EPA-600/3-77-126a
November 1977
GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING USING
LIMNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: SUMMARY
by
Leonard T. Crook
William C. Sonzogni
Great Lakes Basin Commission
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
Grant 16110 FLJ
Project Officer
Stephen Poloncsik
Office of Research and Development
Region V
Chicago, Illinois 60604
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - DULUTH
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DULUTH, MINNESOTA 55804
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research
and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Man and his environment must be protected from the adverse
effects of pesticides, radiation, noise, and other forms
of pollution, and the unwise management of solid waste.
Efforts to protect the environment requires a focus that
recognizes the interplay between the components of our
physical environment—air, water, and land. The Office of
Research and Development contributes to this multidisci-
plinary focus through programs engaged in
studies on the effects of environmental contaminants
on the biosphere, and
a'search for ways to prevent contamination and to
recycle valuable resources.
This report assesses the technical feasibility and economic
practicality of developing mathematical models to assist in
defining and making selections among alternative management
strategies and structural solutions proposed for solving
xrater resource problems of the Great Lakes. The deliberate
decision-making process reported is a milestone in preappli-
cation analysis of modeling for natural resource management
purposes.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The report documents the deliberate decision making process used by
the Great Lakes Basin Commission in concluding that rational modeling methodol-
ogies could be used to evaluate the effect of different planning alternatives
on the Great Lakes and that planning for specific problems affecting the Great
Lakes system can be technically and economically supported through mathematical
modeling and systems analysis. It assesses the technical and economical feasi-
bility of developing mathematical models to assist in making selections from
among alternative management strategies and structural solutions proposed for
solving water resource problems of the Great Lakes. The study reviews, evalu-
ates and categorized present and future water resources problems, presently
available data, problem-oriented mathematical models arid the state of models
and model synthesis for large lakes. A demonstration modeling framework for
planning is developed and applied to western Lake Erie and the Great Lakes sys-
tem. The report evaluates four widely ranging alternatives for future modeling
efforts in the Great Lakes and recommends the modeling level most feasible to
answer planning questions on scales ranging from the Great Lakes to regional
areas. Also discussed is a proposed Commission study which will apply limno-
logical systems analysis to the planning process.
The report consists of three volumes:
a, Summary
b. Phase I - Preliminary Model Design
c. Model Specifications
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iv
Abstract iii
s
Contents . v
Figures v
Acknowledgements vi
I. Introduction 1
II. Conclusions 3
III. Recommendations 4
IV. Project History .5
V. Limnological Systems Analysis and the
Planning Process 8
VI. Response to the Limnological Systems
Analysis Phase I Report 11
VII. Current Status of Great Lakes Limnological
Systems Analysis 15
VIII. Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study (GLEPS) 19
IX. References 23
X. Bibliography 24
FIGURES
Number Page
1 LSA Phase I Organizational Structure . 6
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this report would not have been possible without
the continuing support of the eight Great Lakes states, Great Lakes Basin
Commission, the twelve Federal agencies with membership on the Great Lakes
Basin Commission, and the Plan and Program Formulation Committee of the
Commission. The leadership and direction provided by Frederick 0. "Rouse,
Chairman of the Commission, is sincerely appreciated. David C.N. Robb, Paul
R. Vachon, and other staff members of the Basin Commission provided valuable
support to the project.
x
Special thanks are extended to Hydroscience, Inc., particularly to
John L. Mancini, Donald J. O'Connor, Dominick M. DiToro, and Robert V. Thomann
for their valuable contribution to this modeling study as well as to modeling
studies for the Great Lakes in general.
Also deserving of recognition for their support and invaluable
guidance are the following individuals who comprise the Board of Technical
Advisors: John M. Armstrong, University of Michigan; Leo R. Beard, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; A. M. Beeton, University of Michigan (formerly of Uni-
versity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee); G. E. Birchfield, Northwestern University;
Carl W. Chen, Tetra Tech, Inc.; Everett J. Fee, Freshwater Institute, Envi-
ronment Canada; Theodore Green III, University of Wisconsin; Leo J. Hetling,
New York Department of Environmental Conservation; Norbert Jaworski, Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency; Edwin L. Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency;
James Kramer, McMaster University, Canada; Ronald McLaughlin, Environment and
Water Resources Systems; Arthur Pinsak, Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory, NOAA; Howard L. Potter, Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission;
and Sam B. Upchurch, South Florida University.
Special thanks are extended to the representatives of the Canadian
government, at the provincial and federal levels for their cooperation in
providing needed data and valuable comments.
The continuing commitments and contributions of Stephen Poloncsik,
Project Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, is sincerely
appreciated.
Much of this work was performed by Hydroscience, Inc., in fulfillment
of Contract Number DACW-35-71-C0030 with the Great Lakes Basin Commission.
The work was jointly sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Upper
Great Lakes Regional Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Great Lakes Basin Commission.
vi
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
It has been apparent for some time that conventional planning
techniques will not provide the tools necessary to analyze the responses of
the Laurentian Great Lakes to alternative water resources management strat-
egies. Because of the magnitude of the Great Lakes, perhaps more properly
termed "inland seas," many conventional planning strategies utilized for
much smaller watersheds are inappropriate when applied to the Great Lakes.
For example, the long.'flushing time and small watershed-to-lake-surf ace-area
ratio for the Great Lakes are situations not commonly found for most inland
lakes. Also, the Great Lakes are interconnected, so management strategies
for the upper Great Lakes may affect the lower lakes.
One of the major goals of regional planners in the Great Lakes
Basin is the development and maintenance of a comprehensive coordinated joint
plan for the Basin. This requires projections of population, economy, re-
source needs, and pollutant loadings for the near, medium, and long-range
future. Although a number of attempts have been made with more or less
success at modeling individual aspects of these factors, an integrated approach
is necessary. An important step in developing a comprehensive coordinated
joint plan would be a limnological systems analysis of the Great Lakes that is
responsive to exogenous socio-economic variables.
Although scientists have generally concluded that systems analysis
could assist in establishing the programs necessary to resolve many Great
Lakes problems, concern was expressed by some several years ago that an in-
complete and inconsistent data base, an insufficient knowledge of basic water
circulation and hydrodynamic characteristics, an inadequate knowledge of
interactions among the chemical, physical, and biological aspects of the lakes,
and other factors that would prevent the usefulness of a systems analysis
approach to planning problems. Consequently, the Great Lakes Basin Commission,
which is responsible under the Water Resources Planning Act (Public Law 89-80)
for overall planning activities in the Great Lakes Basin, sponsored a feasi-
bility study of (1) planning problems which were amenable to resolution by
systems analysis, (2) the availability of adequate data associated with these
problems, (3) the state-of-the-art of available models, (4) the synthesis of
models in relationship to a particular planning problem, and (5) the relation-
ship of the synthesized models to current computer capability. This study also
included demonstrations of the application of systems analysis to existing or
hypothetical situations within large lakes.
As a result of this feasibility study, a comprehensive report known
as "A Limnological Systems Analysis of the Great Lakes, Phase I" (LSA Phase I
report) (see Appendix A) by Hydroscience, Inc. was produced in 1973. A
-------
follow-up report entitled "Limnological Systems Analysis of the Great Lakes:
Model Specifications" (Specification report) (see Appendix B) was produced by
Hydroscience, Inc. in 1975.
The substance .of these reports is considered below in presenting
the Basin Commission staff's conclusions on the technical feasibility and
economic practicality of utilizing limnological systems analysis in water
resource planning programs for the Great Lakes Basin. These conclusions are
based not only on the Hydroscience, Inc. reports, but also on the new devel-
opments in Great Lakes modeling that have occurred recently. Also discussed
in this paper is tha proposed second phase of the Great Lakes Basin Commis-
sion's modeling study, which will incorporate model development, verification,
and use associated with Great Lakes environmental planning.
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Planning for specified problems affecting the Great Lakes
system can be technically and economically supported through mathematical
modeling and systems analysis.
(2) Limnological systems analysis would be an effective method
of integrating and evaluating the effects to the Great Lakes system of plans
and programs conducted by the many levels of government and the private
sector in the international Great Lakes system.
(3) Rational modeling methodologies currently exist which could
be used to evaluate the effect on the Great Lakes of different planning
alternatives. Available models need to be molded into workable programs
relevant to planning needs.
(4) The LSA Phase I report and the Specifications report provide
a reasonable framework to initiate a Great Lakes Environmental Planning
Study.
-------
SECTION III
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Great Lakes Basin Commission staff recommends that:
(1) A Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study should be under-
taken which utilizes limnological systems analysis (mathematical modeling)
as a planning tool to analyze the prohable spatial and temporal effects on
the Great Lakes of different plans or management strategies being developed
in the Basin. X
(2) Primary consideration should be given to integrating currently
available analytical methodologies into a workable program for planning
needs.
(3) The following specific problem areas should be initially
addressed in a comprehensive Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study.
(a) Water Quality
—Dissolved oxygen
—Chemical interactions
(b) Public Health (regional and lakewide)
(c) Eutrophication—Biomass
(d) Food Chain—Toxic or Harmful Substances
(4) Modeling frameworks and planning objectives should be directed
toward three spatial scales:
(a) Great Lakes
(b) Lakewide
(c) Regional
(5) The planning process utilized to conduct these programs should
provide maximum input from and involvement of the Great Lakes states, federal
agencies, citizens, and other interests to assure its utility in developing a
comprehensive coordinated joint plan (CCJP) for the Great Lakes.
-------
SECTION IV
PROJECT HISTORY
AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE
The Great Lakes Basin Commission was established by Executive
Order 11345 on April 20, 1967, under the authority of Title II of the Water
Resources Planning Act of 1965, Public Law 89-80. In accordance with Sec-
tion 204(3) of P.L. 89-80, the Great Lakes Basin Commission shall
/
". . .submit to the [U.S. Water Resources] Council for trans-
mission to the President and by him to the Congress, and the
Governors and the legislatures of the participating states, a
comprehensive, coordinated, joint plan, or any major portion
thereof or necessary revisions thereof, for water and related
land resources development in the area, river basin, or group
of river basins for which such commission was established."
-..Public Law 89-80 also provides that a river basin commission shall
"[1]: serve as the principal agency for the coordination of
Federal, State, interstate, local and nongovernmental plans
for the development of water and related land resources in its
area. . .
[2] prepare and keep up to date. . .a comprehensive, coordinated
joint plan for. . .development of water and related land re-
sources. . .the plan shall include an evaluation of all reason-
able alternative means. . .and it may be prepared in stages. . .
[3] recommend long-range schedules of priorities for [individual]
projects. . ,
[4] engage in such activities and make such studies and investi-
gations as are necessary and desirable in carrying out the
policy set forth in section 2 of this Act. . ."
As early as March, 1969, it was apparent to the Commission that
special planning tools were necessary for analyzing the responses of the
Great Lakes to alternative resource management strategies employed in upland
areas as well as in the lakes themselves. There was no evidence that correc-
tion of upland x^ater and related land resource problems would necessarily
achieve the desired goals of providing Great Lakes Basin residents with an
acceptable measure of 'environmental quality and economic growth. The special
study entitled "Limnological Systems Analysis of the Great Lakes, Phase I"
-------
(LSA Phase I) was undertaken as a measured, deliberate step towards planning
for the Great Lakes. The Phase I project recommendations, as well as recent
developments in Great Lakes modeling, are the basis for final conclusions and
recommendations on future Great Lakes environmental planning using systems
analysis.
PROJECT COORDINATION
The Commission directed and coordinated the LSA Phase I project
under an organizational structure simply illustrated in Figure 1. The
nature of the Phase^I effort is described in detail in Appendices A and B.
The responsibility for reviewing technical performance under con-
ditions of the Phase I contract rested with a Board of Technical Advisors.
The Board's members and several observers came from universities, government,
private consulting firms, and the Great Lakes states. Their guidance to the
Commission and the contractor insured that Phase I recommendations were the
product of a varied expert technical input.
Board of
Technical
Advisors
Proj ect
Manager—
GLBC Staff
LSA-Phase I
Contractor
Hydroscience, Inc.
GLBC - Great Lakes Basin Commission
PPFC - Plan and Program Formulation Committee
Advised as needed
Figure 1. LSA Phase I Organizational Structure
At its final meeting on June Z7, 1973, the LSA Board of Technical
Advisors reviewed the findings of Hydroscience, Inc. and recommended that:
(1) The Great Lakes Basin Commission approve the mathematical
modeling development, verification, and testing program on the
Great Lakes at the two million dollar level to be used as a
tool for planning.
-------
(2) The LSA Phase II program allow sufficient flexibility in
its development, initial application, and continuing maintenance
to achieve most effectively desired planning objectives.
The Board also determined that the minimum criteria for successful conduct of
a systems analysis Phase II program were:
(1) Close management control with adequate funds, contract
administration, and qualified personnel.
(2) Employment of a technical management contractor to support
and assist the study manager in the following ways:
(a) Oversee and coordinate technical compliance of
numerous subcontracts required in Phase II.
(b) Integrate planning requirements established
through/the study management structure with model
design, development, and application.
(c) Train individuals in state and federal agencies
in model use to enhance improved planning applications
after study completion.
(3) Use of a Board of Advisors to advise study management by
monitoring and evaluating the progress of all projects included
in LSA Phase.II, rather than by providing technical expertise.
(4) Development among Commission member agencies of users
educated in the application of LSA models to planning objec-
tives, preferably during model development. Users should
commit significant time to the model development effort to be
sufficiently informed to apply the improved planning tools to
future planning problems and to answer planning questions after
the study is completed.
-------
SECTION V
LIMNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
PLANNER USE OF MODELS
For many years, water resources planners have advocated the use of
the systems approach as a tool for managing our lakes and streams. In the
past several years, there have been many attempts at chemical and biological
lake effects modeling,, physical-dynamical modeling, optimization modeling of
dissolved oxygen concentration in streams and estuaries, and modeling of
processes in wastewater treatment. Increased efforts in the last few years
have also been applied to socio-economic models, which must be part of any
complete systems analysis of a water resources problem.
These subjects represent only a few of the many areas of the aquatic
environment to which modelers are directing their attention. Indeed, rational
modeling methodologies are currently being developed for application to a
variety of water resources problems. However, a job that is becoming more
important is the integration of available models into a workable systems pro-
gram useful for evaluating planning and program needs. For example, a set of
linked models, where the output of certain models serves as an input for
another or where two models are run in tandem, are often necessary to solve
water resources planning problems. This coordination of physical, chemical,
biological, social, and economic modeling efforts will enable planners and
managers to effectively use them in dealing with our water resources problems.
Increased emphasis in the future needs to be given to applied model-
ing, using existing methodologies which could potentially yield information of
practical importance to managers and planners. An assessment of the usefulness
and limitations of the modeling program in comparison to other planning tech-
niques should also be made. The development of new models, the refinement of
old models, or the verification or negation of existing models will serve to
update the total effort. Where applicable, the results of several different
methodologies which model the same parameter or problem should be used to set
the probable output ranges in planning scenarios.
An important aspect of successful application of a systems analysis
approach to water resources planning is the degree of coordination between the
planners and the modelers. It is essential that the planners have a major
input in the beginning of the model development and that they be involved
throughout the process. Planners must be aware of the limitations of the model,
including the specific assumptions that xrere made, if the finished model is to
be an effective planning tool.
-------
ESTABLISHING OBJECTIVES
Because of the multiple objectives that must be considered when plan-
ning for and managing Great Lakes water and related land resources, the objec-
tives in a limnological systems analysis approach must be clearly defined.
Planners have the responsibility of clearly defining these objectives. The
objectives must be detailed with respect to the scope of the problem, as well
as to the spatial and temporal scale involved. Unfortunately, the setting of
objectives in multi-faceted water resources issues is not necessarily straight-
forward. One of the advantages of a systems analysis approach is that it
forces objectives to be refined to a greater degree than they might normally
be.
The best modeling strategy is that which meets the given objective.
For example, there is no advantage in developing a quantitative predictive model
for planning purposes with an accuracy of +1 percent if an accuracy of only
+25 percent is sufficient to make a rational judgment on planning alternatives.
The more detailed mocLal is often more susceptible to being unduly sensitive to
slight changes in inputs. This can be a difficult problem when dealing with
natural systems, and the relationships of components may compound the problem.
Simple modeling concepts can be valuable in answering certain ques-
tions. For example, a simple model of the residence times of certain parameters
can be useful. The Great Lakes have extremely large volumes compared to inflows,
and consequently have long natural flushing rates. Thus, the response time to
a decreased rate of phosphorus loading (one of the key pollutants of the Great
Lakes) might be expected to be quite long/ In Lake Michigan, the second largest
of the Great Lakes, the response time has been estimated by some to be approxi-
mately 100 years. However, this estimate is based on the assumption that plant
nutrients such as phosphorus behave conservatively in the lakes and so their
residence time in the lake is equal to that of the water. Such an assumption
ignores the aqueous environmental chemistry of the element(s) that limit plant
growth. This is a serious oversight because certain chemical and biological
reactions play a major role in determining how long a nutrient will remain in
lake water (i.e., nutrient residence time).
An important internal removal process is the trapping of biologically
and chemically precipitated phosphorus in lake sediments. Although under cer-
tain conditions some release of phosphorus can occur (for example, release
under anoxic conditions, such as occurs in the deep water of the central basin
of Lake Erie), the net flux of phosphorus over an annual cycle is to the sedi-
ments, as shown by the accumulation of phosphorus in lake sediments. In Lake
Erie and Lake Ontario, the two lower Great Lakes, it has been estimated that
over three-fourths of the phosphorus entering the lakes is lost to the sediments.
Thus, because of internal losses of phosphorus, the rate of response of lakes
to the elimination of a point source of phosphorus will likely be more rapid
than would be predicted from natural flushing.
Based on this internal loss mechanism, a model can be written
accounting for internal phosphorus loss as a first order reaction. Such a
model is similar to principles of a completely mixed reactor model familiar
to sanitary engineers.' Utilizing such a model for predicting long-term trends,
-------
Lake Michigan would be expected to adjust to a decreased fertilization rate
within about 20 years rather than the 100 years predicted by some. Lake
Superior and Lake Huron, roughly similar in size to Lake Michigan, would also
equalize to a reduced loading more quickly than would be predicted if phos-
phorus were considered to behave conservatively. The smaller lakes, Erie and
Ontario, could show a full response within a fewer number of years than pre-
viously expected.
The above predictions, although based on a relatively simplistic
model, are of considerable consequence to planners. This model indicates
that planners can expect results in a relatively short time period, rather
than wait several generations for lake recovery.
While the above example shows how a simple model can be useful
in answering certain planning questions, planning questions involving multiple
objectives generally require more sophisticated systems models or combinations
of simplistic models to be useful. Nevertheless, the objectives of a planning
endeavor must always Jae kept in mind to avoid developing a model that is more
detailed than necessary, and perhaps at a great loss of time and money.
SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS OF SYSTEM ANALYSIS TO PLANNERS
Another important use of systems analysis as a planning tool is to
provide an orderly, systematic approach to the water and related land resources
problems of the Great Lakes, which cannot be attained by local, state, and
federal piecemeal efforts. It is essential to have an evaluative methodology
which systematically relates all relevant information from these separate studies
in order to gain a workable assessment of the impacts that alternative plans
and programs would have on the Great Lakes. Unless a general systematic
evaluative method is developed for understanding the total Great. Lakes Basin
system, management programs will continue to be duplicative and uncoordinated.
Literally hundreds of independent and essentially unrelated studies
have been made on the Great Lakes, and a great deal of pertinent data have
been acquired on a fragmented basis by man}T federal, state, regional, educa-
tional, and private organizations over a substantial period of time. Upon
considering the current and projected expenditures for Great Lakes research and
monitoring, waste treatment programs, definition and enforcement of quality
standards,, siting and design of power plants, .shore protection works, main-
tenance and improvement of navigation x
-------
SECTION VI
RESPONSE TO THE .LIMNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS PHASE I REPORT
The LSA Phase I report was completed in March, 1973. Approximately
130 copies of the Phase I report were distributed to scientists, planners,
politicians, university personnel, and interested citizens. Copies of the
report were also available to the public in the state libraries of the eight
Great Lakes states, and in over 40 libraries located at universities, insti-
tutions, and agency offices in the Great Lakes Basin, and at several locations
in the United States and Canada.
/'
GENERAL COMMENTS
The LSA Phase I report has been generally well received and supported
in the Great Lakes Basin. Those critical comments received were mostly directed
toward specific details of the Phase I report or tox\rards a fundamental disagree-
ment about the utility of modeling as a means of helping responsible officials
make decisions. With regard to the first point, Hydroscience, Inc. carefully
considered the level of detail of the Phase I study and strove to give it
balance, recognizing that it was intended as an overall assessment of the
feasibility of systems analysis application to the Great Lakes. On the second
point, one of the authors' general conclusions from the Phase I study was that
an important class of problems exists in the Great Lakes for which the applica-
tion of existing modeling technology will produce results that will be a signi-
ficant aid to decision making. It seems that conclusion is still valid,
particularly in view of the recent successful applications of Great Lakes models,
some of which were proposed by Hydroscience, Inc. New model developments which
have occurred since the Phase I report was completed will be discussed in a
subsequent section.
More specific comments and the response to them by Hydroscience, Inc.
are given below.
Existing Data
Several reviewers commented that an exhaustive, detailed assessment
of all Great Lakes water resource, data was not made. However, as Hydroscience,
Inc. pointed out, the purpose of reviewing data in the Phase I report was to
provide an overview of available data and to determine the adequacy of data for
modeling purposes. Numerous visits were made to agencies and universities to
assess the data base. However, there was no attempt to be exhaustive and
undoubtedly some data were excluded from the Phase I report. In addition,
new data have become available since the Phase I report was completed. The
fact that there are additional data over that considered in the Phase I report
further supports the conclusion of Hydroscience, Inc. that a sufficient data
base exists for modeling efforts.
11
-------
There were several specific comments by reviewers that dealt with
the adequacy or inadequacy of the data on circulation in the lakes. Circu-
lation patterns inferred from primary variables (e.g. temperature and depth)
were not considered data but rather results of data analysis. One comment
indicated that not enough was known about the circulation patterns due to
lack of basic information about factors such as the over-lake wind field.
However, it was the judgment of the contractors that for a wide class of
practical and meaningful water resource problems, knowledge of general Great
Lakes circulation is really quite good and relatively more is known about
circulation than any other variable or problem. This is partly due to the
fact that lake circulation has been observed for about seventy years. There
are, of course, aspects of the circulation in specific lakes that are poorly
known. However, in the opinion of the contractor, there are sufficient Great
Lakes circulation data and data analyses for use in other water resource
modeling efforts.
Finally, several comments indicated that the data base was not
sufficient for the construction and validation of mathematical models. This
is often a source of controversy and appears to reflect a desire for more
information before predictions or analyses are made. Hydroscience5 Inc.
felt that structuring of analysis frameworks through mathematical modeling
should proceed simultaneously wherever possible with the gathering of field
data. Obviously, at least some data must be available in order to even begin
the analysis and determination of a mathematical model. The contractor's
analysis indicated that there are several classes of water resources prob-
lems where such a data base does exist. This is not to say that field data
should no longer be collected. It simply means that the activities of data
gathering, data analysis, and prediction of possible consequences of proposed
decisions should proceed more or less simultaneously. It should be recalled
that the purpose of the Phase I report x^as to "present an assessment of the
feasibility of applying a Limnological Systems Analysis (LSA) to the water
resource problems of the Great Lakes." Based on the analysis of the situation
in the Great Lakes, it was concluded that sufficient data do indeed exist, in
varying degrees, for application of limnological systems analysis to the Great
Lakes for planning purposes.
Adequacy of Mathematical Models
Several comments on the Phase I report revolved about either the
adequacy of existing understanding as embodied in state-of-the-art mathematical
models or the supposed impossibility or futility of modeling certain problem
areas. The first type of .comment was directed primarily at the adequacy of
existing circulation models. However, tliere are probably more circulation
models existent for the Great Lakes than any other types of models. In the
case of circulation models, as the level of modeling increases, the depth and
complexity of the questions about the model increase. However, lake circula-
tion models have progressed to the point where they can be useful in water
resource problems. In the determination of model status (see Figure 14 and
page 921 of Appendix A) several important criteria were used: (1) basic
understanding and knowledge, (2) data availability, (3) degree of model veri-
fication, and (4) degree of model application. Based on evaluations of
these categories in some depth, a weighted score for Lake Circulation and
Mixing (and other modeling frameworks) was determined by the contractors.
These scores were the subject of several intensive discussions with the Board
12
-------
of Technical Advisors and the scores generally reflected the consensus
opinion of that Board. As noted in Table 16 of Appendix A, the Lake Cir-
culation and Mixing Models were rated highest in terms of development and
planning application compared to the ten other modeling frameworks considered.
In other words, it was felt that this modeling framework is sufficiently
developed for use in a variety of water resource problem contexts. On the
other hand, it is not meant to imply that additional work should not be done
on the modeling of circulation in the Great Lakes.
The other major area of discussion on mathematical models was the
feasibility of constructing models of biological phenomena. One comment
stated that it is not possible to construct such models because of the great
complexity of the biological world. That the aquatic ecosystem is complex
and diverse is not denied; however, the essence of any mathematical approach
is to attempt to organize the major features, i.e., to properly aggregate a
complex phenomena so as to display the key interactions between variables.
If we do not attempt to aggregate or organize the complexity (which in essence
is what is done with --a well-structured mathematical model) , then the complex-
ity of the system obscures all vision and one easily runs the risk of saying
"the system is just too complex to say anything meaningful in a predictive
sense."
For example, biological systems, especially the aggregate behavior
of phytoplankton are, in the opinion of the contractor, much more deterministic
than some biologists believe. Again, this does not imply that there are not
significant random fluctuations in the biological world, it simply means that
for decision making at the present time, a sufficient degree of determinism
exists to provide an additional basis for assessing the impact of nutrient
removal.
Several comments were made about the validating of the models in
the Phase I report. In particular, the validation exercise was criticized
as being really nothing more than statistical "curve fittings." The validity
of the models as presented in the Phase I report (Appendix A) can only be
judged at the present time by the degree to which the solutions that are
generated provide reasonable estimates of biomass and growth dynamics. This
was one of the reasons for using the model to make the hindcast to 1930 con-
ditions in western Lake Erie. The results of the analysis further buttressed
the confidence in the model to display the major interactions between nutrient
and phytoplankton biomass. The fundamental difference between the mathematical
model in the Phase I report and statistical regression analysis is in the
structuring of causal relations based on physical and biological reasoning.
For example, the mathematical models are' founded on basic principles such as
the conservation of mass momentum and energy. As such, they provide a basis
for predicting or extrapolating beyond the available data range. Such is not
the case with statistical curve fittings, which can obscure or confound effects
and interactions in overall coefficients and sometimes tend to produce extrapo-
lated results that are patently inconsistent with known laws.
Eutrophication Model
Several specific comments were also made on the details of the
eutrophication model. One comment suggested that temperature dependence
13
-------
changes species composition and therefore the dependency that is built into
the model is not representative. However, the dependence of maximum growth
rate on temperature has been shown to be virtually independent of species
(Eppleyfl]). This is a good example of the aggregation of complex phenomena
mentioned earlier.
Another reviewer commented that the contractor ignored the vertical
structure of the aquatic ecosystem. However, the vertical structure of the
Phase I report was not ignored (see for example, Figure 21, Equation 9-11,
page 217; page 233; and page 346, Appendix A). The demonstration model does
not include verticle structure in detail, simply because it was exactly that,
a demonstration model or illustration, and as such was not intended to in-
corporate all possible considerations. However, vertical structure is dis-
cussed frequently throughout the modeling section and is explicitly recognized
through light extinction even in the western Lake Erie demonstration model.
A comment was made on the lack of specific sediment-nutrient feed-
back in the demonstration model. This is an important problem and an area in
which understanding of just how and when to include such sediment feedback is
undergoing rapid expansion. For western Lake Erie, however, x^hich is almost
always aerobic, such feedback is not significant. Models of the central basin
of Lake Erie would, of course, have to include this phenomenon.
Another comment revolved about "whole ecosystem field experiments"
as a substitute or "different" approach to understanding eutrophication in
the lakes. Such experiments would be highly desirable and useful and would
provide significant information on the complex interactions of the aquatic
ecosystem. By themselves, however, such experiments are simply not suffi-
cient, just as mathematical models without input data on interactions are not
sufficient. The data from ecosystem field experiments must be analyzed in
order to unravel the causal chains. In fact, a viable framework for such
analyses of the field experiment data is the type of model reviewed in the
Phase I report. Furthermore, such experiments by themselves do not provide
a sufficient basis for prediction.
14
-------
SECTION VII
CURRENT STATUS OF GREAT LAKES
LIMNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Many changes in Great Lakes planning, management, and research
activities, including research in modeling, have taken place since the time
the limnological system analysis program was first conceived by the Great
Lakes Basin Commission. These include external changes in state, federal,
and international policies and programs. The purpose of this section is to
briefly review the ^external changes and the new developments in modeling
which have occurred in the last few years and which will affect the Phase I
study results as they relate to the Phase II program.
MAJOR EXTERNAL EVENTS
During the course of the Phase I project and during the period of
the GLBC report review and deliberations on future Great Lakes environmental
planning needs, progress on solving Great Lakes problems accelerated at the
state, provincial, national, and international levels. The major events
briefly outlined below continue to have a major influence on implementation
of the integrated modeling-planning recommendations of the Great Lakes Basin
Commission.
In August, 1971, the Second Environmental Conference of Great
Lakes Governors and Premiers was co-hosted by the State of Michigan and the
Great Lakes Basin Commission. Thirteen specific resolutions related to the
water quality improvement in the Great Lakes were passed and submitted to
the Canadian and U.S. governments. This led to the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement signed on April 15, 1972. The Agreement authorized
new pollution studies in the Great Lakes Basin coordinated by the Inter-
national Joint Commission and established procedures and mechanisms to deal
with research and management needs affecting international waters. Major
studies include:
(1) Report on "Regulation erf Great Lakes Water Levels" by the
International Great Lakes Levels Board, December, 1973
(2) Upper Lakes (Superior and Huron) Reference Group Study
(3) Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group Study
(4) Research Needs Reports and Great Lakes Research Directory,
Great Lakes Research Advisory Board.
15
-------
In the U.S., a sweeping federal-state campaign to prevent, reduce,
and eliminate water pollution was begun in October of 1972 with the passage
of Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972. All Great Lakes states were affected, while several federal
agencies began programs directed to Great Lakes water quality problems.
Under P.L. 92-500, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency began
a major Great Lakes Initiative Program and eleven areas (Ashtabula, Ohio;
Black River, New York; Buffalo-Niagara, New York; Calumet, Illinois/Indiana;
Duluth-Superior, Minnesota/Wisconsin; Detroit River, Michigan; Erie,
Pennsylvania; Fox -River-Green Bay, Wisconsin; Maumee, Ohio; Rochester-Genesee,
New York; Saginaw Bay, Michigan) were selected for study. Other EPA work was
carried out in support of the International Joint Commission. Specific Great
Lakes research was initiated at the Large Lakes Research Station at Grosse
lie, Michigan and at the Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minne-
sota. Under Section 108(d) of P.L. 92-500 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
launched the Lake Erie Wastewater Management Project for the design and
development of a demonstration wastex
-------
RECENT MODELING ACTIVITIES
Since the Phase I report was completed, much progress has been
made in mathematical modeling of the Great Lakes. A number of the modeling
activities listed in the Specifications report (Appendix B) have actually
been accomplished or are in the process of being developed. New labora-
tories have been formed (NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
and EPA's Large Lakes Research Station) whose missions have a major orienta-
tion towards systems modeling. Many models designed for or with application
to the Great Lakes have been developed at universities. Much of the recent
modeling effort is' a direct outgrowth from the limnological systems analysis
Phase I reports and meetings and deliberations on modeling sponsored or
supported to encourage the development of modeling methodologies to assist
planners in the Great Lakes Basin.
One of the most significant recent reports on Great Lakes mathe-
matical modeling is a review of models or modeling methodologies by Tetra
Tech, Inc.[2]. This' report was prepared for the Lake Erie Wastewater Manage-
ment Study of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The report provides a
convenient update of the review of the modeling literature prepared in the
Phase I report.
Tetra Tech's assessment of the present state-of-the-art of water
quality monitoring agreed with the conclusions of the Phase I report in that
they believed rational modeling methodologies are currently available for
the Great Lakes, The main job that has to be accomplished is integrating
these models into workable, practical programs of utility to planners and
managers.
Another pertinent review work entitled Systems Analysis in Water
Resources Planning was recently conducted by Meta Systems, Inc. [3]. The
report was prepared for the National Commission on Water Quality to
(1) examine systems analysis in water and related land resources planning
to describe the potential role of this approach for water resources planners
rather, than for systems analysis or operations research professionals, and
(2) make recommendations on the use of systems analysis in water resources
planning, including mechanisms for its promotion in this field and areas of
further research needs. One of the major conclusions of this report was
that the balance of evidence overwhelmingly favors the use of system analysis
techniques for water resources planning problems. Again, .this supports the
use of systems analysis as part of a Great Lakes environmental planning
strategy.
Another recent modeling review is Modeling Biochemical Processes
in Aquatic Systems.[4]. This book has some key papers on current Great Lakes
modeling activities.
The Environmental Protection Agency is sponsoring the development
of lake effect models for Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, and the Saginaw Bay area
of Lake Huron. Consultants for these modeling activities have been the
same individuals who prepared the Phase I report. Thus, the Phase I report
served as the impetus for this work. The models for Saginaw Bay, Lake Erie?
17
-------
and Lake Ontario were all discussed as part of a recommended program
described in the Specifications report (Appendix 2). The Lake Ontario
model is now operational and the preliminary predictions from this model[5]
already have had a major effect on some Great Lakes programs.
As part of the Level B Study of the Maumee River Basin, coordinated
by the Great Lakes Basin Commission, a mathematical model was developed for
Maumee Bay. This model is designed to measure the impact of alternative
plans for the Maumee watershed on the Maumee Bay. Traverse Bay in Lake
Michigan has also undergone extensive study by the University of Michigan.
Models developed include limnological, sociological, and economic models.
The Lake Erie Regional Assessment of the U.S. National Commission
on Water Quality has recently utilized a phosphorus model[6] for projecting
water quality changes in Lake Erie according to different management schemes.
This model is part of an overall effort at the Systems Research Center of
Case Western Reserve University to model regional phosphorus pollution control.
Many other universities in the basin have active Great Lakes modeling programs.
The Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is currently utilizing a different phosphorus model to project
water quality changes in Lake Erie which would result from different manage-
ment schemes. Thus, there are a number of modeling methodologies specifically
for Lake Erie that are currently available. For planning applications it
would perhaps be useful to use different methodologies which model the same
parameter or process to set probable output ranges.
The recent activity in mathematical modeling is also reflected in
the number of papers presented in recent years at the annual conferences on
Great Lakes research sponsored by the International Association for Great
Lakes Research. Separate sessions of this conference are now devoted entirely
to modeling.
Any overall model for the water quality of the Great Lakes must
include submodels for tributary loadings, or at least consider submodels as
exogenous inputs. Among the major efforts at watershed modeling, the Pol-
lution from Land Use Activities Reference Group of the International Joint
Commission is sponsoring some model development related to tributaries to the
Great Lakes. Similarly, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Lake Erie Waste-
water Management Study is developing Lake Erie watershed models. The Upper
Lakes Reference Group of the International Joint Commission is' sponsoring the
development of general waste generation models which consider economic,
legislative, and sociological factors as well as water quality factors.
Finally, the 208 programs sponsored by U.S. EPA often have watershed modeling
components.
The modeling papers and reports discussed above, as well as other
recent, pertinent literature not discussed here, are compiled in the refer-
ences (Section IX) and the bibliography (Section X). These lists are intended
to provide an update of the reference list provided in the Phase report
(Appendix A).
18
-------
SECTION VIII
GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING STUDY (GLEPS)
Environmental planning and program implementation for Great Lakes
resource problems have received increased attention since the initiation of
the Phase I study. As discussed in previous sections, progress in research,
data collection, and analyses continues to be reflected in improved policy
and resource management decisions affecting portions of the lakes. However,
there continues to be a need to establish a systematic framework for Great
Lakes planning which will give planners quantitative tools to evaluate the
effectiveness of many resource management strategies on different segments
of the entire Great Lakes system. In order to develop a comprehensive
coordinated joint plan for the Great Lakes region, a GLEPS program would be
an extremely useful, if not essential, tool.
The Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study (GLEPS) represents
Phase II in the limnological systems analysis program. GLEPS will furnish
the basis for detailed assessments of the effects of alternative courses of
resource management strategies on the Great Lakes themselves. These
assessments will be used in completing and maintaining a comprehensive co-
ordinated joint plan for the region. The proposed planning study will not
investigate and propose final solutions to all conceivable resource problems
and needs within the entire Basin. Instead, it will serve as a tool to
allow planners and managers in the Great Lakes area to realistically evalu-
ate the effects on the lakes of appropriate action programs focused to meet
middle-term (15-25 years) needs and desires.
The major objective of the GLEPS study is to integrate currently
available analytical methodologies and utilize this integrated framework to
model certain physical, chemical, and biological processes of the Great
Lakes. The utility of the modeling effort lies in its ability to evaluate
the consequences of alternative planning and resource development strategies.
This effort is not designed to replace "best judgment" planning, but only to
develop an additional means for planners, engineers, or economists to
evaluate alternatives.
Planning for the entire Great Lakes system requires a special and
unique planning approach. GLEPS will be characterized by: (1) an integra-
tion of proven planning approaches with the increasingly useful technique
of applying systems analysis to large-scale, multidisciplinary water re-
source problems; (2) successive planning iterations to insure responsive-
ness of GLEPS to governmental and non-governmental objectives for the lakes;
and (3) development of a planning framework which will be the basis for
continuous planning 'processes for the Great Lakes system.
19
-------
The GLEPS program as it is currently conceived is not designed to
develop extensive new models. The Phase I report (Appendix A) and other
studies discussed in Section VII agree that rational modeling methodologies
are currently available for application to the Great Lakes. Of major
importance is the molding of these models into workable programs relevant
to planning and program evaluative needs. The GLEPS program will conduct
modeling applications programs and apply the results to current planning
efforts and approaches. A major portion of the study will be devoted to
formulating in an iterative fashion alternative planning strategies for
the Great Lakes, using the modeling program as an evaluative methodology.
An assessment of the usefulness and limitations of the modeling program in
comparison to other planning techniques will finally be made. Thus,
emphasis will be on "applied modeling", using existing methodologies which
could potentially yield information of practical importance to planners.
The development of new models, the refinement of old models, or the verifi-
cation or negation of existing models by other agencies or organizations
will serve to update the total GLEPS effort. Where applicable, the results
of several different methodologies which model the same parameter or problem
will be used in GLEPS to set the probable output ranges.
The model approach used by GLEPS will use as a basis the recom-
mended framework developed as a result of the Phase I investigation and
summarized in "Great Lakes Systems Analysis: Model Specifications" (Appendix
B). In the Specifications report it is recommended that:
(1) existing subsystem models, parameter values, and inputs be
gathered into interactive modeling frameworks;
(2) generalized computer programs be developed and modifications
be made to existing models to accommodate recently evolved numerical and
software techniques; and
(3) applications be made of existing systems technology to those
problem categories for which a reasonable degree of success for the appli-
cation is assured.
These recommendations are still timely and would be major aspects of the
Phase II study (GLEPS).
The following specific problems were also recommended for inclusion
in the Phase II study (see Appendix B):
(1) Water Quality
(a) Dissolved oxygen
(b) Chemical interactions
(2) Public Health
(3) Eutrophication—biomass problems
(4) Food Chain—toxic or harmful substances
20
-------
The effect of different management strategies would be measured through
these different problem contexts.
The Specifications report (Appendix B) recommended that the
Phase II study (GLEPS) be directed toward three spatial scales:
(1) Comprehensive Great All lakes interconnected
Lakes
(2) Lakewide Lakes Erie and Ontario
f
(3) Regional Duluth, Minnesota area,
Southern Lake Michigan,
Green Bay, .Saginaw Bay,
Lake St. Clair.
These spatial scales would still be appropriate for the GLEPS effort. As
discussed previously, comprehensive modeling activities are already well
under way for lakewide studies of Lakes Erie and Ontario and a regional study
of Saginaw Bay. Further, as part of the Great Lakes Basin Commission's two-
year Fox-Wolf Level B study, scheduled to begin in late 1976, detailed
modeling activities will be conducted on Green Bay. Other Great Lakes and
regional models, including regional models of areas not suggested above, are
available which could be incorporated in the GLEPS effort.
Examples of specific resource planning or management questions that
could be addressed in a quantitative fashion by GLEPS are listed below:
(1) What would be the effect on the Great Lakes of reducing
loading by regulating point and non-point sources of certain substances
(e.g., phosphorus)? How fast and to what extent would different areas of
the Great Lakes respond?
(2) What would be the effect on the food chain of increasing metal
concentrations in the Great Lakes through industrial waste discharge or
through effluents from mining operations?
(3) What might be the effect of major oil spills from wells or
ships on the Great Lakes in terms of organic pollution or light shading of
phytoplankton?
(4) What might be the effect on fish stocks from the killing of
larval fish by cooling water intakes? - Where can intakes be best placed to
have the least ecological impact and the greatest overall benefits?
(5) What zones in a lake are particularly sensitive to different
ecological factors? What zones have a high productivity potential? What
zones have long recovery rates, etc.?
(6) What would be the social, economic, ecological, and public
health effects of limiting or prohibiting the use of PCBs? To what extent
and at what rate would the different lakes respond?
21
-------
(7) What effect would reduction of shoreline erosion have on
Great Lakes water quality?
(8) What would be the effect of water diversions on water levels
or water quality?
(9) What influence would regulating water levels have on water
quality, biological production (e.g., fish spawning), and physical erosion?
Despite the great amount of work that has been devoted to individual aspects
of the above questions, a systems analysis approach will be necessary to
integrate the data into an overall picture of the Great Lakes environment.
77
-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
[1] Eppley, R. W., "Temperature and Phytoplankton Growth in the Sea",
Fish. Bull., 70, 4, p. 1063-1085, 1972.
[2] Tetra Tech, Inc., "Final Report, Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study",
Tetra Tech Report No. TC-413, 1974.
[3] Meta Systems, .Jlnc., Systems Analysis in Water Resources Planning, Water
Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, N. Y., 393 p., 1975.
[4] Canale, R. P., ed., Modeling Biochemical Processes in Aquatic Ecosystems,
Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1976.
[5] Thomann, R. V., D. M. DiToro, R. P. Winfield and D. J. O'Connor,
"Mathematical Modeling of Phytoplankton in Lake Ontario", EPA
Report 660/3-75-005, U. S. EPA, Corvallis, Oregon, 177 p., 1975.
[6] Richardson, J. M. and J. G. Klabbers, "A Policy-Oriented Model of the
Eutrophication Problem in the Lake Erie Ecosystem", SRC Report 74-1,
Systems Research Center, Case Western Reserve University, 115 p.,
1974.
23
-------
SECTION X
BIBLIOGRAPHY
t
Additional or recent references not cited in Section IX or in the Appendices.
Baca, R. G. and R. C. Arnett. 1975. "A Limnological Model for Eutrophic
Lakes and Impoundments." Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,
Richland, Washington, 158 p. (mimeo).
Benedict,. B. A., J./L. Anderson and E. L. Yandell, Jr. 1974. "Analytical
Modeling of Thermal Discharges - A Review of the State of the Art."
Argonne National Laboratory ANL/ES-18, April.
Bloomfield, J. A., R. A. Park, D. Scavia and C. S. Zaborcah. 1973. "Aquatic
Modeling in the Eastern Deciduous Forest Biome, U. S. International
Biological Program." In Workshop Proceedings of Modeling the
Eutrophication Process, Utah State University and EPA, November,
p. 139-158.
Bonham-Carter, G. and J. H. Thomas. 1973. "Numerical Calculations of Steady
Wind-Driven Currents in Lake Ontario and the Rochester Embayment."
Proc. 16th Conference, Great Lakes Research, International Assoc.
Great Lakes Research, p. 640-662.
Buechi, P. J., and R. R. Rumer. 1969. "Wind Induced Circulation Pattern
in a Rotating Model of Lake Erie," Proc, 12th Conf. Great Lakes
Research, International Assoc. Great Lakes Research, p. 406-414.
Canale, R. P. 1971. "A Methodology for Mathematical Modeling of Biological
Production." University of Michigan, Sea Grant Program.
Canale, R. P. and A. W. Green. 1972. "Modeling the Spatial Distribution of
Coliforms in Grand Traverse Bay." Proceedings of the 15th Confer-
ence on Great Lakes Research, International Assoc. Great Lakes
Research.
Canale, R. P., S, Nachiappan, D. J. Hineman and H. E. Allen. 1973. "A
Dynamic Model for Phytoplankton Production in Grand Traverse Bay."
Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Great Lakes Research,
International Assoc. Great Lakes Research, p. 21-33.
Canale, R. P., D. F. Hineman and S. Nachiappan. 1974. "A Biological
Production Model for Grand Traverse Bay." University of Michigan,
Sea Grant Program Report No. 37, February.
24
-------
Chapra, S. C. and S. J. Tarapchak. 1976. "A Chlorophyll a Model and Its
Relationship to Phosphorus Loading Plots for Lakes." GLERL
Contribution.No. 44, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
20 p. (mimeo).
Chapra, S. C. 1976. "Total Phosphorus Model for the Great Lakes." Publica-
tion of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
31 p. (mimeo).
s
Chen, C. W. and G. T. Orlob. 1972. "Ecologic Simulation for Aquatic
Environments." Report to the Office of Water Resources Research,
Water Resources Engineers, Inc., Walnut Creek, California, December,
156 p.
Chen, C. W., S. S. Lee and M. Lorenzen. 1974. "Water Quality Studies for
the Proposed Lakeport Lake." Report to the Corps of Engineers,
Sacramento District, Tetra Tech, Inc., June.
Cheng, R. T., and C. Tung. 1970. "Wind Driven Lake Circulation by the
Finite Element Method." Proceedings of the 13th Conference on
Great Lakes Research, International Assoc. Great Lakes Research.
Dillon, P. J. 1974. "A Critical Review of Vollenweider's Nutrient Budget
Model and Other Related Models." Water Resources Bulletin, 10,
p. 969-989.
Dillon, P. J. and F. H. Rigler. 1974. "A Test of a Simple Nutrient Budget
Model Predicting the Phosphorus Concentration in Lake Water."
Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 31, p. 1771-1778.
Di Toro, D. M., D. J. O'Connor and R. V. Thomann. 1970. "A Dynamic Model
of Phytoplankton Populations in Natural Waters." Environmental
Engineering and Science Program, Manhatton College, Bronx, New
York, June.
Feigner, K. D. and N. A. Jaworski. 1972. "Mathematical Model Applications
, for Water Quality Management in the Potomac Estuary." In Inter-
national Symposium on Mathematical Modeling Techniques in Water
Resources Systems, K. Biswas, ed, Ottawa, May, pp. 129-138.
Friedman, J. H. 1973. "Eutrophication: A Mathematical Model." Reports
on Natural Resource Systems, No. 21, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Gallagher, R. H., J. A. Liggett and S. T. K. Chan. 1973. "Finite Element
Shallow Lake Circulation Analysis." Journal of the Hydraulics
Division, ASCE, 99, HY 7, July, p. 1083-1098.
Gedney, R. T., F. B. Molls and W. Lick. 1973. "A Simplified Stratified
Lake Model for Determining Effects of Wind Variation and Eddy
Diffusivity." Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Great Lakes
Research, International Assoc. Great Lakes Research, p. 710-722.
25
-------
Gupta, N. N. and J. Houdeshell. 1975. "A Differential-Difference Equations
Model of a Dynamic Aquatic Ecosystem." Int. J. Systems Sci., 0,
p. 1-12.
Hall, R. W., H. E. Westerdahl and R. L. Eley. 1974. "A Review of Ecosystem
Modeling Methodology with Recommendations for Application to the
Dredged Material Research Program." Draft Report by U.S. Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, June.
Hamblin, P. F. 1974. "A Simple Dispersion Model of the Mean Concentration
Field in the Western and Central Basins of Lake Erie." J. Great
Lakes Res., 1, 1, p. 92-100.
Harper, M. E. 1972. "Development and Application of a Multi-Parametric
Mathematical Model of Water Quality." Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Washington, June.
Imboden, D. M. 197,4. "Phosphorus Models of Lake Eutrophication." Limnol.
and Oceanog., 119, 2, p. 297-304.
Kirchner, W. B. and P. J. Dillon. 1975. "An Empirical Method of Estimating
Retention of Phosphorus in Lakes." Water Resour. Res., 11, 1,
p. 182-183.
Lassiter, R. R. 1975. "Modeling Dynamics- of Biological and Chemical
Components of Aquatic Ecosystems." EPA-660/3-75-012, National
Environmental Research Center, Corvallis, Oregon.
Lee, K. K., and J. A. Liggett. 1970. "Computation for Circulation in
Stratified Lakes." Journal of the Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 96,
HY 10, pp. 2089-2115.
Leendertse, J. J. 1967. "Aspects of a Computational Model for Long-Period
Water-Wave Propagation." Rand Corporation, Report No. RM-5294-PR,
May, 165 p.
Leendertse, J. J.- R. C. Alexander and S. K. Liu. 1973. "A Three-Dimension-
al Model for Estauries and Coastal Seas: Volume I: Principles of
: Computation." Rand Corporation, Report No. R-1417-OWRR, December,
57 p.
Lerman, A. 1972. "Strontium 90 in the Great Lakes; Concentration-Time
Model." J. Geophys. Res., 77, 18, p. 3256-3264-.
Lick, W. 1976. "Numerical Models of Lake Currents." Ecological Research
Series Report, U.S. EPA, EPA-600/3-76-020, 140 p.
Lombardo, P. S. 1971. "A Mathematical Model of Water Quality in an
Impoundment," M. S. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, March.
26
-------
Lombardo, P. S. 1972. "Water Quality Simulation Model Discussion,"
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No.
SA 2, April, pp. 468-470.
Lombardo, P. S., and D. D. Franz. 1972. "Mathematical Model of Water
Quality in Rivers and Impoundments," Hydrocomp, Inc., Palo Alto,
California, December.
Lorenzen, M. W. 1973. "Predicting the Effects of Nutrient Diversion on
Lake Recovery." In Workshop Proceedings of Modeling the Eutrophi-
cation Process, Utah State University and EPA, November, pp.
205-210.
Lorenzen, M. W., and R. Mitchell. 1973. "Theoretical Effects of Artificial
Destratification on Algal Production in Improvements." Environ-
mental Science and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 10, pp. 939-944, October.
Lorenzen, M., Smith/ D. J., Kimmel, L. V. 1976. "A Long-Term Phosphorus
Model for Lakes: Application to Lake Washington." Modeling Bio-
chemical Processes in Aquatic Ecosystems, R. P. Canale, ed.,
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI., 1976, pp. 75-92.
Markofsky, N., and D. R. F. Harleman. 1971. "A Predictive Model for Thermal
Stratification and Water Quality in Reservoirs." EPA Report
No. 161-30-DJH 3/71 Water.
Meredith, D. D. 1974. "Hydrologic Models of the Great Lakes." WRG Res. Rep.
No. 81, Water Resources Center, University of Illinois, Urbana,
38 p.
Newbold, J. D., and J. A. Liggett. 1974. "Oxygen Depletion Model for Cayuga
Lake," Journal of the Environ. Engineer. Division, ASCE, 100,
EE 1, p. 41-59.
O'Connor, D. J., Di Toro, D. M. and R. V. Thomann. 1975. "Phytoplankton
Models and Eutrophication Problems." In Ecological Modeling, C. S.
Russel, ed., Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D. C.,
p. 149-209.
O'Melia, C. R. 1972. "An Approach to the Modeling of Lakes." Swiss Journal
of Hydrology, 34, p. 1-34.
O'Neill, R. V. 1975. "Management of Large-Scale Environmental Modeling
Projects in Ecological Modeling." C. S. Russel, ed., Resources for
the Future, Inc., Washington, D. C., p. 251-282.
Paskaysky, D. F. 1969. "A Barotropic Prognostic Numerical Model of the
Circulation in the Gulf of Mexico." Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A and M
University.
Patterson, R. L. undated. "A Progress Report on Mathematical Models for
Natural Resource Systems Analysis." University of Michigan, Sea
Grant Program, 49 p.
27
-------
Paul, J. F. and W. J. Lick. 1973. "A Numerical Model for a Three-Dimension-
al, Variable-Density Jet." Proceedings of the 16th Conference on
Great Lakes Research, International Assoc. Great Lakes Research,
p. 818-830.
Pinsak, A. P. and T. L. Meyer. 1976. "Environmental Baseline for Maumee
Bay." Maumee River Basin Level B Study, Technical Report No. 9,
Great Lakes Basin Commission, 194 p.
Platzman, G. W. 1963. "The Dynamical Prediction of Wind Tides on Lake
Erie." ^Meteorological Monographs, 4, 26, p. 1-44.
Ridley, J. E. and J. M. Simons. 1972. "New Approaches to Water Quality
Control in Impoundments." Water Pollution Microbiology, Ralph
Mitchel (ed.), p. 389-412.
Rumer, R. R., Jr., D. D. Merideth, C. C. Chien and R. P. Apmann. 1974.
"Chlorides in Lake Erie." Water Resources and Environmental
Engineering Report No. 74-1, State Univ. of New York at Buffalo,
Buffalo, 82 p.
Simons, T. J. 1971. "Development of Numerical Models of Lake Ontario."
Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Great Lakes Research, Inter-
national Assoc. Great Lakes Research.
Simons, T. J. 1973. "Comparison of Observed and Computed Currents in Lake
Ontario During Hurricane Agnes." Proceedings of the 16th Confer-
ence on Great Lakes Research, International Assoc. Great Lakes
Research, p. 831-844.
Simons, T. J. 1973. "Development of Three-Dimensional Numerical Models of
the Great Lakes." Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Scientific
Series No. 12.
Simons, T. J. 1973. "Continuous Dynamic Computations of Water Transports in
Lake Erie for Year 1970." Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Intern-
al Report, July.
Simons, T. J. 1974. "An. Operational Framework for Interfacing Physical and
Biochemical Computer Models of Large Water Bodies." Canada Centre
for Inland Waters, June.
Smith, F. E. 1969. "Efforts of Enrichment in Mathematical Modeling." In
Eutrophication - Causes, Consequences, Corrections, National
Academy of Science, Washington, D. C., p. 631-645.
Snodgrass, W. J. and C. R. O'Melia. 1974. "A Predictive Model for
Phosphorus in Lakes." Draft, August.
Sonzogni, W. C., P. D. Uttormark and G. F. Lee. 1976. "A Phosphorus
Residence Time Model: Theory and Application." Water Research,
10, p. 429-435.
28
-------
Vollenweider, R. A. 1969. "Possibilities and Limits of Elementary Models
Concerning the Budget of Substances in Lakes." Archives of
Hydrobiology, Vol. 66, p. 1-36.
Vollenweider, R. A. 1975. "Input-Output Models." Schweiz. Z. Hydrology,
37, p. 53-84.
Vollenweider, R. A. and P. J. Dillon. 1974. "The Application of Phosphorus
Loading Concept to Eutrophication Research." N.R.C. Tech. Rep.
13690, National Research Council of Canada, 42 p.
j
Welander, P. 1957. "Wind Action on a Shallow Sea: Some Generalizations of
Ekman's Theory." Tellus, 9, 45-52.
29
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/3-77-126a
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Great Lakes Environmental Planning Using Limnological
Systems Analysis: Summary
7.AUTHORIS)
Hydroscience, Inc., 363 Old Hook Road, Westwood, New
Jersey 07675
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
prepared for the Great Lakes Basin Commission
P.O. Box 999
3475 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, MN 55804
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Duluth, MN 55804
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
November 1977 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
DACW-35-71-C0030
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-600/03
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The report documents the deliberate decision making process used by the Great Lakes
Basin Commission in concluding that rational modeling methodologies could be'used
to evaluate the effect of different planning alternatives on the Great Lakes and
that planning for specific problems affecting the Great Lakes' system can be technical-
ly and economically.supported through mathematical.modeling and.systems analysis. It
assesses the technical.and economical feasibility of developing mathematical .models '
to assist in making selections from among alternative management strategies and
structural solutions proposed for solving water resource problems of the Great Lakes.
The study reviews, evaluates and categorizes present and future water resources
problems, presently available data, problem-oriented mathematical models and the
state of models and model synthesis for large lakes, A demonstration modeling frame-
work for planning is developed and applied to western Lake Erie and the Great ..Lakes " .
system. The report evaluates four widely ranging'alternatives'for future modeling
efforts in the Great Lakes and.recommends the .modeling level most feasible to'answer
planning questions on scales ranging from the Great Lakes to regional areas', ' Also'
discussed is a proposed Commission study which .will apply limnological systems
analysis to the.planning process. . ... ' '
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
11. DESCRIPTORS
Limnology, Systems, Mathematical Models,
Water Resources, Planning, Hydrology,
Ecology
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
systems analysis, Great
Lakes, ecosystems , .long
term planning,
environmental .effects,
large 'lakes ' . ,
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report;
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
08 H
13 B
21. NO. OF PAGES
36
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220—1 (Rev. 4—77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-30-
------- |