I think reduced invertebrate production due to flow fluctuations is a pretty important part of the equation...worth more than one sentence acknowledging it. Care to elaborate?

I haven't seen Didymo in any rivers other than the ones I listed, and those rivers still get some pretty high water events in the late fall and early winter...but low gradient streams with little to no flooding, and no dams, well, never seen Didymo in any of those, either.

The Sauk is subject to very similar conditions as the Skagit, and the exact same marine conditions...yet the Skagit has precipitously lost fish at a rate far faster than the Sauk...but there is one glaring difference between the two, and it's upstream from Rockport, where both runs share the same river until that point...

Besides the flow regimes from the dams, what is the likely cause of the difference between the two streams, then?

I'm open to suggestions, and I'd love to participate as fully as possible in ESA consultation for the SCL operations, so let's talk about it some time soon.

I also didn't say that SCL operations are "solely" for energy production...and I firmly stand behind my contention that energy production comes first, and fish second.

I think it's a little funny to say that pink and chum runs are linked tightly to floods during brood years...floods that scour the eggs and kill fry, I'll assume...and to also say that Didymo is there because there aren't any flood events to wash it out...

If it floods enough to scour eggs and kill fry, I'll wager it floods enough to wash Didymo off the very same rocks that are tumbled all over to scour the eggs...

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I'd REALLY like to find out where Didymo is, how it got there, and what its effects are...