Short Citation:
Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 2021: Salt marsh construction costs and shrimp production, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/30687.

Item Identification

Title: Salt marsh construction costs and shrimp production
Status: Completed
Creation Date: 2008
Revision Date: 2012
Publication Date: 2012
Abstract:

Continuing wetland loss in Galveston Bay, Texas (USA) has led to the development of various salt marsh restoration projects. These constructed wetlands often attempt to mimic natural marsh landscape characteristics within the region and incorporate marsh edge, because marsh edge appears important for fishery production. We estimated the value of shrimp production from nine of these constructed wetlands for comparison with project construction costs that ranged between 9,555 and 45,311 ha-1.

Purpose:

Habitat restoration study

Other Citation Details:

Minello, T. J., L. P. Rozas, P. A. Caldwell, and C. Liese. 2012. A comparison of salt marsh construction costs with the value of exported shrimp production. Wetlands 32: 791–799.

Supplemental Information:

Please look at frequently asked questions for explanation of how a number of different parameters were determined

Keywords

Theme Keywords

Thesaurus Keyword
UNCONTROLLED
None Economic value
None Fishery
None Penaeid shrimp
None Secondary production
None Wetlands

Spatial Keywords

Thesaurus Keyword
UNCONTROLLED
NODC SEA AREA NAMES Gulf of Mexico
None Galveston Bay

Physical Location

Organization: National Centers for Environmental Information - Silver Spring, Maryland
City: Silver Spring
State/Province: MD

Data Set Information

Data Set Scope Code: Data Set
Data Presentation Form: Table (digital)

Support Roles

Data Steward

CC ID: 856143
Date Effective From: 2016
Date Effective To:
Contact (Person): Liese, Christopher
Address: 75 Virginia Beach Dr
Miami, FL 33139
United States
Email Address: Christopher.Liese@noaa.gov
Phone: 305-365-1109
Fax: 305-365-4102
Business Hours: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST/EDT

Data Steward

CC ID: 711285
Date Effective From: 0201
Date Effective To:
Contact (Person): Rozas, Lawrence P

Distributor

CC ID: 281664
Date Effective From: 2007
Date Effective To:
Contact (Organization): National Centers for Environmental Information - Silver Spring, Maryland (NCEI-MD)
Address: NOAA/NESDIS E/OC SSMC3, 4th Floor, 1351 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
Phone: (301) 713-3277
Contact Instructions:

Contact by email preferred.

Metadata Contact

CC ID: 856145
Date Effective From: 2017
Date Effective To:
Contact (Person): Liese, Christopher
Address: 75 Virginia Beach Dr
Miami, FL 33139
United States
Email Address: Christopher.Liese@noaa.gov
Phone: 305-365-1109
Fax: 305-365-4102
Business Hours: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST/EDT

Point of Contact

CC ID: 276783
Date Effective From: 2007
Date Effective To:
Contact (Person): Baumer, Tim J
Address: 4700 Avenue U
Galveston, TX 77551
Email Address: tim.baumer@noaa.gov
Phone: 409-766-3784
Contact Instructions:

Contact by email preferred.

View Historical Support Roles

Extents

Currentness Reference: Ground Condition

Extent Group 1

Extent Group 1 / Geographic Area 1

CC ID: 276786
W° Bound: -94.989021
E° Bound: -94.879158
N° Bound: 29.335299
S° Bound: 29.185241
Description

Gulf Of Mexico

Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 1

CC ID: 276785
Time Frame Type: Discrete
Start: 2007

Access Information

Security Class: Unclassified
Data Access Policy:

Open to everyone

Data Access Procedure:

Download from provided links

Data Access Constraints:

None

Data Use Constraints:

Please cite appropriately

Metadata Access Constraints:

None

Metadata Use Constraints:

Please cite appropriately

Distribution Information

Distribution 1

CC ID: 281671
Start Date: 2008
End Date: Present
Download URL: http://accession.nodc.noaa.gov/0161218
Distributor: National Centers for Environmental Information - Silver Spring, Maryland (NCEI-MD) (2007 - Present)
Description:

ONLINE RESOURCE

File Type: SPREADSHEET (MICROSOFT EXCEL)
File Size: 0.01
Review Status: Not Chked

URLs

URL 1

CC ID: 793773
URL: http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/lsu/lsur08005.pdf
Name: Relative influence of habitat fragmentation and inundation on brown shrimp Farfantepenaeus aztecus production in northern Gulf of Mexico salt marshes
URL Type:
Online Resource
File Resource Format: pdf
Description:

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 359: 185–202, 2008

doi: 10.3354/meps07380

Relative influence of habitat fragmentation and inundation on brown shrimp Farfantepenaeus aztecus production in northern Gulf of Mexico salt marshes

By B. M. Roth, K. A. Rose, L. P. Rozas, T. J. Minello

Data Quality

Quality Control Procedures Employed:

The patterns of vegetated land and water for each marsh were assessed through a Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis based on digital color orthophotography at 1/4800 scale taken in 2006 by Kucera International Inc. for the Houston-Galveston Area Council (available at http://www.h-gac.com/rds/).

GIS models of each marsh system were developed by onscreen digitization of the edge of the marsh vegetation using ArcGIS 9.2, the Spatial Analyst

extension, and the Editor Tool Bar (ESRI, Redlands, CA). There was not a lot of spectral confusion in these images, and marsh vegetation was usually distinct from nonvegetated areas. No formal ground truthing was conducted, but sites were visited and local experts consulted to ensure that no major classification errors occurred.

Please see the Methods section of Wetlands (2012) 32:791–799

DOI 10.1007/s13157-011-0237-9 for more information.

Data Management

Have Resources for Management of these Data Been Identified?: No
Approximate Percentage of Budget for these Data Devoted to Data Management: 0
Do these Data Comply with the Data Access Directive?: Yes
Is Access to the Data Limited Based on an Approved Waiver?: No
If Distributor (Data Hosting Service) is Needed, Please Indicate: No
Approximate Delay Between Data Collection and Dissemination: 180
If Delay is Longer than Latency of Automated Processing, Indicate Under What Authority Data Access is Delayed:

N?A

Actual or Planned Long-Term Data Archive Location: NCEI-MD
Approximate Delay Between Data Collection and Archiving: 180
How Will the Data Be Protected from Accidental or Malicious Modification or Deletion Prior to Receipt by the Archive?:

n/A

Lineage

Process Steps

Process Step 1

CC ID: 281670
Description:

After sample collection, field data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet or database file (DBF) using database manager software. A text file was created to describe these data and associated variables. Entered data were checked against the field sheets by two biologists to minimize entry errors. Samples were processed in the laboratory, sorted, specimens identified and measured, and information was entered into an Excel spreadsheet or DBF file. Files were printed out and compared against original data sheets by two biologists for data entry errors. Corrections were made at this time, the electronic file was saved, and a back-up copy made. Hard copies of the QCd files were printed and stored in the project folder along with the original field and laboratory data sheets. The electronic file was also sorted and examined by the Lab Supervisor or other project personnel in a variety of ways to look for outliers, missing data, and other potential errors. Verified data files were then saved electronically on the Galveston Laboratory server and backed-up as needed.

FAQs

FAQ 1

CC ID: 340195
Date: 2016-07-25 00:00:00
Author: Thomas J Minello
Question:

How were the catch and price data obtained ?

Answer:

Catch and price data were provided by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for whole shrimp (corrected from heads off values when appropriate) landed from West Bay, where most of the marsh restoration projects were located in the Galveston Bay system. In 2007, the catch composition included shrimp for bait (11.6% live bait and 5.5% dead bait; brown shrimp and white shrimp combined) and for human consumption (1.5% white shrimp and 81.4% brown shrimp). Of these categories, the ex-vessel price of live bait was highest at U.S. $8.07 kg-1 ($3.66 lb-1), and the overall weighted-average price of the landings was $4.72 kg-1. This latter price was used to estimate the value of the exported shrimp biomass from the constructed marshes.

FAQ 2

CC ID: 340390
Date: 2016-07-25 00:00:00
Author: Thomas J Minello
Question:

How were construction costs determined ?

Answer:

We obtained construction costs from project managers, resource agencies, and local sponsors. These costs were categorized into 1) engineering design; 2) equipment mobilization and demobilization; 3) construction of wetland platforms (e.g., terraces or mounds); 4) construction of breakwaters to prevent erosion; and 5) planting of marsh vegetation. To facilitate the comparison of projects, we tried to include only items 1–3 in our estimates of construction costs. Costs of engineering design were included when available, but some projects benefited from previously developed engineering specifications. We did not include the cost of building breakwaters or wave barriers to protect the sites. The necessity for constructing such barriers is site specific and was limited to three projects (GISP Terraces, Jumbile Cove I, and Delehide Cove). Including these large costs (which could be avoided by selecting an alternate site) would unduly bias the overall estimates. We also did not include the cost of planting vegetation, because most projects employed volunteers and did not have to bear these costs. All costs were adjusted for inflation and standardized to 2007 U.S. dollars based on a Composite Cost Index developed by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers for Civil Works construction projects (USACOE 2009).

FAQ 3

CC ID: 340391
Date: 2016-07-25 00:00:00
Author: Thomas J Minello
Question:

How were Population size and annual production for brown shrimp and white shrimp were estimated ?

Answer:

Population size and annual production for brown shrimp and white shrimp were estimated following the methods described in Minello et al. (2008). Bands of vegetation and water at different distances from the marsh edge were constructed with the GIS. Our modeling approach then assigns shrimp densities to these bands based on observed density patterns across the natural marsh surface in Galveston Bay. These densities peak in the vegetated marsh edge at 13.4 brown shrimp m-2 and 8.9 white shrimp m-2 and decline both into the vegetation and out into open water. Shrimp population estimates for a project area are derived from these density patterns combined with information on the proportion of the project area at different distances from the marsh edge. Marshes that maximize the amount of marsh edge ecotone generally have the highest population values. Production is then estimated using an equilibrium yield approach that assumes stable size frequency distributions (estimated from a large database of shrimp collected in the bay) and constant daily growth rates of 1 mm total length (Minello et al. 2008). The applicability of our models to constructed wetlands is supported by the similarities in shrimp density patterns and growth rates between the GISP terrace marsh and a natural reference marsh.

FAQ 4

CC ID: 340586
Date: 2016-07-25 00:00:00
Author: Thomas J Minello
Question:

How were project areas defined ?

Answer:

Defining a project area, and therefore the size of a project, is important in obtaining funding and assessing project success and performance. The projects we analyzed were designed to incorporate marsh edge, based partly on studies showing elevated nekton densities both in the vegetation and open water adjacent to this edge. Therefore, proposed project areas should include both emergent vegetation and shallow water. Because the outer project boundaries affect area and construction cost calculations, we standardized the designation of these boundaries and defined the project area using a 25-m buffer around marsh vegetation (Fig. 2). Small amounts of water greater than 25 m from marsh that were within these outer boundaries (less than 2.4% of any project area) were included in the project area. We also provided calculations of construction costs in relation to strictly the area of emergent marsh.

FAQ 5

CC ID: 340587
Date: 2016-07-25 00:00:00
Author: Thomas J Minello
Question:

How was natural predation treated in the model ?

Answer:

This modeling approach provides estimates of total annual shrimp production from wetland habitats that include the production lost to natural mortality. Roth et al. (2008) used an individual based model to examine effects of marsh landscape configuration and tidal inundation on brown shrimp production from wetlands, and they estimated that 37.5% of total production was lost to predation.

Based on these results, we estimated that 62.5% of shrimp total biomass production would be exported to the bay and be available to fishers.

FAQ 6

CC ID: 340589
Date: 2016-07-25 00:00:00
Author: Thomas J Minello
Question:

What references were used in reference to the frequently asked questions ?

Answer:

Minello TJ, Matthews GA, Caldwell P, Rozas LP (2008) Population

and production estimates for decapod crustaceans in wetlands of

Galveston Bay, Texas. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society 137:129–146

Roth BM, Rose KA, Rozas LP, Minello TJ (2008) Relative influence

of habitat fragmentation and inundation on brown shrimp

Farfantepenaeus aztecus production in northern Gulf of Mexico

salt marshes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 359:185–202

USACOE (2009) United States Army Corps of Engineers, Civil

Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS), Appendix

revised 31 March 2009. CECWE-EE Manual No 1110–2–1304.

FAQ 7

CC ID: 340588
Date: 2016-07-25 00:00:00
Author: Thomas J Minello
Question:

How were patterns of vegetated land and water for assessed for each marsh ?

Answer:

We assessed the patterns of vegetated land and water for each marsh through a Geographic Information System

(GIS) analysis based on digital color orthophotography at 1/4800 scale taken in 2006 by Kucera International Inc. for

the Houston-Galveston Area Council (available at http://www.h-gac.com/rds/). GIS models of each marsh system

were developed by onscreen digitization of the edge of the marsh vegetation using ArcGIS 9.2, the Spatial Analyst extension, and the Editor Tool Bar (ESRI, Redlands, CA). There was not a lot of spectral confusion in these images, and marsh vegetation was usually distinct from nonvegetated areas. No formal ground truthing was conducted, but sites were visited and local experts consulted to ensure that no major classification errors occurred. We consider the final GIS images to be models, because several subjective decisions were needed to make equivalent comparisons among the different constructed marshes. In situations

where emergent marsh areas had not been completely vegetated, we assumed that these areas would fill in with time and classified the areas as marsh. In addition, some of the constructed wetlands were located near natural marsh or breakwaters, and we used the GIS software to substitute shallow water for such areas adjacent to constructed marsh. This approach allowed us to compare projects as if they were all constructed in open shallow water and prevented adjacent habitats from affecting the modeled estimates of shrimp production. Without this substitution, for example, the natural marsh adjacent to the Delehide Cove project would have been incorporated into the buffer surrounding this constructed marsh and likely increased our shrimp production estimates for the project.

Catalog Details

Catalog Item ID: 30687
Metadata Record Created By: Carlos Rivero
Metadata Record Created: 2016-02-11 06:54+0000
Metadata Record Last Modified By: Lee M Weinberger
Metadata Record Last Modified: 2021-10-21 10:06+0000
Metadata Record Published: 2021-10-21
Owner Org: SEFSC
Metadata Publication Status: Published Externally
Do Not Publish?: N
Metadata Next Review Date: 2022-10-22