Upload
conrad-potter
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
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
2 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•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
3 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
4 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
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
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
W R
C
A
C
1 / 4
5 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
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
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
W R
C
A
C
2 / 4
6 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
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
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
W R
C
A
C
3 / 4
7 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
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
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
W R
C
A
C
4 / 4
8 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
•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
9 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
• 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.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
10 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor 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.
11 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•Water Withdrawal Assessment Process
– Screening Tool (self assessment)
– Site-Specific Review (MDEQ assessment)
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
12 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
13 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•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
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
14 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
15 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
16 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
•Stream-flow Estimation
17 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor 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.
18 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
•Stream-flow Estimation
19 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
•Stream-flow Estimation
147 observation points
Flow estimates for5,418 stream
segments
20 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
•Stream-flow Estimation
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
21 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
• 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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
22 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
• 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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
23 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor 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)
24 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor 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
25 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
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
26 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
27 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•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
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
28 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•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
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
29 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
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
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
30 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
31 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•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
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
32 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor 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
33 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
• Modeling groundwater – surface water interactions
50 gpm250 gpm
300 gpm
7000 gpm
34 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
•Water Withdrawal Assessment Screening Tool
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor 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
35 / 35David P. Lusch, Ph.D.
Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Managementfor Planning and Watershed Management
• The next segment– Adverse resource impact criteria