Feedback from stakeholders. The feedback from the stakeholders of Lake Pyhäjärvi about models and their usage were gathered in a workshop. It took place on 10'th of October 2011 at the Pyhäjärvi Institute, Xxxx Xxxx and catchment models applied to the region were presented to the participants and following questions were discussed:
1. Are you familiar with a model?
2. Have you used the results of model in the planning of program of measures?
a. if yes – how
b. if not – why
3. How to improve the usability of model results? The full set of applied models was presented as in table x with remarks presented in Appendix
1. and Still the the discussion was focused on a set of models applied and developed from 2000 onwards. The were: WSFS-VEMALA SWAT, INCA, LakeLoadResponse (LLR), COHERENS, MyLake/PROTECH, and decision making models (influence diagrams). LLR model discussed first was not recognized among the stakeholders. The model can be used to estimate target nutrient load reduction (TNLR) for the lake type specific good/moderate ecological class boundaries in terms of total phosphorus, total nitrogen and chlorophyll a. The model was not familiar and has not been approved by the experts of Pyhäjärvi Institute, Turku University and environment authorities due to the omission of food web impacts of fisheries. Also, decades long records of hydrology, water chemistry, food web and fisheries support dynamic approach and it is not used in LLR model. However, the approximation used in model was approved by the coordinator of agricultural water protection in a local environment center. Her opinion was based on the fact that in most lake cases the poor data situation prevails and this case study is a good test case with large amount of data. The dissemination of model results was required to make LLR model noted by its strengths, limitations and by the scope of management measures estimated using the model. The catchment scale SWAT model which is designed to inform the selection of crop and site and of agricultural techniques and the timing of agricultural activities was neither known by stakeholders. The popularization of model based comparison of impacts of agricultural measures was required to gain approval from local peers and to promote the usage of SWAT model. The INCA with similar scope but more coarse overall spatial resolution compared to SWAT model was recognized by the stakeholders. But here again model results were not used due to the lack of popular publication of model results. COHER...
Feedback from stakeholders. The study group prepared and distributed short surveys to officials from the Departments of Motor Vehicles, the Departments of Agriculture, the Farm Bureaus, and the State Police in each of the researched states in an attempt to gather their opinions regarding the efficiency of the existing laws and regulations governing farm vehicles. The most important concerns identified in the responses are summarized below. In Pennsylvania, the received responses indicate that the main concerns are regarding clarity of the current definitions; lack of examples illustrating the definitions; lack of sufficient knowledge and understanding on the part of law enforcement personnel and Department of Transportation personnel regarding farm equipment and farming practices; the fact that farmers are using equipment that either does not fall in either of the definitions, or cannot be registered due to certain specifics; the limitations on the travel distance imposed on farm vehicles and implements of husbandry; the size limitations imposed on implements of husbandry and multi- purpose agricultural vehicles; the requirement for covering loads to prevent escaping or spilling of materials; the safety of farm vehicles on the road; the practical difficulties in identifying what type of vehicle the vehicle has been registered as; and finally, the fact that all farm-related provisions and exemptions are spread throughout the Vehicle Code. Some of the responses indicate that the problems are purely definitional and can be solved by changing the current definitions; others indicated that the problems are educational, and that simple change in the definitions will not provide a solution. However, all of the responses agree the lack of clarity in the definitions ultimately creates problems for the registration personnel in the Department, law enforcement, and the farming community. In Virginia, the responses indicate that the sections in the Virginia Code concerning farm vehicles appear to adequately address the scope and purpose for the operation of such equipment. Some of the responses indicate that the lack of enforcement is a problem, as it may create more liability and higher insurance costs and claims. In addition, while the license exemption for farm tractors may be creating an increased risk from an insurance standpoint, from the farming community’s perspective it is well placed. No need for amendments in the provisions of the Vehicle Code governing farm vehicles and equipment has...
