Colville Tribes Okanogan Monitoring and Evaluation Program
{{ctrl.selectedLocation}} Report Card: {{ctrl.selectedScenario}} Habitat Status and Trend Cycle
Selection: {{ctrl.selectedLocation}}
Reset Map
Country selector is disabled it is because an assessment unit or reach is selected. Please click the “Reset Map” button to deselect features and reset Report Card information.
Status and Trend Year:
Trend Comparison:

Read me first! Welcome to the web-based Habitat Status and Trend Report Cards for the {{ctrl.subbasin}} 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 progress-spinner will display over each report element until the download is complete. Once all 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.

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 4 year geomean abundance (where available).
Population Parameter EDT Estimate EDT Trend Natural Origin Abundance ± 90% CI (range), Trend/year Hatchery Origin Abundance ± 90% CI (range), Trend/year Total Origin Abundance ± 90% CI (range), Trend/year Data Source
Scenario Assumptions: {{ctrl.selectedScenario}}
Describes critical assumptions used in this analysis and identifies habitat protection and restoration, or management actions in the {{ctrl.subbasin}} 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 each selected 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 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:
  • Summer/fall Chinook spawn only in selected reaches in the mainstem {{ctrl.subbasin}} and the Similkameen River, there is now spawning in smaller tributaries.
  • Steelhead spawn in selected mainstem and tributary reaches in the model network, which represents the known and potential extent of anadromous habitat in the subbasin. Some reaches were excluded from spawning habitat because they lack historical potential and are unlikely to support spawning in the future.
Limiting Factor Reporting: EDT survival factors are analogous to US Forest Service habitat limiting factors. A survival factor can be a habitat limiting factor if it is degraded and negatively impacts habitat performance. The user can access survival factor reporting as follows:
  • EDT survival factor performance is summarized at two spatial scales, assessment unit and reach.
  • Use the map to the left to navigate to the desired spatial unit, then click the Habitat Trends tab.
  • The 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 all the above information at the reach scale and 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.

Using Level of Proof to evaluate data quality: 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 level. See the “How Good is the Information…” bar charts on the Performance Summary tab. Individual reach level attribute ratings can also be viewed by hovering your cursor over the Attribute Rating bar graph on the Attribute & Monitoring Data tab.
Weighted Level of Proof Scores
Reported by survival factor at the assessment unit and reach scales. A combined score for each survival factor that weights component LOP ratings based on the relative effect of that habitat attribute on survival factor 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 high-confidence modeled inputs, aerial imagery interpretation, or similar sources
  3. Good: Attribute based on extrapolated conditions from similar reaches, or on well-supported professional knowledge, theoretical basis with some support from observations
  4. Fair: Rating based on professional knowledge, with some empirical support
  5. Poor: Hypothetical attribute rating, based on professional judgement with no empirical data support
Status and Trend Year 2040 Results Disclaimer:

The Status and Trend Year 2040 scenario considers possible future temperature and flow conditions during the period from 2030 to 2059. This is a proof of concept analysis that only considers potential temperature and hydrologic change, all other EDT habitat attributes are identical to the 2017 scenario. The scenario results may be helpful for understanding flow and temperature effects on fish habitat performance and planning actions to mitigate or offset those effects. However, climate change is likely to have profound effects on other factors that affect habitat conditions, including biological community structure and watershed processes. These changes are likely to affect fish habitat in ways that we have not attempted to characterize for this analysis. We do not currently have sufficient information to incorporate these variables into an EDT analysis. We also did not attempt to predict how those changes could be mitigated by watershed process restoration and changes in hatchery practices, water management, and other political and management policies. Therefore, persons using the 2040 Status and Trend Year results to make planning decisions should do so with a full understanding of the assumptions and limitations of this analysis.

Climate Change Analysis Methods and Assumptions:

The Status and Trend Year: 2040 scenario considers projected streamflow and temperature conditions for the period from 2030 to 2059. This analysis used the 2017 scenario as a base case, with hypothetical future conditions ratings for the following EDT habitat attributes:

  • Flow: Inter-annual High Flow Variation
  • Flow: Inter-annual Low Flow Variation
  • Flow: Intra-annual Variation
  • Temperature: Daily Maximum
  • Temperature: Daily Minimum
  • Bed Scour (i.e. the change in monthly distribution of bed scour events based on projected future flow conditions)

The climate change analysis was developed by the Colville Tribes EDT consultants using two primary data sources. Future streamflow conditions were derived from modeled daily streamflows for the U.S. portion of the Okanogan subbasin for the period from 2030–2059. These streamflow projections were developed by the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) using the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) macroscale hydrologic model as part of the Western U.S. Streamflow Metrics (WUSSM) dataset. Our consultants used the VIC model outputs to derive EDT flow attribute ratings for the U.S. portion of the Okanogan reach network. Future water temperature conditions were modeled by our consultants using the STARS/SSN statistical modeling platform. They used this platform to build a spatial statistical model for the Okanogan EDT reach network using climate model output and watershed covariates relevant to streamflow and temperature (e.g. elevation, upstream drainage area, aspect). They calibrated the model using the historical climatic record for the period from 1916 to 1946, consistent with the WUSSM project. Future temperature conditions were modeled using water from temperature data collected by OBMEP at five continuous gauge locations between 2008 and 2012. Those sites were selected based on the completeness of the data set. Missing data records were interpolated using a multivariate correlation script for the R statistical software package provided by Dan Isaak with RMRS.

The 2040 scenario was developed only for the U.S. portion of the subbasin. WUSSM model outputs and STARS/SSN watershed covariates were not available for the Canadian portion of the subbasin.

We did not attempt to project future conditions for any habitat attributes used in the EDT model other than those described above. Climate change is likely to alter watershed conditions in ways that could fundamentally affect the distribution of habitat types, sediment transport and delivery, and other watershed processes in ways that we have not attempted to characterize at this time. The 2040 scenario results are intended to provide a proof of concept for the use of EDT as a tool for evaluating the potential effects of future climate conditions on habitat performance for ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. The results should be interpreted and applied with appropriate caution.

{{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 {{ctrl.subbasin}} 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 Restoration Priority 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 US Forest Service habitat limiting factors.

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
Trend Key
Trend Negative Positive
< 1%
> 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 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 impede fish passage under the selected scenario. The Minimum Passage and Barrier Months data in the Obstruction Effects table refer to upstream passage for adults and downstream passage for juveniles.

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.upstreamWettedArea * 100).toFixed(0)}}% Adult {{ ( * 100).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