Shad Abundance

Last modified

 

Metadata 

Chesapeake Bay Program Indicator Framework

Reporting Level Indicators

Indicator and Data Survey

A.  Category/Name/Source/Contact

(1) Category of Indicator

___ Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health

___ Restoration and Protection Efforts

___ Watershed Health

_X_ Bay Health

(2) Name of Indicator:  American Shad Abundance in the Chesapeake Bay

(3) Data Set Description:  

For what purpose(s) were the data collected? (e.g., tracking, research, or long-term monitoring.)  Long-term monitoring of alosine numbers in multiple regions of the Chesapeake Bay

Which parameters were measured directly? Which were obtained by calculation?  Actual number of American shad (and other fish) passed through fishways (at dams) were used for the Susquehanna and James River. Commercial catch per unit effort  (CPUE) data were used to estimate American shad abundance for the York and Potomac Rivers.

(4) Source(s) of Data:  Fishway passage data was collected at York Haven Dam in Pennsylvania and Boshers Dam in Virginia, VIMS calculated CPUE from York River commercial gill-net data, Potomac River Fisheries Commission calculated CPUE from Potomac River commercial pound net landings and discard data.

Is the complete data set accessible, including metadata, data-dictionaries and embedded definitions?  If yes, please indicate where complete dataset can be obtained. http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pub...out_9_9244.pdf

(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different):  Source Data: Eric Hilton (VIMS), Brian Watkins (VIMS), Alan Weaver (VDGIF), AC Carpenter (PRFC), Nancy Butowski (MD DNR), Marek Topolski (MD DNR).  Indicator: Marek Topolski (MD DNR)

(6) CBP Contact:  Shannon Simpson, NOAA CBO

B.  Communication Questions

(complete either part 1, 2, or 3)

1.  Restoration and Protection Efforts indicators only

(7a) How much has been completed since 1985 (or baseline year)?  How much has been completed since 2000?

 (8a) How much was done last year?

(9a) What is the current status in relation to a goal?

(10a) What is the key story told by this indicator?

(11a) Why is it important to report this information?

(12a) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator? (Detail and diagnostic indicators can be spatially-specific, parameter-specific, temporally-specific information, etc.)

2.Bay Health or Watershed Health indicators only

(7b) What is the long-term trend?  (since start of data collection)  (10-year trend) The 10 year trend ( 2000 – 2009) varies among river systems. American shad abundance in the Susquehanna and James rivers has remained minimal at less than 1% of the goal. Few shad that pass Conowingo Dam reach and pass York Haven Dam, above which there is optimal spawning habitat.  On the York River, shad abundance increased slightly in 2001 then stabilized at approximately 40% of goal until 2005. Since then, shad abundance has declined to 21% of goal. Potomac River shad abundance, unlike the other three rivers, has steadily increased over the past ten years from 12.4% to 89.4% of goal. As a whole, the Chesapeake Bay American shad indicator has steadily increased from 9.2% to 26.6% of the goal.  Since shad passage at the York Haven and Boshers dams remains negligible, trends in shad abundance in the Potomac and York rivers are responsible for driving the overall trend in the Chesapeake Bay American shad indicator.

(8b) What is the short-term trend? (10-year trend) (Since the start of data collection) The short – term trend has been one of slow but steady overall improvement with considerable variability between the rivers until 2005-2006. The number of shad passed at York Haven Dam and Boshers Dam remained below 1% of goal during 2009.  The difference between the 2008 and 2009 York River shad index was minimal, from 24.1% to 24%, respectively. The Potomac River shad index improved from 74.1% in 2008 to 89.4% in 2009. The Chesapeake Bay American shad indicator increased 3.5% from 23.1% in 2008 to 26.6% in 2009.

 (9b) What is the current status in relation to a goal?  26.6% of goal achieved.

(10b) What is the key story told by this indicator? While some progress has been made in restoring shad to the Chesapeake Bay, there is a long way to go to meet our goal. In particular, the ability of shad to pass across dams remains problematic. In any given year, the number of fish returning to the Chesapeake Bay is not just dependent on the available stock, but on other factors such as, water flow, hydro turbine operation, fish attraction to the fish lifts, effort put forth in the CPUE data, and possible bycatch in other coastal fisheries.

(11b) Why is it important to report this information?  Adequate monitoring of a migratory species over a large multi-jurisdictional area such as the Chesapeake Bay to assess health of the stock is labor intensive and expensive.  To date, monitoring adult shad occurs at a minimal level. The number of shad passed at York Haven Dam and Boshers Dam as well as the CPUE of shad caught via gill net and pound net provides a long term dataset that can be used to express the abundance of the stock throughout the Chesapeake Bay. The data are used to inform managers and stakeholders about the status of shad in the Chesapeake Bay and provide a basis for making decisions regarding additional studies and/or restoration efforts.

(12b) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator?   Stock assessment data from downstream.

3.  Factors Impacting Bay and Watershed Health indicators only

(7c) What is the long-term trend?  (since start of data collection) 

(8c) What is the short-term trend? (3 to 5 year trend) 

(9c) What is the current status? (10c) What is the key story told by this indicator?  

(11c) Why is it important to report this information? 

(12c) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this reporting level indicator?  

C.  Temporal Considerations

(13) Data Collection Date(s):  2000-2009

(14) Planned Update Frequency (e.g. - annual, bi-annual):

(a) Source Data: annual

(b) Indicator:  annual

(15) For annual reporting, month spatial data is available for reporting:  July of the same year for Susquehanna, Potomac, and York rivers.  Boshers Dam video count data is typically available by February to March of the following year.

D.  Spatial Considerations

(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other):  Single Point

(17) Acceptable Level of Spatial Aggregation (e.g. - county, state, major basin, tributary basin, HUC):  N/A

(18) Are there geographic areas with missing data?  No  

If so, where?

(19) The spatial extent of this indicator best described as:

(a) Chesapeake Bay (estuary)

(b) Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Strategic choice of rivers throughout the watershed

(c) Other (please describe)

Please submit any appropriate examples of how this information has been mapped or otherwise portrayed geographically in the past.

(20) Can appropriate diagnostic indicators be represented geographically?  Yes

E.  Data Analysis and Interpretation

(Please provide appropriate references and location of documentation if hard to find.)

(21) Is the conceptual model used to transform these measurements into an indicator widely accepted as a scientifically sound representation of the phenomenon it indicates?  (i.e., how well do the data represent the phenomenon?)  N/A

(22) What is the process by which the raw data is summarized for development and presentation of the indicator?   Seehttp://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pub...out_9_9244.pdf

(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed model)  No, just a spreadsheet

(24) Are the computations widely accepted as a scientifically sound?  Yes

(25) Have appropriate statistical methods been used to generalize or portray data beyond the time or spatial locations where measurements were made (e.g., statistical survey inference, no generalization is possible)?   Yes

(26) Are there established reference points, thresholds or ranges of values for this indicator that unambiguously reflect the desired state of the environment? (health/stressors only)  Yes, benchmark restoration goals via the 2007 ASMFC American Shad Stock Assessment.  Potomac River’s goal is a geometric mean CPUE = 31.1.

F.  Data Quality

(Please provide appropriate references and location of documentation if hard to find.)

(27) Were the data collected according to an EPA-approved Quality Assurance Plan?  No

If no, complete questions 28a – 28d:

(28a) Are the sampling design, monitoring plan and/or tracking system used to collect the data over time and space based on sound scientific principles?  Yes, as per 2007 ASMFC Shad Stock Assessment

(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and analytical procedures used?  2007 ASMFC Shad Stock Assessment, 2007 Shad indicator report.

(28c) Are the sampling and analytical procedures widely accepted as scientifically and technically valid?  Yes

(28d) To what extent are the procedures for quality assurance and quality control of the data documented and accessible? Procedures for York Haven and Boshers dams are described in annual reports. CPUE data is available from VIMS and PRFC.

(29) Are the descriptions of the study or survey design clear, complete and sufficient to enable the study or survey to be reproduced?  Yes

(30) Were the sampling and analysis methods performed consistently throughout the data record? Yes

(31) If datasets from two or more agencies are merged, are their sampling designs and methods comparable? N/A

(32) Are uncertainty measurements or estimates available for the indicator and/or the underlying data set?  N/A

(33) (Do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions that can be inferred from the data and the utility of the indicator?  N/A

(34) Are there noteworthy limitations or gaps in the data record?  No, however the data set only covers 10 years.

G.  Additional Information

(optional)

(35) Please provide any other information about this indicator you believe is necessary to aid communication and any prevent potential miss-representation.  The Boshers Dam shad count data is provisional.  As of February 24, 2010, 35% of the video had been reviewed.

Please refer to explanation and documentation available at http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pub...out_9_9244.pdf

Page statistics
517 view(s) and 1 edit(s)
Social share
Share this page?

Tags

This page has no custom tags.
This page has no classifications.

Comments

You must to post a comment.

Attachments