rojoband -
Thanks for posting the link to the final 2008 FRAM run. You are correct; if folks want to understand where are fish are going that is good place to start.

However a couple points. When I do the math in the Table 6A you referred to I get a break-out of Washington catches of Stillaquamish Chinook as follows -
Treaty - 32%
non-try Comm. - 5%
Sport -63%

The information in those tables are useful in looking at large scale issues but remember that the data in those tables are summaries and are typically rounded to the nearest tenth of per cent or nearest fish. The result is that due to rounding errors one can get different results - this may explain the differents between Kari's 27% and final run's number of 32% of the tribal impacts; (if you add the impacts in table 6a we get 12.8% while the non-rounded value is something at 14.8%). Regardless an important point is that the sport fisheries still is using the lion's share of the Washington impacts.

Regarding the timing of the insertation of the Skagit fisheries. It may well have been that Skagit Tribes brought up their desire for those sockeye/Chinook fisheries early in the process those fisheries was not included in the modeling efforts until late in the process - until such fisheries are modeled it is impossible to know what the impacts will be and how other fisheries may have to "shaped" to adjust if total impacts on stocks of concern exceed allowable limits. During the NOF process that the early wish list of fisheries (both treaty and non-treaty) includes a number of suggests/ideas that do not end up in the "final package" of seasons.

Tight lines
Curt