1. GEOSS Great Lakes Testbed connection to Adaptive Management
GEOSS GL Testbed Meeting
Windsor, ON
Feb 6, 2013
Wendy Leger, Environment Canada
Canadian Co-Chair,
International Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
Adaptive Management Task Team

2. Challenges Affecting Water Level Risk
Extreme Water Levels
Bigger more frequent storms
Glacial isostatic adjustment
Less ice cover
Changes in conveyance
Erosion and deposition
Changes in demographics
Actions taken along the shore
Concerns from Coastal Managers include:
Are levels going to stay low? Should they allow encroachment?
Are storm and wind patterns going to change? Will wave run-up estimates change?
Will there be less ice cover? Will shorelines be more susceptible to winter storms?
Will water temperature rise? Will there be more algae?
Will ecosystem functions by disrupted?
2/9/2012
IUGLS Adaptive Management Strategy

3. Why Adaptive Management?
Coordination is key to solutions
Monitoring is the only way to know how things are changing
Getting the right information to those who need it is critical to solving problems
Information needed to help understand and solve problems is not always available to those needing it.
There is lots of information, but it is not necessarily coordinated, vetted, or easily accessible. Nor is the data most pertinent to a decision necessarily collected. Practitioners are left to weed through a myriad of information from multiple sources with sometimes conflicting messages, to determine the best course of action.
Conflicting messages
Interests
Consistent Messages
Uncoordinated data
Coastal Managers
Modern Coordinated Data
Outdated Data
Decision Makers
State of the art forecast model data

4. Why Adaptive Management?
Coordination is key to solutions
Monitoring is the only way to know how things are changing
IUGLS
Timeline (years)
End of Study
Data, models & tools
Getting the right information to those who need it is critical to solving problems
On-going collaboration is not only essential for effective management, it is cost efficient
During a study millions are spent to collect data and develop models and tools on great lakes water levels, hydroclimate, Net Basin Supplies etc… After a study ends these data and tools are no longer updated or used. AM would continue to utilize the data and information collected from the studies and continue to update the tools in order to address risk. It will continue to utilize what millions of dollars were already invested in.
Adjust and realign as it is determined what is working
Adaptive Mgmnt
Bursts of effort through intermittent studies does not lead to the most effective use of resources

5. Elements of the proposed GLSLR AM Plan
Coordinated Hydroclimate Monitoring and Modelling for Improved Understanding of the Implications of Climate Changes on Water Balance and Water Levels and Flows
Tracking of Key Performance Indicators and On-going Risk Assessment
Plan Evaluation and Decision Tools
Information Management and Distribution
Outreach and Engagement
Collaborative Regional Adaptive Management Pilots
* Water quantity and quality linkage incorporated into above
** Also requires tracking and communicating success of the AM Plan
Coordinated Hydroclimate Monitoring and Modelling
Link Water Quality and Water Quantity into all Elements
Bi-National Hydroclimatic monitoring and modelling 1
Tracking of Key Performance Indicators and On-going Risk Assessment
Collaborative Regional
Pilots 6
Performance indicators and risk
assessment 2
Evaluation and Decision Tools
Information Management and Distribution
Outreach and Engagement 5
Evaluation and Decision Tools 3
Also requires tracking and communicating success of the AM Plan
Information Management and Distribution 4
Outreach and Engagement
Collaborative Regional Adaptive Management Pilots

6. Task Team Proposed Model
GLSLR
Levels
Advisory Board
Superior
Board
LOSLR Board
Niagara Board
CCGLHHD
Bi-National Hydroclimatic monitoring and modelling 1
OAG
Reg. Reps.
Collaborative Regional
Pilots 6
Performance indicators and risk
assessment 2
Vertical Control
LOSLR AM Committee
The AM Task Team supports the establishments of a Levels Advisory Board supported by a series of Networks shown in a honey comb fashion to demonstrate thyt are inter-connected.
The Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data is an ad hoc committee established in 1953 that advises governments and supports the Boards of Control. It has three subcommittees:
1. Vertical Control – water levels and GL Datum
2. Hydraulics – coordinates flows and models in connecting channels
3. Hydrology - coordinates work on forecasting and basin water supplies
Networks
Hydraulics
Outreach and Engagement 5
Plan Evaluation and Decision Tools 3
IJC – International Joint Commission
CCGLHHD – Coordinating Committee on Great Lakes Basic Hydraulic and Hydrologic Data
LOSLR – Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence River
OAG – Operational Advisory Group
Hydrology
Information Management and Distribution 4

7. Network Concept
GLSLR
Levels
Advisory Board
Networks are flexible associations of technical experts unlike a standing committee
Network participation may change over time 1
Hydroclimatic
As different expertise is required 6 2
Regional Collaboratives
(Pilots)
Indicators
& Risk
Assessment
As agency/organization programs change
Networks
We’ve have suggested that the various elements of the AM Plan be undertaken by a series of networks. We call them networks because we see them as flexible associations of technical experts, unlike standing committees. The membership could ebb and flow depending on the priorities and focus of the AM Plan as it evolves and as different expertise is required, as agency programs change and as new science questions emerge. The Networks could tie in with existing programs and established regional bodies as necessary. For example, the Hydroclimate Network would directly tie-in with the Coordinating Committee for Great Lakes Basic Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data. The idea again is that this is not about building new bureaucracy, but synthesizing existing programs and expertise. Organizations would participate because it makes sense to be engaged and is beneficial for them to do so.
As new science questions/challenges emerge 5 3
Networks may draw from existing, overlapping organizations
Outreach
Evaluation and Decision Tools 4
Information Management
Networks are linked through the Levels Advisory Board

8. HYDROCLIMATE NETWORK– Improved Monitoring and Modeling of Water BalanceEC
NRCan
NOAA
Trilateral Partnership
Province of Ontario
GLERL
USACE
OCCAIR
Universities
Hydroclimate
Network
DFO
CCGLHHD
IPCC
NOAA
USGS EC
Climate Change Annex (GLWQA)
OURANOS EC
Province of Quebec
States and Provinces
Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium
NOAA
Universities
Example of Network – not intended to be inclusive

9. Information Management and Distribution
Purpose:
Establish information management architecture, protocols and governance for managing, vetting and distributing hydroclimate, performance indicators, and risk assessment data and information to those who need it for decision-making
Network Includes:
Key data users
IM specialists
Existing Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River data management networks (e.g. GLOS, GLIN, NOAA, GEOSS GLTestbed, WRIP etc.)
GLSLR
Levels
Advisory Board
Information Management and Distribution is critical to the success of adaptive management. There has to be systems in place to organize, manage, track and disseminate data and information so that is can be utilized effectively and efficiently. This should be a coordinated activity and will require new money.

10. GEOSS GLTestbed
Can/should the Great Lakes Testbed be the hub for information management for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River?
Can the Testbed be the start of the IM Network?
Could the Testbed look to seek funds for supporting binational IM effort?
Can this serve more than one purpose? e.g. AM, GLWQA, Regional Body
How do we see the GL Testbed involved and its relationship to other networks (GLIN, WRIP, agency sites etc.)