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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Division of Coastal and Ocean Management House Finance Subcommittee FY12 Overview February 22, 2011.
Advertisements

Water Law and Institutions – rights and binding agreements U.S. water rights traditionally based on common law: Riparian doctrine in East – land owners.
Protecting Michigans Water Resources James Clift, Michigan Environmental Council October 23, 2008.
What are TMDLs? and What Might They Mean to MS4 Permittees?
Annex 2001 Water Diversions, Withdrawals, and Uses Jon W. Allan Presented to the Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council 26, February 2004.
W ATER R ESOURCES P LANNING (ACT 220) and the S TATE W ATER P LAN.
Streambed Alteration Agreements. Notification Required F&GC § 1600  Notification is required for any project that will: –substantially divert or obstruct.
Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act Public Act Prohibitions and Enforcement Fracking Industry Seminar Rend Lake College July 30, 2013 LISA MADIGAN.
California Water: Current Issues and Impacts on Tribes Presented to California Indian Bar Association October 17, 2014 Heather Whiteman Runs Him Staff.
Governor’s State Water Law Review Committee Recommendations 1982: Implementation Update David G. Baize Bureau of Water.
0 James Kennedy, Ph.D., P.G. State Geologist Georgia Environmental Protection Division Georgia Comprehensive State-Wide Water Management Plan Assessment.
Recommendations for a Statewide Water Plan By: Ewan Hadgraft Alabama Rivers Alliance Birmingham-Southern College.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Water Availability, Water Use, and the Great Lakes Compact Jim Nicholas, Director USGS Water Science.
Data-Sharing and Governance Consultation ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES.
GAS DRILLING & HYDRAULIC FRACTURING In the Tidewater Region Photo credit: R.W. Dawson.
Area Commissions Purpose Area commissions are established to afford additional voluntary citizen participation in decision-making in an advisory.
The Compact  Legally enforceable contract among the Great Lakes States  Provided for in the U.S. Constitution  Ratification by State legislatures 
David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 26 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,
David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 18 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,
The Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Context within regional water policy discussions Context within regional water policy discussions –Aquatic ecosystems.
The New Water Use Requirements January, 2007 Lyndon Kelley- MSU Extension Water Quality Agent.
Sector Planning Process Alachua County Commission July 8 th,
IDEA 2004 Procedural Safeguards: Legal Rights and Options Mississippi Association of School Superintendent Spring, Mississippi Department of Education.
David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 15 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,
Marin County Watershed Stewardship Plan
Permits to Take Water: What you need to know.
AB490 + San Francisco County’s Interagency Agreement.
David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 35 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,
Rule 62-40, F.A.C. – What is it? The Water Resource Implementation Rule (State Water Policy). Required by Sec , F.S. Goals, objectives and guidance.
David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 10 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,
1 Overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  Objective: Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated Rulemaking Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated.
Water Supply Planning Initiative State Water Commission November 22, 2004.
Georgia’s Water Plan June 17, /09/08 Page 2 Agenda Plan Development Plan Overview.
Senate Enrolled Act No. 369 Update Indiana’s Water Shortage Plan.
Sylvia Heaton, Aquatic Biologist Water Division Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Applications of Pesticides to Surface Waters of the State.
Luke HeinsohnTim Werner. Code of Virginia: Article F “In addition to the preparation of plans called for in subsection A of this section, the.
1 Workshop on the Directive 96/61/EC concerning (IPPC) Integrated pollution prevention and control INFRA Public participation & access to environmental.
1 Influence of Main River Basin District Plans on Environment Czech University of Life Sciences Faculty of Environmental Sciences Miroslav Martis,Vladimir.
ENCOURAGING BEYOND COMPLIANCE BEHAVIOUR Presentation to the Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Roundtable Daniel Cayen Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
Photos: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation/ National Park Service SHENANDOAH VALLEY WATER RESOURCES STRATEGIC PLAN John Staelin, Chair,
David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 14 David P. Lusch, Ph.D. Distinguished Senior Research Specialist Michigan State University Dept. of Geography,
Rulemaking for Central Florida Coordination Area Coordinated Rulemaking by the South Florida, St. Johns River and Southwest Florida Water Management Districts.
Orange County Board of County Commissioners Update on USEPA Rulemaking for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Utilities Department January 26, 2010 Utilities Department.
Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council Final Report Recommendations and Observations February 21, 2006.
Interdistrict Transfers of Water and Local Sources First Land Resources and Regulatory Committee November 3, 2005 Land Resources and Regulatory Committee.
Preparing For Drought Alexander Hinz Daniel Rice Dorothy Young ________________ Water Supply Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2015 TCEQ.
Overview of the Current Threats and Water Protection Efforts in the Region Presented by Dr. Jon F. Bartholic, Director October 26-27, 2009 Pilot House,
Oregon Department of Transportation Stormwater Management Initiative: Meeting New Challenges Presented by: William Fletcher, ODOT February 5, 2008.
Policy for Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Coastal Streams Monitoring and Reporting Provisions for Water Rights Victoria Whitney Deputy.
Regional Water Availability Rulemaking Chip Merriam Water Resources Advisory Commission February 8, 2007 Chip Merriam Water Resources Advisory Commission.
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill 2003 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM.
1 Water Resources Management - DEQ’s Role in Water Supply - State Water Commission October 1, 2002.
Alabama Water Resources Association Geological Survey of Alabama
THE PROTOCOL ON WATER AND HEALTH: where health, environment and development policies meet.
Drinking Water Source Protection Ministry of the Environment Source Protection Programs Branch March 2010.
NESC – RCAP Smart Water Program August 4, 2008 Review of West Virginia’s Source Water Assessment and Protection Program A State Perspective A State Perspective.
Sonoma Valley Groundwater Management Planning. 2 Presentation Overview SCWA/USGS Groundwater Study Stakeholder Assessment Groundwater Management Work.
West Virginia Department of Education Introducing ……. Policy 2419: Regulations for the Education of Students with Exceptionalities.
Comparison of Proposals to Restructure Central Office Administration Owen Maurais Executive Director, PREP February 8, 2007.
High Altitude View of ACF Regional Water Plans.
C U S T O M E R D R I V E N. B U S I N E S S M I N D E D. Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs Bureau of Construction Codes Keith E. Lambert, P.S.,
HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Presentation John M. Carlock, AICP Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning Hampton Roads.
State Water Resources Plan October 28, Active monitoring and reporting of water resources Active SWCB Planning Efforts – Watershed plans.
Director’s Order 12 contains information concerning review of other agency proposals.
Growing Smarter Pennsylvania’s Land Use Agenda. Percent of Land Developed in Pennsylvania Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department.
United States 1 Election Assistance Commission 1 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Overview Standards Board Meeting Carlsbad, Ca – April.
Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water Update
Request for Approval of Cape Fear / Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Model
The Water Framework Directive: Challenges, Threats and Opportunities
Presentation transcript:

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 1 / 19 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 / 19 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 / 19 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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 4 / 19 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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 5 / 19 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. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 6 / 19 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. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 7 / 19 Impact criteria – one size does NOT fit all! Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Cold Trans. Cool Warm StreamsSmall RiversLarge Rivers Does not occur in Michigan Characteristic Thriving Proportional change in fish population Proportion of flow removed ABC D ARI

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 8 / 19 Impact criteria – Zones A, B, C or D Reduction ≥ 2216 ≤ Reduction < ≤ Reduction < 16 Reduction < 10 Large R. Reduction ≥ 1713 ≤ Reduction < 17 8 ≤ Reduction < 13 Reduction < 8 Sm. River Reduction ≥ 2418 ≤ Reduction < ≤ Reduction < 18 Reduction < 10 Stream Warm Reduction ≥ 2519 ≤ Reduction < ≤ Reduction < 19 Reduction < 14 Large R. Reduction ≥ 2519 ≤ Reduction < ≤ Reduction < 19 Reduction < 15 Sm. River Reduction ≥ 2515 ≤ Reduction < 25 6 ≤ Reduction < 15 Reduction < 6 Stream Cool Reduction ≥ 3 None Reduction < 3 None Large R. Reduction ≥ 2 None Reduction < 2 None Sm. River Reduction ≥ 4 None Reduction < 4 None Stream Cold Trans Reduction ≥ ≤ Reduction < 21 None Reduction < 10.5 Sm. River Reduction ≥ 2014 ≤ Reduction < 20 None Reduction < 14 Stream Cold Zone D (% Index Flow) Zone C (% Index Flow) Zone B (% Index Flow) Zone A (% Index Flow) SizeTemp Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 9 / 19 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management Zone A – OK to register Zone B – OK to register and DEQ must notify “interested parties” Zone C – effective , must have a site-specific review; if passed, DEQ must notify “interested parties” Zone D – ARI likely; effective , must have a site-specific review

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 10 / 19 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 all of the following that have requested an 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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 11 / 19 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. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 12 / 19 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. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 13 / 19 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. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 14 / 19 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 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 15 / 19 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. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 16 / 19 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. Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 17 / 19 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) Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 18 / 19 Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management 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, per day of violation. For all other violations of this part, a civil fine of not more than $1, 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.

David P. Lusch, Ph.D. 19 / 19 The next segment(s) – Groundwater & surface water resources of the regions Upper Peninsula Northern Lower Peninsula West-central & southwest Lower Peninsula Southeast Lower Peninsula Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process for Planning and Watershed Management