Long Term Plan for Communicating the State of the Bay
and the State of the Bay Restoration (version 12/05/06)
Long Term Vision
Accurately conveying the health of the Chesapeake Bay and it watershed to policy makers,
political leaders and watershed residents is critical to the maintaining the long-term momentum
of the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort.
This long-term vision for future Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessments is an
integral part of the Chesapeake Bay Program's Overarching Communications Strategy and
Annual Communications Cycle. By focusing on target audiences addressed in the strategy and
developing the annual communication vehicle outlined in the annual communications cycle, the
Bay Program will be able to lead the communications aspects of the Bay restoration.
2006 Assessment and Restoration Report
In March 2006, the Chesapeake Bay Program released a draft of its first Health and Restoration
Assessment report. The report marks the first step in an evolution of how the Program will
update the "interested public" on the annual health of the Bay. The copy was released in draft
form in order to seek comments and build stakeholder support for future versions.
The report debuts a new way of accounting for the health of the Bay and efforts to restore it. In
its assessment of Bay health, the report benchmarks current environmental conditions to
Program-adopted restoration targets. Restoration efforts are presented as "percentage of goal
achieved" to better allow the public to understand past efforts in context with the enormity of the
amount of work remaining.
While improving the way the Program measure progress in several key areas, the 2006 report
fails to provide insight into several key components of Bay health and restoration. The long-term
vision aims to fill these gaps to give a complete picture of the health of the Bay.
2008 Milestones
By 2008, the annual Chesapeake Bay Health and Restoration Assessment will be a map-based
assessment that will help readers better understand the health of the Bay and its watershed.
• Annual assessments will feature a fully integrated approach that takes into account
linkages between management actions and ecosystem health, as well as ecological
linkages between indicators.
• Data and interpretation will reflect the most current information available, with
information based on the previous year's conditions and data.
• Readers will be able to drill down into the analysis to better understand the health of their
part of the watershed
• In non-tidal areas
1
-------
o Data will be presented on the major basin-scale, allowing readers to compare
and contrast the health and restoration efforts in one basin to another, track
restoration progress on a state-by-state basis and assess the overall "health" of
large watersheds.
• In tidal areas
o Data sets will have a geographic linkage that will help readers understand
"How's the Bay doing?" on a river-by-river or segment-by-segment basis (this
includes living resource, water quality and habitat information).
• In addition to print reports, data will be available on the Bay Program website, with full
interpretation.
o Data will be revised throughout the year to reflect new information, making the
end-of-year report a more "summary" type document,
o Environmental indicator info will be incorporated into the site design, not be a
separate, self-contained section.
• While shorter annual reports will be targeted toward an "interested public" audience, a
cycle of more detailed reports should be implemented.
o Technical reports should be prepared on a 5-year basis and include detailed
information about restoration progress and ecosystem function.
¦ Each detailed report can focus on one strategic area
• Water Quality
• Habitats
• Fisheries
• Watershed Management
• Stewardship
¦ Five-year cycle helps spread workload across restoration areas and helps
update key stakeholder groups on areas of concern.
This vision works to implement key communications objectives to better inform the public about
the health of the Bay as well as the restoration's success. By building upon recommendations
from Bay Program subcommittees, the Program's Scientific Advisory Committees and the
Government Accountability Office, the Program is poised to make significant strides toward
involving the broader public in Bay restoration.
Long Term Plan Highlights
2006 Highlights:
• Release Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration Assessment.
• Public and Independent Scientific Review of Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration
Assessment.
• Fill in reporting level indicators gaps in the indicators framework.
• Bay Health index development for publication in 2006 Health and Restoration Assessment.
• Develop framework for Watershed Health indicators.
• Web-based process developed for providing links to detail and diagnostic indicators in 2006
Health and Restoration Assessment.
• Improve timeliness of data to be published in 2006 Health and Restoration Assessment.
2
-------
2007 Highlights:
• Release improved Bay Health and Restoration Assessment (responsive to pubic and independent
science reviews; web links to diagnostic/detail indicators; reporting level indicator gaps filled in;
Bay Health index reported; improved timeliness of data reported).
• Watershed Health indicators developed for publication in 2007 Health and Restoration
Assessment.
• Relative Assessment of Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health ("stressors") developed for
publication in 2007 Health and Restoration Assessment.
• Web-based process developed for providing links to geographic cuts of information in Bay 2007
Health and Restoration Assessment.
• Improve timeliness of data to be published in 2007 Health and Restoration Assessment.
2008 Highlight:
• 2007 Health and Restoration Assessment will reflect our long-term vision (web links to
geographic cuts of info; watershed health reported; "stressors" reported; improved timeliness of
data reported).
2009 Highlight:
• 2008 Health and Restoration Assessment will incorporate shallow water monitoring data in the
assessments of Bay water quality.
Long Term Plan Details:
Date
Action
Responsibility
Status
5/2005
Release 2005 Summer Ecological Forecast
Communication Office
(CO)/Monitoring and
Analysis Subcommittee
(MASC)/University of MD
Center for Environmental
Science (UMCES)
Completed
(repeat
annually)
5/2005
Release 1st Issue of Monthly Electronic
Newsletters - Chesapeake Currents
CO/Various Subcommittees
(SC)/Workgroups (WG)
Completed
& Ongoing
11/2005
Release 2005 Chesapeake Update (Summer
Highlights)
CO/MASC/UMCES
Completed
(repeat
annually)
12/2005
Develop Long Term Plan for Communicating
the State of the Bay and the State of the Bay
Restoration
CO/Indicators Workgroup
(IWG)/MASC
Completed
12/2006
Develop Plan for Independent Scientific
Review of Bay Health and Restoration
Assessment (see appendix A, below)
IWG/MASC
Completed
1-3/2006
Complete Indicator and Data Surveys
Data custodians from various
SC/WG
Completed
1/2006
Draft Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and
Restoration Assessment, Part 1 Ecosystem
Health for review by Signatory
representatives, STAC, CAC, LGAC.
CO/MASC/ Signatory
representatives
(SR)/Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
(STAC)/Citizens Advisory
Completed
3
-------
Committee (CAC)/Local
Government Advisory
Committee (LGAC)
3/2006
Draft Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and
Restoration Assessment, Part 2 Restoration
Efforts for review by Signatory
representatives, STAC, CAC, LGAC.
CO/MASC/SR/STAC/CAC
Completed
3/2006
Release Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and
Restoration Assessment, Part 1: Ecosystem
Health and Part 2: Restoration Efforts
CO
Completed
3/2006
Begin public review of reports (comments due
by 5/31/06)
CO
Ongoing
3/2006
Begin process to develop Bay Health Index
needed to provide a true integrated
assessment. Complete by February 2007.
UMCES
Ongoing
5/2006
Documentation of Process to develop new
indicator framework and the Bay Health and
Restoration Assessment.
UMCES
Ongoing
5-6/2006
Present proposal for "Presentation of
Indicators in the Redesigned Website" and
updated Long Term Plan.
IWG/MASC/IC
Completed
5/2006
Begin to fill in reporting level indicator
"gaps" (see appendix B, below).
IWG/Responsible SC & WG
Ongoing
5/2006
Begin to develop linkages to diagnostic/detail
indicators on website. Complete by March
2007.
SC/CO/Web Team (WT)/IMS
Ongoing
5/2006
Begin to develop Framework for Watershed
Health Indicators. Complete by Feb 2007.
Matt Fleming/Scott
Phillips/STAC/MASC
Ongoing
5/2006
Release 2006 Summer Ecological Forecast
CO/MASC/UMCES
Completed
6-8/2006
Independent Scientific Review of State of the
Bay Reports (see appendix A, below)
Review Panel
Ongoing
6-7/2006
Present candidates for indicators to be retired
to MASC then IC.
SC/MASC/IC
Completed
7/2006
Coordinate with IMS on a strategy for the
assessment of data flows
Information Management
Subcommittee (IMS)/IWG
Ongoing
10/2006
Deliver a priority listing of data flow/data
timelines issues for IMS to address
IWG/MASC/IMS/IC
Completed
11/2006
Release 2006 Chesapeake Update (Summer
Highlights)
CO/MASC/UMCES
Completed
12/2006
Update Long Term Plan for Communicating
the State of the Bay and the State of the Bay
Restoration
CO/IRT
Completed
12/2006
Present Draft Bay Health Index to IC
MASC/IC
2/2007
Summarize/analyze comments from Public
and Independent Reviews of Bay Health and
Restoration Assessment to inform
development of future reports.
IWG/MASC/CO
2/2007
Draft Bay Health and Restoration
Assessment, Part 1 and 2 Restoration Efforts
for review by Signatory representatives,
CO/MASC/SR/STAC/CAC
4
-------
STAC, CAC, LGAC.
3/2007
Launch of Redesigned Chesapeake Bay
Program Website
WT
3/2007
Release improved Bay Health and Restoration
Assessment (responsive to pubic and
independent science reviews; web links to
diagnostic/detail indicators; reporting level
indicator gaps filled in; Bay Health index
reported; improved timeliness of data
reported)
CO
4/2007
Begin to develop Reporting Level indicators
to "fill in" the Watershed Health portion of
framework. Complete by Feb 2008.
Scott Phillips/Matt
Fleming/MASC/Responsible
SC&WG
4/2007
Begin to develop a method for "relative"
assessment of "stressors" for the Bay Health
and Restoration Assessment 2007 report.
Complete by Feb 2008.
IWG - Michael Williams and
Gary Shenk (?)
4/2007
Begin to develop ability to view geographic
"cuts" of indicators on website. Complete by
Feb 2008.
WT/IMS
3/2008
Release improved Bay Health and Restoration
Assessment (ability to drill down to
geographic cuts on website; watershed health
reported; "stressors" reported; improved
timeliness of data reported)
CO
5
-------
Appendix A. Plan for Independent Scientific Review of Bay Health and Restoration Assessment
Timing:
Date
Action
Responsibility
Status
5/2006
Select Potential Review Panel
STAC
5/2006
Invitation to Panelist/Confirm Panel
Members
STAC
6-8/2006
Panel Conducts Review
Review Panel
TBD
Final Review Panel Report provided to
CBP
Review Panel/STAC
Scope of Review:
1. Review Documentation of Process to develop new Indicators Framework and the Integrated
Communications Strategy.
2. Review the key outreach materials produced as part of the Integrated Communications Strategy
including the Ecological Forecast: Summer 2005 and Ecological Forecast: Aquatic Grass in
2005; the Water Quality & Aquatic Grass: Summer 2005 (Summer Wrap-up); and the
Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration Assessment.
3. Review the Long Term Plan for Implementing the Chesapeake Bay Program Integrated
Communication Strategy and Indicators Framework.
4. Review component indicators included in the Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration
Assessment fall those included Part One: Ecosystem Health and a representative sample of those
included in Part Two: Restoration Efforts)
Primary Questions to Answer:
1. Have appropriate measures for assessing ecosystem health been established?
2. Have appropriate measures for assessing restoration efforts been established?
3. Do the assessments clearly and accurately describe the Bay's Health and Restoration status?
Related Questions:
1. Do you have recommendations for improving the
a. New Indicators Framework;
b. Process for developing the Assessment report, the Eco-forecasts and the Summer Wrap-
up;
c. Process for developing the individual indicators;
d. Process for developing the composite indicators.
2. Should Ecosystem Health and Restoration Effort be separated (as was done by creating Part 1 and
Part 2 of the Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration Assessment)! If not, what do you
recommend?
3. What are appropriate measures for watershed health?
4. Should blue crab, oyster, shad, striped bass and menhaden fisheries have population targets? If
so, what should be used? If not, how should we measure and report the health of these fisheries?
5. How can we better report the annual assessments of water quality in conjunction with the
regulatory-based assessments that rely on data over a three-year period?
Background Materials:
• GAO Report
• April 21, 2005 IC materials related to "Communicating the State of the Bay and the State of the
Bay Restoration"
• Indicators Framework (most recent version)
6
-------
• Long Term Plan for Communicating the State of the Bay and the State of the Bay Restoration
(this document)
• Chesapeake Bay 2005 Health and Restoration Assessment
• Ecological Forecast: Summer 2005
• Ecological Forecast: Aquatic Grass in 2005
• Water Quality & Aquatic Grass: Summer 2005 (Summer Wrap-up)
Potential Panel Members - Representation of both communication and scientific expertise, preferably
practitioners.
1. Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, and Everglades Restoration Programs staff
2. National Estuary Programs staff (e.g. Tampa Bay, San Francisco Bay, Long Island Sound)
3. Scientific Communication Experts (e.g. National Geographic, Smithsonian, Heinz Center)
4. GAO Expert Panel:
• Allan, J. David, Professor, School of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Michigan
• Harwell, Mark, Professor, Florida A&M University
• Gunderson, Lance, Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Studies, Emory
University
• Hill, Brian, Chief of the Watershed Research Branch, Mid-Continent Ecology Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency;
• Kusler, Jon, Executive Director, Association of State Wetland Managers
• Nuttle, William, Consultant, Eco-Hydrology;
• Reed, Denise, Associate Professor, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of New
Orleans
• Stevenson, R. Jan, Professor, Department of Zoology, Michigan State University
7
-------
Appendix B. Develop Reporting Level indicators for "gaps" in framework.
Restoration and Protection Efforts (complete by February 2007)
1. Reducing Sprawl Efforts Assessment (need data) - Land Growth and Stewardship
Subcommittee (LGSS)
2. Urban/Suburban Lands Reduction Efforts Assessment (need data) - Nutrient
Subcommittee (NSC)
3. Air Pollution Reduction Efforts Assessment (need data) - NSC
4. Oyster Reef Planting Efforts Assessment (need data and relation to a goal) - Living
Resources Subcommittee (LRSC)
5. Fostering Stewardship Efforts Assessment (need data) - Communications and Education
Subcommittee (CESC)
Bay Health (complete by February 2007)
6. Chemical Contaminants (need different reporting level indicator graphic) - Toxics
Subcommittee (TSC)
7. Blue Crab Health Assessment (need relation to a goal, e.g. "double the spawning stock
biomass") - LRSC
8. Shad Health Assessment (need goal(s)/data beyond Susquehanna R.) - LRSC
9. Menhaden Health Assessment (need data and relation to a goal) - LRSC
10. Tidal Wetlands Health Assessment (need data) - LRSC
Watershed Health (complete by February 2008)
11. TBD - LRSC, Nontidal Water Quality Workgroup (NWQW)
Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health ("Stressors") (complete by February 2008)
12. Chemical contaminant loads indicator - TSC
13. Fishery Harvest and Other Pressures indicators (one each for crabs, oysters, striped bass,
shad, menhaden) - LRSC
14. Weather indicator - NOAA
Proposed Schedule for IC Action Related to Filling Reporting Level Indicator Gaps
(Schedule will drive MASC agendas the previous month)
• October 2006
o Urban/Suburban Lands Pollution Reduction Efforts Assessment
o Air Pollution Reduction Efforts Assessment
o Oyster Reef Restoration Efforts Assessment
o Chemical Contaminants (related to Bay Health: water quality)
• November 2006:
o Reducing Sprawl Efforts Assessment
• December 2006 - Filling gaps:
o Blue Crab Health Assessment
o Shad Health Assessment
o Menhaden Health Assessment
• January 2007 - Filling gaps:
o Fostering Stewardship Efforts Assessment
• February 2007 - Filling gaps:
o Tidal Wetlands Health Assessment
• March 2007 - February 2008 - Filling gaps:
o Watershed Health Indicator and/or Stressor Indicator
8
------- |