October 31, 2002
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECT: October 24, 2002 meeting about LOSLS model integration needs
Meeting Goal : To determine whether the shared vision model (SVM) can credibly
measure the environmental performance of regulation plans.
Meeting Objectives:
a. Review the needs of study board and shared vision planning process
b. Present the model prototype and problems encountered
c. Present the model development plan for integrating ETWG study products
d. Describe how the proposed integrated ecosystem response model (IERM)
connects water levels and flows to environmental performance measures
e. Determine whether and how the SVM might capture the same relationships
Immediate Action Items Resulting From the Meeting




PFEG representative Bill Werick and Limno-Tech representative Joe DePinto will
develop a plan for interactions furthering the integration of the IERM and SVM.
An agenda for the December 10 IERM workshop meeting will be developed to
include issues raised at this meeting and SVM representation by Bill Werick
A Scope of Work for the next year of IERM development needs to be refined for
funding consideration. The scope needs to include tasks for IERM and SVM
integration and heightened emphasis on LTI interaction with the Environmental
Technical Working Group (ETWG)
At the November Study Board meeting the ETWG will provide the Study Board first
estimates of the hydrologic functions for each of the environmental performance
measures under study and make them available for IERM development.
Specific Needs and Recommendations
PFEG and SVM Needs
 Environmental indicators need to be reduced to a small number for SVM input and
analysis.
 If one environmental indicator cannot capture all environmental objectives (e.g.,
ecosystem-based tourism improvement; environmental sustainability improvement), a
desirable alternative is one indicator for each of the primary environmental objectives
identified by the ETWG.
 If more than one performance indicator is required, each indicator needs to be
weighted according to its relative environmental importance.
 The SVM input needs to be an average, cumulative, or other integrative indicator
value for the period of hydrologic record analyzed.
 SVM inputs must allow evaluation for all possible alternative water-level
management plans.
 A triple-tiered modeling “system” needs to be considered for full plan evaluation in
which:


o the IERM is used for ETWG evaluation of input selection for the SVM
o the SVM is used for PFEG evaluation
o a fuzzy-logic model is used for public comment.
Because full integration of SVM and IERM is unlikely (the simultaneous solutions
required in the IERM cannot be incorporated in the SVM), SVM inputs probably
need to be developed from extensive analysis using IERM.
Bill Werick and Joe DePinto will continue to investigate coupling the SVM and the
IERM until all possibilities are exhausted or a solution is found.
Recommendations for the IERM development and use.














In general, proceed with the IERM as conceptualized and presented at the meeting.
Decisions about what to include in the IERM should be based strictly on the purpose,
which is analysis of water-level management effects on environmental performance.
Integrate all new model elements and other applicable information produced by the
ETWG with data and models already existing in the scientific record to develop an
integrated systems response to water-level variation.
Use the IERM development process to facilitate ETWG workshop interactions
resulting in performance indicator reduction to a minimum number indicative of the
environmental objective(s), such as improvement of tourism and improvement of
environmental sustainability.
The IERM should enable comparison of various indicator performances in response
to water level management.
Develop the IERM at the level of detail needed to capture all relevant processes and
forcing functions, including other stressors, that are anticipated to influence
ecosystem response to water-level management.
The model needs to include all variables and feedbacks that may dominate waterlevel management effects.
The IERM should facilitate analysis of indicator sensitivity to water-level fluctuation
and threshold environmental effects.
The IERM should include all relationships between water level fluctuation and
performance indicator response, not just those relevant to the identified alternative
plans.
The IERM should be able to evaluate uncertainty in indicator performance
differences among plans through reiterative sensitivity analysis or other means.
The model should be able to accommodate post-study adaptive management for the
most uncertain aspects.
Temporal and spatial scales in the model should be appropriate for different decisionrelated conditions in the LOSL system. The river lakes (e.g., St. Lawrence, St.
Francis), for example, may require a finer time and spatial resolution for meaningful
analysis.
Consider incorporation of The Nature Conservancy Index of Hydrologic Alteration
Model developers need to provide a “readable” summation of the model code to aid
Study Board analysis.
Recommendations for the ETWG










Environmental objectives need to be refined, focusing on ecosystem-based
tourism/recreation and environmental integrity/sustainability.
A measurable performance indicator needs to be determined for each objective.
Resistance to integrating or aggregating performance indicators because of aversion
to “over-simplification” needs to be transcended.
Environmental policy constraints need to be considered during identification of
indicators, such as no net loss of fish habitat or no-net loss of wetlands as indicators
of environmental integrity/sustainability.
ETWG choice of indicators should consider their sensitivity to water-level variation
determined through sensitivity analysis using the IERM.
The ETWG should seek an aggregate indicator from all indicators that respond
similarly to water level management.
ETWG should address the need for appropriate indicator weights, but including the
public at this point may be the more effective way to estimate performance
importance.
ETWG should help IERM developers determine the temporal and spatial scales
appropriate for analysis in the different parts of the LOSL system.
ETWG should consider proposing plans other than the existing alternatives if they
better serve environmental objectives.
Not all ETWG studies have to be performance indicators; but all should provide
information that informs LOSL systems understanding for water-level management
decision process.
Richard A. Cole
For the Institute for Water Resources, USACE