Overview

This map was created for a research project funded by the Oregon Ocean Science Trust: "Developing Community Guidelines for Sustainable Co-Management of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Shellfish in Oregon". The purpose of this map is to visualize data on shellfish^* and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV^**) within Oregon estuaries.

^*Shellfish = bivalve mollusks located within estuaries, e.g. oyster, mussel, and clam species

^**SAV = submerged aquatic vegetation located within estuaries, e.g. seagrass and seaweed species

---

Mapping Activity

---

Survey

In 2023, our project conducted a survey on perceptions of the interactions, challenges, and opportunities surrounding co-management of SAV and shellfish in Oregon.

Survey results are displayed using interactive charts in the side panel of this page (or at the bottom of the navigation menu if using a mobile device). These charts are described below:

The first chart displays Likert score results from questions that survey participants answered in terms of how much they agree or disagree with a series of statements. Boxes on this chart represent the variance in participant responses to each statement. Statements can be viewed by hovering over the x-axis labels or clicking the "?" icon above the chart.

The next two charts display user groups and locations that survey participants self-identified with. Bars on these charts can be clicked on to filter the survey results shown on the page. Doing so updates all the other charts with respect to the selected filter(s). Click "Reset Filters" in the navigation pane to remove all selected filters from the charts.

The last four charts display the frequency of themes reported by survey participants who answered a series of open-ended questions. The questions were generally related to four themes: environmental interactions, management, scientific questions, and policy improvements. Descriptions of coded themes can be viewed by hovering over the x-axis labels or clicking the "?" icon above each chart. Bars in these charts can also be clicked on to filter the survey data shown in all the other charts.

---

How to use this map

1. Click on the interactive charts in the side panel to filter survey data shown in the charts.
2. Click "Reset Filters" in the navigation pane to remove all selected filters from the charts.
3. Click on the map layer icon in the upper-right corner of the map to toggle data displayed on the map.
4. Click or hover over features to view relevant data attributes.
5. Click on a polygon feature to zoom the map to its extent.

Map layers

• Eelgrass beds
• Shellfish aquaculture leases
• Recreational shellfish areas
• Commercial shellfish management areas
• Estuary management units
• Shoreland management units
• Rocky shore managed areas
• Marine protected areas
• Native oyster habitat
• Clam beds
• Kelp beds

---

Author: Brian G. Katz^1,4

Co-authors: Melissa Ward^2,3, Annie Merrill¹, Lauren Rice⁴, Kristen Green⁴, Ana Spalding⁴, and Arielle Levine³

Affiliations: ¹Cascadia Visualizations LLC; ²Windward Sciences LLC; ³San Diego State University; ⁴Oregon State University

Funding: This work was supported by the Oregon Ocean Science Trust, using funds distributed by House Bill (HB) 3114, which was passed by the Oregon legislature on June 22, 2021.

Questions? Contact PI Melissa Ward or co-PI Brian Katz.

---

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service

Survey respondents were asked to rank statements on a scale of 1 to 5, according to:

• 1 = Strongly agree
• 2 = Agree
• 3 = Unsure/Neither agree or disagree
• 4 = Disagree
• 5 = Strongly disagree

Statements (L)

1. Ocean acidification and hypoxia (OAH) pose a threat to farmed and native shellfish.
2. SAV can lessen the impacts of OAH on farmed and native shellfish.
3. Shellfish aquaculture can help support restoration of native shellfish populations.
4. SAV can improve ecosystem health where it is located.
5. Farmed shellfish can improve ecosystem health where it is located.
6. Co-location of SAV and farmed shellfish can benefit farmed shellfish.
7. Co-location of SAV and farmed shellfish can benefit SAV.
8. Co-location of SAV and native shellfish can benefit native shellfish.
9. Co-location of SAV and native shellfish can benefit SAV.
10. Oregon should permit shellfish aquaculture to occur up to the edge of SAV populations.
11. Some methods of shellfish harvest are more detrimental to SAV than others.
12. Oregon should support and expand sustainable shellfish aquaculture.
13. Oregon should support and expand protections for SAV.
14. I am aware of the state and federal policies that govern shellfish aquaculture and/or harvest with respect to SAV.
15. I can accurately interpret the state and federal policies that govern shellfish aquaculture and/or harvest with respect to SAV, as they pertain to my specific use(s).
16. The policies that regulate the interaction between SAV and shellfish aquaculture in Oregon are sufficient to support sustainable aquaculture.
17. The policies that regulate the interaction between SAV and shellfish aquaculture in Oregon are sufficient to protect SAV.
18. Protection of SAV presently in Oregon could be improved through the adoption of a mitigation policy that aims for a goal of no net loss of seagrass.

Survey respondents self-identified as one or more of the following groups:

• Academic/Researcher
• Advocate/NGO
• Commercial seaweed grower
• Commercial shellfish grower
• Natural resource manager
• Policymaker
• Recreational seaweed harvester
• Recreational shellfish harvester
• SAV restoration practitioner
• Shellfish restoration practitioner

Survey respondents self-reported having interacted with shellfish and/or SAV in one or more of the following locations:

• Columbia River Estuary
• Necanicum River Estuary
• Nehalem Bay
• Tillamook Bay
• Netarts Bay
• Sand Lake Estuary
• Nestucca Bay
• Salmon River Estuary
• Siletz Bay
• Depoe Bay
• Yaquina Bay
• Alsea Bay
• Siuslaw River Estuary
• Umpqua River Estuary and/or Triangle
• Coos Bay and/or South Slough
• Coquille River Estuary
• Sixes River Estuary
• Elk River Estuary
• Rogue River Estuary
• Pistol River Estuary
• Chetco River Estuary
• Winchuck River Estuary

Survey respondents' open-ended answers to the following questions were coded and analyzed to identify emergent themes:

• In your opinion, how do shellfish and SAV interact with each other within their environment? (i.e. Do either facilitate or inhibit the other?) Explain in your own words.
• Does the interaction you described apply to specific places? If so, specify where.
• In your opinion, what is not currently understood about the interactions between shellfish and SAV?

Themes reported (I)

1. Shellfish improve water clarity
2. SAV can mitigate ocean acidification (OA)
3. Interactions are highly context-dependent
4. Interactions can vary by location and time
5. Shellfish provide nutrients to SAV
6. Shellfish culturing can impact SAV
7. Multiple stressors are not understood
8. SAV creates habitat for shellfish
9. Interactions vary by life stage, species, and reproduction type
10. Shellfish create habitat for SAV
11. Gear can shade out SAV
12. Grower practices are not understood
13. Mechanical harvest can impact SAV
14. Buffering capacity of SAV is not understood
15. Shellfish occupy niche of SAV
16. Perception of sufficient scientific evidence
17. SAV nighttime respiration impacts shellfish
18. SAV improves ecosystem resilience
19. Ecosystem complexity is not understood
20. Co-location benefits are not understood
21. Lack of field research on environmental interactions
22. SAV can smother shellfish
23. SAV can stabilize sediment
24. Shellfish can stabilize sediment

Survey respondents' open-ended answers to the following questions were coded and analyzed to identify emergent themes:

• In your opinion, what conflicts or synergies exist in the co-management of shellfish and SAV?
• If you described any conflicts above, in your opinion, how might these be mitigated?
• In your opinion, what practices, assets, agencies, or rules hurt the co-management of shellfish and SAV?
• In your opinion, what practices, assets, agencies, or rules help the co-management of shellfish and SAV?
• In your opinion, how can shellfish be harvested with minimal impact to SAV?

Themes reported (M)

1. Mechanical harvest is more damaging to SAV than hand-picking
2. Shellfish harvesting can damage SAV
3. Priorities are balanced between shellfish aquaculture and eelgrass conservation
4. Expanded monitoring and updating of maps could help mitigate conflict
5. Siting aquaculture outside of SAV could help mitigate conflict
6. Outdated policies do not account for recent science
7. Lack of monitoring in all estuaries hurts co-management
8. Transient nature of SAV and shellfish complicates co-management
9. Co-development of flexible harvest practices are needed to account for SAV context
10. Management flexibility could help mitigate conflict
11. Policies based on ecosystem services or ecological function could help mitigate conflict
12. Science-based policies and management could help mitigate conflict
13. Avoiding SAV when harvesting shellfish could minimize harm to SAV
14. Impact assessments of culture practices could help mitigate conflict
15. Off-bottom or floating culture could minimize harm to SAV
16. Co-location of shellfish and SAV can create social conflicts
17. Overlapping governance leads to complexity in co-management
18. Outdated policies that apply only to grandfathered leases hurt co-management
19. Outreach and education could help to mitigate conflict
20. Fostering collaborations could help to mitigate conflict
21. Management does not account for aquaculture practices creating habitat for SAV

Survey respondents' open-ended answers to the following question were coded and analyzed to identify emergent themes:

• In your opinion, what scientific questions need to be answered to identify how to conserve or restore SAV while simultaneously supporting shellfish aquaculture or wild/restored native shellfish populations?

Themes reported (S)

1. What is the ecosystem carrying capacity for supporting restoration?
2. What is the effect of spacing between shellfish and SAV on production and conservation?
3. What are effective restoration methods for shellfish and SAV?

Survey respondents' open-ended answers to the following question were coded and analyzed to identify emergent themes:

• In your opinion, what policies could be developed or improved upon to better support sustainability in the co-management of shellfish and SAV?

Themes reported (P)

1. Defining and mapping spatiotemporal baseline and variability of SAV
2. Adaptive management
3. Site-specific interactions between SAV and shellfish should be considered in permitting approvals
4. Additional monitoring of shellfish and SAV resources in multiple locations and at frequent intervals
5. Multi-scale coordination among governing agencies, e.g. working group
6. Incentives for sustainable co-management practices
7. Clarified regulations