164 The UMAP Journal 30.2(2009) The Proble The primary goal of this year's ICM was to develop an aquaculture scenario at incorporated species from multiple trophic levels to reduce the level of effluent leaving the fish pens for a specific case study in the Philippines. These fish farms are adjacent to coral reefs, thus the target was to improve water uality such that corals could thrive in the area while an economically viable aquaculture industry could also bemaintained. The main tasks expected ofthe eams were as follows: 1. Model the original Bolinao coral reef ecosystem before the introduction of 2. Model the current Bolinao milkfish monoculture. 3. Observe the remediation of bolinao via aquaculture 4. Maximize the value of the total harvest. 5. Call to action Overall, the judges were impressed by both the strength of many of the sub- missions of individual teams and the variety of approaches that teams used to address the questions posed by the ICM problem. Judges criteria In order to ensure that the individual judges assessed submissions on the same criteria, we developed rubric. The framework used to evaluate subm sions is described below. Executive Summary: It was important that teams succinctly and clearly explained the highlights of their submissions. These executive summaries needed toincludemodeling approach(es)used for both the currentmonocul ture and in remediation using polyculture. Further, the summary needed to answer themost pressing questions posed in the problemstatement, namely recommendations for remediation and the impact on water quality and op timizing the harvest. Truly Outstanding papers were those that communi cated their approach and recommendations in well-connected and concise Domain Knowledge and Science: The problem this year was particularly challenging for teams in terms of the science tseffectively, teams needed first to establish an ological frame of reference. Many teams were able to do this reasonably well; teams that excelled clearly did a great deal of research. Often, what distinguished the top teams was the ability not just to describe the164 The UMAP Journal 30.2 (2009) The Problem The primary goal of this year's ICM was to develop an aquaculture scenario that incorporated species from multiple trophic levels to reduce the level of effluent leaving the fish pens for a specific case study in the Philippines. These fish farms are adjacent to coral reefs, thus the target was to improve water quality such that corals could thrive in the area while an economically viable aquaculture industry could also be maintained. The main tasks expected of the teams were as follows: 1. Model the original Bolinao coral reef ecosystem before the introduction of fish farms. 2. Model the current Bolinao milkfish monoculture. 3. Observe the remediation of Bolinao via aquaculture. 4. Maximize the value of the total harvest. 5. Call to action. Overall, the judges were impressed by both the strength of many of the sub￾missions of individual teams and the variety of approaches that teams used to address the questions posed by the ICM problem. Judges' Criteria In order to ensure that the individual judges assessed submissions on the same criteria, we developed a rubric. The framework used to evaluate submis￾sions is described below. "* Executive Summary: It was important that teams succinctly and dearly explained the highlights of their submissions. These executive summaries needed to include modeling approach(es) usedforboththe currentmonocul￾ture and in remediation using polyculture. Further, the summary needed to answer the most pressing questions posedinthe problem statement, namely recommendations for remediation and the impact on water quality and op￾timizing the harvest. Truly Outstanding papers were those that communi￾cated their approach and recommendations in well-connected and concise prose. "* Domain Knowledge and Science: The problem this year was particularly challenging for teams in terms of the science. - To address the requirements effectively, teams needed first to establish an ecologicalframe of reference. Many teams were able to do this reasonably well; teams that excelled dearly did a great deal of research. Often, what distinguished the top teams was the ability not just to describe the