Transcript Integration_Subgroup_mtg(042203)

IERM Overall Objectives
1. Quantify relationship between hydrologic and
hydraulic attributes and effects on selected
ecological performance indicators in the Lake
Ontario/St. Lawrence River system.
2. Use these relationships to establish criteria
that can be used in the Shared Vision Model
(SVM) to provide the “acceptability or
tolerance” range for each H&H attribute.
3. Serve as tool to assist ETWG in developing
alternative regulation plan proposals.
April 22, 2003
Computational Flow in IERM
System Geometry
DEM
Land cover
Meteorology
Solar Radiation
Precipitation
Air Temp
Wind
Lake and upper River
Water level time series
Temperature
in lake
Initial Conditions
Population
Biomass
Bottom
substrate
Management
Actions
Fish stocking/
harvesting
Land use
Nutrient loads
Natural Stressors
ANS (e.g., zebra
mussels)
Fish-eating
birds
Flow at
Moses-Saunders Dam
Velocity in
upper river
Velocity & water
levels in lower river
Temperature
in upper river
Temperature
in lower river
Wetland habitat
Plant community
Lake and upper river
Fish habitat WUA
Lake
Wetland habitat
Plant community
lower river
Fish
Bioenergetics
Upper river
Fish pop/comm
dynamics
Lake
Fish pop/comm
dynamics
Upper river
Wetland bird
metrics
Impoundment habitat
Plant community
Lower river
Fish habitat WUA
Upper river
Fish
Bioenergetics
Lake
Wetland
bird HSI
Tributary inflows to
lower river
Muskrat abundance
Lake and upper river
Fish habitat WUA
Lower river
Dabbling
ducks - LR
Fish
Bioenergetics
Lower river
Fish pop/comm
Dynamics
Lower river
Wetland
birds - LR
Muskrat abundance
Lake and upper river
Properties of IERM

Time-dependent deterministic model




April 22, 2003
Computation flows from plan-driven H&H attributes
to ecological endpoints (measures of PIs)
Driven by basic system geometry,
hydrometeorology, and water level/flow time
series for given regulation plan
Model will cover three integrated zones: Lake
Ontario, upper St. Lawrence River, lower St.
Lawrence River
Model will illustrate justification for H&H
attribute criteria
Immediate Questions to Resolve


List all “measures of Performance Indicators”
to include in IERM
Describe cause-effect pathways between H&H
attributes (stressors derived from
implementation of a given plan) and each
Performance Indicator measure included in
model


April 22, 2003
These pathways will form impact evaluation
functions that may be used to establish criteria for
plan formulations
Not clear if IS concept and approach in SVM will
continue to be used (plan detailed meeting with SVM
developers)
Draft – Measures of Performance Indicators
Wetlands
 Availability,
diversity, and
quality of plant community
 Annual biomass production
Fish
 Habitat
supply (WSA)
(between/within year)
 Risk of within year habitat
loss
 Northern pike YOY
production
 Northern pike population,
structure, size
 Fish guild biomass
(type of guilds?)
April 22, 2003
Birds
 Dabbling
duck nesting
success
 Dabbling duck brood
survival
 Dabbling duck migration
success
 Wetland breeding bird
diversity
Muskrat
 Abundance
Amphibians/reptiles
 Indicator
species diversity
and abundance
Special Interest species and
habitats
Fish Cause-Effect Pathways (Example)
Water Level
& Flow
Temperature
Fish Species/Guild
Habitat
Stranding
Events
Wetland Quantity
Area
•Inundation Area
•Growth
•Total
Wetland Quality
•%
Emergent Vegetation
•% Floating Vegetation
•% Submergent Vegetation
•Cattails
YOY Abundance
•Predation
Fish Habitat
WSA
•Natural
Mortality
(Graduation)
Juvenile Abundance
•Growth
•Predation
•Natural
Mortality
(Graduation)
Adult Abundance
•Growth
•Natural
Mortality
•Reproduction
April 22, 2003
Waterfowl Cause-Effect Pathways
(Example)
Lower River
Water Level
& Flow
Total Habitat
Acreage
Waterfowl P.I.
Nesting Success
Water Level (@ Sorel)
Weekly Average
(late April thru July)
Growing Season Avg.
(Apr-Sep)
Spring Average
(Apr 10 – May 7)
•Maximum
nests
•% of successful nests
by week
Brooding Success
•Maximum
broods
•% of maximum broods
supported by emergent
marshes
Migration Success
•Maximum
waterfowl
migration
•% of maximum
waterfowl migration
April 22, 2003
Waterfowl Satisfaction Curves
(Lower
St. Lawrence)
SATISFACTION
CURVE FOR WATERFOWL IN THE LOWER
ST. LAWRENCE
7,80
MIGRATION
BREEDING
7,30
6,84
SOREL IGLD 85 (m)
6,80
6,30
TO AVOID
5,80
6,0
5,75
5,50
5,30
4,70
4,80
4,60
5,0
RECOMMENDED = 100 %
SATISFACTION
4,50
TO AVOID
4,30
4,60
4,20
4,10
4,20
April 22, 2003
Sept. 25
Sept. 11
August 28
July 31
August 14
DATE
July 17
July 3
June 19
June 5
May 22
May 8
April 24
April 10
3,80
Other Issues to Resolve

Needs of faunal habitat characteristics/ resolution


Spatial coverage and resolution by zone



April 22, 2003
From weekly to decadal
Exogenous factors of importance to each PI measure


Extrapolate 32 Lake Ontario wetlands to entire basin?
Use Lake Saint-Pierre Studies to “indicate” response of
entire lower river?
Integration of range of time scales


Muskrats,amphibians, ducks, pike, palustrine birds, warm
water fish guilds, etc.)
Provided by individual specialists
How to value (express trends in terms of acceptable or
unacceptable response to H&H attributes for given
plan) PI measures?