Atlantic surfclam, Northern quahog, Ocean quahog, Softshell clam Spisula solidissima, Mercenaria mercenaria, Arctica islandica, Mya arenaria Image ©Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook / www.scandfish.com United States Clam dredge, Rakes December 4, 2015 Kristen Hislop, 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. 2 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 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 affected 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, fisheries 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, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find 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. 3 Guiding Principles 1 Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished0F or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long‐term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating 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 effective 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 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 Safina 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 overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment. 1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates. 4 Summary This report is for Atlantic surfclam, ocean quahog, Northern quahog, and softshell clam that are caught with hydraulic clam dredge, hand rake, hoe, and shovel in the U.S. Atlantic. We assess Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog by catch method (hydraulic clam dredge) and assess northern quahog and softshell clam by state. (Northern quahog: Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, and Rhode Island. Softshell clam: Maine and Massachusetts.) Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog are managed together in the same hydraulic clam dredge fishery by the Mid‐Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC). The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) conducts rigorous stock assessments for both of these clam species every 3 years. According to the stock assessment performed in 2009, both Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Northern quahog is currently being managed using catch per unit effort (CPUE) data and spatial management. No scientific stock assessments have been conducted recently for northern quahog; therefore, the status of biomass and fishing mortality for northern quahog is unknown. Softshell clam is managed by local municipalities in partnership with the state in both Maine and Massachusetts. In Maine, some of the clam beds under local jurisdiction are surveyed for softshell abundance, and biomass estimates are determined on a flat‐by‐flat basis upon the request of local governments. This information for specific clam flats cannot be scaled to provide a representation of the softshell clam stocks along the entire Atlantic Coast. Massachusetts does not conduct stock assessments for softshell clams. None of the fisheries reviewed in this report has interactions with bycatch, and none has impacts on non‐target species, or discards. Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog are caught using hydraulic clam dredges. The hand‐harvest gears used to land northern quahog and softshell clam include rakes, hoes, and shovels. Hand‐harvest methods are believed to result in negligible bycatch because hand harvesting allows fishers to be highly selective of the species they harvest. The hydraulic clam dredge fishery for Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog conducts regular stock assessments and closely follows scientific advice. In addition, management is responsive to changes in stock status and management needs. Stock assessments are not conducted for northern quahogs, but CPUE is monitored and these states have stabilized their landings. Management of softshell clam stocks is delegated to local municipalities, while state‐level governments provide technical assistance and recommendations to local decision‐makers. No statewide stock assessments on softshell clams are performed. This decentralized regulation system and the lack of a statewide stock assessment make it infeasible to determine whether local jurisdictions follow scientific advice or to determine their track record in maintaining stock abundance. Hydraulic clam dredges have a high level of contact and disturbance of the benthic habitat and cause high levels of disturbance. The surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries have minimal mitigation for habitat impacts. Rakes, hoes, and shovels may impact intertidal and subtidal habitats, depending upon how much the habitat is subjected to disturbance from wave, tidal, or current action. 5 The hydraulic clam dredge Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries are rated “yellow” or “Good Alternative.” The Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, and Rhode Island northern quahog fisheries and the Massachusetts and Maine softshell clam fisheries are rated “green” or “Best Choice.” Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations Stock / Fishery Impacts on Impacts on Management Habitat and Overall the Stock other Spp. Ecosystem Recommendation Atlantic surfclam Green (4.47) Green (5.00) Green (5.00) Red (1.94) Good Alternative United States Atlantic ‐ Clam (3.836) dredge (Hydraulic) Northern quahog Yellow Green (5.00) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.12) Best Choice (3.336) Massachusetts Atlantic ‐ (2.64) Rakes (wild) Northern quahog Yellow Green (5.00) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.12) Best Choice (3.336) North Carolina North (2.64) Atlantic ‐ Rakes (wild) Northern quahog Yellow Green (5.00) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.12) Best Choice (3.336) Rhode Island North Atlantic ‐ (2.64) Rakes (wild) Softshell clam Yellow Green (5.00) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.12) Best Choice (3.336) Massachusetts North (2.64) Atlantic ‐ Rakes (wild) Softshell clam Yellow Green (5.00) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.12) Best Choice (3.336) Maine North Atlantic ‐ Rakes (2.64) (wild) Ocean quahog Green (5.00) Green (5.00) Green (5.00) Red (1.94) Good Alternative United States North Atlantic (3.945) ‐ Clam dredge (Hydraulic) Northern quahog Yellow Green (5.00) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.12) Best Choice (3.336) New York North Atlantic ‐ (2.64) Rakes (wild) Scoring Guide Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact. Final Score = geometric mean of