You are on page 1of 2

C.

15
From: Michelle McClure
To: John Ferguson
Subject: Re: Science workshop R,M&E recommendations
Date: Friday, July 31, 2009 6:21:22 AM

These are really good comments, John, and I think are all important
points. For Kareiva's modeling, we might want to set up a separate and
somewhat simpler model framework (using RAMAS or some such thing) to
take a look at the metapopulation dynamics (which is what he was getting at.

For Dan's comment, my understanding (and notes indicate) was that it was
the CHANGE in numbers rather than an absolute number threshold that
should be the trigger -- that's why they suggested that a four year
decline in abundance should be a trigger. I believe he cited a paper by
Pamela Mace and others for this one.

Hope this helps,

m.

John Ferguson wrote:


> I took a quick look and overall, I think you covered most of what I
> thought were key items the science panel mentioned. Some additional
> items or thoughts:
>
> -need to look at interactions among factors and ESUs. You touched on
> this, but the life-cycle modeling should provide a framework for
> studying interactions (multivariate analysis, synergistic effects,
> Monte Carlo simulations, auto-correlation among variables, etc.).
> There point was to improve the integration across the H's.
> -hatchery effects are being glossed over in our discussions, relative
> to the emphasis placed on these by the panel. The point was how
> understand potential hatchery effects (at various levels) and how to
> build more flexibility into hatchery practices in the event trends
> turn down
> -effects of toxics, disease outbreaks, natural catastrophes (fire,
> flood, drought), and new pathogens was discussed but we haven't really
> dealt with these so much
> -Peter Karieva mentioned the need for explicit spatial modeling;
> again, maybe this is something the modeling could address; he was
> talking about modeling MPGs and ESUs that aren't independent
> -I'm not sure we've quite addressed Dan's comment to adopt IUCN
> standards, where the threat is expressed not as a change in numbers of
> individuals or pops, but as a change in a rate (I think).
> -my personal opinion is that we continue to skip over aggressive
> actions to address FW climate change. Are there possibilities here
> that could be added?
> -Mary Ruckelshaus hit upon the baseline may not be stable as assumed,
> and may be declining due to land use, water use, and human pop trends;
> again, the modeling framework is designed in concept to address this
> -overall, the discussions have not touched enough on Dr L's key issue
> - climate change; here we need to expand ocean monitoring (Nate's
> comment), try to disentangle trends from variability, forecast FW
> changes, etc. Again, the is envisioned by the modeling framework.
>
> John
>
> Stier,Jeffrey K - KE-4 wrote:

NOAA Document page 000021


>> For litigation support purposes FOIA exempt
>>
>> John et al. - I'm attaching two documents. The first is one I
>> prepared immediately following the science workshop. After
>> consulting with our R,M&E experts, I put comments in the margin
>> indicating where we thought we had some coverage and where we have
>> gaps. The second document is from a draft of our contingency/RME
>> paper with a (similar?) list of R,M&E measures. I put my comments in
>> that paper in yellow highlight.
>>
>> If you guys have any thoughts or advice on this, please let me know
>> by tomorrow. I will try to put together something along these lines
>> for our Monday meeting with the Execs.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>

--
Michelle McClure, Ph.D.

Acting Director, Marine Ecosystems Division


Office of Science and Technology, NOAA Fisheries
1315 East-West Highway, Suite 12435
Silver Spring, MD 20910
michelle.mcclure@noaa.gov
(301) 713-2363 x145

Permanent contact Information:

Northwest Fisheries Science Center


NOAA Fisheries
2725 Montlake Blvd. E.
Seattle, WA 98112

phone: 206-860-3402
fax: 206-860-3400

NOAA Document page 000022

Related Interests