Fraser River sockeye salmon: data synthesis and cumulative impacts

presented in Appendix 3.d. Unfortunately, when I finally read Appendix 3 (which I expected to clarify theshortcomings in the main text regarding the description of the authors' statisticalmethods), I was still unclear what they actually did. There are still no statistical modelsgiven. Appendix 3 should therefore be rewritten in the format of a methods section of ajournal paper so that readers with statistical backgrounds can understand what theauthors did and evaluate the appropriateness of the methods of analysis. Again note,however, that this criticism only applies to the methods used by the authors of thisreport on their analyses of raw data; it does not to their synthesis of evidence and otheranalyses provided to them by other contractors.Response: The sections of Appendix 3 that pertain to our quantitative analyses have beensubstantially rewritten to address these issues, as well as the more specific criticismsregarding this section raised below.e. Appendix 4 described more about the methods, but still not enough. Moreproblematic, though, was the poor presentation of results of the authors' own dataanalyses. My comments and suggestions for improvement are detailed at the end ofsection 6 of this review.Response: Appendix 4 has been substantially rewritten to address these issues, as well asthe more specific criticisms regarding this section raised below. We acknowledge that thedraft version of this appendix made available to the reviewers was quite rough. The timeavailable for conducting the quantitative analyses and describing their results was highlyconstrained due to long delays in receiving the appropriate data.2. Evaluate the interpretation of the available data, and the validity of any derivedconclusions. Overall, does the report represent the best scientific interpretationof the available data?a. The authors used (and clearly explained to readers) a rigorous "weight-of-evidence"approach that helped them deal with the complex set of hypothesized causes of thedecline of Fraser River sockeye, as well as the wide range of available data for differenthypotheses. This "weight-of-evidence" approach was based on two key publications inthe field of "Retrospective Ecological Risk Assessment" (Forbes and Callow 2002;Burkhardt-Holm and Scheurer 2007), but the authors omitted full references to thesepapers at the back of the report.Response: The correct, full citations have been added to references section.b. The authors did a very commendable job at presenting the best scientificinterpretation of available data that they obtained from the other contractors. The reportalso carefully points out cases where no information was available and where noconclusions could be drawn. As well, the report draws legitimate conclusions that putmore weight on hypotheses about marine processes outside the Strait of Georgia than122