Public Access

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: Public Access Index

 

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

 

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

Which parameters were measured directly? Which were obtained by calculation? The index was calculated based on achievement of goals for public access points (94%), water trails (100%) and Gateways designated (100%).  The component indicator scores were calculated based on cumulative results of annual reports provided to the Chesapeake Bay Program by the Program partners.

(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_publicaccess.aspx

(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different):  Nita Sylvester at CBPO (1-800-986-7229).

(6) CBPO Contact: Amy Handen at ahanden@chesapeakebay.net.

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?

•Overall, the partners have achieved 98% of established goals to enhance public access, create Gateways and establish water trails. 

•Since 2000, the Bay jurisdictions have acquired, developed or enhanced 761 public access points. 

•Since 2000, 166 Gateways have been established. 

•Since 2000, 2,183 miles of water trails have been developed.

(8a) How much was done last year? 

•Overall, the index score changed from 98% to 98.1%.

(9a) What is the current status in relation to a goal? Overall, the partners have achieved 98 percent of established goals to enhance public access, create Gateways and establish water trails. 

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

•The Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network enhances place-based interpretation of Bay-related resources and themes and stimulates volunteer involvement in resource restoration and conservation. Six new sites recently joined the Chesapeake Bay Gateways Network, giving visitors opportunities to learn more about Bay topics as diverse as African American maritime history and cutting-edge scientific research.  Since 2000, 166 Gateways have been established.  The goal of 30 by 2003 was achieved ahead of schedule.

•A mix of water trails managed by state, local and non-profit organizations has blossomed since 2000. The trails exist throughout the Bay and its tributaries and offer a variety of low-impact paddling experiences, connecting people to the natural, cultural and historic resources of the Bay. 

(11a) Why is it important to report this information? Personal interaction with the Chesapeake Bay can help the public recognize the connection between the value of the Chesapeake and their own interests. In short, the Chesapeake Bay must matter to people in order to gain their support for restoration efforts. 

(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.) Public Access Points to the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tributaries; Chesapeake Bay Gateways Designated; Water Trails in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

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): 2000-2009

(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):  data available at state level

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

(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. N/A for index.  Public access sites have been mapped.  A public access guide (call 1-800-YOUR-BAY to order) lists over 600 major public access sites in the Bay area, enabling users to find opportunities for boating, fishing, wildlife observation and beach use.

(20) Can appropriate diagnostic indicators be represented geographically? In some cases.

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 for compilation.

 

(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed model) No (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?  Refer tohttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_publicaccess.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? Yes

(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.

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
387 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