2. Lake Erie Land and Water - Clarifying the Urban Land - Eutrophication Linkage LEMN Research Needs Workshop 4.5A Thursday March 21, 2013 – Geraldo’s at LaSalle Park, Burlington, ON

3. Lake Erie Millennium Network (LEMN) http://www.uwindsor.ca/erie2001 Binational Network - formed November 1998 Convening Organizations: F.T. Stone Lab - Ohio State University (Jeff Reutter) NWRI - Environment Canada (Chris Marvin) Large Lakes Research lab - US EPA (Russ Kreis) University of Windsor (Jan Ciborowski) Sponsors: Federal, State, Provincial, Regional organizations Collaborators: Groups active in research/information exchange

4. Supporting Groups Sponsors Collaborators__ (funds for meetings, publications, etc.) (contribute to data needs, etc.) Essex Region Conservation AuthorityCitizens Environment Alliance Great Lakes Fishery CommissionCornell University Biological Station International Joint Commission Ducks Unlimited Lake Erie Lakewide Area Management Plan Essex County Stewardship Network through Environment Canada & US EPA Great Lakes Commission Michigan Sea GrantGreat Lakes Environ. Res. Lab - NOAA Lake Erie Protection FundGreat Lakes Research Consortium New York Sea Grant Great Lakes Lab Fisheries & Aquatic Ontario Ministry of the Environment Sci. - Fisheries & Oceans Canada Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Commercial Fishery Assoc. Pennsylvania Dept. Environmental Protection Ontario Fed. of Hunters & Anglers Pennsylvania Sea Grant Ohio Dept. Natural Resources US Geological Survey - Gt. Lakes Sci. Ctr. Ohio Environ. Protection Agency Ontario Ministry Agriculture & Food Campbell Scientific Water Environment Federation DTE Energy, Inc. Hoskin Scientific

5. Monitoring Modeling Hypothesis testing Research QuestionsStatus of the Lake Management Needs Relationship among management, research, & monitoring needs within LEMN. F orming collaborative groups (open to all) Policy

6. Workshops and Research Arising 1. Limits on Energy Transfer in the Lake Erie Ecosystem - Critical Tests of Hypotheses EPA-funded Lake Erie Trophic Status project (2002): -28 PI’s funded by US EPA ($500K) -all agency collaboration  $2M in kind support - Journal of Great Lakes Research special issue (June/06) 2. Contaminant Processes in Lake Erie (2000) - Part I. Loadings, Spatial Patterns, and Temporal Trends - Part II. Mechanisms and Processes - Part III. Ecosystem Implications [review papers] 3. Habitat Structure, Function, and Change Anticipating effects of water level changes on habitat distribution & quality in the Huron-Erie Corridor - funded by GLFC; 5 PI’s & cooperators; models proposed (2004) Binational Mapping Strategy for Lake Erie watershed - funded by US EPA & Envir. Cda. (2005/06) -12 PI’s & cooperators - all agency collaboration

7. Workshops and Research Arising 4. Land-Lake Loadings IJC & OMAFRA Sponsored workshops (2008-2010): -28 PI’s funded by US EPA ($500K) -all agency collaboration  $2M in kind support - Journal of Great Lakes Research special issue (June/06) 5. Understanding Causes of Nearshore Eutrophication (2009) - BEC Intensive monitoring year (EPA, EC, MOE, OMNR, etc.) - 7 integrated projects funded by US EPA & LEPF - parallel studies in Ontario - SERA 17 Phosphorus forum 6. Collaborative Research under GLRI (& EC support) (2010) - update landuse/landcover for habitat classification - continuing nearshore research - monitoring wetland condition & ecological services

8. Great Lakes Composite Stress

12. “Management interventions and causal structure” To solve a problem, we have to understand the cause Successful management also requires understanding the causes Different management strategies can be seen as experiments to assess causes

13. Fuzzy Cognitive Map (FCM) A tool for representing the causal structure of a system Elements include concepts (vertices; boxes) and relation- ships among concepts (arcs; arrows) The resulting FCM is (formally) a graph, and can be analyzed using various graph-theory techniques. –S. Findlay IJC-Sponsored Workshop February 2009

14. Original Exercise: Assessing causes of Eutrophication in the Great Lakes (S. Findlay, J. Koonce, J. Ciborowski et al.

19. 5 17 1 2 4 3 5 6 78 9 1011 1213 1416 1517 1819a 20 212223 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 19b In lake 47 + 58 59 57 60

20. Concepts (‘boxes’): Descriptors of the system. Drivers (‘from’ variables) and Receivers (‘to’ variables) Restriction for FCM: Ordinal variables (must have a “size”) Problem Term: “Soil Type” (important variable, but categorical) Solution: Describe ordinal attributes - Soil permeability - Soil carbon content

23. Procedure for drawing FCM 1.Review lists of variable (grouped by functional class for convenience) 2. Select variables (labels) deemed most relevant for your map 3.Arrange variables to form a flow chart. 4.If no label exists for a variable, tell a facilitator; we’ll create one or suggest an equivalent variable 5.Write your team name/number prominently in a corner of the map. 6.Draw lines/arrows/pathways in pen/pencil from each keyword (label) to other labels (variables) that are directly influenced. The ‘from’ label is considered the ‘driver’ or ‘emitter’; the ‘to’ label is the ‘response’ or ‘receiver’ variable. Draw a directional symbol near the origin of the line. If you think there is a feedback loop between two variables, draw two lines; one going from ‘A’ to ‘B’ and the other going from ‘B’ to ‘A’. 7.Indicate the ‘sign’ of the relationship with a symbol (+ or -) near the origin of the arrow. Write the number of the receiver variable beside the sign. 8.Provide information about each relationship (line) on a tracking sheet or in an Excel file.

24. Procedure for drawing FCM (Cont’d) 8. Use the tally sheets provided or an Excel file on a laptop to enter the information needed Top of page: Team number; page number Using one row of the sheet for each line on the map: Place a value in each box of the row 1“From” (driver) variable number 2“To” (recipient) variable number 3sign of the relationship (- or +) 4strength of association (1=weak; 5=strong) 5spatial extent, (1=very local; 5=pertains everywhere) 6temporal extent (1=rarely pertains; 5=always pertains) 7time to response (1=very slow; 5=immediate) 8scientific certainty (1=poor understanding; 5=certain) 9team’s confidence (1=very uncertain; 5=very confident) 10change feasibility (1= very difficult; 5=very easy) 9. When the map is complete, tell a facilitator, who will photograph or scan your map.

25. Attributes: Describe the strength of the relationship, (not the importance of the driver or the recipient) Sign: + = positive = negative Importance/strength 1 = unimportant 5 = very important Spatial extent 1 = rel. is local5 = relationship holds everywhere Temporal extent 1= rel. rarely occurs5 = relationship always holds Time to response 1=very long lag time5= immediate response Scientific certainty 1=basis for rel. poorly5 = strong scientific understoodunderstanding Team’s confidence 1=little confidence in5 = very confident in ratingscoring Change_feasibility 1 = uncontrollable 5 = very controllable “Arcs” (Arrows): Relationships between pairs of variables

29. Team 1Team 2Team 3Team 4Team 5Roamers Brad Bass Mary-Claire Doyle Samaresh Das Luca Cargnelli Sommer Abdel- Fattah Raj Bejankiwar Terri Bulman Samantha Dupre Shreya Ghose Sandra CookeJennifer Drake Jianrong Liu Neil HutchinsonBrian Ginn Jerome Marty Richard Nesbitt Clara TuckerHenry JunJohn Pawlak Gus RungisIgor Yeremin Sandra George Jordan Richie Tom Dole Amanjot Singh Mary Ellen Scanlon Facilitators: Jan Ciborowski, Jesse Gardner Costa, Patrick Galvano (Windsor) Brad Bass, Igor Yeremin, Shreya Ghose (Envir Cda)

30. http://www.LEMN.org