Northern Razor Clam United States/Northeast Pacific Hand Implements

Northern razor clam

Siliqua patula

©Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

United States/Northeast Pacific

Hand implements

August 5, 2019 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.

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

About...... Seafood...... Watch ...... 3......

Guiding...... Principles ...... 4......

Summary...... 5......

Final...... Seafood...... Recommendations ...... 6......

Introduction...... 7......

Assessment...... 9......

Criterion...... 1: . . . Impacts...... on . . . the. . . . . Species...... Under...... Assessment...... 9......

Criterion...... 2: . . . Impacts...... on . . . Other...... Species...... 15 ......

Criterion...... 3: . . . Management...... Effectiveness ...... 17 ......

Criterion...... 4: . . . Impacts...... on . . . the. . . . . Habitat...... and . . . . . Ecosystem...... 22 ......

Acknowledgements...... 27......

References...... 28......

Appendix...... A:. . . . Review...... Schedule...... 30......

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 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.

3 Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines 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.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program (these are explained further in the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries):

Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management. Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant. Fish all affected stocks at sustainable levels. Minimize bycatch. Have no more than a negligible impact on any threatened, endangered or protected species. Managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all affected species. Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of aquatic habitats where fishing occurs. Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life. Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophic cascades, or phase shifts. Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect the diversity, abundance, productivity, or genetic integrity of wild stocks.

These guiding principles are operationalized in the four criteria in this standard. 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 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

The impact of fishing mortality on the Pacific razor clam stock is considered a "moderate" concern for Oregon and Washington and a "low" concern for the Quinault Indian Nation. Pacific razor clam is not considered to be overfished, and it has a low vulnerability to fishing pressure as a result of its reproductive strategy and susceptibility attributes. The Quinault Indian Nation conducts a joint stock assessment with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the state’s recreational fishery. The location of Washington’s commercial fishery is not included in the stock assessment because it occurs in a dynamic area that is too difficult to survey, but is considered part of the same stock. The Quinault Indian Nation manages its fishery with the intent for mortality to remain at or below a sustainable level, based on the ratio of current recruits to maximum sustainable yield.

The commercial razor clam fisheries have no substantial bycatch interactions, nor are there impacts on non- target species or discards. The hand harvest gears evaluated in this report include clam guns/tubes and shovels; commercial harvest in Oregon only uses shovels. Hand harvest methods allow fishers to be highly selective of the species they harvest, leading to negligible bycatch.

Management of the Oregon and Washington fisheries is scored as a "moderate" concern, while the Quinault Indian Nation is scored as a "low" concern. Management strategy and implementation is considered "moderately effective" for Oregon and Washington, and "highly effective" for the Quinault Indian Nation. Bycatch strategy is considered to be "highly effective" for all three fisheries. Scientific research and monitoring is considered "moderately effective" for Oregon and Washington, and "highly effective" for the Quinault Indian Nation. Enforcement and management of regulations is considered to be "highly effective" for all three fisheries, as is stakeholder inclusion.

The impacts of shovels and clam guns/tubes to the habitat/substrate is considered to be low, because the use of hand harvest to capture clams allows non-target species to be returned to the substrate alive, resulting in negligible bycatch of species that are important for ecosystem functioning. Even though there is negligible bycatch, there is "moderate" concern for the management of ecosystem and food web impacts because there are no current efforts to fully assess the ecological impacts in the fishery.

5 Final Seafood Recommendations

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

Northern razor Green Green Green (5.000) Green Best Choice Quinault Indian (3.413) (5.000) (3.240) (4.077) Reservation Northeast Pacific, Hand implements, United States of America

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

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

Summary Pacific Razor clam from Oregon and Washington fisheries is ranked as a Good Alternative.

Pacific Razor clam from Quinault Indian Nation is ranked as a Best Choice.

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 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).

6 Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation This report contains an evaluation of the Pacific razor clam (Siliqua patula) in Oregon and Washington, and focuses on the Oregon, Washington, and Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) commercial fisheries. The fisheries in Alaska and British Columbia are assessed in a separate report (Safina Center 2016). Gears evaluated in this report include shovels and clam guns/tubes; commercial harvest in Oregon only uses shovels. In Washington, the commercial fishery occurs on the Willapa Spits, at the mouth of Willapa Bay. The Willapa Spits are dynamic, and the width and location of sand bars vary by year (WDFW 2016c). Most commercial fishing in Oregon is on Clatsop Beach.

Species Overview Along the US West Coast, Pacific razor clam occurs in intertidal and subtidal exposed areas from Pismo Beach, California to the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Razor clam grows faster but has a shorter lifespan in southern latitudes (Weymouth et al. 1925) (Weymouth et al. 1931). Due to this tradeoff between shorter lifespans and faster growth, Washington State was once thought to have a razor clam stock that was ideal for heavy exploitation; however, heavy exploitation and high stock losses to disease around 1980 led the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to reduce limits and seasons (Lassuy and Simons 1989). Pacific razor clam is managed by state and tribal governments because it occurs in state waters and in areas subject to treaty rights.

Production Statistics From the 1950s through 1963, Alaska produced the most Pacific razor clams of any state. In the 1960s, the Pacific razor clam fishery in Alaska began to decline. In 1964, Alaska experienced an earthquake that raised the elevation of high quality razor clam habitat by 1.6 to 2 meters (m), and caused moderate mortality (Bishop and Powers 2003). Since then, the Pacific razor clam population has not returned to previous numbers (NMFS 2016). In the 1990s, Washington State’s fishery was periodically closed due to domoic acid, which causes amnesic shellfish poisoning (WDFW 2016b). Pacific razor clam landings fluctuated around a low, constant point from 2000 to 2006, when landings began to steadily increase (NMFS 2016) (WDFW 2016b) (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016).

In the last decade, the average annual landings of Pacific razor clam were 391,382 pounds (lb) for the QIN, 183,419 lb for Washington, and 16,465 lb for Oregon (NMFS 2016) (WDFW 2016b) (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016). In Washington State, the QIN signed a treaty with the United States in which the QIN reserves the right to harvest all the razor clams on its reservation, and half the razor clam harvest in its usual and accustomed areas outside of reservation lands. The majority of commercial harvest in the QIN fishery takes place off reservation, and usual and accustomed areas off reservation are co-managed with Washington State. The beaches that are utilized for QIN commercial harvest are Copalis and Mocrocks (Washington 2016a). Washington’s fishery had small spikes in landings in 2010 and 2014, with total landings of 266,834 lb and 281,031 lb, respectively (WDFW 2016b). In the last decade, Washington’s fishery had its highest grossing year in 2013, and was worth USD 579,503 (NMFS 2016b). The QIN had above average landings in 2013 and 2014 (550,921 lb and 835,672 lb [1], respectively), and would likely have had another high grossing year in 2015 if not for an early closure due to domoic acid levels (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016). Oregon’s landings spiked in 2009 (36,109 lb) and 2013 (23,571 lb), and had a high value of USD 163,485 in 2009 (NMFS 2016). See Figure 2 for Pacific razor clam landings from 2005 to 2015 (Washington 2009) (NMFS 2012) (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2012).

[1] The original Quinault Indian Nation dataset provided landings in number of clams rather than pounds of

7 clam. This dataset was converted to pounds by dividing the number of clams landed by 3.33, as advised by expert opinion (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016).

Figure 1 Pacific razor clam landings in the Oregon, Washington, and the Quinault Indian Nation commercial fisheries from 2005–2015 (NMFS 2016, WDFW 2016b, and pers. comm., Scott Mazzone 2016). No data were available for Oregon in 2015. (WDFW 2016b) (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016). No data were available for Oregon in 2015.}

Importance to the US/North American market. Import and export records for “clam” do not provide species-level breakdown of data. Therefore, specifics on exports of Pacific razor clam are unknown. In a conversation with one of the buyers, it was stated that some fresh razor clams are exported to Canada, and presumably also exported to China from Canada (B. Kauffman, personal communication 2016). Specific values are unknown.

Common and market names. Common names include Pacific razor clam, razor clam, and northern razor clam. 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 Pacific razor clam is commonly fried, baked, used to make clam chowder, and sold as crab bait. The harvest from Washington’s commercial fishery on the Willapa Spits is typically used for crab bait (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016).

8 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

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

Criterion 1 Summary NORTHERN RAZOR Region | Method Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Quinault Indian 2.33: Moderate Concern 5.00: Low Concern Green (3.413) Reservation/Northeast Pacific | Hand implements | United States of America Oregon/Northeast Pacific 2.33: Moderate Concern 3.00: Moderate Concern Yellow (2.644) | Hand implements | United States of America Washington/Northeast 2.33: Moderate Concern 3.00: Moderate Concern Yellow (2.644) Pacific | Hand implements | United States of America

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.

9 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

QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OREGON/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WASHINGTON/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderate Concern According to the Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (MSC 2014), Pacific razor clam has medium vulnerability. Though management does not conduct stock assessments for the commercial Pacific razor clam fisheries, both Oregon and Washington conduct stock assessments for the recreational fisheries (WDFW 2015) (ODFW 2016). Each state’s commercial and recreational fisheries occur in different areas; however, given the fact that razor clam is a broadcast spawner, it would be quite difficult for these areas to support separate stocks. Furthermore, according to expert opinion, each state considers its razor clam fisheries as a single stock (B. Kauffman, personal communication 2016) (M. Hunter, personal communication 2016). The recreational stock assessment for Washington and the QIN includes catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data as well as size frequency distribution (WDFW 2015). These data show that CPUE increased from 57 lb per digger per day in 2004 to 105 lb per digger per day in 2009. From 2010 to 2014, CPUE averaged 88.5 lb per digger per day. This supports expert opinion that the fishery is not considered to be overfished (B. Kauffman, personal communication 2016). Oregon uses the same methods as Washington and the QIN to conduct annual stock assessments to estimate abundance, but the last peer-reviewed stock assessment report was in 2006 (Hunter 2008). Without updated literature, it is difficult to know if conservation targets are being met. Therefore, abundance is scored as a “moderate” concern. Justification:

PSA score = 2.7

For this reason, the species is deemed to have medium vulnerability (based on the PSA scoring tool). Detailed scoring of each attribute is shown below.

10 Figure 2

11 Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality

QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Low Concern The QIN conducts a joint stock assessment with the WDFW (recreational fishery). Together, they determine total allowable catch (TAC) for the co-managed beaches (Copalis, Mocrocks, and Kalaloch). Prior to the 2013– 2014 season, TAC was set at 30%, with half the catch going to the QIN and half to the Washington recreational fishery (WDFW 2015). In 2013–2014, the WDFW and the QIN changed their management strategy to use a variable harvest rate that is based on the maximum exploitable yield, and they set a harvest rate ceiling at 35%. This ceiling was increased to 40% for the 2014–2015 season. This decision was made to allow the QIN and Washington recreational fisheries to create a TAC based on abundance, with high abundance years resulting in greater harvest potential. Management also has the ability to decrease TAC or even cease allowable harvest during low abundance years. The QIN distributes its half of the harvest between its commercial fishery, harvest for home use, and harvest for ceremonial purposes (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016). Because management reacts to abundance with the intent for mortality to remain at or below a sustainable level that will allow the razor clam population to maintain current abundance, fishing mortality is considered a “low” concern. Justification:

Figure 3 Variable exploitation rate for the QIN. Figure courtesy of the Quinault Indian Nation.

12 OREGON/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderate Concern Fishing mortality for pacific razor clam in Oregon is unknown. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) does not use fishing mortality reference points to manage harvest, but does monitor catch-per-unit- effort and conducts an annual stock assessment on Clatsop beaches, which host both commercial and recreational diggers. Nearly all (90 to 100%) of the commercial harvest occurs in this area. In the last decade, the average commercial harvest rate was approximately 2%, with high harvest rates of 6% in 2010 and 7% in 2013 (based on abundance estimates and reported harvest), which would be considered sustainable harvest levels (M. Hunter, personal communication 2016) (NMFS 2016). But the recreational fishery accounts for a majority of the catch and it is possible for overall fishing mortality to go over a sustainable level (Hunter 2008). Therefore, fishing mortality is of “moderate” concern in Oregon.

WASHINGTON/NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderate Concern Like Oregon, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) does not use fishing mortality reference points to manage harvest. WDFW monitors catch-per-unit-effort and conducts a joint stock assessment with the QIN for beaches where recreational harvest occurs (WDFW 2016a). Managers set a total allowable catch (TAC) for the recreational fishery but not for the commercial fishery, based on this assessment. Because the non-tribal commercial fishery is excluded from the total TAC, which is based on the joint stock assessment, fishing mortality is of “moderate” concern.

13 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 - OREGON/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 - QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION/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 - WASHINGTON/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

14 Pacific razor clams are harvested using shovels or clam tubes, which are also known as “clam guns” (see Figures 4 and 5 in Criterion 4). Clam guns consist of a tube with a handle and a small hole to allow air passage on top. The handle is used to drive the tube into the sand around a clam “show." The digger covers the air hole with a finger while using the handle to pull the tube of sand and the clam up and onto the beach. The digger then removes the finger from the air hole and shakes the sand and the clam out of the tube (ODFW 2009a). Hand harvesting allows fishers to be highly selective about their catch, while returning unwanted species alive to their habitat, resulting in little to no bycatch (B. Kauffman, personal communication 2016).

2.4 - Discards + Bait / Landings

15 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: Oregon / Northeast Moderately Highly Moderately Highly Highly Yellow Pacific | Hand implements | Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective (3.000) United States of America Fishery 2: Quinault Indian Highly Highly Highly Highly Highly Green Reservation / Northeast Pacific Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective (5.000) | Hand implements | United States of America Fishery 3: Washington / Moderately Highly Moderately Highly Highly Yellow Northeast Pacific | Hand Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective (3.000) implements | United States of America

16 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.

OREGON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderately Effective Oregon’s commercial razor clam fishery is open by permanent regulation for a set period of time. The fishery is not managed by using reference points, conservation targets, or precautionary principles, though the ODFW does have the authority to enact emergency closures when necessary. Commercial harvest and the number of permits have historically fluctuated with the amount of clams available to harvest (population) and, on average, the commercial fishery makes up less than 20% of the total harvest (Hunter 2006). Also, the minimum size limit is 3.5 inches and all undersized clams must be returned (M. Hunter, personal communication 2016). Although effectiveness of management is unknown, it is unlikely that the fishery is having a negative impact on the razor clam population because the fishery has a low harvest rate (average 2% from 2005 to 2015) (M. Hunter, personal communication 2016) (NMFS 2016). Therefore, Oregon’s management strategy and implementation is considered “moderately effective.”

QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective Most of the QIN’s commercial razor clam harvest occurs in the nation’s usual and accustomed areas (fishing areas) (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016), where razor clams are co-managed with the WDFW (WDFW 2015). The two governments perform annual stock assessments and determine TAC for these areas. The variable harvest rate is based on the maximum exploitable yield and adjusted based on abundance levels. The maximum harvest rate is 40% of exploitable biomass. The total allowable catch is split evenly between the QIN and Washington’s fisheries (WDFW 2015). Stock depletion has not been a concern, indicating that current management strategy and implementation is “highly effective.”

WASHINGTON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderately Effective Although the WDFW has not set reference points or conservation targets for the commercial razor clam fishery, the state has implemented precautionary policies by setting a fixed season of 8 weeks. This season length has been determined to be conservative enough to prevent over-harvest and to maintain the resource, which is supported by landings data (see Figure 3) (WDFW 2016b). In addition, catch-per-unit-effort is monitored throughout the season (WDFW 2016a). Therefore, management strategy and implementation is considered “moderately effective.”

17 Justification:

Figure 4 Washington State commercial razor clam fishery landings from the Willapa Spits (1976–2015) (WDFW 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.

OREGON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WASHINGTON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective The Pacific razor clam fisheries have little to no bycatch (< 5%) because they use gear that minimizes bycatch (hand harvest methods). For further discussion of bycatch in this report, see Criterion 2.

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.

OREGON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderately Effective The ODFW has been conducting annual razor clam stock assessments since 2004 (ODFW 2016). The stock assessment occurs on Clatsop beaches, where more than 90% of the catch and effort occurs. The stock assessment estimates abundance of pre-recruits, recruits, and all clams. One transect is sampled per mile of the 18-mile beach (Hunter 2008). Also, ODFW has set a goal to sample a minimum of 5% of commercial

18 landings for length frequencies and number of clams per pound. Although the stock assessment is used to monitor the stock, it is not peer reviewed, it is used for informational purposes only, and management does not reflect changes in population (M. Hunter, personal communication 2016). Therefore, scientific research and monitoring is considered “moderately effective.”

QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective The QIN conducts fishery-independent biomass surveys and a joint annual scientific stock assessment with the WDFW in usual and accustomed areas (WDFW 2015) (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016). All areas of harvest by the QIN are included in the assessment, and this assessment is used to set the TAC for the QIN commercial fishery. Therefore, scientific research and monitoring is considered “highly effective.”

WASHINGTON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Moderately Effective WDFW conducts a joint annual scientific stock assessment with the QIN to determine the population of Pacific razor clam on Washington’s ocean beaches (WDFW 2015). But only recreational and QIN harvest occur at the locations included in the stock assessment. The commercial fishery occurs on the Willapa Spits, at the mouth of Willapa Bay. The Willapa Spits are dynamic and the width and location of sand bars vary by year (WDFW 2016c), making it too difficult to include in stock assessment efforts (B. Kauffman, personal communication 2016). Razor clams on the ocean beaches and the Willapa Spits are considered to be a single stock, and management considers the stock assessment to be applicable to commercially harvested razor clam (B. Kauffman, personal communication 2016). Although Washington’s stock assessment efforts are robust, they lack inclusion of the commercially fished areas on the Willapa Spits and consideration of the commercial fishery in the TAC. Therefore, scientific research and monitoring is considered “moderately 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.

OREGON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective Enforcement is done by the Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife Division (ODFW 2009b). Regulations are regularly enforced and independently verified through logbooks (ODFW 2012a).

QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective Tribal fisheries enforcement officers are present at every commercial dig to enforce catch limits and other regulations. Commercial digs are scheduled at specific locations where several fisheries enforcement officers are present (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016).

19 WASHINGTON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective Enforcement by the WDFW occurs by checking diggers at the point of landings to ensure that catch is recorded and that they are in compliance with license and certification requirements (B. Kauffman, personal communication 2016).

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.

OREGON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective The management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input. Any changes in management, whether through legislation or the ODFW petition process, would involve public input (M. Hunter, personal communication 2016).

QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective The QIN has a tribal fisheries policy spokesperson who works with the WDFW to determine the number of clams available for harvest each year. This spokesperson then works with tribal members to best represent their interests when working with Washington State. Tribal members are also able to participate in management with the Overall Committee, which determines how much of the QIN’s share of clams goes to the commercial fishery, which generally receives a majority of the harvest. Although the opportunities for stakeholder inclusion are constrained by legal requirements and government-to-government negotiation, there are a number of opportunities for stakeholder participation in the management process (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016). Therefore, stakeholder inclusion is considered “highly effective.”

WASHINGTON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Highly Effective The management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input in accordance with Washington State’s Administrative Procedures Act (Washington 2016). The WDFW has a hotline and webpage dedicated to commercial razor clam harvest. It also regularly conducts preseason planning meetings to discuss relevant seasonal issues with diggers and buyers (B. Kauffman, personal communication 2016).

20 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

GUIDING PRINCIPLES Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of marine habitats where fishing occurs. Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life. Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophic cascades, or phase shifts. Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect the diversity, abundance, productivity, or genetic integrity of wild stocks. Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Gear Type and Mitigation of Region / Method Substrate Gear Impacts EBFM Score Oregon / Northeast Pacific / Hand implements / 3 +0.5 Moderate Green United States of America Concern (3.240) Quinault Indian Reservation / Northeast Pacific / Hand 3 +0.5 Moderate Green implements / United States of America Concern (3.240) Washington / Northeast Pacific / Hand implements / 3 +0.5 Moderate Green United States of America Concern (3.240)

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)

21 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) 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.

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

OREGON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WASHINGTON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 Hand gear (including guns/tubes, rakes, hoes, and shovels) may have habitat impacts on the intertidal and subtidal habitats, depending on how much disturbance the habitat is subject to from wave, tidal, or current action (Brown and Wilson 1997) (Kaiser et al. 2001). A study on the habitat impacts of raking mudflats in Maine found that commercial digging can have a negative impact on several intertidal species, although these impacts are likely due to cumulative effects (Brown and Wilson 1997). Additionally, when digging for clams, the pile of sediment left on the beach may damage many other types of intertidal species if the hole created is not refilled, and if the beach is not exposed to high-energy waves and tides (WDFW 2012). Oregon, Washington, and the QIN use shovels and clam guns/tubes. The impact to habitat is scored as “3” because the gear contacts the bottom, but has a small footprint and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Justification:

Figure 5 Clam shovel. Photo from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, located at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/razorclams/recipes.html

23 Figure 6 Clam gun/tube. Photo from: http://www.jackscountrystore.co/stainlesssteelclamgun.aspx

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

OREGON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA QUINAULT INDIAN RESERVATION / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WASHINGTON / NORTHEAST PACIFIC, HAND IMPLEMENTS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA +0.5 The Oregon, Washington, and QIN commercial razor clam fisheries all limit their harvest to specified areas. Oregon has only one beach, Clatsop Beach, open to razor clam harvest for human consumption (M. Hunter, personal communication 2012). Oregon, via the DFW website, also asks that clam diggers refill the holes they dig, although this request is not listed in the regulations (ODFW 2012b). Washington’s commercial Pacific razor clam fishery is spatially restricted to the Willapa Spits; thus, the WDFW does not require holes to be filled in because the tide will cover the digging area in this active coastal surf zone (WDFW 2016c). Most of the QIN’s commercial razor clam digs occur in usual and accustomed areas off the reservation beaches (S. Mazzone, personal communication 2016). The gear used in all fisheries (clam gun/tube and shovels) are specified for shellfish digging, and efforts to limit the spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing are expected to be effective. Therefore, these fisheries are deemed to have “moderate” mitigation measures in place.

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

24 Moderate Concern

No exceptional species are caught in the fisheries assessed in this report. The use of hand harvest to capture clams allows non-target species to be returned to the substrate alive, resulting in negligible bycatch of species that are important for ecosystem functioning. Still, there are no efforts to fully assess the ecological impacts in the fishery. For these reasons, management of the ecosystem and food web impacts are deemed of “moderate” concern.

25 Acknowledgements

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

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

26 References

Brown, B and Wilson WH. 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.

Hunter, M. 2008. 2006 Clatsop Beach razor clam fishery status report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Resources Program. Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/publications/docs/razor_2006.pdf

Kaiser, MJ, Broad, G, and Hall, SJ. 2001. Disturbance of intertidal soft-sediment benthic communities by cockle hand raking. Journal of Sea Research. 45:119-130.

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

McMillan, H.C. 1924. The life-history and growth of the razor clam. 34th Annu. Per., Washington (State) Department of Fisheries, Olympia.

NMFS 2016 (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016. Annual Commercial Landings Statistics. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009a. Oregon: A Great Catch! How to Razor Clam. Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/fishing/docs/ClammingFlyer.pdf

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009b. State Police Enforcement. Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/budget/docs/09_11_ways_and_means/Tab%2025%20OSP.pdf

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012a. Commercial Shell Fishing. Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/shellfish/commercial/other_shellfish/index.asp

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012b. Digging for Butter Clams. Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/shellfish/bayclams/dig_butter.asp

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. Razor clam research. Accessed April 25, 2016. Available at: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/shellfish/razorclams/current_research.asp

Personal communication. 2016. Daniel Ayres, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Personal communication. 2016b. Matthew Hunter, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Personal communication. 2016c. Bruce Kauffman, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Personal communication. 2016d. Scott Mazzone, Quinault Indian Nation.

Safina Center. 2016. Clam, Pacific Razor. Accessed August 15, 2016. Available at: http://safinacenter.org/seafoods/clam-pacific-razor/

Washington (Washington State Governor’s Office of Regulator Assistance). 2016. Washington’s Rulemaking Process. Accessed April 25, 2016. Available at: http://www.ora.wa.gov/regulatory/rulemaking.asp

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2015. Washington razor clam management: Setting the

27 2015-2016 season. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/razorclams/2015_razor_clam_season_setting.pdf

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016a. How recreational razor clam seasons are set. Accessed April 9, 2016. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/razorclams/seasons_set.html

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016b. Commercial razor clam fishery historic landings. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/razorclams/landings.html

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016c. History of the commercial razor clam fishery. Accessed on April 25, 2016. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/razorclams/history.html

Weymouth, F.W., McMillin, H.C., and Holmes, H.B. 1925. Growth and age at maturity of the Pacific razor clam, Siliqua patula (Dixon). Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries. US Department of Commerce Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 984:201-236.

Weymouth, F.W., McMillin, H.C., and Rich, W.H. 1931. Latitude and relative growth in the razor clam, Silique patula. From the Department of Physiology, Stanford University.

28 Appendix A: Review Schedule

Oregon State conducts annual stock assessments. The joint stock assessment for the Quinault Indian Nation’s commercial fishery and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s recreational fishery also occurs on an annual basis.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife www.dfw.state.or.us/mrp/shellfish/razorclams/

Matthew Hunter, Shellfish Program [email protected]

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife www.wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/razorclams/

Daniel Ayers, Coastal Shellfish Manager [email protected]

Bruce Kauffman, Coastal Shellfish Biologist [email protected]

Quinault Indian Nation http://nwifc.org/member-tribes/quinault-nation/

Scott Mazzone, Shellfish and Marine Biologist [email protected]