FRAM Meeting Summary

Paul Hage, Muckleshoot
Andy Rankis, Quinault
Denise Brown, Puyallup
Stuart Ellis, NWIFC
Kit Rawson, Tulalip
Nick Lampsakis, PNPTC
Jennifer Gutmann, NWIFC
Jim Norris, UW
Jim Packer, WDFW
Angelica Hagen-Breaux, WDFW
Doug Milward, WDFW
Teresa Scott, WDFW
Carrie Cook-Tabor, USFWS
Rich Comstock, USFWS
Larry Lavoy, WDFW
Steve Caromile, WDFW
Pat Pattillo, WDFW
Dick Geist, WDFW
Pete Lawson, ODFW / NMFS

The motivation for the meeting was the Implementation Plan of April 23, 1997, which states that "the parties will revise, for review by July 1, 1997, the existing Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM)". The state and the tribes understand that there will be a one or two year transition period before a new model is completed, and therefore agreed to modify FRAM for use in the 1998 process.

FRAM changes

Jim Packer began the meeting by discussing the changes he has made to FRAM. Attachment A summarizes the changes made to date. He has spent limited time so far debugging the new code, and some items on the list have not been fully discussed and implemented (for example, the TAMM/FRAM interface).

We spent some time identifying and discussing the limitations of FRAM to model selective fisheries. These include the migration algorithms and the failure of FRAM to account for multiple encounters in a time period. As you know, FRAM is a single-pool model, which means that fish not harvested in one time period are available for harvest in all other fisheries in subsequent time periods. This approach does not use information about the actual migration pathways taken by the fish. Although this method has been deemed acceptable in our previous use of FRAM, it is apparent that it is not the best way to model selective fisheries. However, there is no "quick fix" for this problem, as it is an inherent part of FRAM, and something we were aware of when we decided to update FRAM for use in 1998 planning.

Limited time was spent discussing the problem of multiple encounters during a time period. In FRAM, a fish that is caught and released can not be re-caught in the same time period (month). This is not a reasonable assumption for selective fisheries. Jim Packer suggested the "quick fix" of accounting for the multiple encounters by increasing the release mortality rate above the 8% currently used for adult coho.

WDFW requested input from the tribes on the following incomplete tasks:

• New Selective Fishery Reports: What new reports will you want to see? Pat Pattillo suggested a report listing the % marked and % unmarked fish available to each fishery.
• Multiple Encounters: Any ideas?
• TAMM Interface: It is unclear at this time who at WDFW will be responsible for updating the TAMMs. Because the hatchery/wild ratios will change for every stock with mass-marked fish that are subjected to a selective fishery, we can no longer use the assumption that the hatchery/wild ratio in the terminal area is the same as the initial ratio at the time of recruitment. Therefore, the interface between TAMM and FRAM will have to be modified. Other format and computation changes will need to take place as well. If you have any concerns or comments about the TAMMs, now is the time to let me know.
• Parameter Estimates: As described in Attachment A, fisheries modeled as selective have additional parameters that must be estimated (release mortality, unmarked error recognition, marked error recognition, and dropoff mortality rate). When formulating possible selective fishery scenarios for 1998, we need to keep in mind that we must estimate these parameters. The PSC Ad-hoc Selective Fishery Evaluation Committee reviewed the available literature and current research, and selected a range of values for each parameter to use in their analyses (see PSC Selective Fishery Evaluation, p.28-31)

We set up a time line to complete the tasks called for in the Implementation Plan:

• Next few weeks: Pat Pattillo and Jim Packer will write a report describing the changes made to FRAM for distribution to the tribes, NMFS, and the USFWS. Pat and I will coordinate development of a jointly agreed schedule for completing this work so that an agreed model will be ready for use by December 15, 1997.
• Mid-August: Provide comments, suggestions, or any new changes to Jim Packer for implementation.
• Early September: WDFW and the tribes will meet to "simulate" North of Falcon. We will run the new FRAM will a 1998 expected fishery scenario, in order to be sure there are no serious problems. Does it provide the needed output? Did we miss anything? Does the output "make sense"?
• Mid-October: We will present the new FRAM to the Pacific Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) during October. The SSC must review the model since it represents a methodology change that must be approved by the PFMC at their November meeting in order to be used during the 1998 preseason planning.
• December 15^th: Incorporate any of the SSC recommendations and complete all TAMMs, etc. By this date we will have completed the final version of FRAM for use in 1998 preseason planning.

The above time schedule will be jointly distributed by WDFW and the tribes so we can be sure we are following the same path towards completion of the tasks required by the Implementation Plan.

Larry Lavoy handed out results from five model runs (Run 9714 from NOF, and four runs using the new FRAM) (see Attachment B).

PM Model

The PM Model was created by Rich Comstock and Pete Lawson, originally as a tool for the USFWS to examine the effects of selective fisheries on Columbia River stocks. Since that time, the WDFW has invested lots of time (Rich Comstock, Steve Caromile, Carrie Cook-Tabor) into improving the model and making it usable during pre-season planning.

It is clear that WDFW would like to use the PM model in conjunction with FRAM during PFMC/NOF. Concerns were raised that running two different models at the same time is not a good idea. Although the Implementation Plan states that FRAM would be updated and used for 1998, WDFW believes that the PM should be used as well because it may be capable of modeling fishery scenarios that cannot be handled by FRAM. It was understood that a different model could be used instead of FRAM and meet the terms of the Implementation Plan as long as all parties agreed to its use. However, we did not develop a schedule or specific checkpoints for reaching the appropriate agreement on this point. Development of PM will continue, and it will be an available alternative should the modified FRAM prove not to be useful as we test it over the next few months.

There are benefits of the PM model over FRAM, namely a more realistic migration mechanism and a more recent base period (1986-1991). Instead of using an average of years for the base period, the model is run six times (once for each base year), and results (exploitation rates) are presented for all six years. Therefore, the variability in the system is captured in the output (see Attachment C). The PM model uses the stocks and fisheries in the Coho Cohort Reconstruction database.

The PM model will soon be available on the Center for Quantitative Science web site at the University of Washington. If you would like more information on the PM model, please contact me.

Long-Term Model
The updated FRAM will only be used as a transition model for one or two years. A new model which more realistically models selective fisheries will replace FRAM, during the 1999 or 2000 pre-season planning process. We did not discuss in detail at Tuesday's meeting the alternatives for a long-term model, but did mention the PM Model and the harvest model being developed by NMFS as two alternatives.

The above covers the main points discussed in Tuesday's meeting. I have been appointed as tribal contact for issues surrounding the new FRAM and 1998 modeling. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns.