our main charge should be to identify indicators of progress toward ccmp goals and objectives, and...

Our main charge should be to identify indicators of progress toward CCMP goals and objectives, and to organize the indicators into a score card, and produce a score as best we can. Its essential to use our collective experience to build on what has already been done.

A secondary charge is to try to fit the scores to the WAF.

This focus enables us to do some useful things, such as identify barren goals (they have no indicators) or orphan indicators (they have no goals), while establishing how to report CCMP progress.

Formatting A ScorecardFor Ecological Health

Josh CollinsJune 9, 2008

Formatting A ScorecardFor Ecological Health

The ideal format should:

• visually convey the method and results of scaling and combining indicators in a transparent way (although separate explanations of the indicators might be required)

• Be intuitive and quantitative

• Be scale-independent

• Be flexible to support adaptive management and to revise indicators based on new science and changing goals.

HGM Landscape Biotic Chem/Phys Disturbance Eco Process

WAF Indicator Categories

WAF identifies attributes of watershed health (i.e., categories of indicators) but doesn’t define health or state how to measure it.

Likewise, the CCMP identifies broad categories of concern and associated goals and objectives but does not define success or how to measure progress.

The CCMP and WAF were developed independently and do not fit each other, although the CCMP Program Areas might be forced into the WAF categories

Aquatic Resources

Wildlife

Wetlands Management

Water Use

Pollution Prevention and Reduction

Dredging and Waterways Modification

Land Use and Watershed Management

Public Involvement and Education

Research and Monitoring

CCMP Program Areas

CCMP Framework

. Caution: unless the WAF adopts standard indicators for its health attributes, watersheds cannot be compared to each other or over time – the attributes are just a first step toward standardization

We have a chance to go farther with the CCMP. Its goals are specific enough to serve as criteria to sort existing data and indicators, and thus assess progress (where data are available) or identify where either data or goals are needed.

We might propose how existing indicators might be standardized for tracking progress in the future.



Imagine two CCMP Goals, “Zero Sediment Impairment” and “All Sampled Stream Reaches are Stable,” that fit into the WAF Category called “Hydro-geomorphology” (any number of Goals could “fit” into any WAF Category).

Zero Sediment Im

pairment

All Sampled Reaches Stable

1 2



0

100

50

25

75Imagine that there are two indicators of progress for each of the two CCMP Goals (there can be any number of indicators for any Goal).

The indicators can be scaled from 0 (no progress) to 100 (goal achieved)

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l

1 2

% Sedim

ent TMDL achieved

1/% if Degrading Reaches

HGM BM

P Effectiveness

1/% if Aggrading Reaches



0

100

50

25

75

The height of the bar for any indicator is one measure of progress toward the associated CCMP Goal

% Sedim

ent TMDL achieved

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l

1 2



0

100

50

25

75

The total area of all the indicator bars for a given CCMP Goal is equal to the total progress toward that Goal.

It can be reported as a percentage of the total area from 0 to 100 for all indicators for that Goal.

% Sedim

ent TMDL achieved

HGM BM

P Effectiveness

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l

1 2



0

100

50

25

75

% Sedim

ent TMDL achieved


HGM BM

P Effectiveness


The total area of all indicator bars for a given WAF Category is equal to the total progress within that Category.

It can be reported as a percentage of the total area from 0 to 100 for all indicators for that Category.

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l

1 2



0

100

50

25

75

% Sedim

ent TMDL achieved


HGM BM

P Effectiveness


Any indicator can be weighted by increasing the width of its bar. This will proportionally weight the associated CCMP Goal by increasing the width of its bar.

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l

1 2



0

100

50

25

75

% Sedim

ent TMDL achieved


HGM BM

P Effectiveness


Any CCMP Goal can be independently weighted by increasing the width of its bar, while maintaining equal widths of the associated indicator bars.

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l

1 2



0

100

50

25

75

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l

Status of progress can be quantified and graphically displayed for any combination of indicators and Goals.

Status of progress can be quantified and graphically displayed for all indicators of all CCMP Goals for all WAF Categories

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l

0

100

50

25

75





0

100

50

25

75

% Sedim

ent TMDL achieved


HGM BM

P Effectiveness


Some indicators will have sampling variability that can be used to report a range of likely progress rather than a simple numerical value.

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l



0

100

50

25

75

% Sedim

ent TMDL achieved


HGM BM

P Effectiveness


In some cases, the Goal will be an average condition for which there will be sampling variability.

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l

Landscape Biotic Chem/Phys Disturbance Eco Process


0

100

50

25

75

% Sedim

ent TMDL achieved


HGM BM

P Effectiveness


Can the sample variability of the Goal be pooled with the variability of the associated indicators to estimate the overall range in progress for the Goal? .

Per

cen

t P

rog

ress

Tow

ard

Goa

l

Time

Ove

rall

Co

nd

itio

n

Rel

ativ

e to

Go

als

Change in any combination of indicators or goals, including overall rate of progress for all indicators,

can be plotted over time

0

100

50

25

75

our main charge should be to identify indicators of progress toward ccmp goals and objectives, and...

Documents