Bivalve Shellfish Aquaculture in the National Estuarine Research Reserves: Assessing Current Activities, Relevant Policy, and Engagement Approaches

Figures & data

Table 1. National Estuarine Research Reserves.

Reserve	State	Biogeo region	Sub-region	Managing agency	Managing entity type	Designated	Size (acres)
Northeast ^a
Great Bay	NH	Acadian	2	NH Fish and Game Department Marine Fisheries Division	DFW	1989	10,235
Narragansett Bay	RI	Virginian	3	RI Department of Environmental Management	DEP	1980	4,259
Waquoit Bay	MA	Virginian	3	MA Department of Conservation and Recreation	DNR	1988	2,804
Wells	ME	Acadian	2	Wells Reserve Management Authority	Collective	1984	2,250
Mid-Atlantic
Chesapeake Bay Maryland	MD	Virginian	5	MD Department of Natural Resources	DNR	1985, 1990	6,249
Chesapeake Bay Virginia	VA	Virginian	5	Virginia Institute of Marine Science; College of William and Mary	Academic	1991	3,072
Hudson River	NY	Virginian	3	NY State Department of Environmental Conservation	DNR	1982	4,838
Delaware	DE	Virginian	4	DE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control	DNR	1993	6,206
Jacques Cousteau	NJ	Virginian	4	Rutgers University	Academic	1998	116,000
Southeast
ACE Basin	SC	Carolinian	7	SC Department of Natural Resources	DNR	1992	99,308
Guana Tolomato Matanzas	FL	Carolinian	8	FL Department of Environmental Protection	DEP	1999	73,352
North Inlet-Winyah Bay	SC	Carolinian	7	Uni. of South Carolina Baruch Marine Field Laboratory	Academic	1992	18,916
Sapelo Island	GA	Carolinian	7	GA Department of Natural Resources	DNR	1976	6,110
Caribbean
Jobos Bay	PR	West Indian	9	PR Department of Natural and Environmental Resources	DNR	1981	2,883
Gulf of Mexico
Apalachicola Bay	FL	Louisianian	11	FL Department of Environmental Protection	DEP	1979	234,715
Grand Bay	MS	Louisianian	12	MS Department of Marine Resources	DNR	1999	18,049
Mission-Aransas	TX	Louisianian	13	Uni. of Texas, Marine Science Institute	Academic	2006	186,189
Rookery Bay	FL	West Indian	10	FL Department of Environmental Protection	DEP	1978	110,000
Weeks Bay	AL	Louisianian	11	AL Department of Conservation and Natural Resources	DNR	1986	9,317
West Coast
Elkhorn Slough	CA	Californian	15	CA Department of Fish and Wildlife	DFW	1979	1,700
Kachemak	AK	Fjord	25	Uni. of Alaska Anchorage Alaska Center for Conservation Science	Academic	1999	372,000
Padilla Bay	WA	Columbian	19	Washington State Department of Ecology	DEP	1980	11,966
San Francisco Bay	CA	Californian	16	San Francisco State University	Academic	2003	3,710
South Slough	OR	Columbian	17	OR Department of State Lands	DNR/DEP	1974	4,711
Tijuana River	CA	Californian	14	CA State Parks; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service	DFW; Federal	1982	2,293
Great Lakes
Lake Superior	WI	Great Lakes	20	Uni. of Wisconsin-Madison, Division of Extension	Academic	2010	16,697
Old Woman Creek	OH	Great Lakes	22	OH Department of Natural Resources	DNR	1980	573
Kachemak Bay	AK	Fjord	25	Uni. of Alaska Anchorage Alaska Center for Conservation Science	Academic	1999	372,000
Pacific
He’eia	HI	Insular	27	Uni. of Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology	Academic	2017	1,385

Reserves are classified by NOAA to be representative of specific biogeographic regions with similar dominant plants, animals, and prevailing climate. There are 29 subregions within 11 biogeographic regions (Biogeo Region) that represent different types of estuaries. The managing agency, Reserve designation year, and Reserve size are also provided. The managing entity type is provided for reference and comparisons across management behavior, policy, and authority.

a Also note that the Connecticut NERR was undergoing the official Reserve designation process during this project and was not included in the analysis, although interviews were conducted with their staff. The CT NERR was officially designated January 14, 2022, during the review process of this manuscript.

Figure 1. Aquaculture activities (of all types) and suitability for bivalve shellfish aquaculture across the National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) System. Orange circles indicate the current* presence of aquaculture within Reserve boundaries, as of the information collection (*May 2020). Reserves with aquaculture activities as a historical or preexisting use are demarcated with a boxed “H”. Suitability is indicated by diamonds, with the letter “S” indicating “Suitable” conditions, and “P” indicating “Potentially” suitable conditions. Note that three Reserves have current aquaculture activities, but without “Suitable” designations. This is due to the either: the discontinuation of existing shellfish leases and establishment of leasing moratoriums within several NC counties, despite current permitted activities (North Carolina NERR); the Reserve is a state-designated marine protected area, although select preexisting aquaculture activities were allowed to remain upon Reserve designation (South Slough NERR); the Reserve is a state-designated marine protected area with impaired water quality conditions, and thus the application of aquaculture is specifically for conservation purposes (Elkhorn Slough NERR).

Table 2. Shellfish aquaculture activities within or neighboring to each of the National Estuarine Research Reserves.

Reserve	State	Aquaculture	Suitability	Rationale	Neighbor	Engage
Northeast
Great Bay	NH	Oyster ^a	Suitable	Appropriate Conditions	Yes	No
Narragansett Bay	RI	–	Suitable	Not Explicitly Given	Yes	No
Waquoit Bay	MA	Shellfish	Suitable	Not Explicitly Given	No
Wells	ME	Oyster	Suitable	Appropriate Conditions	Yes	No
Mid-Atlantic
Chesapeake Bay Maryland	MD	–	Potentially	Existing Local Activity	Yes	No
Chesapeake Bay Virginia	VA	–	Potentially	Existing Local Activity	Yes	Yes
Delaware	DE	–	Unlikely	Impaired Water Quality	No	–
Hudson River	NY	–	Not Suitable	Not Explicitly Given	No	–
Jacques Cousteau	NJ	Clam, Oyster ^a	Suitable	Appropriate Conditions	Yes	Yes
Southeast
ACE Basin	SC	Oyster	Suitable	Appropriate Conditions	Yes	–
Guana Tolomato Matanzas	FL	Clam	Suitable	Appropriate Conditions	No	–
North Carolina	NC	Shellfish ^c	Unlikely	Regulatory Protections	Yes	No
North Inlet-Winyah Bay	SC	–	Suitable	Appropriate Conditions	No	–
Sapelo Island	GA	–	Not Suitable	Impaired Water Quality	Yes	No
Carribean
Jobos Bay	PR	–	Unlikely	Regulatory Protections	No	–
Gulf of Mexcio
Apalachicola Bay	FL	Oyster	Suitable	Not Explicitly Given	Yes	Yes
Grand Bay	MS	–	Potentially	Impaired Water Quality	No	–
Mission-Aransas	TX	–	Suitable	Recent Regulations	Yes	No
Rookery Bay	FL	Clam	Suitable	Not Explicitly Given	No	–
Weeks Bay	AL	–	Not Suitable	Not Explicitly Given	No	–
West Coast
Elkhorn Slough	CA	Oyster ^b	Not Suitable	Impaired Water Quality	No	–
Kachemak Bay	AK	–	Suitable	Not Explicitly Given	Yes	Yes
Padilla Bay	WA	–	Potentially	Not Explicitly Given	Yes	No
San Francisco Bay	CA	–	Not Suitable	Impaired Water Quality	No	–
South Slough	OR	Oyster ^a	Unlikely	Regulatory Protections	Yes	Yes
Tijuana River	CA	–	Not Suitable	Impaired Water Quality	No	–
Great Lakes
Lake Superior	WI	–	Not Suitable	Not Viable	No	–
Old Woman Creek	OH	–	Not Suitable	Regulatory Protections	No	–
Pacific
He’eia	HI	Crab (Mud), Finfish (Mullet, Threadfin Moi) ^a	Suitable	Not Explicitly Given	No	–

Reserve suitability and rationale are also provided. Neighboring activities, considered to have a shared hydrologic connection, and Reserves engagement are also listed. See Appendix C for raw responses used to codify Suitability and Rationale.

a Identified as a long-term preexisting use from either the questionnaire or management plan analysis (Appendix D).

b Restoration/conservation focused aquaculture.

c Current activity, although existing leases will expire in 2021, and will not be renewed.

Figure 2. Sankey plot of aquaculture activities and their presence in Reserves. Each column synthesizes survey responses (see Table 2). For the presence of aquaculture within the Reserve (Colum C) and whether or not aquaculture is currently suitable within a reserve (Column B). The primary reason for suitability, or lack there-of, is provided in Column A. Questionnaire phrasing and responses, did not allow “Suitability” to be discerned by the type (e.g., bivalve shellfish vs. shellfish) or purpose of aquaculture (e.g., commercial vs. restorative). Thus, in the context and scope of this study, we considered “Suitability” would primarily apply to commercial activities. Neighboring aquaculture activities, which were considered to have a shared hydrologic connection with the Reserve, and Reserve engagement is synthesized in Column D and E, respectively. Note that the potential for category alignment at each node does not reference the same Reserve. For example the “Recent Regulations” category does not necessitate that aquaculture is “Suitable” or “Present” despite the seemingly uninterrupted flow between nodes.

Figure 3. (A) Percentage of socio-economic and ecological topics that were able to be categorized from survey responses and personal correspondence (see Methodology) in relation to aquaculture activities within or neighboring to the Reserve. There is no discrimination between positive or negative connotations within each topic. CZP: Coastal Zone Protection; Econ Support: Economic Support; Non-Native: Non-Native Species; NIMBY: Not In My Backyard.