Citizen and Community Action (Bay Partner Communities)

Last modified

 

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: Citizen and Community Action: Chesapeake Bay Partner Communities

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

For what purpose(s) were the data collected? (e.g., tracking, research, or long-term monitoring.) To measure community action, Bay Partner Community Award data was tracked between 1997 and 2007 to help measure local governments’ commitment to protecting and restoring local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay.  After 2007, the program was no longer funded.

To measure citizen action, the first Chesapeake Volunteer Count was launched in 2008. This effort asks watershed organizations to report the number of volunteers for the year.

Which parameters were measured directly? Which were obtained by calculation? Bay Partner Communities are evaluated on accomplishments in 4 theme areas: Improving Water Quality, Promoting Sound Land Use, Protecting and Restoring Living Resources and Habitat, and Engaging the Community. 42 benchmarks are evaluated. Level of achievement (Gold, Silver or Bronze) is dependent on the population size of the community. 

Watershed organizations directly report the number of volunteers for the for Chesapeake Volunteer Count.

(4) Source(s) of Data:

Is the complete data set accessible, including metadata, data-dictionaries and embedded definitions?  If yes, please indicate where complete dataset can be obtained. www.chesapeakebay.net/status_citizenaction.aspx 

(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different): Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, CBPO, (410) 267-5758

(6) CBPO Contact: Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, CBPO, (410) 267-5758

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? 1997 – 2007: 77 awards; 2000-2007: 15 awards

To measure citizen action, the first Chesapeake Volunteer Count was launched in 2008. This effort asks watershed organizations to report the number of volunteers for the year.  Since the number of organizations reporting has changed each year, results can not be directly compared to a baseline.  However, annual results from the 2008 and 2009 counts indicate the following:

2008 results: Based on preliminary data collected from 73 Chesapeake Bay watershed organizations, 50,590 volunteers participated in restoration activities in 2008. The majority of the organizations reported that volunteerism rates remained the same or increased from 2007.

2009 results: Based on data collected from 76 Chesapeake Bay watershed organizations, 13,038 volunteers participated in restoration activities in 2009. The majority of the organizations reported that volunteerism rates remained the same or increased from 2008.

(8a) How much was done last year? In 2007, two new Bay Partner Community (BPC) awards. 

Based on data collected from 76 Chesapeake Bay watershed organizations, in 2009 13,038 volunteers participated in restoration activities in 2009. The majority of the organizations reported that volunteerism rates remained the same or increased from 2008.

(9a) What is the current status in relation to a goal? Overall, the partners have achieved 23 percent of the existing goal to certify 330 Bay Partner Communities by 2005. 

A goal has yet to be established for citizen action.

(10a) What is the key story told by this indicator? Partner Communities represent many local governments that are taking positive steps toward watershed restoration and protection.

The volunteer count indicates the number of residents participating in watershed organization activities.

(11a) Why is it important to report this information? The Bay and its watershed will never be restored and protected without the action of its 17 million residents and the involvement of local government. That many people can surely have a tremendous impact if they are actively involved in the cleanup.

A top priority for the Bay Program is encouraging the public to participate in activities that are positive for nature at home, at work and in the community. It is also important for towns and cities to put measures in place that protect clean water.

(12a) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator? (Detail and diagnostic indicators can be spatially-specific, parameter-specific, temporally-specific information, etc.)  Bay Partner Communities by State

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 is the key story told by this indicator?

(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? (5-year trend and 10-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):  Bay Partner Communities: 1997-2007; No awards made in 2001, 2002 while the BPC program was reorganized to reflect the new agreement, Chesapeake 2000.

Chesapeake Volunteer Count: 2008 and 2009

(14) Planned Update Frequency (e.g. - annual, bi-annual):

(a) Source Data: annual

(b) Indicator: annual

(15) For annual reporting, month spatial data is available for reporting:  February

D.  Spatial Considerations

(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other): Bay Partner Communities Data is reported by number of community awards in each state/DC.

Chesapeake Volunteer Count is reported by watershed organizations.

(17) Acceptable Level of Spatial Aggregation (e.g. - county, state, major basin, tributary basin, HUC): BPC: state VC: watershed

(18) Are there geographic areas with missing data?  If so, where? N/A

(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. Locations of award winners could be mapped by local government entity.  Locations of volunteers can bemaps by watershed organization location.

(20) Can appropriate diagnostic indicators be represented geographically? Locations of award winners could be mapped by local government entity.  Locations of volunteers can bemaps by watershed organization location.

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?)  yes

(22) What is the process by which the raw data is summarized for development and presentation of the indicator?   Data are reported to the Chesapeake Bay Program Office by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay (ACB).  The ACB manages the program and selects awardees on an annual basis after the candidates have submitted applications.

(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed model)   (used Excel spreadsheet)

(24) Are the computations widely accepted as a scientifically sound? yes

(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)?  Not applicable.

(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) 

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?  No.

If no, complete questions 28a – 28d:

(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? Yes.

(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and analytical procedures used?  http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_...zenaction.aspx

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

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

(29) Are the descriptions of the study or survey design clear, complete and sufficient to enable the study or survey to be reproduced?   Yes, see answer for (28b)

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

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

(32) Are uncertainty measurements or estimates available for the indicator and/or the underlying data set? No, not really an issue.

(33) (Do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions that can be inferred from the data and the utility of the indicator? No

(34) Are there noteworthy limitations or gaps in the data record?  Please explain. No awards made in 2001, 2002 while the BPC program was reorganized to reflect the new agreement, Chesapeake 2000. 

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.

Page statistics
354 view(s) and 1 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