Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Service Logic Models and Socio ...
18
Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Service Logic Models and Socio-Economic Indicators (GEMS) Oyster Reef Restoration Process for Metric Development at Local Workshops At each local workshop, socio-economic outcomes resulting from oyster reef restoration were identified and scored by workshop participants. Workshop participants then reviewed a list of high-scoring socio- economic outcomes (for which metrics would later be developed) and were given the opportunity to add any missing outcomes to the list. Once the dominant socio-economic outcomes were agreed upon, metrics for each dominant outcome were developed and prioritized according to the following process. Workshop participants were provided with examples of the types of socio-economic indicators and metrics the project team hoped to capture. Then, workshop participants were asked to participate in a brainwriting session (a process in which individuals quietly reflect and write down their ideas before sharing them out loud). During the brainwriting session, each participant was asked to note relevant indicators, metrics, and data sources for each dominant socio-economic outcome within their local estuary. If participants had difficulty coming up with indicators and metrics during the brainwriting session, a workshop host provided examples based on a list of metrics generated by the project team prior to the local workshops. After participants brainstormed on their own, they split into small groups for a group exercise * . Each group agreed upon two metrics for each dominant outcome using the metrics they had developed on their own to inform this process. For each dominant outcome, the top two metrics identified by each group were listed on a flip chart, which resulted in a list of two to six metrics per dominant outcome. Workshop participants then participated in a sticky dot exercise, for which they were each given three votes per dominant outcome and asked to choose the best metric(s) for the outcome. The top two metrics for each dominant outcome were then used to conduct a ranking exercise as follows. The ranking exercise required participants to complete a survey which listed the top two metrics for each dominant outcome. Participants ranked these metrics as high, medium or low priority based on a criteria assessment focused on feasibility of implementation. Criteria were: Demand or desirability –Is it needed/wanted by stakeholders? Technical – Can it be measured or captured? Integration or likelihood of use- Can it be incorporated into existing monitoring efforts? Workshop hosts then summarized the results of the ranking exercise for workshop participants in real time and led a discussion on why participants ranked metrics as they did. The conversation emphasized when highly ranked outcomes had low ranked indicators and vice versa. The discussion also included why one metric developed for a specific outcome might be better or worse than another. Results of this process are summarized below for each socio-economic outcome and for each focal estuary. * NOTE: The process used at the Florida workshop (our first local workshop and effectively our pilot) was slightly different than the process included here. The process used in Florida was adapted to streamline metric selection at the following four workshops in the other Gulf states.
Transcript of Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Service Logic Models and Socio ...
Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Service Logic Models and Socio-Economic Indicators (GEMS) Oyster Reef Restoration
Process for Metric Development at Local Workshops
At each local workshop, socio-economic outcomes resulting from oyster reef restoration were identified
and scored by workshop participants. Workshop participants then reviewed a list of high-scoring socio-
economic outcomes (for which metrics would later be developed) and were given the opportunity to add
any missing outcomes to the list. Once the dominant socio-economic outcomes were agreed upon,
metrics for each dominant outcome were developed and prioritized according to the following process.
Workshop participants were provided with examples of the types of socio-economic indicators and
metrics the project team hoped to capture. Then, workshop participants were asked to participate in a
brainwriting session (a process in which individuals quietly reflect and write down their ideas before
sharing them out loud). During the brainwriting session, each participant was asked to note relevant
indicators, metrics, and data sources for each dominant socio-economic outcome within their local
estuary. If participants had difficulty coming up with indicators and metrics during the brainwriting
session, a workshop host provided examples based on a list of metrics generated by the project team prior
to the local workshops.
After participants brainstormed on their own, they split into small groups for a group exercise*. Each group
agreed upon two metrics for each dominant outcome using the metrics they had developed on their own
to inform this process. For each dominant outcome, the top two metrics identified by each group were
listed on a flip chart, which resulted in a list of two to six metrics per dominant outcome. Workshop
participants then participated in a sticky dot exercise, for which they were each given three votes per
dominant outcome and asked to choose the best metric(s) for the outcome. The top two metrics for each
dominant outcome were then used to conduct a ranking exercise as follows.
The ranking exercise required participants to complete a survey which listed the top two metrics for each
dominant outcome. Participants ranked these metrics as high, medium or low priority based on a criteria
assessment focused on feasibility of implementation. Criteria were:
Demand or desirability –Is it needed/wanted by stakeholders?
Technical – Can it be measured or captured?
Integration or likelihood of use- Can it be incorporated into existing monitoring efforts? Workshop hosts then summarized the results of the ranking exercise for workshop participants in real time and led a discussion on why participants ranked metrics as they did. The conversation emphasized when highly ranked outcomes had low ranked indicators and vice versa. The discussion also included why one metric developed for a specific outcome might be better or worse than another. Results of this process are summarized below for each socio-economic outcome and for each focal estuary. *NOTE: The process used at the Florida workshop (our first local workshop and effectively our pilot) was slightly different than
the process included here. The process used in Florida was adapted to streamline metric selection at the following four
workshops in the other Gulf states.
Summary of Outcomes and Metrics Identified at Local Workshops
Dominant outcomes of oyster reef restoration by estuary are listed in Table 1. Blue shading indicates that the outcome is dominant in the estuary, and an asterisk indicates that the outcome was included in the indicators discussion for the estuary. Gray shading shows socio-economic outcomes that may be affected by oyster reef restoration in the estuary, but were not dominant outcomes. White shading shows outcomes that are not expected to be affected by oyster reef restoration in the estuary. Table 1. Dominant outcomes of oyster reef restoration by estuary.
Outcome
Charlotte Harbor Back Bay of Biloxi Mobile Bay Galveston Bay
Chandeleur &
Breton
Sounds
Recreational fishing * * * * *
Oyster habitat persistence * * * * *
Biodiversity * * * * *
Nutrition for seafood-dependent communities * * 2 * *
Scientific opportunities related to oyster reefs * 2 * * *
Jobs in fish/oyster harvest industry 2 * * * *
Commercial fishing * 0 * * *
Educational opportunities related to oyster reefs * * 2 1 *
Jobs in recreation 2 2 * * 0
Cultural practices related to oyster reefs * * * 1 *
Commercial oyster harvest 1 0 * * *
Wildlife viewing * * * 1 0
Jobs in education & scientific research 1 * 2 * 0
Damage to residential property 0 * * 1 0
Damage to private commercial infrastructure 0 * * 1 0
Jobs in oyster reef restoration 1 2 1 1 *
Kayaking * 1 2 0 0
Threatened & endangered species persistence * 1 0 1 1
Damage to public infrastructure 0 1 * 1 0
Recreational oyster harvest * 1 1 1 1
Bacterial infections (vibriosis) from eating shellfish or exposure to shellfish 1 0 1 0 0
Respiratory health related to HABs 0 1 0 0 0
Beach renourishment 0 1 0 0 0
Shellfish and fish poisoning 0 0 0 0 0
Beach recreation 0 0 0 0 0
Shell collecting 0 0 0 0 0
Summary of Metrics Identified at Local Workshops Summary tables of metrics generated for each socio-economic outcome are included below. Each table includes a list of metrics generated at local workshops, along with the percent of workshop participants who ranked the metric high, medium or low. Metrics in grey (at the bottom of the table) were not ranked (as high, medium or low), but were identified as important metrics to consider moving forward. Local workshop location names have been abbreviated (Table 2). For socio-economic outcomes that were more difficult for workshop participants to conceptualize,
(including value of biodiversity and cultural practices related to oyster reefs), the project team has
included other interesting metrics that were generated by workshop participants during the brainwriting
sessions but were not considered for inclusion in the ranking exercise. These other interesting metrics
are listed below the summary tables.
Table 2. Local workshop locations and abbreviations.
Local Workshop Location Local Workshop Abbreviation
Galveston Bay, TX GB, TX
Chandeleur-Breton Sounds, LA CBS, LA
Back Bay of Biloxi, MS BBB, MS
Mobile Bay, AL MB, AL
Charlotte Harbor, FL CH, FL
1. Recreational fishing activities Participants at the local workshops generated 16 ranked metrics and eight other important metrics to consider for recreational fishing activities. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
MB, AL Fish abundance (catch per unit effort) 82 18 0
MB, AL Fish diversity (catch per unit effort) 82 18 0
BBB, MS Sustainability (# of take versus stock) 78 22 0
GB, TX Landings data (catch per unit effort; # of fish caught) 71 29 0
CH, FL Fishing on or around oyster reefs 70 30 0
CH, FL Desirable species around oyster reefs 70 30 0
MB, AL
# of "fisherpeople" (# of fishing trips estimated from NOAA’s Marine Recreational Information Program; # of licenses) 64 27 9
GB, TX # of people fishing; # of licenses sold 57 29 14
CH, FL Quality of experience (success rate of catch) 50 40 10
CH, FL Catch per unit effort 40 50 10
CBS, LA Economic impact (travel cost value) 27 73 0
CBS, LA Tourism (# of charter trips) 27 55 18
BBB, MS Increased fishing habitats and/or locations (# of piers or locations/sites) 22 67 11
CH, FL # of fishing licenses 20 60 20
CBS, LA Access (# of marinas, boat ramps, etc.) 18 73 9
CH, FL # or lbs of fish landings 10 80 10
CBS, LA Regulations (catch size, limits) NA NA NA
CBS, LA Area used near reefs- survey guides NA NA NA
BBB, MS Local and tourist participation / research and stats NA NA NA
BBB, MS Accessibility NA NA NA
BBB, MS Availability of "diverse" fishing areas NA NA NA
GB, TX Sustainable harvest of reef associated fishes (long-term surveying of use/site) NA NA NA
GB, TX Increased/maintained recreational opportunities (designed study to measure # of opportunities) NA NA NA
GB, TX Recreational species abundance (species diversity) NA NA NA
2. Nutrition for seafood-dependent communities Participants at the local workshops generated 10 ranked metrics and four other important metrics to consider for nutrition for seafood-dependent communities. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
GB, TX Consumption advisories (# of advisories / species / bay) 86 0 14
BBB, MS Meeting healthy standards (measure contaminants; days closed) 78 11 11
CH, FL Trends in catch rate 40 60 0
CH, FL What habitats people are fishing at 40 60 0
CBS, LA Food quality (water or meat samples) 36 45 18
CH, FL Catch success rate for sustenance 20 50 30
GB, TX Dependence on fishing for protein (interviews) 14 29 57
BBB, MS Increase in fish consumption (amount eaten; % of diet based on seafood) 11 56 33
CH, FL How much of protein is supplied by caught seafood 10 60 30
CBS, LA
Subsistence fishermen (% of population by group subsistence fishing; % population in persistent poverty) 0 91 9
CBS, LA Sufficient protein availability (surveys) NA NA NA
CBS, LA Population health / life expectancy NA NA NA
BBB, MS Affordability / accessibility (interview fishers) NA NA NA
GB, TX # of fish caught; # of meals provided by catch vs. purchase NA NA NA
3. (Value of) oyster habitat persistence Participants at the local workshops generated 14 ranked metrics and nine other important metrics to consider for the value of oyster habitat persistence. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
MB, AL Presence of live oysters (counts) 91 9 0
CH, FL Spatial extent of oyster reefs 90 10 0
CH, FL # of natural and restored reefs 90 10 0
GB, TX Areal extent and distribution of oyster reefs (change in acreage over time) 86 14 0
BBB, MS Reefs are self-sustainable 78 22 0
GB, TX Oyster density / size / relative abundance (catch per unit effort; dredge surveys) 71 29 0
MB, AL Public recognition of resource value (surveys) 55 36 9
CBS, LA Habitat extent / area; biodiversity 55 27 18
CH, FL # of oysters per square meter 50 50 0
CH, FL % of live shell vs dead shell 50 30 20
CH, FL People's awareness of oyster reefs: conditions, trends (existence value); do you care they exist? 50 38 13
CBS, LA Ecosystem services (slowing land loss rate) 45 36 18
BBB, MS Persistence (Growth > harvest) 44 56 0
CH, FL Oyster height 20 70 10
MB, AL Filtering capacity (gallons of H2O cleaned) NA NA NA
MB, AL Cultural link to oysters - quality of life (# of residents) NA NA NA
MB, AL Reef specific use (# of trips or use per resource) NA NA NA
CBS, LA Regulations (# permits for restoration) NA NA NA
CBS, LA Caring about future generations: how important are oyster habitats for future generations? NA NA NA
BBB, MS Oyster production NA NA NA
BBB, MS Public awareness (social media mentions; benthic surveys and mapping) NA NA NA
BBB, MS Physical structure (side scan sonar) NA NA NA
GB, TX Vertical relief (bathymetry) NA NA NA
OTHER INTERESTING METRICS: benefits generated from reef including water quality and fish production, number of mentions at public meetings, number of news articles, existence of farm to table eateries that serve oysters, number of people who care about oysters, trends in structural complexity of the reef, ability for self-propagation, commitment to conservation (policy and management rule promulgation), ecosystem services such as reduction of land loss rate, and seafood festivals, wildlife festivals, ecotourism (# of outfitters), unique coastal culture, support for coastal birds and endangered species, and spawning grounds.
4. Scientific opportunities related to oyster reefs Participants at the local workshops generated nine ranked metrics and six other important metrics to consider for scientific opportunities related to oyster reefs. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
MB, AL Species diversity (surveys/counts) 91 9 0
MB, AL Studies into reef function (# studies, survival rates, growth rates) 64 27 9
CH, FL # of projects 60 30 10
GB, TX Grant opportunities (# of RFPs) 57 29 14
CBS, LA Funded projects or grant funding $ 45 45 9
CH, FL # of presentations, projects, workshops, abstracts at oyster conferences 40 30 30
MB, AL Larval supply (counts) 36 55 9
CBS, LA Scientific relevancy to community / outreach (articles or studies written) 36 36 27
GB, TX Types of restoration approaches (# permits to implement and/or study reef) 0 67 33
MB, AL Increased number of studies NA NA NA
MB, AL Growth in educational participants or opportunities (# of publications; # of students) NA NA NA
CBS, LA Science products / publications, patents NA NA NA
GB, TX # of projects for oysters compared to seagrass and marshes NA NA NA
GB, TX # of publications for Galveston Bay NA NA NA
GB, TX Research positions available (# of postings) NA NA NA
5. (Value of) biodiversity Participants at the local workshops generated 10 ranked metrics and six other important metrics to consider for the value of biodiversity. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
GB, TX # of reef-enhanced species before and after restoration 86 14 0
MB, AL # of species (creel/bird surveys) 82 18 0
GB, TX # of species on reef (diversity indices) 71 29 0
MB, AL Resilience - species counts (catch per unit effort and fishery-independent monitoring) 64 27 9
CBS, LA Ecosystem health / species indicators 45 36 18
BBB, MS Ability of ecosystem to sustain functions (support ecologically and/or economically important species) 44 56 0
BBB, MS Increase biodiversity (# of different species and/or habitats) 44 56 0
GB, TX Community structure (richness and diversity, intertidal vs. subtidal reefs) 43 43 14
CH, FL Invasive (non-native) species vs. native species 40 10 50
CBS, LA # of species (species diversity) 36 55 9
MB, AL Brings visitors to area (# of visitors) NA NA NA
MB, AL Recreational activity (stated preference surveys) NA NA NA
CBS, LA Revenue / eco-tourism value NA NA NA
BBB, MS Unique eco-tourism opportunities / tourism statistics NA NA NA
GB, TX Intertidal vs. subtidal reefs NA NA NA
GB, TX # reef associated species (bird counts) NA NA NA
OTHER INTERESTING METRICS: awareness, people understand the importance of healthy estuarine
communities, rich amount of fauna to observe when on the water (boating, etc.), public comments on
diversity / resilience (# of trips to the coast), recreational activity dependent on diversity, nursery
habitat (# of commercially important species on reef), ecological services including shoreline protection,
money spent on birdwatching, and willingness to pay for existence.
6. Jobs in fish/oyster industry Participants at the local workshops generated nine ranked metrics and two other important metrics to consider for jobs in the fish and oyster industries. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
CBS, LA Employment (# of people employed, # of licenses held) 91 9 0
BBB, MS Employment (# of employees) 89 11 0
CBS, LA Local economic impact (wages, certification programs) 82 18 0
MB, AL Sustainable harvest populations - survey/landings 82 9 9
BBB, MS Annual income ($ amount) 78 0 22
GB, TX Increased jobs (# of jobs, # of licenses) 57 29 14
BBB, MS Stability- are these jobs sustained over time? 56 33 11
MB, AL Jobs (# employed, # of processing plants / aquaculture sites) 55 45 0
GB, TX Economic impact of industry (# restaurants with local seafood) 29 71 0
MB, AL # of oysters sold or consumed NA NA NA
GB, TX Landings (# of commercial oyster operations) NA NA NA
7. Commercial fishing activities Participants at the local workshops generated 11 ranked metrics and eight other important metrics to consider for commercial fishing activities. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
MB, AL Landings by species 82 18 0
CBS, LA Diversity of fish landed (catch per unit effort) 73 27 0
GB, TX Landings data (pounds harvested; catch per unit effort) 71 29 0
CH, FL Change in commercial landings of specific species over time 60 30 10
GB, TX # of people fishing (# of licenses sold / active) 57 14 29
CBS, LA Revenue ($ value of landed species) 55 45 0
MB, AL Employment numbers (# of jobs) 45 45 9
MB, AL Value of catch ($ or lbs) 45 45 9
CH, FL Total landings 33 22 44
CH, FL # of commercial fishing businesses 30 50 20
CH, FL Persistence of the fisherman industry 30 40 30
MB, AL Increase in sustained livelihoods (# of fishers) NA NA NA
MB, AL Sustained landings (# of landings) NA NA NA
MB, AL Presence of boats on water (# of boats / time) NA NA NA
CBS, LA Stock assessment (catch per unit effort) NA NA NA
CBS, LA Compliance (# of fishing violations) NA NA NA
GB, TX Increased / maintained commercial opportunity NA NA NA
GB, TX Access (# of people over reef) NA NA NA
GB, TX Types of fish caught (species diversity) NA NA NA
8. Educational opportunities related to oyster reefs Participants at the local workshops generated 10 ranked metrics and four other important metrics to consider for educational opportunities related to oyster reefs. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
CH, FL # of volunteer or education hours 60 40 0
BBB, MS Increase in environmental opportunities (# of community programs; # of student participants) 56 44 0
CH, FL # of students or participants in a program/ field trip/ education (classroom) 50 40 10
CBS, LA Educational programs (# of curriculum with restoration focus) 45 55 0
CH, FL # of volunteer opportunities for restoration or monitoring 40 60 0
CBS, LA Aquaculture alternative education (# of participants, # of educational programs) 36 36 27
CH, FL # of field trips 30 50 20
BBB, MS Economic impact / college growth and relocation #s 22 44 33
CH, FL Resident / visitors knowledge about educational opportunities 11 44 44
CH, FL # of nature tours 10 90 0
CBS, LA Outreach programs (# of impressions, volunteer hours) NA NA NA
BBB, MS Stakeholder education (# of participants) NA NA NA
BBB, MS Public school curriculum NA NA NA
BBB, MS Pursuit of environmental careers NA NA NA
9. Jobs in recreation Participants at the local workshops generated 4 ranked metrics to consider for jobs in recreation. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
MB, AL Increase in job opportunities (# of jobs created, # of firms, X wage) 27 64 9
GB, TX Fishing guides (# of guide services) 0 57 43
MB, AL New people to an area (# of visitors) 0 36 64
GB, TX Wildlife guides (# of wildlife outfitters) 0 0 100
10. (Value of) threatened and endangered species
Participants at the local workshops generated four ranked metrics to consider for the value of
threatened and endangered species. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they
were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
CH, FL Use of oyster reefs by threatened or endangered species 70 20 10
CH, FL # of sightings of threatened or endangered species 50 30 20
CH, FL Population trends of importance species (e.g. sawfish, American oyster catcher, etc.) 40 40 20
CH, FL # of tags of threatened or endangered species 10 50 40
11. Commercial oyster harvest activities Participants at the local workshops generated six ranked metrics and five other important metrics to consider for commercial oyster harvest activities. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
MB, AL Increase/decrease sustained landings (# of landings, oyster sacks caught or sold per day) 82 18 0
CBS, LA Revenue ($ value of oyster landings) 82 18 0
GB, TX Landings data (sacks harvested; catch per unit effort) 71 29 0
MB, AL # of oyster processors; lbs harvested 64 36 0
CBS, LA Sustainable harvest / recruitment 36 64 0
GB, TX Landings value - ex-vessel values 29 71 0
CBS, LA Harvest season (length of season; # of days) NA NA NA
CBS, LA # of fishing vessels; # of completed apprenticeship programs, # of licenses for oyster harvest NA NA NA
CBS, LA Total landings (catch per unit effort) NA NA NA
GB, TX Commercial cultch budget (inputs vs. outputs in lbs) NA NA NA
GB, TX # of people fishing; # of licenses NA NA NA
12. Cultural practices related to oysters Participants at the local workshops generated 13 ranked metrics and two other important metrics to consider for cultural practices related to oysters. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
CH, FL # of shell recycling programs or businesses 40 50 10
BBB, MS Attract visitors from out of town - tourism statistics or visitor heat map 33 67 0
CH, FL # of attendees at events 20 30 50
MB, AL Persistence of knowledge or education (attendance at events) 18 64 18
CBS, LA Cultural heritage / census data, restaurant menu 18 64 18
MB, AL Ticket sales / tourism assessment (# of events and participants) 18 55 27
BBB, MS Increase in events (# of festivals or events; event revenue) 11 89 0
CH, FL Historic/ Traditional/ Passed down from generation 10 70 20
CH, FL # of events 10 60 30
CBS, LA Festivals and events (# or size of festivals, # of attendees, dollars generated) 9 82 9
CH, FL # of oyster festivals 0 80 20
CH, FL Public art projects inspired by oysters (#) 0 30 70
CH, FL Change in oyster sales due to holidays 0 30 70
MB, AL Revenue per event (dollars or profit) NA NA NA
CBS, LA Working waterfronts (# of seafood houses, docks, etc.) NA NA NA
OTHER INTERESTING METRICS: community engagement and community activism, using oyster shell as fertilizer, presence of oyster art in the community (stores, restaurants), value of oysters in art (occurrence of oysters and oystermen in artwork), local seafood festivals, community perception of oysters/ public awareness / enthusiasm (opinion polls or surveys), supporting tradition and protecting culture for future generations, history, community health, local engagement and perceived importance, number of restaurants selling local seafood, maintaining cultural heritage (# of commercially licensed oystermen), viability of oyster industry, restaurants promoting oysters, and number of restaurants participating in oyster shell recycling programs.
13. Damage to private commercial infrastructure Participants at the local workshops generated four ranked metrics and two other important metrics to consider for damage to private commercial infrastructure. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
MB, AL Shoreline protection (rate of change) 55 45 0
BBB, MS Reduction of damage ($ spent repairing or visual surveys) 22 67 11
MB, AL Reduced damage (municipal data) 18 27 55
BBB, MS New development / permits 11 56 33
MB, AL BMPs (linear ft. or sq. ft. implemented) NA NA NA
MB, AL Community Rating System (CRS) rating trends (# of communities in CRS) NA NA NA
14. Damage to public infrastructure Participants at the local workshop in Alabama generated three ranked metrics and two other important metrics to consider for damage to public infrastructure. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
MB, AL Public access (# of access points under repair) 27 36 36
MB, AL Reduced damage (time of disruption) 18 45 36
MB, AL Investment (capital improvement plans/budgets) 18 36 45
MB, AL Shoreline protection (road closures) NA NA NA
MB, AL Infrastructure protection (acres or ft. protected) NA NA NA
15. Damage to residential infrastructure Participants at the local workshops generated four ranked metrics and three other important metrics to consider for damage to residential infrastructure. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
MB, AL Shoreline protection (rate of change) 55 45 0
BBB, MS Reduced erosion of residential waterfront property ($ spent repairing; visual surveys) 33 56 11
BBB, MS # of National Flood Insurance claims ($ amount per event) 33 44 22
MB, AL Reduced damage (insurance claims) 27 45 27
MB, AL BMPs (linear ft or square ft implemented ) NA NA NA
MB, AL Community Rating System (CRS) rating trends (# of communities in CRS) NA NA NA
BBB, MS Use of natural infrastructure (# of new permits) NA NA NA
16. Jobs in education and scientific research Participants at the local workshops generated four ranked metrics and three other important metrics to consider for jobs in education and scientific research. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
BBB, MS Increase in jobs (# of jobs; types of jobs available) 56 33 11
GB, TX Grant $ awarded 43 57 0
GB, TX Research opportunities for students (# of papers, presentations) 43 29 29
BBB, MS Economic impact (students, experts, relocation / $ amount) 22 33 44
BBB, MS Workforce development opportunities NA NA NA
GB, TX Jobs (# of postings) NA NA NA
GB, TX Education programs or opportunities (# of graduate positions) NA NA NA
17. Jobs in oyster reef restoration Participants at the local workshop in Louisiana generated two ranked metrics to consider jobs in oyster reef restoration. Although metrics were not generated in other states for jobs in oyster reef restoration, participants in Florida brought up the fact that the potential for jobs in restoration exists even though the majority of their oyster restoration projects are currently conducted by volunteers. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
CBS, LA Local employment (# of jobs) 100 0 0
CBS, LA Economic impact ($ in salaries) 82 18 0
18. Kayaking / boating Participants at the local workshop in Florida generated eight ranked metrics to consider for kayaking and boating. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
CH, FL Perception of safe water (water quality) 40 50 10
CH, FL Change in behavior trends due to restored oyster reef 30 30 40
CH, FL Time on the water kayaking or boating 10 30 60
CH, FL Kayak or boat sales in the area 0 70 30
CH, FL # of kayak or boat rentals 0 70 30
CH, FL Kayak trails / signage trails 0 40 60
CH, FL Kayak / boat liveries 0 30 70
CH, FL # of people who kayak for exercise 0 10 90
19. Recreational oyster harvest activities Participants at the local workshop in Florida generated four ranked metrics to consider for recreational oyster harvest activities. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
CH, FL Amount of shellfish harvest area 70 30 0
CH, FL Amount of recreational oysters harvested 30 40 30
CH, FL Confidence in safety of oysters available for harvest 20 70 10
CH, FL Health perceptions of recreationally harvested oysters 10 60 30
20. Water quality Participants at the local workshop in Texas generated two ranked metrics and three other important metrics to consider for water quality. Although metrics were not generated in other states for water quality, participants in Florida also brought up the issue of water quality and how it was addressed in the ESLMs. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
GB, TX Consumption advisories (# advisories / species / bay) 86 0 14
GB, TX N removal - sequestration vs. pseudofeces 29 14 57
GB, TX Difference or increase in water quality for subtidal vs. intertidal NA NA NA
GB, TX Acreage of restricted or prohibited harvest areas NA NA NA
GB, TX Harmful Algal Bloom events (# of closures) NA NA NA
21. Wildlife viewing Participants at the local workshops generated 10 ranked metrics and four other important metrics to consider for wildlife viewing. Metrics are included below and organized according to how they were ranked, with the highest ranked metric listed first.
Focal Estuary Metric
High Priority (%)
Medium Priority (%)
Low Priority (%)
CH, FL # of birds viewed 70 20 10
MB, AL Wildlife diversity (survey / counts) 64 27 9
BBB, MS Increase in people viewing (# of people or public posts) 56 22 22
CH, FL # of people that go on eco-tour trips 50 50 0
CH, FL Value of seeing wildlife around oyster reef 40 40 20
CH, FL # of visitors to parks to view wildlife 30 50 20
BBB, MS Unique eco-tourism opportunities / tourism statistics 22 78 0
MB, AL Ecotourism operators or certifications (# of operators; # of training events) 9 64 27
CH, FL Time spent viewing wildlife 0 30 70
CH, FL Length of time at parks to view wildlife 0 20 80
MB, AL Associated tourism (# of trips or opportunities) NA NA NA
MB, AL # of successful trips - business savings NA NA NA
MB, AL Viewing opportunities (access points, trail miles) NA NA NA
BBB, MS Species using habitat increases NA NA NA
