Restoring Habitats

Last modified

 

Planting Bay Grasses

Restoring Wetlands

Reopening Fish Passage

Restoring Oyster Reefs

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: Restoring Habitats Top Level Index

(3) Description of Dataset used to calculate percent of goal achieved:  
 The Restoring Habitats Top Level Index incorporates scores for the following indicators:
o Bay Grasses Planted 
o Restoring Wetlands 
o Reopening Fish Passage 
o Restoring Oyster Reefs 
Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Restoring Habitats 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 indicator assessed in the category were averaged to create the index score.  Each indicator was assigned equal weight.

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

 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)?  N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for three years.  How much has been completed since 2000? N/A – data for all component indicators has only been collected for three years:
2007:  44.23 percent
2008:  54.87 percent
2009:  63.36 percent
(8a) How much was done last year?  Index score increased from 54.87% to 63.36%, 2008-2009.
(9a) What is the current status in relation to a goal? 63.36% in 2009
(10a) What is the key story told by this indicator? Efforts to restore habitats throughout the watershed achieved modest gains in 2009, with progress toward the overall goal at 63 percent, an 8 percent increase from 2008.
(11a) Why is it important to report this information?  
High-quality habitats are required for the overall balance of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and the health of fish, crabs, birds, mammals and other wildlife. Habitats provide the food, shelter and spawning areas needed for animals to survive. The restoration of habitats throughout the watershed is also beneficial for other reasons, from improving water quality to reducing erosion to increasing recreational opportunities.
Partners of the Chesapeake Bay Program have focused their habitat restoration efforts on four key areas. Planting underwater grasses is critical because these areas are used by crabs, fish and waterfowl. Work to restore oyster reefs continues since they can provide habitat for communities of fish and bottom-dwelling organisms. Streams and rivers are being reopened to allow migratory fish to swim upstream to spawn and to increase habitat for local fish populations. While wetlands play many vital roles, they are especially valuable places for a diverse array of land and aquatic species. 
(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.)
o Bay Grasses Planted 
o Restoring Wetlands 
o Reopening Fish Passage 
o Restoring Oyster Reefs 
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 (urls listed in item 4, above).

(14) Planned Update Frequency (e.g. - annual, bi-annual):
 (a) Source Data: Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above). 
 (b) Indicator:  Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

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

D.  Spatial Considerations

(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other): N/A

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

(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.

(20) Can appropriate diagnostic indicators be represented geographically? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

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?   Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).
 
(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed model) No

(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)?  No

(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 (urls listed in item 4, above).

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:  No

(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? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and analytical procedures used?  Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).
 
(28c) Are the sampling and analytical procedures widely accepted as scientifically and technically valid? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(28d) To what extent are the procedures for quality assurance and quality control of the data documented and accessible? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(29) Are the descriptions of the study or survey design clear, complete and sufficient to enable the study or survey to be reproduced? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(30) Were the sampling and analysis methods performed consistently throughout the data record? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(31) If datasets from two or more agencies are merged, are their sampling designs and methods comparable? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(32) Are uncertainty measurements or estimates available for the indicator and/or the underlying data set?  Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(33) (Do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions that can be inferred from the data and the utility of the indicator?  Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(34) Are there noteworthy limitations or gaps in the data record?  Please explain. Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

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.
 Scores for a Native Oyster Annual Restoration Efforts indicator, whose goal achievement status could not be quantified this year due to current a lack of a target/goal for the indicator, may be incorporated into the averages for the index in future assessment.

Page statistics
515 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