Quantifying the downstream survival of migrating fish past dams is critical for conservation efforts. Regulators require assessments of survival as a condition of operation. Failure to meet an established survival standard may result in required operational or costly structural changes at a facility. Establishing the survival standard, as well as the rules of assessment, is a point of contention between regulators and operators. Management goals are based on biological criteria, but there are inherent statistical and probabilistic trade-offs when choosing a standard value and the method for assessment. We make a distinction between a “biological” goal (the conservation goal) and a “statistical” standard (a function of the biological goal, sample size, assessment method, and years of consecutive evaluation). An effective statistical standard maximizes true positives (passing the standard when the biological goal is being met) and true negatives (failing the standard when the goal is not being met), while minimizing false negatives and false positives. We explored the effects of sample size, true survival, and assessment methods on the probability of passing different statistical standards by simulating survival studies (simulating mark-recapture experiments). We observed a strong influence of assessment methods on the probability of making the right decision (true positive or true negative), especially when sample size, and recapture probability was low. As a support tool, we developed an interactive user interface to explore specific scenarios, and to aid communication among decision-makers.
