Agenda. Evaluation of Lake Superior Regulation Plans Using Robustness and Climate Informed Risk

Transcription

1 2/6/22 Evaluation of Lake Superior Regulation Plans Using Robustness and Climate Informed Risk Paul Moody 3 Feb 22 Agenda Overview and Background Decision Scaling Process Climate Response Function Application and Evaluation Ongoing and Future Work

2 2/6/22 International Upper Great Lakes Study Overview Upper Great Lake System Model 2

3 2/6/22 In the extreme, the The outflow St Marys from inflows to Michigan- Superior has Superior gone up has 32 lowered cm Huron Again, Superior make the influence even by less difference of local basin And the ability to counter and down 9 between cm in one 4 and month 2 on supplies cm Michigan-Huron is much greater it can t keep because than their the precipitation, evaporation and just because up of with basin basin supply supplies, surface influence and area of the St change is Marys even larger inflows than on runoff with discharge through the (precipitation, from evaporation, altering regulation Superior. Lakes Michigan-Huron on levels is even St Clair less. River is limited. runoff) Variability of Water Supplies and Outflows Supply or Flow (cm on lake per month) Superior Basin Supply Superior Outflow (on Superior) Superior Outflow (on Michigan- Huron) Michigan- Huron Basin Supply Michigan- Huron Outflow Lake Ontario: Outflow range = 59 cm to 35 cm /month Total Supply = 5 to 58 cm /month A Brief History 887 Lake Superior outflow no longer natural 99 Boundary Waters Treaty, establishes International Joint Commission (IJC) 94 Orders of Approval 979 Supplementary Orders of Approval 99 Regulation Plan 977A adopted 23 Lake Ontario St Lawrence River Study 27 Start of IUGLS 3

4 2/6/22 Research Questions How vulnerable are the Great Lakes to climate change? Under what climate conditions will we see adverse results? What is the likelihood of these conditions? What regulation actions can we take to mitigate residual risk? Which decisions do our findings influence? (i.e. resource commitment) Agenda Overview and Background Decision Scaling Process Climate Response Function Application and Evaluation Ongoing and Future Work 4

5 2/6/22 Decision Scaling Approach 9 Hazard Identification Levels 84 Lake Superior Average Monthly Level (98-2) 83.5 Lake Level (m) 83 Historic Range =.2 m Years 5

6 2/6/22 Monthly Water Levels Box Plot of Lake Superior Levels (98-2) Upper C Upper B 83.4 Lake Level Zone A 83.2 Lower B Lower C Coastal Coping Zones Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month Hazard Identification Coping Zones by Lake, Stakeholder 6

7 2/6/22 Data Mining From 5k year Stochastic Record Lake Superior Coastal Zone Occurrence Scatterhistogram Data in 3 year segments Percent Change Annual NBS Standard Deviation More Variable Less Variable Percent Change Mean Annual NBS Drier Wetter Data Mining From 5k year Stochastic Record Percent Change Annual NBS Standard Deviation Legend Upper C Lower C Lake Superior Coastal Zone Occurrence Scatterhistogram Percent Change Mean Annual NBS 7

8 2/6/22 Agenda Overview and Background Decision Scaling Process Climate Response Function Application and Evaluation Ongoing and Future Work Climate Effects on Level Exceedance 84 Upper C Upper B 83.5 Zone A Lower B 83 Lower C

9 2/6/22 Statistical Function Form Generalized Linear Function with: Linear combination of inputs Inverse logit transformation Binomial stochastic component How do coping zones vary with mean NBS? Lake Superior Coastal Zone Lower C Lake Superior Coastal Zone Upper C Zone Fraction.8.6 Zone Fraction Lake Superior Coastal Zone Lower B.25 Lake Superior Coastal Zone Upper B Zone Fraction.4.3 Zone Fraction

10 2/6/22 How well does the 3 parameter model fit?.4.2 Lake Superior Coastal Zone Lower C Measured Predicted.35.3 Lake Superior Coastal Zone Upper C Measured Predicted Zone Fraction..8.6 ρ =.6427 Zone Fraction ρ = Zone Fraction Lake Superior Coastal Zone Lower B Measured Predicted ρ =.84 Zone Fraction Lake Superior Coastal Zone Upper B Measured Predicted ρ = Predicted Coping Zone Occurrence as a Function of Mean NBS Change Lake Superior Coastal Upper B Zone.25 Probability Modeled Probability Density Function Probability Density Function Expected Value Zone Fraction.3

11 2/6/22 Predicted Coping Zone Occurrence as a Function of Mean NBS Change Lake Superior Upper Zone B Occurrence Histogram by NBS Percent Change <= Increasing NBS Decreasing NBS => (% <) (5% : %) (% : 5%) (-5% : %) (-% : -5%) (< -%) Predicted Distribution From Model Fraction of Upper Zone B Months From Stochastic Set Upper Zone B Occurrence Fraction Agenda Overview and Background Decision Scaling Process Climate Response Function Application and Evaluation Ongoing and Future Work

12 2/6/22 Expected Zone C Occurrence for Plan 977A on Lake Superior 4 Contours of Equal Expected Value of Zone C Occurrences on Lake Superior with Plan P77A % Change NBS Std Dev % Change Mean NBS Regulation Plan Comparison Superior Michigan-Huron 4 Lake Superior 2x Historic Failure Rate as a Function of Regulation Plan Lakes Michigan-Huron 2x Historic Failure Rate as a Function of Regulation Plan 5 P77A 3 P77B PPreg 4 P77A P77B PPreg Percent Change Annual NBS Standard Deviation PreProject Nat64 P29 55MR49 Bal26 Bal26S Nat64D Percent Change Annual NBS Standard Deviation PreProject Nat64 P29 55MR49 Bal26 Bal26S Nat64D

13 2/6/22 Robustness Analysis Robustness Index Sampling Schemes on Lake Superior Percent Change Annual NBS Standard Deviation Stochastic Results Sampling Regular Grid Sampling Percent Change Mean Annual NBS Robustness Analysis Robustness for Regular Grid Sampling on Lake Superior Robustness x Historic Rate 2x Historic Rate 5x Historic Rate P77A P77B PPreg PProj Nat64 P29 55MR49 Bal26 3

14 2/6/22 Robustness and Climate Informed Risk (Reliability) Robustness is adequate performance over a wide range of inputs Reliability related to expected value of impact,,,, Impact is a function of climate, regulation plan Probability is function of climate information Historic data Stochastic data Paleo estimates GCM projections Robustness and Reliability Robustness for Regular Grid Sampling on Lake Superior.9 Robustness x Historic Rate. 2x Historic Rate 5x Historic Rate P77A P77B PPreg PProj Nat64 P29 55MR49 Bal26 Reliability based on Stochastic Set Sampling on Lake Superior Reliability x Historic Rate. 2x Historic Rate 5x Historic Rate P77A P77B PPreg PProj Nat64 P29 55MR49 Bal26 4

15 2/6/22 Why Probability Matters.4.35 E(Zone C Stochastic) = 6.6 months E(Zone C GCM) = 9.9 months E(Zone C Paleo) = 23.5 months Hazard Level Stochastic GCM Paleo.3 Expected Fraction Zone C How does climate information source affect reliability? Expected Value of Success by Plan and Climate Information Source on Lake Superior Expected Value of Success k, x Rate 5k, 2 x Rate GCM, x Rate GCM, 2 x Rate.2. P77A P77B PPreg PProj Nat64 P29 55MR49 Bal26 Bal26S Nat64D 5

16 2/6/22 Risk Evaluation Matrix Impacts, current policies Focus of adaptive management will be on the things we are most concerned about and least prepared for. Zone C (Outside the Max/Min range of last 9yrs) Zone B (Outside the Max/Min range of 95-5% Exceedence) Low Moderate Moderate High Extreme Negligible Moderate Moderate Moderate High Zone A Negligible Negligible Slight Slight Slight -% -5% 5-5% Not very plausible Plausibility % % Very plausible :6 PM 3 Agenda Overview and Background Decision Scaling Process Climate Response Function Application and Evaluation Ongoing and Future Work 6

17 2/6/22 Future Work Refine climate probabilities and risk estimates Apply Bayesian Analysis to climate variable probability distribution estimates Consider regulation plans with seasonal forecasting, adaptive management Develop decision points to drive changes in management plans Apply framework to other basins Acknowledgements Dr. Casey Brown, Jesus Morales, Ke Li IUGLS, USACE, USGS, Environment Canada 7

18 2/6/22 QUESTIONS? Hazard Identification Levels 84 Lake Superior Average Monthly Level (98-2) Upper C Upper B 83.5 Zone A Lake Level (m) Lower B 83 Lower C Years 8

19 2/6/22 Hazard Identification Level Exceedance 84 Level Exceedance Probability for Lake Superior (98-2) Upper C Upper B 83.5 Zone A Lake Level (m) Lower B 83 Lower C Exceedance Probability Why Probability Matters 9

20 2/6/22.9 Expected Value of Success by Plan and Climate Information Source on Lakes Michigan-Huron 5k, x Rate 5k, 2 x Rate GCM, x Rate GCM, 2 x Rate.8.7 Expected Value of Success P77A P77B PPreg PProj Nat64 P29 55MR49 Bal26 Bal26S Nat64D 2