Projects > National Capital Region Network Vital Signs Monitoring

Threshold Development

(1/1)

lflorkow:
I went through the notes that Tim took during the meeting last month and collected all of the thresholds into a spreadsheet that I have put on the fileshare under "Integrated Assessment" (ROCR_DataAvailability.xls).  The spreadsheet also contains information about the data we have collected to date.  There are some explanatory notes in the footer regarding italics and abbreviations.

If anyone has any additional information regarding existing thresholds or metrics, I would appreciate it.  Since I've just started working on the list, it is not very comprehensive.

I know Bill was taking notes during the meeting on the paper spreadsheet that Shawn created, but I haven't been able to get that sheet from him.

lflorkow:
In thinking about thresholds, it seems to me that the threshold for some of the vital signs should be "no net change."  I think that this is applicable in the case of certain water quality parameters (salinity [?], acid neutralizing capacity), Rate of shoreline change, invasive species, pests, RTE species, amphibians (?), and land cover/land use metrics.  This is probably most useful in the case of vital signs where we do not know what the end goal is.  I have added "no net change" to the data availability spreadsheet where I thought it was appropriate. 

Thinking further, we will have to link a "no net change" threshold to the report card.  One possibility is to use a black or white system where the vital sign either shows no net change (1) or it is showing change (0) [invasive species - new detections].  This is probably not appropriate because there are certain vital signs where "no net change" is acceptable, however there is room for improvement [invasive species - % cover].  In the case of percent cover, no net change would be a halfway point (0.5).  That leaves room for decreases in percent cover being shown through increasing points (20% decrease in cover = 0.6).  Increases in percent cover would lead to lower point values (20% increase in cover = 0.4).  If this system were used for each invading species in the park, then a percent cover invasive species score would be generated by averaging all the point values together.

Any thoughts?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Go to full version