1. 1 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 Robert S. Webb Climate Analysis Branch NOAA ESRL Physical Sciences Division Plus: NOAA NMFS; USDA, DOI, USFWS, USBR 1 Infusing climate change information into biological opinions and assessments (Outline: What, Why, How, …..)

2. 2 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 What - Best Available Science - 1 “(b) BASIS FOR DETERMINATIONS.—(1)(A) The Secretary shall make determinations required by subsection (a)(1) solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available …” [ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 – Section 4] “to assure that the national fishery conservation and management program utilizes, and is based upon, the best scientific information available” (101-627, 104-297) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. (98-623) [MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT Public Law 94-265, as amended through October 11, 1996]

3. 3 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 What - Best Available Science - 2 The Secretary, on the basis of the ‘best scientific evidence available’ and in consultation with the Marine Mammal Commission, is authorized and directed from time to time, having due regard to the distribution, abundance, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory movements of such marine mammals.. (Marine Mammal Protection Act, sec. 1371) In carrying out this section and, to the degree that an Agency action is based on science, the Administrator shall use— (i) the best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices….. (Amendments to Safe Drinking Water Act, sec. 300g-1) CEQ NEPA Standard, demand information of ''high quality'' and professional integrity. 40 CFR 1500.1, 1502.24.

4. 4 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 Why - US District Court Rulings NRDC v. Kempthorne addressed 2004 OCAP and Project impacts on the Delta smelt and determined that the FWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to address the issue of global climate change in that Biological Opinion, finding, “the absence of any discussion in the BiOp of how to deal with any climate change is a failure to analyze a potentially important aspect of the problem.” PCFFA et al. vs. Guiterriez revisited the 2004 OCAP. During the time period when NMFS was formulating this BiOp [addressing the requirements for chinook salmon and steelhead], readily available scientific data existed regarding the potential effects of global climate change on the hydrology of the Project area river systems including: Studies showing that radiative forcing (warming) had begun to increase steeply around 1970 and is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Predicted this warming would produce less snowfall, more rainfall, and earlier snowmelt, leading to major reductions in the Sierra snowpack and decreases in summer stream flow. The BiOp does not discuss this global climate change data or mention that NMFS, at a minimum, considered this data. Instead, the BiOp relies on past hydrology and temperature models that assume the historical monthly temperature, hydrologic, and climatic conditions experienced from 1922 through 1994 will continue for 25 years through the duration of the 2004 OCAP operations. These assumptions were challenged as without basis in then-available science. NMFS AR 5828-31. Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the climate change claim issue based on NMFS’s total failure to address, adequately explain, and analyze the effects of global climate change on the species. NRDC v. Kempthorne addressed 2004 OCAP and Project impacts on the Delta smelt and determined that the FWS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to address the issue of global climate change in that Biological Opinion, finding, “the absence of any discussion in the BiOp of how to deal with any climate change is a failure to analyze a potentially important aspect of the problem.” PCFFA et al. vs. Guiterriez revisited the 2004 OCAP. During the time period when NMFS was formulating this BiOp [addressing the requirements for chinook salmon and steelhead], readily available scientific data existed regarding the potential effects of global climate change on the hydrology of the Project area river systems including: Studies showing that radiative forcing (warming) had begun to increase steeply around 1970 and is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Predicted this warming would produce less snowfall, more rainfall, and earlier snowmelt, leading to major reductions in the Sierra snowpack and decreases in summer stream flow. The BiOp does not discuss this global climate change data or mention that NMFS, at a minimum, considered this data. Instead, the BiOp relies on past hydrology and temperature models that assume the historical monthly temperature, hydrologic, and climatic conditions experienced from 1922 through 1994 will continue for 25 years through the duration of the 2004 OCAP operations. These assumptions were challenged as without basis in then-available science. NMFS AR 5828-31. Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to the climate change claim issue based on NMFS’s total failure to address, adequately explain, and analyze the effects of global climate change on the species.

5. 5 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 Why - Recent Developments Court rulings underscore the challenge for USFWS and NMFS to consider the impacts of climate change, as well as the need to use more comprehensive analytical methods. more recently The environmental analysis and documents produced in the NEPA process should provide the decision maker with relevant and timely information about the environmental effects of his or her decision and reasonable alternatives to mitigate those impacts. In this context, climate change issues arise in relation to the consideration of:(1) The GHG emissions effects of a proposed action and alternative actions; and (2) The relationship of climate change effects to a proposed action or alternatives, including the relationship to proposal design, environmental impacts, mitigation and adaptation measures. [DRAFT NEPA GUIDANCE ON CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, 02-18-2010] Court rulings underscore the challenge for USFWS and NMFS to consider the impacts of climate change, as well as the need to use more comprehensive analytical methods. more recently The environmental analysis and documents produced in the NEPA process should provide the decision maker with relevant and timely information about the environmental effects of his or her decision and reasonable alternatives to mitigate those impacts. In this context, climate change issues arise in relation to the consideration of:(1) The GHG emissions effects of a proposed action and alternative actions; and (2) The relationship of climate change effects to a proposed action or alternatives, including the relationship to proposal design, environmental impacts, mitigation and adaptation measures. [DRAFT NEPA GUIDANCE ON CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, 02-18-2010]

6. 6 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 Scientific uncertainties and disagreements are not an excuse to ignore the impact of climate change in ESA and NEPA determinations Use best available

7. 7 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 IPCC AR4 Projections of Future Climate Change Best estimate for low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and for high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C). What is the best available climate change science: which emission scenario, climate model, ensemble member, critical climate or environmental variable, downscaling method Court rulings pushing the climate community comfort zone?

8. 8 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 How - Decision Tree guiding Level of Analysis for incorporating Climate Change Brekke, L.D., et al., 2009

9. 9 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 An Example: Central Valley Project (CVP) Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP) 2008: Background  Multiple Listed/Threatened Species  Delta Smelt, several salmon fisheries  Tasks  Water agencies produce Biological Assessment on effects of long-term operations (through 2030)  Water agencies consult with Fisheries agencies  Fisheries agencies produce Biological Opinions  Key Issues  Geographically overlapping water systems  Upstream vs. downstream fisheries management  Climate Change  Multiple Listed/Threatened Species  Delta Smelt, several salmon fisheries  Tasks  Water agencies produce Biological Assessment on effects of long-term operations (through 2030)  Water agencies consult with Fisheries agencies  Fisheries agencies produce Biological Opinions  Key Issues  Geographically overlapping water systems  Upstream vs. downstream fisheries management  Climate Change Brekke, L.D., et al., 2009

10. 10 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 State Water Project (CA Department of Water Resources (DWR)) Central Valley Project (Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region) Brekke, L.D., et al., 2009

11. 11 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 III. Conduct Planning Evaluations CVP OCAP 2008: Start with Traditional Framework… II. Relate to Planning Assumptions I. Choose Climate Context Instrumental Records: observed weather (T and P) and runoff (Q) Demand Variability System Analysis, Evaluate Study Questions (related to Resource Management Objectives) Operating ConstraintsSupply Variability Adapted from USGS Circular 1331 (Brekke et al. 2009)

12. 12 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 III. Conduct Planning Evaluations CVP OCAP 2008: Add Regional Climate Projections II. Relate to Planning Assumptions I. Choose Climate Context Instrumental Records: observed weather (T and P) and runoff (Q) Demand Variability Future Operations Portrayal for OCAP BA (flows, storage, deliveries, etc) Operating Constraints Supply Variability Runoff watershed simulation Regional T and P Global Climate Projections: Representing various GCMs, forcings  bias-correction, spatial downscaling Adapted from USGS Circular 1331 (Brekke et al. 2009)

13. 13 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 III. Conduct Planning Evaluations CVP OCAP 2008: Add Global Climate, Sea Level Projections II. Relate to Planning Assumptions I. Choose Climate Context Instrumental Records: observed weather (T and P) and runoff (Q) Demand Variability Future Operations Portrayal for OCAP BA (flows, storage, deliveries, etc) Operating Constraints Supply Variability Runoff watershed simulation Regional T and P Global Climate Projections: Representing various GCMs, forcings  bias-correction, spatial downscaling Delta Flow-Salinity Relationship Constraint on Upstream Operations Global T… Sea Level Rise Adapted from USGS Circular 1331 (Brekke et al. 2009)

14. 14 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 III. Conduct Planning Evaluations CVP OCAP 2008: Assess Operations, Water Temperatures II. Relate to Planning Assumptions I. Choose Climate Context Instrumental Records: observed weather (T and P) and runoff (Q) Demand Variability Future Operations Portrayal for OCAP BA (flows, storage, deliveries, etc) Operating Constraints Supply Variability Runoff watershed simulation Regional T and P Global Climate Projections: Representing various GCMs, forcings  bias-correction, spatial downscaling Delta Flow-Salinity Relationship Constraint on Upstream Operations Global T … Sea Level Rise …Stream Water Temperature analyses Regional T Reservoir Operations Adapted from USGS Circular 1331 (Brekke et al. 2009)

15. 15 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip3_projections/ CVP OCAP 2008: Regional Climate Projections Data Source Brekke et al., 2009

16. 16 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 10 and 90 percentile values Brekke et al., 2009

17. 17 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 Selections: chosen to bracket the spread… Note: Subset Scenarios2006 are changes for a different pair of periods Brekke et al., 2009

18. 18 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 Global Climate Modeling Insights from the science Climate model simulations have generally improved The average across all models (“multi-model average”) simulates current climatological averages better than any individual model, but the multi-model average will understate potential changes in extremes. The range of global-mean climate projections as assessed by the IPCC has not appreciably narrowed although confidence has increased The uncertainty of global and regional climate change is larger than the range simulated by the current generation of models The smaller the spatial scale, the greater the uncertainty -- more confidence in projections over large areas than for individual states, coastal regions, watersheds or counties.

19. 19 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 Global Climate Modeling Best Available Better to use a range of individual models, rather than a single model or the multi-model average There is no “best model” or “best downscaling technique (no one likes to admit being second best”) The relationship between model performance and reliability of projections on global and regional scales is not well understood On a regional scale, culling models based on performance in simulating current climate does not necessarily yield a narrower or more robust range of projections Model performance for many critical environmental variables or thresholds is unknown or unexplored

20. 20 The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Snowbird 2010 Use of Best Available Climate Change Science in Determinations How climate change fits- a factor that can put a species over the edge between not-threatened and threatened, or pushed to endangered Not sufficient to simply include climate change information in analyses but need to consider impacts end-to-end Uncertainty must be resolve in favor of the species - if there is a risk, cannot place the risk on the species Critical habitat designations: unoccupied habitat may became essential, range contracted/expanded but also ecosystem shifts, not current habitat becomes suitable for habitat or corridor management, recovery plans may need additional measures to offset impacts of climate change Some levels of certainty: warming, changes in variability, wetter wet, drier dry, sea ice retreat, ocean acidification,..