1. SEPTEMBER 2013 SEACAP 3 rd Workgroup Call

2. Anadromous fish weighting scenario Results tiered into 5% bins-- the precise order isn’t as meaningful as the broad order Driven by Anadromous fish data Upstream network length 2

3. Resident Fish Weighting Scenario Driven by: Total length of re- combined connected network Watershed metrics (e.g. landcover, impervious surface) 3

4. Potential Scenarios (July Workgroup Call) 1. Diadromous fish (focus on American eel, sturgeon, Alabama shad, striped bass) 2. Invasive species prevention (e.g., catfish; as metric or scenario?) 3. Mussels and host fish 4. Listed fish species (including those in the CBD lawsuit settlement) 5. Large bodied riverine species (sucker, robust redhorse, Carolina redhorse) 6. Small resident fish species (often T & E, Cape Fear shiner) 7. Brook trout (most habitat outside study area) 8. Miscellaneous species?: shoal bass, lake sturgeon, Gulf striped bass

5. What makes a good passage project for diadromous fish? Increase habitat quantity High habitat quality Habitat used by spp of interest Diversity of habitat types Few other barriers to navigate What else???? Breaking Down a Scenario 1. Diadromous fish (focus on American eel, sturgeon, Alabama shad, striped bass) 2. Invasive species prevention (e.g., catfish; as metric or scenario?) 3. Mussels and host fish 4. Listed fish species (including those in the CBD lawsuit settlement) 5. Large bodied riverine species (sucker, robust redhorse, Carolina redhorse) 6. Small resident fish species (often T & E, Cape Fear shiner) 7. Brook trout (most habitat outside study area) 8. Miscellaneous species?: shoal bass, lake sturgeon, Gulf striped bass

6. Translating Needs into Metrics Habitat Need / Ecological Factor GIS Measure-able Metric Ideal, Likely Unrealistic Increase spawning habitat quantity Upstream functional network length (mileage opened) Mileage of upstream spawning habitat. (Are there region-wide GIS data for utilized spawning habitat?) Target Dam Other barriers Upstream Functional Network Downstream Functional Network

7. Translating Needs into Metrics Habitat Need / Ecological Factor GIS Measure-able Metric Ideal, Likely Unrealistic Additional spawning habitat is high quality % Impervious Surface in contributing watershed % Natural landcover in US Functional Network Active River Area Benthic IBI Score for watershed that dam is in Benthic IBI scores above and below dam (insufficient data density) Target Dam Upstream Functional Network Active River Area Target Dam Contributing Watershed

8. Translating Needs into Metrics Habitat Need / Ecological Factor GIS Measure-able Metric Ideal, Likely Unrealistic Habitat used by spp of interest Documented presence of diadromous spp in downstream connected network Run counts at dam (insufficient data) # of diadromous spp in downstream connected network Downstream Functional Network: Habitat Present Documented American shad

9. Translating Needs into Metrics Habitat Need / Ecological Factor GIS Measure-able Metric Ideal, Likely Unrealistic Diversity of Habitat Types Number of river size classes upstream of dam (surrogate for habitat diversity) Miles of cobble substrate upstream Diversity of substrate type

10. Translating Needs into Metrics Habitat Need / Ecological Factor GIS Measure-able Metric Ideal, Likely Unrealistic Few other barrier to navigate # of Downstream Dams# of perched culverts downstream Density of road/small stream crossings in upstream functional network # of pipe culverts downstream Target Dam Upstream Functional Network Local Watershed Road crossing a larger stream (drainage area = 100 mi²) Road crossing small streams (drainage< 38.61 mi²) Road crossings included in this density metric

11. Chesapeake FPP Metric Weights 11 Metric CategoryMetricDiadromous Weight Connectivity Status Density of Road & Railroad / Small Stream Crossings in Upstream Functional Network Local Watershed 5 # Dams Downstream10 Total Upstream River Length10 # Fish Passage Facilities Downstream5 Connectivity Improvement Upstream Functional Network Length10 Watershed / Local Condition % Impervious in Upstream Network Active River Area5 % Natural in Upstream Network Active River Area5 % Impervious in Contributing Watershed5 Ecological # Diadromous Spp in DS Network (incl Eel)10 Presence of Anadromous Spp in DS Network20 CBP Stream Health10 Size / System type # Upstream Size Classes >0.5mi gained5

12. To Do For each scenario of interest: 1. Identify factors/needs that define a ‘good’ fish passage project for that scenario/objective  E.g. diadromous fish need high quality spawning habitat 2. Identify data that describe each factor/need  E.g. impervious surface data 3. Develop metrics around this data that can be ascribed to each dam  E.g. % impervious surface in active river area (floodplain) of dam’s upstream connected network Can be multiple datasets to describe each factor/need  E.g. % impervious surface, B-IBI, population density Can be multiple metrics developed from a dataset  % impervious surface in ARA of upstream network  % impervious surface in contributing watershed

13. In-Person Meeting Add on to Southern Division of the American Fisheries Society meeting  Charleston, Friday Jan 24th  http://sdafs.org/meeting2014/ http://sdafs.org/meeting2014/ Review Draft Products  In-Depth Examination: Review known locations to calibrate metrics/weights – are they in-line with your priorities?

14. Next Call Dam data review  Methods for reviewing & editing dam data in your geography Alternate:  Potentially difficult data  Water quality (impaired waters)  Use of IBI data  Another scenario  Mussels and host fish  Listed fish species (including those in the CBD lawsuit settlement)  Large bodied riverine species (sucker, robust redhorse, Carolina redhorse)  Small resident fish species (often T & E, Cape Fear shiner)  Brook trout (most habitat outside study area)