| Conservation Target |
Key Attribute
(Category) |
Indicator |
Current Indicator Measurement |
Rating Comments:
(Poor, Fair Good Very Good) |
Current Rating and Date |
Desired Rating and Date |
| Hard Clams |
Clam density
(Condition)
|
Amount of area with clam density>7 clams per square meter
|
Most areas in GSB have been surveyed.
|
Poor:
<15% of bay bottom with clam densities >7m2
Fair:
16-30%
Good:
30-50%
Very Good:
>50%
|
Poor
|
Good
|
| Hard Clams |
Food quality and quantity
(Condition)
|
Age of 1" clam (multi-year)
|
-
|
Poor:
6 or more years
Fair:
4-6 years
Good:
3-4 years
Very Good:
3-4 years
|
Fair
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
Jan 15, 2012
|
| Hard Clams |
Food quality and quantity
(Condition)
|
Average increase in adult clam condition index (annual indicator)
|
-
|
Poor:
<20% increase in CI from late summer to the peak the following spring
Fair:
20-35%
Good:
35-50%
Very Good:
>50%
|
Fair
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
Jan 15, 2012
|
| Hard Clams |
Recruitment
(Condition)
|
Presence of 20-48 mm (shell length) clams
|
-
|
Poor:
<1 clam per m2
Fair:
1-2.5 clams per m2
Good:
2.5-5 clams per m2
Very Good:
>5 clams per m2
|
Poor
|
Good
|
| Hard Clams |
Substrate suitability
(Landscape Context)
|
A combination of sediment grain size, shell content, compaction, and pore water pH.
|
Information on sediment grain size and shell content is known, some info on compaction. Info on pore water, pH, and DO needed.
|
Poor:
Mud&clay with little or no shell fragments, low DO, ph<7, and /or hard and compacted with less than 1cm oxygenated layer.
Fair:
Heterogeneity of sediment grain size, with some shell, 1-2cm oxygenated
Good:
Combination of gravel, muddy sand and shell, more than 2cm oxygenated and pH around 8
Very Good:
-
|
Fair
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
Jan 15, 2012
|
| Hard Clams |
Water Temperature
(Landscape Context)
|
Range and duration
|
-
|
Poor:
Long extended periods well outside optimal temperature range (8-26C) or extremely rapid temp. changes (freezing and ice scouring of sediments)
Fair:
Exceeds optimal temperature range by more than 6C for > 4 months per year
Good:
Modestly exceeds optimal temperature range during seasonal extremes
Very Good:
Between 8-26C varying seasonally
|
Good
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
|
| Hard Clams |
Population size and distribution
(Size)
|
Analysis of large scale shellfish survey data
|
-
|
Poor:
Declining abundance
Fair:
Static abundance
Good:
Increasing abundance
Very Good:
Abundance increasing by 2X in consecutive years
|
Poor
|
Good
|
| Salt Marshes |
Presence / abundance of key functional guilds
1
(Condition)
|
fiddler crab densities in appropriate marsh zone
2
|
This is a guess, we have not done any survey work.
|
Poor:
no crab burrows present in crab zone
Fair:
< 5 borrows per m2
Good:
5-10 borrows per m2
Very Good:
>10 borrows per m2
|
Fair
3
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
4
Jan 15, 2015
|
| Salt Marshes |
Species composition / dominance (vegetation)
5
(Condition)
|
Dominance of native vegetation genotypes
6
|
-
|
Poor:
Native vegetation represents less than 50 % of the vegetated zones that have historically been covered by spartina sp.
Fair:
50-75% of the marsh is dominated by native vegetation
Good:
75-95% of the marsh is dominated by native vegetation
Very Good:
over 95% of the marsh vegetation is native and both high and low marsh species assemblages are present
|
Fair
7
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
8
Jan 15, 2015
|
| Salt Marshes |
Connectivity (ability to migrate)
(Landscape Context)
|
% of salt marsh that has adequate natural buffer/adjacent ecosystem within 100 yr. sea level rise + 50 meters
|
-
|
Poor:
<50% of salt marshes have adequate natural buffer
Fair:
50-75% of salt marshes have adequate natural buffer
Good:
75-90% of salt marshes have adequate natural buffer
Very Good:
>90% of salt marshes have adequate natural buffer
|
Poor
|
Good
|
| Salt Marshes |
Hydrologic regime
(Landscape Context)
|
Timing, duration, frequency and extent of water logging of marsh peat
9
|
Some marshes in GSB are experiencing waterlogging, while others seem to be fine. We have selected fair as the indicator rating, but we know that research needs to be done to assess this KEA.
|
Poor:
Marsh is water logged to the point where vegetation coverage is sparse and erosion rates are high.
Fair:
Marsh is water logged to the point where vegetation coverage is decreasing and erosion rates are increasing.
Good:
Marsh vegetation is stable.
Very Good:
-
|
Fair
|
Good
|
| Salt Marshes |
Peat geochemistry
10
(Landscape Context)
|
Concentration of hydrogen sulfide in porewater at the depth of the active root zone
11
|
-
|
Poor:
porewater sulfide concentrations at the root zone 4-6mM or above
Fair:
porewater sulfide concentrations at the rooot zone 2-4mM
Good:
porewater sulfide concentrations at the root zone 1-2mM
Very Good:
porewater sulfide concentrations at the root zone <1mM
|
Fair
|
Good
|
| Salt Marshes |
Pore water salinity
(Landscape Context)
|
Salinity at the landward border averaged over the year
|
At the present time this indicator is being measured only at the Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge (NM is looking into this)
|
Poor:
<10ppt
Fair:
10-15ppt
Good:
15-20ppt (phragmites may appear at 18ppt)
Very Good:
20-30ppt
|
Fair
|
Good
|
| Salt Marshes |
Sediment regime
12
(Landscape Context)
|
marsh surface elevation relative to sea level rise
13
|
Indicator not currently being measured in GSB, but USGS will set up benchmark stations this summer.
|
Poor:
Marsh elevation less than the projected rate of sea level rise over the next 20 years.
Fair:
-
Good:
Marsh elevation and sea level rise are in balance over the next 20 years.
Very Good:
-
|
Poor
14
Aug 15, 2007
|
Good
Aug 15, 2007
|
| Salt Marshes |
Trend in acreage
15
(Size)
|
Total acreage from aerial *IR* photos
16
|
This indicator is currently under measurement by the Peconic Baykeeper and collaborators at SBU and NYS-DEC.
|
Poor:
marsh acreage is shrinking throughout the bay
Fair:
marsh acreage is shrinking in small local areas
Good:
marsh acreage is stable
Very Good:
marsh acreage is growing, particularly on sand depositions along bay side of barrier island
|
Fair
17
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
Jan 15, 2015
|
| Alewives |
Number of spawning runs
18
(Condition)
|
Number of tributaries with recurrent spawning runs (alewife) > 5,000 fish.
19
|
Carmans, Carlls, Sampawans, Browns, Swan, Beaverdam, Little Neck Run, Yaphank and Rattlesnake had runs in 1938. Only certain run remaining is in tidal Carmans.
|
Poor:
-
Fair:
1-2
Good:
3-4
Very Good:
5+
|
Poor
20
Feb 15, 2007
|
Good
May 15, 2015
|
| Alewives |
Ability to migrate between freshwater and the estuary
21
(Landscape Context)
|
% of accessible upstream tributary miles in 17 focal tributaries
22
|
74 river miles total in 17 tribs, 32 upstream miles accessible = 43%
|
Poor:
< 25
Fair:
25-50
Good:
50-75
Very Good:
> 75
|
Fair
23
Feb 15, 2007
|
Very Good
May 15, 2015
|
| Alewives |
Suitable spawning and nursery habitat
24
(Landscape Context)
|
% freshwater bottom free of invasive aquatic vegetation
|
Cabomba infestations occur in Lower Lake (Carmans), Upper Lake (Carmans) and Belmont Lake (Carlls).
|
Poor:
<10
Fair:
10-25
Good:
25-50
Very Good:
>50
|
Very Good
Feb 15, 2007
|
Very Good
|
| Alewives |
Tributary dissolved oxygen content
25
(Landscape Context)
|
Percentage of days during March to May with DO <8 mg/L recorded in Carmans, Connetquot and Carlls rivers.
26
|
-
|
Poor:
>50
Fair:
25-50
Good:
10-25
Very Good:
<10
|
Very Good
27
Feb 15, 2007
|
Very Good
|
| Alewives |
Tributary water temperature
28
(Landscape Context)
|
% of days during July and August with temperatures >25C recorded in Carmans, Connetquot and Carlls rivers.
29
|
Water quality monitoring data from the SCDE show multiple records>25C for the Carmans River in 2003.
|
Poor:
>50
Fair:
25-50
Good:
10-25
Very Good:
<10
|
Poor
30
Feb 15, 2007
|
Good
May 15, 2015
|
| Alewives |
Population size & dynamics
31
(Size)
|
Average annual population growth (%) during rebuilding phase
32
|
The Carmans River run appears to return each year, but no passage projects there or elsewhere have yet allowed for population growth.
|
Poor:
<5
Fair:
5-15
Good:
15-25
Very Good:
>25
|
Poor
33
Feb 15, 2007
|
Good
May 15, 2015
|
| Piping Plovers |
Productivity
34
(Condition)
|
Fledges/pair
35
|
-
|
Poor:
< 1.0 chicks per pair over 5 year average
Fair:
1-1.49 chicks per pair over 5 year average
Good:
1.5-1.99 chicks per pair over 5 year average
Very Good:
> 2.0 chicks per pair over 5 year average
|
Good
36
Feb 15, 2007
|
Very Good
Feb 15, 2010
|
| Piping Plovers |
Available Nesting Habitat
37
(Landscape Context)
|
% Change in available nesting habitat
38
|
-
|
Poor:
Greater than 10% decrease in currently available nesting habitat
Fair:
Up to 10% decrease in currently available nesting habitat
Good:
Maintain currently available nesting habitat
Very Good:
Increase available nesting habitat by 25% or greater
|
Good
39
Feb 15, 2006
|
Good
Feb 15, 2006
|
| Piping Plovers |
Connectivity between nesting and foraging areas
(Landscape Context)
|
% of nesting locations with unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat
|
-
|
Poor:
Unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat at less than 25% of nesting locations
Fair:
Unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat at less than 25-49% of nesting locations
Good:
Unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat at less than 50-75% of nesting locations
Very Good:
Unfragmented continuity between nesting and foraging habitat at greater than 75% of nesting locations
|
Fair
Jan 15, 2007
|
Very Good
Jan 15, 2015
|
| Piping Plovers |
Size of breeding population
(Size)
|
piping plover nesting population
40
|
-
|
Poor:
< 25 nesting pairs
Fair:
25-49 nesting pairs
Good:
50-65 nesting pairs
Very Good:
> 65 nesting pairs
|
Fair
41
Feb 15, 2006
|
Good
May 15, 2010
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
Recruitment and growth
42
(Condition)
|
Fred Shorts sentinal monitoring methods
43
|
-
|
Poor:
beds deteriorating
Fair:
beds maintaining themselves
Good:
beds growing in size over time
Very Good:
beds growing in size over time
|
Fair
44
Feb 15, 2006
|
Good
45
Feb 15, 2006
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
light
46
(Landscape Context)
|
Irradiance
47
|
assessed from max depth of growth observed
|
Poor:
subtidal area not enough light
Fair:
Critical Depth less than 1 m at MLLW
Good:
Critial Depth is about 2 m at MLLW
Very Good:
Critical Depth is greater than 2 MLLW
|
Good
48
Jan 15, 2007
|
Very Good
49
Jan 15, 2015
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
Nutrient concentrations & dynamics
50
(Landscape Context)
|
composition and concentration of nutrients
|
-
|
Poor:
concentrations and/or composition of nutrients deter plant growth and reproduction
Fair:
plants…
Good:
plants receive correct concentrations and composition of nutrients for growth and reproduction
Very Good:
-
|
Fair
51
May 15, 2006
|
Good
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
Sediment and pore water chemistry
(Landscape Context)
|
Measure of redox potential in sediment
|
-
|
Poor:
Outside of good range
Fair:
-
Good:
-175 to +300mV
Very Good:
-
|
Good
Aug 8, 2007
|
Good
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
Soil / sediment stability & movement
(Landscape Context)
|
The proportion of GSB estuarine shoreline where the shore is not impacted by hardening structures up to the higher high water mark.
|
based upon shoreline mapping and seagrass
|
Poor:
<30%
Fair:
30-50%
Good:
50-80%
Very Good:
>80%
|
Fair
52
|
Good
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
Water Temperature
(Landscape Context)
|
Temperature range and duration
|
-
|
Poor:
>14 consecutive days above 27C
Fair:
7-14 consecutive days above 27C
Good:
<7 consecutive days above 27C
Very Good:
No days above 27C
|
Fair
|
Good
|
| Seagrass Meadows |
Total Acreage covered
(Size)
|
Total Acres covered / Total acres suitable
53
|
-
|
Poor:
> 0.4
Fair:
0.4-0.6
Good:
0.6-0.75
Very Good:
>0.75
|
Fair
54
Feb 15, 2006
|
Good
Feb 15, 2006
|
| Horseshoe Crabs |
Food quality and quanity
(Condition)
|
Abundance indices of preferred prey items, physiology of crabs, or abundance of indicator species (such as already monitored shellfish)
|
Unknown (excpet for abundance of hard clams) This indicator should be improved, however, it will require more investigation
|
Poor:
Physiology of HS crabs is negatively impacted, or crabs are avoiding the area because of reduced quantity/quality of prey items
Fair:
Benthic invertebrate community is altered in terms of composition and abundance of species used as forage by HS crabs but there is no apparent physiological or avoidance impact
Good:
Abundance of benthic invertebrates utilized by HS crabs are in abundance similar to historic levels
Very Good:
Abundance of benthic invertebrates utilized by HS crabs are in abundance similar to historic levels
|
Fair
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
|
| Horseshoe Crabs |
Available Nesting Habitat
(Landscape Context)
|
The proportion of GSB estuarine shoreline where the shore is not impacted by hardening structures up to the higher high water mark.
|
With additional information, this indicator could be refined, verified and calculated to reflect sea level rise
|
Poor:
<50%
Fair:
50-70%
Good:
70-90%
Very Good:
>90%
|
Fair
Jul 15, 2007
|
Good
Jan 15, 2012
|
| Horseshoe Crabs |
Size of breeding population
55
(Size)
|
HS Crab breeding survey indices
56
|
currently unknown, only a few observations
|
Poor:
Few breeding pairs and/or declining trend in the number of breeding pairs
Fair:
below habitat capacity but stable from year to year
Good:
high, or increasing number of breeding pairs
Very Good:
high, or increasing number of breeding pairs
|
Fair
57
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
Jan 15, 2015
|
| Winter Flounder |
Food quality and quantity
58
(Condition)
|
Relative abundance of top diet items within GSB as measured by fishery independent surveys
59
|
-
|
Poor:
The top three diet items from nearby areas are an order of magnitude less abundant in GSB
Fair:
-
Good:
top three diet items are in similar abundance to areas where wfl are doing well
Very Good:
-
|
Fair
60
|
Good
|
| Winter Flounder |
Juvenile survival
(Condition)
|
Size of cohort over time (first 3 years)
|
-
|
Poor:
Z>>.2 (pre-recruit)
Fair:
Z>.2
Good:
Z=.2
Very Good:
Z<.2
|
Poor
|
Good
|
| Winter Flounder |
Reproductive success/Biological recruitment
(Condition)
|
Young of year beach seine for GSB: mortality estimated from tagging
|
-
|
Poor:
Z>>.2 (pre-recruit)
Fair:
Z>.2
Good:
Z=.2
Very Good:
Z<.2
|
Fair
Jan 7, 2007
|
Good
Jan 15, 2010
|
| Winter Flounder |
Available potential nesting and foraging and nursery habitat
61
(Landscape Context)
|
proportion of various 'undisturbed' sand, mud, seagrass, and shellfish benthic habitat types
62
|
there is not much activity going on right now
|
Poor:
<40%
Fair:
40-60%
Good:
60-80%
Very Good:
>80%
|
Good
63
Jan 7, 2007
|
Good
64
Jan 10, 2007
|
| Winter Flounder |
Temperature regime
65
(Landscape Context)
|
comparison of bottom temp trends (tidbits)
66
|
guess
|
Poor:
Long periods > 10 deg C in witer - long periods > 28 deg C in summer.
Fair:
Short term periods > 10 deg C in winter, short perods > 28 deg in summer
Good:
< 10 deg C most of winter < 28 deg C most of summer
Very Good:
< 10 deg C all of winter < 25 deg C all of summer
|
Good
67
Jan 7, 2007
|
Good
|
| Winter Flounder |
GSB spawning stock size
(Size)
|
Relative stock size index for GSB
|
-
|
Poor:
Low pop size with negative delta N
Fair:
Low pop size with stable delta N
Good:
Less than historic pop size with positive delta N
Very Good:
High pop size with stable delta N
|
Poor
Jan 7, 2007
|
Good
Jan 15, 2010
|
| Winter Flounder |
SNE/MA stock size
(Size)
|
Relative stock size index for SNE/MA stock (NMFS)
|
-
|
Poor:
Low pop size with negative delta N
Fair:
Low pop size with stable delta N
Good:
Less than historic pop size with positive delta N
Very Good:
High pop size with stable delta N
|
Poor
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
Jan 15, 2010
|
| Barrier Island Complex |
mosaic of characteristic native vegetated communities
68
(Condition)
|
presence of native vegetation
69
|
Assuming that aside from the communities (and likely only small patches in the communites) the vegetation is natural and dynamic.
|
Poor:
lacks characteristic native vegetated communites
Fair:
fragmented or degraded vegetated communites
Good:
support large blocks of unfragmented native vegetated comunites
Very Good:
-
|
Good
70
|
Good
|
| Barrier Island Complex |
Bayshore sediment dynamics
71
(Landscape Context)
|
The proportion of GSB estuarine shoreline where the shore is not impacted by hardening structures up to the higher high water mark.
|
-
|
Poor:
<25%
Fair:
25-50%
Good:
50-75%
Very Good:
>75%
|
Good
72
|
Good
|
| Barrier Island Complex |
Cross island sediment transport
73
(Landscape Context)
|
% of island where cross island transport and dune development are allowed to occur
74
|
-
|
Poor:
< 25%
Fair:
25-50%
Good:
50-75%
Very Good:
>75%
|
Fair
75
Jan 15, 2007
|
Good
Jan 15, 2012
|
| Barrier Island Complex |
Ocean/beach dynamics
(Landscape Context)
|
% Barrier Island Naturally Dynamic
76
|
-
|
Poor:
<25%
Fair:
25-50%
Good:
50-75%
Very Good:
>75%
|
Fair
77
|
Good
|
| Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass) |
Food quality and quantity
78
(Condition)
|
Relative abundance of top diet items within GSB as measured by fishery independent surveys
79
|
-
|
Poor:
Top prey items have declining trends in abundance
Fair:
top prey items have non-declingn trends in abundance
Good:
top prey items have stable and high (relitive to historic estimates) abundance
Very Good:
same as good
|
Fair
|
Good
|
| Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass) |
Available potential nursery and foraging habitat
80
(Landscape Context)
|
Relative prevalance of seagrass meadows, saltmarshes, unarmored shorelines, and shellfish beds compared to historic estimates
81
|
rough cut - we need to firm up what our baseline is and if it could be different for each habitat type
|
Poor:
40% of combined habitat types compared to historical estimates
Fair:
40-60% of hcombined habitat types compared to historical estimates
Good:
60-80% of combined habitat types compared to historical estimates
Very Good:
>80% of combined habitat types compared to historical estimates
|
Fair
|
Good
|
| Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass) |
Combined GSB abundance
82
(Size)
|
Fisheries independent survey
|
-
|
Poor:
two or more species relative seasional abundance from a GSB index tracks poorer than the overall stock abundance for 3 consecutive years
Fair:
all four species show a similar interanual trend in relative seasional abundance as the overal stock unit
Good:
one or more species shows an interannual trend in relative seasonal abundance that is superior to that of the overall stock performance and non track worse
Very Good:
two or more species show a relative trend in relative seasional abundance within GSB is superior to that of the overal stock size.
|
Fair
|
Good
|
| Predatory Fish: (weakfish, bluefish, summer flounder, and striped bass) |
Combined stock conditions
(Size)
|
Total stock sizes for all four species in relatio to their management biomass/abundance targets
83
|
-
|
Poor:
two or more species stocks below managment biomass targets with population trajectories that make it very unlikely for them to achieve their FMP specified rebuilding schedule
Fair:
Three of the 4 stocks either at biomass target or increasing in biomass
Good:
All four species at biomass target or on track to meeting biomass target within the FMP specified rebuilding schedule
Very Good:
All 4 species stocks at or above managment biomass target
|
Fair
|
Good
|
ConPro Spatial is changing! For now, you may view the already existing ConPro spatial application or other spatial information
in a new browser window by clicking on one of the links below. Note that TNC users must log in to see the complete data.
