Filter results by:
Key Findings
Questions we Asked
Geographic Area

Search for the following document types:

Shared Vision Modelling

William Werick;David Fay, Rob Caldwell, Travis Dahl, Yin Fan, Neil MacDonald, Todd Redder
A series of Shared Vision Models (SVMs) were created to model and evaluate the impacts of different regulation plans under different climate scenarios. A SVM dynamically links water management decisions to impacts and is trusted and understood well enough to minimize conflicts over facts. Model design was driven by the IUGLS Study Board criteria used to select a new regulation plan and information available during the IUGLS. Evolution of the SVM was dynamically linked to both the Study Board’s criteria and the research agenda, each of the three elements influencing the others. The first SVM was created before information was available in order to shape the debate about what criteria to use and whether the research agenda would develop the information required for the Study Board to make its decision. The SVM evolved over five “practice” decisions and three rounds of final plan selection with the Study Board, and this is reflected in the four archived versions of the SVM: 1) Sep. 2009 practice decision using fencepost plans; 2) Sep. 2011 selection of the “Nat” series of plans as the Study Board’s tentative selection; 3) Nov. 2011 final plan selection among four Nat alternatives; 4) 2010 model of the impacts of restoring Lake Michigan-Huron water levels.
Shared Vision Model Documentation
Plan Formulation and Evaluation Group Final Report
Shared Vision Model AM User's Guide
Viewable Data:
Hydrological Input Data for Plan Formulation & Evaluation
Shared Vision Model (Sep 2009 Fencepost Plan Practice)
Shared Vision Model (2010 Restoration Analysis)
Shared Vision Model (Tentative Sep 2011 Plan Selection)
Shared Vision Model (Final Nov 2011 Plan Selection)
Additional Data and Information

Can't find what you're looking for? Want additional data, models or other information related to this project? This may be available upon request. Please send specific requests using the request button below:
Send Request
Supporting Content (Show)
Main Topics
Lake Superior Regulation
Water Level Restoration
Questions We Asked
Can a regulation plan be designed to perform better than Plan 1977A?
What are the limits of regulation?
View all 15 questions we asked
What constitutes improved plan performance?
What are the main benefits of the new regulation plan?
Does the plan keep Superior between 182.76 and 183.86 m?
Does the plan balance levels of Superior and Michigan-Huron?
Does the plan lower the highest and raise the lowest Michigan-Huron levels?
Does the plan avoid extremely low Superior levels?
Does the plan reduce environmental impacts?
Does the plan minimize disproportionate losses?
Does the plan reduce shoreline protection costs?
Does the plan benefit commercial navigation?
Does the plan benefit hydropower?
Can Lake Superior regulation address extremes?
Can restoration of Michigan-Huron levels address extremes?
Key Findings
Future conditions are uncertain, so a new regulation plan must be robust
Plan 2012 will be more robust and provide important benefits compared to Plan 77A
View all 12 key findings
Superior regulation has a small effect on Michigan-Huron levels
Nine decision criteria were used to evaluate regulation plans
Plan 2012 performs similar to Plan 77A under 20th century NBS
Plan 2012 helps Lake Superior during extreme dry conditions
Plan 2012 provides overall economic improvements
Plan 2012 flow changes will be smaller, benefiting hydropower
St. Marys River flows will be more natural under Plan 2012
Plan 2012 computer code is simpler and easier to manage
Restoring Michigan-Huron levels has both benefits and costs
Lake levels are unpredictable
Approve Lake Superior Plan 2012
Issue new Orders of Approval
Plan Formulation & Evaluation
Defining the Limits of Regulation