Farmed Pacific Geoduck Washington State, United States and British Columbia, Canada

Farmed Pacific Geoduck Panopea generosa (formerly Panopea abrupta) © Monterey Bay Aquarium Washington State, United States and British Columbia, Canada On-Bottom Culture Aquaculture Standard Version A3.1 December 5, 2016 Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher Disclaimer: Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Final Seafood Watch Recommendation U.S. Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical? C1 Data 7.00 GREEN NO C2 Effluent 6.00 YELLOW NO C3 Habitat 6.80 GREEN NO C4 Chemicals 7.00 GREEN NO C5 Feed 10.00 GREEN NO C6 Escapes 4.00 YELLOW NO C7 Disease 7.00 GREEN NO C8X Source 0.00 GREEN NO C9X Wildlife mortalities –4.00 YELLOW NO C10X Introduced species escape –0.80 GREEN Total 43.00 Final score OVERALL RANKING Final Score 6.14 Initial rank YELLOW Red criteria 0 Intermediate rank GREEN FINAL RANK Critical Criteria? NO YELLOW 2 Canada Criterion Score (0-10) Rank Critical? C1 Data 7.00 GREEN NO C2 Effluent 6.00 YELLOW NO C3 Habitat 6.80 GREEN NO C4 Chemicals 7.00 GREEN NO C5 Feed 10.00 GREEN NO C6 Escapes 4.00 YELLOW NO C7 Disease 7.00 GREEN NO C8X Source 0.00 GREEN NO C9X Wildlife mortalities –4.00 YELLOW NO C10X Introduced species escape –0.40 GREEN Total 43.40 Final score OVERALL RANKING Final Score 6.20 Initial rank YELLOW Red criteria 0 Intermediate rank YELLOW FINAL RANK Critical Criteria? NO YELLOW Scoring note – scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates very poor performance and 10 indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact. Criteria 8X, 9X, and 10X are exceptional criteria, where 0 indicates no impact and a deduction of -10 reflects a very significant impact. Two or more Red criteria result in a Red final result. Summary Pacific geoduck aquaculture operations in Washington State, United States receive a numerical score of 6.14 under the Seafood Watch criteria and methodology and a final recommendation of “Yellow–Good alternative.” Pacific geoduck aquaculture operations in British Columbia, Canada receive a numerical score of 6.20 under the Seafood Watch criteria and methodology and a final recommendation of “Yellow–Good alternative.” 3 Executive Summary The U.S. state of Washington is the world’s foremost producer of farmed Pacific geoduck, with total sales of nearly 673 metric tons (1.5 million lbs) and almost $28 million in 2013. The bulk of Washington’s geoduck farming takes place in southern Puget Sound, with farms also in each of Puget Sound’s sub-basins, with planned expansion into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and throughout Puget Sound and Hood Canal. The Canadian province of British Columbia is a comparably small but growing producer of farmed geoduck, with $2.4 million in farmgate sales in 2014. In British Columbia (BC), Baynes Sound is the most important region for shellfish farming, but geoduck farms are scattered throughout the Strait of Georgia, and interest in expansion throughout the province’s enormous coastline is high—and in the planning stages. For both Washington and BC, geoduck production is supported by a strong international market, and the industry is eager to expand. Geoduck farming has also been a controversial issue; questions remain concerning the potential environmental impacts of geoduck aquaculture. Published research has been steadily increasing, and regulators in both Washington and BC have worked to improve management of the industry. This Seafood Watch assessment involves a number of different criteria covering impacts associated with: effluent, habitats, wildlife and predator interactions, chemical use, feed production, escapes, introduction of nonnative organisms (other than the farmed species), disease, the source stock, and general data availability. Data: There are many sources of accessible and reasonably up-to-date farmed geoduck production information at the international, national, state/province, and industry levels. Some aggregation of production data and enforcement information occurs, and production data are self-reported, but some auditing occurs and more detailed information is available upon request from agencies in Washington and BC, with some limitations. Regulation and management information is transparent and freely available in both Washington and BC, with some minor limitations in published enforcement information; additional information is provided by agency follow-up. Literature on industry practices and locations of farms is also widely available in the form of scoping documents, industry best management practices, environmental impact assessments, permitting details, and publicly accessible government websites. Bivalve shellfish aquaculture, including many of its potential environmental impacts, generally boasts a deep body of scientific study. Research into geoduck aquaculture, which is a relatively young industry, is comparably thinner. Science and management have generally not kept pace with industry (there are differences in both industry growth and management between Washington and BC) but both science and management have made recent strides. Because geoduck aquaculture is a lucrative and growing industry and subject to persistent scrutiny, 4 research into the potential environmental costs of the practice—and of the geoduck itself—has grown significantly. Some gaps in information remain (including related to the Effluent, Habitat, Chemicals, Disease, and Predators and Wildlife criteria). Some projects and publications have limitations, but research questions are well identified and many are being addressed by institutions in the United States and Canada. Publication since 2013 has increased markedly, with 2015 especially productive in published research on geoduck aquaculture. Government in both BC and Washington has also contributed to the literature, with a number of white papers and information on regulation readily available. Overall, the quality and availability of information on geoduck farming in Washington and BC ranges from moderate to moderate to high, and improving. The final numerical score for Criterion 1—Criterion score is 7.0 out of 10. Effluent: The Effluent criterion assesses the release of waste from farms and the implications of that release. Farmed geoducks are not provided external feed for the bulk of the production cycle and only small volumes of cultivated algae in the hatchery setting. Effluent related to geoduck aquaculture generally comes in the form of sediment disturbance resulting from the harvest of geoducks, which occurs infrequently given the growout time required for geoducks to reach market size (5–7 years). Several studies have focused on this type of effluent related to intertidal and subtidal geoduck harvest. Sediment disturbance does result in the resuspension of solids and nutrients, and transport away from farm boundaries, but impacts beyond (and within) the farm appear to be minimal, temporary, and limited in frequency and scale. Most or all sediment appears to settle on or near the farm plot and well within Seafood Watch’s Allowable Zone of Effect, and this type of disturbance has repeatedly been described in the scientific literature as within or less than natural disturbance regimes. Hatcheries and nurseries are also potential sources of effluent in the form of nutrients and metabolite wastes. Though specific information in this area is lacking for geoduck aquaculture, these stages of the geoduck production cycle are considered unlikely to be significant effluent concerns. Hatcheries represent a fraction of the geoduck farm cycle, are few in number, and house a low total biomass of animals (geoducks are but one species typically cultivated in these settings). Nurseries are similarly considered to be insignificant sources of effluent due to a lack of feed inputs and low total biomass of animals. Geoduck farming relies extensively on plastics, which contribute effluent to the marine environment in the form of occasional plastic litter (debris) and potential microplastics. At the farm level, escape of plastic farm gear to the marine environment occurs at likely occasional levels, and some measures are taken to minimize the loss of plastics—such as farm patrols and maintenance requirements, labeling of farm gear with identifying information, and reducing the use of plastic. Still, loss occurs, and cumulative impacts of the input of plastic debris and microplastics to the marine environment over time for an expanding geoduck aquaculture industry are not well understood. Given this uncertainty and the increasing 5 concerns over microplastics in the marine environment, but also demonstrated minimal impacts from harvest-related sediment effluents, the Effluent Criterion score is 6 out of 10. Habitat: The potential effects of geoduck aquaculture on marine habitat have been the subject of much debate and controversy. The opportunity for habitat effects is present in the nursery, preparation, growout, management, and harvest stages. Effects on sediment processes, community composition, seston resources, nutrient cycling, and hydrodynamics are all possibilities with geoduck farming. Research into the habitat effects of geoduck aquaculture is challenging because of the nature of scientific study in such a dynamic estuarine environment:

Load more