EAC 2004

Where have we been?And where are we going?

DEQ Funding History FY96 - FY04Compared with Inflation

(based on adjusting FY1996 appropriations each year by the Detroit CPI)

$300.0$320.0$340.0$360.0$380.0$400.0$420.0$440.0$460.0

FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004

in M

illio

ns

Gross Funding

Funding Adj for CPI

FY1996 FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004Gross Funding $352.0 $352.0 $349.3 $342.7 $335.4 $351.2 $356.4 $346.8 $345.4

Adj for CPI $352.0 $361.9 $370.9 $379.4 $388.9 $401.8 $415.0 $423.7 $434.3

Detroit CPI 2.8% 2.5% 2.3% 2.5% 3.3% 3.3% 2.1% 2.5% 2.8%*

Funding Shortfallagainst Inflation -$9.9 -$21.6 -$36.7 -$53.5 -$50.6 -$58.6 -$76.9 -$88.9

* estimated Detroit CPI for FY2004

DEQ Funding History FY96 - FY05Operational Appropriations by Funding Sources

$0.0$50.0

$100.0$150.0$200.0$250.0$300.0$350.0$400.0

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05

in M

illio

ns GF/GPFederalRestricted

Fund Sources FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05*St. Restricted $113.4 $113.4 $135.9 $123.2 $112.3 $121.5 $124.1 $142.9 $160.0 $168.7Federal $142.4 $142.4 $127.1 $127.0 $126.8 $129.7 $131.3 $131.5 $129.2 $133.8GF/GP $96.1 $96.1 $86.3 $92.5 $96.2 $99.9 $101.0 $72.4 $56.2 $38.2Gross Funding $352.0 $352.0 $349.3 $342.7 $335.4 $351.2 $356.4 $346.8 $345.4 $340.6

* FY05 Approps as contained in the Governor's Executive Recommendation

Note: MUSTFA debt service appropriations have been pulled out from 1996-2003 for comparison purposes with 2004 and 2005 (approx $58mil/yr)

$0.0

$25.0

$50.0

$75.0

$100.0

$125.0

$150.0

$175.0

$200.0

FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05

in M

illio

ns

RestrictedGF/GP

DEQ Funding History FY96 - FY05 Decrease of General Fund Support

- $57.9 mil.

+ $55.3 mil.

Historical General Fund Reductions

($62.9)($18.0)($13.3)($12.0)($19.6)

CumulativeFY05FY04FY03FY02

Issue SurveyApril

1. Air quality 2. Great Lakes 3. Decision-making structures4. Budget5. Leadership development6. Program evaluations/voluntary programs

Common ThemesOctober

BudgetCommunicationPrioritiesPrograms

The The State of Michigan’s State of Michigan’s Environment 2003: Environment 2003: Second Biennial Second Biennial ReportReport was submitted was submitted to the Governor and to the Governor and Legislature on Legislature on December 18, 2003December 18, 2003..

Biennial Report MeasurementsBiennial Report Measurements

Environmental IndicatorsEnvironmental Indicators [21][21]**Ecological Indicators (11)Ecological Indicators (11)Physical/Chemical Indicators (10)Physical/Chemical Indicators (10)

Programmatic MeasurementsProgrammatic Measurements [17][17]Air Measures (3)Air Measures (3)Water Measures (6)Water Measures (6)Land Measures (8)Land Measures (8)

Emergent Contaminants Emergent Contaminants [6][6]____________________

** Fulfills the requirements of 1999 Public Act 195Fulfills the requirements of 1999 Public Act 195

Recommended Ecological IndicatorsRecommended Ecological IndicatorsTrends in Land Use/Cover Trends in Land Use/Cover (a)(a)Trends Forest Acreage, Mortality, Growth and RemovalsTrends Forest Acreage, Mortality, Growth and RemovalsTrends in Vegetation Structure and DiversityTrends in Vegetation Structure and DiversityTrends in Lichen CommunitiesTrends in Lichen CommunitiesTrends in Mammal Populations Trends in Mammal Populations (a)(a)Trends in Breeding Bird AbundanceTrends in Breeding Bird AbundanceTrends in Bald Eagle Populations and Contaminant Levels Trends in Bald Eagle Populations and Contaminant Levels Trends in Frog and Toad PopulationsTrends in Frog and Toad PopulationsTrends in Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate PopulationsTrends in Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Populations

and Contaminant Levels and Contaminant Levels Trends in Endangered, Threatened, and Special ConcernTrends in Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern

Species Species (b)(b)Trends in Exotic SpeciesTrends in Exotic SpeciesTrends in Game Fish PopulationsTrends in Game Fish PopulationsInvasive Species Invasive Species (a)(a)

____________________(a)(a) Modified between 2001 and 2003 Biennial ReportsModified between 2001 and 2003 Biennial Reports(b)(b) Added to Biennial Report in 2003Added to Biennial Report in 2003

Recommended Physical/Chemical IndicatorsRecommended Physical/Chemical Indicators

Ambient Levels of Criteria Air Pollutants Ambient Levels of Criteria Air Pollutants (a)(a)Air Quality Index Air Quality Index (a)(a)Ambient Levels of Air Toxics Ambient Levels of Air Toxics (b)(b)Rates of Deposition of Persistent andRates of Deposition of Persistent and

Bioaccumulative Air Toxics and AcidicBioaccumulative Air Toxics and AcidicComponents Components (b)(b)

Inland Lake Water QualityInland Lake Water QualitySurface Water ChemistrySurface Water ChemistryInland Lake SedimentsInland Lake SedimentsStream FlowStream FlowGreat Lakes Water Level TrendsGreat Lakes Water Level TrendsClimate and Weather TrendsClimate and Weather Trends

____________________(a)(a) Modified between 2001 and 2003 Biennial Reports Modified between 2001 and 2003 Biennial Reports (b)(b) DEQ identified indicators that are yet to be developed DEQ identified indicators that are yet to be developed

Programmatic MeasurementsProgrammatic Measurements

Air Emissions EstimatesAir Emissions EstimatesAir Toxics Release InventoryAir Toxics Release InventoryAir Radiation MonitoringAir Radiation MonitoringSurface Water Surface Water Conservation Reserve Enhancement ProgramConservation Reserve Enhancement ProgramWater Toxics Release InventoryWater Toxics Release InventorySurface Water RadiationSurface Water RadiationDrinking WaterDrinking WaterWater Diversions and Consumptive UseWater Diversions and Consumptive UseEnvironmental CleanupsEnvironmental CleanupsStateState--Owned Sites CleanupsOwned Sites CleanupsHazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal SitesDisposal SitesLeaking Underground Storage TanksLeaking Underground Storage TanksAbandoned Oil and Gas WellsAbandoned Oil and Gas WellsSolid Waste ImportsSolid Waste ImportsHazardous Waste Imports and ExportsHazardous Waste Imports and ExportsScrap TiresScrap Tires

Emergent ContaminantsEmergent Contaminants

Brominated Diphenyl Ethers Brominated Diphenyl Ethers (a)(a)Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals (a)(a)Perfluorooctane sulfonate Perfluorooctane sulfonate (a)(a)Polychlorinated Naphthalenes Polychlorinated Naphthalenes (a)(a)Tetrahydrofurans Tetrahydrofurans (a)(a)Alkyphenol Ethoxylates Alkyphenol Ethoxylates (a)(a)

____________________(a) All six contaminants were added as a result of discussions (a) All six contaminants were added as a result of discussions

between the USEPA Region 5 Regional Science Council and between the USEPA Region 5 Regional Science Council and its State Tribe Science Network, of which Michigan is a its State Tribe Science Network, of which Michigan is a member.member.

EDUCATION & OUTREACH UNIT: WORKSHOPS

MarketingMarketing

•Marketing Plan

•DEQ Calendar and Bulletin

•Cosponsors

•DEQ Staff

•Press Release

•Marketing Plan

•DEQ Calendar and Bulletin

•Cosponsors

•DEQ Staff

•Press Release

Workshop Attendance

0500

10001500

20002500

30003500

40004500

2001 2002 2003 2004

Registered

Who Attends the Workshops?

Depends on the Topic:

Programs Involving Local Government

government, businesses, & consultants

“How To” business & consultants

CLEAN MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION INITIATIVE

DEQ Advisory Board MeetingMay 20, 2004

What are the key goals?

Develop a foundation environmental education curriculum which is:science-based,

accurate, data-based

balanced, Michigan specific,

aligned with state standards, enhances student achievement,

easy for teachers to use, easily adoptable.

What will the final product include?

The five foundation units are

Michigan’s Changing EcosystemsIndividual’s Impact on the Land

Water QualityAir Quality

Energy and Resources

What will the final product include?

All units will include:

Use of science concepts, principles, and theories. The impact and consequences of individual decisions.

Data-based decision-making. Examination of Michigan issues.

Economic and ecological sustainability. Stewardship and pollution prevention.

.

Decision-Making Alternatives

Economicmarket forcesprofitability, employabilityaccounts for internal costs and benefitscompetition within an industryindividual or business orientedshort feedback cycleshuman life spanconcern with minimizingknown risk

Ecologicalnatural forcessustainabilityaccounts for external costs and benefitsconsequences of an industrysociety or ecosystem orientedlong feedback cyclesspecies/ecosystem life spanconcern with response to unknowable risk

Ozone Designations

G. Vinson HellwigChief, Air Quality DivisionDepartment of Environmental QualityAir Quality DivisionJune 17, 2004

88--hour Ozone Classificationshour Ozone ClassificationsJune 15, 2004June 15, 2004

Attainment

Subpart 1/ Basic

Subpart 2 Moderate

EPA Action April 15, 2004

State of Michigan Air Permit ProcessState of Michigan Air Permit Process““Value Stream MappingValue Stream Mapping””

Steve Chester Steve Chester –– Director MDEQDirector MDEQJim Jim SygoSygo –– Deputy Director MDEQDeputy Director MDEQ

Framework for VSM Air Permit Framework for VSM Air Permit ProcessProcess

Suppliers:Suppliers:1.1. ApplicantsApplicants2.2. RegulationsRegulations

a.a. EPAEPAb.b. MDEQMDEQ

3.3. PublicPublic4.4. Consulting firms supporting Consulting firms supporting

applicantapplicant

Framework for VSM Air Permit Framework for VSM Air Permit ProcessProcess

Inputs: Inputs: 1.1. ApplicationApplication2.2. Regulation and PoliciesRegulation and Policies3.3. Project Related to ApplicantProject Related to Applicant4.4. Data related to projectData related to project5.5. Schedule / Project TimelineSchedule / Project Timeline6.6. Site selectionSite selection7.7. Citizen ComplaintsCitizen Complaints8.8. Environmental, Legislative and Local Environmental, Legislative and Local

GovernmentGovernment9.9. DLEG & Other State AgenciesDLEG & Other State Agencies

Benefactors:Benefactors:1.1. Applicant Applicant 2.2. Public Public

Benefactors Requirements:Benefactors Requirements:1.1. Requirements are clearly defined and communicated at Requirements are clearly defined and communicated at

Start of ProcessStart of Process2.2. Permit Issuance in less than 6 monthsPermit Issuance in less than 6 months3.3. Manufacturing flexibility with environmental protectionManufacturing flexibility with environmental protection4.4. Permits with achievable, demonstrable and value added Permits with achievable, demonstrable and value added

special terms and conditionsspecial terms and conditions5.5. Permits that are in compliance with State and Federal Permits that are in compliance with State and Federal

RequirementsRequirements6.6. Permits process that is efficient, minimizes waste, and is Permits process that is efficient, minimizes waste, and is

clear, transparent and conciseclear, transparent and concise7.7. Supports Final DecisionSupports Final Decision

PROCESS START POINTPROCESS START POINTPrePre--Application MeetingApplication Meeting

PROCESS END POINT PROCESS END POINT Permit IssuancePermit Issuance

Outputs:Outputs:1.1. Permit with Value Added Special Permit with Value Added Special

ConditionsConditions2.2. Response to Comment DocumentsResponse to Comment Documents3.3. Permit Evaluation FormPermit Evaluation Form4.4. Public Announcement of Final DecisionPublic Announcement of Final Decision

Budget Update June

• Interest in considering the long-term direction and structure of the budget

• Concern: “We will turn into Mississippi”

Current Policy Issues in Current Policy Issues in Remediation and Remediation and

Redevelopment DivisionRedevelopment Division

a discussion with thea discussion with the

DEQ Environmental Advisory CouncilDEQ Environmental Advisory CouncilAugust 19, 2004August 19, 2004

Andrew Hogarth, ChiefAndrew Hogarth, ChiefLynelle Marolf, Assistant ChiefLynelle Marolf, Assistant Chief

Remediation and Redevelopment DivisionRemediation and Redevelopment Division

What is the “right” role?What is the “right” role?

What requires notification?What requires notification?Comprehensive versus highComprehensive versus high--risk releasesrisk releases

What needs oversight?What needs oversight?How to assure oversight is effective in How to assure oversight is effective in securing compliance?securing compliance?

What needs approval?What needs approval?BeforeBefore-- or afteror after--thethe--factfactPublic trust resource versus private property Public trust resource versus private property affectedaffected

What is the “right” role?What is the “right” role?

Should the role differ with regard to work Should the role differ with regard to work done by liable and nondone by liable and non--liable parties?liable parties?What decisions can be “delegated” to What decisions can be “delegated” to others?others?What does the public expect?What does the public expect?What do resources allow?What do resources allow?

Risk Based DecisionRisk Based Decision--MakingMaking

Risk based decisions are part of virtually Risk based decisions are part of virtually all regulatory programs.all regulatory programs.The cleanup program was the last to The cleanup program was the last to adopt a risk based approach, in spite of adopt a risk based approach, in spite of the fact that “zero risk” is less likely to be the fact that “zero risk” is less likely to be achievable in the cleanup context than in achievable in the cleanup context than in emissions control.emissions control.

Risk Based DecisionRisk Based Decision--MakingMaking

Risk based decisions are inherently Risk based decisions are inherently uncertain and subject to reconsideration uncertain and subject to reconsideration based on changing knowledge about based on changing knowledge about hazards posed by contaminants.hazards posed by contaminants.Not all risks may be properly accounted Not all risks may be properly accounted for with current methods.for with current methods.Current criteria may be overCurrent criteria may be over-- or underor under--protective.protective.

Risk Based DecisionRisk Based Decision--MakingMaking

Additional information may cause criteria Additional information may cause criteria to go up or go down.to go up or go down.Increases in criteria are relatively easy to Increases in criteria are relatively easy to accommodate.accommodate.Decreases in criteria may require Decreases in criteria may require additional response activity to address additional response activity to address unacceptable risk.unacceptable risk.

Michigan’s Michigan’s Concentrated Animal Concentrated Animal

Feeding OperationFeeding Operation(CAFO) Program(CAFO) Program

Presented by: Ronda WuycheckPresented by: Ronda WuycheckMichigan Department of Environmental QualityMichigan Department of Environmental Quality

Water BureauWater Bureau

New Large CAFOsNew Large CAFOs

•• As of February 27, 2004, New Large As of February 27, 2004, New Large CAFOs are required to apply for CAFOs are required to apply for permitpermit–– General permit General permit –– Individual permit Individual permit

•• 2x size of large CAFO; or2x size of large CAFO; or•• 3.5x size of large CAFO over 53.5x size of large CAFO over 5--yr period; yr period;

–– andand

•• Open air storage structures or land applied Open air storage structures or land applied liquid manureliquid manure

Thresholds for LargeThresholds for Large

5,000 (liquid manure)5,000 (liquid manure)30,000 (other than liquid manure)30,000 (other than liquid manure)

DucksDucks

125,000 (not laying hens)125,000 (not laying hens)82,000 (laying hens)82,000 (laying hens)

Chickens, other than liquid Chickens, other than liquid manuremanure

30,00030,000Chickens, liquid manureChickens, liquid manure

55,00055,000TurkeysTurkeys

10,00010,000Sheep or LambsSheep or Lambs

500500HorsesHorses

2,500 (55 lbs or more) 2,500 (55 lbs or more) 10,000 (under 55 lbs)10,000 (under 55 lbs)

SwineSwine

1,0001,000Beef Cattle or HeifersBeef Cattle or Heifers

1,0001,000Veal CalvesVeal Calves

700700Mature Dairy CowsMature Dairy Cows

ThresholdThresholdAnimal TypeAnimal Type

Great Lakes BasinGreat Lakes Basin

Watershed Assessment In Michigan: The Role of Water Quality Standards and Monitoring

By: Gary Kohlhepp, MDEQ – Water Bureau

Part 4. Water Quality StandardsPart 4. Water Quality Standards

1. The purpose of the Water Quality Standards is toestablish the minimum water quality requirements bywhich the surface waters of the state are managed

2. The Standards are madeup of rules designed toaccomplish the purpose

3. The rules address bothambient standards anddischarge-specific standards

RULE 57RULE 82

RULE 100

Water Quality Monitoring Program Elements

• Fish Contaminants

• Water Chemistry

• Sediment Chemistry

• Biological Integrity

• Wildlife Contaminants

• Beach Monitoring

• Volunteer Monitoring

• Lake Water Quality Assessment

• Stream Flow

Watershed Monitoring - Objectives

•Determine if waters are attaining Michigan water quality standards

• Identify causes of impairment (chemical, physical)

• Identify contaminant sources (point vs. non-point)

•Evaluate program effectiveness (e.g. NPDES, non-point source, site remediation, etc.)

•Develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

Five-Year Basin Cycle

2

Five-Year Watershed Assessment Cycle

StakeholdersStakeholdersMunicipalitiesMunicipalitiesHealth DepartmentsHealth DepartmentsDrain Commissioners Drain Commissioners NPDES NPDES permitteespermitteesWatershed groupsWatershed groupsMSU extension/NRCS MSU extension/NRCS Interested groups/individualsInterested groups/individualsAcademiaAcademiaState/Federal AgenciesState/Federal Agencies

Working TogetherWorking Together

NonNon--point Source grants point Source grants Phase II Storm water permit samplingPhase II Storm water permit sampling

Illicit Discharge Elimination ProgramIllicit Discharge Elimination ProgramVolunteer Monitoring effortsVolunteer Monitoring effortsSelection of Monitoring LocationsSelection of Monitoring Locations

Figure 1. Duff Creek E. coli sampling locations in the vicinity of Marlette, Michigan, 2002.

#Y

#Y#Y#Y

#Y

#Y

Marlette Twp.

Flynn Twp.Burnside Twp.

Elmer Twp.

DF-1A

Marlette

Duff Cr.

South Branch Cass R.

DF-2ADF-3A

DF-5A

DF-4A

DF-6A

Tusc

ola

Co.

Lapeer Co.

Sanilac Co.

Decker R

d.

Boyne R

d.

Sullivan R

d.

Walker Rd.

French Line Rd.

TMDL Area

NonNon--point sources:point sources:

DEQ

• Urban myths and agency response• Role of ombudsman• Fear of retribution• Stop being apologetic about protecting the

environment• Loss of investment in environmental

protection

Common Themes

• Needs: Always something more to do• Resources, priorities, efficiencies• Results

• Managing short term risks• Navigating long term directions

Common Themes (Cont.)

• Individual choices• Institutional choices• DEQ Focus• DEQ Role

Focus

Site System

Environmental Protection

Role

Regulator Steward

Environmental Protection

EAC Focus

Strategic Direction• What specific steps can the DEQ take to

facilitate the transition?• Are there things that could be done to jump

start the transition?

EAC Focus

If that question is too broad:• What specific steps can the DEQ take to be

more effective in working with outside parties?

• What specific steps can the DEQ take to be a better communicator?