Qualification: The ISRP recommends that within the next year the project proponents 1) develop a proposed modeling and analysis outline for the data and 2) develop and test several critical hypotheses by integrating data across years.

Summary: This long-term project has provided important information regarding the early life history characteristics and survival data for wild Snake River spring Chinook. Key significant findings include parr to smolt survival rates, growth rates, migration timing, and intra- and inter- annual variation in movements between habitats. The information gained continues to be of value to managers and other decision-makers. The ISRP commends the project proponents for the well-prepared summary of accomplishments and major results over the history of the project.

While gathering these long-term data may be worthwhile in itself, the ISRP suggests that to fully utilize these data, the next logical steps are 1) start to develop a modeling and analysis outline for the data and 2) start framing and testing a few critical hypotheses. The ISRP noted that the proponents have started to do this type of analysis for a five year set of data by examining the variation in survival based on size (see Zabel and Achord. 2004. Vol. 85(3) Ecology). The ISRP suggests that the data should be explored more fully and that more such hypotheses can be tested. For example:

• The results of Paulsen and Fisher (2001) were valuable in pointing out the effect of rearing habitat “type” and condition on parr to smolt survival. What is the next step as a logical follow-up?
• Project staff sees a lot of pre-smolt movement during winter. Is this an important pattern? We suspect that mid-winter movement is movement of last resort because the winter habitat utilized at the onset of winter is no longer suitable, and these fish seldom survive.
• The project presents only relative parr densities - how do these compare with actual densities?
• Relevance to climate change is mentioned, but nothing specific formulated for testing.

Other ISRP comments:

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Proponents describe in reasonable detail how the project relates to the 2008 BiOp, Fish and Wildlife Program, MERR, HLI, etc. The significance of the project to regional programs is clearly laid out and in a general sense it is evident that the information gained is of value to managers and other decision makers. The technical background section is very well done and uses the available literature to support justification for this project. The Objectives are measurable with specifically defined metrics but are mostly about what data will be collected, not hypothesis-driven objectives.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

An excellent summary is given of accomplishments and major results over the history of the project. This is a long ongoing project that has provided important information regarding the early life history characteristics and survival data for wild Snake River spring Chinook. Several significant findings include parr to smolt survival rates, growth rates, migration timing, and intra and inter annual variation in movements between habitats.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

This project has coordinated well with many other projects, and these are specifically identified in the proposal.

The proponents indicate that they are taking into account significant future changes in limiting factors such as climate change and water quality, but nothing specific is proposed for testing or evaluation.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

There is a good track record of technical reports and publications. Methods seem appropriate, and project staff seems well positioned to continue to incorporate new technology (e.g., smaller tags) as it becomes available. The improvements in detection rates may provide an opportunity to reduce sampling effort if target precision levels can be met with less sampling effort. Indeed, one of the strongest reasons to continue the project is that such new technology is becoming available so rapidly.

The study is well designed with state of art methods. The few null hypotheses listed in the proposal (e.g., there are no significant differences in timing among years, etc.) are okay as far as they go but are not adequate for explaining the observed variation. It is not clear that there are more specific hypotheses that the proponents intend to test.

Qualification: The ISRP recommends that within the next year the project proponents 1) develop a proposed modeling and analysis outline for the data and 2) develop and test several critical hypotheses by integrating data across years. Summary: This long-term project has provided important information regarding the early life history characteristics and survival data for wild Snake River spring Chinook. Key significant findings include parr to smolt survival rates, growth rates, migration timing, and intra- and inter- annual variation in movements between habitats. The information gained continues to be of value to managers and other decision-makers. The ISRP commends the project proponents for the well-prepared summary of accomplishments and major results over the history of the project. While gathering these long-term data may be worthwhile in itself, the ISRP suggests that to fully utilize these data, the next logical steps are 1) start to develop a modeling and analysis outline for the data and 2) start framing and testing a few critical hypotheses. The ISRP noted that the proponents have started to do this type of analysis for a five year set of data by examining the variation in survival based on size (see Zabel and Achord. 2004. Vol. 85(3) Ecology). The ISRP suggests that the data should be explored more fully and that more such hypotheses can be tested. For example: • The results of Paulsen and Fisher (2001) were valuable in pointing out the effect of rearing habitat “type” and condition on parr to smolt survival. What is the next step as a logical follow-up? • Project staff sees a lot of pre-smolt movement during winter. Is this an important pattern? We suspect that mid-winter movement is movement of last resort because the winter habitat utilized at the onset of winter is no longer suitable, and these fish seldom survive. • The project presents only relative parr densities - how do these compare with actual densities? • Relevance to climate change is mentioned, but nothing specific formulated for testing. Other ISRP comments: 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives Proponents describe in reasonable detail how the project relates to the 2008 BiOp, Fish and Wildlife Program, MERR, HLI, etc. The significance of the project to regional programs is clearly laid out and in a general sense it is evident that the information gained is of value to managers and other decision makers. The technical background section is very well done and uses the available literature to support justification for this project. The Objectives are measurable with specifically defined metrics but are mostly about what data will be collected, not hypothesis-driven objectives. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management An excellent summary is given of accomplishments and major results over the history of the project. This is a long ongoing project that has provided important information regarding the early life history characteristics and survival data for wild Snake River spring Chinook. Several significant findings include parr to smolt survival rates, growth rates, migration timing, and intra and inter annual variation in movements between habitats. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) This project has coordinated well with many other projects, and these are specifically identified in the proposal. The proponents indicate that they are taking into account significant future changes in limiting factors such as climate change and water quality, but nothing specific is proposed for testing or evaluation. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods There is a good track record of technical reports and publications. Methods seem appropriate, and project staff seems well positioned to continue to incorporate new technology (e.g., smaller tags) as it becomes available. The improvements in detection rates may provide an opportunity to reduce sampling effort if target precision levels can be met with less sampling effort. Indeed, one of the strongest reasons to continue the project is that such new technology is becoming available so rapidly. The study is well designed with state of art methods. The few null hypotheses listed in the proposal (e.g., there are no significant differences in timing among years, etc.) are okay as far as they go but are not adequate for explaining the observed variation. It is not clear that there are more specific hypotheses that the proponents intend to test.

This is a high priority project deserving support. Significant peer reviewed publications are continuing to be produced by this project.

As the proposal indicates, with the development of additional PIT-tag detection capabilities at dams, research biologists can now estimate survival from parr to smolt stages. The proposal makes a good case for continuing this project to make these estimates, which may allow in-season management decisions regarding timing of hydropower system operations within season (spill, flow, and transportation) to provide the most benefits for juvenile wild Chinook.

In the 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide Review, the ISRP concluded that, "This is a good smolt-monitoring project that provides invaluable basic data for management decisions affecting the stocks involved." This conclusion still applies.