Northern Razor Clam Alaska and British Columbia Hand Implements

AND

Northern razor clam

Siliqua patula

©Oregon Department of Fish and Game

Alaska and British Columbia Hand implements

August 5, 2019 Safina Center Consulting Researcher

Disclaimer Seafood Watch and The Safina Center strive to ensure that all our Seafood Reports and recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect 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, fisheries science or aquaculture.Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or of The Safina Center or their recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists.Seafood Watch and The Safina 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.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF3 Table of Contents

About...... The...... Safina...... Center...... 3......

About...... Seafood...... Watch ...... 4......

Guiding...... Principles ...... 5......

Summary...... 6......

Final...... Seafood...... Recommendations ...... 7......

Introduction...... 8......

Assessment...... 13......

Criterion...... 1: . . . Impacts...... on . . . the. . . . . Species...... Under...... Assessment...... 13 ......

Criterion...... 2: . . . Impacts...... on . . . Other...... Species...... 22 ......

Criterion...... 3: . . . Management...... Effectiveness ...... 24 ......

Criterion...... 4: . . . Impacts...... on . . . the. . . . . Habitat...... and . . . . . Ecosystem...... 29 ......

Acknowledgements...... 34......

References...... 35......

2 About The Safina Center

The Safina Center (formerly Blue Ocean Institute) translates scientific information 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 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 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 better choices.

The Safina Center was founded in 2003 by Dr. Carl Safina and was built on three decades of research, writing and policy work by Dr. Safina.

The Safina Center’s Sustainable Seafood Program The Center’s founders created the first 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, fishing and sustainable seafood.

Our online guide to sustainable seafood is based on scientific 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 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 scientific 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, overfishing, etc.

Check out our Fellows Program, learn more about our Sustainable Seafood Program and Carl Safina’s current work at www.safinacenter.org .

The Safina Center is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization based in the School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University, Long Island, NY. www.safinacenter.org [email protected] | 631.632.3763

3 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 Watch Assessment. Each assessment 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.” This ethic is operationalized in the Seafood Watch standards, available on our website here. In producing the assessments, 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 assessments 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 Watch assessments in any way they find useful.

4 Guiding Principles

The Safina Center and Seafood Watch define sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 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 and the Safina Center have 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

5 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 Aleutian Islands in Alaska. Pacific razor clam can grow to over 6 in (16 cm) in length, typically lives for 9 to 11 years, and matures fairly quickly. Commercial fishing for Pacific razor clam occurs in Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska. This assessment covers the Alaska and British Columbia fisheries.

In Alaska, the current commercial Pacific razor clam fishery occurs at Upper Cook Inlet. There have been no formal population assessments of this Pacific razor clam population, 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 to 400,000 lb 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 British Columbia, the commercial fishery 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 Pacific 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 fishing levels are sustainable. Managers use annual estimates 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 tide. In Alaska and British Columbia, fishers dig for Pacific razor clam using clam tubes/guns and shovels. These hand gears allow fishers to be very selective 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 clam live.

Overall, the hand harvest fishery for Pacific razor clam in British Columbia is rated “Green” or “Best Choice,” while the Alaska fishery is rated as "Yellow" or "Good Alternative."

6 Final Seafood Recommendations

CRITERION CRITERION 2: 1: IMPACTS IMPACTS ON CRITERION 3: CRITERION 4: ON THE OTHER MANAGEMENT HABITAT AND OVERALL SPECIES/FISHERY SPECIES SPECIES EFFECTIVENESS ECOSYSTEM RECOMMENDATION

Northern razor Yellow Green (5.000) Yellow (3.000) Green (3.240) Good Alternative Alaska Northeast (2.644) (3.366) Pacific, Hand implements, United States of America

Northern razor Green Green (5.000) Green (5.000) Green (3.240) Best Choice British Columbia (3.413) (4.077) Northeast Pacific, Hand implements, Canada

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 the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and either Criterion 1 or Criterion 3 (or both) is Green, 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 effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

7 Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report evaluates the Pacific or northern razor clam (Siliqua patula) fisheries in Alaska and British 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 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 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 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 sea otters, gulls, ducks, crabs, and various fish species (Lassuy and Simons 1989).

Pacific razor clam is commercially and recreationally harvested in Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and British 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 population 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) (P. Shields, personal communication 2015). The fishery is managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG 2010).

The commercial fishery in British Columbia mainly occurs on Haida Gwaii North Beach 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 fisheries (DFO 2013).

8 Figure 1 Main razor clam areas in Cook Inlet. The eastern side fishery (Clam Gulch and Ninilchick) has been closed since 2015. The commercial razor clam fisher is concentrated near Polly Creek on the west side of Cook Inlet. Figure from McKellar 2014.

9 Figure 2 The DFO management areas on the Pacific coast of Canada where Pacific razor clam are found. Figure from DFO

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, Pacific razor clam landings in Alaska were very high, reaching over 1 million lb (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 (2005 to 2014), catches in the commercial fishery in Cook Inlet ranged from a low of 189,200 lb (86 MT) to a high of 391,000 lb (177 MT), with an overall annual average of 338,100 lb (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

10 (Shields and Dupuis 2015).

In British Columbia, Canada, catches of Pacific razor clams were high in the 1920s and 1930s when a cannery was in operation. Since then, catches have fluctuated with changes in market demand and abundance. Currently, the only commercial fishery in British Columbia exists at Haida Gwaii, where commercial harvest has occurred since 1924. Over the past decade (2006 to 2015), catches in the commercial fishery at Haida Gwaii ranged from a low of 44,000 lb (20 MT) to a high of 440,900 lb (200 MT), with an overall annual average of 245,150 lb (111 MT) (Haida Nation, personal communication 2016) (CHN and DFO 2013). In British 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 Figures 3 and 4 for the long-term landings of Pacific razor clam in Upper Cook Inlet, AK and Haida Gwaii, BC.

Figure 3 Commercial landings for Pacific razor clam at Haida Gwaii Beach, BC from 1950–2014. Data from Jones et al. 2009 and pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016. and (Haida Nation, personal communication 2016).}

11 Figure 4 Commercial landings for Pacific razor clam at upper Cook Inlet, Alaska from 1919–2014. Data from Shields and Dupuis 2015.

Importance to the US/North American market. Pacific razor clam is found in US and Canadian waters and sold regionally and locally (P. Shields, personal communication 2015). Besides Alaska and British Columbia, significant commercial fisheries for Pacific razor clam also occur in Washington, run by the state and the Quinualt Indian Nation. There is also a small fishery for Pacific razor clam in Oregon. For further information 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 Atlantic 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 consumption and for bait. Pacific razor clams are commonly fried, baked, and used to make clam chowder.

12 Assessment

This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries, available at www.seafoodwatch.org. The specific standard used is referenced on the title page of all Seafood Watch assessments.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment

This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. When abundance is unknown, abundance is scored based on the species’ inherent vulnerability, which is calculated using a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing 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 Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Alaska/Northeast Pacific | 2.33: Moderate Concern 3.00: Moderate Concern Yellow (2.644) Hand implements | United States of America British 2.33: Moderate Concern 5.00: Low Concern Green (3.413) Columbia/Northeast Pacific | Hand implements | Canada

Pacific razor clam in British 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 estimates of Pacific razor clam abundance relative to target abundance reference points. Fishing mortality on razor clam in Alaska relative to potential reference points is unknown, but ADFG manages the commercial fishery to achieve a maximum annual catch of 350,000 to 400,000 lb. In British Columbia, commercial fishing occurs at Haida Gwaii, and the Haida Fisheries program has conducted population studies since 1994. 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 British Columbia, population assessments have been completed and fishing is occurring at a sustainable level; therefore, the impact of this fishery on the Pacific razor clam is considered "low."

13 Criterion 1 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 1.1 - Abundance

Goal: Stock abundance and size structure of native species is maintained at a level that does not impair recruitment or productivity.

5 (Very Low Concern) — Strong evidence exists that the population is above an appropriate target abundance level (given the species’ ecological role), or near virgin biomass. 3.67 (Low Concern) — Population may be below target abundance level, but is at least 75% of the target level, OR data-limited assessments suggest population is healthy and species is not highly vulnerable. 2.33 (Moderate Concern) — Population is not overfished but may be below 75% of the target abundance level, OR abundance is unknown and the species is not highly vulnerable. 1 (High Concern) — Population is considered overfished/depleted, a species of concern, threatened or endangered, OR abundance is unknown and species is highly vulnerable.

Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality Goal: Fishing mortality is appropriate for current state of the stock.

5 (Low Concern) — Probable (>50%) that fishing mortality from all sources is at or below a sustainable level, given the species ecological role, OR fishery does not target species and fishing mortality is low enough to not adversely affect its population. 3 (Moderate Concern) — Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality relative to a sustainable level is uncertain. 1 (High Concern) — Probable that fishing mortality from all source is above a sustainable level.

NORTHERN RAZOR Factor 1.1 - Abundance

ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderate Concern Currently, the only commercial razor clam fishery in Alaska occurs on the west side of Cook Inlet just north of Tuxedni Bay (north of Chisik Island in Figure 5 below) (P. Shields, personal communication 2015). The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) collects information on the number of diggers, number of days fishing occurs, and total catch, to identify the catch per unit effort (CPUE); however, no formal population studies have been published (P. Shields, personal communication 2015) (Shields and Dupuis 2018). ADFG is currently testing different remote sensing methods to determine clam abundance and distribution (Shields and Dupuis 2018). Sampling has been completed at nine sites; mean densities ranged from 1.2 to 4.2 clams/m2 and mean biomass ranged from 3.3 to 149.2 g/m2 (P. Shields, personal communication 2018). However, no reference points are established.

There have not been any significant changes over time to indicate that there are any issues with the sustainability of the fishery (P. Shields, personal communication 2018). Declines in clam abundance in other parts of Cook Inlet (i.e., the east side) may be attributed to poor recruitment and high natural mortality of adult clams; contributing factors include heavy surf, environmental stressors, disease, and predation (ADFG 2015b). In the absence of abundance information for the west Cook Inlet population, we conducted a productivity-susceptibility analysis (PSA). Razor clam scored moderately vulnerable in our PSA. Because Pacific razor clam is not highly vulnerable to fishing and there are no estimates of Pacific razor clam abundance relative to target abundance reference points, we have awarded a score of "moderate" concern.

14 Justification:

Risk (1 = low risk, Productivity attribute Relevant Information 2 = medium risk, 3 = high risk) Average age at 3–4 years (Lassuy and Simons 1989) (Weymouth and 1 maturity McMillian 1930) 9–11 years (Lassuy and Simons 1989) (Weymouth and Average maximum age 2 McMillian 1930) Fecundity 300,000–118 million eggs (Lassuy and Simons 1989) 1 Reproductive Broadcast spawner (Bishop and Powers 2003) (Lassuy 1 strategy and Simons 1989) 2.1 for molluscs (Jacobsen and Bennett 2013). Primary Trophic level 1 consumer of plankton (Lassuy and Simons 1989) Depensatory dynamics at low population sizes (allee Density dependence effects) demonstrated or likely (Bishop and Powers 3 2003) (Lassuy and Simons 1989) Habitat quality Unknown - Productivity score = 1.50 Risk (1 = low risk, Susceptibility Relevant Information 2 = medium risk, 3 Attribute = high risk) Areal overlap (considers all Default score, unknown 3 fisheries) Vertical overlap (considers all Default score for target species 3 fisheries) Default for target species, conditions under "high risk" Selectivity of fishery 2 do not apply Post-capture mortality (specific to Default score for retained species 3 fishery under assessment) Susceptibility score = 2.33 Total vulnerability score = 2.77

ADFG began monitoring the populations of clams in Cook Inlet in 1965 after an earthquake in 1964 adversely affected razor clam populations and halted commercial fishing (Nelson 1994) (Szari et al. 2010) (Kerkvliet and Booz 2015). ADFG has identified assessment of the population at west Upper Cook Inlet as a priority after

15 managers recently issued an emergency closure for the recreational fishery on the east Upper Cook Inlet because of low abundance (P. Shields, personal communication 2015). 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 to 2012 average at Ninilchik South and 89% below the 1989 to 2008 average at Clam Gulch (Kerkvliet and Booz 2015). 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 populations in east Cook Inlet is unknown but is potentially a result of poor spawning and/or settling success and high adult mortality (Kerkvliet and Booz 2015).

Sea otters (Enhydra lutris) spend most of their lives within the nearshore zone and feed on intertidal and subtidal invertebrates (Kenyon 1969) (Estes and Palmisano 1974). Commercial and recreational fisheries developed for sea otter prey (e.g., razor clams, geoduck clams, and abalone) across their range from CA to AK. As sea otter populations have rebounded, conflicts with human activities (i.e., commercial fisheries, subsistence and personal use fisheries) have occurred (Davis et al. 2019). Otters were extirpated from most of Cook Inlet by the early 1900s; remnant populations may have persisted in remote areas of western Cook Inlet and otters began re-colonizing the east side of Lower Cook Inlet by the 1960s, eventually reaching Clam Gulch by the early 2000s (Figure 5) (Garlich-Miller et al. 2018). There is some suggestion that this return of the sea otter to the east side of Cook Inlet (e.g., Clam Gulch) possibly contributed to the razor clam population decline and subsequent fisheries closure, but research within Cook Inlet is ongoing (P. Shields, personal communication 2018). USFWS surveys show increasing sea otter presence along the nearshore environment of eastern Cook Inlet (Figure 5) which is concurrent with declines in razor clam abundance. Although sea otter density is not currently high in areas of commercial razor clam harvest on the west side of Cook Inlet, sightings near these clamming areas is cause for concern for fisheries managers (P. Shields, personal communication 2018).

16 Figure 5 Distribution of sea otters sighted during 2017 spring surveys in Lower Cook Inlet. The recreational razor clam fishery was concentrated near Clam Gulch on the east side, while the commercial fishery occurs north of Chisik Island at Polly Creek. Figure from Garlich-Miller et al. 2018.

Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality

ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderate Concern 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 to 400,000 lb (Shields and Dupuis 2015). Over the past 10 years (2005 to 2014), catches in the commercial fishery have remained below this level, with an overall annual average of 338,115 lb (153 MT) (Shields and Dupuis 2015). In 2016, the commercial razor clam catch was 285,000 lb (129 MT), 21 diggers participated in the commercial fishery, and digging occurred over a total of 67 days from May 3 to August 4 (Shields and Dupuis 2016). Because there are no estimates of fishing mortality relative to sustainable fishing reference points, we have awarded a score of "moderate" concern. Justification:

Figure 6 Commercial landings of Pacific razor clams in Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska from 1984-2014. Data from Shields and Dupuis 2015.

17 NORTHERN RAZOR Factor 1.1 - Abundance

BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA Moderate Concern The largest Pacific razor clam population in British Columbia is on Haida Gwaii between Masset and Rose Spit, which is where the majority of commercial fishing occurs. The Haida Fisheries Program has conducted population 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 estimated the fishable biomass at maximum sustainable yield (BMSY ) to be 637 MT (Jones et al. 2009). There were some concerns about the methods used in this assessment, but based on this study, managers have established a provisional upper abundance reference point of 510 MT (80% B), and a provisional limit abundance reference point of 255 MT (40% B) (DFO 2010). Between these two values, the harvest rate is reduced from 22%, and no fishing occurs if the biomass drops below 255 MT. Since 2009, the estimated biomass has been above 510 MT with one exception; at the end of 2011, the estimated biomass dropped to 475 MT and the harvest rate was adjusted to 19% for the year. However, abundance since then has returned to, and has been maintained at, a level above the upper abundance reference point (CHN and DFO 2016). The most recent survey indicated that biomass of commercial-size clams (>90 mm, the legal size limit) dropped from 940 MT to 277 MT between 2017 and 2018; biomass of clams that have not recruited into the fishery (20 to 89 mm) dropped from 173 MT to 62.3 MT over the same two years (Haida Nation, personal communication 2019). The cause of this decline is not known, but managers speculate that northerly winds caused clams to burrow deeper into the substrate, out of reach of surveyors (Haida Nation, personal communication 2019). Because current biomass may be below 75% of the target reference point, but above a the limit reference point, we award a score of "moderate" concern. Justification:

Figure 7 The abundance of legal-sized razor clam (> 90 mm) in numbers from 1924–2015 at Haida Gwaii by area. Data from pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016.

18 Figure 8 The estimated exploitable biomass of Pacific razor clam at Haida Gwaii from 1994–2015 (blue line) relative to the estimated biomass at maximum sustainable yield (gray line). Data from Jones et al. 2009 and pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016.

Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality

BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA Low Concern Over the past decade (2006 to 2015), catches in the commercial fishery on Haida Gwaii have varied from a low of 20.0 MT to a high of 200.0 MT, with an overall average of 111.2 MT (Haida Nation, personal communication 2016). Catches have varied due to market demand, fishing effort, and stock abundance (CHN and DFO 2013). Catch limits 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 fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (FMSY ), but was updated following research published in 2009 to a new maximum harvest rate of 22% (equivalent to the FMSY reference point and well below Flim ) (Jones et al. 2009)

From 2001 to 2009, fishing mortality exceeded the established 12.3% harvest rate several times, but since the new harvest rate was implemented, fishing mortality has remained below established goals (Haida Nation, personal communication 2016). In 2012, the stock status was estimated to be in the caution zone (below upper reference point of 510 MT); thus, the harvest rate was reduced from 22% to 19%. Commercial landings in 2018 totaled approximately 27.7 MT, well below the quota of 181.4 MT (Haida Nation, personal communication 2019). We have awarded a score of "low" concern because it is probable that mortality from all sources is at or below a sustainable level. Recreational catch is estimated to be less than 1,000 lb (0.45 MT) annually from the main beaches (North Beach 1 and 2), and is thought to be low in other areas (CHN and DFO 2018).

19 Justification: Some scientists had concerns about the methods used in the 2009 study and concerns about increasing the harvest rate (DFO 2010), but so far it has not negatively affected 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 509.8 MT, the harvest rate is decreased, and if abundance falls below the limit reference point of 255 MT, all fishing is stopped (CHN and DFO 2013). Because recent surveys indicated a 70% decline in overall biomass, the quota for 2019 is set at 1,148 lb (0.52 MT) (Haida Nation, personal communication 2019).

Figure 9 Commercial landings for Pacific razor clam at Haida Gwaii Beach, BC from 1950–2014. Data from Jones et al. 2009 and pers. comm., Haida Nation 2016.

20 Figure 10 The estimated fishing mortality of Pacific 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 fishery are evaluated under Criterion 2. 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. Species are evaluated using the same guidelines as in Criterion 1. When information on other species caught in the fishery is unavailable, the fishery’s potential impacts on other species is scored according to the Unknown Bycatch Matrices, which are based on a synthesis of peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type. The fishery is also scored for the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard/bait 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 is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Crtitical

Guiding Principles Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant. Fish all affected stocks at sustainable level. Minimize bycatch.

Criterion 2 Summary Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.

NORTHERN RAZOR - ALASKA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC - HAND IMPLEMENTS - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Subscore: 5.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 5.000 Species Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore No other main species caught

NORTHERN RAZOR - BRITISH COLUMBIA/NORTHEAST PACIFIC - HAND IMPLEMENTS - CANADA Subscore: 5.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 5.000 Species 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 (P. Shields, personal communication 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 fishers 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 IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA < 100% Pacific 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 official studies (P. Shields, personal communication 2015). Because of the selective nature of this fishing method and the fact that discarded animals are likely returned to the water alive, the ratio of dead discards to landings is scored as <100%.

BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA < 100% 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 fishing method, it is likely that discards in this fishery are <100% of the catch.

23 Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Five factors are evaluated in Criterion 3: Management Strategy and Implementation, Bycatch Strategy, Scientific Research/Monitoring, Enforcement of Regulations, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is scored as either ‘highly effective’, ‘moderately effective’, ‘ineffective,’ or ‘critical’. The final Criterion 3 score is determined as follows:

5 (Very Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for all five factors considered. 4 (Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for ‘management strategy and implementation‘ and at least ‘moderately effective’ for all other factors. 3 (Moderate Concern) — Meets the standards for at least ‘moderately effective’ for all five factors. 2 (High Concern) — At a minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy and Implementation and Bycatch Strategy, but at least one other factor is rated ‘ineffective.’ 1 (Very High Concern) — Management Strategy and Implementation and/or Bycatch Management are ‘ineffective.’ 0 (Critical) — Management Strategy and Implementation is ‘critical’.

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 = Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Management Strategy and Implementation is Critical.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all impacted species.

Criterion 3 Summary

Research Management Bycatch and Stakeholder Fishery Strategy Strategy Monitoring Enforcement Inclusion Score Fishery 1: Alaska / Northeast Moderately Highly Moderately Highly Highly Yellow Pacific | Hand implements | Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective (3.000) United States of America Fishery 2: British Columbia / Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Green Northeast Pacific | Hand Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective (5.000) implements | Canada

Pacific razor clams are managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) in Alaska, by the Council of the Haida Nation (CHN), and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in British Columbia. In Alaska, the fishery is managed to achieve a maximum catch of 350,000 to 400,000 lb annually and is regulated by a minimum size limit. Because of limited monitoring of razor clam abundance and a lack of official conservation goals, the effectiveness of these management regulations remains uncertain. In British Columbia, managers conduct regular population assessments of razor clams, and this scientific 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 fishery is considered

24 "moderately" well-managed, while the British Columbia fishery is considered to have "highly effective" management in place. There is no bycatch in the Alaska or British Columbia razor clam fisheries.

Criterion 3 Assessment Factor 3.1 - 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? Do manages follow scientific advice? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must be appropriately defined management goals, precautionary policies that are based on scientific advice, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.

ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderately Effective 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 recreational clamming (Szarzi 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. 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 lb (159 to 181 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 (P. Shields, personal communication 2015). Additionally, in areas where razor clams are caught with the intent for human consumption, they are analyzed weekly for paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) (P. Shields, personal communication 2015).

Although management regulations are in place for the Pacific razor clam fishery in Alaska, the effectiveness of these regulations remains uncertain. There have been no formal assessments of the Pacific razor clam population on the west side of Cook Inlet and no conservation goals have been established. A score of "moderately effective" was awarded.

BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA Highly Effective 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 Nation (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 population, and seasonal closures (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). The razor clam fishery is managed in season by the In-Season Management Committee on a beach-by-beach basis, and the commercial fishery 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 403,395 lb (182.9 MT) for 2018/19 (CHN and DFO 2018). From 2001 to 2009, the catch limit was based on a sustainable harvest rate of 12.3% of the estimated

25 fishable abundance (this harvest rate was considered equivalent to two-thirds of the estimated fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY ). 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 about the study, but the adopted harvest rate appears fairly conservative, and is well below the new estimate of the fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield (Jones et al. 2009) (DFO 2010). Also, if abundance falls below the upper abundance reference point (80% of the biomass at maximum sustainable yield), the harvest rate is decreased; and if abundance falls below the lower abundance reference point (40% B ), all fishing is prohibited (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016).

Because a precautionary management strategy is in place and the Pacific razor clam population on Haida Gwaii has been maintained at a healthy level, we have awarded a score of "highly effective" for management strategy and implementation. Justification: There is also a small recreational fishery at North Beach near Massett, Long Beach, and other beaches on the west coast of Vancouver Island (DFO 2013). The recreational fishery requires a license, and fishers are limited to 50 clams daily and a total possession limit of 100 clams (CHN and DFO 2018). Currently, there is no size limit in the recreational fishery, but fishers 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 lb (0.45 MT) from North Beach, and catches are assumed to be low in other regions (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). No limits are 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).

Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and when applicable, to minimize ghost fishing? How successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the fishery must have no or low bycatch, or if there are bycatch or ghost fishing concerns, there must be effective measures in place to minimize impacts.

ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA Highly Effective There are no bycatch species included in this report. In Alaska, 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).

Factor 3.3 - Scientific Research and Monitoring Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the fishery’s impact on the species? Is there adequate monitoring of bycatch? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, regular, robust population assessments must be conducted for target or retained species, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are met.

26 ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderately Effective

A stock assessment has not been completed for the Pacific razor clam populations on the west side of Upper Cook Inlet, where commercial fishing occurs, but it has been identified as a goal by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (P. Shields, personal communication 2015). Managers monitor catches and fishing effort in the commercial fishery and track the trends of catch per unit effort (CPUE) over time, providing some indication of the health of the population. ADFG is currently testing different remote sensing methods to determine clam abundance and distribution, but the full results of this work are not yet available (Shields and Dupuis 2018). Recently, a stock assessment was completed for the Pacific razor clam populations on the east side of Upper Cook Inlet, where there is a large recreational fishery (Kerkvliet and Booz 2015). The 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. Also, research using remote sensing to monitor the population is not yet complete. Therefore, we award a score of "moderately effective."

BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA Highly Effective 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 Pacific 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 fisheries. The Haida Fisheries Program has conducted standardized annual population surveys for Pacific razor clam since 1994. In 2001, fishers 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 significant fishing effort 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 effective."

Factor 3.4 - Enforcement of Management Regulations Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective 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 information is monitored by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) through fish 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 to 400,000 lb (P. Shields, personal communication 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 (P. Shields, personal communication 2015). The Alaska Department of Public Safety occasionally conducts unannounced visits to processing plants and officials periodically fly over clam beaches to check diggers (P. Shields, personal communication 2018). Enforcement is largely based on a voluntary system with periodic independent scrutiny and we award a score of “highly effective."

27 BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA Highly Effective All participants 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 in- season, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for enforcing regulations, and dedicated patrols are the main enforcement tool (CHN and DFO 2013) (CHN and DFO 2016). Other strategies include: processing plants inspections, covert surveillance, licence inspections, and examinations of vessels carrying clams for commercial sale (DFO 2015). The Haida Fisheries Program (HFP) has plans to develop a North Beach Stewardship Strategy in an effort to educate the public and provide information on various issues including razor clam harvesting (CHN and DFO 2016), and some first nations employ Aboriginal "guardians" to monitor Aboriginal fisheries (DFO 2015). Enforcement can be difficult because of the vast number and spread of beaches where clamming occurs; recent budget constraints may reduce the ability for DFO to monitor fishing activities, and rely on processing plants to ensure products they receive are harvested legally (DFO 2015). Overall enforcement is considered "highly effective" because officers and first nation "guardians" actively enforce regulations, and these efforts occur in tandem with required reporting. Justification: Illegal harvest occurs in the form of out-of-season harvests and clamming from contaminated areas, and is especially a concern from a public health standpoint (DFO 2015). DFO relies on patrol efforts and public reporting, but may also conduct plain clothes patrols and other covert surveillance operations (DFO 2015).

Factor 3.5 - Stakeholder Inclusion Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent, if high participation by all stakeholders is encouraged, and if there a mechanism to effectively address user conflicts.

ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective 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 fishing 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 effective."

BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA Highly Effective 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 effective."

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 mitigate 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 interconnections 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 (factor 4.1 + factor 4.2) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 4 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

Gear Type and Mitigation of Region / Method Substrate Gear Impacts EBFM Score Alaska / Northeast Pacific / Hand implements / 3 +0.5 Moderate Green United States of America Concern (3.240) British Columbia / Northeast Pacific / Hand 3 +0.5 Moderate Green implements / Canada Concern (3.240)

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 British Columbia, fishing intensity appears to be effectively 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 efforts to fully assess the ecological impacts of the removal of Pacific razor clam through the fishery.

Criterion 4 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES Factor 4.1 - Physical Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate Goal: The fishery does not adversely impact the physical structure of the ocean habitat, seafloor or associated biological communities.

5 - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom 4 - Vertical line gear 3 - Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Or bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally. Or purse seine known to commonly contact the bottom. 2 - Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Or bottom seine except on mud/sand. Or there is known trampling of coral reef habitat. 1 - Hydraulic clam dredge. Or dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)

29 0 - Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts Goal: Damage to the seafloor is mitigated through protection of sensitive or vulnerable seafloor habitats, and limits on the spatial footprint of fishing on fishing effort.

+1 —>50% of the habitat is protected from fishing with the gear type. Or fishing intensity is very low/limited and for trawled fisheries, expansion of fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear is specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications have been shown to be effective at reducing damage. Or there is an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures. +0.5 —At least 20% of all representative habitats are protected from fishing with the gear type and for trawl fisheries, expansion of the fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear modification measures or other measures are in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing that are expected to be effective. 0 —No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats or not applicable because gear used is benign and received a score of 5 in factor 4.1

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Goal: All stocks are maintained at levels that allow them to fulfill their ecological role and to maintain a functioning ecosystem and food web. Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any retained species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction of genetic diversity. Even non-native species should be considered with respect to ecosystem impacts. If a fishery is managed in order to eradicate a non-native, the potential impacts of that strategy on native species in the ecosystem should be considered and rated below.

5 — Policies that have been shown to be effective are in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning (e.g. catch limits that ensure species’ abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators) and effective spatial management is used to protect spawning and foraging areas, and prevent localized depletion. Or it has been scientifically demonstrated that fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects. 4 — Policies are in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but have not proven to be effective and at least some spatial management is used. 3 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but detrimental food web impacts are not likely or policies in place may not be sufficient to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning. 2 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning and the likelihood of detrimental food impacts are likely (e.g. trophic cascades, alternate stable states, etc.), but conclusive scientific evidence is not available for this fishery. 1 — Scientifically demonstrated trophic cascades, alternate stable states or other detrimental food web impact are resulting from this fishery.

Factor 4.1 - Physical Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA 3

30 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 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA +0.5 According to Seafood Watch's Standard for Fisheries, a fishery can receive bonus points based on gear modifications or other measures that are expected to be effective (Seafood Watch 2016). 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) (P. Shields, personal communication 2015). Digging at this beach usually occurs between May and August, which may limit the overall effects of digging in the area (P. Shields, personal communication 2015). In 2016, for example, there were 21 commercial diggers, and harvest occurred from May 3 to August 4. Although 50% of the representative habitat is not actively protected from clam tubes and there are no gear modifications, the footprint of this fishery is extremely small relative to the geographic range of the species under assessment and we award a "+0.5" score for other measures that are reasonably expected to be effective Justification:

31 Figure 11 Main razor clam areas in Cook Inlet. The eastern side fishery (Clam Gulch and Ninilchick) has been closed since 2015. The commercial razor clam fisher is concentrated near Polly Creek on the west side of Cook Inlet. Figure from McKellar 2014.

BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA +0.5 According to Seafood Watch's Standard for Fisheries, a fishery can receive bonus points based on gear modifications or other measures that are expected to be effective (Seafood Watch 2016). Pacific 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 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 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). Although 50% of the representative habitat is not actively protected from clam tubes and there are no gear modifications, the footprint of this fishery is extremely small relative to the geographic range of the species under assessment and we award a "+0.5" score for other measures that are reasonably expected to be effective. Justification:

32 Figure 12 Pacific razor clam management areas at Haida Gwaii, British Columbia. Image from CHN and DFO 2013.

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

ALASKA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BRITISH COLUMBIA / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, CANADA Moderate Concern No species captured in this fishery are considered especially important to the ecosystem. The use of directed harvest by hand to capture clams allows for nontarget species to be returned alive to the substrate, resulting in little to zero bycatch of species that are important for ecosystem functioning. Razor clam is a filter feeder and its diet includes animal and plant plankton that are filtered from the surrounding seawater. Predators of large razor clam include various types of seabirds, crabs, sea otters and a few fish species (ADFG 2015a) (Lassuy and Simons 1989) (Bishop and Powers 2003). 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. Therefore, management of ecological impacts is rated as "moderate" concern.

33 Acknowledgements

Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of The Safina Center or Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. The Safina Center and Seafood Watch® are solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researcher and author of this report, Gabe Andrews, as well as several anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

34 References

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2010. Cook Inlet Razor Clams. Southcentral Region Alaska Department of FIsh and Game Division of Sport Fish. Recreational Fishing Series. 8 p.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2013. 2013-2014 Commercial Finfish and Shellfish Fishing General Regulation and Statute Provisions. 120 p.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2015a. Razor clam (Siliqua patula) species profile.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2015b. Lower Cook Inlet management area fishing research.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2015d. 2015-2018 Commercial Fishing Regulations Shrimp, Dungeness Crab and Miscellaneous Shellfish. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Regulations. 168 p.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2016b. Commercial Fishing Reporting: Fish Tickets.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2016a. Alaska's Fisheries and Game Board Process.

Bishop, M.A. and S. Powers 2003. Restoration of Razor Clam (Siliqua Patula) Populations in Southeastern Prince William Sound Alaska: Integrating Science, Management & Traditional Knowledge in the Development of a Restoration Strategy. Partners for Fish Wildlife Coastal Program, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Bourne, N. and D.B. Quayle. 1970. Breeding and growth of razor clams in British Columbia. Fisheries Research Board of Canada: Technical Report No. 232. 42 p.

Brown, B. and W.H. Wilson Jr. 1997. The role of commercial digging of mudflats as an agent for change of infaunal intertidal populations. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 218: 49-61. Council of the Haida

Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) and Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013. Pacifific Region Council of the Haida Nation/Fisheries and Oceans Canada Joint Management Plan Razor Clam, March 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.

Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) and Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2016. Pacific Region Council of the Haida Nation/Fisheries and Oceans Canada Joint Management Plan Razor Clam, March 1, 2016 to February 28, 2018.

Council of the Haida Nation (CHN) and Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2018. Pacific Region Council of the Haida Nation/Fisheries and Oceans Canada Joint Management Plan Razor Clam, March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2020. Available by request at: http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mplans/2018/razorclam- couteaux-sm-2018-20-eng.html

Coletti, H.A., Bodkin, J.L., Monson, D.H., Ballachey, B.E., and Dean, T.A. 2016. Detecting and inferring cause of change in an Alaska nearshore marine ecosystem. Ecosphere 7(10) e01489.

Davis, R.W., Bodkin, J.L., Coletti, H.A., Monson, D.H., Larson, S.E., Carswell, L.P., and Nichol, L.M. 2019. Future directions in sea otter research and management. Frontiers in Marine Science 5 (510).

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2001. Razor Clam. DFO Science Stock Status Report C6-15.

35 Online: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/status/2001/SSR2001_C6-15e.pdf

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2010. Proceedings of the Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee (PSARC) Invertebrate Subcommittee Meeting: Review and advice for stock assessment and quota options for Green sea urchin, reference points and a precautionary harvest strategy for the Razor clam fishery on Haida Gwaii, survey methodologies for monitoring for Olympia Oyster, sea cucumber assessment framework, and for rockfish bycatch in the commercial prawn trap fishery. December 1-3, 2009. DFO Can. Sci. Advic. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2009/055.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2013a. Joint Intertidal Clam Management Plan Summary: Razor Clam (Siliqua patula) Fishing, Subarea 1-5 and a portion of Subarea 102-1, As of 2013. 6 p.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2015. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Intertidal Clams, January 1 2013-December 31, 2015. 100 p.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2016b. Shellfish- Species and Limits Table. BC Sport Fishing Guide.

Estes, J. A., and J. F. Palmisano. 1974. Sea otters: their role in structuring nearshore communities. Science 185:1058–1060.

Garlich-Miller, J.L., Esslinger, G.G., and Weitzman, B.P. 2018. Aerial surveys of sea otters (Enhydra lutris) in Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska May, 2017. Technical Report MMM 2018-01.

Jacobsen, I.P. and Bennett, M.B. 2013. A comparative analysis of feeding and trophic level ecology in stingrays (Rajiformes; Myliobatoidei) and Electric Rays (Rajiformes: Torpedinoidei). PLos ONE 8(8): e71348.

Jones, R., C. Schwarz, B. DeFreitas, L. Lee. 2001. Results of surveys of intertidal razor clams (Siliqua patula) on beaches near Massett, Haida Gwaii and recommendations on fishery management. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, Research Document 2001/152.

Jones, R., S. Jeffery, B. DeFreitas, C. Schwarz. 2009. Estimation of reference points and a precautionary harvest strategy for the razor clam (Siliqua patula) Fishery at Haida Gwaii. PSARC Working Paper.

Kenyon, K. W. 1969. The sea otter in the Eastern Pacific ocean. North American Fauna 68:1–352.

Kerkvliet, C. M. and M.D. Booz. 2015. Operational Plan: Cook Inlet Razor Clam Study, 2015. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Regional Operational Plan ROP.SF.2A.2015.08, Homer.

Lassuy, D.R. and D. Simons. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) Pacific razor clam. US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.89). US Army Corps of Engineers, TR-EL-82-4. 16 pp.

Loosanoff, V.L. 1947. Commercial Clams of the Pacific Coast of the United States. Fishery Lea??et No. 223. 7 pp.

Nelson, D. 1994. Razor Clam: Wildlife Notebook Series, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Education.

Personal Communication, Pat Shields. 2018. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. September, 2018.

Personal communication, Haida Nation. 2016. Haida Fisheries Program.

36 Personal Communication, Haida Nation. 2019. Haida Fisheries Program. February, 2019.

Posey, M. H. 1987. In??uence of relative mobilities on the composition of benthic communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 39: 99-104.

Sagalkin, N. H. and K. Spalinger. 2011. Annual management report for shellfish fisheries in the Kodiak, Chignik, and Alaska Peninsula Areas, 2010. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 11- 43, Anchorage.

Shields, P. and A. Dupuis 2015. Upper Cook Inlet Commercial Fisheries Annual Management Report, 2014. ADFG Fishery Management Report No. 15-20.

Shields, P. and A. Dupuis. 2016. Upper Cook Inlet Commercial Fisheries Annual Management Report, 2016. ADFG Fishery Management Report No. 17-05.

Shields, P. and A. Dupuis 2018. Upper Cook Inlet Commercial Fisheries Annual Management Report, 2017. ADFG Fishery Management Report No. 18-10.

Szarzi, N.J., P.A. Hansen, J.J. Hasbrouck. 2010. Harvest, Abundance, Age and Length Characteristics of Razor Clams from Eastern Cook Inlet Beaches, 1993-2003. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 10-49, Anchorage.

Taylor, C.C. 1959. Temperature and Growth — The Pacific Razor Clam. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 25: 93-101.

Weymouth, F.W. and H.C. McMillian. 1930. The relative growth and mortality of the Pacific razor clam (Siliqua patula, Dixon), and their bearing on the commercial fishery. Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 46: 543-567.

Weymouth, F.W., H.C. McMillin, H.B. Holmes. 1925. Growth and age at maturity of the Pacific razor clam, Siliqua patula (Dixon). U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries Bulletin 41: 201-236.