Redesigning CBP indicator structure and communication strategy

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


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



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)



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.

Documents

Redesigning CBP indicator structure and communication strategy