You are on page 1of 3

C.

46
From: Joseph Travis
To: John W. Ferguson
Subject: Re: Request for additional FCRPS BiOp review by Dr. Lubchenco
Date: Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:57:42 PM

I've been able to look at the "reintroductions" and "life cycle modeling"
sheets briefly.

The "reintroduction" sheet looks good, meaning it captures what the


independent scientists were suggesting and translates that suggestion into

a thoughtful approach. I like it.

The "life cycle modeling" sheet looks OK. On the positive side, it says
the right things and does capture the broad sense of what the independent
scientists were suggesting. On the negative side, it doesn't state
clearly, under "spatially explicit modeling" what the scientists had in
mind. As I read it, the text says "we'll add more populations" but what
the scientists were suggesting was incorporating explicit knowledge of
population location into the modeling. The point about spatially explicit

modeling is that knowledge of relative position could change outcomes.


For
example, adjacent populations might be expected to experience conditions
more similar to one another (stream productivity, predator densities,
competitors, etc.) but that as populations become more widely separated,
the correlation between them in extrinsic factors decreases. The
cumulative effect is to tie populations together so that instead of having

an ESU consist of n distinct populations doing their thing independently,


correlations and correlation structures could create m groups, where m < n

and each unit m is larger than a single population and so outcomes could
be
different. In other words, modeling connected populations with explicit
correlation structures could lead to different conclusions about
extinction
risk than modeling the same number of independent populations. ANyway, I
don' think the text as written captures the "why" of spatially explicit
modeling and could be read as merely advocating trying to add more
populations to the model.

I don't think I can do much more today.

At 12:39 AM 8/6/2009, John W. Ferguson wrote:


>Hello Joe! Attached are 3, 2-pagers that address additional (immediate)
>actions that have been added to the BiOp on climate change, life cycle
>modeling in general (where I captured Peter's comment about needing
>additional spatially explicit modeling) and reintroductions. In
addition,
>I have attached a document developed that addresses and explains the new
>triggers that have been added to the BiOp per the panel's
recommendations.
>Any time you have for these and your thoughts would be well appreciated.
>
>John
>
>Joseph Travis wrote:

NOAA Document page 000115


>>John,
>>
>>I can try but I can't promise I could do all of them well. I'm leaving
>>town Friday for a week and frantically trying to tie things up before I
>>go so all I can do is try.
>>
>>Joe
>>
>>At 04:17 PM 8/5/2009, John Ferguson wrote:
>>>Joe, Bob, Peter, and Dan:
>>>
>>>I am writing on behalf of Dr. Lubchenco to ask whether you are able,
>>>given your schedule, to review some brief documents that have been
>>>prepared as part of an Adaptive Management Plan (Plan) for the Federal
>>>Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (BiOp). Since your
review
>>>of the BiOp early last month, NOAA and the Action Agencies have been
>>>working to incorporate your suggestions into the BiOp. I can't go into

>>>the specifics in an email, but in general, the Plan calls for


additional
>>>activities and steps to be added to the BiOp, which fall into four
>>>categories: 1) immediate actions that will be implemented regardless
of
>>>salmon population trends, 2) formal triggers to provide improved "early

>>>warnings" of possible changes in trends, 3) if a trigger is reached,


>>>rapid responses are being formulated that can be implemented if needed,

>>>and 4) if a trigger is met, additional contingency (long term) plans


can
>>>be implemented. All of the actions are to be guided and aided by
>>>additional life-cycle modeling of pop trends, effects of climate, more
>>>spatially explicit modeling and modeling of potential interactions
among
>>>variables affecting pop status and trends and among the various "H's"
>>>and ESUs. Our main focus is to reduce the uncertainty you rightly
>>>pointed out exists with some key assumptions, build formal triggers
into
>>>the BiOp implementation for early warning, and have additional actions
>>>that could be implemented if needed.
>>>
>>>Specifically, I am writing to see if you are able and willing to review

>>>from 1 to 3, 2-page issue papers. These papers are being finalized and

>>>will be sent to Dr. Lubchenco later today. She has asked to see if you

>>>are able to review these brief documents. If so, I will send them to
>>>you later today and ask that you send your input back to me by
tomorrow,
>>>if at all possible. Unfortunately, we are up against some hard court
>>>filing deadlines here and haven't more time than that for your review.
>>>If not, we understand.
>>>
>>>Thank you for considering her request.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>John

NOAA Document page 000116


>>
>>Joseph Travis
>>Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
>>and Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Biological Science
>>Florida State University
>>Tallahassee, FL 32306-1280
>>Dean's Office Phone 850-644-4404
>>Dean's Office Fax 850-644-8029
>>Email: jtravis@fsu.edu
>
>--
>John Ferguson, Ph.D.
>Director, Fish Ecology Division
>Northwest Fisheries Science Center
>Seattle, WA 98112
>
>P 206.860.3287
>C 206.321.2075
>F 206.860.3267
>
>
>
>
>

Joseph Travis
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
and Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Biological Science
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1280
Dean's Office Phone 850-644-4404
Dean's Office Fax 850-644-8029
Email: jtravis@fsu.edu

NOAA Document page 000117