Download pdf

UsingFutureScenariostoIdentify
PotentialLAMPandWatershed
PlanningMeasuresforClimateChange
AdaptationalongLakeOntario
UsingFutureScenariostoIdentifyPotentialLAMPand
WatershedPlanningMeasuresforClimateChange
AdaptationalongLakeOntario
Dr. Katherine Bunting-Howarth1, David MacNeill1, Jessica Spaccio2, Dr. Rebecca Schneider3, Dr. Brian Weidel4, Dr. Arthur
DeGaetano5, Laura Briley6
1
New York Sea Grant
Cornell University, Northeast Regional Climate Center
3
Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources
4
USGS Biological Field Station
5
Cornell University, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
6
Greats Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments
2
ThisprojectwasfundedbyGreatLakesIntegratedSciences+Assessmentsthrougha
2015GreatLakesClimateAssessmentGrant.
RecommendedCitation:
Bunting-Howarth, K., MacNeill, D., Spaccio, J., Schneider, R, Weidel, B., DeGaetano, A., Briley, L. 2016. Developing a Using Future
Scenarios to Identify Potential LAMP and Watershed Planning Measures for Climate Change Adaptation along Lake Ontario. In:
Project Reports. D. Brown, W. Baule, L. Briley, E. Gibbons, and I. Robinson, eds. Available from the Great Lakes Integrated
Sciences and Assessments (GLISA) Center.
For further questions, please contact KatherineE.Bunting-Howarth([email protected])
www.glisa.msu.edu
USINGFUTURESCENARIOSTOIDENTIFYPOTENTIALLAMPANDWATERSHED
PLANNINGMEASURESFORCLIMATECHANGEADAPTATIONALONGLAKEONTARIO
Contents
ExecutiveSummary..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
IntroductionandHistory................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
ScenarioDevelopmentforLakeOntario.................................................................................................................................................................................4
ProjectDesign,Methods,andEngagement............................................................................................................................................................................5
WorkshopII.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
TechnicalPreparation.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
PlanningDetails..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6
Outcomes...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
WorkshopIII........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
LessonsLearned/KeyFindings...................................................................................................................................................................................................7
ApplicabilitytoFutureWorkandOtherEffortsintheRegion......................................................................................................................................9
References............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9
www.glisa.umich.edu
2
Lastupdated:4/22/2016
USINGFUTURESCENARIOSTOIDENTIFYPOTENTIALLAMPANDWATERSHED
PLANNINGMEASURESFORCLIMATECHANGEADAPTATIONALONGLAKEONTARIO
draftrecommendations.Workshopattendeesusedtheir
ExecutiveSummary
localknowledge,beliefs,andopinionstorefineand
prioritizepotentialmanagementandpolicyactionsthat
wouldaddtothesystem’sresiliencyandbuffertheimpact
offutureuncertainties.Theserecommendedactionsare
beingsharedwithlocal,State,andFederalorganizations
involvedinwatershedandlakeplanning.
Thedrasticchangesinnutrientloadsandwaterclarity
observedinLakeOntariooverthepasttwodecades
illustratethepotentialforhumanbehaviortoinfluence
thislarge,importantecosystem.Whilescientistsworkto
understandhowtheecosystemhaschangedandanticipate
futurechanges,thereisaconcurrentneedtoeducatea
broaderstakeholdergroupaboutfutureuncertaintiesin
theecosystemandtheservicesitprovides(Walkeretal.
2002).ScenarioPlanninghasproventobeausefultoolto
helpprepareforuncertainfutures.Scenariosdeveloped
withmulti-disciplinaryinputrepresentplausible,but
alternate,futureconditionsofasystemofinterest(Wack
1985).Assuch,theycanprovideameansofunderstanding
potentialfutureimpacts,suchasthoserelatedtoclimate
change,andcanhelpdeveloplocal,adaptivedecisionmakingtoreducetheseverityofthoseimpacts(Wack
1985;Petersonetal.2003).In2012,NewYorkSeaGrant
organizedascenarioworkshop,fundedbytheGreatLakes
RestorationInitiative(GLRI)asanexercisetoexplore
possiblescenariosforthefutureoftheLakeOntario
ecosystemwithinputfromdiversestakeholders
(WorkshopI).ParticipantsatWorkshopIidentified
precipitationextremesandhumandemographicsastwo
maindriversofecosystemtrajectories.Thegroup
developedfournarrativesdescribingthesefuturestates
andidentifiedtheunderlyingconditions.
IntroductionandHistory
Withinthelastdecade,interestintheimpactsofclimate
changehassignificantlyincreased.Concomitantly,there
hasbeenwidespreadrecognitionthatactionmustbetaken
toreducetheseimpactsandadapttothepotential
changes.Thedevelopmentofadaptiveplanning(sectorspecific),however,haslaggedbehind.Thiscan,inpart,be
attributedtouncertaintyandthelackoffine-scaleclimate
impactprojectionsforlocalandregionallevelsasmost
projectionsareforbroadergeographicareas(Hayhoeet
al.2008).However,predictivemodelsevenatfinerscales
mayneverbecompletelyaccurateinforecastingfuture
states.Thus,toolstohelpunderstandandplanwithinthe
contextofuncertaintyareneeded(Wack1985).The
northeasternUS,aregionpredictedtoexperienceboth
morefloodingassociatedwithhighfrequencyrainfallsand
moredroughtsduetowarmingandlongerno-rainperiods
(Kunkeletal.2014),isoneexamplehighlightingthe
challengesofplanningunderpredictedhighvariability.
Manytoolsareavailabletoassistcommunitiesinassessing
theirvulnerabilitiestotheimpactsofclimateintheareas
ofhumanhealth,infrastructure,ecosystems,and
emergencyresponse,aswellasplanningstrategiesfor
adaptingtothechangingclimate.Althoughtoolsare
available,previoussurveysandstudiesmakeusaware
thatagapexistsbetweencommunities’awarenessofthe
climateandactuallytakingactiontowardadaptation.In
fact,surveyscompletedintheGreatLakesregionthat
weretargetedatlocalofficialsandgovernmentstaff
clearlyindicatethatamajorityofcommunitiesinthe
regionarenotcurrentlyincorporatingclimateadaptation
conceptsintotheirplanningprocesses,despiteawareness
ofcurrentandpotentialimpactsofthechangingclimate.
(Nelson2011.)
Alternatively,scenarioplanninghasbeenidentifiedasa
usefulprocessthatcanhelporganizethinkingabout
uncertainfutures.Originallyusedbymilitariesand
businesses,scenarioplanninghasbeenincreasinglyused
insocioecologicalsettingssuchastheMillennium
EcosystemAssessmentandtheGreatLakesFutures
Project(Wack1985).Oneimportantoutcomeofthe
processishelpingadiverseaudiencerecognizewhat
Thefouridentifiedscenarios(futurestates)wereas
follows.
1. DrierClimate-SlowPopulationGrowth:“BoatlessLake
Ontario”
2. WetClimate-SlowPopulationGrowth:“RagingRunoff”
3. DrierClimate-FastPopulationGrowth:“Crowded
Beaches”
4. WetClimate-FastPopulationGrowth:“Soggy
Stripmalls”
WithfundingfromtheGreatLakesIntegratedScience
Assessmentprogram(GLISA),aniterativeapproachwas
takentodevelopdraftrecommendationsforthebinational
LakeOntarioLake-wideActionandManagementPlan
(LAMP),andforwatershedplannerstoconsiderwhen
adaptingexisting(andnew)planstoclimatechange.
DuringtheMay2015workshop(WorkshopII),draft
recommendationsweresynthesizedfromdiverse
stakeholdersthatconsideredlong-termextremesin
precipitation(extremeprecipitationanddrought)and
humandemographicshifts(slowandrapidpopulation
growth)ascreatedinWorkshopIinSeptember2012.
Follow-upworkshopswereheldinthefallof2015
(WorkshopsIII-AandB)togatherpublicinputonthese
www.glisa.umich.edu
3
Lastupdated:4/22/2016
USINGFUTURESCENARIOSTOIDENTIFYPOTENTIALLAMPANDWATERSHED
PLANNINGMEASURESFORCLIMATECHANGEADAPTATIONALONGLAKEONTARIO
differentpeoplevalueabouttheirenvironmentandhow
theiractivitiescouldimpactthoseresources.Theprocess
isflexible,butgenerallybuiltfromdialoguebetween
multiplestakeholdersfromdiversebackgrounds(e.g.
government,scientists,businessowners,recreational
users,environmentaladvocates,etc.).Thegoalsofthe
dialoguearetodefinethesystem,area,andresourcesthat
arethetargetoftheexerciseandtoidentifythe‘drivers’,
theforcesorkeyinfluences,thatwillmostlikelychange
thesysteminthefuture.Assessinghowdriversmayunfold
inthefuture,givenuncertainties,givesrisetosimple,yet
strikingcontrastingfutures(Walkeretal.2002;Peterson
etal.2003).
Inourexercise,weconditionedthe“projected”future
statestoberealisticandequallyplausible.Participants
developalternative,logicallyconsistentstories(not
fancifulpredictions—butsimple“projections”)aboutthe
system’sfuturebasedonhowtheidentifieduncertainties
mightunfold.Thesestoriesportrayboththepositiveand
negativeconsequencesofafuture30-40yearsawayand
includeeconomic,cultural,andecologicalelements
(Petersonetal.2002).Arealstrengthofthisprocessis
that,becausethestoriesaredevelopedbyindividualswho
arefamiliarwiththesystem,thestoriesreflectlocal
experiences,becomemorebelievable,andareacceptedby
theparticipants.Apowerfullearningmomentoccurswhen
storiesaresharedandworkshopparticipantsrecognize
howsimplebutuncertaincontrastingincidentscanleadto
cascadingevents,resultingindrasticallydifferentfutures
(Petersonetal.2002).Inaddition,scenarioplanningcan
beusedtoidentifyindividualorcommonactionsthatcan
betakentodaytohelpprepareforanyofthescenarios.
andnotdominateconversationsnorsimplyspeakto
positionstatementstotheexclusionofengagingina
dialogue.Theinitialgoaloftheexercisewastoengage
diverseparticipantsinadiscussiontoexchange
knowledge,opinions,andbeliefsonthedriversthatwill
shapethefutureoftheecosystem.Thegroupchoseclimate
change(specificallyprecipitationchanges)andpopulation
growthasthemajoruncertainties(drivers)fordesigning
theirnarrativesaboutfutureecological,social,economic,
andculturalstatesonLakeOntarioanditsbasin.Thefour
identifiedLakeOntariofuturesindependentlyidentifiedby
thegroupswere
1. DrierClimate-SlowPopulationGrowth:“BoatlessLake
Ontario”
2. WetClimate-LowPopulationGrowth:“RagingRunoff”
3. DrierClimate-FastPopulationGrowth:“Crowded
Beaches”
4. WetClimate-FastPopulationGrowth:“Soggy
Stripmalls”
Schematicdiagramsrepresentingtheconditions
associatedwitheachscenarioweredevelopedtohelpwith
thevisualizationinsubsequentdialogs(SeeFigure1).
ScenarioDevelopmentforLakeOntario
InSeptember2012,adiversesetofstakeholdersmetfor
twodaysattheCornellBiologicalFieldStationtoutilize
thescenarioplanningprocesstoimagineandcreatefour
differentfuturescenarios(30-40yearout)forLake
Ontarioanditscoastalcommunities(WorkshopI).The
workshopinvolvedtwenty-fourdiversestakeholders
representingresearchers,marinaoperators,fishermen,
smallbusinessowners,anglingorganizations,county
tourismandhealthdepartments,sport-fishingpromotion,
charterboatindustry,cooperativeextension,State
watershedmanagers,shorelinepropertyowners,county
soilandwater,non-profitgroups,andacademicsfromthe
UnitedStatesandCanada(OntarioMinistryofNatural
Resources).NewYorkSeaGrant’sRecreationalFisheries
Specialistinvitedtheparticipants.Theinviteeswere
selectedbasedonthediversityoftheirviewsandinterests
thattheyrepresent.Inaddition,theywereselectedbased
onknowledgeoftheirabilitytoworkwellwithingroups
www.glisa.umich.edu
Figure1:Schematicdiagramsrepresentingconditionsassociatedwitheach
scenariotohelpparticipantsvisualizescenarios..
Thegoalofthisprojectwastousethefourscenariosasa
toolinsubsequentdiscussionsaboutrecommendationsfor
planningandpolicydevelopmenttoaddressuncertainties
relatedtoprojectedprecipitationchangesandpopulation
growth.
4
Lastupdated:4/22/2016
USINGFUTURESCENARIOSTOIDENTIFYPOTENTIALLAMPANDWATERSHED
PLANNINGMEASURESFORCLIMATECHANGEADAPTATIONALONGLAKEONTARIO
• Bringthegroupsbacktogethertosharefindings
ProjectDesign,Methods,and
andidentifythecommonactionsidentifiedinall
Engagement
scenariostoformthebasisoftheproject
recommendations.
ThefinalproductofWorkshopIIwasadeliberatedsetof
stakeholder-drivenrecommendationsforupdatingthe
LAMPandlocalwatershedplanstoaddressprecipitation
andpopulationchangeimpactsandbecomemoreresilient
(Table1).Oncewesynthesizedthefindingsfrom
WorkshopII,ourgoalwastoverifythesefindingsand
ascertaintheir“acceptabilityforadoption”throughreview
bytwoadditionalindependentgroupsofstakeholders.
Thiswasaccomplishedthroughinvitingthepublicto
attendtwoeveningworkshops(WorkshopsIII-AandB)in
differentareasoftheLakeOntarioBasin.
ThisprojectwasdesignedtobuilduponWorkshopI,
whichdevelopedthepreviouslydiscussedscenarios,asthe
basisfordevelopingafirstroundofrecommendationsfor
lakeandwatershedmanagersinandaroundLakeOntario
toconsiderwhenamendingandcreatingplanstoaddress
climatechange.Theprojectdesignincludedthree
subsequentworkshops:onewithinviteddiverse
stakeholders(WorkshopII)andtheothertwo(Workshops
III-AandB)inareastoattractdifferentsegmentsofthe
public.
WorkshopIIwasdesignedtobeatwo-dayevent,which
wouldengagesimilarandoverlappingstakeholdersfrom
WorkshopI.Theprojectteamincludedmulti-disciplinary
groupsfromtheGLISA,NortheastRegionalClimateCenter,
UnitedStatesGeologicalSurvey(USGS),CornellUniversity,
andNewYorkSeaGrant.Inaddition,inordertoincrease
thelikelihoodofourfindingsbeingutilizedbystate
agencies,weinvitedtheNewYorkStateDepartmentof
Conservation’s(NYSDEC)LakeOntarioLAMPCoordinator
tojoinourorganizationalmeetings.Ourteamincluded
expertsinextension,waterresources,fisheries,scenario
planning,andclimatechange.Theultimategoalof
WorkshopIIwastohaveparticipantsidentifyasuite
ofplanningactionsthatwere“win-wins”inthatthey
would(a)addressissuesrelevanttomultiple
stakeholdertypesand(b)simultaneouslyhelpto
bufferpotentialimpactsfrommorethanoneofthe
fourfuturescenarios.
Utilizingtheseareasofexpertise,theagendaforthetwodayeventhadtwomaincomponents:
Part1:SettingtheStage:
• Brieflyintroducetheattendeestoscenario
planning
• Describethefourscenarios
• Provideexamplesandtechnicalinformationon
theuncertaintiesandextremes(precipitationand
populationchanges)andthepotentialimpacton
thesocioecologicalsystem
• Presentexamplesofactionstoaddressclimate
changeadaptationfoundinplansfromother
statesandlocations
Part2.ParticipantDevelopmentofRecommendations:
• Createfourmulti-stakeholdersubgroupsto
identifyactionswhichneedtobetakentodayto
prepareforeachofthepotentialfutures(action,
barrierstoimplementingtheaction,andwaysof
overcomingthebarriers)
www.glisa.umich.edu
WorkshopII
TechnicalPreparation
Theprojectteammetfourtimes,inpersonandusing
WebEx,toidentifyparticipantsanddesigntheagenda,
presentations,handouts,andworkshopmethods.
WorkshopII,heldinMay,wasscheduledprimarilyaround
theacademiccalendar.InvitationsweresentoutinMarch,
andourintentwastoattractasmanyofthesame
stakeholdersaspossiblefromWorkshopI.Thebiggest
challengeingettingparticipantsforWorkshopIIwasthe
two-daytimecommitment.Weoftenreceivedresponses
aboutonedaysuitingbutnottheother.Therefore,we
woulddeclinetheirparticipationandincludeotherswith
thesameinterests.Ourgoalwastohaveadiversesetof
participants,whichweultimatelyattracted.Participants
includedplanningagencies,federalandstateagencies,soil
andwaterconservationdistricts,environmentalandsportfishingorganizations,andcooperativeextensionagents
representingagriculturalinterests.Unlikethefirst
workshop,WorkshopIIdidnothavebusinessandtribal
representation.
TheNortheastRegionalClimateCenter,NewYorkSea
GrantandCornellUniversityfacultydraftedpresentation
withtechnicalinputfromGLISAanddesignedthemto
illustratethesciencebehindprecipitationextremesand
potentialimpactsontheecosystemandhuman
infrastructure.
Weoriginallyintendedtoillustrateprecipitationextremes
usingsinglecasestudiesofsummer2012asadryscenario
andsummer1972asawetscenario.Byusingactualcase
studyyearsfromthisregion,wewereabletoaccessreal
5
Lastupdated:4/22/2016
USINGFUTURESCENARIOSTOIDENTIFYPOTENTIALLAMPANDWATERSHED
PLANNINGMEASURESFORCLIMATECHANGEADAPTATIONALONGLAKEONTARIO
dataincludingprecipitationmaps,adroughtmap,
observedandprojectedannual,seasonal,andevent-based
precipitationtrends,snowcoverchanges,consecutivedry
days,lakelevelchart,andpicturesoflocalimpacts.
However,wefoundlimitingourworktoindividualyears
constrainedthedepthofexampleswecoulduse.The
amountofmapsandchartswouldbereduced,
incorporatingthisinformationintotheexamplesand
includingmorepictures.UsinginputfromGLISA,
additionalexamplesforeachscenarioweredecidedonand
thepresentationwasrevised.Foreachexamplepresented,
data-drivenvisualswereaccompaniedbyphotographsof
impacts.Thisuseof“real-world”data,not“pretend”
information,gaveconsiderablecredibilitytothescenarios
andenhancedtheengagementofourstakeholders.We
considereditparticularlyimportanttoincludea
combinationofgraphsandphotographstohelp
participantsvisualizeandunderstandtheconditionsthat
eachscenariorepresented.Itwasimportantthatthe
choseneventsandpicturesshowworkshopattendees
whatthedryandwetscenarioslooklikeandhowthey
couldimpacttheLakeOntariowatershed.
Inasimilarfashion,ourcommitteeteammembersfrom
Cornell’sDept.ofNaturalResourcesandUSGSprovided
examplesofscientificallybasedbutdifferingpotential
impactsoncoastalandupstreamwatershedhabitatsand
waterqualitytoensurethefourscenariospresent
resourcechangesinsubstantiallydifferentways.For
example,drierconditionscouldbeassociatedwithstream
andwetlanddry-outs,exposedshorelinesatmarinas,and
drywells,whereasgreaterprecipitationcouldbe
associatedwithflooding,sedimenterosion,andpollution.
Inthismanner,theparticipantscouldbrainstormand
generatepotentialactionsthatcoverawiderangeof
futureecosystemchanges.Foreachscenario,the
environmentalstressorswereexplainedaswellas
possiblepositiveoutcomes.Picturesandimageswere
includedtosupporttheseimpacts.
Toaddressthefindingthatclimateadaptationisnotbeing
integratedintoplanningeffortsacrosstheregion(Nelson
etal.2011),theNYSGteamreviewedpeerandgray
literature,webresources,andcontactsthroughoutthe
basintoidentifyactivitiesthatotherGreatLakes
communitieshavetakentointegrateclimatechange
uncertaintyintotheirLAMPsorwatershedplans.In
addition,SeaGrantprogramsandregionalorganizations
havedraftedrecommendationsandconsolidatedcase
studiesandtools(e.g.Dinse2009and
www.greatlakesresilience.org).This‘learningfromothers’
approachpreventedduplicationofefforts.Thisworkwas
presentedatWorkshopIItojump-startparticipant
www.glisa.umich.edu
brainstormingbasedonexamplesofstrategiesusedin
otherlocationsandsimilardocuments.
Finally,wecreatedandcompiledhandoutsforWorkshop
IIparticipants,whichincludedcopiesofscenario
examples,overviewsofthescenarioplanningprocess
publishedbyindustryandnaturalresourceprofessionals,
andone-pagesummariesoftheassumptionsbehindeach
ofthefourpotentialfuturescenarios.Inordertovisually
illustratethefourdistinctpotentialfutures,Matthew
Paufve,thenresearchtechnicianofUSGS,workedwiththe
teamtocreatefourdetailedimageswhichvisually
communicatedthevariousaspectsofeachscenario.The
teamstrovetoensurethattheconceptsrelatedtoscenario
planningandtheassumptionsandkeyaspectsofeach
scenariowereaccessibletoallparticipants,regardlessof
theirlearningstyle.
PlanningDetails
WorkshopIIwasdesignedtoextendovertwodaystogive
participantstimetoknoweachother,feelcomfortable
talkingandworkingtogether,andgivethemtimetomull
overthescenarioapproachandtheactualscenariosfor
whichplanningwastotakeplace.Inthisway,deeper
thinkingwentintotherecommendations.Groupwork
occurredaroundeachofthescenariosandfolloweda
discussionguide.Attendeesweregivenhandoutsoftheir
respectivescenarios,includingdescriptiveartworkand
mainpoints.Flipchartsandmarkersweretheprimary
toolforgatheringinput.Wenotedthatourworkwould
havebeenreducedifwehadtakennotesoncomputersas
opposedtotheflip-charts.Inhindsight,usingbothwould
havebeenthepreferredapproach.Eachgroupwas
establishedbythefacilitationteampriortotheeventtotry
andensurefordiversityofinterestsandexpertiseineach
group.Eachgroupincludedatleastonesubjectmatter
expert(Bunting-Howarth—policy;Weidel—fisheriesand
scenarioplanning;MacNeill—fisheries;Spaccio—climate
science;Schneider—naturalresourceandwatershed
processesandmanagement)whowasaplanningteam
memberassignedtofacilitatethediscussionutilizinga
discussionguide.Eachgroupwaschargedtocreate
recommendationsforwhatdecision-makersshoulddo
todaytopreparefortheassignedpotentialfuturescenario
(notingthatwewouldfocusonrecommendationsfor
LAMPandWatershedPlans).
Breakoutsessionsoccurredonbothdaysforatotalof3.5
hours.Thekeyquestionswere:
1. Whatdoyouthinkweshoulddotodaytobemore
preparedforthatpotentialfuture?
6
Lastupdated:4/22/2016
USINGFUTURESCENARIOSTOIDENTIFYPOTENTIALLAMPANDWATERSHED
PLANNINGMEASURESFORCLIMATECHANGEADAPTATIONALONGLAKEONTARIO
2.
3.
Whatarethebarrierstoimplementingthat
action?Whatarewaysaroundthebarrier?
Whatarethesecondarybenefitsfromtakingthat
action?
stateandcountylegislators,environmentalmanagement
agencies,waterqualitycoordinatingcommittees,and
otherconcernedcitizens.Forbothoftheseworkshops,
openpublicattendancewasthefocus.Theseworkshops
wereorganizedtogatherpublicinputonthese
recommendationstobepresentedtoStateandFederal
agenciesonhowtoaddressuncertaintiesrelatedto
extremeprecipitationpatternsandpopulationchangesin
lakeandwatershedmanagementplans.WorkshopsIII-A
andBwereheldintheeveningandingeographically
differentpartsofthewatershed(Rochesterand
Watertown)withthehopethatamorediverse
representativepubliccouldattend.Wereleasedapress
release,whichwaspickedupbytwenty-eightlocalpapers
andothermediaoutlets.Inaddition,informationaboutthe
WorkshopswaspublicizedviatheGreatLakesInformation
NetworkandtheGreatLakesActionAgenda,heldbyNYS
DEC.TwitterandFacebookwerealsousedtopublicizethe
workshops.
WorkshopsIII-AandBweredesignedtobrieflysharethe
uncertaintiesrelatedtoprecipitationduetoclimate
changeanditsimpactsonoursocioecologicalsystemand
thenpresentthesynthesizedrecommendationsfrom
WorkshopII.Thegroupwasgivenaboutanhourtorotate
throughfivestations.Eachstationhaditsowntheme:
waterresourcemanagement,infrastructure,water
dependentbusiness,landuse/zoning,andecosystem
management.Ateachstation,groupswereaskedto
discusstheactions,addadditionalactions,ormodify
existingactions/recommendations.Flipchartsand
markerswereagaintheprimarytoolforgatheringinput.
Postersoftherecommendationsummarytable(Table1)
weremadeanddisplayedateachstation.Atthe
conclusion,thegroupswereaskedtoprioritizeallofthe
presentedrecommendations.Theyusedstickydotsto
denoteonerecommendationateachstationtheyfeltwas
thebest.
Overall,WorkshopsIII-AandBvalidatedthekeyaction
itemsidentifiedinWorkshopII.Theprioritizationexercise
highlightedactionswithineachofthecategoriesidentified
inWorkshopII(waterresourcemanagement,
infrastructure,planningandzoning,water-related
businesses,andecosystemmanagement).Inaddition,
WorkshopsIII-AandBhighlightedadditionalareasfor
inquiry—specificallyrelatedtoonsitewastewater
treatmentanddisposalsystems.
Afterthisfirstroundofbrainstorming,thegroupswere
reconvenedtosharerecommendations,barriers,andways
ofsurmountingbarriers.Thenextstepwascritical.The
groupthenidentifiedcommonactions—adeliberatedset
ofstakeholderdrivenrecommendationsforupdatingthe
LAMPandlocalwatershedplans—topics,andpotential
venuesforpresentinginformationgeneratedatthe
workshop.
Outcomes
Thegroupsgeneratedapproximately100different
recommendations,whichcouldbegroupedintofivebroad
categoriesofwaterresourcemanagement,infrastructure,
planningandzoning,water-relatedbusinesses,and
ecosystemmanagement(Table1).Recommendationsalso
encompassedthefullrangeoftypesofstrategiesfrom
educationtoregulations.Someverypowerful
recommendedactionswereidentifiedasprovidinggood
solutionstoaddresstheextremesofallfourscenarios.For
example,improvedcaptureofstormwaterrunoffwith
increasedinfiltrationandgroundwaterrechargewould
helpreduceboththeproblemsoffloodinganddroughts
andincreasewateravailabilitywithpopulationgrowth.
Suchwin-winsolutionsrankashighprioritiesfor
immediateplanningaction.Otherrecommendationsof
noteincludebetterwaterandstormwatermanagement,
riparianbuffers,wetlandandstreamhydrology
restoration,infrastructureimprovementandrelocation,
andsocialrecommendationsrelatedtogovernanceand
linkingjobtrainingtoenergyandenvironmentalactions.
Inordertomoreconciselypackagetherecommended
actions,implementationmechanism,andopportunitiesfor
overcomingbarrierstoimplementation,wecreateda
summarymatrix.(SeeTable1:Summaryof“Win-Win”
Recommendations.)
WorkshopIII
InNovember2015,thefinalseriesofpublicengagement,
WorkshopsIII-AandB,wereheldatoppositeendsofthe
lakebasin.Theaudienceconsistedofinterested(and
diverse)membersofthepublicthatincludedlakeside
residents,environmentalactiongroups,anglers,boaters,a
www.glisa.umich.edu
LessonsLearned/KeyFindings
Overall,wefoundthatthescenarioapproachprovideda
powerfultoolforengagingstakeholdersintothinkingand
planningforafuture(morethanjust2-3yearsin
7
Lastupdated:4/22/2016
USINGFUTURESCENARIOSTOIDENTIFYPOTENTIALLAMPANDWATERSHED
PLANNINGMEASURESFORCLIMATECHANGEADAPTATIONALONGLAKEONTARIO
advance).Byidentifyingrealisticscenariosofwetter-drier
climateandfasterorslowerdevelopment,theyaccepted
thesesituationsand“boughtin”totheprocess.The
combinationofrealdata,photographsofcasestudy
historicalyears,thescenarioicons,andnameforeach
scenarioallprovidedakeymechanismforreachingallthe
differentlearningtypesofthediverseparticipantssothat
everybodyunderstoodandcouldparticipate.Oneofthe
keyweaknessesofcommunicatingcomplex,technical
informationwhichhasbeenidentifiedpreviouslyisthat
scientificjargonisoftenincomprehensibletononscientificaudiences,hencetheirlackofengagement,let
aloneadoption.Finally,weweredelightedwiththe
numberofrecommendedactions,thebreadthofthetypes
ofactions,andinparticularwiththeidentificationofthose
win-winactionsthatwouldbeusefulinthefaceof
uncertainty.
Onetakeawayfromthisprojectisthatwhenusinga
scenarioplanningprocess,thetimelineforimplementation
mustbeaccomplishedoverashortertimeperiodwiththe
samepeople.Teamobservationsparticipantfeedback
supportthisclaim.Forinstance,participantcomments
included:
• Creationofscenarios(WorkshopI)vsactionsto
addressscenario(WorkshopII)shouldn’tbea
splitprocess.
• Adaptationworkshoptoo“scenariofocused.”
Focusshouldbeonoutcome/activity.
• Participantsfeltrestrictedbyscenario(because
theydidnotdevelopit).Groupswantedtogoback
tobeginning.
• Itwouldhaveimprovedtheprocessifmore
peoplefromWorkshopIwerepresentat
subsequentworkshops.
Workingthroughthesediversefuturescenarios,the
groupscreatedasetofrecommendedactionsthatmany
believedcommunitiesshouldbeengagingcurrently.This
wasonepointoftheexercise—tocreatealistof“win-win”
actionstotaketodaytopreparefortomorrow.This“AhHa”momentwasexpected.Commentsthatsupportthis
include:
• Groupendedupwithalistofwhatweshould
alreadybedoing.
• Therewasmuchconvergenceofactionsamong
scenarios.
Anotherlessonwasthattheprocessdoesnotalwayslead
tohavingallareasforactionbeingaddressed.However,
theresultsweretoonlybeusedasastartingplaceforlake
andwatershedmanagers.FromWorkshopII,participants
identifiedthefollowinggapsinthelistofadaptation
recommendations:
www.glisa.umich.edu
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Energy(discussedbutdidnotrisetotop)
Connectingecosystemhealthtohumanhealth
Needforclimatemodeling,monitoring,and
improvements
Riskassessment/vulnerability
Internationaleffects
Technologytransfer
ClimateChangedisproportionatelyimpactspoor
andaging
WorkshopsIII-AandBgavealocalperspectiveonthe
recommendations.Therewasconsensusandprioritization
ofitemsfromWorkshopII:
• Discouragelivinginvulnerableareasand
encouragedevelopmentofexistingurbanareas
• Revisezoningbasedonecosystemmanagement
• Broadergovernanceapproachesandintermunicipalagreements
• Learningandincentivesforgreeninfrastructure
• Needforbetterandcheapermonitoringprograms
• Needforresearchandtechnologyinagriculture
Inaddition,theirworkhighlightedrecommendationsthat
mayhavebeendiscussedinbreak-outsessionsduring
WorkshopIIbutnothighlightedaspriorities:
• Payattentiontoprojectsintheheadwaters
• Addsepticsystemmaintenanceandinspections
• Connectcommunitiesthroughgreenways
• Emphasizepreventinginvasivespecies
AttendeesofWorkshopIIIechoedconcernsofWorkshop
II,thattherewastoomuchtimespentfollowingthe
processandthescenarios.Theywouldhavelikedmore
detail,explanation,andtimewiththerecommendations.
Thisissupportedbyseveralcomments:
• Somerecommendationsfrompreviousworkshop
toogeneral
• Morehelpfulifrecommendationspresented
beforeworkshop
• Contentandscopeoverwhelmingforsomeone
withlittlebackground
• Addglossaryofterms
Finally,althoughourinitialgoalwastogenerate
recommendationsfortheLAMPandWatershedPlans,
manyoftherecommendationwerenotthosetypically
associatedwiththeLAMPandweremoreappropriatefor
watershedplanningandmanagement.However,thisdoes
notmeanthattherecommendationsarenotrelevantto
theLAMPplanningprocess.Theexercisehighlightedthe
importanceofland-basedactivitiesonthehealthofthe
lakeaswellasthehowthelakeimpactsthecommunities
8
Lastupdated:4/22/2016
USINGFUTURESCENARIOSTOIDENTIFYPOTENTIALLAMPANDWATERSHED
PLANNINGMEASURESFORCLIMATECHANGEADAPTATIONALONGLAKEONTARIO
andpeoplelocatedalongtheshoreandupstreaminthe
basin,amessageworthconveyingtoLAMPmanagers.
GreatLakesCoastalResilience,cited2015:GLCRPlanning
Guide-CaseStudies.
Applicabilitytofutureworkandother
effortsintheregion
[Availableonlineatwww.greatlakesresilience.org/casestudies.]
Hayhoe,K.,C.Wake,B.Anderson,X.Liang,E.Maurer,J.Zhu,
J.Bradbury,A.DeGaetano,A.M.Stoner,andD.Wuebbles,
2008.Regionalclimatechangeprojectionsforthe
NortheastUSA,MitigAdaptStratGlobChange13:425–
436.
MillenniumEcosystemAssessment,cited2015:
EcosystemsandHumanWell-Being
Thescenarioplanningprocessusedcouldbeusedinother
areas,althoughwewouldrecommendgoingthroughthe
entireprocessinashortertimeperiod.Whenundertaking
theentirescenarioplanningprocess,climatechange
wouldnothavetobeidentifiedasoneoftheaxesof
uncertaintyindesigningthefourscenarios.However,the
phaseofhavinggroupsdesignplansforthesepotential
futurescouldbedonewithspecificclimatechangeimpacts
asthecontextfordevelopingtherecommendations.One
issuecannotbeplannedforinavacuum.Especially,when
consideringclimatechange,impactstohumanandnatural
infrastructure,population,disease,naturalspecies,etc.are
allinterconnected.Processessuchasscenarioplanning
cannotonlybuildanappreciationfortheuncertaintiesin
ourworld,butfortheinterconnectednessofallaspectsof
thesocioecologicalsystem(Walkeretal.2002;Petersonet
al.2003).
Inadditiontoamorecondensedtimeframewiththesame
participants,asmallerwatershedthananentireGreat
Lakebasinshouldbeused.Forourpurpose,thegenerated
recommendationswerebroadasourneedwastocreate
recommendationsapplicabletomanysettings:Lake
Ontario,itsBasin,andindividualsub-watersheds.
However,morerefinedandplace-basedrecommendations
couldbedevelopedforasmallerareawithlessdiversityin
termsofecology,socioeconomicsandpoliticalentities.
[Availableonlineat
http://www.unep.org/maweb/documents/document.3
56.aspx.pdf.]
Nelson,D.,H.Elmer,R.Held,D.Forsythe,andS.Casey,
2011:LaurentianGreatLakesBasinClimateChange
Adaptation.NOAATechnicalMemorandumGLERL-153,
43pp.
Peterson,G.D.,G.S.CummingandS.R.Carpenter,2003.
ScenarioPlanning:aToolforConservationinan
UncertainWorld,17(2)ConservationBiology358-366.
Wack,Pierre1985.Scenarios:UnchartedWatersAhead,
HarvardBusinessReviewSept-Oct73-89.
Walker,B.,CarpenterS.,Anderies,J.,Abel,N.,Cumming,G.,
Janssen,M.,Lebel,L.,Norberg,J.,Peterson,G.D.,
Pritchard,R.2002.2.Resiliencemanagementinsocialecologicalsystems:aworkinghypothesisfora
participatoryapproach.ConservationEcology6(1):14.
[online]URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14
References
Dinse,K.,J.Read,andD.Scavia.2009.Preparingfor
ClimateChangeintheGreatLakesRegion.[MICHU09103]AnnArbor,MI:MichiganSeaGrant
Kunkel,K.E,L.E.Stevens,S.E.Stevens,L.Sun,E.Janssen,D.
Wuebbles,J.Rennells,A.DeGaetano,andJ.G.Dobson,
2013:RegionalClimateTrendsandScenariosforthe
U.S.NationalAssessment,Part1.Climateofthe
NortheastU.S.,NOAATechnicalReportNESDIS142-1,
80pp.
www.glisa.umich.edu
WesternUniversity,cited2015:GreatLakesFutures
Project.
[Availableonlineathttp://uwo.ca/biology/glfp
9
Lastupdated:4/22/2016
USINGFUTURESCENARIOSTOIDENTIFYPOTENTIALLAMPANDWATERSHED
PLANNINGMEASURESFORCLIMATECHANGEADAPTATIONALONGLAKEONTARIO
Table1:SummaryofRecommendedActions
www.glisa.umich.edu
1
0
Lastupdated:4/22/2016