david p. lusch, ph.d. [email protected] 1 / 35 david p. lusch, ph.d. distinguished senior research...

1 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.

[email protected]

David P. Lusch, Ph.D.Distinguished Senior Research Specialist

Michigan State UniversityDept. of Geography, Remote Sensing & GIS

Research and Outreach Services Group

Institute of Water Research

Michigan’s Michigan’s WWater ater WWithdrawal ithdrawal AAssessment Process ssessment Process

andand Using the WWA Tool for Planning Using the WWA Tool for Planning

and Watershed Managementand Watershed Management

and


[email protected]

•Brief overview of the science behind the Water Withdrawal Assessment Process

• Review of the environmental criteria now used to assess “adverse resource impacts”

Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management


[email protected]

•Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council– Created by PA 189 (2008) to serve as a

representative, collaborative forum for the study and evaluation of the state's water management programs.

– Consists of 21 members who represent the spectrum of water-use interests in Michigan.

– Administered by the Department of Natural Resources.



[email protected]

Jon Allan Consumers Energy CompanyRepresenting: Utilities

Sumedh Bahl City of Ann Arbor ManagerRepresenting: Municipal Water Suppliers

Bryan A. Burroughs, PhD Executive Director MI Council of Trout UnlimitedRepresenting: Conservation Organization

James Clift (Chairperson) MI Environmental CouncilRepresenting: Environmental Organization

Jon Coleman Tri-County Regional Planning CommissionRepresenting: General Public

Frank D. Ettawageshik Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa IndiansRepresenting: Native Tribes


W R

C

A

C

1 / 4


[email protected]

Michael R. Gregg MI Deptartment of AgricultureRepresenting: Michigan Department of Agriculture

Craig Hoffman The Rock (golf course) on Drummond IslandRepresenting: Non-Agricultural Irrigator

Jo A. Latimore, Ph.D. MSU, Dept. of Fisheries & WildlifeRepresenting: Riparian Organization

Mark E. Lemons Pfizer Global Manufacturing, KalamazooRepresenting: Business and Manufacturing

Peter Manning MI Office of Attorney GeneralRepresenting: Michigan Office of Attorney General


W R

C

A

C

2 / 4


[email protected]

Timothy Neumann MI Rural Water AssociationRepresenting: Local Units of Government

Michael Newman Michigan Aggregates AssociationRepresenting: Aggregates Industry

Scott Piggott Michigan Farm BureauRepresenting: Agricultural Organization

Frank Ruswick Michigan Department of Environmental QualityRepresenting: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Paul Seelbach, Ph.D. MDNR Institute for Fisheries ResearchRepresenting: Michigan Department of Natural Resources


W R

C

A

C

3 / 4


[email protected]

Richard Slevatz Earl Sanders & Son, Lawton, MIRepresenting: Well Drillers

Patricia Soranno, Ph.D.MSU, Dept. Fisheries and WildlifeRepresenting: Limnology Science

Bob Walther Walther Farms, Clio, MIRepresenting: Agricultural Interests

Samuel Wendling Community Development Director, Muskegon CountyRepresenting: Tourism Organization

Paul Zugger Michigan United Conservation Clubs

Representing: Anglers Organization


W R

C

A

C

4 / 4


[email protected]


•Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council

– Will periodically provide recommendations regarding current and future state programs and legislation to state leadership.

– http:// www.michigan.gov/dnrCommissions, Boards and Committees

Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council


[email protected]

• Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council

– Immediate tasks include: 1. Evaluation of the new Water Withdrawal

Assessment Tool2. Evaluation of the overall Water Withdrawal

Assessment Process3. Recommendations for inclusion of Great Lakes,

inland lakes, and other waters into the process4. Examining any potential legal conflicts within

the process5. Recommendations for a new state water

conservation and efficiency program.



[email protected]


•How to assess water withdrawal impacts on rivers?

– Which stream segments will be impacted by a proposed withdrawal (distance matters)?

– How much water (flow) is available in these stream segments.

– Temp- and size-class of the affected streams.

– For groundwater pumpage, how much will the proposed withdrawal reduce the flow in the affected streams.


[email protected]

•Water Withdrawal Assessment Process

– Screening Tool (self assessment)

– Site-Specific Review (MDEQ assessment)



[email protected]

•Water Withdrawal Assessment Screening Tool

– For self assessment

– Web-based and location specific

– Three components

• Spatial database of stream-flow estimates

• Impact assessment of flow reductions on fish habitat

• Modeling groundwater – surface water interactions



[email protected]

•Stream-flow Estimation– Used streamflow data from the USGS

network of continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations operated in Michigan.

– Station selection criteria: • At least10 years of continuous-record data• Daily flow not appreciably affected by water

withdrawal, diversion, or augmentation• Hydrologic response from precipitation not

masked by storage in lakes or retention in regulated surface-water bodies



[email protected]



[email protected]

•Stream-flow Estimation– Explanatory variables in the regression

model included

• Glacial aquifer transmissivity groups

• Hydrologic-soil groups

• Forest land cover

• Runoff Curve Number

• Normal annual precipitation (1971 – 2000)

• Normal annual snowfall depths (1971 – 2000)



[email protected]


•Stream-flow Estimation


[email protected]



Hydrologic Soil Groups estimate soil runoff potential. Group A soils generally have the smallest runoff potential, while Group D soils have the greatest.


[email protected]




[email protected]



147 observation points

Flow estimates for5,418 stream

segments


[email protected]



over

estim

ate

unde

rest

imat

e1.5 cfs

673.3gpm

A “safety factor” of 0.5 is built into the Screening Tool.

Using this safety factor, the flow used in the model will be more than the actual flow in the stream only10% of the time.Evaluation of Accuracy and Operation of the Water Withdrawal

Assessment Screening Tool. Submitted by the Michigan Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council to the Michigan Legislature. April 9, 2009


[email protected]

• Citizen Stream-flow Measurements– The MDEQ shall develop a protocol for the

collection of stream-flow measurements by persons other than the department for use by the department in administrating this part. The protocol shall ensure that such stream- flow measurements meet the same data quality standards as stream measurements collected by the USGS.

– The MDEQ may establish a program to train and certify individuals in the collection of stream flow measurements. The department shall charge a fee sufficient to cover the cost of such a training program.



[email protected]

• Citizen Stream-flow Measurements

– The MDEQ may use the stream-flow data collected using the protocol in

–

• conducting site-specific reviews• in making water withdrawal permit decisions• in issuing permits under the safe drinking water act• in updating the water withdrawal assessment

tool as appropriate, or • in other actions requiring an evaluation of stream

flow.



[email protected]


•Modeling Fish Species Distribution– After years of study, MDNR Fisheries

Biologists determined that variations in fish species abundance in rivers are most closely associated with:

Catchment area

July mean water temperature

Baseflow yield (baseflow per unit area)


[email protected]


– Baseflow yield incorporates catchment area, so only two variables are necessary.

– The huge variety of stream segments in terms of catchment area and mean July temperature was simplified to create a practical classification system to support riverine resource management.

– Three catchment sizes

– Four temperature regimes

•Modeling Fish Species Distribution


[email protected]


0.05

0.15

0.25

0.35

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

Bas

eflo

w Y

ield

(cf

s / s

q. k

m) brook trout

white suckerpumpkin

seed

n. pike

COLD

brown trout

COOL

rockbass

mottled sculpin

creek chub

burbot

redhorse

walleyedrum

WARM

smallmouth bass

COLD-TRANSITIONAL

Log Drainage Area (sq. km)1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20 3.60 4.00

0.00streams small rivers large rivers

•Modeling Fish Species Distribution


[email protected]

•River Systems by Size– Stream:

• Stream with a drainage area < 80 sq. miles– flows range from 0.02 to 46,600 gpm

– Small River• River with a drainage area < 300 sq. miles

– Flows range from 3,878 to 90,343 gpm

– Large River• River with a drainage area 300 sq. miles

– flows range from 19,484 to 694,858 gpm



[email protected]

•River Systems by Temperature• Cold

– Streams and small rivers – no large rivers– Summer water temp sustains cold-water fish– Average July water temperature < 19o C– Small increase in temp no change in fish

• Cold-transitional– Streams, small rivers and large rivers– Summer water temp sustains cold-water fish– Small increase in temp decline in cold-water

fish



[email protected]

•River Systems by Temperature• Cool

– Streams, small rivers and large rivers– Summer water temp sustains warm-, cool- and

some cold-water fish– Average July water temperature 19o - <22o C

• Warm– Streams, small rivers and large rivers– Summer water temp sustains warm-water fish– Average July water temperature 22o C



[email protected]

Cold stream

Cold small river

Cold transitional stream

Cold transitional small river

Cold transitional large river

Warm transitional stream

Warm transitional small river

Warm transitional large river

Warm stream

Warm small river

Warm large river

´

0 50 100 150 20025Miles

Cool stream

Cool small river

Cool large river



[email protected]



[email protected]

•Withdrawal Impacts on FishBaseline or existing condition

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Proportion of flow removed

Pro

po

rtio

na

l c

ha

ng

e i

n f

ish

po

pu

lati

on

Some replacement of sensitive species

Minor changes in fish populations

Notable replacement by tolerant species

Tolerant species dominant;ecological functions altered

Severe alteration ofecological structure

and function

Thriving species

Characteristic species



[email protected]



– Three aquifer properties are used by the groundwater model

aquifer transmissivity streambed conductance aquifer storage coefficient


[email protected]



50 gpm250 gpm

300 gpm

7000 gpm


[email protected]

•Water Withdrawal Assessment Screening Tool


Evaluation of Accuracy and Operation of the Water Withdrawal Assessment Screening Tool (Table 1). Submitted by the Michigan Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council to the Michigan Legislature. April 9, 2009


[email protected]


• The next segment– Adverse resource impact criteria

david p. lusch, ph.d. [email protected] 1 / 35 david p. lusch, ph.d. distinguished senior research...

Documents