Ecosystem Services of Coastal Habitats and Fisheries: Multiscale Ecological and Economic Models in Support of Ecosystem-Based Management

Figures & data

FIGURE 1 Annual landings (metric tons [mt]) of Chinook salmon in Washington and Oregon, 1950–2007 (source: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1//commercial/landings/annual_landings.html).

FIGURE 2 Ocean habitat of Chinook salmon (darker area) spawned on the West Coast of North America (redrawn from Beamish et al. 2005 showing the location of Lincoln County, Oregon [circle]).

FIGURE 3 Schematic of blue crab and penaeid shrimp migratory life histories. Blue crabs typically are spawned near the mouths of estuaries, whereas shrimp may be spawned farther offshore.

TABLE 1 Parameters and sources of information for Gulf of Mexico blue crab and shrimp models; SAV = submersed aquatic vegetation, SNB = shallow, nonvegetated bottom.

Species	Parameter	Value	Unit	Source
Blue crab	Density, SAV		m^−2	Minello (1999); EPA and NOAA, unpublished data
	Oligohaline	1.60
	Mesohaline	5.58
	Polyhaline	13.04
	Density, marsh edge		m^−2	Minello (1999); EPA and NOAA, unpublished data
	Oligohaline	4.79
	Mesohaline	7.20
	Polyhaline	6.08
	Density, SNB		m^−2	Minello (1999); EPA and NOAA, unpublished data
	Oligohaline	0.61
	Mesohaline	0.90
	Polyhaline	0.96
	Survival, SAV	0.50	Proportion	Minello et al. (2003)
	Survival, marsh edge	0.49	Proportion	Minello et al. (2003)
	Survival, SNB	0.36	Proportion	Minello et al. (2003)
	Prerecruit survival	0.12	Proportion	Jordan et al. (2009)
	Fishing mortality (F)	0.692	year^−1	Jordan et al. (2009)
	Net recruitment (r)		year^−1	Hindcast model estimate of mean annual change in
	Mean	−0.008		stock size
	SD	0.176
	Carrying capacity (K)	72,000	Metric tons	Hindcast model estimate of maximum historical stock
Shrimp	Density, SAV		m^−2	Estimated by synthesizing data from several literature
	Oligohaline	1.88		sources
	Mesohaline	1.88
	Polyhaline	3.24
	Density, marsh edge		m^−2	Estimated by synthesizing data from several literature
	Oligohaline	0.74		sources
	Mesohaline	0.74
	Polyhaline	1.28
	Density, SNB		m^−2	Estimated by synthesizing data from several literature
	Oligohaline	0.18		sources
	Mesohaline	0.18
	Polyhaline	0.32
	Survival, SAV	0.46	Proportion	Estimated by averaging data from several literature sources
	Survival, marsh edge	0.70	Proportion	Estimated by averaging data from several literature sources
	Survival, SNB	0.52	Proportion	Estimated by averaging data from several literature sources
	Pre-recruit mortality	0.26	Proportion	Nance (1997)
	Fishing mortality (F)	0.66	month^−1	Final F (2007) from hindcast model where F is an increasing function of time
	Net recruitment (r)		month^−1	Hindcast model estimate of mean monthly change in stock size
	Mean	−0.001
	SD	0.534
	Range	−0.647 to
		+1.448
	Carrying capacity (K)	31,988	Metric tons	Hindcast model estimate of maximum historical stock

FIGURE 4 Conceptual overview of multiscale modeling for coastal migratory fish species. At the patch scale, data from sampling and experiments (original or reported in the scientific and technical literature) are used to estimate the production of juveniles per unit area (m²). At the landscape scale, geographical information on the extent, distribution, and quality of critical habitats is used to expand unit production to a larger area. At the regional scale (e.g., the U.S. GOM), harvest and economic data are used in models to estimate habitat contributions to major fisheries.

FIGURE 5 Combined monthly landings of brown, pink, and white shrimp (metric tons [mt]) in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, 1961–2007, as reported by the National Marine Fisheries Service (observed) and estimated by a fishery population model (predicted).

TABLE 2 Salmon values per angler-day in Oregon using the travel cost method adapted from Hanna et al. (2006).

Location	Reference	Dollars/d (2008)
Oregon	Loomis et al. (1986)	25.95
Oregon	Brown et al. (1983)	31.53
Oregon–Washington	Riley (1988)	40.10
Oregon/Washington	Olsen et al. (1991)	50.88
Oregon	Meyer et al. (1983)	86.69
Mean		47.03
SD		21.54

TABLE 3 Value in terms of willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid loss in salmon catch for Yaquina Bay aggregated at different spatial scales. Household data are from the 2000 U.S. Census; those for the PNW are aggregates of those for Oregon and Washington. The WTP value for the Yaquina Bay estuary is from Bell et al. (2003).

		WTP
		Dollars/year
	Households	per household	Dollars/year
Newport	4,112	134	551,008
Lincoln County	19,296	134	2,585,664
Oregon	1,333,723	134	178,718,882
PNW	3,605,121	134	483,086,214

TABLE 4 Various scales of habitats for Chinook salmon in the Yaquina Bay estuary and the roles they play in the salmon life cycle.

Scale	Habitat type	Area (km^2)	Function
Ocean	Open water	18,291,783	Rearing
Watershed	Streams and rivers	652	Spawning–migration
Estuary	Water column	23	Juvenile rearing–migration
Subestuary	Salt marsh	7	Juvenile rearing
Total		18,292,458

TABLE 5 Estimates of willingness to pay (WTP; dollars per hectare per year except for total [dollars/year]) for each of the major habitat types in the Chinook salmon life cycle. Each estimate assumes that all WTP is assigned to one habitat type rather than being partitioned among habitat types. Subestuary = Yaquina Bay salt marsh habitat.

Economic scale	Total	Ocean	Ocean basin	Estuary	Subestuary
Newport	551,008	2.5 × 10^−4	7.4	240	788
Lincoln County	2,585,664	1.5 × 10^−3	40	1,124	3,694
Oregon	178,718,882	0.10	2,740	77,703	255,314
PNW	483,086,214	0.27	7,410	210,037	690,123

FIGURE 6 Simulated effects of changes in the amount of submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitat on (A) blue crab and (B) penaeid shrimp fisheries in the GOM. Geographic information was combined with data from studies of habitat dependence in early juvenile blue crabs and long-term fishery information to model recruitment (Jordan et al. 2009).

TABLE 6 Differential gross exvessel values of blue crabs and shrimp associated with habitat change scenarios for Mobile Bay, assuming 2008 prices of $1,761/mt for crabs and $7,845/mt for shrimp (heads off); the values per hectare of submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV [existing and restored combined]; last column) are for shrimp and crab production combined.

	Change in exvessel value ($/year)
Scenario	Blue crab	Shrimp	Total	Value per hectare ($)
20% SAV loss	−95,195	−302,875	−398,070	153
No change	0	0	0	434
500 ha SAV restored	32,989	307,924	340,913	682
1,000 ha SAV restored	242,109	685,029	927,138	927
1,550 ha SAV restored	535,474	1,043,212	1,585,686	1,023

Beamish , R. J. , McFarlane , G. A. and King , J. R. 2005 . Migratory patterns of pelagic fishes and possible linkages between open ocean and coastal ecosystems off the Pacific coast of North America . Deep-Sea Research, Part II , 52 : 739 – 755 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Minello , T. J. 1999 . “ Nekton densities in shallow estuarine habitats of Texas and Louisiana and the identification of essential fish habitat ” . In Fish habitat: essential fish habitat and rehabilitation , Edited by: Benaka , L. R. 43 – 75 . Bethesda , Maryland : American Fisheries Society, Symposium 22 .

 Google Scholar

Minello , T. J. , Able , K. W. , Weinstein , M. P. and Hays , C. G. 2003 . Salt marshes as nurseries for nekton: testing hypotheses on density, growth and survival through meta-analysis . Marine Ecology Progress Series , 246 : 39 – 59 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jordan , S. J. , Smith , L. M. and Nestlerode , J. A. 2009 . Cumulative effects of coastal habitat alterations on fishery resources: toward prediction at regional scales . Ecology and Society [online serial] , 14 ( 1 ) article 16

 Google Scholar

Nance , J. M. 1997 . “ Stock assessment report for the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery ” . In Proceedings of the 20th annual MEXUS–Gulf symposium , Edited by: Kumpf , H. E. and Jones , A. C. 11 – 14 . NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-403 .

 Google Scholar

Hanna , S. S. , Sylvia , G. , Harte , M. and Achterman , G. 2006 . “ Review of economic literature and recommendations for improving economic data and analysis for managing Columbia River spring Chinook ” . Corvallis : Report to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Agreement 005-4132S-Wild, Oregon State University .

 Google Scholar

Loomis , J. B. , Sorg , C. F. and Donnelly , D. M. 1986 . Evaluating regional demand models for estimating recreation use and economic benefits: a case study . Water Resources Research , 22 : 431 – 438 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brown , W. G. , Sorhus , C. , Chou-Yang , B. and Richards , J. A. 1983 . Using individual observations to estimate recreation demand functions: a caution . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 65 : 154 – 157 .

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Riley , P. L. 1988 . “ Economic valuation of marine recreational fishing, volume 4 ” . Washington , D.C. : National Marine Fisheries Service .

 Google Scholar

Olsen , D. , Richards , J. and Scott , R. D. 1991 . Existence and sport values for doubling the size of Columbia River basin salmon and steelhead runs . Rivers , 2 : 44 – 56 .

 Google Scholar

Meyer , P. A. , Brown , W. G. and Hsiao , C. K. 1983 . “ An updating analysis of differential sport fish values for Columbia River salmon and steelhead ” . National Marine Fisheries Service . Silver Spring, Maryland

 Google Scholar

Bell , K. P. , Huppert , D. and Johnson , R. L. 2003 . Willingness to pay for local coho salmon enhancement in coastal communities . Marine Resource Economics , 18 : 15 – 31 .

 Google Scholar