Developing Watershed Management Plans

Last modified

Metadata

Chesapeake Bay Program Indicator Framework
Reporting Level Indicators
Indicator and Data Survey

For each indicator for which you are responsible, please provide the following information.  This information will be made available to the developers of the reports, the reviewers of the reports and by members of the public who may request detailed information about the data used in the reports.  Please refer to the sample for examples of the level of detail that should be provided.
(PLEASE NOTE:  For indicators that do not have data (narrative info only for the March 2006 reports), complete as much of the survey as possible.  If possible, indicate plans for the development of data to be featured in the 2007 Reports.)

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:  Watershed Management Plans

(3) Data Set Description: 

 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?
 Acreage for each plan was submitted by each signatory jurisdiction.  The values  in the indicator were calculated by taking the sum of the acreage for each  jurisdiction. Additional information on the plans were also obtained (i.e., plan  title, lead agency/group, jurisdiction (state/local), tributary, etc.)

(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.
 Data sets (excel spreadsheets) located in F/Shared/WAWG/Tracking/… Metadata, data-dictionaries or embedded definitions are not included.

(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different):
 PA Source Data: Terry Hough (PADCNR)
 DC Source Data: Steve Saari (DC Dept of Health)
 VA Source Data: Susan Block (VADCR)
 MD Source Data: Jim George and Paul Emmart (MDE)
 Indicator: Amy Handen (CBPO)

(6) CBPO Contact:
 Amy Handen (CBPO)

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?
2005 was the first year data were reported.  As of 2009 there are 13,945,367 acres in the signatory states that have watershed plans. 
(8a) How much was done last year?
In 2009 there were an additional 20,661 acres in the signatory states that had watershed plans developed.  
(9a) What is the current status in relation to a goal?
There are 13,945,367 acres in the signatory states that have watershed plans.  The goal is to implement plans on 22,711,747 of those acres.  Therefore, as of 2009, 61 percent of the goal has been met. 
(10a) What does this indicator tell us?
The key story told by this indicator is that each state is making progress toward achieving the goal; DC has met their goal, Pennsylvania is the next closest to meeting the goal, and Virginia is furthest from meeting the goal.  It is important to note however, that each state collects information on the watershed plans developed and implemented in their state differently.
(11a) Why is it important to report this information?
It is important to report this information to know how each state is progressing towards meeting the watershed planning keystone commitment.  Ultimately, this is a measure of the capacity and commitment of local governments and watershed organizations to organize together and address restoration and protection opportunities in their watersheds. 
(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.) NA
2.  Bay Health or Watershed Health indicators only
(7b) What is the long-term trend?  (since start of data collection) NA
(8b) What is the short-term trend? (3 to 5 year trend) NA
(9b) What is the current status in relation to a goal? NA
(10b) What is the key story told by this indicator? NA
(11b) Why is it important to report this information? NA
(12b) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator? NA
3.  Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health indicators only
(7c) What is the long-term trend?  (since start of data collection) NA
(8c) What is the short-term trend? (3 to 5 year trend) NA
(9c) What is the current status? NA
(10c) What is the key story told by this indicator? NA
(11c) Why is it important to report this information? NA
(12c) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator? NA

C.  Temporal Considerations

(13) Data Collection Date(s):  Data are collected from each jurisdiction throughout the year and are reported to CBPO annually.

(14) Planned Update Frequency (e.g. - annual, bi-annual):
 (a) Source Data:  Data from years 2004 and 2005 were collected by CBPO at the  end of March for the previous calendar year.  Beginning in 2006 and into the  future, data are collected at the end of December for the previous calendar year. 
 (b) Indicator: Developed in the spring after data from each previous calendar year  are collected.

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

D.  Spatial Considerations

(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other): Point and polygon

(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? No

(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. NA

(20) Can appropriate diagnostic indicators be represented geographically? NA

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?)   NA

(22) What is the process by which the raw data is summarized for development and presentation of the indicator?   
The process by which the raw data are summarized for the indicator is calculating the sum of the acreage submitted by each state. 
 
(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed model) NA

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

(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)?  NA

(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)  NA

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: NA

(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? NA

(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and analytical procedures used?  
There are four criteria that each plan must meet in order to meet this commitment.  The four criteria are outlined in Appendix A, “Chesapeake Bay Agreement 2000 Watershed Management Planning Commitment Plan Criteria”.
 
(28c) Are the sampling and analytical procedures widely accepted as scientifically and technically valid?  NA

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

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

(30) Were the sampling and analysis methods performed consistently throughout the data record? 
Each state has a different method to collect information on the watershed plants in their state.  However, all plans that are submitted to CBPO must meet the four criteria outlined in, “WMPTrackingICapproved.PDF.”

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

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

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

(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.

2005 was the first year the signatory jurisdictions submitted data to the CBPO on their progress towards meeting the watershed plan keystone commitment.   And, each jurisdiction has a different method of collecting data within their state on the status of watershed planning activities.   It is anticipated that in the coming years, each jurisdiction will become more knowledgeable about the watershed planning activities in their jurisdiction and therefore be able to represent them more accurately with each year.

Appendix A Chesapeake Bay Agreement 2000 Watershed Management Planning Commitment Plan Criteria

Chesapeake 2000 Agreement Commitment:
“By 2010, work with local governments, community groups and watershed
organizations to develop and implement locally supported watershed
management plans in two-thirds of the Bay watershed covered by this Agreement.
These plans would address the protection, conservation and restoration of
stream corridors, riparian forest buffers and wetlands for the purposes of
improving habitat and water quality, with collateral benefits for optimizing
stream flow and water quality.”
Chesapeake 2000 Commitment Tracking Components
This document identifies the minimum criteria for the development of Jurisdictional
protocols to evaluate watershed management plans. It is the responsibility of each
Jurisdiction, in cooperation with the Bay Program, to develop a protocol and components
for a watershed management plan that are tailored to their specific programs and geopolitical
structure.
The jurisdictions will make every effort to integrate the Chesapeake 2000 commitment on
wetland preservation planning in the development, implementation and tracking of the
watershed plans.
It is the intent of this commitment to support existing planning efforts and foster new
plans where interest exists. To this end, every effort will be made to work with local
governments, community groups and watershed organizations to enhance and or modify
existing planning efforts and foster new efforts to address the commitment’s goals. The
Jurisdictions will use the following criteria in developing their protocols:
1. Does the plan “address the protection, conservation and restoration of stream
corridors, riparian forest buffers and wetlands?”
•Each watershed management plan needs to be based on an assessment of
natural resources within the watershed. At a minimum, the assessment will
evaluate the condition of stream corridors, riparian buffers and wetlands
within the watershed.
•The plan should contain management options that address the protection,
conservation and restoration of the assessed natural resources. Management
options should reflect the community’s needs while being consistent with the
Jurisdiction and Bay Agreement goals.
2. Does the plan reflect the goals and objectives of “improving habitat and water
quality?”
•The plan should reflect the issues that the stakeholders feel are important, and,
at a minimum, exhibit a benefit to habitat and water quality within the
watershed.
•The goals should be based on priority issues identified by the watershed
assessment.
3. Does the plan identify implementation mechanisms?
•Capacity to implement the plan will be demonstrated by identifying:
What are the specific management actions
What are the resources necessary for implementation
Who will implement the plan
And when the actions will be implemented
•The implementation mechanisms should also incorporate a periodic reevaluation
to ensure the plan is “living” and flexible to the changes in the
watershed.
4. Does the plan have demonstrated local support?
Every effort should be made to demonstrate a diversity of local support. At a
minimum, local governments, community groups and watershed organizations
should be encouraged to participate in developing and implementing the
watershed management plan.
It is the responsibility of the Jurisdictions to determine whether or not locally supported
watershed management plans meet the developed protocols. If the plans meet
Jurisdictional protocols they will be counted towards the 2/3rds goal. If the plans do not,
the Jurisdictions will identify the steps needed to meet the commitment.
The Jurisdictions will present their protocols to the CWiC Taskforce in January of 2002.

IC approved 10/04/01This page has no content. Enrich Semanticommunity.info by contributing.

Page statistics
468 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