Questions About the Shared Vision Process From the Environmental TWG
Joe DePinto:
1. "We are concerned that there may be a fundamental difference between the functionality of
the SVM and the way the ETWG/IERM are viewing the process relative to selection of a new set
of criteria and a regulation plan that meets those criteria for the LOSL system. The ETWG/IERM
views the process in a physical world (cause-effect) direction where the criteria "drive" the plan
and, through the IERM, the plan "drives" the PI responses in a deterministic way. Given this
reality, the only way to improve on the criteria and therefore develop a better plan is to
iteratively compute the PI responses relative to alternative plans and based on interpretation of
these results and professional judgment, suggest alternative criteria that might be tested within
the model for improvement of the environmental PIs. Is this iterative, forward cause-effect
approach (requiring involvement of all ETWG science experts) compatible with the PFEG
thinking on how the SVM will function in assisting the decision process?"
Doug Wilcox:
2. What is the process for putting a proposed regulation plan into consideration?
3. What is the format for submission of a proposed regulation plan?
4. Ultimately, the selected regulation plan will likely require compromise by all interests. How
will PFEG force interests now enjoying the benefits of the current regulation, which was tailored
to their needs, to make compromises?
5. Will PFEG recommend to the Board that some level of environmental protection be
guaranteed in any plan even placed on the table?
Brad Parker:
6. Could you provide a flow chart of the process steps for the development of the SVM?
7. Could you provide a flow chart of the SVM from performance indicator to plan selection?
8. What is the backup position of PFEG if we cannot develop a fully functioning SVM? It is our
understanding that the SVM is not a broadly accepted approach for developing and comparing
operating plan criteria, if this is true what is the backup plan, if its not true then what papers can
we use to study the development of the SVM process.
9. What are the methods to compare plans i.e. less often, more often, better or worse etc. and
what are the definitions that make up these terms.
10. After the Montreal workshop we are not sure how criteria feedback and alter performance
indicators as suggested in the "triangle" system".
Rob Reid’s “Starter List”
11. How will my Performance Indicators be used to select/assess different regulation plans?
12. Will there be tradeoffs and/or weighting between different interests?
13. What do the new criteria have to do with the formulation and/or evaluation of proposed
regulation plans?
14. How can I get involved in the development of the SVM and the plan formulation process?
15. Could you provide a flow chart of the SVM from performance indicator to plan selection?
16. What is the current thinking about the SVM/IERM relationship?
Rob Read
Water Issues Division
Environment Canada
Canada Centre for Inland Waters
867 Lakeshore Road
Burlington, ON L7R 4A6
Phone: (905) 336-4956
Fax: (905) 336-8901