Applying Intrinsic Potential Models to Evaluate Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) Introduction into Main-Stem and Tributary Habitats Upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project, Northern Washington

Open-File Report 2023-1077
Prepared in cooperation with Seattle City Light
By:  and 

Links

Acknowledgments

This project was informed by input from several biologists and stakeholders involved in the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project relicensing process.

We would like to thank Kevin Andras from Terrainworks for assistance with the NetMap software and its underlying datasets.

Abstract

We assessed habitat suitability for salmonids across selected tributaries upstream from three hydroelectric dams on the upper Skagit River in Whatcom County, northern Washington. We used NetMap, a commercial toolset within the ArcMap geographic information system (GIS), to analyze stream attributes based upon a synthetic stream channel network derived from digital elevation models. The GIS-derived stream attributes—including gradient, bankfull width, valley width index, elevation, and stream flow—allowed us to examine the spatial distribution and relative quality of spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids based on existing intrinsic potential (IP) models. As a first step, we created maps of potential anadromous fish distribution by identifying potential migration barriers within the synthetic stream network. Next, we applied a suite of existing IP models for steelhead, coho, and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus mykiss, O. kisutch, and O. tshawytscha, respectively) to estimate low, medium, and high IP habitat for each species. Three different IP models were used for each species, based on species preference curves from populations from coastal Oregon, northern California, Alaska, and western Washington. We found that at least 25 tributaries that were greater than third order and contained habitat with the potential for anadromous fish, totaling about 470 river kilometers in 4,453 synthetic stream reaches averaging about 100 meters (m) in length. The IP of each of these reaches was calculated and placed into low, medium, and high IP categories. For Chinook salmon, the only stream with significantly (in other words, greater than 1 kilometer [km]) high IP reaches was the upper Skagit River upstream from Ross Lake reservoir in Canada, upstream from the third dam in the hydroelectric system. There were differences among the three models evaluated, with the model derived for the lower Skagit River showing more high and medium IP habitat than the other two models that were designed for the Columbia River Basin. For coho salmon, all three models showed similar results favoring medium IP over low and high IP habitat. Of the 3 species examined with existing IP models, steelhead had the most habitat rated as high IP with 19 targeted tributaries showing greater than 1 km of high intrinsic potential habitat.

Introduction

Seattle City Light (hereinafter City Light) is one of the Nation’s largest municipally owned utilities in terms of the number of customers served. City Light owns and operates the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project in Whatcom County, northern Washington, which produces about 20 percent of the power supply for the City of Seattle. The operating license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the three dams in the project expires in 2025 and the process is underway to renew the license. A component of this relicensing process is the implementation of an integrated study plan to provide additional information on a suite of topics related to recreation, fisheries, cultural resources, wildlife, and vegetation. Included in the Revised Study Plan submitted to FERC was an interrelated set of studies (FA07–Reservoir Tributary Habitat; Seattle City Light, 2023) to assess habitat, environmental conditions, and species interactions that affect the availability and production potential of habitat for native salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) in reservoirs and major tributaries associated with Ross, Diablo, and Gorge dams on the Skagit River.

The Skagit River Hydroelectric Project is in the upper Skagit River watershed (fig. 1) on the main stem of the Skagit River. The three hydroelectric dams and their reservoirs are located between river kilometer (rkm) 151 and 204 and work together through hydrological coordination to generate about 700 megawatts of power. Currently, the three hydroelectric dams block upstream and downstream migration of fish in the Skagit River. The dams and their reservoirs are contained within the Ross Lake National Recreation Area, which is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) as part of North Cascades National Park. The upstream-most 1.5 km section of the upper reservoir (Ross Lake) is in Canada and is contained within the Skagit Valley Provincial Park. Several major tributaries and about 50 km of the main stem of the Skagit River are located upstream from Ross Lake in Canada.

Extent of potential anadromous fish distribution in several tributaries to the upper
                     Skagit River, Whatcom County, northern Washington.
Figure 1.

Upper Skagit River watershed showing targeted and non-targeted tributary habitat with potential accessibility for anadromous salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) upstream from three currently impassable dams, in Whatcom County, northern Washington. USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is a classification hierarchy to delimit watershed boundaries in successively smaller hydrologic units. HUC12 indicates boundaries of local sub-watershed scale that represents tributary systems.

Over the past several decades, City Light, NPS, and fisheries biologists from other agencies have gathered data on aquatic resources in the project reservoirs, including bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) movement, fish species assemblages, sport fishing catches (creel surveys in Ross Lake, for example), water quality, and hydrodynamic modeling of the reservoirs. Although these efforts provide valuable baseline information, a comprehensive analysis of trophic interactions, environmental conditions, and the hydroelectric project operations that affect reservoir and tributary fish populations was identified by City Light to be a part of the Revised Study Plan for the relicensing application process. Such data could provide information necessary to evaluate the status of fish populations upstream from the dams, current effects that project operations have on these fish populations, and specific fishery monitoring and management activities into the future, if necessary, beyond the needs of the relicensing process.

To address this information need, a multi-element study was initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Fisheries Research Center in Seattle, Washington. The goal of the ongoing study was to identify and quantify factors that might limit recruitment or production of native adfluvial salmonids, which populate the reservoirs and associated tributaries upstream from the three main-stem dams on the Skagit River (Ross, Diablo, and Gorge dams). From 2018 to 2020, several related projects were underway. These projects focused on seasonal and size-structured food web interactions in the reservoirs, ontogenetic connections of adfluvial salmonids to tributary habitats, presence and geographic extent of native and non-native fishes in targeted reservoir tributaries in the basin, levels of hybridization among native and introduced species, and habitat suitability and bioenergetic growth potential of select tributaries. Food web interactions, distribution, and growth of native salmonids will ultimately be linked to environmental conditions, and these will be evaluated within the context of projected changes in climate or dam operations.

Subsequently, introduction of salmon or steelhead upstream from the dams was posed as a study topic by several parties to the relicensing project (licensing participants, hereinafter LPs). Because of the widespread installation of dams across the range of Pacific salmon, a significant percentage of historical spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous salmonids is inaccessible at locations where dams lack fish passage structures and block migratory fish access to historical spawning and rearing habitats upstream (Ward and Stanford, 1979; Waldman and Quinn, 2022). Where installation of fish passage structures such as fishways or fish ladders is not possible because of engineering or economic constraints, so called trap-and-haul operations have been used to (1) collect migrating adults and move them upstream (Clay and Eng, 2017) or downstream (Piper and others, 2020) past the dam, (2) collect migrating juveniles and move them past the dam (Johnson and others, 2005), or (3) move both adults and juveniles (referred to as two-way trap-and-haul; Lusardi and Moyle, 2017; Kock and others, 2021). Repatriating anadromous fish to formerly disconnected upstream areas could be useful in situations where habitat is limiting population growth in downstream areas while production potential exists upstream. It is also seen as a possible mitigation to future warming water temperatures in the face of climate change, given that colder temperature waters are expected to shift farther upstream under climate change scenarios (Naughton and others, 2018). To date, the efficacy of these approaches has seen mixed results (Lusardi and Moyle, 2017; Kock and others, 2021). Given the recent increase in projects to introduce or reintroduce anadromous salmonids upstream from passable barriers, it was determined that identifying the amount of suitable habitat in streams that could be used by Pacific salmon upstream from Gorge, Diablo, and Ross dams would be useful information to consider as part of the relicensing process.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this study was to (1) use watershed attributes estimated from synthetic stream networks derived from digital elevation models (DEMs) in a geographic information system (GIS) to identify the upstream limit of tributary habitat that could be accessed by introduced Pacific salmon and steelhead and (2) to use several existing intrinsic potential (IP) models for three species of anadromous salmonids (Chinook, coho, and steelhead [Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, O. kisutch, and O. mykiss, respectively]) to identify suitable habitat in tributaries and main-stem reaches upstream from the three Skagit River dams. Where IP models do not exist for a given species, use of results from other species could be used heuristically to infer the potential for a species’ performance.

Methodology

We used a synthetic watershed approach (that is, a watershed with stream segments composed within a GIS based on DEM data; Benda and others, 2016) to assess the potential distribution of anadromous salmon in the Skagit River Basin upstream from the dams. NetMap (Terrainworks, 2023) is a commercial software system available as an add-on analysis toolkit for ArcGIS (ESRI, 2023) for use in watershed analyses (Benda and others, 2007). NetMap is an integrated set of numerical algorithms and base parameters that are used to create a synthetic stream network based on DEMs (Benda and others, 2007, 2011). Effectively, NetMap derives stream networks consisting of reaches ranging from 10 to 200 meters (m; average = 102 m ± 12 m; number of reaches [n] = 133,808 reaches to represent the study area of the upper Skagit River Basin). Within each reach, geomorphic and hydrological characteristics are derived based upon the surrounding DEM-derived landscape (such as drainage area and elevation), flow accumulation, and channel delineation processing. Geomorphic and hydrological habitat variables for each reach are estimated throughout the channel network using modeled parameters and empirically based relationships available from published region-specific models related to valley geometry, river network structure and hydrology, climate, and channel elevation profiles (Benda and others, 2011). At the start of the project, an existing NetMap model for the upper Skagit River watershed up to the Canadian border was based on a 10-m DEM. Terrainworks extended the model into the remaining watershed in Canada using a 20-m DEM, which was the highest resolution publicly available DEM. Terrainworks merged the two DEMs together to create a seamless DEM that could be packaged into NetMap as a dataset for further analysis and estimates of fish distribution and IP modeling.

As part of the study plan review, LPs proposed a list of 21 streams with potential salmonid habitat that could potentially be used by introduced anadromous salmonids. On the United States side of the border (table 1), these included Big Beaver Creek, Luna Creek, Little Beaver Creek, Canyon Creek, North Fork Canyon Creek, Granite Creek, Lightning Creek, Three Fools Creek, Castle Fork Creek, Ruby Creek, Cabinet Creek, and East Creek. Subsequent analyses and discussions with LPs added additional target tributaries, including a tributary to Gorge Lake reservoir (Stetattle Creek) and five tributaries to Ross Lake reservoir (Hozomeen Creek, Devils Creek, McMillan Creek, Panther Creek, and Slate Creek). In the Canadian part of the watershed upstream from the Ross Lake reservoir, the Skagit River main stem and several tributaries, including the Klesilkwa River, Sumallo River, Ferguson Creek, Nepopekum Creek, Maselpanik Creek, Snass Creek, Twentysix Mile Creek, and Marmotte Creek, were proposed for assessment (table 2).

Table 1.    

Tributary and main-stem reaches upstream from Ross Lake reservoir identified by stakeholders as having accessible fish habitat that could potentially be used by introduced Pacific salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.), with estimates of the amount and average percent gradient of the accessible sections, in northern Washington.

[km, kilometes; <, less than]

River/stream name Reach description Reach estimates
Length
(km)
Gradient (percent)
Skagit River Ross Lake to Klesilkwa 17.5 <1
Klesilkwa to barrier falls near Snass Creek 17.1 <1
Klesilkwa River Skagit River to Silverhope Divide 14.3 <1
Silverhope Divide to end of third-order stream 3.7 10
Sumallo River Skagit River to Ferguson Creek 16.6 <1
Ferguson Creek to end of third-order stream 12.1 5
Ferguson Creek Sumallo River to Highway 3 3.9 2
Highway 3 to end of third-order stream 3.7 9
Nepopekum Creek Skagit River to start of canyon 2.7 3
Start of canyon to Poland Creek 9.3 5
Maselpanik Creek Klesilkwa River to end of third-order stream 12.2 6
Snass Creek Skagit River to Dry Lake 3.9 6
Twentysix Mile Creek Skagit River to end of third-order stream 5.8 11
Marmotte Creek Skagit River to end of third-order stream 4.3 12
Table 1.    Tributary and main-stem reaches upstream from Ross Lake reservoir identified by stakeholders as having accessible fish habitat that could potentially be used by introduced Pacific salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.), with estimates of the amount and average percent gradient of the accessible sections, in northern Washington.

Table 2.    

Ross Lake reservoir tributary reaches identified by stakeholders as having accessible fish habitat that could potentially be used by introduced Pacific salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.), with estimates of the amount (in kilometers) and average percent gradient of the accessible sections, in northern Washington.

[km, kilometer; <, less than]

River/stream name Reach description Reach estimates
Length
(km)
Gradient (percent)
Big Beaver Creek Ross Lake to McMillan Creek 14.6 <1
Little Beaver Creek Ross Lake to end of third-order stream 24.2 2
Ruby Creek Ross Lake to confluence of Canyon and Granite Creeks 5.5 2
Canyon Creek Ruby Creek to Slate Creek 11.9 2
Slate Creek to barrier 4.2 7
North Fork Canyon Creek Canyon Creek to barrier 1.0 7
Granite Creek Ruby Creek to barrier 8.6 4
Lightning Creek Ross Lake to Three Fools Creek 3.5 2
Three Fools Creek to Freezeout Creek 8.8 2
Freezeout Creek to Boundary Creek 6.3 4
Luna Creek Big Beaver Creek to end of third-order stream 4.5 4
Three Fools Creek Lightning Creek to Castle Fork Creek 10.1 4
Castle Fork Creek Three Fools Creek to Rustle Creek 5.8 9
East Creek Granite Creek to end of third-order stream 6.9 12
Cabinet Creek Granite Creek to end of third-order stream 3.2 13
Table 2.    Ross Lake reservoir tributary reaches identified by stakeholders as having accessible fish habitat that could potentially be used by introduced Pacific salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.), with estimates of the amount (in kilometers) and average percent gradient of the accessible sections, in northern Washington.

As a first analysis step, we used the hydrographic representation of the upper Skagit River study area in NetMap to identify the upper extent of potential anadromous salmonid distribution in each tributary upstream from the dams. We did this by applying two criteria related to fish passage: changes to gradient that would limit anadromous fish passage, and the presence of natural waterfalls and other water surface drops that could serve as anadromous fish barriers. Definitions of both criteria were obtained from the anadromous fish passage assessment protocols for the State of Washington (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2019). The first criterion to assess the extent of potential habitat was a maximum of 20-percent gradient over a 160-m reach, which studies have shown to be impassable for upstream migrating salmonids (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2019). Although some studies have used lower gradient thresholds (such as, 16 percent over 300 m for Fraser River salmonids; Finn and others, 2021), we used the standard for upstream migration barriers as set by the State of Washington. The second criterion was waterfalls or geomorphic features with vertical drops greater than or equal to 3.7 m. We assessed such drops using the NetMap node-based stream layer, which represents the synthetic stream network at the grain of the DEM that is 10 m for reaches in the United States and 20 m for reaches in Canada. NetMap identifies a node drop value for a reach based on differences in elevation between adjacent nodes. Potential upstream distribution was stopped at nodes that equaled or exceeded 3.7 m. In most cases, because of elevation changes, several nodes would exceed the drop height threshold and be obvious areas of steep gradient and vertical waterfalls or cascades. We cross-referenced known barriers and waterfalls with the node drop values in NetMap as verification that the tool was accurately depicting known barriers. Because of the remote nature of the watershed and few existing on-the-ground surveys of potential barriers, most of the potential barriers stopping upstream anadromous fish distribution were identified only from the NetMap environment. However, there were a few cases where single or small clusters of adjacent nodes that exceeded the height threshold were surrounded by several hundred meters of habitat upstream and downstream from the impacted reach. To be conservative with identifying potential barriers, in these cases we by-passed such “spurious nodes,” which had drops ranging from 3.7 to 8.8 m, and assumed that fish passage was possible. There were only a few such cases in Canyon Creek (one node), Castle Fork Creek (six nodes in three reaches), Devils Creek (eight nodes in four reaches), Granite Creek (three nodes in two reaches), Lightning Creek (two nodes in one reach), McMillan Creek (two nodes in one reach), Nepopekum Creek (eight nodes in five reaches), and Snass Creek (eight nodes in five reaches). Given the above two decision rules, we identified the potential areas of anadromous fish distribution within GIS for use in IP modeling (fig 1).

For the next step, we used several existing species-specific IP models to estimate the geomorphically based habitat suitability for Chinook, coho, and steelhead. The concept of IP was originally developed in the Pacific Northwest for use as a broad-scale assessment tool to estimate the potential for stream reaches to support salmonids based on species habitat preferences related to persistent landscape features that are not easily modified by human disturbances (Burnett and others, 2007; Sheer and others, 2009). Features, such as hydrology, gradient, and channel width, create the template upon which other transient features, like the presence of riffle and pool channel units and large woody debris, interact to create habitat that support salmonid populations. The influence of these landscape features creating the template are determined by the geomorphic context of landforms interacting with other habitat forming processes, such as hydrology and wood and sediment recruitment and retention, to create habitat conditions that are suitable for spawning and rearing of salmon (Benda and others, 2004; Burnett and others, 2007; Bidlack and others, 2014).

As detailed below, there were two approaches to calculate the IP depending on the model and species. The first approach was the original one described by Burnett and others (2007) where IP for each reach is calculated based upon species suitability curves for each of three habitat variables so that for each reach, habitat scores for the species would range from 1 (highest preference) to 0 (not suitable). An IP score based on the geometric mean from the three variables of interest (for example, gradient, valley confinement, and width) is calculated for each reach, ranging from 1 to 0. The second approach was a categorically based one, where low, medium, and high IP values were assigned to each reach according to ranges of values for the 3 variables of interest. For example, reaches with a bankfull width between 3.8 and 25 m, a gradient from 0 to 0.5 percent, and a moderate valley width ratio would receive a relative IP score of “medium.” To compare model-derived IP scores and maps across species, we assigned reaches from numerically derived models as low (score less than or equal to 0.25), medium (greater than 0.25 or less than or equal to 0.75), and high (greater than 0.75) IP. All calculations were made in GIS using the NetMap tool applied to the fish distribution described above.

For each target species of salmonid (Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead), we used three existing models to score the IP of each stream reach in the areas identified as having potential for introduced anadromous salmonids (fig. 1). For Chinook salmon, we used existing models from Connor and others (2015; hereinafter Connor model), Busch and others (2013; hereinafter Busch model), and Cooney and Holzer (2006; hereinafter Cooney and Holzer model) that were developed from populations in the interior Columbia River Basin, the lower Columbia River Basin, and the Skagit River downstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project, respectively. The Connor model used elevation as a factor in place of bankfull width. For coho salmon, existing models by Burnett and others (2007; hereinafter Burnett model), Agrawal and others (2005; hereinafter Agrawal model), and Romey (Terrainworks, 2023; hereinafter Romey model) were based on species preference curves developed from populations from coastal Oregon, northern California, and Alaska, respectively. All three models used the same three physical habitat variables (percent gradient, mean annual flow, and valley width index; table 3), with differences among the models in the shape of the habitat suitability curves that assigned slightly different IP ranking scores to each attribute. For steelhead, we used the Burnett model, the Agrawal model, and the model from the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (Hard and others, 2015; hereinafter Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team model) based on populations in coastal Oregon, northern California, and Puget Sound, respectively.

Table 3.    

Comparison of intrinsic potential (IP) model parameters used for Pacific salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) IP models.
Model1 Variables
Gradient Bankfull Valley width index Elevation Streamflow
Connor Yes Yes No Yes No
Cooney and Holzer1 Yes Yes Yes No No
Busch Yes Yes Yes No No
Agrawal Yes No Yes No Yes
Romey Yes No Yes No Yes
Burnett Yes No Yes No Yes
Burnett Yes No Yes No Yes
Agrawal Yes No Yes No Yes
Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team2 Yes Yes No No No
Table 3.    Comparison of intrinsic potential (IP) model parameters used for Pacific salmon and steelhead (Oncorhynchus spp.) IP models.
1

Named models include Connor model (Connor and others, 2015), Cooney and Holzer model (Cooney and Holzer, 2006), Busch model (Busch and others 2013), Agrawal model (Agrawal and others, 2005), Romey model (Terrainworks, 2023), Burnett model (Burnett and others, 2007), and Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team model (Hard and others, 2015).

2

Categorical based IP scoring (none, low, medium, or high for Cooney and Holzer model; low, medium, or high for Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team model) based on combined ranges of parameter values.

Results and Interpretations

Potential Fish Distribution Upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project Dams

Of the 27 proposed targeted streams, 25 of them were included in the final analysis based on potential fish distribution. Two proposed streams, East and Cabinet Creeks, were identified to have several reach nodes exceeding the fish passage thresholds within about 200 m or less from the confluence with their respective tributaries and were not considered for further analysis. Based upon gradient threshold and waterfall drop values for the remaining 25 target streams, we identified 4,453 stream reaches totaling an estimated length of 470 rkm of potential fish habitat for migratory fish species (fig. 1). The average length of reaches was 105 m (standard deviation; SD ± 13.8 m, range 9–227) and the median stream order of these reaches being was 4. These included 2,838 reaches within 25 target streams (tables 1 and 2 plus an additional four streams) totaling 306 km with a median stream order of 5. There were 1,615 reaches totaling 164 km that were found in other accessible tributaries that were often smaller (median stream order was 2) named or unnamed tributaries to the targeted streams (hereinafter referred to as non-targeted streams or non-targeted reaches). The targeted tributary and main-stem Skagit River reaches identified were larger streams, and the other non-targeted reaches were smaller and generally shorter reaches of accessible habitat.

Chinook Salmon Intrinsic Potential Model Results

There were similarities and differences among the results for the three Chinook salmon IP models (fig. 2). The Chinook salmon IP model proposed by Connor and others (2015; Connor model), which was parameterized based on other Skagit River Basin populations downstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project, was different from the Busch model (Busch and others, 2013) and the Cooney and Holzer model (Cooney and Holzer, 2006) developed for Chinook salmon populations in the Columbia River Basin. All three models used gradient and stream bankfull width habitat preference curves, whereas the Connor IP model replaced valley width ratio used by the other two models with elevation as the third parameter (table 3). In total, the Connor model rated more reaches as having high IP habitat than the other two models. Summaries of habitat parameter values and the number of reaches scored as low, medium, and high IP sections are provided for main-stem and tributary habitat in the United States (table 4) and Canada (table 5).

Summary using bar graphs showing the amount of estimated potential habitat for Chinook
                        salmon in three categories of intrinsic potential based on three different models.
                        The Chinook salmon intrinsic potential ranges from less than 0 to about 40 kilometers
                        of river habitat across 25 named tributaries and main-stem locations of the upper
                        Skagit River, in northern Washington.
Figure 2.

Length of high, medium, and low intrinsic potential habitat for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) based on three different models for target tributaries upstream from the three upper Skagit River dams, in northern Washington.

Table 4.    

Reach average values of gradient, valley width index (ratio), bankfull width, and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in the United States by high, medium, or low intrinsic potential (IP) rank for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

[Plus or minus (±) standard deviations are shown in parentheses. CnH, Cooney and Holzer model; NA, no reaches were identified for a given stream, model, and intrinsic potential category; m, meter; m3/s, cubic meter per second]

Stream Model Number of reaches IP rank Percent gradient Valley width ratio Bankfull width (m) Mean annual flow (m3/s)
Big Beaver Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Big Beaver Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Big Beaver Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Big Beaver Creek Connor 230 Medium 1.3 (±2.1) 0.6 (±0.3) 14.1 (±2.7) 4.4 (±1.5)
Big Beaver Creek Busch 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Big Beaver Creek CnH 113 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.1) 15.7 (±1.5) 5.5 (±0.8)
Big Beaver Creek Connor 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Big Beaver Creek Busch 230 Low 1.3 (±2.1) 0.6 (±0.3) 14.1 (±2.7) 4.4 (±1.5)
Big Beaver Creek CnH 117 Low 2.4 (±2.5) 0.7 (±0.3) 12.5 (±2.7) 3.5 (±1.4)
Little Beaver Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Little Beaver Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Little Beaver Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Little Beaver Creek Connor 231 Medium 1.8 (±1.4) 0.7 (±0.2) 12.1 (±2.5) 3.2 (±1.4)
Little Beaver Creek Busch 9 Medium 2.1 (±1.0) 1.0 (±0.0) 8.3 (±1.6) 1.4 (±0.7)
Little Beaver Creek CnH 37 Medium 0.2 (±0.2) 0.6 (±0.1) 13.8 (±1.0) 4.1 (±0.7)
Little Beaver Creek Connor 8 Low 8.6 (±1.1) 0.9 (±0.3) 8.7 (±3.9) 1.8 (±1.9)
Little Beaver Creek Busch 230 Low 2.1 (±1.9) 0.7 (±0.2) 12.1 (±2.6) 3.2 (±1.4)
Little Beaver Creek CnH 202 Low 2.4 (±1.8) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.6 (±2.7) 3.0 (±1.5)
Ruby Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ruby Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ruby Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ruby Creek Connor 59 Medium 1.5 (±0.5) 0.5 (±0.2) 19.9 (±1.4) 9.2 (±1.4)
Ruby Creek Busch 2 Medium 1.4 (±0.3) 1.2 (±0.2) 19.8 (±0.2) 9.0 (±0.2)
Ruby Creek CnH 2 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.1) 22.2 (±0.1) 11.6 (±0.1)
Ruby Creek Connor 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Ruby Creek Busch 57 Low 1.5 (±0.5) 0.4 (±0.1) 19.9 (±1.4) 9.2 (±1.5)
Ruby Creek CnH 57 Low 1.6 (±0.4) 0.5 (±0.2) 19.8 (±1.3) 9.1 (±1.4)
Canyon Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Canyon Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Canyon Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Canyon Creek Connor 148 Medium 2.8 (±1.6) 0.8 (±0.4) 12.0 (±2.4) 3.1 (±1.2)
Canyon Creek Busch 7 Medium 2.2 (±0.6) 1.1 (±0.0) 10.6 (±2.3) 2.4 (±1.2)
Canyon Creek CnH 4 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.7 (±0.0) 12.4 (±1.0) 3.2 (±0.6)
Canyon Creek Connor 8 Low 8.3 (±0.4) 1.9 (±0.6) 6.5 (±0.1) 0.8 (±0.0)
Canyon Creek Busch 149 Low 3.2 (±2.0) 0.8 (±0.5) 11.8 (±2.7) 3.1 (±1.3)
Canyon Creek CnH 152 Low 3.2 (±2.0) 0.8 (±0.5) 11.7 (±2.7) 3.0 (±1.3)
North Fork Canyon Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek Connor 1 Medium 6.4 (NA) 1.0 (NA) 6.4 (NA) 0.7 (NA)
North Fork Canyon Creek Busch 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek CnH 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek Connor 7 Low 9.4 (±1.5) 1.6 (±0.4) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
North Fork Canyon Creek Busch 8 Low 9.0 (±1.8) 1.5 (±0.5) 6.4 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
North Fork Canyon Creek CnH 8 Low 9.0 (±1.8) 1.5 (±0.5) 6.4 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Granite Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Granite Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Granite Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Granite Creek Connor 215 Medium 2.9 (±1.5) 0.8 (±0.3) 10.5 (±1.7) 2.3 (±0.8)
Granite Creek Busch 39 Medium 1.8 (±0.7) 1.3 (±0.4) 9.1 (±1.2) 1.6 (±0.5)
Granite Creek CnH 2 Medium 0.4 (±0.0) 0.9 (±0.2) 8.9 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.1)
Granite Creek Connor 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Granite Creek Busch 176 Low 3.1 (±1.5) 0.7 (±0.2) 10.9 (±1.6) 2.5 (±0.8)
Granite Creek CnH 213 Low 2.9 (±1.5) 0.8 (±0.3) 10.6 (±1.7) 2.3 (±0.8)
Lightning Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Lightning Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Lightning Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Lightning Creek Connor 190 Medium 2.8 (±1.7) 0.8 (±0.4) 11.3 (±2.8) 2.8 (±1.7)
Lightning Creek Busch 18 Medium 1.5 (±1.4) 1.5 (±0.7) 8.7 (±1.6) 1.5 (±0.7)
Lightning Creek CnH 7 Medium 0.0 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.6) 7.6 (±0.4) 1.1 (±0.1)
Lightning Creek Connor 6 Low 8.6 (±1.1) 1.3 (±0.2) 7.7 (±0.5) 1.1 (±0.2)
Lightning Creek Busch 178 Low 3.2 (±1.9) 0.8 (±0.3) 11.5 (±2.9) 2.9 (±1.7)
Lightning Creek CnH 189 Low 3.1 (±1.9) 0.8 (±0.4) 11.3 (±2.8) 2.8 (±1.7)
Luna Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Luna Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Luna Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Luna Creek Connor 34 Medium 2.4 (±1.9) 0.8 (±0.1) 8.9 (±0.3) 1.5 (±0.1)
Luna Creek Busch 2 Medium 2.6 (±0.5) 1.0 (±0.0) 8.6 (±0.1) 1.4 (±0.0)
Luna Creek CnH 5 Medium 0.2 (±0.2) 0.8 (±0.1) 9.1 (±0.2) 1.6 (±0.1)
Luna Creek Connor 1 Low 7.7 (NA) 0.9 (NA) 8.1 (NA) 1.2 (NA)
Luna Creek Busch 33 Low 2.5 (±2.1) 0.8 (±0.1) 8.9 (±0.3) 1.5 (±0.1)
Luna Creek CnH 30 Low 2.9 (±2.0) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.9 (±0.3) 1.5 (±0.1)
Three Fools Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Three Fools Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Three Fools Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Three Fools Creek Connor 102 Medium 3.7 (±1.6) 0.9 (±0.4) 10.6 (±1.5) 2.3 (±0.7)
Three Fools Creek Busch 7 Medium 2.5 (±1.0) 1.2 (±0.2) 9.9 (±2.1) 2.1 (±0.9)
Three Fools Creek CnH 1 Medium 0.2 (NA) 0.9 (NA) 9.9 (NA) 1.9 (NA)
Three Fools Creek Connor 3 Low 9.7 (±3.8) 1.0 (±0.6) 9.8 (±4.3) 2.2 (±1.6)
Three Fools Creek Busch 98 Low 4.0 (±2.0) 0.9 (±0.4) 10.6 (±1.0) 2.3 (±0.7)
Three Fools Creek CnH 104 Low 3.9 (±1.9) 0.9 (±0.4) 10.6 (±1.6) 2.3 (±0.7)
Castle Fork Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Castle Fork Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Castle Fork Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Castle Fork Creek Connor 44 Medium 4.8 (±1.6) 1.9 (±1.0) 5.7 (±1.1) 0.6 (±0.2)
Castle Fork Creek Busch 7 Medium 2.1 (±0.4) 1.7 (±0.5) 6.3 (±0.2) 0.7 (±0.0)
Castle Fork Creek CnH 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Castle Fork Creek Connor 47 Low 9.3 (±2.1) 2.3 (±0.6) 4.0 (±1.3) 0.3 (±0.2)
Castle Fork Creek Busch 84 Low 7.6 (±2.6) 2.1 (±0.9) 4.7 (±1.4) 0.4 (±0.3)
Castle Fork Creek CnH 91 Low 7.1 (±2.9) 2.1 (±0.9) 4.8 (±1.4) 0.4 (±0.3)
Panther Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Panther Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Panther Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Panther Creek Connor 176 Medium 4.1 (±1.8) 1.2 (±0.9) 8.5 (±2.2) 1.5 (±0.8)
Panther Creek Busch 23 Medium 2.7 (±0.5) 1.6 (±0.6) 8.1 (±1.2) 1.3 (±0.4)
Panther Creek CnH 2 Medium 0.2 (±0.2) 0.9 (±0.0) 9.0 (±0.0) 1.6 (±0.0)
Panther Creek Connor 14 Low 7.9 (±0.7) 1.4 (±0.7) 6.9 (±2.1) 1.0 (±0.7)
Panther Creek Busch 167 Low 4.6 (±2.0) 1.2 (±0.9) 8.5 (±2.3) 1.5 (±0.8)
Panther Creek CnH 188 Low 4.4 (±1.9) 1.2 (±0.9) 8.4 (±2.2) 1.5 (±0.8)
Devils Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Devils Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Devils Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Devils Creek Connor 126 Medium 4.4 (±1.2) 1.2 (±0.5) 7.5 (±1.4) 1.1 (±0.4)
Devils Creek Busch 15 Medium 2.6 (±0.2) 1.3 (±0.1) 7.0 (±0.2) 0.9 (±0.1)
Devils Creek CnH 1 Medium 0.3 (NA) 0.8 (NA) 9.0 (NA) 1.6 (NA)
Devils Creek Connor 10 Low 8.5 (±1.1) 1.4 (±0.6) 6.9 (±2.7) 1.0 (±0.7)
Devils Creek Busch 121 Low 5.0 (±1.5) 1.3 (±0.5) 7.5 (±1.6) 1.1 (±0.4)
Devils Creek CnH 135 Low 4.7 (±1.6) 1.3 (±0.5) 7.4 (±1.6) 1.1 (±0.4)
Stetattle Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Stetattle Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Stetattle Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Stetattle Creek Connor 72 Medium 4.0 (±1.9) 1.2 (±1.5) 9.8 (±2.3) 2.0 (±0.8)
Stetattle Creek Busch 4 Medium 1.3 (±1.1) 1.2 (±0.2) 10.6 (±0.9) 2.3 (±0.4)
Stetattle Creek CnH 2 Medium 0.2 (±0.0) 1.0 (±0.1) 10.3 (±0.0) 2.1 (±0.0)
Stetattle Creek Connor 8 Low 8.7 (±2.4) 1.0 (±0.1) 11.2 (±0.6) 2.5 (±0.3)
Stetattle Creek Busch 76 Low 4.6 (±2.4) 1.2 (±1.5) 9.9 (±2.2) 2.1 (±0.8)
Stetattle Creek CnH 78 Low 4.5 (±2.4) 1.2 (±1.5) 9.9 (±2.2) 2.1 (±0.8)
McMillan Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
McMillan Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
McMillan Creek CnH 0 High 0.7 (±0.6) 26.3 (±7.7) 6.9 (±0.0) 0.9 (±0.0)
McMillan Creek Connor 68 Medium 3.1 (±1.8) 3.7 (±7.3) 8.2 (±1.0) 1.3 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek Busch 22 Medium 1.7 (±1.3) 5.6 (±9.3) 8.0 (±1.0) 1.2 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek CnH 7 Medium 0.2 (±0.2) 1.1 (±0.2) 7.7 (±0.5) 1.1 (±0.2)
McMillan Creek Connor 7 Low 9.5 (±2.4) 2.1 (±1.4) 7.5 (±1.9) 1.1 (±0.6)
McMillan Creek Busch 53 Low 4.6 (±2.6) 2.7 (±5.6) 8.2 (±1.1) 1.3 (±0.4)
McMillan Creek CnH 65 Low 4.2 (±2.5) 2.8 (±5.3) 8.2 (±1.1) 1.3 (±0.4)
Slate Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek Connor 7 Medium 5.7 (±0.8) 1.1 (±0.2) 8.6 (±0.1) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek Busch 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek CnH 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek Connor 4 Low 8.2 (±0.9) 1.3 (±0.3) 8.6 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek Busch 11 Low 6.6 (±1.5) 1.2 (±0.2) 8.6 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek CnH 11 Low 6.6 (±1.5) 1.2 (±0.2) 8.6 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.0)
Hozomeen Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Connor 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Busch 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek CnH 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Connor 1 Low 12.8 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.9 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Hozomeen Creek Busch 1 Low 12.8 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.9 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Hozomeen Creek CnH 1 Low 12.8 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.9 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Table 4.    Reach average values of gradient, valley width index (ratio), bankfull width, and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in the United States by high, medium, or low intrinsic potential (IP) rank for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

Table 5.    

Reach average values of gradient, valley width index (ratio), bankfull width, and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in Canada by high, medium, or low intrinsic potential (IP) rank for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

[Plus or minus (±) standard deviations are shown in parentheses. CnH, Cooney and Holzer model; NA, no reaches were identified for a given stream, model, and intrinsic potential category; m, meter; m3/s, cubic meter per second]

Stream Model Number of reaches IP rank Percent
gradient
Valley width ratio Bankfull width (m) Mean annual flow (m3/s)
Skagit River Connor 314 High 0.5 (±0.7) 3.2 (±10.5) 23.3 (±2.6) 13.2 (±3.1)
Skagit River Busch 51 High 0.3 (±0.4) 12.8 (±24.0) 25.0 (±2.3) 15.4 (±3.0)
Skagit River CnH 6 High 0.2 (±0.2) 4.8 (±1.3) 21.3 (±3.3) 11.0 (±3.6)
Skagit River Connor 46 Medium 0.6 (±0.5) 1.1 (±0.8) 18.0 (±2.4) 7.5 (±2.1)
Skagit River Busch 170 Medium 0.5 (±0.7) 1.6 (±0.6) 22.4 (±3.2) 12.3 (±3.5)
Skagit River CnH 178 Medium 0.1 (±0.2) 4.0 (±13.6) 22.7 (±2.7) 12.5 (±3.1)
Skagit River Connor 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Skagit River Busch 139 Low 0.6 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2) 21.9 (±2.9) 11.6 (±3.2)
Skagit River CnH 176 Low 0.9 (±0.8) 1.7 (±2.9) 22.5 (±3.5) 12.4 (±3.9)
Klesilkwa River Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Klesilkwa River Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Klesilkwa River CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Klesilkwa River Connor 166 Medium 0.5 (±1.1) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.0 (±2.7) 2.6 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River Busch 12 Medium 0.4 (±0.7) 1.1 (±0.0) 7.9 (±0.5) 1.2 (±0.2)
Klesilkwa River CnH 127 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.2 (±2.6) 2.8 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River Connor 4 Low 10.5 (±1.9) 1.2 (±0.0) 7.3 (±0.0) 1.0 (±0.0)
Klesilkwa River Busch 158 Low 0.8 (±2.0) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.1 (±2.7) 2.7 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River CnH 43 Low 2.7 (±3.0) 0.8 (±0.2) 9.7 (±2.8) 2.1 (±1.4)
Sumallo River Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Sumallo River Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Sumallo River CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Sumallo River Connor 245 Medium 1.3 (±1.6) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.0 (±2.7) 2.7 (±1.2)
Sumallo River Busch 23 Medium 2.0 (±0.8) 1.2 (±0.1) 6.8 (±0.5) 0.8 (±0.2)
Sumallo River CnH 118 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.6 (±0.1) 12.7 (±1.3) 3.4 (±0.8)
Sumallo River Connor 2 Low 7.5 (±0.1) 1.4 (±0.1) 5.4 (±0.0) 0.5 (±0.0)
Sumallo River Busch 224 Low 1.3 (±1.8) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.4 (±2.4) 2.8 (±1.2)
Sumallo River CnH 129 Low 2.6 (±1.6) 0.9 (±0.3) 9.4 (±2.6) 1.9 (±1.2)
Ferguson Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ferguson Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ferguson Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ferguson Creek Connor 45 Medium 0.6 (±1.2) 1.3 (±0.2) 5.6 (±0.6) 0.6 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek Busch 33 Medium 0.2 (±0.4) 1.3 (±0.2) 5.9 (±0.5) 0.6 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek CnH 32 Medium 0.0 (±0.1) 1.3 (±0.2) 5.7 (±0.5) 0.6 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek Connor 4 Low 7.5 (±0.6) 1.6 (±0.1) 4.6 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Ferguson Creek Busch 16 Low 3.2 (±3.0) 1.5 (±0.3) 4.9 (±0.5) 0.4 (±0.2)
Ferguson Creek CnH 17 Low 3.3 (±2.8) 1.5 (±0.3) 5.3 (±0.9) 0.5 (±0.2)
Nepopekum Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Nepopekum Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Nepopekum Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Nepopekum Creek Connor 107 Medium 2.6 (±2.0) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.7 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Busch 20 Medium 1.5 (±1.0) 1.1 (±0.1) 8.8 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek CnH 22 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.9 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Connor 8 Low 9.0 (±1.4) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.5 (±0.2) 1.4 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Busch 95 Low 3.3 (±2.7) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.7 (±0.3) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek CnH 93 Low 3.7 (±2.4) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.7 (±0.2) 1.4 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Maselpanik Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Maselpanik Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Maselpanik Creek Connor 7 Medium 2.7 (±1.7) 0.7 (±0.1) 10.4 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Busch 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Maselpanik Creek CnH 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Maselpanik Creek Connor 5 Low 8.5 (±1.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 10.5 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Busch 12 Low 5.1 (±3.3) 0.7 (±0.1) 10.4 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek CnH 12 Low 5.1 (±3.3) 0.7 (±0.1) 10.4 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Snass Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Snass Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Snass Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Snass Creek Connor 32 Medium 3.7 (±1.9) 1.3 (±0.3) 6.6 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Busch 10 Medium 1.6 (±0.8) 1.3 (±0.2) 6.7 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek CnH 1 Medium 0.2 (NA) 1.6 (NA) 5.1 (NA) 0.5 (NA)
Snass Creek Connor 11 Low 9.6 (±1.6) 1.0 (±0.2) 6.9 (±0.9) 0.9 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Busch 33 Low 6.4 (±2.8) 1.2 (±0.3) 6.7 (±0.9) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek CnH 42 Low 5.4 (±3.1) 1.2 (±0.3) 6.8 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2)
Twentysix Mile Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek Connor 2 Medium 5.5 (±0.2) 1.1 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek Busch 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek CnH 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek Connor 6 Low 11.6 (±1.4) 1.2 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek Busch 8 Low 10.1 (±3.1) 1.1 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek CnH 8 Low 10.1 (±3.1) 1.1 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Marmotte Creek Connor 0 High NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Busch 0 High NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek CnH 0 High NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Connor 2 Medium 6.4 (±0.8) 1.6 (±0.4) 4.8 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Marmotte Creek Busch 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek CnH 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Connor 1 Low 8.6 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.7 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Marmotte Creek Busch 3 Low 7.1 (±1.4) 1.6 (±0.3) 4.7 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Marmotte Creek CnH 3 Low 7.1 (±1.4) 1.6 (±0.3) 4.7 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Table 5.    Reach average values of gradient, valley width index (ratio), bankfull width, and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in Canada by high, medium, or low intrinsic potential (IP) rank for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).

Chinook Salmon Intrinsic Potential Based on the Connor Model

The Connor model identified 165 low (17.3 km), 2,355 medium (253.6 km), and 314 high (34.3 km) IP reaches across all 25 targeted streams for Chinook salmon (fig. 2), with an additional 852 (86.1 km) low and 763 medium (78.2 km) IP reaches from non-targeted streams (fig. 3). The reaches that scored a high IP (that is, modeled IP scores ≥ 0.75) for Chinook salmon were found in 34.3 km of reaches in the Skagit River main stem upstream from the Ross Lake reservoir in Canada (fig. 4). Most of the other targeted tributaries were dominated by medium IP habitat (scores greater than 0.25 and less than or equal to 0.75; fig. 4). Across all targeted reaches, 5.1 percent was rated as having low (less than 0.25) intrinsic potential habitat. After the main-stem Skagit River, which had about 40 km of main-stem habitat rated as high or medium IP, 11 different targeted tributaries had greater than 10 km of medium-rated IP habitat (fig. 2). Those tributaries with medium IP amounts greater than 10 km were the Sumallo River (26.7 km), Little Beaver Creek (25.3 km), Big Beaver Creek (24.9 km), Granite Creek (23.3 km), Lightning Creek (20.0 km), Panther Creek (18.8 km), Klesilkwa River (18.4 km), Canyon Creek (15.7 km), Devil’s Creek (13.3 km), Nepopekum Creek (11.4 km), and Three Fools Creek (10.7 km). An additional seven tributaries contained at least 1 km of medium IP habitat.

Summary using bar graphs showing the amount of high, medium, and low intrinsic potential
                           habitat for Chinook salmon based on three different intrinsic potential models. The
                           summaries range between zero and over 150 kilometers in non-targeted tributaries.
Figure 3.

Length of high, medium, and low intrinsic potential habitat for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) based on three different models for non-target tributaries upstream from the three upper Skagit River dams, in northern Washington.

Results of intrinsic potential analysis for Chinook salmon based on the Connor IP
                           model. For the main-stem Skagit River, each target tributary, and non-targeted tributary
                           reaches the amount of high, medium, or low intrinsic potential habitat reaches is
                           shown for the potential fish distribution given in figure 1.
Figure 4.

High (greater than [>] 0.75), medium (0.25–0.75), and low (less than [<] 0.25) intrinsic potential scores for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) derived from the Connor intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington. USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is a classification hierarchy to delimit watershed boundaries in successively smaller hydrologic units. HUC12 indicates boundaries of local sub-watershed scale that represents tributary systems.

Across all reaches with low IP habitat, 59.8 percent were scored as having zero IP. In non-targeted tributary reaches, there was no high IP habitat identified, with 78.2 km of medium IP habitat and 86.1 km of low IP habitat identified from non-targeted tributaries (fig. 3).

Chinook Salmon Intrinsic Potential Based on the Busch Model

The Busch model identified 2,360 low (253.6 km), 423 medium (46.0 km), and 51 high (5.6 km) intrinsic potential reaches within the 25 targeted streams for Chinook salmon (fig. 2), with an additional 25 medium (2.8 km) and 1,590 (161.5 km) low intrinsic potential reaches identified from non-targeted reaches (fig. 3). The only high intrinsic potential reaches for Chinook salmon, totaling 5.6 km, were found in the main-stem Skagit River (fig. 5) upstream from the Ross Lake reservoir in Canada. The other 24 targeted streams, except Ferguson Creek (fig. 2), and non-targeted streams (fig. 3) had most of the habitat identified as low intrinsic potential, a total of 253.9 km. Of the 46.0 km of reaches scored with medium intrinsic potential, the Skagit River (18.8 km), Granite Creek (4.3 km), and Ferguson Creek (3.6 km) had greater than 3 km of habitat, with the other 23 reaches ranging from 0 to 2.4 km. There was only 10 km of non-target tributary reaches identified as medium or low non-zero intrinsic potential (fig. 3). Of the low intrinsic potential habitat across all reaches, 90.4 percent scored as having 0 intrinsic potential (with the other 9.6 percent having scores greater than 0 and less than 0.25).

Map showing high (greater than 0.75), medium (0.25–0.75), and low (less than 0.25)
                           intrinsic potential scores for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) derived from
                           the Busch intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream
                           from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington.
Figure 5.

High (greater than [>] 0.75), medium (0.25–0.75), and low (less than [<] 0.25) intrinsic potential scores for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) derived from the Busch intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington. USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is a classification hierarchy to delimit watershed boundaries in successively smaller hydrologic units. HUC12 indicates boundaries of local sub-watershed scale that represents tributary systems.

Chinook Salmon Intrinsic Potential Based on the Cooney and Holzer Model

The Cooney and Holzer model identified 2,164 low (232.0 km), 661 medium (72.2 km), and 9 high (1.0 km) intrinsic potential reaches within the 25 targeted streams for Chinook salmon (fig. 2), with an additional 35 medium (3.7 km) and 1,580 (160.5 km) low intrinsic potential reaches identified from non-targeted reaches (fig. 3). Of the three IP models, this model scored the lowest amount of high intrinsic potential habitat (totaling 1.0 km) for Chinook salmon, with 661 m found in the main-stem Skagit River and 339 m in McMillan Creek (figs. 5 and 6). There were seven targeted streams with greater than 1 km of medium intrinsic potential habitat for Chinook salmon, including the main-stem Skagit River (19.5 km), Klesilkwa River (14.0), Sumallo River (13.0 km), Big Beaver Creek (12.0 km), Little Beaver Creek (4.1 km), Ferguson Creek (3.5 km), and Nepopekum Creek (2.3). Across all 25 streams, 232.0 km of the reaches were rated as having low intrinsic potential (fig. 2). For non-targeted tributaries, there were no high intrinsic potential reaches, 3.7 km of medium intrinsic potential reaches, and 160.5 km of low intrinsic potential reaches (fig. 3). Across all reaches rated as having low intrinsic potential, 59.8 percent had IP scores of zero.

Map showing high, medium, and low intrinsic potential scores for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
                           tshawytscha) derived from the Cooney and Holzer intrinsic potential model applied
                           to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project
                           dams, in northern Washington.
Figure 6.

High, medium, and low intrinsic potential scores for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) derived from the Cooney and Holzer intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington. USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is a classification hierarchy to delimit watershed boundaries in successively smaller hydrologic units. HUC12 indicates boundaries of local sub-watershed scale that represents tributary systems.

Coho Salmon Intrinsic Potential Model Results

The estimates of IP for coho salmon upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams were similar across the three models. The Burnett model (Burnett and others, 2007), Agrawal model (Agrawal and others, 2005), and Romey model (Terrainworks, 2023) were all based on the same three parameters (gradient, bankfull width, and valley width index), but each model differed in the shape of the habitat preference curves and the IP weights assigned to the curves. All three models showed that most of the habitat upstream was classified as having medium IP habitat for coho salmon. For the 25 target streams, the main difference among the models was the higher amount of low IP reaches identified by the Burnett model and the greater number of streams having high IP by the Romey model. Summaries of habitat parameter values and the number of reaches scored as low, medium, and high IP sections are provided for main-stem and tributary habitat in the United States (table 6) and Canada (table 7).

Table 6.    

Reach average values of gradient, valley width index (ratio), bankfull width, and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in the United States by high, medium, or low intrinsic potential (IP) rank for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

[Plus or minus (±) standard deviations are shown in parentheses. NA, no reaches were identified for a given stream, model, and intrinsic potential category; m, meter; m3/s, cubic meter per second]

Stream Model Number of reaches IP rank Percent gradient Valley width ratio Bankfull width (m) Mean annual flow (m3/s)
Big Beaver Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Big Beaver Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Big Beaver Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Big Beaver Creek Burnett 209 Medium 0.9 (±1.1) 0.6 (±0.3) 14.1 (±2.7) 4.5 (±1.5)
Big Beaver Creek Agrawal 216 Medium 1.1 (±1.4) 0.6 (±0.3) 14.0 (±2.7) 4.4 (±1.5)
Big Beaver Creek Romey 215 Medium 1.0 (±1.4) 0.6 (±0.3) 14.0 (±2.7) 4.4 (±1.5)
Big Beaver Creek Burnett 21 Low 5.0 (±4.5) 0.6 (±0.1) 13.8 (±2.1) 4.2 (±1.4)
Big Beaver Creek Agrawal 14 Low 4.6 (±5.5) 0.5 (±0.1) 14.5 (±2.2) 4.6 (±1.5)
Big Beaver Creek Romey 15 Low 4.8 (±5.4) 0.6 (±0.1) 14.3 (±2.2) 4.5 (±1.5)
Little Beaver Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Little Beaver Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Little Beaver Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Little Beaver Creek Burnett 217 Medium 1.6 (±1.0) 0.7 (±0.2) 12.1 (±2.4) 3.2 (±1.3)
Little Beaver Creek Agrawal 234 Medium 1.9 (±1.5) 0.7 (±0.2) 12.1 (±2.6) 3.2 (±1.4)
Little Beaver Creek Romey 230 Medium 1.8 (±1.4) 0.7 (±0.2) 12.0 (±2.5) 3.2 (±1.4)
Little Beaver Creek Burnett 22 Low 6.6 (±1.7) 0.8 (±0.3) 10.2 (±3.9) 2.5 (±2.0)
Little Beaver Creek Agrawal 5 Low 9.1 (±1.0) 1.1 (±0.1) 6.6 (±0.1) 0.8 (±0.0)
Little Beaver Creek Romey 9 Low 8.4 (±1.2) 0.9 (±0.3) 9.5 (±4.3) 2.2 (±2.1)
Ruby Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ruby Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ruby Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ruby Creek Burnett 59 Medium 1.5 (±0.5) 0.5 (±0.2) 19.9 (±1.4) 9.2 (±1.4)
Ruby Creek Agrawal 59 Medium 1.5 (±0.5) 0.5 (±0.2) 19.9 (±1.4) 9.2 (±1.4)
Ruby Creek Romey 59 Medium 1.5 (±0.5) 0.5 (±0.2) 19.9 (±1.4) 9.2 (±1.4)
Ruby Creek Burnett 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Ruby Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Ruby Creek Romey 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Canyon Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Canyon Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Canyon Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Canyon Creek Burnett 130 Medium 2.4 (±1.1) 0.7 (±0.2) 12.5 (±2.0) 3.3 (±1.0)
Canyon Creek Agrawal 152 Medium 3.0 (±1.8) 0.8 (±0.4) 11.9 (±2.6) 3.1 (±1.2)
Canyon Creek Romey 144 Medium 2.7 (±1.5) 0.7 (±0.4) 12.1 (±2.4) 3.2 (±1.2)
Canyon Creek Burnett 26 Low 6.8 (±1.2) 1.5 (±0.8) 8.1 (±2.7) 1.4 (±1.2)
Canyon Creek Agrawal 4 Low 8.6 (±0.2) 2.3 (±0.7) 6.5 (±0.1) 0.8 (±0.0)
Canyon Creek Romey 12 Low 7.9 (±0.7) 1.6 (±0.7) 7.6 (±2.4) 1.2 (±1.0)
North Fork Canyon Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek Burnett 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek Agrawal 3 Medium 7.2 (±0.9) 1.2 (±0.3) 6.4 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
North Fork Canyon Creek Romey 1 Medium 6.4 (NA) 1.0 (NA) 6.4 (NA) 0.7 (NA)
North Fork Canyon Creek Burnett 8 Low 9.0 (±1.8) 1.5 (±0.5) 6.4 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
North Fork Canyon Creek Agrawal 5 Low 10.1 (±1.0) 1.7 (±0.5) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
North Fork Canyon Creek Romey 7 Low 9.4 (±1.5) 1.6 (±0.4) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Granite Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Granite Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Granite Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Granite Creek Burnett 184 Medium 2.4 (±1.0) 0.9 (±0.3) 10.5 (±1.8) 2.3 (±0.9)
Granite Creek Agrawal 215 Medium 2.9 (±1.5) 0.8 (±0.3) 10.5 (±1.7) 2.3 (±0.8)
Granite Creek Romey 213 Medium 2.8 (±1.4) 0.8 (±0.3) 10.5 (±1.7) 2.3 (±0.8)
Granite Creek Burnett 31 Low 5.7 (±0.7) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.0 (±0.7) 2.5 (±0.4)
Granite Creek Agrawal 0 Low
Granite Creek Romey 2 Low 7.8 (±0.4) 0.6 (±0.1) 10.7 (±0.5) 2.3 (±0.2)
Lightning Creek Burnett 0 High 0.0 (±0.0) 0.0 (±0.0) 0.0 (±0.0) 0.0 (±0.0)
Lightning Creek Agrawal 0 High 0.0 (±0.0) 0.0 (±0.0) 0.0 (±0.0) 0.0 (±0.0)
Lightning Creek Romey 0 High 0.0 (±0.0) 0.0 (±0.0) 0.0 (±0.0) 0.0 (±0.0)
Lightning Creek Burnett 159 Medium 2.3 (±1.2) 0.8 (±0.4) 11.6 (±2.9) 3.0 (±1.7)
Lightning Creek Agrawal 193 Medium 2.9 (±1.8) 0.8 (±0.4) 11.3 (±2.9) 2.8 (±1.7)
Lightning Creek Romey 188 Medium 2.8 (±1.6) 0.8 (±0.4) 11.3 (±2.9) 2.8 (±1.7)
Lightning Creek Burnett 37 Low 6.1 (±1.4) 1.0 (±0.4) 9.4 (±2.1) 1.8 (±1.2)
Lightning Creek Agrawal 3 Low 9.5 (±0.6) 1.2 (±0.3) 7.9 (±0.6) 1.2 (±0.2)
Lightning Creek Romey 8 Low 8.3 (±1.0) 1.1 (±0.3) 8.5 (±1.6) 1.4 (±0.6)
Luna Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Luna Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Luna Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Luna Creek Burnett 29 Medium 1.8 (±1.4) 0.8 (±0.1) 9.0 (±0.3) 1.6 (±0.1)
Luna Creek Agrawal 35 Medium 2.5 (±2.1) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.9 (±0.3) 1.5 (±0.1)
Luna Creek Romey 34 Medium 2.4 (±1.9) 0.8 (±0.1) 8.9 (±0.3) 1.5 (±0.1)
Luna Creek Burnett 6 Low 6.0 (±0.8) 0.9 (±0.2) 8.6 (±0.4) 1.4 (±0.2)
Luna Creek Agrawal 0 Low
Luna Creek Romey 1 Low 7.5 (NA) 0.9 (NA) 8.1 (NA) 1.2 (NA)
Three Fools Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Three Fools Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Three Fools Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Three Fools Creek Burnett 83 Medium 3.1 (±1.0) 0.9 (±0.3) 10.6 (±1.5) 2.3 (±0.7)
Three Fools Creek Agrawal 102 Medium 3.7 (±1.5) 0.9 (±0.4) 10.6 (±1.5) 2.3 (±0.7)
Three Fools Creek Romey 95 Medium 3.4 (±1.2) 0.9 (±0.4) 10.5 (±1.5) 2.3 (±0.7)
Three Fools Creek Burnett 22 Low 6.7 (±2.2) 0.9 (±0.6) 10.5 (±2.0) 2.3 (±0.8)
Three Fools Creek Agrawal 3 Low 10.7 (±2.9) 1.0 (±0.6) 9.8 (±4.2) 2.2 (±1.5)
Three Fools Creek Romey 10 Low 8.5 (±2.1) 0.8 (±0.3) 11.1 (±2.3) 2.6 (±0.9)
Castle Fork Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Castle Fork Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Castle Fork Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Castle Fork Creek Burnett 16 Medium 3.1 (±1.1) 2.0 (±1.2) 5.8 (±0.9) 0.6 (±0.2)
Castle Fork Creek Agrawal 64 Medium 5.7 (±1.8) 1.9 (±0.9) 5.3 (±1.2) 0.5 (±0.2)
Castle Fork Creek Romey 43 Medium 4.9 (±1.6) 1.7 (±0.8) 5.7 (±1.1) 0.6 (±0.2)
Castle Fork Creek Burnett 75 Low 8.0 (±2.4) 2.1 (±0.8) 4.6 (±1.4) 0.4 (±0.3)
Castle Fork Creek Agrawal 27 Low 10.6 (±0.9) 2.5 (±0.7) 3.5 (±1.1) 0.2 (±0.1)
Castle Fork Creek Romey 47 Low 9.3 (±2.1) 2.3 (±0.6) 4.0 (±1.2) 0.3 (±0.2)
Panther Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Panther Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Panther Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Panther Creek Burnett 115 Medium 3.0 (±1.0) 1.3 (±1.0) 8.3 (±1.7) 1.4 (±0.6)
Panther Creek Agrawal 184 Medium 4.2 (±1.8) 1.3 (±0.9) 8.4 (±2.2) 1.5 (±0.8)
Panther Creek Romey 160 Medium 3.8 (±1.5) 1.1 (±0.4) 8.5 (±2.1) 1.5 (±0.7)
Panther Creek Burnett 75 Low 6.4 (±1.2) 1.2 (±0.5) 8.6 (±2.9) 1.6 (±1.0)
Panther Creek Agrawal 6 Low 8.8 (±0.4) 0.9 (±0.3) 9.1 (±2.4) 1.7 (±1.0)
Panther Creek Romey 26 Low 7.8 (±0.7) 1.2 (±0.6) 8.5 (±2.8) 1.6 (±1.0)
Devils Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Devils Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Devils Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Devils Creek Burnett 71 Medium 3.5 (±0.9) 1.4 (±0.5) 7.1 (±1.4) 1.0 (±0.4)
Devils Creek Agrawal 131 Medium 4.5 (±1.4) 1.3 (±0.5) 7.4 (±1.5) 1.1 (±0.4)
Devils Creek Romey 126 Medium 4.4 (±1.2) 1.2 (±0.5) 7.5 (±1.4) 1.1 (±0.4)
Devils Creek Burnett 65 Low 6.0 (±0.3) 1.2 (±0.4) 7.8 (±1.6) 1.2 (±0.4)
Devils Creek Agrawal 5 Low 9.5 (±0.4) 1.4 (±0.7) 6.9 (±2.9) 1.0 (±0.8)
Devils Creek Romey 10 Low 8.5 (±1.1) 1.4 (±0.6) 6.9 (±2.7) 1.0 (±0.7)
Stetattle Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Stetattle Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Stetattle Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Stetattle Creek Burnett 44 Medium 2.7 (±1.2) 1.3 (±1.9) 10.4 (±2.3) 2.3 (±0.7)
Stetattle Creek Agrawal 76 Medium 4.2 (±2.1) 1.1 (±1.3) 10.0 (±2.0) 2.1 (±0.7)
Stetattle Creek Romey 66 Medium 3.8 (±1.9) 0.9 (±0.2) 10.2 (±1.6) 2.1 (±0.7)
Stetattle Creek Burnett 36 Low 6.6 (±1.6) 1.0 (±0.2) 9.5 (±1.9) 1.8 (±0.8)
Stetattle Creek Agrawal 3 Low 10.7 (±3.3) 1.1 (±0.0) 11.4 (±0.5) 2.7 (±0.2)
Stetattle Creek Romey 11 Low 8.2 (±2.2) 1.0 (±0.1) 10.7 (±1.5) 2.4 (±0.6)
McMillan Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
McMillan Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
McMillan Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
McMillan Creek Burnett 52 Medium 2.6 (±1.3) 2.9 (±5.9) 8.3 (±0.9) 1.3 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek Agrawal 67 Medium 3.3 (±1.8) 2.6 (±5.3) 8.3 (±0.9) 1.3 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek Romey 58 Medium 3.1 (±1.7) 1.8 (±4.7) 8.4 (±0.9) 1.4 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek Burnett 20 Low 7.1 (±2.4) 2.0 (±1.9) 7.9 (±1.5) 1.2 (±0.4)
McMillan Creek Agrawal 5 Low 10.7 (±1.8) 2.8 (±1.2) 7.0 (±2.1) 1.0 (±0.6)
McMillan Creek Romey 8 Low 9.4 (±2.2) 2.1 (±1.3) 7.8 (±1.9) 1.2 (±0.6)
Slate Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek Burnett 1 Medium 4.6 (NA) 0.8 (NA) 8.5 (NA) 1.4 (NA)
Slate Creek Agrawal 9 Medium 6.1 (±1.1) 1.1 (±0.3) 8.6 (±0.1) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek Romey 6 Medium 5.5 (±0.6) 1.1 (±0.2) 8.6 (±0.1) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek Burnett 10 Low 6.9 (±1.4) 1.2 (±0.2) 8.6 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek Agrawal 2 Low 8.9 (±0.7) 1.3 (±0.1) 8.6 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek Romey 5 Low 8.0 (±1.0) 1.3 (±0.3) 8.6 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.0)
Hozomeen Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Burnett 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Agrawal 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Romey 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Burnett 1 Low 12.8 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.9 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Hozomeen Creek Agrawal 1 Low 12.8 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.9 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Hozomeen Creek Romey 1 Low 12.8 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.9 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Table 6.    Reach average values of gradient, valley width index (ratio), bankfull width, and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in the United States by high, medium, or low intrinsic potential (IP) rank for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

Table 7.    

Reach average values of gradient, valley width index (ratio), bankfull width, and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in Canada by high, medium, or low intrinsic potential rank (IP) for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

[Plus or minus (±) standard deviations are shown in parentheses. NA, no reaches were identified for a given stream, model, and intrinsic potential category; m, meter; m3/s, cubic meter per second]

Stream Model Number of reaches IP rank Percent gradient Valley width ratio Bankfull width (m) Mean annual flow (m3/s)
Skagit River Burnett 22 High 0.3 (±0.5) 24.6 (±33.5) 26.4 (±1.1) 17.3 (±1.5)
Skagit River Agrawal 22 High 0.3 (±0.5) 24.6 (±33.5) 26.4.0 (±1.1) 17.3 (±1.5)
Skagit River Romey 34 High 0.4 (±0.5) 9.4 (±7.8) 24.9 (±3.2) 15.5 (±3.8)
Skagit River Burnett 336 Medium 0.5 (±0.6) 1.5 (±1.0) 22.4 (±3.0) 12.2 (±3.4)
Skagit River Agrawal 338 Medium 0.5 (±0.7) 1.5 (±1.0) 22.3 (±3.0) 12.1 (±3.4)
Skagit River Romey 326 Medium 0.5 (±0.7) 2.2 (±9.8) 22.3 (±3.0) 12.1 (±3.4)
Skagit River Burnett 2 Low 4.8 (±0.0) 2.3 (±0.7) 14.5 (±0.7) 4.6 (±0.5)
Skagit River Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Skagit River Romey 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Klesilkwa River Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Klesilkwa River Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Klesilkwa River Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Klesilkwa River Burnett 162 Medium 0.4 (±0.7) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.0 (±2.7) 2.7 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River Agrawal 166 Medium 0.5 (±1.1) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.0 (±2.7) 2.6 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River Romey 165 Medium 0.5 (±1.0) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.0 (±2.6) 2.6 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River Burnett 8 Low 8.3 (±2.7) 1.1 (±0.1) 7.3 (±0.0) 1.0 (±0.0)
Klesilkwa River Agrawal 4 Low 10.5 (±1.9) 1.2 (±0.0) 7.3 (±0.0) 1.0 (±0.0)
Klesilkwa River Romey 5 Low 9.8 (±2.3) 1.1 (±0.0) 7.3 (±0.0) 1.0 (±0.0)
Sumallo River Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Sumallo River Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Sumallo River Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Sumallo River Burnett 232 Medium 1.1 (±1.4) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.2 (±2.6) 2.7 (±1.2)
Sumallo River Agrawal 246 Medium 1.4 (±1.7) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.0 (±2.7) 2.6 (±1.3)
Sumallo River Romey 243 Medium 1.3 (±1.6) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.1 (±2.6) 2.7 (±1.2)
Sumallo River Burnett 15 Low 5.4 (±1.7) 1.0 (±0.2) 7.6 (±1.5) 1.1 (±0.5)
Sumallo River Agrawal 1 Low 0.2 (NA) 07 (NA) 9.8 (±NA) 1.9 (±NA)
Sumallo River Romey 4 Low 5.5 (±3.6) 1.2 (±0.3) 6.5 (±2.2) 0.9 (±0.7)
Ferguson Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ferguson Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ferguson Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Ferguson Creek Burnett 43 Medium 0.5 (±0.9) 1.3 (±0.2) 5.6 (±0.6) 0.6 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek Agrawal 47 Medium 1.0 (±2.0) 1.4 (±0.2) 5.6 (±0.7) 0.5 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek Romey 44 Medium 0.6 (±1.2) 1.3 (±0.2) 5.6 (±0.6) 0.6 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek Burnett 6 Low 6.0 (±3.0) 1.5 (±0.2) 4.9 (±0.5) 0.4 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek Agrawal 2 Low 4.2 (±5.8) 1.4 (±0.2) 5.3 (±1.0) 0.5 (±0.2)
Ferguson Creek Romey 5 Low 6.0 (±3.3) 1.5 (±0.2) 4.9 (±0.6) 0.4 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Nepopekum Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Nepopekum Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Nepopekum Creek Burnett 89 Medium 1.9 (±1.5) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.8 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Agrawal 109 Medium 2.7 (±2.1) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.7 (±0.3) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Romey 107 Medium 2.6 (±2.0) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.7 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.0)
Nepopekum Creek Burnett 26 Low 6.8 (±1.7) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.5 (±0.2) 1.4 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Agrawal 6 Low 9.4 (±1.2) 0.8 (±0.1) 8.5 (±0.1) 1.4 (±0.0)
Nepopekum Creek Romey 8 Low 9.0 (±1.4) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.5 (±0.2) 1.4 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Maselpanik Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Maselpanik Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Maselpanik Creek Burnett 6 Medium 2.1 (±0.9) 0.7 (±0.1) 10.4 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Agrawal 9 Medium 3.7 (±2.5) 0.7 (±0.1) 10.4 (±0.1) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Romey 7 Medium 2.7 (±1.7) 0.7 (±0.1) 10.4 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Burnett 6 Low 8.0 (±1.5) 0.7 (±0.2) 10.5 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Agrawal 3 Low 9.3 (±0.6) 0.8 (±0.2) 10.0 (±0.3) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Romey 5 Low 8.5 (±1.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 10.5 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Snass Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Snass Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Snass Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Snass Creek Burnett 21 Medium 2.6 (±1.4) 1.3 (±0.2) 6.6 (±0.9) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Agrawal 34 Medium 4.0 (±2.1) 1.3 (±0.3) 6.6 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Romey 31 Medium 3.6 (±1.9) 1.3 (±0.3) 6.6 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Burnett 22 Low 7.7 (±2.3) 1.2 (±0.3) 6.8 (±0.8) 0.9 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Agrawal 9 Low 10.1 (±1.3) 1.0 (±0.2) 7.1 (±0.08) 0.9 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Romey 12 Low 9.4 (±0.7) 1.0 (±0.2) 6.9 (±0.9) 0.9 (±0.2)
Twentysix Mile Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek Burnett 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek Agrawal 2 Medium 5.5 (±0.2) 1.1 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek Romey 2 Medium 5.5 (±0.2) 1.1 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek Burnett 8 Low 10.1 (±3.1) 1.1 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek Agrawal 6 Low 11.6 (±1.4) 1.2 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek Romey 6 Low 11.6 (±1.4) 1.2 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Marmotte Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Romey 0 High NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Burnett 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Agrawal 2 Medium 6.4 (±0.8) 1.6 (±0.4) 4.8 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Marmotte Creek Romey 1 Medium 5.9 (NA) 1.9 (NA) 4.8 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Marmotte Creek Burnett 3 Low 7.1 (±1.4) 1.6 (±0.3) 4.7 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Marmotte Creek Agrawal 1 Low 8.6 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.7 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Marmotte Creek Romey 2 Low 7.8 (±1.2) 1.5 (±0.3) 4.7 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Table 7.    Reach average values of gradient, valley width index (ratio), bankfull width, and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in Canada by high, medium, or low intrinsic potential rank (IP) for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

Coho Salmon Intrinsic Potential Based on the Burnett Model

The Burnett model identified 551 low (58.4 km), 2,258 medium (244.0 km), and 25 high (2.8 km) IP reaches across all 25 targeted streams (fig. 7), with additional 998 low (100.0 km), 611 medium (63.7 km), and 6 high (0.6 km) IP reaches identified from non-targeted reaches (fig. 8). The only high IP habitat identified for coho salmon by the Burnett model was 2.4 km in the main-stem Skagit River upstream from the Ross Lake reservoir and 339 m in McMillan Creek (fig. 9). Of the 25 target streams, 19 had greater than 1 km of medium IP habitat available, totaling 243.2 km. The other six streams were dominated by (Maselpanik Creek and Slate Creek) or had all (Twentysix Mile, North Fork Canyon, Marmotte, and Hozomeen Creeks) low IP for coho salmon. In the non-targeted reaches, most of the habitat was modeled to have low (100.0) or medium (63.7) IP for coho salmon, with only 634 m of habitat identified from unnamed tributary reaches (fig. 8).

Summary using bar graphs showing the amount of estimated potential habitat for coho
                           salmon in three categories of intrinsic potential based on three different models.
                           The coho salmon intrinsic potential ranges from less than 0 to about 40 kilometers
                           of river habitat across 25 named tributaries and main-stem locations of the upper
                           Skagit River.
Figure 7.

Length in kilometers of high, medium, or low habitat intrinsic potential for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) based on three different models for target tributaries upstream from the three upper Skagit River dams, in northern Washington.

Summary using bar graphs showing the amount of high, medium, and low intrinsic potential
                           habitat for coho salmon based on three different intrinsic potential models. The summaries
                           range between zero and about 100 kilometers in non-targeted tributaries.
Figure 8.

Length in kilometers of high, medium, or low habitat intrinsic potential for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) based on three different models for non-target tributaries upstream from the three upper Skagit River dams, in northern Washington.

Results of intrinsic potential analysis for coho salmon based on the Burnett intrinsic
                           potential model. For the main-stem Skagit River, each target tributary, and non-targeted
                           tributary reaches the amount of high, medium, and low intrinsic potential habitat
                           reaches is shown for the potential fish distribution given in figure 1.
Figure 9.

High (greater than [>] 0.75), medium (0.25–0.75), and low (less than [<] 0.25) intrinsic potential scores for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) derived from the Burnett intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington. USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is a classification hierarchy to delimit watershed boundaries in successively smaller hydrologic units. HUC12 indicates boundaries of local sub-watershed scale that represents tributary systems.

Coho Salmon Intrinsic Potential Based on the Agrawal Model

Results from the Agrawal model were similar to those found with the Burnett model (fig. 7). The Agrawal model identified 115 low (118.0 km), 2,693 medium (290.5 km), and 26 high (2.4 km) IP reaches within the 25 targeted streams for coho salmon, with an additional 816 low (80.6 km), 790 medium (82.7 km), and 9 high (0.98 km) IP reaches identified from non-targeted reaches. The main difference between the Burnett and Agrawal models was some high intrinsic potential habitat identified in Stetattle Creek (<100 m) by the Agrawal model (fig. 10), which was classified as having medium intrinsic potential by the Burnett model. The amounts of high intrinsic potential habitat found in the main-stem Skagit River (2.4 km) and McMillan Creek (339.4 m) were identical in amount and the identified reaches in the two models. The main difference between the two models was the greater number of reaches classified as having medium intrinsic potential habitat by the Agrawal model (290.5 km), with the difference due to the lesser amount of low intrinsic potential habitat scores for this model compared with the Burnett model. A similar pattern was seen in the non-targeted streams, with more medium intrinsic potential habitat identified by the Agrawal model compared to the Burnett model (82.7 km versus 63.6 km), with the difference due to less total low intrinsic potential habitat (80.6 km versus 100 km; fig. 8).

Map showing high (greater than 0.75), medium (0.25–0.75), and low (less than 0.25)
                           intrinsic potential scores for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) derived from the
                           Agrawal intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream
                           from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington.
Figure 10.

High (greater than [>] 0.75), medium (0.25–0.75), and low (less than [<] 0.25) intrinsic potential scores for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) derived from the Agrawal intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington. USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is a classification hierarchy to delimit watershed boundaries in successively smaller hydrologic units. HUC12 indicates boundaries of local sub-watershed scale that represents tributary systems.

Coho Salmon Intrinsic Potential Based on the Romey Model

Of the three coho salmon IP models, a larger amount of high intrinsic potential habitat was identified by the Romey model (fig. 7). This model identified 219 low (22.8 km), 2,564 medium (276.8 km), and 51 high (5.5 km) IP reaches in the 25 targeted streams, and 655 (64.8 km) low, 620 (64.7 km) medium, and 340 (34.7 km) high IP reaches identified from non-targeted reaches. A total of five streams (Skagit River, McMillan Creek, Panther Creek, Stetattle Creek, and Castle Fork Creek) had 5.5 km of high intrinsic potential habitat (fig. 11), with an additional 34.7 km identified in non-targeted tributaries (fig. 8). As seen in the other two intrinsic potential models for coho, most of the total accessible reaches in targeted streams were classified as having medium intrinsic potential (276.8 km).

Results of intrinsic potential analysis for coho salmon based on the Romey intrinsic
                           potential model. For the main-stem Skagit River, each target tributary, and non-targeted
                           tributary reaches the amount of high, medium, and low intrinsic potential habitat
                           reaches is shown for the potential fish distribution given in figure 1.
Figure 11.

High (greater than [>] 0.75), medium (0.25–0.75), and low (less than [<] 0.25) intrinsic potential scores for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) derived from the Romey intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington. USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is a classification hierarchy to delimit watershed boundaries in successively smaller hydrologic units. HUC12 indicates boundaries of local sub-watershed scale that represents tributary systems.

Steelhead Intrinsic Potential Model Results

The IP estimates for steelhead upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams were similar across the three models (fig. 12). The Agrawal and Burnett models were calculated using the same three parameters (gradient, bankfull width, and valley width index) but with different weights assigned to the habitat preference curves, whereas the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team model was based on combinations of gradient and bankfull width assigned as low, medium, and high IP. In general, steelhead showed greater amounts of high IP of the three species examined. The three models differed in the amount of high IP in the Skagit River main stem and the total amount of low IP habitat: the Puget Sound TRT model estimated greater amounts of these habitats than the other two models. Summaries of habitat parameter values and the number of reaches scored as low, medium, and high IP sections are provided for main-stem and tributary habitat in the United States (table 8) and Canada (table 9).

Summary using bar graphs showing the amount of estimated potential habitat for steelhead
                        in three categories of intrinsic potential based on three different models. The steelhead
                        intrinsic potential ranges from less than 0 to about 40 kilometers of river habitat
                        across 25 named tributaries and main-stem locations of the upper Skagit River.
Figure 12.

Length in kilometers of high, medium, and low habitat intrinsic potential for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) based on three different models for target tributaries upstream from the three upper Skagit River dams, in northern Washington.

Table 8.    

Reach average values of gradient, valley width index (ratio), bankfull width, and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in the United States by high, medium, or low intrinsic potential (IP) rank for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

[Plus or minus (±) standard deviations are shown in parentheses. PS_TRT, Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team model; NA, no reaches were identified for a given stream, model, and intrinsic potential category; m, meter; m3/s, cubic meter squared]

Stream Model Number of reaches IP rank Percent gradient Valley width ratio Bankfull width (m) Mean annual flow (m3/s)
Big Beaver Creek PS_TRT 120 High 1.3 (±1.0) 0.7 (±0.3) 12.8 (±3.0) 3.7 (±1.5)
Big Beaver Creek Agrawal 102 High 1.9 (±1.7) 0.6 (±0.1) 13.2 (±2.1) 3.8 (±1.3)
Big Beaver Creek Burnett 150 High 1.3 (±1.2) 0.6 (±0.3) 13.3 (±2.9) 4.0 (±1.5)
Big Beaver Creek PS_TRT 92 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.5 (±0.0) 16.0 (±0.5) 5.6 (±0.4)
Big Beaver Creek Agrawal 119 Medium 0.8 (±2.1) 0.6 (±0.3) 14.7 (±3.0) 4.9 (±1.5)
Big Beaver Creek Burnett 65 Medium 0.4 (±1.5) 0.5 (±0.1) 15.8 (±1.1) 5.5 (±0.8)
Big Beaver Creek PS_TRT 18 Low 7.0 (±2.9) 0.6 (±0.1) 12.4 (±0.9) 3.3 (±0.6)
Big Beaver Creek Agrawal 9 Low 1.4 (±4.1) 0.5 (±0.1) 15.7 (±1.5) 5.5 (±1.1)
Big Beaver Creek Burnett 15 Low 4.8 (±5.4) 0.6 (±0.1) 14.3 (±2.2) 4.5 (±1.5)
Little Beaver Creek PS_TRT 189 High 1.7 (±0.8) 0.7 (±0.2) 12.0 (±2.4) 3.1 (±1.3)
Little Beaver Creek Agrawal 209 High 2.3 (±1.7) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.7 (±2.7) 3.0 (±1.5)
Little Beaver Creek Burnett 209 High 1.8 (±1.1) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.9 (±2.5) 3.1 (±1.4)
Little Beaver Creek PS_TRT 21 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.6 (±0.1) 13.9 (±0.9) 4.2 (±0.6)
Little Beaver Creek Agrawal 30 Medium 0.5 (±1.9) 0.6 (±0.1) 13.5 (±1.6) 4.0 (±0.9)
Little Beaver Creek Burnett 22 Medium 1.9 (±2.9) 0.6 (±0.2) 13.4 (±2.7) 4.0 (±1.4)
Little Beaver Creek PS_TRT 29 Low 6.1 (±1.8) 0.8 (±0.3) 10.4 (±3.8) 2.6 (±1.9)
Little Beaver Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Little Beaver Creek Burnett 8 Low 8.6 (±1.1) 0.9 (±0.3) 8.7 (±3.9) 1.8 (±1.9)
Ruby Creek PS_TRT 43 High 1.5 (±0.3) 0.5 (±0.2) 19.1 (±0.4) 8.4 (±0.4)
Ruby Creek Agrawal 57 High 1.6 (±0.4) 0.5 (±0.2) 19.8 (±1.3) 9.1 (±1.4)
Ruby Creek Burnett 58 High 1.5 (±0.4) 0.5 (±0.2) 19.8 (±1.3) 9.1 (±1.4)
Ruby Creek PS_TRT 14 Medium 1.7 (±0.6) 0.4 (±0.1) 21.8 (±1.0) 11.3 (±1.1)
Ruby Creek Agrawal 2 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.1) 22.2 (±0.1) 11.6 (±0.1)
Ruby Creek Burnett 1 Medium 0.0 (NA) 0.3 (NA) 22.2 (NA) 11.7 (NA)
Ruby Creek PS_TRT 2 Low 0.1 (±0.1) 0.3 (±0.1) 22.2 (±0.1) 11.6 (±0.1)
Ruby Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Ruby Creek Burnett 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Canyon Creek PS_TRT 115 High 2.3 (±0.8) 0.7 (±0.2) 12.6 (±1.8) 3.4 (±1.0)
Canyon Creek Agrawal 152 High 3.2 (±2.0) 0.8 (±0.5) 11.7 (±2.7) 3.0 (±1.3)
Canyon Creek Burnett 132 High 2.5 (±1.1) 0.7 (±0.3) 12.4 (±2.1) 3.3 (±1.1)
Canyon Creek PS_TRT 4 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.7 (±0.0) 12.4 (±1.0) 3.2 (±0.6)
Canyon Creek Agrawal 4 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.7 (±0.0) 12.4 (±1.0) 3.2 (±0.6)
Canyon Creek Burnett 14 Medium 5.4 (±2.3) 1.3 (±08) 8.4 (±2.8) 1.5 (±1.2)
Canyon Creek PS_TRT 37 Low 6.1 (±1.5) 1.3 (±0.8) 8.9 (±3.2) 1.8 (±1.4)
Canyon Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Canyon Creek Burnett 10 Low 8.1 (±0.6) 1.7 (±0.8) 7.7 (±2.6) 1.3 (±1.1)
North Fork Canyon Creek PS_TRT 0 High NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek Agrawal 4 High 7.6 (±1.1) 1.4 (±0.4) 6.4 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
North Fork Canyon Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek PS_TRT 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek Agrawal 4 Medium 10.5 (±0.7) 1.6 (±0.6) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
North Fork Canyon Creek Burnett 1 Medium 6.4 (NA) 1.0 (NA) 6.4 (NA) 0.7 (NA)
North Fork Canyon Creek PS_TRT 8 Low 9.0 (±1.8) 1.5 (±0.5) 6.4 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
North Fork Canyon Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
North Fork Canyon Creek Burnett 7 Low 9.4 (±1.5) 1.6 (±0.4) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Granite Creek PS_TRT 168 High 2.2 (±0.8) 0.9 (±0.3) 10.4 (±1.8) 2.3 (±0.9)
Granite Creek Agrawal 184 High 3.1 (±1.5) 0.8 (±0.3) 10.8 (±1.7) 2.4 (±0.8)
Granite Creek Burnett 198 High 2.6 (±1.2) 0.9 (±0.3) 10.5 (±1.8) 2.3 (±0.8)
Granite Creek PS_TRT 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Granite Creek Agrawal 31 Medium 1.6 (±0.5) 1.1 (±0.4) 9.1 (±0.6) 1.6 (±0.2)
Granite Creek Burnett 15 Medium 5.9 (±0.4) 0.6 (±0.1) 11.2 (±0.6) 2.5 (±0.3)
Granite Creek PS_TRT 47 Low 5.2 (±0.9) 0.7 (±0.2) 10.9 (±1.0) 2.4 (±0.4)
Granite Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Granite Creek Burnett 2 Low 7.8 (±0.4) 0.6 (±0.1) 10.7 (±0.5) 2.3 (±0.2)
Lightning Creek PS_TRT 136 High 2.2 (±0.9) 0.7 (±0.4) 12.1 (±2.7) 3.2 (±1.7)
Lightning Creek Agrawal 185 High 3.1 (±1.8) 0.8 (±0.4) 11.4 (±2.9) 2.9 (±1.7)
Lightning Creek Burnett 169 High 2.7 (±1.3) 0.8 (±0.4) 11.6 (±2.8) 3.0 (±1.7)
Lightning Creek PS_TRT 7 Medium 0.0 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.6) 7.6 (±0.4) 1.1 (±0.1)
Lightning Creek Agrawal 11 Medium 1.4 (±3.0) 1.2 (±0.6) 8.7 (±1.7) 1.5 (±0.7)
Lightning Creek Burnett 19 Medium 3.9 (±3.1) 1.0 (±0.5) 8.9 (±2.2) 1.7 (±1.2)
Lightning Creek PS_TRT 53 Low 5.6 (±1.4) 1.0 (±0.4) 9.4 (±2.1) 1.9 (±1.2)
Lightning Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Lightning Creek Burnett 8 Low 8.3 (±1.0) 1.1 (±0.3) 8.5 (±1.6) 1.4 (±0.6)
Luna Creek PS_TRT 22 High 1.6 (±1.0) 0.8 (±0.1) 9.0 (±0.3) 1.6 (±0.1)
Luna Creek Agrawal 19 High 3.5 (±2.0) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.7 (±0.3) 1.5 (±0.1)
Luna Creek Burnett 28 High 2.0 (±1.5) 0.8 (±0.1) 9.0 (±0.3) 1.6 (±0.1)
Luna Creek PS_TRT 3 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 0.9 (±0.1) 9.0 (±0.1) 1.6 (±0.0)
Luna Creek Agrawal 16 Medium 1.3 (±1.5) 0.8 (±0.1) 9.1 (±0.3) 1.6 (±0.1)
Luna Creek Burnett 6 Medium 3.8 (±3.0) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.1 (±0.4) 1.5 (±0.2)
Luna Creek PS_TRT 10 Low 5.3 (±1.1) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.6 (±0.4) 1.4 (±0.1)
Luna Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Luna Creek Burnett 1 Low 7.5 (NA) 0.9 (NA) 8.1 (NA) 1.2 (NA)
Three Fools Creek PS_TRT 68 High 2.9 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2) 10.8 (±1.4) 2.4 (±0.6)
Three Fools Creek Agrawal 102 High 3.7 (±1.6) 0.9 (±0.4) 10.6 (±1.5) 2.3 (±0.7)
Three Fools Creek Burnett 91 High 3.3 (±1.1) 0.9 (±0.4) 10.5 (±1.5) 2.3 (±0.7)
Three Fools Creek PS_TRT 1 Medium 0.2 (NA) 0.9 (NA) 9.9 (NA) 1.9 (NA)
Three Fools Creek Agrawal 2 Medium 4.9 (±6.6) 0.8 (±0.1) 11.0 (±1.6) 2.5 (±0.8)
Three Fools Creek Burnett 5 Medium 6.1 (±0.7) 0.8 (±0.2) 10.4 (±1.0) 2.2 (±0.5)
Three Fools Creek PS_TRT 36 Low 5.8 (±2.0) 1.0 (±0.6) 10.1 (±1.9) 2.1 (±0.8)
Three Fools Creek Agrawal 1 Low 14.0 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.9 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Three Fools Creek Burnett 9 Low 8.6 (±2.1) 0.8 (±0.3) 11.0 (±2.4) 2.6 (±0.9)
Castle Fork Creek PS_TRT 12 High 2.6 (±0.8) 2.1 (±1.4) 5.9 (±0.7) 0.6 (±0.1)
Castle Fork Creek Agrawal 75 High 6.2 (±2.1) 2.0 (±0.9) 5.1 (±1.3) 0.5 (±0.2)
Castle Fork Creek Burnett 24 High 3.7 (±1.3) 1.8 (±1.0) 6.0 (±0.8) 0.6 (±0.2)
Castle Fork Creek PS_TRT 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Castle Fork Creek Agrawal 9 Medium 10.5 (±0.6) 2.5 (±0.4) 3.9 (±0.1) 0.2 (±0.1)
Castle Fork Creek Burnett 21 Medium 6.2 (±0.5) 2.0 (±1.1) 5.1 (±1.3) 0.5 (±0.2)
Castle Fork Creek PS_TRT 79 Low 7.8 (±2.5) 2.1 (±0.8) 4.6 (±1.5) 0.4 (±0.3)
Castle Fork Creek Agrawal 7 Low 13.3 (±1.4) 2.6 (±0.7) 3.1 (±1.0) 0.2 (±0.1)
Castle Fork Creek Burnett 46 Low 9.4 (±2.1) 2.3 (±0.7) 4.0 (±1.3) 0.3 (±0.2)
Panther Creek PS_TRT 91 High 2.7 (±0.8) 1.1 (±0.5) 8.6 (±1.3) 1.5 (±0.4)
Panther Creek Agrawal 187 High 4.3 (±1.9) 1.2 (±0.9) 8.4 (±2.2) 1.5 (±0.8)
Panther Creek Burnett 131 High 3.3 (±1.2) 1.2 (±0.8) 8.4 (±1.9) 1.4 (±0.6)
Panther Creek PS_TRT 1 Medium 0.1 (NA) 0.9 (NA) 9.0 (NA) 1.6 (NA)
Panther Creek Agrawal 3 Medium 6.1 (±3.0) 1.2 (±0.4) 6.9 (±3.9) 1.1 (±1.3)
Panther Creek Burnett 35 Medium 5.9 (±0.5) 1.4 (±1.2) 8.3 (±3.0) 1.6 (±1.0)
Panther Creek PS_TRT 98 Low 5.9 (±1.3) 1.4 (±1.1) 8.2 (±2.9) 1.5 (±1.0)
Panther Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Panther Creek Burnett 24 Low 7.9 (±0.7) 1.2 (±0.6) 8.8 (±2.7) 1.7 (±1.0)
Devils Creek PS_TRT 41 High 3.0 (±0.7) 1.2(±0.4) 7.3 (±1.3) 1.0 (±0.4)
Devils Creek Agrawal 132 High 4.6 (±1.4) 1.3 (±0.5) 7.4 (±1.5) 1.1 (±0.4)
Devils Creek Burnett 94 High 3.9 (±1.0) 1.3 (±0.5) 7.3 (±1.4) 1.0 (±0.4)
Devils Creek PS_TRT 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Devils Creek Agrawal 4 Medium 7.4 (±4.7) 1.2 (±0.7) 7.7 (±2.7) 1.2 (±0.7)
Devils Creek Burnett 32 Medium 5.9 (±0.4) 1.1 (±0.4) 8.0 (±1.4) 1.2 (±0.4)
Devils Creek PS_TRT 95 Low 5.5 (±1.3) 1.3 (±0.5) 7.5 (±1.7) 1.1 (±0.4)
Devils Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Devils Creek Burnett 10 Low 8.5 (±1.1) 1.4 (±0.6) 6.9 (±2.7) 1.0 (±0.7)
Stetattle Creek PS_TRT 34 High 2.5 (±1.0) 0.8 (±0.2) 11.1 (±0.7) 2.5 (±0.3)
Stetattle Creek Agrawal 73 High 4.4 (±2.1) 0.9 (±0.2) 10.2 (±1.6) 2.2 (±0.7)
Stetattle Creek Burnett 46 High 2.8 (±1.3) 1.0 (±1.0) 10.7 (±1.5) 2.3 (±0.5)
Stetattle Creek PS_TRT 4 Medium 1.7 (±1.7) 4.3 (±3.7) 6.3 (±4.6) 1.1 (±1.2)
Stetattle Creek Agrawal 6 Medium 2.6 (±1.9) 4.6 (±4.2) 6.2 (±4.3) 1.1 (±1.1)
Stetattle Creek Burnett 25 Medium 6.0 (±0.8) 1.7 (±2.2) 8.2 (±2.5) 1.4 (±0.8)
Stetattle Creek PS_TRT 42 Low 6.3 (±1.7) 1.2 (±1.4) 9.4 (±2.1) 1.8 (±0.8)
Stetattle Creek Agrawal 1 Low 14.4 (NA) 1.1 (NA) 11.6 (NA) 2.8 (NA)
Stetattle Creek Burnett 9 Low 8.5 (±2.3) 1.0 (±0.1) 11.2 (±0.6) 2.6 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek PS_TRT 45 High 2.5 (±1.1) 3.1 (±6.6) 8.3 (±0.9) 1.3 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek Agrawal 59 High 3.9 (±1.9) 3.9 (±7.5) 8.3 (±1.0) 1.3 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek Burnett 48 High 2.7 (±1.3) 1.1 (±0.8) 8.5 (±0.8) 1.4 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek PS_TRT 4 Medium 0.1 (±0.1) 5.1 (±8.4) 7.7 (±0.6) 1.1 (±0.2)
McMillan Creek Agrawal 14 Medium 2.0 (±3.0) 2.6 (±4.5) 7.6 (±1.0) 1.1 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek Burnett 19 Medium 3.8 (±2.3) 10.4 (±11.5) 7.4 (±0.9) 1.0 (±0.3)
McMillan Creek PS_TRT 26 Low 6.5 (±2.4) 4.1 (±7.6) 7.8 (±1.3) 1.2 (±0.4)
McMillan Creek Agrawal 2 Low 12.4 (±0.5) 2.6 (±0.7) 5.5 (±0.0) 0.5 (±0.0)
McMillan Creek Burnett 8 Low 9.4 (±2.2) 2.1 (±1.3) 7.8 (±1.9) 1.2 (±0.6)
Slate Creek PS_TRT 0 High NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek Agrawal 10 High 6.4 (±1.2) 1.2 (±0.3) 8.6 (±0.1) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek Burnett 3 High 5.0 (±0.4) 1.0 (±0.2) 8.5 (±0.1) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek PS_TRT 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek Agrawal 1 Medium 9.4 (NA) 1.2 (NA) 8.6 (NA) 1.4 (NA)
Slate Creek Burnett 4 Medium 6.3 (±0.4) 1.1 (±0.1) 8.6 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek PS_TRT 11 Low 6.6 (±1.5) 1.2 (±0.2) 8.6 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.0)
Slate Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Slate Creek Burnett 4 Low 8.2 (±0.9) 1.3 (±0.3) 8.6 (±0.0) 1.4 (±0.0)
Hozomeen Creek PS_TRT 0 High NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Agrawal 0 High NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek PS_TRT 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Agrawal 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek Burnett 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Hozomeen Creek PS_TRT 1 Low 12.8 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.9 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Hozomeen Creek Agrawal 1 Low 12.8 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.9 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Hozomeen Creek Burnett 1 Low 12.8 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.9 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Table 8.    Reach average values of gradient, valley width index (ratio), bankfull width, and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in the United States by high, medium, or low intrinsic potential (IP) rank for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Table 9.    

Reach average values of gradient, valley width index, bankfull width (ratio), and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in Canada by high, medium, and low intrinsic potential rank (IP) for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

[Plus or minus (±) standard deviations are shown in parentheses. PS_TRT, Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team model; NA, no reaches were identified for a given stream, model, and intrinsic potential category; m, meter; m3/s, cubic meter per second]

Stream Model Number of reaches IP rank Percent gradient Valley width ratio Bankfull width (m) Mean annual flow (m3/s)
Skagit River PS_TRT 30 High 1.4 (±0.9) 1.4 (±0.8) 16.8 (±2.4) 6.4 (±2.0)
Skagit River Agrawal 135 High 1.0 (±0.9) 1.5 (±1.0) 21.0 (±3.3) 10.7 (±3.5)
Skagit River Burnett 239 High 0.7 (±0.7) 1.5 (±1.0) 22.0 (±3.1) 11.8 (±3.4)
Skagit River PS_TRT 167 Medium 0.7 (±0.6) 2.8 (±12.8) 22.4 (±2.6) 12.1 (±3.1)
Skagit River Agrawal 225 Medium 0.2 (±0.4) 3.7 (±12.4) 23.5 (±2.6) 13.5 (±3.1)
Skagit River Burnett 121 Medium 0.1 (±0.2) 5.6 (±16.6) 23.7 (±2.8) 13.8 (±3.4)
Skagit River PS_TRT 163 Low 0.1 (±0.5) 3.3 (±6.9) 23.9 (±2.3) 13.9 (±2.9)
Skagit River Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Skagit River Burnett 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Klesilkwa River PS_TRT 58 High 1.0 (±0.9) 0.8 (±0.2) 9.8 (±2.5) 2.1 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River Agrawal 19 High 0.9 (±0.9) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.9 (±3.0) 3.1 (±1.5)
Klesilkwa River Burnett 68 High 0.9 (±1.0) 0.8 (±0.2) 9.9 (±2.6) 2.1 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River PS_TRT 104 Medium 0.0 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.7 (±2.5) 3.0 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River Agrawal 150 Medium 0.6 (±1.7) 0.8 (±0.2) 10.8 (±2.7) 2.5 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River Burnett 98 Medium 0.2 (±1.1) 0.7 (±0.2) 11.7 (±2.6) 3.0 (±1.3)
Klesilkwa River PS_TRT 8 Low 8.3 (±2.7) 1.1 (±0.1) 7.3 (±0.0) 1.0 (±0.0)
Klesilkwa River Agrawal 1 Low 12.9 (NA) 1.1 (NA) 7.2 (NA) 1.0 (NA)
Klesilkwa River Burnett 4 Low 10.5 (±1.9) 1.2 (±0.0) 7.3 (±0.0) 1.0 (±0.0)
Sumallo River PS_TRT 116 High 1.7 (±1.1) 0.8 (±0.2) 10.2 (±2.7) 2.3 (±1.2)
Sumallo River Agrawal 135 High 2.4 (±1.7) 0.8 (±0.3) 9.8 (±2.8) 2.1 (±1.3)
Sumallo River Burnett 154 High 1.9 (±1.5) 0.8 (±0.2) 10.2 (±2.7) 2.3 (±1.2)
Sumallo River PS_TRT 101 Medium 0.0 (±0.1) 0.6 (±0.1) 12.9 (±1.2) 3.5 (±0.7)
Sumallo River Agrawal 111 Medium 0.2 (±0.6) 0.6 (±0.1) 12.5 (±1.6) 3.3 (±0.9)
Sumallo River Burnett 90 Medium 0.3 (±1.4) 0.6 (±0.1) 12.5 (±1.7) 3.4 (±0.9)
Sumallo River PS_TRT 30 Low 5.0 (±1.0) 1.0 (±0.2) 7.8 (±1.3) 1.2 (±0.4)
Sumallo River Agrawal 1 Low 0.2 (NA) 0.7 (NA) 9.8 (NA) 1.9 (NA)
Sumallo River Burnett 3 Low 5.1 (±4.2) 1.1 (±0.4) 6.9 (±2.5) 1.0 (±0.8)
Ferguson Creek PS_TRT 12 High 1.3 (±0.7) 1.4 (±0.3) 5.7 (±0.9) 0.6 (±0.2)
Ferguson Creek Agrawal 10 High 4.6 (±3.0) 1.6 (±0.3) 4.9 (±0.6) 0.4 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek Burnett 19 High 1.1 (±1.2) 1.4 (±0.3) 5.7 (±0.9) 0.6 (±0.2)
Ferguson Creek PS_TRT 31 Medium 0.0 (±0.1) 1.3 (±0.2) 5.7 (±0.5) 0.6 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek Agrawal 38 Medium 0.3 (±0.5) 1.3 (±0.2) 5.7 (±0.6) 0.6 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek Burnett 25 Medium 0.2 (±1.1) 1.3 (±0.2) 5.6 (±0.4) 0.5 (±0.1)
Ferguson Creek PS_TRT 6 Low 6.7 (±1.4) 1.6 (±0.1) 4.6 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Ferguson Creek Agrawal 1 Low 0.1 (NA) 1.2 (NA) 6.0 (NA) 0.6 (NA)
Ferguson Creek Burnett 5 Low 6.0 (±3.3) 1.5 (±0.2) 4.9 (±0.6) 0.4 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek PS_TRT 59 High 2.0 (±1.0) 1.0 (±0.1) 8.8 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Agrawal 73 High 3.9 (±2.0) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.6 (±0.2) 1.4 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Burnett 78 High 2.4 (±1.4) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.8 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek PS_TRT 18 Medium 0.0 (±0.1) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.9 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Agrawal 42 Medium 1.4 (±2.7) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.9 (±0.2) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Burnett 29 Medium 3.0 (±3.1) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.7 (±0.3) 1.5 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek PS_TRT 38 Low 6.0 (±1.9) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.5 (±0.2) 1.4 (±0.1)
Nepopekum Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Nepopekum Creek Burnett 8 Low 9.0 (±1.4) 0.9 (±0.1) 8.5 (±0.2) 1.4 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek PS_TRT 6 High 2.1 (±0.9) 0.7 (±0.1) 10.4 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Agrawal 3 High 7.1 (±3.5) 0.8 (±0.2) 10.4 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Burnett 6 High 2.1 (±0.9) 0.7 (±0.1) 10.4 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek PS_TRT 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Maselpanik Creek Agrawal 9 Medium 4.4 (±3.1) 0.7 (±0.1) 10.4 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Burnett 1 Medium 6.0 (NA) 0.7 (NA) 10.3 (NA) 2.1 (NA)
Maselpanik Creek PS_TRT 6 Low 8.0 (±1.5) 0.7 (±0.2) 10.5 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Maselpanik Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Maselpanik Creek Burnett 5 Low 8.5 (±1.2) 0.7 (±0.2) 10.5 (±0.2) 2.2 (±0.1)
Snass Creek PS_TRT 16 High 2.3 (±1.1) 1.3 (±0.2) 6.7 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Agrawal 34 High 4.4 (±2.4) 1.2 (±0.3) 6.7 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Burnett 25 High 3.0 (±1.6) 1.3 (±0.3) 6.7 (±0.8) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek PS_TRT 1 Medium 0.2 (NA) 1.6 (NA) 5.1 (NA) 0.5 (NA)
Snass Creek Agrawal 8 Medium 7.9 (±4.1) 1.1 (±0.2) 6.8 (±1.0) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Burnett 7 Medium 6.3 (±0.5) 1.2 (±0.3) 6.5 (±0.9) 0.8 (±0.2)
Snass Creek PS_TRT 26 Low 7.2 (±2.4) 1.2 (±0.3) 6.8 (±0.8) 0.9 (±0.2)
Snass Creek Agrawal 1 Low 12.0 (NA) 0.9 (NA) 7.2 (NA) 0.9 (NA)
Snass Creek Burnett 11 Low 9.6 (±1.6) 1.0 (±0.2) 6.9 (±0.9) 0.9 (±0.2)
Twentysix Mile Creek PS_TRT 0 High NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek Agrawal 2 High 5.5 (±0.2) 1.1 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek Burnett 1 High 5.3 (NA) 0.9 (NA) 6.3 (NA) 0.7 (NA)
Twentysix Mile Creek PS_TRT 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Twentysix Mile Creek Agrawal 3 Medium 10.5 (NA) 1.1 (NA) 6.3 (NA) 0.7 (NA)
Twentysix Mile Creek Burnett 1 Medium 5.6 (±0.0) 1.2 (±0.0) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek PS_TRT 8 Low 10.1 (±3.1) 1.1 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek Agrawal 3 Low 12.7 (±0.5) 1.2 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Twentysix Mile Creek Burnett 6 Low 11.6 (±1.4) 1.2 (±0.2) 6.3 (±0.0) 0.7 (±0.0)
Marmotte Creek PS_TRT 0 High NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Agrawal 3 High 7.1 (±1.4) 1.6 (±0.3) 4.7 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Marmotte Creek Burnett 0 High NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek PS_TRT 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Agrawal 0 Medium NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Burnett 2 Medium 6.4 (±0.8) 0.6 (±0.4) 4.8 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Marmotte Creek PS_TRT 3 Low 7.1 (±1.4) 1.6 (±0.3) 4.7 (±0.0) 0.4 (±0.0)
Marmotte Creek Agrawal 0 Low NA NA NA NA
Marmotte Creek Burnett 1 Low 8.6 (NA) 1.7 (NA) 4.7 (NA) 0.4 (NA)
Table 9.    Reach average values of gradient, valley width index, bankfull width (ratio), and mean annual flow for targeted upper Skagit River streams in Canada by high, medium, and low intrinsic potential rank (IP) for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Steelhead Intrinsic Potential Based on the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team Model

The Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team model identified 880 low (94.4 km), 573 medium (62.1 km), and 1382 high (149.0 km) IP reaches for steelhead across all 25 targeted streams (fig. 12), with additional 919 low (92.6 km), 428 medium (44.2 km), and 268 high (27.5 km) IP reaches identified from non-target reaches (fig. 13). Most of the high IP steelhead habitat was found in tributaries (145.6 km), with fewer high IP steelhead reaches (totaling 3.3.km) found in the main-stem Skagit River (fig. 14). There were 19 targeted tributaries with greater than 1 km of high IP habitat, all targeted streams except Slate Creek, Twentysix Mile Creek, North Fork Canyon Creek, Maselpanik Creek, Marmotte Creek, and Hozomeen Creek (with five of these six having only low IP habitat for steelhead).

Summary using bar graphs showing the amount of high, medium, and low intrinsic potential
                           habitat for steelhead based on three different intrinsic potential models. The summaries
                           range between zero and about 100 kilometers in non-targeted tributaries.
Figure 13.

Length in kilometers of high, medium, and low habitat intrinsic potential for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) based on three different models for non-target tributaries upstream from the three upper Skagit River dams, in northern Washington.

Results of intrinsic potential analysis for steelhead based on the Puget Sound Technical
                           Recovery Team intrinsic potential model. For the main-stem Skagit River, each target
                           tributary, and non-targeted tributary reaches the amount of high, medium, and low
                           intrinsic potential habitat reaches is shown for the potential fish distribution given
                           in figure 1.
Figure 14.

High, medium, and low intrinsic potential scores for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) derived from the Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington. USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is a classification hierarchy to delimit watershed boundaries in successively smaller hydrologic units. HUC12 indicates boundaries of local sub-watershed scale that represents tributary systems.

Steelhead Intrinsic Potential Based on the Agrawal Model

The Agrawal model identified 28 low (2.5 km), 842 medium (92.3 km), and 1964 high (210.4 km) intrinsic potential reaches for steelhead across all 25 targeted streams (fig. 12), with additional 326 low (30.9 km), 970 medium (99.5 km), and 319 high (33.8 km) IP reaches identified from non-target reaches (fig. 13). As seen in the Puget Sound TRT steelhead model IP results, most of the high IP habitat was found in tributaries (195.5 km) compared with the 14.9 km in the main-stem Skagit River (fig. 15). There were 19 targeted streams that had greater than 1 km of high IP habitat, with 5 of the 6 remaining targeted streams having 329–952 m of high IP habitat. Of the non-targeted streams with names, Thunder Creek (6.8 km) and Cinnamon Creek (1.8 km) had greater than 1 km of high IP habitat, in addition to 22.7 km of high IP habitat found in unnamed streams.

Results of intrinsic potential analysis for steelhead based on the Agrawal intrinsic
                           potential model. For the main-stem Skagit River, each target tributary, and non-targeted
                           tributary reaches the amount of high, medium, and low intrinsic potential habitat
                           reaches is shown for the potential fish distribution given in figure 1.
Figure 15.

High (greater than [>] 0.75), medium (0.25–0.75), and low (less than [<] 0.25) intrinsic potential scores for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) derived from the Agrawal intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington. USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is a classification hierarchy to delimit watershed boundaries in successively smaller hydrologic units. HUC12 indicates boundaries of local sub-watershed scale that represents tributary systems.

Steelhead Intrinsic Potential Based on the Burnett Model

The Burnett model identified 205 low (21.3 km), 658 medium (71.4 km), and 1971 high (212.5 km) IP reaches for steelhead across all 25 targeted streams (fig. 12), with an additional 858 low (84.9 km), 387 medium (40.2 km), and 370 high (39.2 km) IP reaches identified from non-target reaches (fig. 13). As seen with the other two steelhead IP models, most of the high IP habitat was found in tributaries (186.1 km) compared with the 26.4 km of high IP habitats in the main-stem Skagit River (fig. 16). There were 19 targeted streams that had greater than 1 km of high IP habitat, with 3 of the 6 having 111–703 m of high IP habitat, in addition to 28.9 km of high IP habitat found in unnamed streams.

Results of intrinsic potential analysis for steelhead based on the Burnett intrinsic
                           potential model. For the main-stem Skagit River, each target tributary, and non-targeted
                           tributary reaches the amount of high, medium, and low intrinsic potential habitat
                           reaches is shown for the potential fish distribution given in figure 1.
Figure 16.

High (greater than [>] 0.75), medium (0.25–0.75), and low (less than [<] 0.25) intrinsic potential scores for steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) derived from the Burnett intrinsic potential model applied to tributary and main-stem habitat upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project dams, in northern Washington. USGS Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is a classification hierarchy to delimit watershed boundaries in successively smaller hydrologic units. HUC12 indicates boundaries of local sub-watershed scale that represents tributary systems.

Summary

We used intrinsic potential (IP) models to evaluate the potential habitat for anadromous salmonids upstream from three impassable dams in the upper Skagit River in Whatcom County, northern Washington. This was based on a two-step process within a synthetic geographic information system-based representation of the upper Skagit River Basin derived from 10-meter (m; on United States side of the international border) or 20-m (on the Canadian side) digital elevation models. The first step was estimating the upper extent of potential anadromous fish distribution within select tributaries. We used existing fish passage criteria from the State of Washington (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2019) based on waterfall height and stream gradient to filter continuous reaches of stream habitat from the confluence of tributary with a reservoir in the upper Skagit River to the first likely upstream barrier, thus defining the likely upstream extent of fish upstream migration. The length estimates derived from the resulting maps were similar to assessments of targeted streams compiled by stakeholders to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing process. The second step was to apply existing IP models for target species (coho, Chinook, steelhead [Oncorhynchus kisutch, O. tshawytscha, O. mykiss, respectively]). Intrinsic potential models are general models that were created to estimate habitat potential based on generalized and broad-scale patterns of each species. Our use of three different IP models for each species was an attempt to obtain a consensus view of the amount and quality of habitat available in select tributaries that would be likely for anadromous fish to move into should an introduction program be initiated. With habitat preference curves derived from different populations and regions, the IP models showed similarities and differences in the amount of habitat in each IP category. For coho and steelhead, IP models with habitat suitability curves derived for Skagit River Chinook (Connor and others, 2015) or Puget Sound steelhead behaved differently than the other IP models based on other regions. This is an important point to consider when comparing the differences among the IP models for these species. When applied to the same “end of fish distribution” maps describing potential tributary habitat in the upper Skagit River watershed, the IP models found that the most high IP habitat existed for steelhead, whereas coho and Chinook IP models found that most stream sections were rated as having medium or low IP. These assessments, when coupled with other habitat models to estimate juvenile rearing capacity (for example, Cramer and Ackerman, 2009; Cooper and others 2020; Ramos and Ward, 2022) and bioenergetic growth potential (Weber and others, 2014; Thompson and Beauchamp, 2016) are a useful first step in evaluating the feasibility of potential anadromous salmonid introduction programs.

References Cited

Agrawal, A., Schick, R.S., Bjorkstedt, E.P., Szerlong, R.G., Goslin, M.N., Spence, B.C., Williams, T.H., and Burnett, K.M., 2005, Predicting the potential for historical coho, Chinook, and steelhead habitat in northern California: Santa Cruz, California, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-379, 34 p.

Benda, L., Miller, D., Andras, K., Bigelow, P., Reeves, G., and Michael, D., 2007, NetMap—A new tool in support of watershed science and resource management: Forest Science, v. 53, no. 2, p. 206–219.

Benda, L., Miller, D., and Barquin, J., 2011, Creating a catchment scale perspective for river restoration: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, v. 15, no. 9, p. 2995–3015.

Benda, L., Miller, D., Barquin, J., McCleary, R., Cai, T., and Ji, Y., 2016, Building virtual watersheds—A global opportunity to strengthen resource management and conservation: Environmental Management, v. 57, no. 3, p. 722–739.

Benda, L., Poff, N.L., Miller, D., Dunne, T., Reeves, G.H., Pess, G., and Pollock, M., 2004, The network dynamics hypothesis—How channel networks structure riverine habitats: Bioscience, v. 54, no. 5, p. 413–427.

Bidlack, A.L., Benda, L.E., Miewald, T., Reeves, G.H., and McMahan, G., 2014, Identifying suitable habitat for Chinook salmon across a large, glaciated watershed: Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, v. 143, no. 3, p. 689–699.

Burnett, K.M., Reeves, G.H., Miller, D.J., Clarke, S., Vance-Borland, K., and Christiansen, K., 2007, Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative to landscape characteristics and implications for conservation: Ecological Applications, v. 17, no. 1, p. 66–80.

Busch, D.S., Sheer, M., Burnett, K., McElhany, P., and Cooney, T., 2013, Landscape-level model to predict spawning habitat for lower Columbia River fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): River Research and Applications, v. 29, no. 3, p. 297–312.

Clay, C.H., and Eng, P., 2017, Design of fishways and other fish facilities (2d ed.): Boca Raton, Florida, CRC Press. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315141046.]

Connor, E., Lowry, E., Smith, D., Ramsden, K., Barkdull, B., Warinner, B., Hartson, R., and Brocksmith, R., 2015, Tributary assessment for potential Chinook salmon rearing habitat and recommendations for prioritizing habitat protection and restoration: Skagit Watershed Council Report, accessed November 22, 2021, at https://www.skagitwatershed.org/wp-content/uploads/Tier-2-Tributary-composite-2015-02-04_final-draft-2.pdf.

Cooney, T.D., and Holzer, D.M., 2006, Appendix C—Interior Columbia basin stream type Chinook salmon and steelhead populations—Habitat intrinsic potential analysis: Interior Columbia Basin Technical Recovery Team (ICTRT), Viability criteria review draft: Seattle, Washington, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 17 p. [Also available at https://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Files/BiologicalOpinions/2000/XAppendix_C.pdf.]

Cooper, E.J., O’Dowd, A.P., Graham, J.R., Mierau, D.W., Trush, W.J., and Taylor, R., 2020, Salmonid habitat and population capacity estimates for steelhead trout and Chinook salmon upstream of Scott Dam in the Eel River, California: Northwest Science, v. 94, no. 1, p. 70–96.

Cramer, S.P., and Ackerman, N.K., 2009, Linking stream carrying capacity for salmonids to habitat features: American Fisheries Society Symposium, v. 71, p. 225–254.

ESRI, 2023, ArcGIS Pro version 3.1, accessed April 14, 2023, at https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-pro/overview.

Finn, R.J.R., Chalifour, L., Gergel, S.E., Hinch, S.G., Scott, D.C., and Martin, T.G., 2021, Quantifying lost and inaccessible habitat for Pacific salmon in Canada’s lower Fraser River: Ecosphere, v. 12, no. 7, p. e03646.

Hard, J.J., Myers, J.M., Connor, E.J., Hayman, R.A., Kope, R.G., Lucchetti, G., Marshall, A.R., Pess, G.R., and Thompson, B.E., 2015, Viability criteria for steelhead within the Puget Sound distinct population segment: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-129, 367 p. [Also available at https://doi.org/10.7289/V5/TM-NWFSC-129.]

Johnson, G.E., Anglea, S.M., Adams, N.S., and Wik, T.O., 2005, Evaluation of a prototype surface flow bypass for juvenile salmon and steelhead at the powerhouse of Lower Granite Dam, Snake River, Washington, 1996–2000: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 25, no. 1, p. 138–151.

Kock, T.J., Ferguson, J.W., Keefer, M.L., and Schreck, C.B., 2021, Review of trap-and-haul for managing Pacific salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) in impounded river systems: Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, v. 31, p. 53–94.

Lusardi, R.A., and Moyle, P.B., 2017, Two-way trap and haul as a conservation strategy for anadromous salmonids: Bethesda, Maryland, Fisheries, v. 42, no. 9, p. 478–487.

Naughton, G.P., Keefer, M.L., Clabough, T.S., Knoff, M.J., Blubaugh, T.J., Sharpe, C., and Caudill, C.C., 2018, Reservoir provides cool-water refuge for adult Chinook salmon in a trap-and-haul reintroduction program: Marine and Freshwater Research, v. 69, no. 12, p. 1995–2007.

Piper, A.T., Rosewarne, P.J., Wright, R.M., and Kemp, P.S., 2020, Using ‘trap and transport’to facilitate seaward migration of landlocked European eel (Anguilla anguilla) from lakes and reservoirs: Fisheries Research, v. 228, p. 105567.

Ramos, M., and Ward, D.W., 2022, Modelling the reestablishment of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Klamath River tributaries after dam removal: Ecology Freshwater Fish, v. 32, no. 1, p. 133–146.

Seattle City Light, 2023, Skagit relicensing public documents library: accessed April 14, 2023, at https://www.seattle.gov/light/skagit/Relicensing/default.htm.

Sheer, M.B., Busch, D.S., Gilbert, E., Bayer, J.M., Lanigan, S., Schei, J.L., Burnett, K.M., and Miller, D., 2009, Development and management of fish intrinsic potential data and methodologies—State of the IP 2008 Summary report: Portland, Oregon, Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership Series 2009–004, 56 p.

Terrainworks, 2023, NetMap tools, accessed April 14, 2023, at https://terrainworks.com/get-netmap-virtual-watersheds-and-tools.

Thompson, J.N., and Beauchamp, D.A., 2016, Growth of juvenile steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss under size-selective pressure limited by seasonal bioenergetic and environmental constraints: Journal of Fish Biology, v. 89, no. 3, p. 1720–1739.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2019, Fish passage inventory, assessment, and prioritization manual: Olympia, Washington, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 284 p. [Also available at https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02061.]

Waldman, J.R., and Quinn, T.P., 2022, North American diadromous fishes—Drivers of decline and potential for recovery in the Anthropocene: Science Advances, v. 8, no. 4, p. eabl5486.

Ward, J.V., and Stanford, J.A., eds., 1979, The ecology of regulated streams: New York, Plenum Press, 398 p.

Weber, N., Bouwes, N., and Jordan, C.E., 2014, Estimation of salmonid habitat growth potential through measurements of invertebrate food abundance and temperature: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 71, no. 8, p. 1158–1170.

Conversion Factors

International System of Units to U.S. customary units

Multiply By To obtain
meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft)
kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)
square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre
square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2)
square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1983 (NAVD 83).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Abbreviations

CnH

Cooney and Holzer

DEM

digital elevation model

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GIS

geographic information system

IP

intrinsic potential

LP

licensing participants

rkm

river kilometer

PS-TRT

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

For information about the research in this report, contact

Director, Western Fisheries Research Center

U.S. Geological Survey

6505 NE 65th Street

Seattle, Washington 98115-5016

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/wfrc

Manuscript approved on September 20, 2023

Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey

Science Publishing Network, Tacoma Publishing Service Center

Disclaimers

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested Citation

Duda, J.J., and Hardiman, J.M., 2023, Applying intrinsic potential models to evaluate salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) introduction into main-stem and tributary habitats upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project, northern Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2023-1077, 44 p. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20231077.

ISSN: 2331-1258 (online)

Study Area

Publication type Report
Publication Subtype USGS Numbered Series
Title Applying intrinsic potential models to evaluate salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) introduction into main-stem and tributary habitats upstream from the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project, northern Washington
Series title Open-File Report
Series number 2023-1077
DOI 10.3133/ofr20231077
Year Published 2023
Language English
Publisher U.S. Geological Survey
Publisher location Reston, VA
Contributing office(s) Western Fisheries Research Center
Description Report: viii, 44 p.; Data Release
Country Canada, United States
State Washington
Online Only (Y/N) Y
Google Analytic Metrics Metrics page
Additional publication details