International Upper Great Lakes Study - IUGLS · Web viewPlan 1977A balancing equation is replaced with an alternate equation The Lake Superior level standard deviation parameters

6.2.2 Plan Formulation Synthesis

Although formulator worked individually in a de facto competition with other formulators to develop the best plan, the teams also met periodically in person and on the phone to share successes, critically improve the shared vision model, and present questions for the Board on preferences.

Figure 1 Level-Release relationships for a variety of Rule Curve Plan Formulations

IUGLS Plan Objectives and Plan Formulation Chapter Draft 4/15/11

Figure 2 Level-release diagrams for three Optimization Approaches to Plan Formulation

Plan formulators used the shared vision model to provide almost instant evaluations of each plan variation they formulated. In doing so, they became the most focused critics of the shared vision model, pointing out mistakes in the model and challenging the precise formulation of metrics. The metrics formulators used were developed and refined by PFEG and the Board in a series of practice decisions from September 2009 until December 2011. This helical iteration of design, testing against standards, reappraisal of standards, back to redesign allowed a continuous connection between the formulators and the Board. Seven Study Board meetings marked milestones in this process.

6.3. September 2009 – First practice decisionAt this meeting, the shared vision model used preliminary and incomplete economic algorithms and simple hydrologic statistics to estimate environmental impacts.

6.3.1 First Generation of PlansThe first generation of plans was presented at the September 2009 Board meeting, consisting of three types of rule curve plans:

1. Reference plans that were important as a basis of comparison for new plans. The main reference plans are 77A, Preproject and 1955 Modified Rule of 1949. This last plan had not been coded yet, so was not included in the first evaluations;

2. Fencepost plans are one-sided plans, purposely designed to produce the best results for just objective even if it comes at the expense of others. While not realistic, these plans showed the limits and tradeoffs involved in using regulation of Lake Superior to achieve an objective. These plans were Superior for Superior, Superior for Michigan-Huron, and Hydropower.

2


3. The earliest realistic alternatives, formulated to meet a wide range of sometimes conflicting objectives. In the early stages of the Superior study these included Plan 121, Modified Superior for Superior, Modified Superior for Michigan-Huron, and the first versions of the Balance and Natural series.

At this point in the study, neither the economic or ecological studies were complete so comparisons were made using primarily water levels and flows.

Figure 3 Fencepost plans defined the limits of what regulation could do

6.3.2 Comparing the first plans based on water levels and flows

Superior for SuperiorThe Lake Superior levels produced by Plan 77A (simulated using the historical water supplies) are shown in black in the figures below, the alternative plans in red. The first figure shows how the

3


Superior for Superior plan (red line) is able to compress Superior levels and keep the extremes within the optimal range for navigation and coastal interests on Lake Superior.

Figure 4 Lake Superior levels, historic supplies, 77A (black) and Superior for Superior (red)

The compression of Lake Superior levels has little impact on levels on Lakes Michigan and Huron.

Figure 5 Lake Michigan-Huron levels, historic supplies, 77A (black) and Superior for Superior (red)

4


On the other hand, Plan Superior for Michigan-Huron uses Lake Superior as a reservoir to compress Michigan-Huron levels as much as possible into the range preferred for shipping and coastal interests. It does reduce extremes on Michigan-Huron (Plan 77A is the black line, Superior for Michigan-Huron levels the red line in the graph of Michigan-Huron levels, historic water supplies, below, but to compress Michigan-Huron levels 28 cm (mostly raising the minimum), Superior for Michigan-Huron increases the Superior range by 1.33 meters (over 4 feet), raising the maximum level by half a meter and lowering the minimum level by over a meter. The plan results illustrate that it takes a large change in Lake Superior levels to effect a smaller change in Michigan-Huron levels. That is because more water comes into Michigan-Huron from local runoff and on-lake precipitation than from the St. Marys River.

Figure 6 Lake Superior levels, historic supplies, 77A (black) and Superior for Michigan-Huron (red)

Figure 7 Lake Michigan-Huron levels, historic supplies, 77A (black) and Superior for Michigan-Huron (red)

The “Hydropower” fencepost plan was designed to avoid any release of water that would not flow through the turbines; almost all releases were between 2,060 and 2,130 m3/sec, with some flows as high 4,000 when necessary to avoid Superior levels over 184 meters. As the graph below shows, this caused Lake Superior to rise 18 cm higher and drop 78 cm (2-½ feet) lower than levels

5


under Plan 77A. The estimated hydropower benefit using the benefit model as it stood at the time was $3.60, an increase of almost 6% but navigation disbenefits were $3 million per year. Although shore protection costs were not calculated for this plan, the very high levels on Superior would certainly increase shore protection costs.

Figure 8 Lake Superior levels (historic supplies) 77A (black) and Hydropower (red)

The first versions of two realistic plan lines – Natural and Balance – were displayed at the September 2009 Board Meeting. The figure below shows Natural2 Lake Superior levels compared to Plan 77A levels. At this stage, all these variations had slightly negative hydropower and navigation benefits.

Figure 9 Lake Superior levels (historic supplies) 77A (black) and Natural2 (red)

The “decision” was made by PFEG as the Board observed. The eleven candidate plans were:

1. Hydropower (Fencepost)2. Superior For Michigan-Huron (Fencepost)3. Modified Superior For Michigan-Huron 4. Modified Superior For Superior

6


5. Preproject6. Superior For Superior (Fencepost)7. NaturalOne (Natural, Rule Curve)8. Natural2 Version 139. Natural3 Version 1410. Balance Version 2311. Plan121 Version 2

The decision process worked through the limited performance data winnowing out inferior plans: Six plans (Preproject, Superior for Superior, Natural One, Natural 2, Natural 3, and

Balance) were eliminated because they had negative economic benefits. Superior for Michigan-Huron was rejected because it forced an extreme tradeoff between

commercial navigation and recreational boating, but the Board sought an explanation for how a plan could be good for small boats but bad for ships.

Superior for Michigan-Huron lowered Lake Superior levels to raise Michigan-Huron levels. The low levels on Superior hurt all the shipping that went through the Soo, so the effect on commercial navigation was widespread. But that same tradeoff favored recreational boating as a whole because there are so many more boaters on Michigan-Huron than Superior, and the plan favored Michigan-Huron. The Board used these sorts of guided tours into even these early results to develop its understanding of how the system responded, including some non-intuitive responses.

Figure 10 Economic Benefits for plans presented at the September 2009 Board Meeting

At this point in the study, no ecological performance indicators or zones had been created, so the decision was based on a surrogate metric, how “natural” the elevations for each plan were. Figure 12 shows the month by month differences for each plan compared to preproject (no regulation), and Figure 13 sums the differences shown in Figure 12. Plans with the largest differences, like Superior for Superior or Hydropower were eliminated. Three plans had survived the economics test and done reasonably well on the environment, Plans 77A, 121 and Modified Superior for Superior.

7

Hydr

opow

er

Supe

rior f

or M

H

Mod

Sup

for M

H

Mod

Sup

for S

up

Prep

roje

ct

Supe

rior f

or S

up

Nat

ural

One

Nat

ural

2

Nat

ural

3

Bala

nce

Plan

121

Hydroelectric Power $3.60 $4.30 $0.24 -$0.21 $1.74 -$8.27 -$0.07 -$2.00 -$0.14 -$2.79 $1.54Commericial Navigation -$2.36 -$27.40 -$1.11 $3.64 -$1.58 -$0.50 -$1.41 -$1.49 -$0.82 -$0.57 -$0.77Recreational Boating $7.26 $34.89 $1.25 $1.03 -$3.42 -$10.64 -$2.92 -$7.09 -$0.97 -$10.16 $4.22Flood damages -$1.08 $1.95 $0.21 $3.25 $1.09 -$8.76 $1.58 -$1.46 $1.27 -$2.42 $2.55Total $8.50 $11.79 $0.38 $4.46 -$3.27 -$19.41 -$4.40 -$10.58 -$1.93 -$13.52 $4.99


Figure 11 Monthly differences in Lake Superior elevation, ten plans compared to Preproject.

The same sort of decision logic was used to look at the naturalness of St. Marys flows, where 77A, Plan 121 and Modified Superior for Superior all did reasonably well. These three plans also did well on the metrics provided in a Circle of Influence meeting in Muskegon, Michigan.

Plan 121 also compressed Michigan-Huron levels and lowered Lake Superior levels compared to 77A, although it did lower the lowest Superior levels. In any case, none of these differences was very great. Based on its overall performance (see Figure 14), PFEG suggested that Plan 121 should be selected.

Figure 12 “Naturalness” – the sum of differences (Figure 6) for eleven plans; lower scores are better

8

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

max 99% 94% 89% 84% 79% 74% 69% 64% 59% 54% 49% 44% 39% 34% 29% 24% 19% 14% 9% 4% 1% Min

77A

Hydropower

SupForMH

ModSupForMH

ModSupForSup

PreProject

SupForSup

NaturalOne

Natural2

Natural3

Balance


Figure 13 Plan 121 scored best overall in the first practice decision.

This was the most preliminary of the practice decisions:

• the Board observed and criticized, but did not make the decision;

• none of the performance metrics reflected the research that would be done later for the Board;

• the plans were tested using only historic water supplies, so there was no measure of how well the plan would perform under climate change or other extreme supplies;

• the plans themselves were either fencepost or reference plans, designed to define the decision space rather to offer real alternatives, or they were the first attempts to formulate. The Balance and Natural plans that later in the study rose to the top in comparisons were not competitive at this stage.

9


The exercise established the foundation for future work:

• The Board decided to have a quarter-day exercise at each Board meeting to practice the decision, define decision criteria such as terms like “disproportionate loss”, to determine what information would be needed in the decision making process

• The fencepost plan evaluations showed that Lake Superior regulation could make small reductions in the highest Michigan-Huron levels and small increases in the lowest levels, but that doing so created large swings in Superior levels and caused disproportionate harm. From this point on the Board and PFEG focused on compressing Michigan-Huron levels as much as they could without affecting Lake Superior much.

• The magnitude of benefits were small at this stage, and while the benefit algorithms were , the water level changes were small so there was little reason to think things would change much.

• The impacts levels had on benefits was not always intuitive, as was illustrated by the Superior for Michigan-Huron evaluation.

6.4. December 2009 Second Practice DecisionIn this Board meeting, the Canadian lead of the Coastal Technical Working Group (Mike Shantz of Environment Canada) and the project manager for the Ecosystems Group (Scudder Mackey) played the roles of decision makers, selecting plans that would produce the best outcomes from the coastal development and ecological perspective.

6.4.1 Background briefings and discussions

This meeting included tutorial exchanges with the Board regarding several of the key elements of the decision, including the decision scope, the decision guidelines, planning objectives, metrics used, plan formulation, evaluation and ranking. Jim Chandler, a retired IJC lawyer, engaged the Board in a discussion of the Orders of Approval. Wendy Leger began a discussion with the Board on the implementation of its adaptive management plan. Mark Dunning explained the findings from the contextual narratives, which framed the future risk and uncertainty considerations for the six sectors (navigation, boating, coastal impacts, hydropower, municipal water, and ecosystems). Ted Yuzyk and Gene Stakhiv discussed the feedback they had received from IJC commissioners at the Ottawa hearing they had just participated in.

6.4.2 Practice DecisionIn the second practice decision, more refined versions of the Natural and Balance plans were used as well as a new form of Plan 121. More importantly, in this exercise, the “deciders” had to make tradeoffs between mixed results from the plans. As before, the Board observed and criticized while the practice decision was made by staff (in this case, two staff members who took on different views on how to do the tradeoffs).

10


Figure 15 shows the economic impacts for hydropower and navigation as well as the average monthly change in the number of available small boat slips for a variety of plans and plan versions. All these numbers were based on preliminary data. Only Plan Balance4 V4 produced positive hydropower and navigation benefits, but it reduced the average availability of boating slips more than any other plan.

The exercise included an investigation into shipping costs on the different routes (Figure 10). A route is defined by the origin and destination lake; routes one through four are for ships that move on only one lake, routes five through ten are for shipments between lakes. Almost two-thirds of the costs involved routes with a Superior port. Higher Superior levels would allow heavier loads on that lake but to raise Lake Superior levels it was sometimes necessary to reduce releases through the St Marys, creating shallower depths in the St Marys and even a small difference in Michigan-Huron depths. The ships that transited the Soo were loaded based on all three levels, so it was not possible to draw a simple relationship between shipping costs and the level of any one body of water. The economic model of actual shipments was necessary to determine when trading Superior levels for St. Marys flows was advantageous.

Figure 14 Economic Benefits for December 2009 plans

11


Figure 15 Shipments through the Soo dominate Great Lakes shipping

12


Figure 16 Ranking Plans in the Second Practice Decision, December 2009

13


14

Good, acceptable, and unacceptable Good: Acceptable:

◦ Plan77A◦ Plan 122◦ Natural 3◦ Balance 6

Unacceptable:◦ Natural 2◦ NaturalOne◦ NaturalSL1◦ Hydropower◦ ModSupforSup◦ ModSupforMH◦ Balance Plan 4◦ Preproject


6.5. March 2010 Decision ArchitectureThere was no practice decision at this Board meeting. Instead, the Board focused on how adaptive management might allow changes to the new plan over time. At this time the assumption was that drastically different water supplies would demand a different regulation plan, and that plans might fall into three tiers:

1. Tier 1: The recommended plan for the near future, tied to objectives in (possibly amended) Orders of Approval

2. Tier 2: A plan modified to meet the same objectives but in a new climate regime.3. Tier 3: A substantially changed plan based on changed objectives for a future climate that

had changed so much it was no longer advisable to try to meet the same objectives.

This was the adaptive management architecture in the abstract, but there was a concrete concern driving it. In March 2010 the most authoritative U.S. climate study projected a 2 foot drop in Michigan-Huron levels by 2100. The Board wanted to preserve the notion of balancing the levels on Superior and Michigan-Huron. In Plan 77A, that is done by tracking the difference between current and long term average levels. If climate change were to reduce supplies to the lakes, those average levels would drop, and the thinking was that at some point the long term averages used as target levels would have to be updated, and that updating would change the release rules, producing a Tier 2 plan. Tier 3 would be triggered, it was thought, if it became clear that water supplies were reduced so much that attempts to balance Lakes Superior and Michigan-Huron would severely reduce Superior levels without offering much relief to Michigan-Huron. This would be the

equivalent of reversing the shift from the Rule P-5 to the Rule of 1949 to adjust for the extra supply of water from the Long Lac and Ogoki diversions.

6.6. September 2010 Third Practice Decision

16

Figure 17 Projected Lake Levels, Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S. (June 2009)

IUGLS research eventually rejected these simplistic “projections” but they were the prevailing view in March 2010 when the Board first considered adapting the regulation plan to climate change.


There was no practice decision at the June 2010 Joint Lake Superior Regulation Task Team & Study Board Meeting. PFEG had just received multiple NBS to test plans with and was testing conditions for Tier 1, 2 and 3 plans.

The third practice decision took place the September 2010 Board meeting. For the first time, the Board saw ten different water supply sequences – historic, three wetter than historic sequences, three average sequences, and three drier than historic - and the comparison was among six realistic plans: 77A, PP, 122C, 128, 129, 130. The last four plans were simple variations on Plan 122; the elevation at which releases could be no greater than pre-project varied from 181.60 (Plan 128) to 183.2 (Plan130). Plan122 incorporates the following modifications of Plan 1977A:

Only 50% probability net basin supplies are used in the outflow forecasts, eliminating the use of extreme supplies (5% and 95%) at times of extreme levels.

The maximum winter outflow limit is kept as 2410 m3/s.

Within the internal outflow forecasts, the following outflow limits are not applied:

maximum winter outflow (2410 m3/s)

minimum outflow (1560 m3/s)

maximum flow change from month to month (850 m3/s)

Plan 1977A balancing equation is replaced with an alternate equation

The Lake Superior level standard deviation parameters used in the balancing relationship are increased by 3 centimeters (about 20 percent). This has the effect of increasing the variability and the range of Lake Superior levels. All other balancing parameters are the same as those used by Plan 1977A

Criterion (c) of the Commission’s Order of Approval is not applied in Plan 122, but is applied in Plan 122C at the original elevation (183.40) and at different elevations in other plans in the 120 series (see Figure 12).

17


Figure 18 Superior levels at which variations of Plan 122 limit releases to the preproject.

6.6.1 Comparing the September 2010 plans based on water levels and flowsThe first Board criterion is how well the plans keep Lake Superior between 183.86 and 182.76. In this exercise, the non-exceedance frequencies (how often the levels were below a given elevation) were displayed for the current climate and a warm-dry climate change scenario using stochastically generated water supplies that included very rare and extreme wet and dry sequences. Figure 19 shows that all the plans exceed 183.86 about as often, less than 1% of the time, but that there are some differences in the maximum Superior elevations, with 77A the highest. As expected, there is a bigger difference in the frequencies of levels below 182.76. Plan 128 had the highest percentage of very low levels because it does not impose a cap on releases until Superior sinks to 181.6 m.

18


Figure 19 Lake Superior level non-exceedance frequencies, six plans; current climate

19


Figure 20 Lake Superior non-exceedance frequencies, six plans, warm dry climate change

The same evaluation using water supplies representing a warm-dry climate change condition show even bigger differences. Climate reduces the problem with high levels, but at low levels, Plan128 produces Superior levels below 182.76 ten percent of the time. As expected, the frequency of low levels is clearly related to the elevation at which the preproject release limit is applied.

Figure 21 Reliability, vulnerability and resilience rankings, six plans, two climates, violations of Superior preferred range

20


6.6.2. Comparing the economic benefits of September 2010 plansUsing the two economic analysis tools available at this point in the study, the Board compared the net average annual benefits of the six plans for hydropower and navigation under the current climate. Figure 22, below, shows the net benefits in millions of dollars per year. The plans that ranked in the top three for benefits (128, 129 and 130) ranked in the bottom 3 for Lake Superior range suppression, almost entirely because of higher hydropower benefits.

Figure 22 Economic Benefits, six plans, current climate, with rankings on economics vs. range control

6.6.3. Board Practice DecisionThere were no real differences between plans based on the ecological metrics, but the model had just been finished, the plans were quite similar and the metrics had been calculated with only the historic water supplies. The Board members preferred Plan 130 (because it balanced levels and provided fairly high hydropower benefits) and Plan 129 (which had even higher economic analysis). While the Board did not select any plan, the analysis helped it conclude that:

It would be important to see comparisons with metrics for all interests, not just hydropower and commercial navigation.

Net benefits were not as important to the Board as minimizing the maximum loss. The Board needed ecologic information. The evaluation relied too much on historic water supplies; the Board wanted to test

how well plans performed in extreme water supply conditions

Finally, the Study Board agreed that when the time came to make a decision on a new plan, it would strive to reach a consensus decision.

21


6.7. February 2011 Fourth Practice DecisionThe November 2010 Board meeting focused on restoration of the levels on Lakes Michigan and Huron; the Board conducted its fourth Lake Superior Practice Decision at its February 2011 meeting.

This was the first practice decision in which all the plans were compared using six of the seven Board decision criteria then in place (no scores were available for environmental performance). In addition to the reference plans (77A, 55M49 and PP) and the 120 plan series (122 through 130), the competition included two Balance plans and the first version of the University of Waterloo optimization plan. The Board also saw plans designed to mitigate the high water damages that would be produced by a structural restoration of Lake Michigan and Huron water levels.

The comparison was done using just the historic water supplies. Of the seven criteria, four were scored pass/mixed/fail depending on the plan performance against a threshold level of acceptability (limiting Superior range, avoiding disproportionate harm, with a separate pass/fail report for coastal and recreational boating), balance Superior and Michigan-Huron levels, and compressing the Michigan-Huron range. Each plan received a summary score composed of the number of “passes” (maximum 5) and the number of positive net economic benefits (hydropower or navigation). Figure 23, below, records the scores. A perfect score would have been seven; two plans, 122C and 77B received the highest scores of 5. This simplistic comparison was used as a starting point for discussion. For example, the two criteria for which Plan 122C did not receive a “1” were because of negative navigation benefits and mixed performance on compressing Michigan-Huron levels, but in fact the plan maintains essentially the same protection for navigation as does the current plan, 77A. The navigation benefits were -$0.02, about $20,000 per year in a system for which a million dollar a year benefit would amount to a reduction 0.03% in shipping costs. PFEG also presented an in-depth analysis of navigation costs showing that lower costs are most strongly correlated with higher Michigan-Huron levels.

Although not presented in the plan evaluation because they were too recently modeled to allow analysis, the Board saw displays of a new shore protection cost module and the IERM2 ecosystem impact model. PFEG also showed some representative graphs from erosion modeling done outside the SVM that demonstrated that erosion rates would be the same on all lakes no matter which of the realistic plans was chosen.

22


Figure 23 Comparison of February 2011 plans against all Board Decision Criteria

Figure 24 Erosion over more than a century, in meters, several plans

23

Criteria 77A 122 122C 123 124 125 126 127 128 1291. Maintain Superior between 183.86 and 182.76 Pass 182.68 Pass 182.7 182.68 182.68 182.68 182.68 182.68 182.712. Minimize disproportionate lossCoastal Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass PassBoating slips Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass

3. Are levels balanced? Pass Fail Pass Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail4. Compress MH levels Mixed Pass Mixed Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass5. Increase Navigation Benefits $0.00 -$0.09 -$0.02 -$0.09 -$0.09 -$0.09 -$0.09 -$0.09 -$0.09 -$0.136. Increase Hydropower Benefits $0.00 $1.80 $0.26 $1.75 $1.80 $1.80 $1.80 $1.80 $1.80 $1.587. Minimize environmental impacts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Number of passes 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Positive Benefits 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Total 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Criteria 130 55M49 PP BalPP Bal77A 77R1 77R2 P77BUW OptRest25 UW Opt1. Maintain Superior between 183.86 and 182.76 182.74 Pass Fail Pass Pass Pass 183.99 Pass Fail Fail2. Minimize disproportionate lossCoastal Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Pass Fail FailBoating slips Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail

3. Are levels balanced? Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail Fail Fail4. Compress MH levels Pass Fail Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed5. Increase Navigation Benefits -$0.14 -$2.02 -$1.15 -$0.21 -$0.22 $4.83 $5.18 $0.14 $11.45 $1.916. Increase Hydropower Benefits $0.99 -$4.88 $2.59 -$0.19 -$0.77 -$1.62 -$1.08 $0.57 $2.79 $9.087. Minimize environmental impacts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Number of passes 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 0 0Positive Benefits 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 2Total 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 2 2


6.8. June 2011 Fifth Practice Decision, Semi-final Plans SelectedThe Board made the decisions in the June 2011 meeting, voting to reduce the number of plans to a small group of “finalists” that showed the most promise in meeting the Board criteria.

Seventeen plans were evaluated using twelve net basin supply sequences, so the familiar plan to plan comparisons were largely replaced by large matrix comparisons.

There were new revelations:

Plans that had not failed before failed (stopped releasing water from Superior) under the new, very severe net basin supplies.

Some performance equations that had been designed to fit to actual data returned erroneous results when flows in the St. Marys fell well below the historic minima.

For the first time, specific plan rules were developed to enhance lake sturgeon spawning habitat in the St Marys River, a weakness of Plan 77A discovered because of IUGLS research.

The plans evaluatedThe plans evaluated were 77A, PP, 77B, 122, 122C, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 55M49, Nat60, PFN3, and Bal25.

Plan 77B is similar to 77A except that monthly flow changes in rapids are limited to 330 m3/sec and the maximum flow for months from May to November are limited to 2750, 3090, 3430, 3770, 3430, 3090, 2750 m3/s, respectively.

The plans numbered 122 through 130 are variations on Plan 1.21, developed in the Level Reference Study (1993) by Nanette Noorbakhsh, U.S. Corps of Engineers. Plan 1.22 is the same as Plan 1.21, except the maximum winter outflow limit is kept at 2,410 m3/s in order to be comparable with other plans. (Plan 1.21 raised the maximum winter outflow limit to 2,690 m3/s). Plans 123 to 130 are variations of Plan 122 with different Criterion C thresholds (see Figure 12 to see the elevations at which Preproject is imposed for each of those plans.

Plan PFN3 was the latest version of the F-series plans that use forecasts in setting the balancing flow. This version used the three-month forecast developed by Vincent Fortin of Environment Canada. This version ignored flow and gate change requirements, as well as maximum winter flows and gate changes, so was not comparable to other plans.

Nat60 and Bal25 were the latest versions of the Natural and Balance series from Environment Canada.

The other plans were the reference plans; 1955 Modified Rule of 1949 (abbreviated to 55M49), 77A and Preproject.

24


Testing RobustnessA plan is robust to the degree that it outperforms other plans no matter the water supplies used in the evaluation. Performance was judged against the Board’s decision criteria, sometimes using multiple metrics for each.

6.8.1 Comparing the June 2011 plans based on water levels and flowsFigure 26, below, shows the highest Lake Superior elevations for each of the seventeen plans across twelve different water supply sequences representing averages and extremes of the current and future, changed climate. This is the first test of the Board’s first criterion, to keep Lake Superior within 183.86 and 182.76 as much as possible. Dark blue highlighted elevations are lowest for that supply sequence, dark red are the highest (worst) elevations. The range from best to worst maximum level in centimeters is shown in each column above the two letter designation for each supply sequence.

In most water supply sequences there is only 10-15 cm (4-6 inches) difference between the best and worst plan. In the “HM” sequence, representing the wettest Michigan-Huron water supplies of any 109 year period in the stochastic water supply set, however, the difference is 41 cm, with the difference between 5M49 and the next best plans, PFN3 and Nat60, 22-23 cm. The Plan 77A maximum is 30 cm. (a foot) higher than 55M49. Figure 27, below, shows that 55M49 also tended to have the highest or near highest minima.

25

Figure 25 Maximum Superior levels, all plans and all net basin supplies.


Figure 26 Minimum Superior elevations, 17 plans, 12 water supply scenarios

Figure 27 Number of months plans fall below 175.38 (77A historical) or rise above 177,45 (77A historical maximum)

But the price for compressing Superior is expanding the range of levels on Michigan-Huron. Figure 28 shows that Plan 55M49 causes Michigan-Huron to exceed the 77A historical maximum and minimum more often than any other plan.

26

Minima 18 cm. 13 cm. 47 cm. 25 cm. 51 cm. 18 cm. 26 cm. 15 cm. 30 cm. 39 cm. 82 cm. 82 cm.HI HS LS HM LM WS DS LR AT AV T1 T2

77A 182.8 182.84 182.57 182.69 182.75 182.91 182.71 182.92 182.73 182.52 181.85 181.8PP 182.74 182.76 182.57 182.62 182.69 182.88 182.72 182.81 182.7 182.54 182.15 182.04

77B 182.8 182.85 182.57 182.69 182.75 182.91 182.71 182.92 182.73 182.54 181.85 181.8122 182.68 182.75 182.28 182.6 182.53 182.83 182.54 182.86 182.57 182.31 182.42 182.4

122C 182.77 182.8 182.54 182.65 182.74 182.87 182.68 182.9 182.69 182.47 181.85 181.8123 182.7 182.75 182.49 182.62 182.64 182.83 182.61 182.86 182.66 182.45 181.82 181.77124 182.68 182.75 182.3 182.6 182.53 182.83 182.54 182.86 182.57 182.32 181.76 181.58125 182.68 182.75 182.28 182.6 182.53 182.83 182.54 182.86 182.57 182.31 181.6 181.62126 182.68 182.75 182.28 182.6 182.53 182.83 182.54 182.86 182.57 182.31 182.42 182.4127 182.68 182.75 182.28 182.6 182.53 182.83 182.54 182.86 182.57 182.31 182.42 182.4128 182.68 182.75 182.44 182.6 182.56 182.83 182.54 182.86 182.6 182.4 181.8 181.7129 182.71 182.79 182.52 182.64 182.67 182.85 182.65 182.87 182.68 182.47 181.85 181.8130 182.74 182.8 182.52 182.64 182.73 182.85 182.67 182.88 182.68 182.47 181.85 181.8

55M49 182.79 182.88 182.64 182.68 182.67 183.01 182.8 182.84 182.75 182.54 181.87 181.81Nat60 182.81 182.85 182.63 182.74 182.77 182.89 182.74 182.93 182.77 182.58 182.16 182.02PFN3 182.86 182.84 182.75 182.85 182.68 182.92 182.77 182.96 182.87 182.7 182.22 182.04Bal25 182.84 182.84 182.43 182.78 182.26 182.91 182.67 182.88 182.79 182.5 181.92 181.61

149 77A 77A 136

150 PP PP 139

147 77B 77B 132

106 122 122 122

155 122C 122C 122

122 123 123 122

108 124 124 122

106 125 125 122

106 126 126 122

106 127 127 122

117 128 128 122

131 129 129 122

142 130 130 122

167 55M49 55M49 149

134 Nat60 Nat60 126

144 PFN3 PFN3 131

127 Bal25 Bal25 106

Number of months plans violate the high and low Michigan-Huon limits through 10 NBS series

-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200

77A

PP

77B

122

122C

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

55M49

Nat60

PFN3

Bal25


Figure 28 Reliability: Number of months each plan is above 183.86 (right side) or below 182.76 (left side)

Figure 29 Vulnerability: Total cumulative meters each plan is above 183.86 (right side) or below 182.76 (left side)

Figures 29 and 30 represent the reliability and vulnerability of the plans meeting the preferred Superior range (183.86 to 182.76). In sum, plans like 77A, Nat60 and 129 struck the best balance with near best performances on Superior and Michigan-Huron, while 55M49 traded a best performance for compressing Superior levels with a worst performance for expanding Michigan-Huron levels.

27

44 77A 77A 102

58 PP PP 77

41 77B 77B 167

228 122 122 171

63 122C 122C 176

154 123 123 174

222 124 124 171

228 125 125 171

228 126 126 171

228 127 127 171

206 128 128 172

101 129 129 170

74 130 130 173

35 55M49 55M49 27

20 Nat60 Nat60 146

15 PFN3 PFN3 94

80 Bal25 Bal25 228

Number of months plans violate the high and low Superior limits through 12 NBS series

-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

77A

PP

77B

122

122C

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

55M49

Nat60

PFN3

Bal25

3.19 77A 77A 11.06

3.68 PP PP 7.47

2.88 77B 77B 16.29

23.98 122 122 17.19

4.9 122C 122C 17.77

10.76 123 123 17.28

22.84 124 124 17.19

23.98 125 125 17.19

23.98 126 126 17.19

23.98 127 127 17.19

18.59 128 128 17.24

6.88 129 129 17.09

5.65 130 130 17.4

2.3 55M49 55M49 5.51

1.38 Nat60 Nat60 12.12

0.43 PFN3 PFN3 6.9514.1 Bal25 Bal25 28.81

Total meters of violation, high and low Superior limits through 12 NBS series-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

77A

PP

77B

122

122C

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

55M49

Nat60

PFN3

Bal25


6.8.2. Comparing the economic benefits of June 2011 plansFigure 31 shows the average annual hydropower benefits for all plans, all water supply sequences. The differences are very small, with 55M49 worst. Preproject is best except where it fails (the divide by zero error), but this is partly because preproject does follow prescribed release limits so is not a realistic competitor. Figure 32 shows the hydropower benefits every month of the twelve 109 year simulations, that is the energy value created by the plan minus the energy value created by 77A each month. The graph shows that no matter the plan, the energy value will be higher than 77A about half the time and lower the other half, but that some plans (for example, PFN3, its graph line highlighted with green diamonds) reduces benefits by a million dollars in ten percent of the months in the simulation. The Board expressed its preference for plans whose worst monthly performance was smaller.

Figure 30 Average annual Soo hydropower benefits, 17 plans, 12 water supply sequences

28

HI HS LS HM LM WS DS LR AT AV T1 T277A $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

PP $0.19 $0.21 $0.26 $0.16 $0.21 $0.17 $0.27 $0.19 $0.40 $0.31 #DIV/0! $0.1877B $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.04 $0.03 $0.09 $0.06 $0.02 $0.01122 $0.03 $0.01 $0.00 $0.04 $0.01 $0.06 -$0.03 $0.01 $0.04 $0.03 -$21.08 -$20.96

122C -$0.01 $0.00 -$0.01 $0.02 -$0.01 $0.04 -$0.03 -$0.01 $0.01 $0.02 -$0.01 -$0.02123 $0.02 $0.00 $0.00 $0.04 $0.00 $0.06 -$0.04 $0.01 $0.03 $0.03 -$0.04 -$0.05124 $0.03 $0.01 $0.00 $0.04 $0.01 $0.06 -$0.03 $0.01 $0.04 $0.03 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!125 $0.03 $0.01 $0.00 $0.04 $0.01 $0.06 -$0.03 $0.01 $0.04 $0.03 -$7.10 -$7.42126 $0.03 $0.01 $0.00 $0.04 $0.01 $0.06 -$0.03 $0.01 $0.04 $0.03 -$21.05 -$21.04127 $0.03 $0.01 $0.00 $0.04 $0.01 $0.06 -$0.03 $0.01 $0.04 $0.03 -$21.04 -$21.04128 $0.03 $0.01 $0.00 $0.04 $0.01 $0.06 -$0.03 $0.01 $0.03 $0.03 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!129 $0.01 -$0.02 -$0.03 $0.03 -$0.03 $0.05 -$0.09 $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 -$0.03 -$0.04130 -$0.03 -$0.05 -$0.08 $0.02 -$0.05 $0.03 -$0.12 -$0.01 $0.00 $0.00 -$0.04 -$0.04

55M49 -$0.18 -$0.14 -$0.10 -$0.24 -$0.14 -$0.26 -$0.03 -$0.14 -$0.16 -$0.16 -$0.02 #DIV/0!Nat60 $0.04 $0.04 $0.05 $0.03 $0.03 $0.06 $0.03 $0.04 $0.14 $0.11 $0.04 $0.03PFN3 -$0.08 -$0.11 -$0.06 -$0.11 -$0.09 -$0.10 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! -$0.31 -$0.28 -$0.07 #DIV/0!Bal25 $0.02 $0.02 $0.03 -$0.02 -$0.02 $0.02 $0.00 $0.03 $0.13 $0.08 -$0.07 -$0.06


Figure 31 Frequency of positive and negative monthly navigation benefits, 17 plans over 12 water supply scenarios

Figure 32 Frequency distribution of net navigation benefits, 17 plans over 12 water supply scenarios.

Figure 33 shows the same distribution for annual navigation benefits. In this case, Plan 125 has

distinctly worse performance one year out of ten.

29

-$5,000,000

-$4,000,000

-$3,000,000

-$2,000,000

-$1,000,000

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

Max 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01 Min

PP HI

77B HI

122 HI

122C HI

123 HI

124 HI

125 HI

126 HI

127 HI

128 HI

129 HI

130 HI

55M49 HI

Nat60 HI

PFN3 HI

Bal25 HI

** -PFN3 HI

With Plan 125 highlighted in diamond points

Distribution of annual net navigation benefits over 12 NBS (absent complete failures)

-$100,000,000

-$80,000,000

-$60,000,000

-$40,000,000

-$20,000,000

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

Max 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01 Min

PP

77B

122

122C

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

55M49

Nat60

PFN3

Bal25

** -125


6.8.3. Comparing the ecological effects of June 2011 plans

Figure 33 Superior 01 ratios, all plans, 12 water supply sequencees

Figure 34 Superior 02 ratios, all plans, 12 water supply sequencees

Figures 34 and 35 show the ratios of plan SUP-01 and SUP-02 scores compared to preproject for 12 water supply sequences. A ratio of one means that the plan provides the same flooding of the higher portion of coastal wetlands as the Preproject plan. 77B, Bal25 and Nat60 and others do better than 77A while PFN3 and 55M49 do the worst. Figure 36, below shows the number of environmental Zone C conditions created on the St. Marys River. A Zone C indicates significant and long lasting damage to some element of the environment. Note that most of the Cs come during the climate change sequences T1 and T2, which have prolonged dry periods.

30

Averages

0.90

1.00

0.97

0.87

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.95

0.87

0.87

0.95

0.92

0.92

0.83

0.93

0.75

0.97

Superior 01 ratios, all plans, 12 NBS sequences

0.79

1.00

0.89

0.81

0.79

0.80

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.80

0.79

0.77

0.85

0.67

0.90

0.90

1.00

0.97

1.01

0.94

1.01

1.01

1.01

1.01

1.01

1.01

0.99

0.97

0.79

0.98

0.82

0.99

0.84

1.00

0.95

0.93

0.87

0.92

0.93

0.93

0.93

0.93

0.92

0.91

0.89

0.73

0.93

0.74

0.92

1.00

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.79

0.97

0.81

1.08

0.83

1.00

0.93

0.84

0.83

0.83

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.82

0.81

0.81

0.85

0.69

0.96

0.87

1.00

0.96

0.98

0.94

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.97

0.77

0.98

0.79

1.02

0.89

1.00

0.95

0.94

0.89

0.92

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.90

0.88

0.78

0.92

0.78

0.92

0.86

1.00

0.95

0.92

0.89

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.90

0.80

0.96

0.75

0.96

0.87

1.00

0.98

0.87

0.88

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.88

0.87

0.90

0.71

0.94

0.88

1.00

0.95

0.95

0.92

0.94

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.94

0.93

0.81

0.94

0.74

0.97

1.05

1.00

1.09

0.54

1.03

1.02

1.08

1.03

0.54

0.54

1.03

1.01

1.01

1.05

0.93

0.76

0.98

1.05

1.00

1.09

0.65

1.04

1.02

1.19

1.12

0.65

0.65

1.10

0.99

1.01

1.04

0.90

0.72

0.97

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

77A

PP

77B

122

122C

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

55M49

Nat60

PFN3

Bal25

0.81

1.00

0.90

0.85

0.84

0.83

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.84

0.82

0.82

0.76

0.85

0.64

0.92

Superior 02 ratios, all plans, 12 NBS sequences

0.70

1.00

0.85

0.77

0.76

0.77

0.77

0.77

0.77

0.77

0.77

0.76

0.75

0.70

0.80

0.57

0.93

0.81

1.00

0.86

0.87

0.86

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.78

0.88

0.72

0.96

0.82

1.00

0.92

0.88

0.87

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.71

0.95

0.67

0.95

0.76

1.00

0.85

0.75

0.79

0.76

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.76

0.76

0.73

0.81

0.54

0.97

0.88

1.00

0.98

0.94

0.92

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.94

0.93

0.91

0.80

0.90

0.68

1.03

0.74

1.00

0.84

0.84

0.83

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.64

0.87

0.64

0.99

0.74

1.00

0.83

0.66

0.72

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.58

0.57

0.57

0.68

0.66

0.62

0.69

1.00

0.78

0.72

0.74

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.72

0.71

0.72

0.65

0.83

0.49

0.90

0.85

1.00

0.97

0.88

0.86

0.86

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.86

0.86

0.88

0.91

0.83

0.68

0.97

0.86

1.00

0.93

0.99

0.88

0.88

0.97

0.99

0.99

0.99

0.92

0.88

0.88

0.87

0.88

0.70

0.97

0.91

1.00

0.96

0.90

0.89

0.91

0.91

0.93

0.90

0.90

0.92

0.88

0.88

0.89

0.88

0.65

0.86

0.95

1.00

0.99

0.95

0.94

0.93

1.02

1.02

0.95

0.95

1.01

0.89

0.91

0.91

0.88

0.62

0.85

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

77A

PP

77B

122

122C

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

55M49

Nat60

PFN3

Bal25


Figure 35 Number of Environmental Zone Cs created, 12 water supply scenarios

6.8.4. Comparing the June 2011 plans using the eight Board CriteriaFigure 37, below shows a summary comparison of all plans arrayed against metrics representing the Board’s hydrologic, economic and ecological criteria. The Board eliminated plans 122, 125, 126 and 127 because their performance compressing Lake Superior and Lake Michigan-Huron levels was the worst. The Board decided that 77A, PP, 77B, 129 and Nat60 performed the best overall and should be refined for the plan selection Board meeting in September.

31

Non-monetized external effectsSuperior Michigan Hydropower Navigation Shore Protection Sup 01 and Sup 02 Normalized St Marys

% overall/% helped77A OK OK $0.22 $0.00 0.85 1

PP OK OK $0.05 -$0.77 3%/23% 1.00 1.0477B OK OK $0.04 $0.16 -10%/46% 0.94 1.12122 $0.02 -$0.38 6%/82% 0.86 1.22

122C OK OK $0.01 -$0.08 -1%/76% 0.88 0.86123 OK OK $0.01 -$0.42 6%/82% 0.89 1.36124 OK OK $0.01 -$1.83 6%/82% 0.90 1.24125 $0.01 -$3.54 6%/82% 0.90 1.22126 $0.01 -$0.38 6%/82% 0.86 1.22127 $0.01 -$0.38 6%/82% 0.86 1.22128 OK OK $0.00 -$0.99 6%/82% 0.90 1.26129 OK OK $0.00 -$0.29 6%/82% 0.87 1.36130 OK OK -$0.01 -$0.28 3%/79% 0.87 1.16

55M49 -$0.02 -$1.37 -4%/26% 0.80 0Nat60 OK OK -$0.05 $0.26 -1%/53% 0.89 1PFN3 OK OK -$0.09 $0.30 -2%/42% 0.69 1.36Bal25 -$0.14 $0.41 -19%/50% 0.94 1.34

RankingHydrologic Attributes Monetized External Effects


Figure 36 Cross Comparison of all plans against all criteria

6.9. September 2011 Tentative Plan SelectionThe Board reviewed ten plans in this meeting and made a tentative plan selection, dependent on receiving answers to a series of questions about the shared vision model.

The plan list included the five plans the Board had selected in June (77A, PP, 77B, 129 and Nat60) as well as two reference plans (55M49 and PPReg, a form of preproject that was a little more realistic because it included gate flows). At the request of plan formulators, the latest versions of 77B, Balance (Bal26), and the F plan (PFN3) and WatOpt, the latest optimization plan from Professor Watkins.

The plans were compared against the four future climate scenarios described in Chapter 5:

1. Stationary climate – in the next three decades, supplies will be similar to past supplies

2. Climate and Great Lakes water supplies will change in some unknown way

3. Climate and Great Lakes water supplies have been changing and are getting drier

4. Great Lakes water supplies are cyclical; they have been dry and will next enter a very wet phase

One or more water supply sequences were used to test plans in each of the four scenarios.

6.9.1 Scenario by scenario plan performancesThe Board reviewed detailed evaluations for the four scenarios, burrowing in on each criterion to review SVM results that showed which particular metrics were most telling. Figures 38 and 39 show two examples of showing how all plans performed against all the Board’s criteria. Figure 38

32


focuses on Scenario 1 using the historic supplies. Three plans (PP, Ppreg and 129) failed the Superior range test. Nat64D and Bal26 pass all pass-fail tests and each have tiny benefits for Nav, Hydro and SP and improve the four prime IERM metrics, but only Nat64D is perfect on all criteria because Bal26 gets a “mixed” score on the compression of Michigan-Huron levels.

Figure 37 Scenario 1 Plan Comparison with historic water supplies

Several water supply sequences were used for Scenario 2 to simulate the uncertainty of the assumption that climate was already changing but with unknown effects for water supplies to the Great Lakes. Figure 39 shows one, the High Michigan water supplies which is a 109 year sequence that includes the highest Lake Michigan-Huron levels in over 55,000 statistically generated years of supplies. Nonetheless, it also had a very low supply period, and all plans except 55M49 and PFN3 allow Superior to drop below 182.76. Nat64D and Bal26 fail by only 1 and 3 inches respectively, and Bal26 is the only plan besides 77A that passes the Compress MH test. It has positive navigation and hydropower benefits.

33


Figure 38 Scenario 2 Plan Comparisons with High Michigan Water Supplies

34


6.9.3 Overall RobustnessFigure 40 is a summary graphic showing how the plans ranked in each scenario against all eight criteria. The first place finish of Preproject is meaningless because it reflects conditions before the compensating works and hydropower plants were built and so does not honor physical limits to the releases that other plans do. Two plans perform near the top no matter the water supply, Nat64D and Bal26. Of those the Board tentatively suggested Nat64D pending review of some questions about the SVM and a last optimization of the plan parameters. Two weeks later the Board accepted the responses on the SVM and selected NatOpt2, a variation on Nat64D that performed slightly better. A new articulation of a replacement for Criterion C in the new Orders of Approval created a ninth Board criterion, that the plan should not produce Lake Superior levels below 182.76 with greater frequency than preproject. NatOpt2 failed this new criterion and was replaced with NatOpt3.

Figure 39 Overall robustness of plan performances

6.10.Final Plan RecommendationPlan description goes here

6.11.Recommended Changes to the Orders of Approval

New orders summarized here.

35

Plan rankings for all futures

Plans Top five finishes Weighted scorePP 4.08 PP 7.16 PP 6.05 PP 4.85 PP 4 3.84nat64D 2.81 Ppreg 4.4 Bal26 3.72 nat64D 2.8 nat64D 4 2.1077B 2.75 nat64D 3.74 nat64D 3.27 77B 2.53 77B 4 1.63129 2.65 Bal26 3.52 77B 2.66 129 2.48 Bal26 3 1.88Bal26 2.63 77B 3.16 Ppreg 1.64 Ppreg 2.1 Ppreg 3 1.14Ppreg 1.48 129 1.91 129 1.59 Bal26 1.74 129 2 1.14PFN3W 1.31 WatOpt 0.81 77A 0 PFN3W 0.88 77A 0 0.00WatOpt 0.72 77A 0 55M49 -0.79 77A 0 PFN3W 0 -1.9277A 0 55M49 -0.78 PFN3W -6.26 WatOpt -0.25 55M49 0 -2.2855M49 -2.85 PFN3W -1.38 WatOpt -73.95 55M49 -0.93 WatOpt 0 -19.07

1 1 1 1 1 1 Weights

Select test net basin supplies for each of the four future scenarios. Decide whether you want to "Adjust Weights" for the six featured Pis (pull down menu, far right). If so, the six slider bars will adjust weights dynamically so the total weight is always one. Weights are displayed in the bubble graph, right.

Uncheck to remove these scores from the test



Robust plansUncheck to remove these scores from the test

Current climate Climate Change, Uncertain Levels Climate Change lowers lakes Wet future after recent dry

Nav

Hyd

SP

Sup1

Sup2

Max

- 0. 1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nav SP SUP-02

Hydro SUP-01 Max Sup

Documents

International Upper Great Lakes Study - IUGLS · Web viewPlan 1977A balancing equation is replaced with an alternate equation The Lake Superior level standard deviation parameters