Integrated use of numerical models to support water resources decision making in Michigan Thankful to Great Lakes Protection Fund who provided us the opportunity, environment and funding to carry out this research

Michigan’s Water Use Bill February 28, 2006 Gov. Granholm, joined by PIRGIM (U.S. PIRG's Michigan chapter) and other members of Michigan’s environmental community, signed a landmark package of water-use bills, bringing long overdue protections to Michigan’s waters On February 28, 2006, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed a landmark package of water-use bills. Some of the significant protections it includes are:

Some water protection clauses from the Final Bill An immediate prohibition against new large-scale water withdrawals that cause adverse resource impacts to trout streams. … A permit requirement for new large-scale water withdrawals … a requirement that the projects include plans to remedy any measurable impacts On February 28, 2006, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed a landmark package of water-use bills. Some of the significant protections it includes are: Explain the highlighted phrases and link to ‘integrated work’

Policy Framework How landuse is modified by a project? What are the landuse impacts on surface hydrology? How surface hydrology and groundwater extraction impacts the subsurface hydrology? What changes will take place in a groundwater dependent ecosystem due to modified subsurface hydrology? What will be the impact of these changes on characteristic trout population? How much impact on trout is acceptable? adverse resource impacts on trout streams How a proposed project will affect the ecology of a trout stream? Analyze permit requirements Policy Framework Integrated Science Questions Integrated Modeling Approach Adverse impacts on trout streams can be QUANTIFED and remedial plans can be EVALUATED by answering a suite of integrated science questions. The anwers to the questions, blended with Policy Framework to resolve the permit requirements. How a remedy plan will mitigate the impacts of a proposed project on the ecology of a trout stream? Evaluate plans to remedy any measurable impacts

AIM To develop an assessment tool, based on integrated models, that can be used to facilitate water resource related decision making in Michigan

Current Project Approvals Hydrograph With remediation Without remediation Natural Project approvals in Michigan take care of: Water Volumes (flood peaks, min/max flow rates etc) Water Quality (suspended and dissolved materials) What’s not currently incorporated in the process: Water temperature – VITAL for SURVIVAL of TROUT

Frame work of our Problem Policy Decision Project: Land-use Change H2O Extraction Δ (Characteristic Fish Population) Integrated Models

(3D, GIS-enabled Numerical model) (Lumped Parameter Model) SOIL AND WATER ANALYSIS TOOL (Analytical model) INTERACTIVE GROUNDWATER (3D, GIS-enabled Numerical model) STREAM TEMPERATURE MODEL (Lumped Parameter Model) AQUATIC ECOLOGY MODEL (Statistical Model) IGW SWAT STEM AEM

IGW SWAT STEM AEM GW Project Extraction Design GWIM Rates Data Land-use Change IGW Recharge Rates Soil Data SWAT Δ (Baseflow) GW & stream Temperature Data STEM Δ (Characteristic Fish Population) Δ (Stream Temperature) AEM

Part II CASE STUDY

Basis for case study Trout population as proxy for environmental health Trout survival – as a function of stream water temperature

Conceptual Setting 10˚C ~ 11˚C Graphics: Hassan Abbas Photo Source: www.dnr.state.il.us Graphics: Hassan Abbas 10˚C ~ 11˚C

Q Q Graphics: Hassan Abbas

Baseflow Change

STEM – Using Energy Balance External Energy EN Upstream Energy MOKO Downstream Energy MFKF Energy in Stream Arc GW Energy MGKG

Temperature Change ∆(Temperature) °C

Locating Sensitive Areas Assessing a 700gpm Well for all locations in the study area Well Location ∆ (b-flow) cfs ∆ (Temp) °C Loc 1 -0.112 +0.18 Loc 2 -0.131 +0.21 Loc 3 -0.129 +0.20 Loc 4 -0.149 +0.23 Loc 5 -0.430 +0.77 . . . Loc n -0.458 +0.82

Sensitivity Maps for 700gpm Well placed at different locations Baseflow Response Temperature Response

Assessing Landuse Options ∆ (Temp) °C Corn to brome grass -0.28 Rangeland to forest -0.31 Forest to pasture -1.01 Pasture to alfalfa -0.43 Etc. -0.17 . . Etc. -0.02

Locating Sensitive Areas Assessing a 700gpm Well for all locations in the study area Well Location ∆ (b-flow) cfs ∆ (Temp) °C Loc 1 -0.112 +0.18 Loc 2 -0.131 +0.21 Loc 3 -0.129 +0.20 Loc 4 -0.149 +0.23 Loc 5 -0.430 +0.77 . . . Loc n -0.458 +0.82

Table: Evaluating Management Options Wells Land-use Change Loc 1 Loc 2 … Loc n +3°C +2°C +1°C Forest to pasture -2°C +1 -1 Pasture to alfalfa -1°C +2 Corn to Bromegrass -3°C -2

Part IV Summary & Conclusions

Summary & Conclusions In this preliminary work - with relevance to policy – dealing with the integrated science questions, we provide: an analysis tool a sensitivity map reference table Integration of hydrology, hydrogeology and ecology in policy/management framework –highlights the need for: Data requirements for developing integrated models (e.g. stream temperature) Data requirements for validation of integrated modeling results

…. summary/conclusions Potential for statewide implications: IGW – GIS enabled, can directly link with state wide GWIM and Wellogic databases SWAT – statewide mode, also uses GWIM AEM – Statistical model based on statewide data on trout streams Deterministic frame work at present. Possible improvement when uncertainty is also evaluated

Thanks! abbashas@msu.edu