Smalma:

"The fish likely most impacted on Mike's Skagit in this last event was the chinook."

Not that I disagree, but why is that? Is it because these eggs are just now hatching out?

As for "restructuring" of the bottom during these high-flow events, there has been (what to us) is a major shift in sand/bottom with the two high-flows we have had this year. We used to have about a 20 yd. wide, high beach, that quickly sloped into a deep pool behind the house. That pool was sandy on the bottom, but because it was just downriver from a boulder run it held fish (mostly Coho/Chum).

The beach is gone. Totally. What is left (IMO) is better for the fishing. Boulders, rocks, etc. that were previously covered by that sand are now exposed, giving the fish some structure to hold behind or in front of. Wife thinks "her" beach is gone...I tell her "No, it's not gone..it moved to the neighbors..:-)"

To me it seems natural for the floods to relocate sand, gravel and log structures. When these monster trees come floating downriver, with a submerged root wad and the trunk partially exposed, porposing, you can hear the bottom being scoured and new channels being cut in. In the end, I think this is a good thing for fish...but in the short term my fears are that recent deposits of eggs by the Chum and Coho will be greatly effected. I don't understand why they wouldn't be, given the amount of scouring and sand re-distribution that occurred.

Mike