Colville Tribes Methow Monitoring and Evaluation Program
{{ctrl.selectedLocation}} Report Card: {{ctrl.selectedScenario}} Habitat Status and Trend Cycle
Selection: {{ctrl.selectedLocation}}

Use the map above to navigate spatially through the reports by clicking on individual assessment units and reaches. Report tab content will change with the selected scale.

View the Methow subbasin in detail
Species:
Status and Trend Year:
Trend Comparison:

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.

How is {{ctrl.selectedLocation}} Performing as {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Habitat?
The speedometer rates the current condition of this population, assessment unit or reach based on the percent of historical habitat function. The performance metric is the current equilibrium abundance as a percentage of the template equilibrium abundance. Equilibrium abundance is a theoretical estimate of adult habitat potential that integrates habitat capacity and productivity for the target species.
Currently performing at of historical habitat potential

How Good is the Information For {{ctrl.selectedLocation}}?
Summarizes the type and quality of information sources used to create the EDT analysis inputs for {{ctrl.selectedLocation}}. Hover over legend items for definitions.
Population Performance Summary
Compares EDT estimates of target species abundance at the population to observed 6-year geomean abundance (where available).
Population Parameter EDT Estimate Observed
Scenario Assumptions: {{ctrl.selectedScenario}}
Describes critical assumptions used in this analysis and identifies habitat protection and restoration, or management actions in the Methow subbasin during this monitoring cycle.
This space will be used to provide important information about how to use and interpret information presented on these report cards, and clarify important assumptions used in the EDT analysis. In future monitoring cycles, managers will use this space to describe important management milestones that occurred in each reporting unit during the identified status and trend year. For example, managers can identify major fish passage or habitat restoration projects implemented in a given assessment unit years that explain measurable changes in habitat performance relative to the prior Status and Trend Year. Managers may also use this space to summarize progress towards habitat objectives at different spatial scales.

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
{{ctrl.selectedReach}} Restoration and Preservation Priority
Assessment unit: The EDT habitat restoration or preservation priority rank for this assessment unit. Restoration rank is based on increase in overall population performance if assessment unit is restored to template conditions. Protection rank is based on the decline in population performance if habitat degrades.

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

How Good Is The Information For {{ctrl.selectedLocation}}?
Summarizes the type and quality of information sources used to create the EDT analysis inputs for {{ctrl.selectedLocation}}. Hover over legend items for definitions.
{{ctrl.selectedLocation}} Population Performance Summary
VSP performance parameters of EDT trajectories started from {{ctrl.selectedLocation}}.
Population Parameter Value Trend
Adult Capacity and Abundance
Shows the EDT habitat capacity and equilibrium abundance for adults and juveniles. Adult values refer to spawning habitat capacity and the total number of returning adult spawners.
Juvenile Capacity and Abundance
Shows the EDT habitat capacity and equilibrium abundance for adults and juveniles. Juvenile values refer to the number of outmigrant smolts from the identified population or subpopulation.
Adult Life History Diversity
Life history diversity refers to the percent of EDT life history trajectories with a cumulative productivity greater than 1 (i.e., 1 or more returning adults per each adult spawner). Trajectories are designed to be representative of the range of historical life-history expression this habitat can support. Therefore, the higher the percentage of successful trajectories, the more likely that this habitat is functioning at or near historical potential.
Adult Habitat Productivity
Productivity graphs display the integrated average density-independent habitat productivity for this population or subpopulation. The adult graph shows adult returns per spawner. The juvenile graph shows the number of smolts per spawner from this geographic unit that outmigrate into the Columbia River migratory corridor.
Juvenile Habitat Productivity
Productivity graphs display the integrated average density-independent habitat productivity for this population or subpopulation. The adult graph shows adult returns per spawner. The juvenile graph shows the number of smolts per spawner from this geographic unit that outmigrate into the Columbia River migratory corridor.
Beverton-Holt Stock Recruitment Function
Combines habitat capacity and density-independent productivity to calculate the shape of the spawner-recruit curve for the population. The yellow dot represents the equilibrium abundance (Neq), the point where the spawner-recruit curve crosses the 1 to 1 replacement line. Neq is the theoretical population size that habitat of a given capacity and productivity can support.

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 change in equilibrium abundance per kilometer of stream. Habitat restoration potential (blue bar) reflects the positive change in abundance/km that would result if the Assessment unit is restored to EDT template scenario conditions. Habitat protection priority is based on the reduction in abundance/km (red bar) if habitat is allowed to degrade to the point the habitat is no longer functional.

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).

Combined Priority Rank Change in Population Abundance Per Kilometer if: How Has Habitat Potential Changed Between {{ctrl.selectedScenario}} and {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions?
Assessment Unit Degrades Is Restored Productivity Abundance Capacity Diversity
{{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Survival Factor Condition In {{ctrl.selectedLocation}} and Trend Between {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions and {{ctrl.selectedScenario}}
Displays the top 5 EDT survival factors in {{ctrl.selectedLocation}} based on their overall restoration benefit. Survival Factors are displayed from left to right in descending order of factor weight. The factor weight metric displays the percent of the total restoration potential each survival factor accounts for, based on potential increase in equilibrium abundance. The % of template metric displays how well each survival factor is performing relative to the historical baseline. The factor trend displays the direction and magnitude of change in survival factor performance between the selected status and trend year and trend comparison scenarios (float your cursor over the symbol to see the numerical value). Level of Proof combines the LOP ratings for the component habitat attribtues that make up each survival factor into a composite weighted score based on their importance to survival factor performance. The survival factors with the highest factor weights and best (lowest) LOP scores are potential priority limiting factors in this assessment unit. Survival factors with poor (higher) LOP scores identify potential limiting factors requring additional data validation.
{{ctrl.selectedLocation}} Habitat Composition And Key Habitat Area
For {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Under Template Conditions
The pie chart depicts the proportional distribution of different habitat types as a proportion of total habitat area.

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
Habitat Capacity Under {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions
Place Holder
Place Holder
{{ctrl.selectedLocation}} Habitat Composition In {{ctrl.selectedScenario}} and Trend
In {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Key Habitat Area Since {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions
The pie chart depicts the proportional distribution of different habitat types as a proportion of total habitat area.

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 Trend
Habitat Capacity in {{ctrl.selectedScenario}} and Change Since {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions
{{ctrl.selectedLocation}} {{ctrl.selectedScenario}} {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Survival Factor Performance and Trend Since Template 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%

Habitat Composition in Reach {{ctrl.selectedLocation}} in {{ctrl.selectedScenario}} and Trend In {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Key Habitat Since {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}} Conditions
The pie chart displays the proportional distribution of habitat types as a percent of reach bankfull width area. The key habitat table identifies the proportion of the available habitat that is suitable for each life stage and the trend in suitable habitat area relative to the comparison scenario.
Life Stage Key Habitat Area Trend
Fish Passage Obstruction Priorities for {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} in {{ctrl.selectedLocation}} in {{ctrl.selectedScenario}}
Results are based on an analysis of the effects of each obstruction on passage by life stage using a life cycle-based dispersal model. The dispersal model mimics how a species moves within the interconnected EDT reach network. Obstructions are ranked in EDT by individually “removing” them from the network, modeling the numeric change in adult abundance potential, and ranking the results.

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.

Manmade Obstruction Effects On {{ctrl.selectedSpecies}} Productivity
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) }}
{{ctrl.selectedLocation}} {{ctrl.selectedScenario}} Attribute Ratings and Change Since {{ctrl.selectedComparandScenario}}

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.

Lower EDT ratings (y-axis) indicate more favorable habitat conditions