Reopening Fish Passage

Last modified

 

Metadata

Chesapeake Bay Program Indicator Framework 2008
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: Opening Rivers to Migratory Fish

(3) Description of Dataset used to calculate percent of goal achieved:
Stream Miles Made Available Through Construction of Fishways and Removals of Dams

 For what purpose(s) were the data collected? (e.g., tracking, research, or long-term monitoring.)  Tracking
 Which parameters were measured directly?  Locations of fish passage projects
 Which were obtained by calculation?  Mileage of streams opened by fish passage projects

(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.  Stream miles opened data are not currently accessible but are available on request and ultimately on the CBP website.

(5) Custodian of Source Data (and Indicator, if different):  Fish Passage Coordinators at Maryland DNR, Pennsylvania FBC and Virginia DGIF (who give the data to CBP)

(6) CBPO Contact: Howard Weinberg

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)?  2338.89 miles 
  
How much has been completed since 2000?  1264.29 miles
(8a) How much was done last year?  15.7 miles

(9a) What is the current status in relation to a goal?  83.3 Percent of 2,807 miles opened goal achieved.
 (10a) What does this indicator tell us?  Projects are being completed that remove blockages to fish migration and open up previously unavailable habitat for spawning and rearing.
(11a) Why is it important to report this information?  To show progress towards the 2014 goal of 2,807 cumulative miles opened.
(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)
(8b) What is the short-term trend? (3 to 5 year trend)
(9b) What is the current status in relation to a goal?
(10b) What is the key story told by this indicator?
(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):  1988 - 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: October

D.  Spatial Considerations

(16) Type of Geography of Source Data (point, line polygon, other):  Line (stream miles) and point (fish blockages and passages)

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

(18) Are there geographic areas with missing data?  Not as far as stream data is concerned, but the blockage data is somewhat incomplete which could make determining the limit of upstream migration difficult in some cases.   If so, where?  PA

(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.  An annual map of fish passage completed and stream miles opened has been produced 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?)   Yes, within the Bay program.  The analysis is fairly simple when all the data are available.

(22) What is the process by which the raw data is summarized for development and presentation of the indicator?    The states report their annual mileage accomplishments to the Bay Program where it is entered into a master spreadsheet and put into Excel to produce the Indicator graph.
 
(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, within the Bay program.  The analysis is fairly simple because there is an accounting methodology in place.

(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)?   N/A

(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)  N/A

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?  Yes (only tracking is applicable).

(28b) What documentation clearly and completely describes the underlying sampling and analytical procedures used?  N/A
 
(28c) Are the sampling and analytical procedures widely accepted as scientifically and technically valid?  Yes, within the Bay program.  The analysis method developed is fairly simple.

(28d) To what extent are the procedures for quality assurance and quality control of the data documented and accessible?  Not available

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

(30) Were the sampling and analysis methods performed consistently throughout the data record?  A minor change in analysis/tracking methods occurred in 2005.

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

(32) Are uncertainty measurements or estimates available for the indicator and/or the underlying data set?  No

(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?  No 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
417 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