In a letter dated May 28, 1999, from Mike Schiewe, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) requested that the Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) review the scientific adequacy of the April 14, 1999 draft document, "An Assessment of Lower Snake River Hydrosystem Alternatives on Survival and Recovery of Snake River Salmonids," prepared as an appendix to the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) document, the "Lower Snake River Juvenile Salmonid Migration Feasibility Study." The NMFS document, generally referred to as the Anadromous Fish Appendix (AFA), attempts to evaluate a set of hydrosystem management options for their likely effects on listed stocks of Snake River Salmon. The charge to the ISAB, in the letter from NMFS, stated a list of eight questions to help guide the review. These were: Are the analytical approaches and methods appropriate? Are data complete and of high quality? Do the results support the conclusions? Does the report accurately and fairly capture the degree of uncertainty in the projected outcomes? Are the uncertainties adequately described? Is the degree to which research can resolve these uncertainties clearly identified? To what degree did the failure of the PATH models to consider extinction affect the projected outcomes? Does this issue warrant further analytical attention? Although the analytical focus of the A-Fish Appendix is the evaluation of whether specific breach or non-breach alternatives would meet survival and recovery criteria, did the analysis adequately consider other factors affecting salmon recovery? Is the report balanced in its treatment of risks and uncertainties?