Striped Bass 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: Striped Bass (Spawning Female Biomass – Coastal)

(3) Description of Dataset used to calculate percent of goal achieved:  

For what purpose(s) were the data collected? (e.g., tracking, research, or long-term monitoring.)All the above

Which parameters were measured directly? Which were obtained by calculation?See the 2009 Striped Bass Stock Assessment Report (www.asmfc.org)

(4) Source(s) of Data:

Is the complete data set accessible, including metadata, data-dictionaries and embedded definitions?  If yes, please indicate where complete dataset can be obtained.  Contacting the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission or individual state agencies.  Mostly available on website (www.asmfc.org)

(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different): various states 

(6) CBPO Contact: Derek Orner

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) 1982+ for indicator use, longer term for other collections.  Female SSB increased from a time series low of less than 12,529 mt in 1984 to a peak of roughly 63,516 mt in 2003. Female SSB has been in excess of the target (37,500 mt) since 1995, with 2008 estimated at 55,500 mt. 

(8b) What is the short-term trend? (3 to 5 year trend)  The female spawning stock biomass for 2008 equaled 55,500 mt, a slight increase from the 2007 estimate of 54,574 mt.  Both 2007 and 2008 are less than the time series maximum reached in 2003.  The 2008 estimate of SSB is above the recommended SSB target and threshold of 37,500 mt and 30,000 mt respectively.  Female SSB grew steadily through 2003 but has since declined, but is still 148% of the target.   

(9b) What is the current status in relation to a goal?  Goal of a restored stock was reached by the coastwide partners in 1995.  Goal of a sustainable coastwide population is measured by control rule and neither the identified threshold nor the targets have been triggered.

(10b) What is the key story told by this indicator?  Striped Bass spawning stock biomass has increased since management actions were put in place and the current spawning stock is at a relatively high level despite recent declines in SSB.

(11b) Why is it important to report this information?To inform management agencies as the current state of the resource to assure informed management actions are utilized.

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

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): 1982+

(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: November 

D.  Spatial Considerations

(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other):  Tagging, stratified random sampling, and fixed location.

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

(18) Are there geographic areas with missing data?  If so, where?

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

(a) Chesapeake Bay (estuary)

(b) Chesapeake Bay Watershed

(c) Other (please describe):  Coastwide

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?

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?)  Yes

(22) What is the process by which the raw data is summarized for development and presentation of the indicator?   See attachment

(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed model) Statistical Catch-at-Age (SAC) model - see stock assessment report.

(24) Are the computations widely accepted as a scientifically sound? Yes – accepted through NEFSC peer review (SAW/SARC) process.

(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)  Control Rule identifying biological reference points (thresholds and targets) have been identified for SSB and F.

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?  

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

(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and analytical procedures used?  See stock assessment 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?  Accessible from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission or partner states.

(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 - See stock assessment report.

(31) If datasets from two or more agencies are merged, are their sampling designs and methods comparable?  See stock assessment report.

(32) Are uncertainty measurements or estimates available for the indicator and/or the underlying data set?  See stock assessment report.

(33) (Do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions that can be inferred from the data and the utility of the indicator?  No

(34) Are there noteworthy limitations or gaps in the data record?  Please explain.

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.

Page statistics
500 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