Mike -
I owould only added to Salmo's response that while many of the chum spawning in main stem areas many also spawn in side channel and slough areas that least prone to the ravages of flood waters -think Marblemount slough, County line ponds, etc.

Bob -
In regards to recruitment models - while the type of model maybe applied across a wide area the specifics for each river are typically tailor based on the specifics of that system. In systems with extensive series of data rive specific is used. Even when the model is composite of information from a number of areas (original steelhead escapement work) they are "tweaked" based on river specific info - for example in the early steelhead case the goals were based on composite production information applied river specific info that was thought to limit production - in this case amount of habitat area at low flow stratified by discharge (smaller streams supported more parr/area than larger ones) and gradients (moderate gradients supported more parr/area than low gradients). In short the State recognized that every river is different.


Generally escapement goals are established for what often is called averaged conditions. Your original comment suggest that should be bufferred somehow -what is your suggestion? Sticking with the Skagit chinook example the average freshwater survival over the last 14 years has been estimatred to have been about 12% (15 to 16% in non-flood years). Following a 100 year flood the survival was only 1.2% or about 10% of the average. Were you suggesting that to guard against such survival hits the goal managed for be raised so that even in the event of a large flood freshwater survival would still be "average"?


Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you all tight lines
S malma