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

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

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 Conflicting messages Interests Consistent Messages Uncoordinated data Coastal Managers Modern Coordinated Data Outdated Data Decision Makers State of the art forecast model data

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tools on great lakes water levels, hydroclimate, Net Basin Supplies etc… After a study ends these data and tools are no longer updated or used.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

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

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

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

HYDROCLIMATE NETWORK– Improved Monitoring and Modeling of Water Balance EC 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

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.

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.)