FY 2003 Mainstem/Systemwide proposal 200306700

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

The ISRP review raised several issues:

1. The rationale for producing two basically similar (but not identical) models seems to be based on whether one organization has the technical ability to deal with the C++ model code. This calls into question whether harvest managers are either duplicating each others work, or running different models and computing different harvest scenarios that later create conflict over management decisions. How did the issue of two models develop and what model specifications have been used in developing this proposal?
2. We have been informed that the task of re-coding the CTC model has already been assigned to two CTC committee members and advancements in the capabilities of the model are being addressed through a separate contract. Who requested the CTC work and have you the support of that committee to submit this request?
3. The needs of the BiOp model were not described in the proposal but ISRP understanding is that they are very similar to the CTC model and that NMFS has proceeded with an RFP for this work. Is this proposal in response to a request from NMFS and if so, why has it been submitted to the Council?
4. The point is made about accessibility of the code: why do managers need to understand the code? Please explain why option 2 is not selected: models developed in a simplified C++ format and harvest managers learn to use C++? Why shouldn't harvest organizations be fluent in the tools of harvest management? The CTC is not a committee of managers but rather technical experts from each management agency associated with the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The issue of coding languages has been a trade-off in the committee since the committee frequently must modify code at meetings to complete an assessment and cannot have 3rd party software or advanced languages that CTC staff is not fully proficient in. Further, transparency of the model and the ability for others to use is an important consideration when agencies coastwide use one model for assessment of important harvest management decisions.
5. Problems developing harvest model: The main question relates to the availability of data on by-catch and incidental mortalities resulting from that by-catch. What data exist on gear selectivity, incidental catch, and incidental catch mortality?

Summary

The proposal is reasonably clear in its goals but it implies some conflict in the modeling/harvest management community on how to proceed. It appears that the level of effort and hence cost may be doubled due differences in preferences for coding languages. Further, the ISRP is uncertain of the necessity for this proposal since the CTC is proceeding with modifications of their model and the basis of the request for a BiOp model is not presented. The ISRP has no intention of generating a potential problem of alternative models and should not consider this proposal unless the proponent can clearly demonstrate support of the user community for this proposal and the ability to develop one model for useful in the Basin for assessment of harvest alternatives as an effective recovery tool. Further, the proposal does not comment adequately if the data is available to support the developments suggested.

Finally, a programmatic note: some connection to enforcement goals of the region should be coordinated with harvest management tools. Previous M&E (Peters et al., 1997) have shown enforcement is most effective when harvest rules are simple and easy to enforce. Suggest funding one model if it is possible for involved organizations to work together with cohesive effort.

Comment:

Comment:

This proposal initially caused some confusion. The PI began his presentation by suggesting that the proposal should not be funded. His statement related to differences of opinion between the PI and the model users, i.e., the salmon management agencies and the Chinook Technical Committee (CTC) of the Pacific Salmon Commission. The proposal would not be effective if not supported by these key users. The proposal, however, looks generally acceptable and the development of new models to reflect new management needs for selective fisheries as expressed in the BiOp RPAs appears to be a reasonable suggestion. The proposal makes an effective argument for the benefit of models that will provide managers with information they need to minimize catch of protected stocks. The proposal explains how existing data will be used to model the new questions about harvest management.

The ISRP review questioned the rationale for producing two basically similar models, whom requested these new models when existing models are being used, clarification of the PI's comments about the need for managers to be conversant in model codes, and whether the data existed to develop these new models (e.g., data on gear selectivity, incidental catch, and incidental catch mortality)?

The ISRP also stated that they were uncertain of the necessity for this proposal since the CTC is proceeding with modifications of their model and the basis of the request for a BiOp model is not presented. The ISRP noted a potential problem of alternative models and would not be supportive of this proposal unless the proponent can clearly demonstrate support of the user community for this proposal and whether a model for assessment of harvest alternatives would be useful in the Basin as an effective recovery tool.

The ISRP also provided a programmatic note: some connection to enforcement goals of the region should be coordinated with harvest management tools. Previous M&E (Peters et al., 1997) have shown enforcement is most effective when harvest rules are simple and easy to enforce.

The response was thorough to the questions raised by the reviewers, but we conclude that it confirms the PI's comment that the proposal is not fundable due to lack of support from the user groups. If there is not clear support or need for developing new management models, then fundamentally the ISRP cannot support this proposal. The ISRP has again clarified that the CTC has already proceeded to further develop their model, that their work is supported by all management agencies involved, and that NMFS has begun work on a BiOp-oriented model.

As a program note, however, the ISRP was not particularly concerned about a duplication of models if the work had regional support. The idea that two models are undesirable has two sides: one is the cost efficiency and potential for conflicting answers, but the other is the role of independent development and verification. Ironically, the CTC model noted in this proposal has already been through the latter process during the development of the Coast model. As for the BiOp model, the author makes a valid point that one coast-wide model may not have the terminal fishery detail desired. There is a valid concern in this comment but the specification of the model and regional support must be clarified. Any terminal run model will, however, have to be associated with the CTC model since terminal returns are contingent on what occurs in the ocean fisheries addressed through the Pacific Salmon Commission and the CTC.

Comment:

Comments
Proposal strives to be responsive to RPA 165, but lacks support of the managers who would use the model. Even the sponsor acknowledges that this is a fatal flaw. Appears to unnecessarily duplicate a NMFS-funded project.

Already ESA Required?
No

Biop?
No

Comment:

Comments: