The document provides an overview of an integrated assessment being conducted on hydraulic fracturing in Michigan. It includes an agenda, background on the Graham Institute conducting the assessment, key points from technical reports produced, the guiding question and goals of the integrated assessment, participants in the assessment, potential policy topics to be examined, and the timeline for the assessment. The integrated assessment aims to analyze policy options for managing hydraulic fracturing through stakeholder engagement and by building on technical reports addressing topics like technology, environment, health and economics.

1. Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan
Integrated Assessment
Wolverine Caucus
January 21, 2014

2. • Brief Overview of the Graham Institute and the Integrated
Assessment Center
• A few key points about Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan
• The Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated
Assessment
• Questions and Discussion
Agenda
2

3. Vision: To foster sustainability on local-to-global scales by
solving systemic problems at the human-environment interface
that endanger ecosystems and the well-being of future
generations
 Institutional Leadership
 Transformative Education
 Translational Knowledge
3

4. Translational Knowledge
Vibrant collaborations among
academic, practitioner, and other
stakeholder communities to
advance sustainability scholarship and to influence
decisions that protect the environment and enhance
quality of life for present and future generations.
4
Graham Institute Integrated Assessment Center

5. U-M Ann Arbor
Campus Sustainability
Detroit
Sustainability Indicators & HOPE Village Initiative
Michigan
Hydraulic Fracturing
Great Lakes
Cities Adapting to Climate Change & Lake Levels (in development)
National
Sustainable Transportation
Global
Water and Health
Graham Institute Integrated Assessment Center
5

6. Stakeholder
Input
Technical
Assessments
Develop Tools and Information to Guide
Decisions
Identify and Evaluate Potential
Solutions
Clarify the Issue
(History, Causes and Consequences)
Define the Issue, Identify Challenges
Offer Direction
and Feedback
Provide
Background Data
Develop
Goals
Prioritize
Options
Develop New
Resources
Evaluate
Options
Conduct
Analyses
Gather
Data
Project
Overview
Policy Options
6

7. As identified by participants in previous assessments
• Generates reports and supporting data
• Modifies perspectives
• Creates new partnerships
• Changes processes
• Leverages resources
Lund, Katie, Keely Dinse, John Callewaert and Don Scavia (2011). “The Benefits of
Using Integrated Assessment to Address Sustainability Challenges.” Journal
of Environmental Studies and Science 11 November.
Benefits of Integrated Assessment
7

8. • Hydraulic Fracturing (HF) has been used in thousands
of wells in Michigan for decades
• 2003 State Review of Oil and Natural Gas
Environmental Regulations (not HF specific ) –
“MDEQ has a well-managed oil and gas
environmental regulatory program”
• Integrated Assessment developed to focus on High
Volume Hydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) but data and
analyses cover a range of activity depending on topic
or issue
• Limited HVHF activity in Michigan at present
• Broad range of perspectives on benefits/problems of
expanded natural gas use
Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan – Key Points

9. Michigan DEQ Proposed HVHF Rule Revisions
1. Water withdrawal assessment and monitoring
2. Water quality sampling
3. Monitoring and reporting
4. Chemical additive disclosure
Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan – Key Points
http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3306_57064---,00.html
9

10. Pathways to Dialogue: What the Experts Say about the
Environmental Risks of Shale Gas Development
215 experts who responded to the survey questions were
asked to choose from a total of 264 “risk pathways” that link
specific shale gas development activities—from site
development to well abandonment—to burdens such as air
pollution, noise, or groundwater contamination.
National focus involving Industry, Government, NGO and
Academia
http://www.rff.org/centers/energy_economics_and_policy/Pages/Shale_Gas.aspx
10
Resources for the Future Expert Survey

11. Of the 12 consensus risk pathways
that all of the expert groups most
frequently chose as priorities
• 7 involve potential risks to surface
water quality,
• 2 involve potential risks to air
quality,
• 2 involve potential risks to
groundwater quality, and
• 1 is related to habitat disruption.
• Only 2 are shale gas specific:
potential impact of fracturing fluids
on surface water during use and
storage/disposal
http://www.rff.org/centers/energy_economics_and_policy/Pages/Shale_Gas.aspx
11
Resources for the Future Expert Survey

12. Guiding Question
What are the best environmental, economic,
social, and technological approaches for
managing hydraulic fracturing in the
State of Michigan?
12
Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated
Assessment

13. INTEGRATION TEAM
(Graham Institute,
Energy Institute, Erb
Institute, Risk
Science Center)
Assignments
Final
Report
Report
Sections
STAKE-
HOLDERS
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
(external and
U-M members)
Integrated Assessment Report Team
(Graham Staff, U-M Faculty, U-M Students)
Stakeholder
Perspectives
Engagement
Input
Public Comment
Website, Events
Guidance
Consultation
Ongoing
Meetings
13
Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan Integrated
Assessment

14. • Maggie Allan, Integrated Assessment Specialist, U-M Graham Sustainability Institute
• Mark Barteau, Director, U-M Energy Institute
• Valerie Brader, Senior Strategy Officer, Office of Strategic Policy, State of Michigan
• John Callewaert, Integrated Assessment Progr. Dir., U-M Graham Sustainability Institute
• James Clift, Policy Director, Michigan Environmental Council
• John De Vries, Attorney, Mika Meyers Beckett & Jones; Michigan Oil and Gas Association
• Hal Fitch, Director of Oil, Gas, and Minerals, Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
• Gregory Fogle, Owner, Old Mission Energy; Michigan Oil and Gas Association
• James Goodheart, Senior Policy Advisor, Michigan Depart. of Environmental Quality
• Andy Hoffman, Director, U-M Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise
• Drew Horning, Deputy Director, U-M Graham Sustainability Institute
• Andrew Maynard, Director, U-M Risk Science Center
• Tammy Newcomb, Senior Water Policy Advisor, Michigan Depart. of Natural Resources
• Don Scavia, Director, U-M Graham Sustainability Institute
• Tracy Swinburn, Managing Director, U-M Risk Science Center
• Grenetta Thomassey, Program Director, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
• John Wilson, Consultant, U-M Energy Institute
Integrated Assessment Advisory Committee
14

15. Technical Reports - The first phase of the project involved the
preparation of technical reports on key topics related to hydraulic
fracturing
Objective: To provide a foundation of information for decision makers and
stakeholders, and later policy analysis.
• Technology
• Geology/hydrogeology
• Human Health
• Environment/ecology
• Policy/law
• Economics
• Social/public perceptions
Technical Reports (Phase 1 – Last Year)
15

16. Technical Report Author(s)
Technology
Johannes Schwank
John Wilson
Chemical Engineering
Energy Institute
Geology/
Hydrogeology
Brian Ellis Civil and Environmental Engineering
Environment/
Ecology
Allen Burton
Knute Nadelhoffer
School of Natural Resources & Environment
Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
Human Health Nil Basu School of Public Health (now at McGill University)
Policy/Law Sara Gosman Law School
Economics Roland Zullo
Institute for Research on Labor, Employment & the
Economy
Social/Public
Perceptions
Andy Hoffman
Kim Wolske
Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise
16
Technical Report Lead Authors

17. Technology. Considerable reserves of natural gas are believed to
exist in deep shale formations such as the Utica-Collingwood. In view
of the current low price of natural gas and the high cost of drilling deep
shale formations it is not clear how much growth will occur in the gas
industry in Michigan in the near-term future.
Geology/hydrogeology. A recent flurry of mineral rights acquisitions
in the state associated with exploratory drilling suggests the potential
for growth in natural gas production through high-volume hydraulic
fracturing, though only a handful of such wells have been drilled to
date.
Environment/ecology. Potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on
the environment are significant and include increased erosion and
sedimentation, increased risk of aquatic contamination from chemical
spills or equipment runoff, habitat fragmentation and resulting impacts
on aquatic and terrestrial organisms, loss of stream riparian zones,
and reduction of surface waters available to plants and animals due to
the lowering of groundwater levels.
Some Key Points from the Technical Reports
17

18. Public health. Possible hazards in the surrounding environment
include impaired local and regional air quality, water pollution and
degradation of ecosystems. Possible hazards in nearby communities
include increased traffic and motor vehicle accidents, stress related to
risk perception among residents, and boomtown-associated effects
such as a strained healthcare system and road degradation.
Policy/law. The state is the primary source of law and policy
governing hydraulic fracturing in Michigan. The operator of a high-
volume hydraulically fractured well must disclose the hazardous
constituents of chemical additives to the state Department of
Environmental Quality for each additive within 60 days of well
completion. Unlike some other states, DEQ does not require operators
to report to FracFocus.org, a nationwide chemical disclosure registry.
Some Key Points from the Technical Reports
18

19. Economics. The gas extraction industry creates employment and
income for Michigan, but the employment effects are modest
compared with other industries and not large enough to “make or
break” the state’s economy. In the future, the number of technical jobs
in the industry will likely increase, while less-skilled laborer positions
will decline.
Public perceptions. A slight majority of Michigan residents believe
the benefits of fracking outweigh the risks, but significant concerns
remain about the potential impacts to human health and the
environment and the social costs to communities. Differences in how
the public, industry, and regulatory agencies view the word “fracking” –
as either the entirety of the natural gas development process or only
the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids – can lead to
miscommunications that increase mistrust among stakeholders.
Some Key Points from the Technical Reports
19

20. Integrated Assessment - The IA will build from the technical reports,
focusing on an analysis of strategic policy options regarding
hydraulic fracturing in Michigan.
The IA will likely be formed around topics identified in the technical
reports. Key aspects of the IA that will distinguish it from the technical
reports include:
• Focus on the identification and analysis of key strategies and policy
options,
• Collaboration and coordination among researchers to identify
common themes and strategies,
• Regular engagement with decision makers, and
• Robust stakeholder engagement process to inform the IA.
Integrated Assessment (Phase 2 – This Year)
20

21. Integrated Assessment Report Team
Researcher Expertise U-M Unit
Diana Bowman
Risk science &
health policy
School of Public Health; Risk Science Center
and Department of Health Management and
Policy
Brian Ellis Geology
College of Engineering; Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Sara Gosman Law Law School
Johannes Schwank Technology Chemical Engineering
Ryan Kellogg Economics
College of Literature, Science, and the Arts;
Department of Economics
Eric Kort Atmospheric science
College of Engineering; Department of
Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences
Shaw Lacy Environment/water Graham Sustainability Institute
John Meeker
Ryan Lewis
Environmental health
School of Public Health; Department of
Environmental Health Sciences
Kim Wolske
Risk communication
& engagement
School of Natural Resources and Environment
and the Ross School of Business; Erb Institute
21

22. Draft Plans and Policy Topics for the
Integrated Assessment
Chemical
disclosure
Chemical Use, Methane & Other Exposure
Environmental
health & safety
Engineering &
environmental
practices
Water Withdrawal & Waste Management
Water Withdrawal
Assessment Tool
Reuse
Waste & waste
management
State & local level data,
budgeting, revenue
Zoning controls
& land use
Impact assessments /
development plans
Public lands
leasing
Planning & Preparedness
Emergency
preparedness
Before
Activity
Contamination & Response
Liability & remediation Bonding & orphan wells
After
Activity
During
Activity
Cross-Cutting
Agency capacity
Additional
studies
Ban /
moratorium
Baseline data /
monitoring
Leases
Public
participation &
information
Policy Topics Working List - Key themes from the technical reports and public
comments
22

23. Timeline for the Integrated Assessment
Timeline Action/Deliverable
October ‐ December 2013 Develop IA Plan
December 2013 ‐ March 2014 Draft IA Report
April 2014
Advisory Committee Review of Draft IA
Report
Spring 2014 30 Day Public Comment Period
Summer 2014
Peer Review of Draft IA and Public
Comments
Fall 2014 Revise, Finalize, and Release IA Report
23

24. Questions & Discussion
jcallew@umich.edu
http://graham.umich.edu/knowledge/ia/hydraulic-fracturing
24