Chesapeake Bay Program

1. 
   Describe the data set. What parameters are measured? What parameters are obtained by calculation? For what purpose(s) are the data used?
   

2. 
   List the source(s) of the data set, the custodian of the source data, and the relevant contact at the Chesapeake Bay Program.
   

• 
  _Source:
  

• 
  _Custodian: Source Data: Josh Tryninewski (PA FBC), Alan Weaver (VDGIF), Ellen Cosby (PRFC), Eric Hilton (VIMS).
  

• 
  Chesapeake Bay Program Contact (name, email address, phone number): Bruce Vogt (Bruce.Vogt@noaa.gov) and Emilie Franke (Emilie.Franke@noaa.gov).
  

3. 
   Please provide a link to the location of the data set. Are metadata, data-dictionaries and embedded definitions included?
   

Information on the gill net survey, including the index data, used for the York, Rappahannock and lower James Rivers is published on the Virginia Institute of Marine Science website.

Information on the Bosher's Dam fishway is published on the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries website, but fish counts are not published.

The Potomac River Fisheries Commission pound net bycatch and discard index is not published on their website.

3. 
   Data collection date(s): 2000-2015
   

3. 
   Planned update frequency (e.g., annual, biannual, etc.):
   

• 
  _{Source Data:} annual
  

• 
  _Indicator: annual
  

3. 
   Date (month and year) next data set is expected to be available for reporting: April 2017
   

3. 
   What is the ideal level of spatial aggregation (e.g., watershed-wide, river basin, state, county, hydrologic unit code)? Tributary
   

3. 
   Is there geographic (GIS) data associated with this data set? If so, indicate its format (e.g., point, line polygon). The CBP GIS Team has a point data set for this indicator published on the indicator website in the form of a dynamic map. Users can click the polygon for each tributary to view the related data for that tributary.
   

3. 
   Are there geographic areas that are missing data? If so, list the areas.
   

3. 
   Please submit any appropriate examples of how this information has been mapped or otherwise portrayed geographically in the past. The CBP GIS Team has a point data set for this indicator published on the indicator website in the form of a dynamic map. Users can click the polygon for each tributary to view the related data for that tributary.
   

3. 
   What is the goal, target, threshold or expected outcome for this indicator? How was it established?
   

• 
  James River:
  
  • 
    Lower: 34.66 CPUE
    
  • 
    Upper: 500,000 shad passing Bosher's Dam annually
    
• 
  Potomac River: 31.1 Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) running average (see section 7b for further explanation)
  
• 
  Susquehanna River: Two million shad passing York Haven Dam annually
  
• 
  York River: 17.4 CPUE
  
• 
  Rappahannock: 7.85 CPUE
  

Shad are monitored in other areas of the Bay, including Maryland tributaries and the Upper Bay, but these data are not included in the indicator due to the absence of abundance goals for those areas.

3. 
   What is the current status in relation to the goal, target, threshold or expected outcome?
   

3. 
   Has a new goal, target, threshold or expected outcome been established since the last reporting period? Why? No.
   

3. 
   Has the methodology of data collection or analysis changed since the last reporting period? How? Why?
   

Methodology did change in 2013. Data from the VIMS gill net survey was used to update the York River data and to add the lower James and Rappahannock to the indicator. Bosher's Dam and the lower James data are combined and weighted (Bosher's=45% and lower=55%) to get the overall James percent goal achieved. The Potomac, York Haven Dam, and Bosher's Dam data collection and analysis stayed the same.

3. 
   What is the long-term data trend (since the start of data collection)?
   

• 
  Bay-wide: As a whole, the Chesapeake Bay American shad indicator increased from 10.7% in 2000 to 44.3% of the goal in 2014 before decreasing to 38.8% of the goal in 2015. The shad abundance index trend in the Potomac Rivers is responsible for driving the overall upward Bay-wide trend, since shad passage at York Haven and Bosher's dams remains negligible, and since shad abundance index trends on the York, Rappahannock, and lower James are variable. The decreases in the index values for the Lower James, Rappahannock and York contributed to a decrease in 2015. Extremely low American shad passages at the York Haven and Bosher's dams continue to be seen.
  
• 
  James River: Abundance has been variable, with a peak of about 14% in both 2003 and 2011 and a low of about 2% in 2015, the lowest value in the 2000-2015 time series. Abundance index trends for the James River are a weighted combination of the Bosher's Dam (45%) and lower James (55%) data. Fish passage at Bosher’s Dam has remained negligible at less than 1% of the goal for the time series, while the lower James shows fluctuations between 4-25% of the goal. In 2015, Bosher’s Dam remained below 1% and the lower James hit its lowest point of 3.6%.
  
• 
  Potomac River: Unlike the other rivers, the Potomac’s abundance measurement is a running geometric mean calculated for all years since 1999. These data show that the abundance index has steadily increased over the past 15 years from 26.0% in 2000 to 133.1% of the goal in 2015.
  

• 
  Rappahannock River: Shad abundance index has largely fluctuated with multiple peaks and valleys. Index values peaked in 2014 at 110.3% of the goal then dropped to 64.7% of the goal in 2015. Its lowest values were in 2000 at 22.3% and 2010 at 25.9%.
  
• 
  Susquehanna River: Fish passage has remained minimal at less than 1 percent of the goal, including in 2015. Of the thousands of shad that pass Conowingo Dam, very few reach and pass York Haven Dam, above which is optimal spawning habitat.
  
• 
  York River: Shad abundance index values have largely fluctuated with multiple peaks and valleys. Abundance index values reached peaks in 2001 at 74.4% of the goal and 2014 at 57.7% of the goal. 2015 had the lowest reported index value at just 11.1% of the goal.
  

3. 
   What change(s) does the most recent data show compared to the last reporting period? To what do you attribute the change? Is this actual cause or educated speculation?
   

• 
  Bay-wide: Decrease from 44.3% to 38.8% of goal achieved.
  
• 
  James River: Decreased from to 11.6% to 2.0% of goal achieved. This overall James River decrease increase resulted from the Lower James decrease from 21.2% to 3.6% of goal achieved (7.35 to 1.25 CPUE), and from Bosher's Dam remaining below 1% (0.01%) of goal (68 American shad passed Bosher's Dam in 2015 out of 500,000 goal).
  
• 
  Potomac River: Increased from 129.6% to 133.1% of goal achieved (40.3 to 41.4 CPUE).
  
• 
  Rappahannock River: Decreased from 110.3% to 64.7% of goal achieved (8.66 to 5.08 CPUE).
  
• 
  York River: Decreased from 57.7% to 11.1% of goal achieved (10.06 to 1.93 CPUE)
  
• 
  Susquehanna River: Remained below 1% (0.002%) of goal (0 achieved (43 American shad passed York Haven Dam out of 2,000,000 goal).
  

3. 
   What is the key story told by this indicator?
   

Several challenges persist for restoration of American shad. American shad use the Chesapeake Bay for spawning and nursery habitat, and reside along the Atlantic Coast outside the Bay for most of their life. If the shad abundance trend reverses from increasing to decreasing, this suggests that there may be factors external to Chesapeake Bay such as predation influences and/or bycatch in coastal fisheries affecting American shad. As seen in the indicator, fish passage of American shad at Bosher's and York Haven dams are still extremely low.

3. 
   What factors influence progress toward the goal, target, threshold or expected outcome?
   

3. 
   What are the current gaps in existing management efforts?
   

3. 
   What are the current overlaps in existing management efforts? N/A
   

3. 
   According to the management strategy written for the outcome associated with this indicator, how will we (a) assess our performance in making progress toward the goal, target, threshold or expected outcome, and (b) ensure the adaptive management of our work? N/A
   

3. 
   What method is used to transform raw data into the information presented in this indicator? Please cite methods and/or modeling programs. Contact Data Custodians listed in question 2 of this document.
   

3. 
   Is the method used to transform raw data into the information presented in this indicator accepted as scientifically sound? If not, what are its limitations? N/A
   

3. 
   How well does the indicator represent the environmental condition being assessed? The indicator represents the best available survey data that are collected annually in the Chesapeake Bay. The indicator lacks data for the Upper Bay because there are no established restoration targets for that area.
   

3. 
   Are there established reference points, thresholds, ranges or values for this indicator that unambiguously reflect the desired state of the environment?
   

3. 
   How far can the data be extrapolated? 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, appropriate statistical methods have been used.
   

3. 
   Were the data collected and processed according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan? If so, please provide a link to the QAPP and indicate when the plan was last reviewed and approved. If not, please complete questions 29-31. No.
   

3. 
   If applicable: Are the sampling, analytical and data processing procedures accepted as scientifically and technically valid?
   

3. 
   If applicable: What documentation describes the sampling and analytical procedures used?
   

• 
  2007 ASMFC Shad Stock Assessment
  
• 
  VIMS Shad Monitoring
  
• 
  Susquehanna Passage
  
• 
  Bosher's Dam Fish Passage http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/fish-passage/#boshers
  
  
  

3. 
   If applicable: To what extent are procedures for quality assurance and quality control of the data documented and accessible?
   

Information on the gill net survey, including the index data, used for the York, Rappahannock and lower James Rivers is published on the Virginia Institute of Marine Science website.

Information on the Bosher's Dam fishway is published on the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries website, but fish counts are not published.

The Potomac River Fisheries Commission pound net bycatch and discard index is not published on their website.

3. 
   Are descriptions of the study design clear, complete and sufficient to enable the study to be reproduced? Yes.
   

3. 
   Were the sampling, analytical and data processing procedures performed consistently throughout the data record? Yes.
   

3. 
   If data sets from two or more sources have been merged, are the sampling designs, methods and results comparable? If not, what are the limitations? See responses to questions 1 and 2 of this document for a description of the different data sets used to form this indicator.
   

3. 
   Are levels of uncertainty available for the indicator and/or the underlying data set? If so, do the uncertainty and variability impact the conclusions drawn from the data or the utility of the indicator? N/A
   

3. 
   For chemical data reporting: How are data below the MDL reported (i.e., reported as 0, censored, or as < MDL)? If parameter substitutions are made (e.g., using orthophosphate instead of total phosphorus), how are data normalized? How does this impact the indicator? N/A
   

3. 
   Are there noteworthy limitations or gaps in the data record? No, however the data time series began in 2000 which is a relatively short period of time. Also, he indicator lacks data for the Upper Bay because there are no established restoration targets for that area.
   

3. 
   Please provide any further information you believe is necessary to aid in communication and prevent any potential misrepresentation of this indicator.