Restoration and Protection Efforts

Last modified

 

Reducing Pollution

Restoring Habitats

Managing Fisheries

Protecting Watersheds

Fostering Stewardship

Metadata 

Chesapeake Bay Program Indicator Framework

Reporting Level Indicators

Indicator and Data Survey

A.  Category/Name/Source/Contact

(1) Category of Indicator

___ Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health

__x_ Restoration and Protection Efforts

___ Watershed Health

__ Bay Health

(2) Name of Indicator: Restoration and Protection Efforts Overarching Index

(3) Description of Dataset used to calculate percent of goal achieved:  

The Restoration and Protection Efforts Overarching Index incorporates scores for the following top level indices: 

•Reducing Pollution Top Level Index 

•Restoring Habitats Top Level Index

•Managing Fisheries Top Level Index

•Protecting Watersheds Top Level Index

•Fostering Stewardship Top Level Index

Percent achievement values for each top level index were averaged to create the overarching index score.

The Reducing Pollution Top Level Index  incorporates scores for the following indices: 

oAgricultural Pollution Controls 

oUrban/Suburban Lands Pollution Controls

oWatewater Pollution Controls 

oAir Pollution Controls 

Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Sediment (S) categories are weighted according to their contribution to overall loads to create the index scores for N, P and S.

The Restoring Habitats Top Level Index incorporates scores for the following indicators:

oBay Grasses Planted 

oRestoring Wetlands 

oReopening Fish Passage 

oRestoring Oyster Reefs 

Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Restoring Habitats category were averaged to create the index score.

The Managing Fisheries Top Level Index incorporates scores for the following indices:

oBlue Crab Fishery Management Effort

oOyster Fishery Management Effort

oStriped Bass Fishery Management Effort

oShad Fishery Management Effort

oMenhaden Fishery Management Effort

Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Managing Fisheries category were averaged to create the top level index score.

The Protecting Watersheds Top Level Index incorporates scores for the following indicators:

oPlanting Forest Buffers

oDeveloping Watershed Management Plans

oPreserving Lands

Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Protecting Watersheds category were averaged to create the index score.

The Fostering Stewardship Top Level Index incorporates scores for the following indicators:

oPublic Access Index

oEducational Field Experiences Provided (a measure of Education and Interpretation)

oBay Partner Communities (a measure of Citizen and Community Action)

Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Fostering Stewardship category were averaged to create the index score.

For what purpose(s) were the data collected? (e.g., tracking, research, or long-term monitoring.) Tracking progress towards a goal.

Which parameters were measured directly? Component indicator values are based on tracked information provided by the Bay Program Partners. 

Which were obtained by calculation?  Percent achievement values for each top level index assessed in the category were averaged to create the overarching index score.  Each top level index was assigned equal weight.

 

(4) Source(s) of Data: Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators.

Agriculture Pollution Controls: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_agriculture.aspx 

Wastewater Pollution Controls: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_wastewater.aspx 

Urban/Suburban and Septic Pollution Controls: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_urbansuburban.aspx 

Air Pollution Controls: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_airpollution.aspx 

Bay Grasses Planted: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_baygrassesplanted.aspx 

Opening Rivers to Migratory Fish: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fishpassage.aspx 

Wetlands Restoration Efforts: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_wetlandsrestored.aspx 

Restoring Oyster Reefs: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_...rrecovery.aspx

Riparian Forest Buffers Planted: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_forestbuffers.aspx 

Watershed Land Preservation: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_landspreserved.aspx 

Watershed Management Plans Developed: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_watershedmanagement.aspx 

Shad Fishery Management Effort: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx 

Blue Crab Fishery Management Effort: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx 

Striped Bass Fishery Management Effort: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx 

Menhaden Fishery Management Effort: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx 

Oyster Fishery Management Effort: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx

Public Access Index: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_publicaccess.aspx 

Educational Field Experiences Provided: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_education.aspx 

Bay Partner Communities: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_citizenaction.aspx 

Is the complete data set accessible, including metadata, data-dictionaries and embedded definitions?  If yes, please indicate where complete dataset can be obtained.   Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators.

(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different): Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(6) CBPO Contact:Nita Sylvester (sylvester.nita@epa.gov)

B.  Communication Questions

(complete either part 1, 2, or 3)

1.  Restoration and Protection Efforts indicators only

(7a) How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)?  How much has been completed since 2000? N/A -- data for all component indices has only been collected for three years.

2007: 56.7 percent

2008: 60.84 percent

2009: 64.08 percent

(8a) How much was done last year? The Restoration and Protection Efforts Index score increased from 60.84 percent to 64.08 percent (2008-2009) 

(9a) What is the current status in relation to a goal? The Restoration and Protection Efforts Index score was 64.08 percent in 2009

Progress is tracked with 19 reporting-level indicators grouped into five priority areas that are described in the landmark Chesapeake 2000 agreement and represent major elements of the Bay restoration effort: Reducing Pollution, Restoring Habitats, Managing Fisheries, Protecting Watersheds and Fostering Stewardship. Quantitative goals have been set for all of these indicators.  

 (10a) What is the key story told by this indicator? New restoration programs and projects were put in place in 2009, but resulted in only incremental gains toward goals. The measures for restoration and protection efforts averaged 64.08 percent, a 3.24 percent increase from 2008.

(11a) Why is it important to report this information? To restore the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, many measures must be put in place to reduce pollution, restore habitats, manage fisheries, protect watersheds and foster stewardship. For more than 25 years, Bay Program partners have worked to protect and restore the Bay and its watershed. The partners have developed science-based plans to improve the waters, habitats and fisheries of the Chesapeake. On-the-ground efforts are taking place throughout the 64,000-square-mile watershed and new initiatives are being implemented to accelerate progress.

(12a) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this overarching index? (Detail and diagnostic indicators can be spatially-specific, parameter-specific, temporally-specific information, etc.) 

•Reducing Pollution Top Level Index 

•Restoring Habitats Top Level Index

•Managing Fisheries Top Level Index

•Protecting Watersheds Top Level Index

•Fostering Stewardship Top Level Index

2.  Bay Health or Watershed Health indicators only

(7b) What is the long-term trend?  (Since start of data collection)  

(8b) What is the short-term trend? (10-year trend)  

(9b) What is the current status in relation to a goal?  

(10b) What does this indicator tell us? 

(11b) Why is it important to report this information?  

(12b) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator? 

3.  Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health indicators only

(7c) What is the long-term trend?  (since start of data collection) 

(8c) What is the short-term trend? (3 to 5 year trend)

(9c) What is the current status?

(10c) What is the key story told by this indicator?

(11c) Why is it important to report this information?

(12c) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator?

C.  Temporal Considerations

(13) Data Collection Date(s):  Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(14) Planned Update Frequency (e.g. - annual, bi-annual): Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(a) Source Data:

(b) Indicator:

(15) For annual reporting, month data is available for reporting: Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

D.  Spatial Considerations

(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other): Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(17) Acceptable Level of Spatial Aggregation (e.g. - county, state, major basin, tributary basin, HUC): Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(18) Are there geographic areas with missing data?  If so, where? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(19) The spatial extent of this indicator best described as:

(a) Chesapeake Bay (estuary)

(b) Chesapeake Bay Watershed

(c) Other (please describe): _______________________

Please submit any appropriate examples of how this information has been mapped or otherwise portrayed geographically in the past.

(20) Can appropriate diagnostic indicators be represented geographically? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators.

E.  Data Analysis and Interpretation

(Please provide appropriate references and location of documentation if hard to find.)

(21) Is the conceptual model used to transform these measurements into an indicator widely accepted as a scientifically sound representation of the phenomenon it indicates?  (i.e., how well do the data represent the phenomenon?) Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(22) What is the process by which the raw data is summarized for development and presentation of the indicator?   Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed model) Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(24) Are the computations widely accepted as a scientifically sound? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(25) Have appropriate statistical methods been used to generalize or portray data beyond the time or spatial locations where measurements were made (e.g., statistical survey inference, no generalization is possible)?  Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(26) Are there established reference points, thresholds or ranges of values for this indicator that unambiguously reflect the desired state of the environment? (health/stressors only) Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators 

F.  Data Quality

(Please provide appropriate references and location of documentation if hard to find.)

(27) Were the data collected according to an EPA-approved Quality Assurance Plan?  

If no, complete questions 28a – 28d:  Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

(28a) Are the sampling design, monitoring plan and/or tracking system used to collect the data over time and space based on sound scientific principles? 

(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and analytical procedures used?  

(28c) Are the sampling and analytical procedures widely accepted as scientifically and technically valid?

(28d) To what extent are the procedures for quality assurance and quality control of the data documented and accessible? 

(29) Are the descriptions of the study or survey design clear, complete and sufficient to enable the study or survey to be reproduced? 

(30) Were the sampling and analysis methods performed consistently throughout the data record? 

(31) If datasets from two or more agencies are merged, are their sampling designs and methods comparable? 

(32) Are uncertainty measurements or estimates available for the indicator and/or the underlying data set?  

(33) (Do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions that can be inferred from the data and the utility of the indicator?  

(34) Are there noteworthy limitations or gaps in the data record?  Please explain. 

G.  Additional Information

(optional)

(35) Please provide any other information about this indicator you believe is necessary to aid communication and any prevent potential miss-representation.

Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators

Page statistics
673 view(s) and 3 edit(s)
Social share
Share this page?

Tags

This page has no custom tags.
This page has no classifications.

Comments

You must to post a comment.

Attachments