Managing Fisheries

Last modified

Blue Crab Fishery Management

Oyster Fishery Management

Striped Bass Fishery Management

Shad Fishery Management

Menhaden Fishery Management

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
 _x_ Restoration and Protection Efforts
 ___ Watershed Health
 ___ Bay Health
 
(2) Name of Indicator: Managing Fisheries Top Level Index

(3) Description of Dataset used to calculate percent of goal achieved:  
 The Managing Fisheries Top Level Index incorporates scores for the following indices:
o Blue Crab Fishery Management Effort
o Oyster Fishery Management Effort
o Striped Bass Fishery Management Effort
o Shad Fishery Management Effort
o Menhaden Fishery Management Effort
Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the Managing Fisheries category were averaged to create the top level index score.

 For what purpose(s) were the data collected? (e.g., tracking, research, or long-term monitoring.) Tracking progress towards a goal.
 Which parameters were measured directly? Component indicator values are based on tracked information provided by the Bay Program Partners. Which were obtained by calculation?  Percent achievement values for each indicator assessed in the category were averaged to create the index score.  Each indicator was assigned equal weight.

(4) Source(s) of Data: Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators.
 Shad Fishery Management Effort: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx 
 Blue Crab Fishery Management Effort: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx 
 Striped Bass Fishery Management Effort: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx 
 Menhaden Fishery Management Effort: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx 
 Oyster Fishery Management Effort: www.chesapeakebay.net/status_fisheriesmanagementindex.aspx

 Is the complete data set accessible, including metadata, data-dictionaries and embedded definitions?  If yes, please indicate where complete dataset can be obtained.   Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators.

(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different): Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(6) CBPO Contact: Nita Sylvester (sylvester.nita@epa.gov)

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? While significant effort went toward improving the management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries this year, very few of these efforts resulted in the implementation of ecosystem-based actions or the completion of new plans. Overall work to develop ecosystem-based fisheries management plans for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, Atlantic menhaden and American shad is not fully captured using the current fisheries management effort index developed several years ago. As a result, the index has not changed from last year’s value of 51 percent.  The development and adoption of a new index for monitoring progress toward ecosystem-based fisheries management will be one of the first tasks for the new Chesapeake Bay Program’s Fisheries Goal Implementation Team during 2010.
(8a) How much was done last year? While significant effort went toward improving the management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries this year, very few of these efforts resulted in the implementation of ecosystem-based actions or the completion of new plans. Overall work to develop ecosystem-based fisheries management plans for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, Atlantic menhaden and American shad is not fully captured using the current fisheries management effort index developed several years ago. As a result, the index has not changed from last year’s value of 51 percent.  The development and adoption of a new index for monitoring progress toward ecosystem-based fisheries management will be one of the first tasks for the new Chesapeake Bay Program’s Fisheries Goal Implementation Team during 2010.
(9a) What is the current status in relation to a goal? These efforts focus on promoting a shift from a traditional management approach that looks solely at single species to one that recognizes interactions between multiple species and environmental stressors such as low dissolved oxygen levels (ecosystem-based).  Success is measured by milestones necessary to achieve that shift, not by an assessment of fishing stocks.  While significant effort went toward improving the management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries this year, very few of these efforts resulted in the implementation of ecosystem-based actions or the completion of new plans. Overall work to develop ecosystem-based fisheries management plans for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, Atlantic menhaden and American shad is not fully captured using the current fisheries management effort index developed several years ago. As a result, the index has not changed from last year’s value of 51 percent.  The development and adoption of a new index for monitoring progress toward ecosystem-based fisheries management will be one of the first tasks for the new Chesapeake Bay Program’s Fisheries Goal Implementation Team during 2010.
(10a) What is the key story told by this indicator? While significant effort went toward improving the management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries this year, very few of these efforts resulted in the implementation of ecosystem-based actions or the completion of new plans. Overall work to develop ecosystem-based fisheries management plans for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, Atlantic menhaden and American shad is not fully captured using the current fisheries management effort index developed several years ago. As a result, the index has not changed from last year’s value of 51 percent.  The development and adoption of a new index for monitoring progress toward ecosystem-based fisheries management will be one of the first tasks for the new Chesapeake Bay Program’s Fisheries Goal Implementation Team during 2010.
(11a) Why is it important to report this information?  The Chesapeake Bay fishing industry holds tremendous commercial, cultural and historic value. Managing the fisheries for blue crabs, oysters, striped bass, shad and menhaden is also critical in restoring and protecting the population of these species and their important place in the ecosystem.

To improve fisheries management, Bay Program partners are developing ecosystem-based plans. This type of comprehensive approach involves three components:

 Actions that address a single species. 
 A focus on multi-species interactions. 
 Consideration of the entire ecosystem.

Improving water quality and restoring habitats are also part of this management approach. 
(12a) What detail and/or diagnostic indicators are related to this top level index? (Detail and diagnostic indicators can be spatially-specific, parameter-specific, temporally-specific information, etc.)
o Blue Crab Fishery Management Effort
o Oyster Fishery Management Effort
o Striped Bass Fishery Management Effort
o Shad Fishery Management Effort
o Menhaden Fishery Management Effort
2.  Bay Health or Watershed Health indicators only
(7b) What is the long-term trend?  (Since start of data collection) 

(8b) What is the short-term trend? (10-year trend)  
 
(9b) What is the current status in relation to a goal?  
(10b) What does this indicator tell us?
 (11b) Why is it important to report this information?  
(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):  2005-2009

(14) Planned Update Frequency (e.g. - annual, bi-annual):
 (a) Source Data: annual 
 (b) Indicator:  annual

(15) For annual reporting, month data is available for reporting: February

D.  Spatial Considerations

(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other): N/A

(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?  If so, where? N/A

(19) The spatial extent of this indicator best described as:
(a) Chesapeake Bay (estuary)
(b) Chesapeake Bay 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? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 12, above).

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?   Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).
 
(23) Are any tools required to generate the indicator data (e.g. - Interpolator, watershed model) No

(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)?  No

(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) Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

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:  No

(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? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and analytical procedures used?  Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).
 
(28c) Are the sampling and analytical procedures widely accepted as scientifically and technically valid? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(28d) To what extent are the procedures for quality assurance and quality control of the data documented and accessible? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(29) Are the descriptions of the study or survey design clear, complete and sufficient to enable the study or survey to be reproduced? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(30) Were the sampling and analysis methods performed consistently throughout the data record? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(31) If datasets from two or more agencies are merged, are their sampling designs and methods comparable? Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(32) Are uncertainty measurements or estimates available for the indicator and/or the underlying data set?  Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(33) (Do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions that can be inferred from the data and the utility of the indicator?  Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

(34) Are there noteworthy limitations or gaps in the data record?  Please explain. Refer to the data and methods for the component indicators (urls listed in item 4, above).

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.This page has no content. Enrich Semanticommunity.info by contributing.

Page statistics
511 view(s) and 3 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