AND Northern razor clam Siliqua patula Northeast Paci c: Alaska and British Columbia Hand collected Fisheries Standard Version F2 October 3, 2016 The Sa na Center Seafood Analysts Disclaimer: Seafood Watch and The Sa na Center strive to ensure that all our Seafood Reports and recommendations contained therein are accurate and re ect the most up-to-date evidence available at the time of publication. All our reports are peer-reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, sheries science or aquaculture.scienti c review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or of The Sa na Center or their recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists.seafood Watch and The Sa na Center are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional 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 Foundation and other funders.
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 4 5 6 7 8 12 12 21 23 32 38 39 3
About The Sa na Center The Sa na Center (formerly Blue Ocean Institute) translates scienti c information into language people can understand and serves as a unique voice of hope, guidance, and encouragement. The Sa na Center (TSC) works through science, art, and literature to inspire solutions and a deeper connection with nature, especially the sea. Our mission is to inspire more people to actively engage as well-informed and highly motivated constituents for conservation. Led by conservation pioneer and MacArthur fellow, Dr. Carl Sa na, we show how nature, community, the economy and prospects for peace are all intertwined. Through Sa na s books, essays, public speaking, PBS television series, our Fellows program and Sustainable Seafood program, we seek to inspire people to make better choices. The Sa na Center was founded in 2003 by Dr. Carl Sa na and was built on three decades of research, writing and policy work by Dr. Sa na. The Sa na Center s Sustainable Seafood Program The Center s founders created the rst seafood guide in 1998. Our online seafood guide now encompasses over 160-wild-caught species. All peer-reviewed seafood reports are transparent, authoritative, easy to understand and use. Seafood ratings 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 connection between human health, a healthy ocean, shing and sustainable seafood. Our online guide to sustainable seafood is based on scienti c ratings 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 ratings from both The Sa na Center and the Seafood Watch program. We partner with Whole Foods Market (WFM) to help educate their seafood suppliers and sta, and provide our scienti c seafood ratings for WFM stores in the US and UK. Through our partnership with Chefs Collaborative, we created Green Chefs/Blue Ocean, a free, interactive, 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, over shing, etc. Check out our Fellows Program, learn more about our Sustainable Seafood Program and Carl Sa na s current work at www.sa nacenter.org. The Sa na Center is a 501 (c) (3) nonpro t organization based in the School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University, Long Island, NY. www.sa nacenter.org admin@sa nacenter.org 631.632.3763 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 de nes sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of a ected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, sheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of Best Choices, Good Alternatives or Avoid. The detailed evaluation 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 information include government technical publications, shery management plans and supporting documents, and other scienti c reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, sheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating sheries and aquaculture practices. Capture sheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scienti c information on each species changes, Seafood Watch s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to re ect these changes. Parties interested in capture sheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they nd useful. For more information about Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990. 5
Guiding Principles The Sa na Center and Seafood Watch de ne sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether shed 1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of a ected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch and the Sa na Center have developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wild-catch sheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are: How does shing a ect the species under assessment? How does the shing a ect other, target and non-target species? How e ective is the shery s management? How does the shing a ect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem? Each criterion includes: Factors to evaluate and score Guidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and the Sa na Center s online guide: Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alternative/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 over shed or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment. 1 Fish is used throughout this document to refer to n sh, shell sh and other invertebrates 6
Summary The Paci c 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 Aleutian Islands in Alaska. Paci c razor clam can grow to over 6 in (16 cm) in length, typically lives for 9 11 years, and matures fairly quickly. Commercial shing for Paci c razor clams occurs in Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska. This assessment covers the Alaska and British Columbia sheries. In Alaska, the current commercial Paci c razor clam shery occurs at Upper Cook Inlet. There have been no formal population assessments of this Paci c razor clam population, so abundance and shing mortality levels are unknown. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) aims to keep catches to a maximum of 350,000 400,000 lbs annually. There is also a minimum size limit of 4.5 inches (11.4 cm) in shell length as an e ort to preserve juvenile clams. In British Columbia, the commercial shery occurs at Haida Gwaii and is jointly managed by the Council of the Haida Nation and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Annual population studies of the Paci c razor clam population at Haida Gwaii indicate that the abundance of razor clam has remained at a healthy level over the years, and that current shing levels are sustainable. Managers use annual estimates of abundance to set the catch limit each year, and have established a maximum shing 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 tide. In Alaska and British Columbia, shers dig for Paci c razor clam using clam tubes/guns and shovels. These hand gears allow shers to be very selective about their catch and to return unwanted species alive to their habitats. Thus the sheries have negligible e ects 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 sheries for Paci c razor clam in Alaska and British Columbia are rated Green or Best Choice. 7
Final Seafood Recommendations SPECIES/FISHERY Northern razor Alaska Northeast Paci c, Hand collected Northern razor British Columbia Northeast Paci c, 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 ve where zero indicates very poor performance and ve indicates the shing operations have no signi cant impact. 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 Critical scores Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, 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 Critical 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 Critical scores. 2 Because e ective management is an essential component of sustainable sheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any shery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3). 8
Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report evaluates the Paci c or northern razor clam (Siliqua patula) sheries in Alaska and British Columbia. Gears evaluated in this report include hand-operated clam guns/tubes and shovels. The Paci c razor clam sheries in Washington and Oregon have been evaluated in a separate report. Species Overview The Paci c or northern razor clam is a marine bivalve found along the North American West Coast on intertidal and subtidal exposed sandy beaches from Pismo Beach, California to the Aleutian Islands in Alaska (Weymouth et. al. 1925) (Lassuy and Simons 1989). It can range from 4 ft below the high-tide line to 180 ft (55 m) deep (ADFG 2015a). Razor clam feeds on tiny plants and animals called plankton that it lters from the seawater (ADFG 2015a). Paci c 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 latitude, and northern populations typically have slower growth rates and longer life spans than those in more southern latitudes (Weymouth and McMillian 1930). Predators of razor clam include gulls, ducks, crabs, and various sh species (Lassuy and Simons 1989). Paci c razor clam is commercially and recreationally harvested in Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and British Columbia. This report only covers the sheries in Alaska and British Columbia. The sheries are managed by state or province and tribal governments because sheries occur in state or province waters and areas subject to treaty rights. Historically, the state of Alaska had a signi cant razor clam shery. By the early 1960s, the razor clam shery 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 population has not returned to previous numbers (Nelson 1994) (Bishop and Powers 2003). The only current commercial shery in Alaska is on the western beaches of Upper Cook Inlet (see Figure 1) (Bishop and Powers 2003) (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). The shery is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) (ADFG 2010). The commercial shery in British Columbia mainly occurs on Haida Gwaii North Beach (see Figure 2) and has been jointly managed by the Council of the Haida Nation and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) since 1994 through a Razor Clam Subagreement (DFO 2013). The razor clam population on Haida Gwaii is the largest in British Columbia and supports commercial, recreational, and Haida noncommercial sheries (DFO 2013). 9
Figure 1 The area open for commercial razor clam harvest on the west side of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Image from Shields and Dupuis 2015. Figure 2 Paci c razor clam management areas at Haida Gwaii, British Columbia. Image from CHN and DFO 2013. 10
Production Statistics 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, Paci c 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 Paci c razor clam shery occurs only in Upper Cook Inlet. Over a recent decade (2005 2014), catches in the commercial shery 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 annual average of 338,100 lbs (153 MT) (Shields and Dupuis 2015). All clams must be sold for human consumption, 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 British Columbia, Canada, catches of Paci c razor clams were high in the 1920s and 1930s when a cannery was in operation. Since then, catches have uctuated with changes in market demand and abundance. Currently, the only commercial shery in British Columbia exists at Haida Gwaii, where commercial harvest has occurred since 1924. Over the past decade (2006 2015), catches in the commercial shery 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 Nation 2016) (CHN and DFO 2013). In British Columbia, most commercially harvested razor clams are used as bait in the crab shery, 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 Paci c razor clam in Upper Cook Inlet, AK and Haida Gwaii, BC, where commercial shing currently occurs. Figure 3 Commercial landings for Paci c razor clam at upper Cook Inlet, Alaska from 1919 2014. Data from Shields and Dupuis 2015. 11
Figure 4 Commercial landings for Paci c razor clam at Haida Gwaii Beach, BC from 1950 2014. Data from Jones et al. 2009 and pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016. Importance to the US/North American market. Paci c razor clam is found in U.S. and Canadian waters and sold regionally and locally (pers. comm., Pat Shields 2015). Besides Alaska and British Columbia, signi cant commercial sheries for Paci c razor clam also occur in Washington, by the state and the Quinualt Indian Nation. There is also a small shery for Paci c razor clam in Oregon. For further information on these sheries, see the Washington and Oregon Paci c Razor Clam report. Common and market names. Common names for razor clam include Paci c razor clam, northern razor clam, and giant pod. There is also an Atlantic razor clam (Ensis directus) that is unrelated to the Paci c razor clam (Siliqua patula). Only the Paci c razor clam is covered in this report. Primary product forms The Paci c razor clam is harvested for both human consumption and for bait. Paci c razor clams are commonly fried, baked, and used to make clam chowder. 12
Assessment This section assesses the sustainability of the shery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org. Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment This criterion evaluates the impact of shing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to shing rating in uences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown. The nal Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and shing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating 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 Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical Criterion 1 Summary NORTHERN RAZOR Region / Method Alaska/Northeast Paci c Hand collected British Columbia/Northeast Paci c Hand collected Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Medium Medium 3.00: Moderate Concern 4.00: Low Concern 2.33: Moderate Concern 3.67: Low Concern Yellow (2.644) Green (3.831) Paci c razor clam in British Columbia and Alaska is considered to have a medium inherent vulnerability to shing pressure. In Alaska, clam abundance is monitored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) by tracking catch per unit e ort. But there are no estimates of Paci c razor clam abundance relative to target abundance reference points. Fishing mortality on razor clam in Alaska is unknown, but ADFG manages the commercial shery to achieve a maximum annual catch of 350,000 400,000 lbs. In British Columbia, commercial shing occurs at Haida Gwaii, and the Haida Fisheries program has conducted population studies since 1994. Abundance has uctuated 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 shing levels have remained below this level in recent years. In Alaska, because of the unknown levels of abundance and shing mortality, the shery is considered to have a moderate impact on the Paci c razor clam. In British Columbia, population assessments have been completed and shing is occurring at a sustainable level, so the impact of this shery on the Paci c razor clam is considered low. 13
Criterion 1 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability Low The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to shing, (e.g., early maturing). Medium The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to shing, (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 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to shing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine shes to shing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at rst maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) and geographic range. Factor 1.2 - Abundance 5 (Very Low Concern) Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass. 4 (Low Concern) Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not over shed 3 (Moderate Concern) Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to shing. 2 (High Concern) Population is over shed, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to shing. 1 (Very High Concern) Population is listed as threatened or endangered. Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality 5 (Very Low Concern) Highly likely that shing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below shing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR shery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality of species is negligible ( 5% of a sustainable level of shing mortality). 3.67 (Low Concern) Probable (>50%) chance that shing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR shery does not target species and does not adversely a ect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR shing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the species has a low susceptibility to the shery (low chance of being caught). 2.33 (Moderate Concern) Fishing mortality is uctuating around sustainable levels, OR shing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the shery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place. 1 (High Concern) Over shing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail over shing, OR shing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place. 14
0 (Critical) Over shing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail over shing. NORTHERN RAZOR Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Medium In the Paci c Northwest, the maximum age of the Paci c razor clam can vary by location, but it typically lives for 9 11 years (Lassuy and Simons 1989) (Weymouth and McMillian 1930). Razor clam in the northern range of its distribution has a slower growth rate, because of cooler environmental temperatures, than razor clam in southern latitudes (Weymouth and McMillian 1930). Razor clam is a broadcast spawner and a female can produce between 300,000 and 118.5 million eggs, depending on her size (ADFG 2015a). Because fertilization occurs in the water column, spawning/reproductive success is depressed at low population sizes, and Allee e ects are likely (Bishop and Powers 2003) (Lassuy and Simons 1989). Overall, the life history attributes of the Paci c razor clam indicate that it has a "medium" inherent vulnerability to shing. Rationale: Results from the Seafood Watch sh vulnerability rubric (SFW criteria document, p. 4). Attribute scores can range from 1 3, with higher scores signifying more resilient life history attributes. Species with average attribute scores of 1.85 2.45 are deemed to have a "medium" vulnerability. Figure 5 15
Factor 1.2 - Abundance ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderate Concern Currently, the only commercial razor clam shery 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 populations of clams in Cook Inlet in 1965 after an earthquake in 1964 adversely a ected razor clam populations and halted commercial shing (Nelson 1994) (Szari et al. 2010) (Kerkvliet and Booz 2015). ADFG collects information on the number of diggers, number of days shing occurs, and total catch, to identify the catch per unit e ort (CPUE). There have not been any signi cant changes over time to indicate that there are any issues with the sustainability of the shery; however, no formal population studies have been conducted (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015) (Shields and Dupuis 2015). ADFG has identi ed assessing the population at west Upper Cook Inlet as a priority after managers recently had to issue an emergency closure for the recreational shery on the east Upper Cook Inlet because of low abundance (see Detailed Rationale) (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015) (ADFG 2015c). Because Paci c razor clam has a medium vulnerability to shing and there are no estimates of Paci c razor clam abundance relative to target abundance reference points, we have awarded a score of "moderate" concern. Rationale: On February 14, 2015, an emergency closure was ordered by ADFG for the Paci c razor clam recreational shery on east Cook Inlet beaches from the mouth of the Kenai River to the south tip of Homer Spit, for March 1 to December 31, 2015 (ADFG 2015c). A 2014 population study of east Cook Inlet beaches estimated that the abundance of mature razor clams ( 80 mm) was approximately 82% below the 1991 2012 average at Ninilchik South and 89% below the 1989 2008 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 Paci c razor clam populations in east Cook Inlet is unknown but is potentially a result of poor spawning and/or settling success (Kerkvliet and Booz 2015) (ADFG 2015c). BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Low Concern The largest Paci c razor clam population in British Columbia is on Haida Gwaii between Masset and Rose Spit, which is where the majority of commercial shing occurs ( Jones and Garza 1998). The Haida Fisheries Program has conducted population studies for the Paci c razor clam since 1994 (CHN and DFO 2013). Paci c razor clam abundance has uctuated over the years but appears to have generally remained at a healthy level. A 2009 assessment of Paci c razor clam estimated the shable biomass at maximum sustainable yield (B MSY) to be 1,404,000 lbs (637 MT) ( Jones et al. 2009). There were some concerns with the methods 16
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 MSY), and a provisional limit abundance reference point of 562,179 lbs (255 MT) (40% B MSY) (DFO 2010). At the end of 2011, the estimated 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 estimated to be 2,165,000 lbs (982 MT) at the beginning of the 2015 season (CHN and DFO 2013) (pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016). Because it is probable that the razor clam population at Haida Gwaii is not over shed, and recent abundance has been above threshold levels, we have awarded a "low" concern score. Rationale: Figure 6 The abundance of razor clam (> 90 mm) in numbers from 1924 2015 at Haida Gwaii by area. Data from pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016. 17
Figure 7 The estimated exploitable biomass of Paci c razor clam at Haida Gwaii from 1994 2015 (blue line) relative to the estimated biomass at maximum sustainable yield (B MSY) (gray line). Data from Jones et al. 2009 and pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016. Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderate Concern There have been no formal assessments of Paci c razor clam at west Cook Inlet Alaska where the commercial shery occurs, so shing mortality is unknown. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) manages the commercial razor clam shery to achieve a catch of no more than 350,000 400,000 lbs (Shields and Dupuis 2015). Over the past 10 years (2005 2014), catches in the commercial shery 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 participated in the commercial shery 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 estimates of shing mortality relative to sustainable shing reference points, we have awarded a "moderate" concern score. Rationale: 18
Figure 8 Commercial landings of Paci c razor clams in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska from 1984-2014. Data from Shields and Dupuis 2015. BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Low Concern Over the past decade (2006 2015), catches in the commercial shery 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 Nation 2016). Catches have varied because of market demand, shing e ort, and abundance (CHN and DFO 2013). Catch limits were rst 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 estimated from a 2001 study and was considered equivalent to two-thirds of the shing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (F MSY) (Jones et al. 2009). A 2009 study provided updated estimates for several common shing mortality reference points/targets (F MSY, 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 MSY). Some scientists 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 negatively a ected the razor clam population (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 shing is stopped (CHN and DFO 2013). 19
From 2001 to 2009, shing mortality exceeded the established 12.3% harvest rate several times, but since the new harvest rate was implemented, shing mortality has remained below established goals (pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016). In 2012, the harvest rate was dropped from 22% to 19% to re ect caution 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 e ect (CHN and DFO 2016) (pers. comm., Haida Nation 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. Rationale: Figure 9 Commercial landings of Paci c razor clam from 1994 2015 at Haida Gwaii. Data from pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016. 20
Figure 10 The estimated shing mortality of Paci c razor clam at Haida Gwaii from 1994 2015. Data from pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016. 21
Criterion 2: Impacts on other species All main retained and bycatch species in the shery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch de nes bycatch as all sheriesrelated mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost shing. To determine the nal Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating 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 Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Crtitical Criterion 2 Summary NORTHERN RAZOR - ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC - HAND COLLECTED Subscore: 5.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 Score: 5.000 Species No other main species caught Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore NORTHERN RAZOR - BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC - HAND COLLECTED Subscore: 5.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 Score: 5.000 Species No other main species caught Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Legal clam shing 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, left 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 shers to be quite selective about their catch and to return unwanted species alive to their habitats, resulting in negligible bycatch. 22
2.4 - Discards + Bait / Landings ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED < 20% Paci c razor clams must be a minimum of 4.5 in (114 mm) for commercial harvest in Alaska, and all clams below this limit must be reburied, except for clams with broken shells, which must be dyed and sold as bait {Shields and Dupuis 2015}. Juvenile clams that are dug up and reburied with the shell fully intact are believed to have a high chance of survival, although there have not been any o cial studies {pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015}. Because of the selective nature of this shing method and the fact that discarded animals are likely returned to the water alive, the ratio of dead discards to landings is scored as <20%. BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED < 20% In 1994, it was estimated that 1.5% of clams caught were discarded because they were below the legal size limit of 3.5 in (90 mm) {Jones and Garza 1998} {Jones et. al 2001}. There is no available estimate of the current discard rate, but given the 1994 estimate, the current size limit, and the highly selective shing method, it can be strongly assumed that discards in this shery are <20% of the catch. 23
Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy). The nal score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating 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 Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical. Criterion 3 Summary Region / Method Alaska / Northeast Paci c / Hand collected British Columbia / Northeast Paci c / Hand collected Harvest Strategy 3.000: Moderate Concern Bycatch Strategy Score All retained Yellow (3.000) 4.000: Low Concern All retained Green (4.000) Paci c razor clams are managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) in Alaska, and by the Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in British Columbia. In Alaska, the shery 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 o cial conservation goals, the e ectiveness of these management regulations remains uncertain. In British Columbia, managers conduct regular population assessments of razor clams, and this scienti c information is used to determine the annual catch limits. Management has a history of adjusting catch levels if needed and have set catch limits at precautionary levels, based on recent available science. Overall, the Alaska shery is considered moderately well-managed, while the British Columbia shery is considered to have highly e ective management in place. There is no bycatch in the Alaska or British Columbia razor clam sheries. Criterion 3 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scienti c Research/Monitoring, Following of Scienti c Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ine ective, moderately e ective, or highly e ective. 24
5 (Very Low Concern) Rated as highly e ective for all seven subfactors considered 4 (Low Concern) Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated highly e ective and all other subfactors rated at least moderately e ective. 3 (Moderate Concern) All subfactors rated at least moderately e ective. 2 (High Concern) At minimum, meets standards for moderately e ective for Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ine ective. 1 (Very High Concern) Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ine ective. 0 (Critical) No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., shery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported shing occurring. 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 Paci c / Hand collected British Columbia / Northeast Paci c / Hand collected Moderately E ective Highly E ective N/A N/A Moderately E ective Highly E ective Moderately E ective Highly E ective Moderately E ective Moderately E ective Moderately E ective Moderately E ective Highly E ective Highly E ective Subfactor 3.1.1 Management Strategy and Implementation Considerations: 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 e ective rating, 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 E ective The commercial shery for Paci c razor clam in Alaska is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). All commercial shing 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 recreational 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 e ort 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 25
speci c permit is issued for the use of mechanical or hydraulic dredging (ADFG 2015d). ADFG manages the shery to achieve an annual maximum catch of 350,000 to 400,000 lbs (159 181 MT) (Shields and Dupuis 2015). There is no limit on the number of permits, diggers, or days that clams are shed, 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 shing occurs, there were 14 commercial diggers and harvest occurred over 61 days (Shields and Dupuis 2015). Because the razor clam commercial shery is limited to a small area, there is a single processing plant for clams caught in the shery, and ADFG works closely with the plant to monitor catches and catch per unit e ort (CPUE) in the shery (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). Additionally, in areas where razor clams are caught with the intent for human consumption, they are analyzed weekly for paralytic shell sh poisoning (PSP) (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). Although management regulations are in place for the Paci c razor clam shery in Alaska, the e ectiveness of these regulations remains uncertain. There have been no formal assessments of the Paci c razor clam population on the west side of Cook Inlet and no conservation goals have been established. A "moderately e ective" score was awarded. BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Highly E ective Commercial shing for Paci c razor clam primarily occurs on Haida Gwaii North Beach, and the shery is jointly managed by the Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The commercial shery 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 population, and seasonal closures (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). The razor clam shery is managed in season by the In-Season Management Committee on a beach-by-beach basis, and the commercial shery closes after the annual catch limit has been reached (DFO 2013). The TAC is determined annually, based on abundance estimates 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 estimated shable abundance (this harvest rate was considered equivalent to two-thirds of the estimated shing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, F MSY). 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 conservative, and is well below the new estimate of the shing mortality at maximum sustainable yield ( Jones et al. 2009) (DFO 2010). Additionally, if abundance falls below the upper abundance reference point (80% of the biomass at maximum sustainable yield, B MSY), the harvest rate is decreased, and if abundance falls below the lower abundance reference point (40% B ), all shing is prohibited (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). MSY There is also a small recreational shery at North Beach near Massett, Long Beach, and other beaches on the west coast of Vancouver Island (DFO 2013). The recreational shery requires a license, and shers are limited to 50 clams daily and 100 clams total. There currently is not a 26
size limit in the recreational shery, but shers are encouraged to obey the commercial size limit. Recreational surveys are conducted from July to August to estimate catch. Overall, surveys of recreational diggers have indicated that the annual recreational 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) sheries, but they are encouraged to respect the minimum size limit in the commercial shery (CHN and DFO 2016). Because a precautionary management strategy is in place and the Paci c razor clam population on Haida Gwaii has been maintained at a healthy level, we have awarded a "highly e ective" score for management strategy and implementation. Subfactor 3.1.2 Recovery of Species of Concern Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild over shed/threatened/ endangered species or to limit shery s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly E ective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any over shed/threatened/endangered species. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED N/A There are no over shed, depleted, threatened, or endangered species targeted or retained in the Paci c razor clam sheries. Subfactor 3.1.3 Scienti c Research and Monitoring Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and the shery s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly E ective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately E ective There has not been a stock assessment completed for the Paci c razor clam populations on the west side of Upper Cook Inlet, where commercial shing occurs, but it has been identi ed as a goal by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). Managers monitor catches and shing e ort in the commercial shery and track the trends of catch per unit e ort (CPUE) over time, providing some indication of the health of the population. But there is currently no shery-independent monitoring of abundance. Recently, a stock assessment was completed for the Paci c razor clam populations on the east side of Upper Cook Inlet, where there is a large recreational shery (Kerkvliet and Booz 2015). The 27
east and west beaches are considered separate populations, 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 population in the west Upper Cook Inlet, further monitoring is needed to ensure the long-term health of the population. Therefore, a "moderately e ective" score is awarded. BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Highly E ective In British Columbia, Canada, razor clam populations have been estimated through a variety of techniques including mark-recapture studies, tagging, and hydraulic sampling ( Jones et. al 2001). The largest Paci c razor clam population occurs on Haida Gwaii between Masset and Rose Spit (Jones and Garza 1998). The Haida Gwaii population supports commercial, recreational, and social/ceremonial sheries. The Haida Fisheries Program has conducted standardized annual population surveys for Paci c razor clam since 1994. In 2001, shers began to report landings on beach slips by beach section, and the amount of beach surveyed at Haida has increased over time to gather data where signi cant shing e ort was recorded. Abundance estimates produced from the population surveys are used to determine the annual catch limits (CHN and DFO 2013)(CHN and DFO 2016). This factor is rated "highly e ective." Subfactor 3.1.4 Management Record of Following Scienti c Advice Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the shery follow scienti c recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly E ective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scienti c advice. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately E ective To date, there have been no formal assessments of Paci c razor clam in west Upper Cook Inlet, where the commercial shery takes place, so there has been little scienti c advice provided on how to manage the shery. The shery is managed with a recommended maximum catch of 350,000 400,000 lbs, and catches have rarely exceeded this level (Shields and Dupuis 2015). Population studies of Paci c razor clam have been completed for the east Cook Inlet beaches, where there is a high intensity of recreational shing. After a 2014 population study showed that Paci c razor clam abundance was well below average on the east Cook Inlet beaches, managers issued an emergency closure of the recreational sheries (ADFG 2015c). Managers appear to make appropriate management decisions based on science, when available, but because of the limited information, a "moderately e ective" score is awarded. 28
BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Highly E ective The razor clam shery in British Columbia is managed through a total allowable catch limit (TAC), which is determined from recent abundance estimates, and through an established maximum harvest rate. The maximum harvest rate is set to re ect caution and reduce the risk of a shery closure ( Jones et al. 2009) (CHN and DFO 2013). The harvest rate and catch limit are adjusted if Paci c 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 scienti c advice and re ect caution, this factor is scored as "highly e ective." Subfactor 3.1.5 Enforcement of Management Regulations Considerations: Do shermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly E ective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and veri cation of compliance. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately E ective The commercial shery on the west side of Cook Inlet is in a remote area and diggers reside in a small remote camp during the shing season, so in-person enforcement is di cult. Clams are transported to the nearby town of Nikiski, where they are processed immediately. Catch and e ort information is monitored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) through sh tickets provided by the processing plant where the clams are sold. ADFG is in constant communication with the processing plant about razor clam catch levels in relation to the maximum catch goal of 350,000 400,000 lbs (pers. comm., Patrick Shields 2015). All commercial catches, including sh and shell sh, 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 e ective." BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately E ective All participants in the commercial razor clam shery are required to record all landings, including clams that are sold as bait, kept for personal use, or otherwise disposed of. The shery is managed and monitored in-season, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for enforcing regulations (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). But enforcement can be di cult 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 e ort to educate the public and provide information on various issues including razor clam harvesting (CHN and DFO 2016). Overall enforcement is considered "moderately e ective." 29
Subfactor 3.1.6.6 Management Track Record Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly E ective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the longterm maintenance of species overtime. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately E ective Although overall trends in catch per unit e ort in the commercial shery indicate a stable population of razor clam at west Cook Inlet, not enough research has been conducted to determine if the current management strategy is su cient to maintain long-term population abundance. Therefore, the track record is uncertain and considered "moderately e ective." BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Moderately E ective Measures used by management appear to be maintaining the Paci c razor clam population at Haida Gwaii. Abundance has uctuated but has generally remained at a healthy level (CHN and DFO 2013) (pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016). But in the past, shing mortality has sometimes exceeded the recommended harvest rate (pers. comm., Haida Nation 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 negatively a ected the population (CHN and DFO 2016). Because the recommend harvest rate has at times been exceeded, and it remains too soon to determine if the new harvest rate will result in the longterm maintenance of the razor clam population, a "moderately e ective" score is awarded for track record. Subfactor 3.1.7 Stakeholder Inclusion Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the shery or that may be a ected by the management of the shery (e.g., shermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly E ective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input. ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Highly E ective The Alaska Department of Fish and Game allows for public and stakeholder input when management regulations are considered and developed. The Board of Fisheries is the state s regulatory authority that passes regulations and makes regulatory decisions. There are also advisory committees, which are local groups that provide recommendations to the board on shing issues. Meetings are open to the public and other stakeholders, with the option to provide comments on agenda topics (ADFG 2016a). Because the regulatory process is transparent and open to stakeholder input, inclusion is considered "highly e ective." 30
BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Highly E ective In 2005, an In-Season Management Committee was created to allow for a more collaborative and transparent management process. The Committee includes members from the Razor Clam Diggers Association, Council of the Haida Nation, Old Massett 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 e ective." Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy SCORING GUIDELINES Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy and Implementation, Scienti c Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scienti c Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ine ective, moderately e ective, or highly e ective. Unless reason exists to rate Scienti c Research and Monitoring, Record of Following Scienti c Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations di erently, these rating are the same as in 3.1. 5 (Very Low Concern) Rated as highly e ective for all four subfactors considered 4 (Low Concern) Management Strategy rated highly e ective and all other subfactors rated at least moderately e ective. 3 (Moderate Concern) All subfactors rated at least moderately e ective. 2 (High Concern) At minimum, meets standards for moderately e ective for Management Strategy but some other factors rated ine ective. 1 (Very High Concern) Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ine ective. 0 (Critical) No bycatch management even when over shed, depleted, endangered or threatened species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substatntially impacted by the shery FACTOR 3.2: BYCATCH STRATEGY Region / Method Alaska / Northeast Paci c / Hand collected British Columbia / Northeast Paci c / Hand collected All Kept Yes Yes Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce 31
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem This Criterion assesses the impact of the shery on sea oor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The shery s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based sheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment. The nal score is the geometric mean of the impact of shing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating 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 Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4. Criterion 4 Summary Region / Method Alaska / Northeast Paci c / Hand collected British Columbia / Northeast Paci c / Hand collected Gear Type and Substrate 3.00: Low Concern 3.00: Low Concern Mitigation of Gear Impacts EBFM Score 0.25: Minimal Mitigation 0.25: Minimal Mitigation 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 shing occurs. In both Alaska and British Columbia, shing intensity appears to be e ectively controlled, but is not actively being reduced. It is likely that the removal of razor clam at low volumes has low impacts on the ecosystem; however, there are no e orts to fully assess the ecological impacts of the removal of Paci c razor clam through the shery. Criterion 4 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate 5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom 4 (Very Low) - Vertical line gear 3 (Low) Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not shed on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/ sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally 2 (Moderate) Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) shed on resilient mud/sand habitats. 33
Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline shed on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand 1 (High) Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear shed on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder) 0 (Very High) Dredge or trawl shed on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classi cation is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type. Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts +1 (Strong Mitigation) Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from shing (>50%) with gear, shing intensity low/limited, gear speci cally modi ed to reduce damage to sea oor and modi cations shown to be e ective at reducing damage, or an e ective combination of moderate mitigation measures. +0.5 (Moderate Mitigation) 20% of habitat protected from shing with gear or other measures in place to limit shing e ort, shing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from shing. +0.25 (Low Mitigation) A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on shing e ort/intensity, but not actively being reduced 0 (No Mitigation) No e ective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management 5 (Very Low Concern) Substantial e orts have been made to protect species ecological roles and ensure shing practices do not have negative ecological e ects (e.g., large proportion of shery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at su cient 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 exceptionally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological e ect if hatchery supplementation or sh aggregating devices (FADs) are used. 3 (Moderate Concern) Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological e ects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts 2 (High Concern) Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no e orts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management. 1 (Very High Concern) Use of hatchery supplementation or sh aggregating devices (FADs) in the shery is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR shery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web. 34
Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Low Concern Legal clam harvesting 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 negative impacts on bottom habitats. For example, a study conducted on the impacts of digging for clams in soft-bottom habitats in Maine found that digging can have a cumulative negative impact on the bottom 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-bottom habitats. Overall, clam tubes and shovels are considered to cause low to moderate damage to the beach habitats. Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Minimal Mitigation The commercial shery for Paci c 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 regulations are not in place to seasonally limit e ort, digging at this beach usually occurs between May and August, which may limit the overall e ects 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 shery is managed to achieve a maximum annual catch of 350,000 to 400,000 lbs (Shields and Dupuis 2015). There is also a recreational shery 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 shery is small, and shing intensity seems to be e ectively controlled but is not actively being reduced; therefore, the mitigation of gear impacts is considered "minimal." Rationale: 35
Figure 11 The area open for commercial razor clam harvest on the west side of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Image from Shields and Dupuis 2015. BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND COLLECTED Minimal Mitigation Paci c razor clams occur in two major concentrations in British Columbia: Long Beach on Vancouver Island and on Haida Gwaii. In British Columbia, the only commercial shell sh shery occurs at North Beach on Haida Gwaii (CHN and DFO 2013). The commercial shery is managed in-season, and each year the shery is typically opened by March (depending on the tide 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). Recreational shing also occurs in British Columbia, both at Haida Gwaii and Vancouver Island (DFO 2016). Recreational shing is restricted through daily limits. Because shing occurs over much of the areas where substantial razor clam populations exist, and shing 36
intensity is e ectively controlled but not being actively reduced, the mitigation of gear impacts on habitat is considered "minimal." Rationale: Figure 12 The DFO management areas on the Paci c coast of Canada where Paci c razor clam are found. Image from DFO http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/maps-cartes/areassecteurs/01-eng.html. 37