David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 35 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography, Remote Sensing & GIS Research and Outreach Services Group Institute of Water Research Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process and Using the WWA Tool for Planning and Watershed Management and

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 2 / 35 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 for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 3 / 35 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. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 4 / 35 Jon Allan Consumers Energy Company Representing: Utilities Sumedh Bahl City of Ann Arbor Manager Representing: Municipal Water Suppliers Bryan A. Burroughs, PhD Executive Director MI Council of Trout Unlimited Representing: Conservation Organization James Clift (Chairperson) MI Environmental Council Representing: Environmental Organization Jon Coleman Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Representing: General Public Frank D. Ettawageshik Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Representing: Native Tribes Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management W R C A C 1 / 4

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 5 / 35 Michael R. Gregg MI Deptartment of Agriculture Representing: Michigan Department of Agriculture Craig Hoffman The Rock (golf course) on Drummond Island Representing: Non-Agricultural Irrigator Jo A. Latimore, Ph.D. MSU, Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife Representing: Riparian Organization Mark E. Lemons Pfizer Global Manufacturing, Kalamazoo Representing: Business and Manufacturing Peter Manning MI Office of Attorney General Representing: Michigan Office of Attorney General Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management W R C A C 2 / 4

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 6 / 35 Timothy Neumann MI Rural Water Association Representing: Local Units of Government Michael Newman Michigan Aggregates Association Representing: Aggregates Industry Scott Piggott Michigan Farm Bureau Representing: Agricultural Organization Frank Ruswick Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Representing: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Paul Seelbach, Ph.D. MDNR Institute for Fisheries Research Representing: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management W R C A C 3 / 4

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 7 / 35 Richard Slevatz Earl Sanders & Son, Lawton, MI Representing: Well Drillers Patricia Soranno, Ph.D. MSU, Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife Representing: Limnology Science Bob Walther Walther Farms, Clio, MI Representing: Agricultural Interests Samuel Wendling Community Development Director, Muskegon County Representing: Tourism Organization Paul Zugger Michigan United Conservation Clubs Representing: Anglers Organization Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management W R C A C 4 / 4

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 8 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council –Will periodically provide recommendations regarding current and future state programs and legislation to state leadership. – Commissions, Boards and Committees Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 9 / 35 Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council –Immediate tasks include: 1.Evaluation of the new Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool 2.Evaluation of the overall Water Withdrawal Assessment Process 3.Recommendations for inclusion of Great Lakes, inland lakes, and other waters into the process 4.Examining any potential legal conflicts within the process 5.Recommendations for a new state water conservation and efficiency program. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 10 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management 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.

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 11 / 35 Water Withdrawal Assessment Process – Screening Tool (self assessment) – Site-Specific Review (MDEQ assessment) Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 12 / 35 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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 13 / 35 Stream-flow Estimation –Used streamflow data from the USGS network of continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations operated in Michigan. –Station selection criteria: At least10 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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 14 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 15 / 35 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) Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 16 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Stream-flow Estimation

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 17 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Stream-flow Estimation Hydrologic Soil Groups estimate soil runoff potential. Group A soils generally have the smallest runoff potential, while Group D soils have the greatest.

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 18 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Stream-flow Estimation

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 19 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Stream-flow Estimation 147 observation points Flow estimates for 5,418 stream segments

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 20 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Stream-flow Estimation overestimate underestimate 1.5 cfs gpm 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 only 10% 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

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 21 / 35 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. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 22 / 35 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. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 23 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management 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)

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 24 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management –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

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 25 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Modeling Fish Species Distribution

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 26 / 35 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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 27 / 35 River Systems by Temperature Cold –Streams and small rivers – no large rivers –Summer water temp sustains cold-water fish –Average July water temperature < 19 o 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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 28 / 35 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 19 o - <22 o C Warm –Streams, small rivers and large rivers –Summer water temp sustains warm-water fish –Average July water temperature  22 o C Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 29 / 35 Cool stream Cool small river Cool large river Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 30 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 31 / 35 Withdrawal Impacts on Fish Baseline or existing condition Proportion of flow removed Proportional change in fish population Some replacement of sensitive species Minor changes in fish populations Notable replacement by tolerant species Tolerant species dominant; ecological functions altered Severe alteration of ecological structure and function Thriving species Characteristic species Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 32 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Modeling groundwater – surface water interactions – Three aquifer properties are used by the groundwater model  aquifer transmissivity  streambed conductance  aquifer storage coefficient

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 33 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Modeling groundwater – surface water interactions 50 gpm 250 gpm 300 gpm 7000 gpm

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 34 / 35 Water Withdrawal Assessment Screening Tool Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management 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

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 35 / 35 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management The next segment – Adverse resource impact criteria