* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download pdf
Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man's Impact On European Seas wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
General circulation model wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Saskatchewan wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
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