Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association
Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association

Littleneck Clam (farmed, Alaska)

Protothaca staminea

Sometimes known as Bay cockle, Common Littleneck, Hardshell Clam, Native Littleneck, Pacific Littleneck, Rock Clam, Rock Cockle, Steamer or Tomales Bay Cockle.

This species is farm-raised.

Summary

Littleneck clams are farmed from California to Alaska, which is within their native range. Alaska, where most true farms are located, has strict controls over the leasing and harvesting process. Farms cannot be located in ecologically significant areas, and destructive mechanical harvesting is prohibited, requiring that clams are harvested by hand.

Criterion Points
Inherent Operational Risks 2.75
Feed 3.75
Pollution 4.00
Risk to Other Species 3.00
Ecological Effects 2.75
Final Score (average of criteria) 3.25
Color
Final Score Color
2.60 - 4.00
2.20 - 2.59
1.80 - 2.19
1.40 - 1.79
0.00 - 1.39

Last updated March 10, 2005.

Inherent Operational Risks

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

General System Design:

An aquaculture system's design is a good overall proxy measure for the likely effect of the operation on the environment. For example, open systems (e.g., net pens and net cages) are more likely to have pollution, disease, and escape issues than closed systems (e.g., recirculating tanks). With shellfish, which don’t require supplemental food input, the more important question is whether they are harvested on or off of the bottom.

1.00
This species is raised in a high risk system (e.g., net pens; net cages).
2.00
This species is raised in a moderate risk system (e.g., most ponds; raceways; bottom culture of mollusks).

Shellfish farms specifically designed to culture littleneck clams exist in Alaska, while harvests in Washington,Oregon and California are the result of wild littleneck clam seed setting among manila clam beds (Downey, pers. comm. 2004). While much of the U.S. West Coast is farming manila clams, Alaska prohibits farming of non-native clams (Timothy, pers. comm. 2004).

In Alaska, littleneck clam seed is raised in hatcheries starting in tanks for about 25 weeks. The nursery phase takes about 12 weeks, and occurs in a floating system through which seawater is pumped. (Brooks et al. 2001) Littleneck clam seed is then planted and raised in bottom culture systems until the harvest (Downey 2004).

3.00
This species is raised in a low risk system (e.g., re-circulating closed system; suspended culture of mollusks; zero-discharge ponds).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
Species is raised at a high stocking density; OR there is a high density of sites in the geographic region, with evidence of environmental impact.
-0.25
Operations do not incorporate best-available, cost-effective technology to reduce environmental impact.
-0.25
There are no effective zoning or permitting practices for siting of facilities.
-0.25
Government programs encourage expansion of high-impact systems.
+0.25
Species is raised at a low stocking density OR there is a low density of sites in the geographic region, which results in minimal impact to the natural ecosystem.

Stocking densities vary considerably depending on the environment and whether the seed is planted or naturally set. Density is approximately 20/ft2 where seed has been planted and predation nets are in place (Timothy, pers. comm. 2004). All of the farms in Alaska are currently on Prince of Wales Island, and are small, ranging in size from about 0.2 acres to 10 acres. According to Jackie Timothy of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (pers. comm. 2004), so much undeveloped coastland still remains in Alaska that there have been virtually no adverse effects from the farms. In Alaska, 58 farms on 237 acres of submerged lands were used for all shellfish production in 2003 (Timothy and Petree 2004). Stocking density of littlenecks outside of Alaska is not really an issue, as littlenecks are not directly planted, but are harvested along with other species (Downey, pers. comm. 2004).

+0.25
Operations incorporate innovative culture methods that limit environmental impacts (e.g., polyculture).
+0.25
There are effective zoning or permitting practices for siting and operation of facilities (e.g., mandatory consideration of hydrographic characteristics; requirements for site rotation).

In Alaska, where all true littleneck farms are located (in contrast to California, Washington and Oregon where wild littlenecks are caught), managers evaluate areas for potential for farming, considering the potential conflicts with existing, pending, and traditional uses, impacts to cultural/historical areas, compatibility with affected land management plans, coastal district plans and adjacent upland owner management objectives, potential impacts to interests protected under the Public Trust Doctrine, cumulative impacts of concentrating aquatic farmsites in a specific area, and accessibility. Applications for farms are accepted by the state for review every other year from January through April, and are reviewed by ADFG, DNR, DEC, US Army Corps of Engineers, coastal districts, and the public (Timothy and Petree 2004). Washington state also has controls over submerged land leases.

+0.25
Government programs preferentially encourage the expansion of low-impact systems over high impact systems.

Growers collect the clams with hand shovels and forks and place them into buckets. The government in Alaska prohibits mechanical harvesting of clams due to the destructive impacts (Agosti 2002; Timothy, pers. comm. 2004). In Oregon, British Columbia, and California, harvests are also done only by hand, rake, shovel, garden hand fork, or trowel (Reilly 2001; McRae 1995; DFO 1999), while in Washington both raking and mechanical harvesting are utilized (WDFW 2004).

2.75
Points for Inherent Operational Risks

Feed

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Ecological Footprint of Feed:

"Trash" fish, frequently used in developing countries, is an industry term used to refer to whole fish or fish parts fed to farmed fish without being processed into fish meal and fish oil.

Twenty percent was selected as a cut-off because carnivorous species (e.g., salmon; eel; tuna; cobia; etc.) generally consume greater than twenty percent fish products (fishmeal, fish oil, or trash fish), while omnivorous or herbivorous species (e.g., catfish; tilapia; carps; etc.) consume less than twenty percent fish products.

1.00
Typical aquaculture feed includes high levels of fishmeal, fish oil, or "trash" fish (i.e., >20% of the feed; e.g., salmonid feeds).
2.00
Typical aquaculture feed includes moderate levels of fishmeal, fish oil, or "trash" fish (i.e., <20% of the feed; e.g., tilapia and catfish feeds).
3.00
No feed is used (e.g., mollusks and seaweeds) or typical aquaculture feed includes no fishmeal, fish oil, or "trash" fish (e.g., paddlefish; filter-feeding carps).

During the hatchery and nursery stage, Alaskan growers may add algae to seawater as feed; however, during the bulk of the animal's life, seawater provides the sole source of nourishment (Downey, pers. comm. 2004).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
When fish products are used, the major sources score low on the Wild-Caught Fisheries Ranking System.
-0.25
Feed contains greater than 10% of fish products and public or private sectors are not working to reduce fish content in feed.
-0.25
Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is high (i.e., >2.0; e.g., eel).
-0.25
Government policy promotes research, development and commercialization of carnivorous or other highly fishmeal-dependent species.
+0.25
When fish products are used, the major sources score high on the Wild-Caught Fisheries Ranking System; OR the source is innovative and ecologically sound (e.g., fisheries byproducts); OR no feed is used.

No feed is used.

+0.25
Feed contains less than 10% of fish products OR public and private sectors are working to reduce the fish content in feed; OR no feed is used.

No feed is used.

+0.25
Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is low (i.e., <1.3; e.g., salmon); OR no feed is used.

No feed is used.

+0.25
Government policy promotes research, development and commercialization of herbivorous species or other species not highly dependent on fishmeal.
3.75
Points for Feed

Pollution

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Typical effluent treatment procedures:

1.00
Effluent is not treated before discharge (e.g., salmon net pens).
2.00
Effluent is partially treated before discharge (e.g., infrequently discharged effluent from catfish ponds).
3.00
Effluent is substantially treated before discharge (e.g., recirculating shrimp systems; settling ponds; reconstructed wetlands); OR treatment is not necessary because supplemental feed is not used (e.g., molluscs or seaweeds).

Treatment of effluent is not necessary because supplemental feed is not used to farm littleneck clams (Downey, pers. comm. 2004).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
Operations have demonstrated negative impacts on water quality or sediment/benthic characteristics (e.g., elevated nutrient levels; algal blooms; altered benthic communities).
-0.25
Pollutants (e.g., pesticides; parasiticides; antibiotics; plastic; nets; dead fish) are frequently discharged into the environment or otherwise not appropriately discarded.
-0.25
Effluent regulations do not exist, are lax, or are poorly enforced, which allows for degradation of the aquatic environment.
-0.25
Available technologies and practices to reduce or recycle waste (e.g., feed sensors; low-pollution feeds) are not used.
+0.25
Operations generally improve water quality or sediment/benthic characteristics (e.g., oyster farms).

Clams improve water quality by filtering out algae and other plankton, reducing levels of chlorophyll, nutrients and suspended solids.

+0.25
Chemicals (e.g., pesticides; parasiticides; antibiotics) are rarely or never used.

Antibiotics and antimicrobial compounds are not used in the farming of Littleneck clams (Agosti 2002).

+0.25
Robust water quality regulations exist (e.g., permits required; discharge caps; strong enforcement), and regular monitoring occurs.

No controls are necessary for effluent from Littleneck clam operations, as effluent is not generated. However, water quality is monitored by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, and contamination from PSP, brown tides, or bacterial outbreak leads to beach closures (Downey, pers. comm. 2004).

+0.25
Innovative methods and practices to reduce or recycle wastes are used (e.g., integrated systems; effluent and solid wastes used as terrestrial fertilizer); OR innovative methods and practices are not needed because raising this species does not create waste.

Farming this species does not create waste.

4.00
Points for Pollution

Risk to Other Species

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Frequency and Impact of Escapes:

1.00
Farmed species regularly or intermittently escape into the wild AND escapes are non-native to the area or otherwise pose a risk to native populations or ecosystems (e.g., most non-native fish raised in outdoor facilities).
2.00
Escape frequency is not known OR farmed species is native to the area where it is raised and poses minimal risk to native populations or ecosystems (e.g., channel catfish in the US; most native mollusks).

Littleneck clams are farmed within their native range from California to Alaska. Farming them poses little threat to native populations (Timothy, pers. comm. 2004; Downey, pers. comm. 2004).

3.00
Farmed species never (or virtually never) escape to the wild (e.g., species is raised in bio-secure facilities).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
This farmed species has been known to survive in the surrounding ecosystem if it escapes; OR would likely survive given its physiological requirements.
-0.25
This farmed species is known or is likely to compete with wild species for food or habitat if it escapes; OR this species is known or is likely to compromise the genetic integrity of the wild species (e.g., through spawning disruption, genetic introgression or establishment of feral stocks) if it escapes.
-0.25
This farmed species is known or is likely to amplify and transmit disease or parasites to wild populations (e.g., infectious salmon anemia or sea lice infestations) if it escapes.
-0.25
Regulatory authorities are not adequately addressing the risks of escape or spread of disease associated with farming this species.
+0.25
This farmed species has not been known to survive in the surrounding ecosystem if it escapes; OR would not likely survive given its physiological requirements; OR farmed species is a native mollusc.

This species is a native mollusc.

+0.25
Operations employ management protocols and techniques to limit the ecological impacts of escaped farmed fish (e.g., triploidy; sterilization); OR it’s unlikely that escaped individuals will either compete with wild species for resources, or compromise the genetic integrity of wild species.

The Alaskan hatchery replaces its broodstock from the wild every couple years. Broodstock is only taken from clams occurring naturally in the regions where they are farmed (Agosti 2002), thus preventing a compromise of the genetic integrity of the wild populations when the clams are planted. In Washington, Oregon, and California, only wild set is used, so there are no problems with escape or genetic integrity.

+0.25
Operations employ effective disease and parasite management protocols (e.g., fallowing of pens; retaining water when disease outbreak occurs); OR incidence of disease or risk of retransmitting disease is low.

Strong controls exist for Alaska's Qutekcak hatchery. They collect the broodstock from the area where the clams will be planted, and test it for disease (Timothy, pers. comm. 2004). Permits are required for the acquisition and transport of broodstock (Timothy and Petree 2004). The Alaska Department of Health strictly monitors water quality in the areas where clams are farmed (Downey 2004). The Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission exists to standardize guidelines for shellfish health and coordinate regulation with federal and state governments, the academic community, and shellfish industry interests. There is also strong coordination among the state agencies on the West coast to prevent the introduction of invasive species and disease (Elston, pers. comm.2004). There have not yet been any major disease problems with Littleneck clams other than the ubiquitous Vibrio species (Agosti 2002).

+0.25
Regulatory authorities are addressing the risks of escape and spread of disease associated with farming this species.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game monitors the broodstock and exported seed for disease. Permits are required for the acquisition and transport of broodstock (Timothy and Petree 2004). The Alaska Department of Health strictly monitors water quality (Downey 2004). The Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission exists to standardize guidelines for shellfish health and coordinate regulation with federal and state governments and the academic and shellfish industry interests. There is strong coordination between the state agencies on the West coast to prevent the introduction of invasive species and disease (Elston, pers. comm.2004). There have as yet been no major disease problems with Littleneck clams.

The Qutekcak hatchery, where all of the seed in Alaska is produced, collects the broodstock from the area where the clams will be planted, and tests it for disease (Timothy, pers. comm. 2004).

3.00
Points for Risk to Other Species

Ecological Effects

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Ecological sensitivity of site used for operations:

1.00
Operations are generally located in areas of high ecological sensitivity (e.g., coastal wetlands; mangroves).
2.00
Operations are generally located in areas of moderate ecological sensitivity (e.g., coastal and nearshore waters; rocky intertidal or subtidal zones; river or stream shorelines).

Littleneck clam farms are located in protected intertidal areas (Timothy, pers. comm. 2004).

3.00
Operations are generally located in areas of low ecological sensitivity (e.g., land that is less susceptible to degradation such as land formerly used for agriculture or land previously developed).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
Farming this species causes substantial damage to surrounding habitat, ecosystem or other resources (e.g., groundwater depletion; stream diversion; saltwater intrusion; soil salinization; loss of habitat for juvenile fish; loss of flood control; dredging hard bottoms; etc.).
-0.25
Harmful or lethal predator deterrents are used (e.g., bird/seal shootings; acoustic deterrent devices); OR operation otherwise harms wildlife (e.g., dolphin/seal entanglement; disrupting migration routes; bird/animal shooting).
-0.25
If seed is collected from wild sources, the intensity of collection is high enough to result in depletion of brood stock, wild juveniles, or associated non-target organisms (e.g., collection of postlarvae shrimp).
-0.25
Government policy encourages aquaculture operations to locate or expand in areas of high ecological sensitivity.
+0.25
Operations enhance habitat structure or function (e.g., constructed wetlands).
+0.25
Predator deterrents are not used OR predator deterrents are used but are not harmful or lethal (e.g., predator exclusion nets), AND operation does not otherwise harm wildlife.

Bird depredation permits are not issued to Alaskan shellfish farms. Netting is the only form of deterrent that is used. It is staked into the ground. The need to use predator netting varies greatly by location, and there have been no reports of entanglements in Alaska (Timothy, pers. comm. 2004).

+0.25
Seed comes predominantly from hatcheries or on-farm sites (e.g., seed for trout); OR if seed is collected from the wild, it does not deplete brood stock, wild juveniles, or associated non-target organisms (e.g., collection of oyster or mussel spat).

Seed is either hatchery seed in Alaska, or naturally setting wild seed in Washington and Oregon (Downey, pers. comm. 2004).

+0.25
Government policy encourages the growth of aquaculture operations in areas of low ecological sensitivity; OR protects sensitive habitats from aquaculture operations (e.g., prohibitions on cutting mangroves).

In Alaska, where most of the true farms exist, there are very strict state controls over the leasing process. Farms cannot be located in any number of ecologically significant areas including eelgrass habitat, salmon runs, essential fish habitat, and bird rookeries (Agosti 2002).

2.75
Points for Ecological Effects

References

Agosti, J., Hatchery Manager - Qutekcak Hatchery. 2002.

Brooks, K.M., J. Agosti, J. Hetrick, and D. Daisy. 2001. Clam restoration project, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project Final Report (Restoration Project 99 13 l), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division, Anchorage, Alaska. Available online at: http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/pdf/final_reports/131.pdf

Chew, K. and A. Ma, Common Littleneck Clam. In, Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest). 1987, Coastal Ecology Group, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior: Lafayette, LA.

DFO, Native Littleneck Clam. DFO Science Stock Status Report C6-02 (1999). 1999, Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Nanaimo, B.C.

Downey, R., Executive Director, Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers Association. Personal Communication. 2002. Follow up conversation for Update May 18, 2004.

FAO (2004). FAO Fisheries Department, Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit. FISHSTAT Plus: Universal software for fishery statistical time series. Version 2.3.

McRae, J., Oregon Developmental Species: Bay Clams. 1995, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Reilly, P., Littleneck Clams. In, California's Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. 2001, California Department of Fish and Game.

Timothy, Jackie. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Fisheries Biologist. Personal Communication. 6/4/2004.

Timothy, J. and D. Petree. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2003 Annual Mariculture Report. May, 2004.

Washington Department of Fish and Game. Shellfish. Available online at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/beachreg/1clam.htm. Accessed 6/2004

BLUE OCEAN INSTITUTE

34 Muttontown Lane, PO Box 250, East Norwich, NY 11732 • 1-877-BOI-SEAS • seafood@blueocean.org