Read me first! Welcome to the web-based Habitat Status and Trend Report Cards for the Methow Subbasin. The tabs directly above access different reporting metrics (hover on these for more info) and the filters found above the report tabs allow you to select the species, status and trend year, and trend comparison year. Note that the trend comparison filter selection will only affect results that are showing a trend, otherwise there will be no change to the data displayed. Hover over the “?” icons on each page for information about the associated features.
The first time you open the report cards and navigate to a new tab your browser will download all the associated data to your browser cache. Download time will vary depending on your internet connection speed. A progess-spinner will display over each report element until the download is complete. Once all of the report card data are downloaded they will remain available in your browser cache for instantaneous navigation as long as your viewing session remains open.
Population Parameter | EDT Estimate | Observed |
---|
Species Distribution Assumptions used in EDT:
• Spring Chinook spawn in all suitable reaches that are not currently used by Methow summer/fall Chinook. Observed spring Chinook spawning is currently restricted to the Chewuch, Twisp, and upper Methow between the Chewuch River and the Lost River.
• Steelhead spawn in every reach in the model network, which represents the known and potential extent of anadromous habitat in the subbasin.
Limiting Factor Reporting: EDT survival factors are analogous to NMFS Ecological Concerns, and can be habitat limiting factors if they negatively impact habitat performance. Survival factor reporting in these report cards:
• EDT survival factor performance is summarized by reach and assessment unit.
• Use the map to the left to navigate to the desired scale and location and click the Habitat Trends tab.
• Assessment unit report identifies the top five survival factors in the selected assessment unit based on their effect on habitat performance (factor weight).
• The factor weight score represents the percent of productivity loss attributable to each survival factor
• % of Template score describes the current survival faction function as a proportion of the historical ideal, the smaller the %, the greater the potential lift from restoration
• The reach report describes the relative effect of each survival factor on life stage survival in the selected reach.
Some assessment units have high priority survival factors with % of Template ratings >100%, most commonly for channel stability. In those cases, the timing of flow-related channel stability effects has changed relative to the template scenario resulting in a net beneficial effect on species abundance. However, the survival factor may still have a negative impact on habitat performance overall.
Level of Proof Ratings and Weighted Level of Proof Scores: This report presents two types of data quality scores, Level of Proof ratings and weighted Level of Proof Scores.
• Level of Proof Ratings: Describe the quality of data and information used to parameterize individual habitat attributes entered into the model, used to summarize data quality at the subbasin and assessment unit scales.
• Weighted Level of Proof Scores: Weights the Level of Proof ratings for the component attributes of each survival factor based on its relative effect on habitat performance. These scores can be used to identify habitat priorities that may benefit from additional data validation.
Rating definitions:
1 - Best: Attribute based on empirical data representative of reach-level habitat conditions
2 - Very good: Attribute based on extrapolated conditions from adjacent, ecologically similar reaches
3 - Good: Attribute based on extrapolated or modeled inputs or current professional knowledge, theoretical basis with some support from observations
4 - Fair: Attribute rating from 2004 Subbasin Planning scenario
5 - Poor: Hypothetical attribute rating, no empirical data support
Reach: The EDT restoration or preservation priority rank for this reach relative to other reaches in the assessment unit.
VSP Parameters: The gains or losses in VSP parameter performance if habitat conditions in this reach are restored to template conditions or are allowed to degrade.
Spatial scale | Restoration Priority | Preservation Priority | Out of |
---|
VSP Parameter | Effect of restoration | Effect of degradation |
---|
Population Parameter | Value | Trend |
---|
Habitat protection and restoration priorities. This table lists Methow assessment units ordered by their combined restoration priority rank. The combined rank considers the effect of habitat restoration on adult and juvenile habitat productivity, capacity, equilibrium abundance, and life history diversity.
The “tornado diagram” identifies the EDT-estimated habitat protection and restoration potential for each Assessment unit subbasin, expressed as the relative rank out of all Assessment Units used by this species. Habitat restoration potential (blue bar) reflects the relative restoration priority based on the increase in habitat capacity, equilibrium abundance, productivity and diversity if the Assessment Unit is restored to EDT template scenario conditions. Habitat protection priority (red bar) is based is based on the combined loss of capacity, equilibrium abundance, productivity, and diversity that would result if habitats in this assessment unit were allowed to degrade to unacceptable (i.e., not properly functioning) conditions as defined by the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board.
Assessment unit habitat performance trend. Numerical values are the EDT habitat capacity, productivity, equilibrium abundance, and life-history diversity for all life history trajectories originating (spawning) in this assessment unit. The trend symbols identify the trend in parameter performance for the status and trend year scenario relative to the trend comparison scenario (use the pull down menus at the top of this report card for scenario selection).
Assessment Units with no habitat potential results are not used by this species for spawning in EDT (i.e. they are rearing and migratory habitat).
Assessment Unit | Restoration Priority Rank out of | Relative Priority for Protection and Restoration Prority If Habitat Is: | How Has Habitat Potential Changed Between {{ctrl.selectedScenario}} and {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Allowed to Degrade | Restored to Template | Productivity | Abundance | Capacity | Diversity |
For {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Under Template Conditions
The key habitat area table below display the proportion of available habitat that provides suitable conditions for each life stage based on EDT habitat affinity rules for each habitat type.
Life Stage | Key Habitat Area | ||
---|---|---|---|
Channel | Peripheral/Transitional | Total |
Habitat Capacity Under {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions | |
---|---|
Place | Holder |
Place | Holder |
In {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Key Habitat Area Since {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions
The key habitat area table below display the proportion of available habitat that provides suitable conditions for each life stage. The trend rating reflects the change in key habitat area by life stage between the status and trend year scenario and the trend comparison year.
Life Stage | Key Habitat Area | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Channel | Peripheral/Transitional | Total | Trend |
Habitat Capacity in {{ctrl.selectedScenario}} and Change Since {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions |
---|
This diagram presents the modeled effect of each EDT survival factor on life stage productivity in this reach. Survival factors are functionally equivalent to NMFS ecological concerns.
Restoration practitioners can use the information to diagnose critical habitat-limiting factors in high-priority reaches.
- Survival factors with a high survival factor weight and a strong (i.e. lower) weighted level of proof score identify a high priority limiting factor based on good quality information, potentially a good target for restoration planning.
- High priority limiting factors with weaker (i.e. higher) weighted level of proof scores identify a potential data gap, identifying areas where managers might consider additional field studies to validate EDT inputs before proceeding to the restoration planning phase.
Hover over column headers for more information.
Habitat Productivity Impact Key | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Impact | Extreme | High | Moderate | Small | None |
Loss | |||||
Gain |
Trend Key | ||
---|---|---|
Trend | Negative | Positive |
< 1% | ||
1–5% | ||
> 5% |
For {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Under Template Conditions
The key habitat area table below display the proportion of available habitat that provides suitable conditions for each life stage based on EDT habitat affinity rules for each habitat type.
Go to the Attribute and Monitoring tab to view monthly data.
Life Stage | Key Habitat Area | ||
---|---|---|---|
Channel | Peripheral/Transitional | Total |
In {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Key Habitat Since {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions
Go to the Attribute and Monitoring tab to view monthly data.
Life Stage | Key Habitat Area | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Channel | Peripheral/Transitional | Total | Trend |
The EDT obstructions analysis prioritizes obstructions based on when a species encounters the obstruction during its life cycle, and the quality and and quantity of habitat available upstream and downstream of the obstruction. The bar chart ranks obstructions included in the model (x-axis) based on the potential increase in adult abundance if that obstruction is removed (y-axis). The table below the bar chart provides summary information for each obstruction. Selecting a single assessment unit from the map to the left will highlight in red the obstructions located in that subwatershed, and filter the table below the bar chart. Use the pull down menus to toggle between scenarios and the check boxes to view results for one or more species. Obstructions with 0 potential do not impeding fish passage under the selected scenario.
Obstruction | Upstream Habitat (%AU) | Lifestage | Minimum Passage | Barrier Months | Habitat Available Upstream of the Barrier: | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Template Capacity | Template NEQ | |||||
{{obstruction.name}} | {{(obstruction.upstreamWettedArea * 100).toFixed(0)}}% | Adult | {{ (obstruction.adult.minimumPassage * 100).toFixed(0) }}% | {{ obstruction.adult.barrierMonths }} | {{ obstruction.adult.upstreamCapacity.toFixed(0) }} | {{ obstruction.adult.upstreamAbundance.toFixed(0) }} |
Juvenile | {{ (obstruction.juvenile.minimumPassage * 100).toFixed(0) }}% | {{ obstruction.juvenile.barrierMonths }} | {{ obstruction.juvenile.upstreamCapacity.toFixed(0) }} | {{ obstruction.juvenile.upstreamAbundance.toFixed(0) }} |
The stacked bar graph shows EDT habitat attribute ratings for reach {{ctrl.selectedLocation}}. The stacked bars display both the attribute rating for the selected habitat scenario and the change relative to the comparison year.
- Blue and green stacked bar
- Blue = rating in current year; green = rating in comparison year. A green bar indicates that the attribute rating has decreased between the selected scenarios.
- Red and green stacked bar
- Blue = rating in comparison year; red = rating in current year. A red bar indicates the attribute rating has increased between the selected scenarios.
The side-by-side bar charts below depict the monthly rating values for habitat attributes, comparing ratings for the selected habitat scenario with template conditions.