David P. Lusch, Ph.D. [email protected] 1 / 19 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,

1 / 19David 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 use legislation in 2008– Amended Part 327, PA 451 of 1994

– LQW management provisions

• ARI Standard Re-defined

• Zone Concept Introduced

• Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Established

• Provides for Site-Specific Reviews



[email protected]

•Adverse Resource Impact– Beginning February 1, 2009, ARI =

decreasing the flow of a river or stream by a specified part of the index flow so that its ability to support characteristic fish populations is functionally impaired, or

– decreasing the flow of a stream or river by more than 25% of its index flow.

– These are both quantitative standards



[email protected]

•Adverse Resource Impact– Decreasing the level of a lake or pond 5

acres or more in extent through a direct withdrawal … in a manner that would impair or destroy the lake or pond or the uses made of [it], including the ability of the lake or pond to support characteristic fish populations, … does not include a retention pond or other artificially created surface water body.

– This is a qualitative standard.



[email protected]

• Characteristic Fish Populations

–One or more fish species, including thriving fish, that are typically found at high densities in an aquatic system.

• Thriving Fish Population–One or more fish species that are

expected to flourish and are typically found at very high densities in an aquatic system.



[email protected]

•Impact criteria – one size does NOT fit all!


Cold

ColdTrans.

Cool

Warm

Streams Small Rivers Large Rivers

Does not occur in Michigan

Characteristic

Thriving

Pro

port

ion

al ch

an

ge

in fi

sh

pop

ula

tion

Proportion of flow removed

A B C D

ARI


[email protected]

•Impact criteria – Zones A, B, C or D

Reduction ≥ 2216 ≤ Reduction < 2210 ≤ Reduction < 16Reduction < 10Large R.

Reduction ≥ 1713 ≤ Reduction < 178 ≤ Reduction < 13Reduction < 8Sm. River

Reduction ≥ 2418 ≤ Reduction < 2410 ≤ Reduction < 18Reduction < 10Stream

Warm

Reduction ≥ 2519 ≤ Reduction < 2514 ≤ Reduction < 19Reduction < 14Large R.

Reduction ≥ 2519 ≤ Reduction < 2515 ≤ Reduction < 19Reduction < 15Sm. River

Reduction ≥ 2515 ≤ Reduction < 256 ≤ Reduction < 15Reduction < 6Stream

Cool

Reduction ≥ 3NoneReduction < 3NoneLarge R.

Reduction ≥ 2NoneReduction < 2NoneSm. River

Reduction ≥ 4NoneReduction < 4NoneStream

Cold Trans

Reduction ≥ 2110.5 ≤ Reduction < 21NoneReduction < 10.5Sm. River

Reduction ≥ 2014 ≤ Reduction < 20NoneReduction < 14StreamCold

Zone D(% Index Flow)

Zone C(% Index Flow)

Zone BZone B(% Index Flow)

Zone A(% Index Flow)

SizeTemp



[email protected]


• Zone A – OK to register

• Zone B – OK to register and DEQ must notify “interested parties”

• Zone C – effective 7-1-09, must have a site-specific review; if passed, DEQ must notify “interested parties”

• Zone D – ARI likely; effective 7-1-09, must have a site-specific review


[email protected]

• MDEQ required notifications – If the MDEQ receives a registration or issues a

permit for a zone B or zone C withdrawal, it shall place a notice on the department's website and notify by e-mail all of the following that have requested an e-mail notification:

• Conservation districts• Regional planning agencies• Watershed management planning committees• Storm water committees established under part 31• Chief elected officials of local units of government• Community supplies owned by political subdivisions• All Water Users Committees in the vicinity



[email protected]

• Water users committees

– All persons making LQWs within a watershed are encouraged to establish a water users committee to evaluate the status of current water resources, water use, and trends in water use within the watershed and to assist in long-term water resources planning.

– A water users committee may be composed of all registrants, permit holders, and local government officials within the watershed.



[email protected]

• Water users committees

– Upon establishment of a water users committee, a participating local government official may create an ad hoc subcommittee of residents of that local unit of government to provide that local government official with information and advice on water resources, water use, and trends in water use within the local unit of government.



[email protected]

• Water resources assessment and education committees

– The notified entities may form a water resources assessment and education committee in order to:

• assess trends in water use in the vicinity of the withdrawal

• educate water users

– The MDEQ shall assist in the formation of water resources assessment and education committees and may provide them with technical information regarding water use and capacity within their vicinity, aggregated at the stream reach level.



[email protected]

• Water resources assessment and education committees

– Committee meetings shall be open to the general public.

– Water resources assessment and education committees may provide educational materials and recommendations regarding any of the following:

• Long-term water resources planning• Use of conservation measures• Drought management activities• Other topics related to water use as identified by the

committee



[email protected]

• Regulatory “teeth”

– If the MDEQ determines by reasonable, scientifically-based evidence that ARIs are occurring or are likely to occur from one or more LQWs, they shall:

• notify the water users committee in the watershed, or

• convene a meeting of all registrants and permit holders within the watershed

– MDEQ shall attempt to facilitate an agreement on voluntary measures that would prevent adverse resource impacts.



[email protected]

• Regulatory “teeth”

– If after 30 days the registrants and permit holders are not able to voluntarily agree to measures that would prevent adverse resource impacts, the MDEQ may propose a solution that the department believes would equitably resolve the situation and prevent adverse resource impacts.

– The recommended solution is not binding on any of the parties.



[email protected]

• Regulatory “teeth” – The Director of the MDEQ may order permit holders to

immediately restrict their withdrawals (for up to 60 continuous days) if the MDEQ determines by clear and convincing scientific evidence that there is a substantial and imminent threat that these withdrawals are causing or are likely to cause an adverse resource impact.

– Permit holders include:

• New or increased LQW 2 million gpd (1,389 gpm)

• New or increased LQW 1 million gpd (694 gpm) that a site-specific review determined is a zone C withdrawal

• LQWs holding a permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act (PA 399, 1976)



[email protected]


• Regulatory “teeth” - Civil Actions– Effective Oct. 7, 2008, the MDEQ may request the AG to

commence a civil action for a violation under this part, including falsifying a record submitted under this part.

– The court of jurisdiction may restrain the violation and require compliance. It may also impose a civil fine:

• For a person who knowingly causes an ARI with a LQW, a civil fine of not more than $10,000.00 per day of violation.

• For all other violations of this part, a civil fine of not more than $1,000.00.

• In addition, the AG may file suit to recover the full value of the costs of surveillance and enforcement by the state resulting from the violation.


[email protected]

•The next segment(s)– Groundwater & surface water

resources of the regions

• Upper Peninsula

• Northern Lower Peninsula

• West-central & southwest Lower Peninsula

• Southeast Lower Peninsula


David P. Lusch, Ph.D. [email protected] 1 / 19 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,

Documents