Comment:

The ISRP was impressed by the proposal, results-to-date, and the project review presentation. There are, however, several items that the proponents should consider (these are detailed below). Most importantly, the ISRP would appreciate knowing the topics and timelines for completing the multi-part synthesis (i.e., peer-reviewed publications) over the next year or two.

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

Project objectives are to (1) inform recovery actions taken to increase the abundance, productivity, and spawning distribution of natural-origin adults, and (2) inform recovery actions taken to increase the abundance and diversity of natural-origin subyearlings during early freshwater rearing and migration. The project objectives are well aligned with the Snake River fall Chinook salmon recovery plan, the current biological opinion, and the Council's 2014 Fish and Wildlife Program and 2017 Research Plan.

However, the proponents should establish quantitative objectives, specific timelines, and hypotheses to guide the research/monitoring. The stated objectives are actually work elements described in vague terms as to what is expected to be accomplished. Although the project objectives are not quantitative, the text associated with each objective identified criteria for success. That said, the ISRP would like to see a long-range vision articulated for the project, as well as criteria for success identified for that vision.

The proponents mention that several regional programs use the data that are generated by the project. However, it is not clear to the ISRP that these regional programs require those data. Please consider adding letters of support from those programs to future proposals.

2. Results and Adaptive Management

Status and trend monitoring of juvenile and adult fall Chinook are described and provide important information on the recovery of this ESU. The project's monitoring program revealed strong density dependence in fall Chinook salmon recruitment. The mechanism leading to this is unknown. The ISRP also notes that millions of hatchery fish are released with a large portion (20% or more) unmarked, leading to less certainty about the status of the natural population. The proponents and decision-makers associated with this project should carefully consider these issues in crafting future project actions.

 The proponents make a few statements that would benefit from further explanation:

·         Density dependence (p. 6): "Although it is not likely that the capacity of the spawning habitat is a large factor for the density dependent population response being observed (Groves et al. 2013*), we have observed large-scale redd superimposition at some spawning areas that could explain this." The ISRP is curious as to why other possible factors (e.g., juvenile growth) were not considered.

·         Is there a publication or document showing how the life-cycle and passage models are linked (see p. 16)? And how are the outputs from that linkage effective in improving population status and management?

·         The proponents state that they account for climate change, predation, and potential food web changes (p. 16) "by fitting stock-recruitment functions to predict changes in adult and juvenile abundance from covariates derived from empirical data collected on stream flow, temperature, and ocean conditions." This is confusing to the ISRP since the proponents do not collect data on these important factors. What is the origin of these data?

·         Budget (p. 22): It would be useful to know the amounts devoted to data synthesis and preparation of professional publications in each year, as well as for public outreach.

3. Methods: Project Relationships, Work Types, and Deliverables

Although specific methodology was not described in the proposal, annual reports provided more details. The reports noted that more accurate identification of redds is needed. Deliverables noted in the proposal included redd counts, spawner origin determination based on PBT (300 fish), stock-recruitment analysis, juvenile PIT tagging, juvenile run reconstruction, the life cycle model, and associated information. The project uses standard statistical methods.

Project relationships are described at several places in the proposal. However, the mechanisms underlying these relationships are not always clearly described. Are there any problems or issues associated with project relationships that ISRP could assist with in the near future?