Salmo g.
As you know I have long been concern about the apparent lack of insect production from the main stem Skagit (especially up strem of the Sauk) and have to agree with Todd's assessment. In the time that I have spend in that basin I have observed a great diversity of insect species on that upper reach but very little bio-mass. I can not recall a single large scale "bug" hatch on the reach.

Regarding the impacts of the flow modification from the SCL projects Gislason in 1985 said -

"Reduction in the amplitude and duration of power-peaking flow fluctuation can be a highly effective management strategy for enhancing aquatic insect standing crop, with a potential for increasing the survival and growth of fish dependent on insects for food."

He did so in an article titled
"Aquatic Insect Abundance in a Regulated Stream under Fluctuating and Stable Diel Flow Patterns"

It was published in the NAJFM (1985 5:39-46) and used the Skagit river as the test stream. He compared the insect densities in the 15 to 45cm water depth range between 1976 where the flows were subject to diel flow variations normally associate with hydro peak and 1977 when there were relatively stable flows when peaking was curtailed. He found that the densities at corresponding depths and months were 1.8 to 59 times higher in 1977 than in 1976.

Remember that those density increases where just from one summer of flow protection. I suspect that as with nearly every other tail water situation in the west that if that sort of non-peaking operation was applied over time there would huge increases in insect abundances compared to today's levels. Yes of course it would be at the cost of power generation and squeezing the maximum $$ from the water released but just the same folks need to acknowledge those potential costs/impacts from current and past operations.

Todd's observation about the numbers of steelhead spawning in the main stem Skagit above the Sauk also has some validity. During the late 1970s and 1980s typically 10% of the basins spawning steelhead would be found using the reach of the river. From the mid-1990s on that has fallen to about 3% of the basin's total. As we have discussed before I have to wonder whether the flow changes in the early 1990s while doing great things to reduce the stranding of Chinook fry may have had an adverse effect on those fish who rear for longer periods in the river.

Regarding the Skagit pink and chums - I think it would be safe to say that prior to and during most of our public careers the the Skagit basin would have been considered pink and chum central for all of Puget Sound. That no longer is the case; for most cycles the production from the rest of the Sound basins now exceed that of the Skagit and often just the production of the Snohomish will exceed that of the Skagit. As you know the majority of the pink and chum production in the Skagit basin occurs upstream of the Sauk. I have concerns that given the situation with that reach's steelhead, pinks and chums that something has gone awry with the freshwater production there.

Tight lines
Curt