C.

45
From: Bilby, Bob
To: John W. Ferguson
Cc: John Stein
Subject: RE: Request for additional FCRPS BiOp review by Dr. Lubchenco
Date: Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:04:13 PM

John(s),
I think the documents look pretty good. Once implemented, these actions
should be very helpful in focusing and coordinating salmon research in the
basin. If there isn't already thorough description of the adaptive
management process that will be used to incorporate findings from the
RM&E, IMWs and climate change research into management actions, adding
some specificity to this process may be a worthwhile addition to the Biop.
I would think that a Biop Issue Paper that outlines a well defined
Adaptive Management process would reinforce that there is a clear pathway
from the science components to implementation on the ground, thereby
increasing the probability that the program will be successful. A few
additional suggestions:

1) One of the big challenges the IMWs will face is the implementation of
enough habitat actions over a short period of time to be able to detect a
response at the fish in/fish out level. A indication that support will be
available both for the continuation of data collection as well as
implementation of the habitat treatments would help ensure that these
projects provide meaningful results.

2) In the RM&E document, you might add a line that indicates that the
broader RM&E efforts will be coordinated with the IMWs so that IMW results
can be more reliably extended to non-IMW watersheds.

3) I think the first sentence in the Climate Change document is a bit

harsh regarding current research of climate change: "No monitoring actions
are currently implemented
under the FCRPS BO to detect specific impacts of a changing climate on
fish population processes;...". Although there may be no FCRPS supported
projects that are designed solely to examine potential climate change
effects on fish populations, as indicated later in the document, many of
the ongoing RM&E efforts are collecting data that are relevant to
understanding possible climate change impacts. You might consider
introducing this topic by indicating that relevant information is being
collected and the need is to compile this information and interpret it in
light of predicted impacts of climate change on the Columbia Basin.

4) It would also be worthwhile to indicate that some of the enhancements

proposed in the RM&E document will provide information important for
addressing climate change impacts. In particular, the inventory of the
cold water refugia will be very important.

Hope these comments are useful.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: John W. Ferguson [mailto:John.W.Ferguson@noaa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 9:43 PM

NOAA Document page 000112

To: Bilby, Bob
Cc: John Stein
Subject: Re: Request for additional FCRPS BiOp review by Dr. Lubchenco

Hello Bob: Attached are 3, 2-pagers that address additional (immediate)

actions that have been added to the BiOp on climate change, IMW's and RME
in general. Any time you have for these and your thoughts would be well
appreciated.

John
Bilby, Bob wrote:
> I have time between 10 and noon tomorrow when I can review the
documents.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Ferguson [mailto:John.W.Ferguson@noaa.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:18 PM
> To: Bilby, Bob; tebo@utk.edu; travis@neuro.fsu.edu; pkareiva@tnc.org
> Cc: John Stein
> Subject: Request for additional FCRPS BiOp review by Dr. Lubchenco
>
> 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,

NOAA Document page 000113

>
> John
>
>
>

--
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

NOAA Document page 000114