redesigning cbp indicator structure and communication strategy
Post on 19-Jan-2016
33 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Redesigning CBP indicator structure and communication strategy
Indicator Redesign Taskforce
The Indicators Redesign Taskforce
• A temporary group formed to recommend solutions for the current deficiencies in the CBP indicators and the way they are communicated.
• Group is compromise between efficiency (small size) and links to every interest group (large size).
• Members:
Carlton Haywood (Chair), ICPRB Rich Batiuk, EPA/CBPO
Mike Burke, EPA/CBPO Bob Campbell, NPS/CBPO
Peter Claggett, USGS/CBPO Chris Conner, ACB/CBPO
Bill Dennison, UMCES Rick Hoffman, VA DEQ
Mike Land, NPS/CBPO Ben Longstaff, NOAA / UMCES
Bruce Michael, MD DNR Steve Preston, USGS/CBPO
Nita Sylvester, EPA/CBPO Ken Moore, VIMS
Gary Shenk, EPA/CBPO
What are the current deficiencies…
Current communication has led to:
Sometimes incorrect / confusing messages being received
Chesapeake Bay Program may not be the primary source of information
Information generally relates to the ‘whole bay’. Not enough information about local waterways
Information not always presented in a timely fashion
… “being Posted”
… reporting based primarily on qualitative information
…… “being scooped”
What are the current deficiencies…
Current Indicators:
There are many indicators (100+)
Mix ‘state of the Bay’ and ‘state of the Bay restoration’ messages
No hierarchy of importance
Few overarching indices
Presented stand alone style - don’t tell a complete story
Long lag time between monitoring and indicator availability
Often have poor spatial representation
Current list of Chesapeake Bay Program indicators as they appear on the website
What we need…
An indicator framework that:
1. Provides a hierarchy based on the level of detail required, from broad overall levels/conditions to geographically specific details;
2. Minimizes potential for confusing indicator function. That is, whether they relate to State of the Bay, the State of the Bay restoration and those factors that affect Bay health (stressors);
3. Facilitates the interpretation and communication of indicator interconnectivity through the development and presentation of storylines;
4. Is closely aligning with the Bay Program’s overall communication strategy; and
5. Is relatively simple, avoiding numerous categories or complex relationships.
Indicator Framework:Three functional groups
e.g. Riparian buffer restoration (miles restored)
e.g. Nontidal sediment loads and river flow (m lbs/year)
e.g. State of submerged aquatic vegetation (distribution - ha)
Indicator Hierarchy
Functional group
Role
Proposed reporting indicators
• Approximately 35 reporting indicators• 3 to 6 indicators / category• The indicator measure/metric still has to be determined by the appropriate Subcommittee, workgroup and/or team of experts
Indices
• Top level index values should be based on attainment/non-attainment of established criteria/goals.
• Incorporate factors such as the: (1) volume or surface area of the waterway in attainment;(2) frequency that attainment is reached; and
(3) degree or amplitude of attainment/non-attainment
Diagnostic Indicators
• Facilitate interpretation of the reporting indicators; and/or
• Address topics of special interest
• Not used in the generation of top level or overarching indices
Communication Strategy
• Target Audience Interested public, agency managers, policy decision makers
• Website is the primary communication tool
Redesign website to reflect indicator structure
Separate indicators into functional groups
Place reporting indices, top level and overarching indices most upfront/accessible
• Develop/improve website products
Improve indicators: Spatial detail, presentation and timeliness of reporting indicators
FAQs / Storylines: Provide answers to target audience questions
Annual communication cycle: Restoration effort, Bay stressor and Bay ecosystem health
• Use e-newsletter to drive audience to website & engage a larger audience
E-Newsletter• A proactive way to disseminate our information and drive users to
the site for additional information.
• Monthly, starting in May 2005
• Each issue will contain:
Bay Health, Bay Restoration, Bay Stressor articles (detailed spreadsheet available).
Need to be related/linked - provide cohesive overall story
Need to target the questions most frequently asked by the target audience
Reliant upon timely, well synthesized and presented content
Other content: Critter of the month, Bay Journal Tease, Gateway site, What you can do
Annual communication cycle
Summer Forecast
Goals
1. Forecast summer conditions for a variety of key indicators using:
Established relationships with Bay stressors (e.g. flow/weather)
Prior year’s living resource population and distribution
2. Improve forecast capacity:
Incrementally adding predictions of different indicators
Reducing uncertainties of current indicators
3. Effectively communicate the predictions and associated uncertainties to the Chesapeake Bay community.
Annual Summer Highlights
Goals
• Review the previous summer environmental conditions and highlight the most significant developments
Include meteorological and unusual biotic events.
Provide a short explanation for the events highlighted
• Compare the summer predictions with the actual conditions obtained, providing explanations for discrepancies.
• Effectively communicate summer highlights in a timely manner to the Chesapeake Bay community.
2004 Summer highlights newsletter
Annual Integrated Assessment
Goals
• Conduct an annual assessment of key indicators.
Develop an integrated ecosystem health assessment for the bay and its tributaries using the various key parameters.
Create a ranking valuation scheme to compare assessments both geographically and over time (annual assessments).
• Develop an improved assessment capacity:
improving the timeliness of various data processing steps
developing additional key indicators.
• Effectively communicate the integrated assessments with spatially explicit maps and rigorous scientific assessments to the Chesapeake Bay community.
Annual Integrated Assessment
How will this happen?Only with the commitment of the CBP community -
committees/workgroups/individuals
Indicator Topics Indentified for Fast Track Revision 1. Tidal Monitoring and Analysis Workgroup
• Dissolved Oxygen• Nutrient Status and Trends• Chlorophyll• Clarity
2. Nontidal Water-Quality Workgroup• Flow• Loads• Flow-Adjusted Concentration Trends
3. Living Resources Subcommittee• SAV• Oysters
4. Nutrient Subcommittee• BMP Implementation
Dissolved Oxygen
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM - ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
TRACK 1: NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT INDICATORCBP 2/2/05
Mainstem Bay SummerDissolved Oxygen Concentrations
TRENDS: No statistically significant increasing or decreasing trends could be identified in any categories (hypoxia, severe hypoxia and anoxia) for the June-September period, 1985 through 2004.
STATUS: In 2004, low oxygen (less than 5 mg/L) water volume was small relative to measurements since 1985, but there was a large volume of anoxic water (less than 0.2 mg/L). Hypoxic conditions are stressful for aquatic life and sometimes lethal if severely hypoxic. If no oxygen is present in bottom water, nutrients tied up in sediments are released to overlying waters, fueling eutrophication.Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
Mean Volume ofBay Waters1985-2002
U pper La y er (6 0 %)
Lo w er La y er (4 0 %)Volume of Mainstem Bay
Lower Layer Waters with Reduced Oxygen(June – September Average)
0
5
10
15
20
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
199
01991
199
21993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
199
92000
200
12002
200
32004
Volu
me (10
12 lit
ers
) belo
w 5
mg/L
Better
Worse2.0 – <5 mg/L0.2 – <2 mg/L0 – <0.2 mg/L
Hypoxia
AnoxiaSevere Hypoxia
Nontidal Workgroup
Indicators
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM - ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
TRACK 4: CROSS-CUTTING INDICATORCBP 4/6/04
River Flow into Chesapeake Bay
Source: USGS, Baltimore, MD.The Annual Mean River Flow estimates the flow from all of the Bay's rivers.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10019
37
1940
194
3
194
6
194
9
195
2
195
5
195
8
196
1
196
4
196
7
1970
1973
1976
1979
1982
1985
198
8
199
1
199
4
199
7
200
0
200
3
Riv
er F
low
(b
illi
on
s o
f g
all
on
s p
er d
ay)
1972Tropical StormAgnes
Normal Range
1941lowest flow on record Wet
Years
DryYears
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM - ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
TRACK 1: NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT INDICATORCBP 2/2/05
Nontidal Nitrogen Loads and River FlowTo the Chesapeake Bay
Source: USGS, Baltimore, MD.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
To
tal
Nit
rog
en (
M l
bs/
yr)
- al
l ri
ver
inp
ut
mo
nit
ori
ng
sta
tio
ns
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Flo
w (
bil
lio
n g
allo
ns/
day
)
Total Annual Nitrogen Load
Annual Mean River FlowIn 2003, nitrogen loads entering the tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay from its principal rivers, were the second highest since 1990.
The loads were influenced by near-record river flow to the Bay in 2003.
Long-term (1937-2003) annual mean
river flow (50.5 bgd)
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM - ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
TRACK 1: NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT INDICATORCBP 10/4/04
1980s –2003
Decreasing
No significant trend
Increasing
Nitrogen Trends in Rivers Entering the Bay:
Flow Adjusted ConcentrationsMonitoring data from major rivers entering tidal waters of Chesapeake Bay show that nitrogen concentrations are decreasing in the Susquehanna, Patuxent, and Potomac rivers.
The Pamunkey (a tributary to the York) shows an increasing trend.
The remaining riversshow no significant trends.
Source: USGS and Susquehanna River Basin Commission, PA. Results are shown for flow adjusted trend analyses using the earliest complete data set collected since 1985.
top related