve The commercial fishery on the west side of Cook Inlet is in a remote area and diggers reside in a small remote camp during the fishing season, so in-person enforcement is difficult. Clams are transported to the nearby town of Nikiski, where they are processed immediately. Catch and effort informa on is monitored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) through fish ckets provided by the processing plant where the clams are sold. ADFG is in constant communica on with the processing plant about razor clam catch levels in rela on to the maximum catch goal of 350, ,000 lbs (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). All commercial catches, including fish and shellfish, are required by law to be reported within 7 days of landing (ADFG 2016b). But ADFG occasionally requires preliminary catch reports to be sent immediately, to allow for quick decision making (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). Overall, enforcement is considered moderately effec ve." BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately Effec ve All par cipants in the commercial razor clam fishery are required to record all landings, including clams that are sold as bait, kept for personal use, or otherwise disposed of. The fishery is managed and monitored inseason, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for enforcing regula ons (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). But enforcement can be difficult because of the vast number and spread of beaches where clamming occurs (DFO 2015). The Haida Fisheries Program (HFP) has plans to develop a North Beach Stewardship Strategy for 2016, in an effort to educate the public and provide informa on on various issues including razor clam harves ng (CHN and DFO 2016). Overall enforcement is considered "moderately effec ve." Subfactor Management Track Record Considera ons: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining popula ons at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain popula ons at sustainable levels? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species over me. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately Effec ve 26

26 Although overall trends in catch per unit effort in the commercial fishery indicate a stable popula on of razor clam at west Cook Inlet, not enough research has been conducted to determine if the current management strategy is sufficient to maintain long-term popula on abundance. Therefore, the track record is uncertain and considered "moderately effec ve." BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately Effec ve Measures used by management appear to be maintaining the Pacific razor clam popula on at Haida Gwaii. Abundance has fluctuated but has generally remained at a healthy level (CHN and DFO 2013) (pers. comm., Haida Na on 2016). But in the past, fishing mortality has some mes exceeded the recommended harvest rate (pers. comm., Haida Na on 2016). Recently, the harvest rate was increased. There was some concern about whether increasing the harvest rate was a good idea (DFO 2010), but so far it has not nega vely affected the popula on (CHN and DFO 2016). Because the recommend harvest rate has at mes been exceeded, and it remains too soon to determine if the new harvest rate will result in the long-term maintenance of the razor clam popula on, a "moderately effec ve" score is awarded for track record. Subfactor Stakeholder Inclusion Considera ons: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organiza ons that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conserva on groups, etc.). A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Highly Effec ve The Alaska Department of Fish and Game allows for public and stakeholder input when management regula ons are considered and developed. The Board of Fisheries is the state s regulatory authority that passes regula ons and makes regulatory decisions. There are also advisory commi ees, which are local groups that provide recommenda ons to the board on fishing issues. Mee ngs are open to the public and other stakeholders, with the op on to provide comments on agenda topics (ADFG 2016a). Because the regulatory process is transparent and open to stakeholder input, inclusion is considered "highly effec ve." BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Highly Effec ve In 2005, an In-Season Management Commi ee was created to allow for a more collabora ve and transparent management process. The Commi ee includes members from the Razor Clam Diggers Associa on, Council of the Haida Na on, Old Masse Village Council, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), and Masset razor clam processors who meet to deal with in-season management issues (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). Stakeholder inclusion is considered "highly effec ve." Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy SCORING GUIDELINES Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy and Implementa on, Scien fic Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scien fic Advice, and Enforcement of Regula ons. Each is rated as 27

27 ineffec ve, moderately effec ve, or highly effec ve. Unless reason exists to rate Scien fic Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scien fic Advice, and Enforcement of Regula ons differently, these ra ng are the same as in (Very Low Concern) Rated as highly effec ve for all four subfactors considered 4 (Low Concern) Management Strategy rated highly effec ve and all other subfactors rated at least moderately effec ve. 3 (Moderate Concern) All subfactors rated at least moderately effec ve. 2 (High Concern) At minimum, meets standards for moderately effec ve for Management Strategy but some other factors rated ineffec ve. 1 (Very High Concern) Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ineffec ve. 0 (Cri cal) No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substatn ally impacted by the fishery FACTOR 3.2: BYCATCH STRATEGY Region / Method Alaska / Northeast Pacific / Hand collected Bri sh Columbia / Northeast Pacific / Hand collected All Kept Cri cal Strategy Research Advice Enforce Yes Yes Subfactor Scien fic Research and Monitoring Considera ons: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collec on program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met Subfactor Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien fic recommenda ons/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice. Subfactor Enforcement of Management Regula ons Considera ons: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regula ons and what is the level of fishermen s compliance with regula ons? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, there must be consistent enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance. 28

28 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mi gate any impacts. The fishery s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnec ons among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment. The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mi ga on of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern Score 2.2=Red or High Concern Ra ng cannot be Cri cal for Criterion 4. Criterion 4 Summary Region / Method Alaska / Northeast Pacific / Hand collected Bri sh Columbia / Northeast Pacific / Hand collected Gear Type and Substrate 3.00: Low Concern 3.00: Low Concern Mi ga on of Gear Impacts EBFM Score 0.25: Minimal Mi ga on 0.25: Minimal Mi ga on 3.00: Moderate Concern 3.00: Moderate Concern Yellow (3.122) Yellow (3.122) The use of hand-operated clam shovels and tubes/guns likely causes low to moderate damage to the beach habitats where razor clam fishing occurs. In both Alaska and Bri sh Columbia, fishing intensity appears to be effec vely controlled, but is not ac vely being reduced. It is likely that the removal of razor clam at low volumes has low impacts on the ecosystem; however, there are no efforts to fully assess the ecological impacts of the removal of Pacific razor clam through the fishery. Criterion 4 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate 5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bo om 4 (Very Low) - Ver cal line gear 3 (Low) Gears that contacts the bo om, but is not dragged along the bo om (e.g. gillnet, bo om longline, trap) and is not fished on sensi ve habitats. Bo om seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bo om occasionally 2 (Moderate) Bo om dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bo om longline fished on sensi ve boulder or coral reef habitat. Bo om seine except on mud/sand 1 (High) Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensi ve habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder) 0 (Very High) Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When mul ple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classifica on is 29

29 uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensi ve, plausible habitat type. Factor Mi ga on of Gear Impacts +1 (Strong Mi ga on) Examples include large propor on of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifica ons shown to be effec ve at reducing damage, or an effec ve combina on of moderate mi ga on measures (Moderate Mi ga on) 20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spa al footprint of damage caused from fishing (Low Mi ga on) A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not ac vely being reduced 0 (No Mi ga on) No effec ve measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats Factor Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management 5 (Very Low Concern) Substan al efforts have been made to protect species ecological roles and ensure fishing prac ces do not have nega ve ecological effects (e.g., large propor on of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators) 4 (Low Concern) Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an excep onally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize poten ally nega ve ecological effect if hatchery supplementa on or fish aggrega ng devices (FADs) are used. 3 (Moderate Concern) Fishery does not catch species that play an excep onally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR nega ve ecological effects from hatchery supplementa on or FADs are possible and management is not place to mi gate these impacts 2 (High Concern) Fishery catches species that play an excep onally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management. 1 (Very High Concern) Use of hatchery supplementa on or fish aggrega ng devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious nega ve ecological or gene c consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web. Factor Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Low Concern Legal clam harves ng gear is restricted to hand-operated clam guns/tubes and shovels (Shields and Dupuis 2015) (ADFG 2015d) (CHN and DFO 2016). Clams are dug individually, and the gun/tube or shovel is pushed down over the depression in the sand made by the clam, then retracted to bring the clam onto the beach (Lassuy and Simons 1989) (ADFG 2010). These various gear types can have some nega ve impacts on bo om habitats. For example, a study conducted on the impacts of digging for clams in so -bo om habitats in Maine found that digging can have a cumula ve nega ve impact on the bo om community, reducing the overall number of species in the areas dug (Brown and Wilson 1997). But sand habitats are likely to recover at a faster rate than hard-bo om habitats. Overall, clam tubes and shovels are considered to cause low to moderate damage to the beach habitats. 30

30 Factor Mi ga on of Gear Impacts ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Minimal Mi ga on The commercial fishery for Pacific razor clam in Alaska currently occurs in upper west Cook Inlet, at one remote beach just north of Tuxedni Bay (see image below) (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). Although regula ons are not in place to seasonally limit effort, digging at this beach usually occurs between May and August, which may limit the overall effects of digging in the area (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). In 2014, for example, there were 14 commercial diggers, and harvest occurred over 61 days. The fishery is managed to achieve a maximum annual catch of 350,000 to 400,000 lbs (Shields and Dupuis 2015). There is also a recrea onal fishery for razor clam that takes place on the east side of Cook Inlet, primarily between the 50-mi area of Kasilof and Anchor River (ADFG 2010). The razor clam fishery is small, and fishing intensity seems to be effec vely controlled but is not ac vely being reduced; therefore, the mi ga on of gear impacts is considered "minimal." Ra onale: Figure 11 The area open for commercial razor clam harvest on the west side of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Image from Shields and Dupuis BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Minimal Mi ga on 31

31 Pacific razor clams occur in two major concentra ons in Bri sh Columbia: Long Beach on Vancouver Island and on Haida Gwaii. In Bri sh Columbia, the only commercial shellfish fishery occurs at North Beach on Haida Gwaii (CHN and DFO 2013). The commercial fishery is managed in-season, and each year the fishery is typically opened by March (depending on the de levels) and is closed when the annual catch limit is reached (CHN and DFO 2013). In the past, digging has been prohibited in August, during the spawning season (CHN and DFO 2013). Recrea onal fishing also occurs in Bri sh Columbia, both at Haida Gwaii and Vancouver Island (DFO 2016). Recrea onal fishing is restricted through daily limits. Because fishing occurs over much of the areas where substan al razor clam popula ons exist, and fishing intensity is effec vely controlled but not being ac vely reduced, the mi ga on of gear impacts on habitat is considered "minimal." Ra onale: Figure 12 The DFO management areas on the Pacific coast of Canada where Pacific razor clam are found. Image from DFO h p:// 32