 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michi State
Univemty

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE INFLUENCE OF GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL ON
AVAILABLE BROOK CHARR (SALVELINUS FONT/NALIS)
THERMAL HABITAT IN TWIN AND CHIPPEWA CREEK;

OSCEOLA COUNTL MICHIGAN

presented by

Kerryann Elizabeth Waco

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

Mﬂ/ayé/

Major Professor’ 5 Si

%j W

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProjIAcc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

 

THE INFLUENCE OF GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL ON AVAILABLE
BROOK CHARR (SAL VELINUS FONTINALIS) THERMAL HABITAT IN TWIN AND
CHIPPEWA CREEKS, OSCEOLA COUNTY, MICHIGAN
By

Kerryann Elizabeth Waco

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial ﬁilﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTERS OF SCIENCE
Fisheries and Wildlife

2009

ABSTRACT
THE INFLUENCE OF GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL ON AVAILABLE
BROOK CHARR (SAL VELINUS FONTINALIS) THERMAL HABITAT IN TWIN AND
CHIPPEWA CREEKS, OSCEOLA COUNTY, MICHIGAN
By

Kerryann Elizabeth Waco

In Michigan, groundwater—dominated streams are currently being impacted by increased
groundwater withdrawal and land use/land cover changes which alter stream
temperatures and their ﬂow, having the potential to signiﬁcantly inﬂuence brook charr
production and behavior. The goal of this study was to quantify the inﬂuence of
groundwater withdrawal and land cover alteration on thermal habitat availability for
brook charr using a groundwater modeling tool that predicted the changes in baseﬂow
due to (l) groundwater withdrawal and (2) changes in rates of recharge due to alteration
of land cover, which would result in a change in stream temperatures. Projected stream
temperature changes were calculated using a stream temperature modeling tool and
compared to the range of temperature preferenda for brook charr in order to evaluate the
potential impact of policy decisions regarding water extraction and land use/cover
changes. The models predicted relatively small changes in both stream baseﬂow and
consequently, stream temperature, with increased groundwater withdrawal rates. Land
use/land cover alterations which we analyzed were shown to either mitigate or enhance
the loss of brook charr thermal habitat as a result of groundwater withdrawal. This study
emphasizes the importance of collaboration between water, land and ﬁsheries managers
to ensure brook charr viability, productivity and sustainability in the face of

environmental change, increasing water use and development in the watershed.

DEDICATION

To my Parents
For your support and advice
And
To Ben

I could not do this without you.

iii

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank Dr. William Taylor for his mentoring and
support, the numerous opportunities to learn, for pushing me to excel and for his
friendship. I would like to acknowledge Malcolm Pimie Inc. for providing the data for
this study and Nestlés Waters North America for supporting this research, the staff and
lab of Dr. Shu-Guang Li at Michigan State University, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering for their help with the groundwater modeling component of
this study, with a special thanks and much gratitude to Mr. Hassan Abbas. I appreciate
the help of Dr. Bill Northcott, Michigan State University, Biosystems and Agricultural
Engineering, Dr. Dana Infante and Dr. Joan Rose, Michigan State University Department
of Fisheries and Wildlife. Dr. Charlie Andrews, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.,
Robert Goodwin and Nick Weil, Michigan State University Remote Sensing & GIS
Research and Outreach Services, Department of Geography. I appreciate the funding
from the George L. Disborough Grant awarded by the Kalamazoo Chapter of Trout
Unlimited, Michigan. I thank the Schrems West Michigan Chapter of Trout Unlimited
for supporting this research. I’d also like to thank Betsy Puchala for helping keep me
organized. I’d also like to thank the following people for their support throughout this
entire project: Abigail Schroeder, Nancy Leonard, Cecilia Lewis, Abigail Lynch, Dr. Jack
Liu and the entire CSIS/Liu family, Evelyn Taylor, Dr. Norm Graham, Dr. Douglas
Beard, my family and ﬁ'iends in the United States and abroad and to my best ﬁiend and

companion for life, Benjamin Weaver.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. vii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
Thermal habitat and brook charr ................................................................. l
Hydrologic processes: Groundwater and surface water interaction ....................... 2
Land use/land cover .............................................................................. 4
Groundwater policy ................................................................................ 7
Goals ................................................................................................. 9
Study area .......................................................................................... 9
METHODS ............................................................................................ 8
Groundwater system characterization ........................................................... 8
Land use/land cover alteration ................................................................. l4
Stream temperature ............................................................................ 16
RESULTS ............................................................................................. 19
Baseﬂow ......................................................................................... l9
Stream temperature ............................................................................. 20
Land use/land cover alteration ................................................................ 21
Brook charr temperature preferenda ......................................................... 23
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 24
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................. 46

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Input parameters and source data for Interactive Groundwater ..................... 31

Table 2 Recharge rates for land use/land cover types within the watershed from the soil
and water assessment tool32

Table 3 Stream Segment Temperature Model (SSTEMP) model parameters .............. 33

Table 4 Initial baseﬂow measures and percent change in baseﬂow at withdrawal rates of
70, 150, 400, 700, 1000, and 2000gpm for Twin and Chippewa Creeks... 34

Table 5 Stream temperature change at withdrawal rates of 70, 150, 400, 700, 1000, and
2000gpm given 2005 land use/land cover in July and August ................................ 35

Table 6 Land use/land cover alteration impact on the midstream reach of Twin Creek
when land cover is changed from grassland to urban and from forest to shrub land under
withdrawal rates of 150 gpm, 700 gpm and 1000 gpm ......................................... 36

Table 7 Land use/land cover alteration impact on the upper reach of Twin Creek when
land cover is changed ﬁ'om grassland to urban and from forest to shrub land under
withdrawal rates of 150 gpm, 400 gpm and 1000 gpm ......................................... 37

Table 8 Land use/land cover alteration impact on the upstream reach of Chippewa Creek

when land cover is changed from crOpland to grassland and from forest to shrub land
under withdrawal rates of 150 gpm, 400 gpm and 1000 gpm ................................. 38

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l Gradient of temperature preferenda for brook charr (Salvelinus
fontinalis) ............................................................................................. 39

Figure 2 Schematic describing linkages between land cover alteration, groundwater
production, stream temperatures and brook charr ............................................... 40

Figure 3 Study area; Twin and Chippewa Creek Watersheds, located within the
Muskegon River Watershed, Michigan, USA .................................................. 41

Figure 4 Stream reaches modeled in SSTEMP ................................................. 42

Figure 5 Change in baseﬂow for each sampled stream segment in Twin and Chippewa
Creeks at groundwater withdrawals of 70, 150, 400, 700, 1000, 2000 gpm. ...............43

Figure 6 Land cover alteration scenarios impact on stream temperature in the Twin and
Chippewa Creek study stream segments. Alteration scenarios are as follows: forest to
pasture (approximately 3.33 kmz; 10% of total forest), grassland to urban (approximately
1.7 kmz; 30% of total grassland), agriculture to grassland (ap roximately 2 kmz; 40% of
total cropland), forest to shrub land (approximately 6.65 km ; 15% of total

forest) ................................................................................................. 44

Figure 7 Mean monthly stream temperatures for Twin and Chippewa Creek stream
reaches in July and August (A) and the required change in mean monthly stream
temperature (°C) to exceed both optimal range (right) and upper lethal limit (253°C)
(left) for brook charr (B) in relationship to the thermal gradient established for brook
charr ................................................................................................... 45

vii

INTRODUCTION
Altered stream thermal habitat can contribute to impairment of the physical,
chemical and biological processes occurring in aquatic ecosystems (N aiman et al., 1995)
as stream temperature is one of the most important environmental factors affecting the
physiology, life-history and evolution of stream biota (Wehrly et al., 1998; Allan &
Castillo, 2007). As ﬁsh are poikilotherrnic, it is largely their environment that controls
their body temperature; thus regulating their production and behavior (Fry, 1971). Fish

are most productive when they live in thermal ranges that are conducive to growth and

r1

survival, and ﬂuctuations outside of these temperatures may affect their productivity and
movement (Fry, 1971). Thus, stream temperature is a key factor limiting brook charr
distribution and production (McCormick et al., 1972). Temperatures approaching the
lethal thermal level of a ﬁsh can result in increased metabolic rates which result in
increased food demand, reduction in growth rate due to increased energy needs, and/or an
increase in the incidence of disease (Fry, 1971).
Thermal habitat and brook charr

Brook charr(Salve1inusf0ntina/is) are ﬁshes in the genus Salvelinus which are a
coldwater salmonid species ranging from Newfoundland and Labrador, west to the Great
Lakes basin, and south through the Appalachian Mountains (Balon, 1980; Power, 1980;
Behnke, 2002). In Michigan, they are a socially and ecologically important species of
ﬁsh. Brook charr are separated into two principal life history forms, one that is relatively
short lived, living approximately 3-5 years, relatively small in size (200-250mm) and
typical to smaller coldwater streams and lakes in areas south of the Great Lakes region.

The other life history form is a much larger, late maturing, longer lived fish (referred to

as “coaster” brook chart) that persists between 8-10 years in age, gets to weights of 4-6
kg and inhabits large lakes, rivers and estuaries (Power, 1980; Raleigh, 1982). Brook
charr spawn in the fall from October through November in rifﬂes containing gravel and
prefer to spawn in areas of groundwater inﬂow, or seeps, in streams (Powers 1980,
Benson 1953). The summer months are a critical time period for charr growth and stream
characteristics in Michigan, such as low ﬂow and high temperatures, can limit trout
abundance (Bowlby and Roff 1986). In a study of three Michigan streams, most age 1

brook charr grth occurs in the months of March through June with very little grth

F."

occurring from July to September because of increased stream temperatures (>1 9°C)
during those times (Copper 1953).

Brook charr exhibit optimal thermal ranges for growth for all life stages between
12 tol9°C (Fry, 1946; McCormick et al., 1972; Cherry et al., 1977) (Figure 1). In
Michigan, Wehrly et al. (2003) found the highest brook charr densities in streams during
the summer (July) at temperatures between 15 to 19°C. Requirements for brook charr
persistence and productivity in Michigan have been demonstrated to be directly linked to
relatively stable stream ﬂows and cold temperatures (Wiley & Seelbach, 1997); both
conditions of which are determined by the dynamics of the hydrologic cycle and the
geologic composition of the watershed and its land cover.
Hydrologic processes: Groundwater and surface water interactions

The hydrologic cycle includes the processes and pathways that are responsible for
the movement of water on, above, and below the earth’s surface (Brooks et al., 2003).
These processes and pathways include evaporation and transpiration of water from the

earth’s surface into the atmosphere, precipitation from the atmosphere, inﬁltration of this

precipitation into the groundwater aquifer, runoff of precipitation into surface water, and
groundwater input into the surrounding rivers, lakes and oceans (Brooks et al., 2003;
Davie, 2003). The hydrologic cycle can be expressed in this basic equation:

I - O = S Eq. 1
where I = inputs, 0 = outputs and S = storage. Representation of the hydrologic cycle in
this manner is a key concept in hydrology. Determining the inﬂuence of each process
and pathway within different hydrologic units (i.e. a watershed, a stream, and an aquifer)
is essential to addressing the interaction between groundwater and surface water (Brooks
et al., 2003) which directly relates to ﬁsh populations found in these watersheds.

Precipitation which inﬁltrates the soil surface layer and percolates down through
the soil to the underlying groundwater aquifer is known as recharge (Freeze & Cherry,
1979). Recharge increases the amount of groundwater in storage. Groundwater input
and surface runoff into streams, as well as aquifer storage capacity and groundwater
movement depend, in varying degrees, on local soils and geology, climate, topography
and land cover (Brooks et al., 2003) . Consideration of local soils, topography, and
climate must be determined and evaluated to assess how changes in land use in a
watershed impact ground and surface water resources.

The groundwater contribution to a stream from the groundwater aquifer,
baseﬂow, occurs at various points along a stream reach year-round, ﬂuctuating seasonally
depending on the level of the water in the aquifer and ﬂowing in at temperatures of
between 8.2 -l 13°C in Michigan (Leverett, 1906). These groundwater inputs, on
average, supply approximately 80% of the annual stream ﬂow in streams in the Lower

Peninsula of Michigan (Michigan Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council, 2006).

As a result, the groundwater contribution to the stream acts to maintain minimum stream
ﬂows and the temperature regimes that in large part determine the biotic community that
lives therein. This is particularly true for coldwater streams that provide the thermal
habitat needed for coldwater species such as brook charr in low elevation (~150m — 450
m), temperate streams, such as those found in Michigan (USA) (Latta, 1965; Bowlby &
Roff, 1986; Wiley & Seelbach, 1997; Zorn et al., 2002).

The thermal regime of these streams is largely a function of the groundwater
inputs that provide the ideal conditions for brook charr growth, survival and production
throughout the year by providing seasonal protection from elevated summer temperature
and cooler stream temperatures incurred throughout the winter months (Hunter, 1991;
Wiley & Seelbach, 1997; Power et al., 1999). In addition to being critical for ﬁsh
thermal habitat, groundwater is a major source of human drinking water in Michigan
(Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006) and is used extensively for
agricultural irrigation, sanitation and industrial operations. These operations have the
ability to directly and indirectly impact aquatic communities through point and nonpoint
source efﬂuent and heated discharge.

Land use/land cover

The type of land cover in a watershed inﬂuences the levels of evapo-transpiration
to the atmosphere, percolation and recharge to the groundwater, and surface runoff to the
stream system in the landscape (Dunne & Leopold, 1978; Pringle & Triska, 2000). The
rate of inﬁltration of precipitation at the soil surface, percolation of inﬁltrated water into
the groundwater system, and surface runoff rate is dictated by slope, land cover and the

physical characteristics of the soil. The slope of the landscape inﬂuences surface runoff

 

rates and the amounts of groundwater inﬂux into a stream system as high sloping
landscapes result in increased runoff, causing lower levels of water inﬁltration to the
groundwater aquifer. Vegetative cover provides for higher inﬁltration rates into the soil
layer by providing protective cover against erosion and decreasing surface runoff by
slowing lateral movement thus increasing inﬁltration into the soil (Brooks et al., 2003).
Evapo-transpiration is considered a loss from the hydrologic water budget for a
watershed and limits recharge to the groundwater aquifer in this region (Dunne &
Leopold, 1978). Because land use/cover types dictate the evapo-transpiration,
percolation and surface runoff potentials within a watershed, they inﬂuence stream
baseﬂows and stream thermal regimes. For example, forested landscape exhibit higher
evapo-transpiration rates and impervious surfaces such as roads, rooftops, and parking
lots can change surface runoff patterns, both of which decrease levels of inﬁlitration and
percolation to the groundwater aquifer. The underlying geology dictates the amount and
movement of groundwater in an aquifer. Smaller particles like soil and clay have lower
porosity (space between pores) while larger particles like sand and gravel have both
higher porosity and permeability. Thus, aquifers consisting of sand and gravel are
considered favorable for well development and groundwater production (Grannemann et
al., 2000). Therefore, knowledge of the composition and conﬁguration of aquifers
indicates the storage and discharge capacity of groundwater to both wells and streams
and overall, areas conducive to groundwater exploitation throughout the state.

Human activities which alter land cover within a watershed therefore have the
ability to negatively impact the thermal regime of stream ecosystems for brook charr;

(Dunne & Leopold, 1978; Bartholic et al., 1983; Wang et al., 2003; Gafﬁeld et al., 2005;

Wang et al., 2006). For instance, development (i.e. agriculture, urbanization) may
decrease riparian vegetation and stream shading, which can cause increases in
temperature within the stream, thus impacting the cold water refugia needed for ﬁsh
production (Gafﬁeld et al., 2005; Whitledge et al., 2006). Construction of ditches and
use of tile drains for the purpose of agricultural and urban development disrupts the
distribution of groundwater recharge and discharge in an area which can ultimately
impact stream baseﬂow, as total recharge to the groundwater aquifer is an indication of
baseﬂow (Winter et al., 1998; Michigan Department of Environmental Quality et al.,
2006). In highly urbanized areas, impervious surfaces (e.g., paved roads, buildings)
decrease groundwater recharge through decreased inﬁltration from increased surface
runoff to the stream which can result in destabilization of stream temperature and ﬂow
(Wang et al., 2003). Under unaltered conditions, the groundwater system is constantly
discharging (outﬂow to lakes, streams and wetlands) and recharging (inﬂow from
precipitation, loss to surface water bodies) to maintain equilibrium however, this natural
equilibrium changes when groundwater is withdrawn from the aquifer and land cover
alterations reduce recharge rates to the groundwater aquifer. Groundwater withdrawals
exceeding natural rates of aquifer recharge result in reduced groundwater input to streams
from seeps and springs and alter stream temperatures by reducing coldwater temperature
inputs provided by groundwater (Hendrickson & Donnan, 1972; Owen, 1991). As such
land cover changes reducing recharge to the groundwater aquifer along with large
capacity groundwater extraction act to degrade brook charr thermal habitat and thus their
viability as both can reduce the contribution of groundwater input to coldwater

groundwater-dominated stream systems that charr depend on for life.

Groundwater policy

In Michigan, the effects of groundwater withdrawals on ﬂows and levels in
streams, inland lakes, and wetlands have primarily been ligated in the court system rather
than being dictated by policy reﬂecting knowledge of the groundwater and surface water
systems (i.e. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlés Waters North America,
Inc., 709 N.W.2d 174 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005)). Prior to lawsuits, there was an overall lack
of governance of groundwater withdrawals in the state which ultimately led to legal
action. The absence of science-based policy in Michigan created a gap where litigation
became the primary decision framework and impeded the ability of decision makers to
build consensus on groundwater policy (GWCAC 2006) and natural resource managers
to determine management decisions allowing for continued viability of these populations.
This lack of science likely created a disconnect between land, water, and ﬁsheries
managers with the result being the implementation of incompatible management
decisions.

Legislation was implemented in 2006 (PA33-2006) which put limits on new or
increased groundwater withdrawals in Michigan and was implemented to prevent large
capacity surface or groundwater withdrawals from causing an adverse resource impact
(decrease in stream ﬂow during the time it is at its lowest levels, typically during the
summer months), thus reducing the stream’s ability to support characteristic ﬁsh
populations (PA 33 2006). This law dictates groundwater withdrawals that can occur
based on the withdrawals impact on stream ecosystems, focusing primarily on impacts to
charr streams, likely due to their recreational value, status as Michigan’s state ﬁsh, and

fact that most coldwater streams in the state are groundwater dominated. As a result,

water quality regulations were designed more strictly for coldwater(10-18°C) streams:
However as of February of 2008, the legislation applied to all lakes and streams, likely
due to the fact that groundwater contributes/regulates temperatures in warm, cool and
coldwater stream systems (Wiley & Seelbach, 1997). According to Karas (1997), “brook
trout have been likened to canaries used in mines to detect deteriorating air quality.
When brook trout disappears from a stream it’s a sign that water quality has deteriorated
and the stream is in trouble.”

In June 2008, with the passage of the Great Lakes-St Lawrence River Basin Water
Resources Compact (June 2008), the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
is now required to assess adverse resource impacts of new groundwater extractions on
Michigan’s freshwater resources, giving legal protections to all waters within the Great
Lakes Basin, and banning large diversions (>70 gpm) of ground and surface water resources.
The legislation established in Michigan speciﬁed under the Compact requires an assessment
of the likelihood of an adverse resource impact by a proposed water withdrawal which
speciﬁcally addresses impacts to ﬁsh species (PA 33 2006). While the controversy
surrounding the withdrawal of groundwater commercially in Central Michigan assisted in the
passage of the groundwater withdrawal law passed in 2006 and the passage of the Compact
in 2008, current groundwater law and management decisions still do not consider the impact
of land use/land cover alterations on the groundwater resources nor the coupling of these
activities to the potential impacts of groundwater withdrawals on the biotic communities of
Michigan’s groundwater dependent aquatic systems. Failure to address potential impacts of

land use change in the face of increased groundwater withdrawal may prove to be detrimental

to the thermal habitat to these communities, particularly those that are coldwater dependent
such as brook charr.
Goals

While the relationship between groundwater and surface water systems is
generally understood, the exact magnitude of the impact of groundwater withdrawals and
land cover change on stream temperatures important for brook charr has been unclear.
The goals of this study were to assess the impact of groundwater withdrawal and
landscape alteration on available brook charr thermal habitat in two groundwater
dominated charr streams in the Lower Peninsula, Michigan, and evaluate groundwater
and land use/land cover management strategies for protection of the thermal habitat needs
for brook charr within these streams. This was accomplished by integrating models
related to land use/ cover, the groundwater system, and stream temperature in relationship
to brook charr thermal preferences (Figure 2).
Study site

This study focused on two groundwater-dominated streams in Osceola County,
Michigan: Twin and Chippewa Creeks; tributaries to the Muskegon River which ﬂows
into Lake Michigan (Figure 3). This area was selected for study due to concern about the
impact of groundwater withdrawal on the aquatic ecosystems within the state of
Michigan after the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) granted
permission to a water bottling industry to place a large capacity (100,000 gallons per day)
groundwater well in this region in 2006. In order to determine the potential impairment
of this groundwater withdrawal operation on brook charr populations via alteration of

stream temperatures in both Twin and Chippewa Creeks, we focused our study on four

stream reaches, two within each stream (Figure 4). These reaches were chosen based on
available stream ﬂow data, temperature and stream morphological data as well as the
proximity of the reaches to the simulated high capacity extraction well. Sampled stream
reaches exhibit annual baseﬂow (ems) to total average stream ﬂow (ems) ratios of
between 0.81-0.85, suggesting high levels of groundwater input. Both streams support
brook charr as well as other species typical of coldwater stream systems in Michigan;
brown trout (Salmo trutta), mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdii), and brook stickleback
(Culaea inconstans).

Land cover in the watershed is comprised mainly of forest (73%), principally
deciduous in nature (birch, beech and maple), followed by grasslands and shrub land
cover (briars, sumac and dogwood) (8%), agriculture land (soybeans and alfalfa) (7%),
wetlands (6%), and urban landscapes (4.6%). The predominant soil types (sandy soils,
loamy sands) have moderate to high seepage rates yielding high rates of groundwater
recharge. The majority of each stream system is covered by deciduous forest canopy
with vegetated stream banks. The vegetation helps to stabilize stream banks while the
forested canopy aids in maintaining the temperature of these coldwater streams (Malcolm
Pimie Inc, 2006). Groundwater users within the watershed extract groundwater from an
unconﬁned glacial aquifer for either direct consumption or non potable purposes, such as
agricultural, commercial, and industrial use.

METHODS
Groundwater system characterization
The groundwater model, Interactive Groundwater, (Li & Liu, 2009) was used to

delineate the unconﬁned groundwater aquifer underlying the study area. This model is a

10

 

GIS-enabled hydrology tool which uses existing information on surface water features,
geologic material, watershed delineations, elevation and topography in a geo-referenced
format that allows for quantiﬁcation and simulation of groundwater quantity and ﬂow.
This tool is a combined research and outreach tool which has been used to create a visual
library depicting various dynamics of groundwater ﬂow and contamination transport,
examine groundwater inﬂuence on stream ﬂow,and establish static water levels for
Michigan Well-Head Protection Areas (Bartholic et al., 2007; Li & Liu, 2009). The
model uses information within existing groundwater well records detailing the geologic
material within the aquifer (i.e. elevation, lithology and speciﬁc capacity) and static
groundwater levels, to determine aquifer ﬂow boundaries and movement. The tool
allows for designation of sources (i.e. recharge areas) and sinks (i.e. streams, wells) using
GIS layers characterizing recharge values and the location, geometry and elevation of
surface water features (Li & Liu, 2003). Flow and movement in the model was simulated
using equations based on Darcy’s Law (Bedient & Huber, 1992). Veriﬁcation and
explanation of model equations is detailed extensively by Li et al. (2009). The data used
by the Interactive Groundwater are detailed in Table 1.

Using the groundwater model, we ﬁrst designated an area (approximately 120
kmz) within the county surrounding the study watersheds in order to detect regional
trends in groundwater movement and examine any hydrologic inﬂuences (i.e. rivers,
lakes) on the groundwater system that might be affecting the baseﬂow of the streams in
our watersheds. Examination of regional trends in groundwater movement was
conducted as aquifer boundaries may not necessarily coincide with surface watershed or

jurisdictional boundaries (Dunne & Leopold, 1978). We found little regional inﬂuences

ll

on groundwater ﬂow from large scale surface water features. Therefore, a sub model was
created within the regional boundary at a ﬁner resolution (approximately 120 In x 160 m)
in order to more accurately capture local aquifer properties and the subsequent changes in
groundwater movement that would occur due to a groundwater withdrawal within the
study area. The heterogeneity of the unconﬁned aquifers throughout the state suggest
variability in aquifer properties on the regional level and consequently, site speciﬁc
aquifer characteristics might differ from data interpolated from regional aquifer
characteristics (Malcolm Pimie Inc, 2006), thereby supporting a more local scale
examination. Data from a statewide database of existing groundwater wells from records
established at the time of well construction, their location and associated geologic
properties were used to determine aquifer elevations and hydraulic conductivity
throughout the entire model area using kriging interpolation and variogram analysis
(Gringarten & Deutsch, 2001).

Existing groundwater withdrawal wells in the watershed were incorporated into
the model using pumping rates from published data (Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, 2006) and previous research conducted within the study area
(Malcolm Pimie Inc, 2006) in order to account for the impact of current groundwater
wells on both stream systems. Baseﬂow measures from seven locations (4 from Twin
Creek, 3 from Chippewa Creek) and groundwater monitoring well levels were used as
calibration parameters in the model. These measurements were based on an average of
existing hydrologic conditions and are representative of a steady state model.

Initial aquifer parameters simulated in Interactive Groundwater were compared to

known, observed baseﬂow measurements from these seven locations based on monthly

l2

stream ﬂow data collected between January 2001 to September 2007 (stream ﬂow data
measures varied for each of the sampling locations) and an average of groundwater level
data collected from 38 monitoring wells in the study area from January 2001 to January
2003. Aquifer parameters (i.e. hydraulic conductivity, recharge and stream leakance)
were modiﬁed until the baseﬂow and groundwater levels matched that of observed ﬁeld
data as closely as possible. Stream leakance represents the hydraulic connection between
the stream bottom sediments and the groundwater aquifer; it is vertical hydraulic
conductivity of stream bed sediments divided by the thickness of the sediments (Li &
Liu, 2009). Based on past studies, an overall accuracy of 60% was considered to be
acceptable for both baseﬂow and groundwater level for this groundwater modeling
environment (Hassan Abbas, Research Hydrologist, Michigan State University,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, pers. communication).

The calibrated model was then used to examine the impacts of groundwater
withdrawals on baseﬂow by a high capacity well in the watershed by simulating pumping
rates of 70 gpm, 150 gpm, 400 gpm, 700 gpm, 1000 gpm and 2000 gpm and comparing
the change in baseﬂow of the study reaches when the well was not operated to baseﬂow
of the reaches during pumping. The outcomes were then used to examine impacts on
stream temperature and brook charr thermal habitat availability. The minimum value (70
gpm) reﬂects the pumping rate requiring a groundwater withdrawal permit from the
MDEQ, subsequent rate increases reﬂect potential pumping regimes used by industrial
and public supply wells in the area. The 2000 gpm extraction rate reﬂects the potential

maximum pumping capacity for this high capacity well.

13

Land use/land cover alteration

Four different land use/land cover alteration scenarios were simulated to examine
the impact of land cover change on baseﬂow via changes in recharge rates. Aquifer
recharge rates were used in Interactive Groundwater as a measure to quantify how
changes in land use/land cover alteration within the landscape can affect the dynamics of
the underlying aquifer. We used the recharge rates from a US. Agricultural Research
Service supported soil-water assessment tool (SWAT) (N eitsch et al., 2005) to determine
recharge values for the land use/land cover types in the watershed in 2005. SWAT is a
public domain watershed modeling tool supported by the US. Agricultural Research
Service which has been used in water resource and nonpoint source pollution issues (i.e.
total maximum daily load analysis) and land management (i.e. effectiveness of
conservation practices ) applications (Gassman et al., 2007). SWAT is based continuous
time model that uses local soil type, land use/land cover, surface water features, climate
data, and topography to determine, for this study, the recharge rates in the study area
(Neitsch et al., 2005). Recharge values were designated into 47 different recharge values,
comprising 14 different land use/land cover types containing between 1 and 5 different
soil types. Average recharge rates by land use/land cover type are detailed in Table 2.

We simulated land cover changes within the study area by altering a 2005 land
use/land cover classiﬁcation using ArcGIS 9.0 Arc Toolbox (ESRI, 2008). The 2005
land use/land cover coverage was classiﬁed by Michigan State University Remote
Sensing & GIS using ortho-rectiﬁed aerial photos from the Michigan Geographic Data
Library. These alteration scenarios were based on a qualitative assessment of land

use/land cover change noted in the watershed since 1972 as this was the ﬁrst year aerial

l4

photos were available for the watershed. Additionally, we modeled two scenarios that
were based on land cover change which the data suggest would result in decreased
recharge rates; forest to pasture (approximately 3.33 kmz; 10% of total forest), grassland
to urban (approximately 1.7 kmz; 30% of total grassland), and two scenarios which would
likely result in increased recharge rates; agriculture to grassland (approximately 2 kmz;
40% of total cropland), forest to shrub land (approximately 6.65 kmz; 15% of total
forest). This analysis provides insights as to the relative impacts of these speciﬁc land
use/land cover scenarios on baseﬂow and stream temperature in order to assess land
use/land cover policy changes as conservation strategies that might be used to offset the
impacts of groundwater withdrawal on baseﬂow and stream temperatures, and hence
brook charr.

The land cover change scenarios and the amount of land cover that was converted
is based on the relative change that has occurred in these two watersheds over the past 37
years while the change in forest land reﬂects a potential forest management plan or clear-
cut for either large scale human development or timber production. The location of each
land cover change was determined by (l) proximity to areas with the same land use/cover
type (i.e. in order to change grasslands near urban areas into urban land cover), (2)
proximity to stream reaches (to assure land cover change was within range of the
recharge area contributing groundwater to the stream) and (2) clustered areas of similar
land cover types to simulate effects of increasing certain cover types rather than

fragmented patches.

15

Stream temperature

In order to estimate potential changes in stream temperature in the study streams
from changes in baseﬂow due to groundwater extraction and land cover changes, we used
a stream temperature model, SSTEMP, developed by and available through the United
States Geological Survey (Bartholow, 2002). This allowed for an examination of stream
temperature change in relationship to available brook charr temperature in the study
stream and brook charr temperature preferenda. SSTEMP was used to predict changes in
temperature based on changes in baseﬂow predicted by the Interactive Groundwater
assessment tool. SSTEMP uses stream geometry and hydrology, meteorological data and
stream shading to predict changes in stream temperatures for these stream segments for
speciﬁc time periods (Bartholow, 2002). SSTEMP is a mechanistic, steady state heat
transport model which simulates the various natural heat ﬂux processes found in a stream
such as air convection, evaporation, conduction through the stream bed, topographic and
riparian vegetation shading, streambed friction, back radiation, and long and short wave
atmospheric radiation to predict mean daily stream temperatures and estimate daily
minimum and maximum temperatures (Bartholow, 2002) SSTEMP assumes that
groundwater is gained at a constant rate along each reach and uniformly apportioned
throughout the stream segment and air temperature, shade and channel shape are assumed
not to change along the stream reach (Bartholow 2002). Data used in the SSTEMP
model are detailed in Table 3. Field measurements for each stream reach were used to
develop a relationship between channel width and discharge using a power function
(Bartholow, 2002). Air temperature was obtained from the closest city with daily air

temperature measures (Big Rapids, MI; 24 km). All other meteorological parameters

16

were obtained from the nearest NOAA weather station (Houghton Lake, MI; 72 km), as it
was the closest source of comparable and extensive climatological data required for the
model. Dust coefﬁcient and ground reﬂectivity were estimated from values used by
Theurer (1984) developed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (1972). Mean annual air
temperature was used in lieu of ground temperature as suggested by Bartholow (2002) as
no actual ground temperature measures were available. Stream shading percentages were
estimated through on-site evaluation.

Components of SSTEMP, which aptly model individual stream reaches, and the
more detailed SNTEMP, which allows for modeling of a complex network of many
stream reaches, have been used to evaluate the effect of altered ﬂow regimes, stream
widths and riparian shading on water temperatures in a Colorado trout stream
(Bartholow, 1991), evaluate the importance of groundwater and riparian shading on
adequate bass habitat in Ozark streams (Whitledge et al., 2006), and determining the
inﬂuence of stream shading in maintaining summer temperatures in a brook charr stream
(Pajak, 1992). Additionally, Gafﬁeld et al. (2005) used an adapted version of SNTEMP
to predict summer temperatures in two Wisconsin streams and was able to illustrate (1)
the overall importance of groundwater and riparian shading as controls to summer
temperature in small Midwestern streams and (2) the signiﬁcance of temperature models
in facilitating watershed management decisions.

Relative humidity, wind speed and mean annual air temperature were used in
SSTEMP model calibration and were adjusted until predicted stream temperatures closely
matched observed stream temperature data. The aforementioned parameters were used

since the data was collected at a location away from the study reaches and thus not

17

completely indicative of actual site conditions. Groundwater temperature was also used
to calibrate the model as groundwater temperatures in Michigan range from 8.2°C-11.3°C
(Leverett, 1906). Baseﬂow output from the Interactive Groundwater model was used in
the following equation to determine stream discharge parameters for the model:

Q = a + bx Equation 1
where Q equals stream segment discharge, a equals stream inﬂow, b equals baseﬂow and
x equals stream length (Gafﬁeld et al., 2005). In this manner, stream inﬂow minus
outﬂow divided by segment length is equivalent to the baseﬂow along the reach
(Bartholow, 2002). In this model baseﬂow estimated from stream ﬂow at the sampling
points is assumed to be indicative of a culmination of ﬂow along the reach and therefore
uniformly apportioned throughout the designated upstream segment (Bartholow, 2002).
Stream inﬂow for both upstream segments was set to zero and it is assumed that all
accumulated ﬂow will accrue through accretions of groundwater. The two upstream
segments begin at small impoundments (approximately 2.1 acres at Twin Creek and 1.5
acres at Chippewa Creek; High Resolution National Hydrography Dataset, 1:24000 scale,
2004) and were assumed to be a headwater as no data regarding ﬂow above or ﬁ'om the
reservoirs exists. However, it has been reported that water levels in these impoundments
are constant throughout the year and have short residence times, thereby justifying our
assumption of no inﬂow (Malcolm Pimie Inc, 2006).

Stream temperature data from July and August were used to calculate mean
monthly stream temperatures for each stream reach. From this, we examined the relative
change required to alter stream temperatures past the thermal optimum and into the upper

lethal temperature for brook charr, and related this to the predicted changes in stream

18

temperature due to groundwater withdrawal and land cover change estimated from the
SSTEMP model. We focused on stream temperatures in July and August as these months
are the most stressful to brook charr as stream temperatures usually at their highest and
ﬂows are at their lowest in Michigan.

RESULTS
Baseﬂow change predicted from groundwater withdrawal rates

The groundwater aquifer underlying the study area was depicted as a single
unconﬁned aquifer based on available geologic data in the groundwater well data layer
(Michigan Department of Environmental Quality et al., 2006). Bedrock aquifers which
underlie the glacial deposits were not modeled as they are not currently used for water
supply (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality et al., 2006; Apple & Reeves,
2007). The general movement of groundwater in the system predicted by the model is
approximately perpendicular to the surface watershed boundaries, ﬂowing towards the
larger river system, the Muskegon, where both creeks drain (Figure 3). This is expected
and corresponds to higher elevations in the upper part of the surface watershed and the
lower elevations occurring at the Muskegon River (Dr. Shu-Guang Li and Hassan Abbas,
Michigan State University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, pers.
communication).

Examination of the difference between Observed versus predicted values
(residuals) allows for a quantiﬁcation of the error in the groundwater model. As such,
three different metrics (i.e. mean residuals, absolute value of residuals and root mean
square error (RMSE) were calculated in order to determine model error and the accuracy

of our model compared to actual measured data at the location of the speciﬁed

19

monitoring wells. The statistics and methods used to assess model error were taken from
Anderson and Woessner (1992). Comparison of observed groundwater levels and model
predictions of water levels in the aquifer reveal a mean of the residuals of ~2.04 meters, a
mean of the absolute value of the residuals of 2.80 meters and a RMSE of 3.35 meters
(R2 = 0.5148). The RMSE of 3.35 meters is within 24% of the range of observed
groundwater level measurements that were used as calibration targets in the model.
Baseﬂow measures versus model predicted baseﬂow values indicate accuracies between
the 60th percentile and the 97th percentile (R2 = 0.8844) with the majority being within the
80th percentile.

Groundwater extraction was found to reduce baseﬂow in Twin and Chippewa
Creeks; distances from the pump ranged ﬁom 730 m to 1150 m for Twin Creek and 1800
m to 2500 m for Chippewa Creek. When compared to stream baseﬂow values when the
well was not in operation, the predicted reductions ranged from 0.2% at a pumping rate
of 70 gpm in the upper reach of Twin Creek to 25.8% at a pumping rate of 2000 gpm at
the midstream reach of Chippewa Creek (Table 4). Baseﬂow reductions were shown to
increase with increased pumping rates with overall, larger percentages of change
occurring to the stream segments in Chippewa Creek (Figure 5). Therefore, pumping of
any magnitude above 70 gpm will have some impact on baseﬂow in the study stream
segments of these groundwater-dominated streams.

Stream Temperature

Stream temperatures predicted by SSTEMP were within 0.11°C - 0.50°C of actual

stream temperatures collected at sampled stream segments and reﬂects the high degree of

accuracy of this model. The changes in stream temperature due to the reduction of

20

baseﬂow as a result of groundwater extraction during midsummer resulted in stream
temperature changes ranging from 0 to 0.91 °C in both July and August (Table 5). In
three out of the four reaches evaluated, all groundwater pumping rates simulated resulted
in an increase in stream temperature with the exception of the midstream reach of Twin
Creek, which showed no change in temperature at pumping rates of 70 and 150 gpm.
The lack of temperature change may be explained by the fact that this reach experienced
the lowest percentage change in baseﬂow (0.20% in July and 0.43% in August) and has
the highest baseﬂow of all four reaches. In general, reduction in baseﬂow resulted in
increases in temperature approximately proportional to the magnitude of pumping
(0.38:0.33); hence the greater the pumping rate, the less baseﬂow and the warmer the
water temperature in these stream segments during the summer months of July and
August. However, the magnitude of temperature change was, overall, quite small, with
increases never projected at more than 1.00°C.
Land use/land cover alteration

Recharge rates from the SWAT model show that grassland provided the highest
recharges rate (14.30 in/yr) while both industrial and commercial (urban) landscapes had
the lowest recharge rates (1.07 in/yr). Interactive Groundwater predicted higher
baseﬂows when 15% of the land cover was changed from forested land to shrub land;
thus resulting in stream temperature decreases of between 0.01 °C to 009°C in all four
stream reaches for both July and August (Figure 6), a result of the recharge rates for
shrub land being higher than forested landscapes thus facilitating higher recharge rates
and higher baseﬂows. A 40% change from cropland to grassland resulted in temperature

decreases of between 008°C to 014°C in the upper and midstream reaches of Chippewa

21

Creek, respectively, however the upstream segment of Twin Creek showed decreased
baseﬂow and increased temperatures of 004°C while the midstream segment showed
relatively no change in either baseﬂow or temperature (Figure 6). Land cover alteration
of 30% of grassland to urban resulted in increased temperature in both segments of Twin
Creek however resulted in increased baseﬂow and thus decreased temperature in both
reaches of Chippewa Creek. A 10% change of forest to pasture resulted in slight changes
in temperature in Chippewa Creek reaches (001°C) and the upper reach of Twin Creek
(+0.01 °C) due to increases and decreases in baseﬂow respectively, while there was no
change in the midstream segment of Twin Creek (Figure 6).

If the area in which a land cover change was applied is relatively small compared
to the total area contributing to stream baseﬂow, the groundwater model may not detect
as signiﬁcant a change in baseﬂow to the stream (Hassan Abbas, Research Hydrologist,
Michigan State University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, pers.
communication), thus resulting in little to no change in stream temperature. For instance,
the minor change in baseﬂow, hence lack of impact on temperature, in the upper reach of
Twin Creek may be due to the fact that the area of the aquifer contributing baseﬂow to
that reach may only contain 1% of the grassland from the total 10% change from
cropland to grassland that was simulated in the watershed, whereas in both reaches of
Chippewa Creek, the portion of land changed from cropland to grassland is likely
contained entirely within the area in which the aquifer contributing to the baseﬂow of that
system. Additionally the relatively minor differences in recharge rates between forest
(7.35 in/yr) and pasture (6.33 in/yr) may explain the relatively minor changes in baseﬂow

and temperature when evaluating these land cover conversion simulations.

22

Brook charr temperature preferenda

Of the four stream reaches evaluated in regards to the mean July and August
monthly temperatures, only the upper reach of Chippewa Creek exhibited temperatures
that would rise beyond the temperature tolerances for brook charr (Figure 7a). All other
segments had mean monthly temperatures that were within the optimal growth and
survival range for brook charr. As such, pumping at 70gpm or greater will result in a loss
of thermal habitat for brook charr in midsummer within the upper reach of Chippewa
Creek. The magnitude of change required to take brook charr out of their thermal
optimum for the other three reaches, which have lower mean monthly temperatures than
the midstream reach of Chippewa Creek, will not occur using the pumping rates we
examined because of their overall higher baseﬂows (Table 4) and thus lower mean
monthly temperatures in these reaches. A change in these stream reaches to the lethal
thermal temperatures for brook charr (>19°C) would require temperature increases in July
of at least 0.51 °C (Twin Creek) and at least 1.13°C (midstream reach of Chippewa Creek)
(Figure 7b). In order for such a temperature change to occur, the baseﬂow in these
streams would need to decrease by 18.8% in July and 22.5% in August in the upper
reaches of Twin Creek and by 23.4% in July and 39% in August in the lower (midstream)
reaches of Twin Creek. In the midstream reach of Chippewa Creek, baseﬂow changes of
approximately 30% in July and 53% in August would move the stream into lethal
temperature limits for brook charr. At no time were brook charr close to the reported
upper lethal temperature (253°C) in either stream. In order to experience the lethal
temperature, the stream segments would need to have temperature changes of at least 5 to

8°C.

23

DISCUSSION

Poff et al. (1997) found that stream ﬁsh communities are impacted by changes in
land use and land cover within a watershed that impact the supply of water to a stream
system. Thus, managing aquatic systems in the context of terrestrial landscapes is
important to adequately manage ﬁsh and ﬁsheries (Taylor et al., 2002). Knowledge of
the impact of speciﬁc land cover alterations on stream baseﬂow and temperature can
allow for implementation of strategies mitigating the impact of increased groundwater
withdrawal in a watershed. The direct linkage between the landscape, surface water and
groundwater systems enables one to evaluate the impacts of groundwater withdrawal and
land cover changes in a watershed to stream thermal habitat and the production of their
ﬁsh populations. A study in the Pigeon River, Michigan, USA. found the lack of
groundwater to be a limiting factor for brook charr populations (Benson 1953).
Groundwater acts to cool and stabilize summer stream temperatures and warm cooler
stream temperatures during the winter while land cover determines the levels of
groundwater recharge to the underlying groundwater aquifer (Hunter, 1991; Wiley &
Seelbach, 1997; Power et al., 1999). Potential for conﬂict arises when human use of
groundwater interferes with groundwater needs for ecological function. Therefore
models which facilitate understanding the linkage of the three systems allow ﬁsheries
managers and land use policy makers to assess the magnitude of impact that certain
anthropogenic activities have on the thermal habitat that brook charr and other biota
depend on for survival. By simulating groundwater extraction by a high capacity well
and land cover change via changes in groundwater recharge dynamics, we were able to

project the degree of impact that such changes would have on brook charr thermal habitat

24

in the study streams, aiding in decisions regarding the suitability of groundwater
extraction pumping schedules in relationship to brook charr thermal habitat requirements.
The results of our study showed that all pumping rates evaluated in the Twin and
Chippewa Creek watershed resulted in decreased baseﬂow to every stream reach under
study. As such, this pumping removes ﬂow to these streams and overall, will inﬂuence
groundwater contribution to the Great Lakes. While the magnitude of stream temperature
change predicted by this methodology was less than 1°C, the net outcome was a loss of
summer thermal habitat for brook charr as summer temperatures were near the maximum
optimal growth thermal range for brook charr in these streams. Loss of thermal habitat
can equate to reductions in growth and survival of charr in these streams (Power, 1980;
Drake & Taylor, 1996). Additionally, reductions in groundwater input may impact brook
charr spawning potential as groundwater seeps present potential spawning habitat for
brook charr (Power, 1980; Curry & Noakes, 1995). It is important to note, that while
water extraction from this high capacity well was only occurring in the Chippewa Creek
watershed, impacts of groundwater withdrawal and land use change were evidenced in
stream reaches within both watersheds. This emphasizes the fact that aquifer boundaries
may not necessarily coincide with surface watershed or jurisdictional boundaries (Dunne
& Leopold, 197 8). This is signiﬁcant because groundwater extraction within one
watershed can directly impact streams in an adjacent watershed. Therefore, water
management agencies which establish water use management plans solely based on
surface watershed boundaries may not be adequately addressing the impact of
groundwater extraction and land use alteration on aquatic communities in other linked

systems.

25

The small magnitude in stream temperature change due to pumping that we noted
for Twin and Chippewa Creeks suggests that other factors other than groundwater may be
inﬂuencing stream temperatures in these reaches. When temperature in stream reaches
approaches the lethal thermal range of brook charr, we would expect to see lowered
abundances due to its impact on their growth and survival dynamics (McCormick etal.,
1972; Hokanson, 1973). We found that baseﬂow reductions ranging from 18.8% to 39%
in reaches of Twin Creek and 30% to 53% in the midstream reach of Chippewa Creek
would result in stream temperatures that begin to surpass the optimal range for brook
charr. In the case of the upper reach of Chippewa Creek, any rate of groundwater
withdrawal resulted in temperature changes which shifted the stream farther away from
the upper optimal temperature (19°C) and closer to the upper lethal limit (253°C) and as
such would provide poor thermal habitat for brook charr and reduce overall brook charr
productivity for this stream reach (Fry, 1971) unless they could move to more favorable
temperature conditions elsewhere in the system. For instance, (Hayes et al., 1998) noted
that in the Ford River, Michigan, brook charr were shown to seek refuge in the colder
water of a tributary headwater stream to evade summer stream temperatures in the main
channel that exceeded 20°C. As headwaters of a stream provide important thermal
refugia for brook charr (Hayes et al., 1998), it is important that land use practices in these
regions do not degrade headwaters conditions conducive to brook charr productivity.

The small changes in temperature at low pumping rates may likely be masked by
variations due to natural annual/seasonal variations in stream ﬂow as well as natural
annual/ seasonal variability in air temperature that currently occurs in Michigan stream

systems. Land use practices occurring within the stream corridor, in addition to those

26

occurring in the landscape may impact stream thermal habitat (Allan & Castillo, 2007),
for instance, decreases in riparian shading can result in increased stream temperatures due
to increased direct solar radiation and is more pronounced when air temperatures exceed
that of groundwater temperature (Power et al., 1999). That said, the inﬂuence of air
temperatures on stream temperatures coupled with increased groundwater withdrawal and
land use change, which reduces recharge, will be important to research as climate change
threatens to increase global air temperatures and consequently, thermal habitat for ﬁsh
(Meisner, 1990; Eaton & Scheller, 1996). Additionally, precipitation changes due to
climate change warrant further analysis as precipitation is an important component
dictating the level of recharge to the groundwater aquifer and thereby inﬂuencing surface
watershed and groundwater dynamics.

Likewise, examination of the impact of land cover change can give insight into
land use practices which reduce recharge thus exacerbating the changes in thermal habitat
due to groundwater withdrawals. A population status assessment of Eastern brook charr
and evaluation of watersheds over their native range revealed loss of thermal habitat via
increased temperatures from changing land use practices and habitat fragmentation (Hudy
et al., 2008). Declines of brook charr in Maryland streams were strongly inﬂuenced by
land use/land cover causing increased stream temperatures (Stranko et al., 2008). They
found increases in water temperature and erosion were associated with increased
percentages of urban land and impervious surface and decreased forested land cover. In
our study, we found stream temperature similarly increased as a result of reduced
recharge from a landscape change to urban. However, unlike Stranko et al. (2008), we

projected that decreased forest land cover in our watershed would result in decreases in

27

stream temperatures due to increased recharge to the groundwater aquifer and thus
increased groundwater contribution to streams. Our study streams in Michigan were a
relatively low elevation system which had a dominance of sandy and gravel soils with
high percolation rates and low surface runoff while Maryland streams are typically
located in higher elevations, steeper gradient terrains and thus may be inﬂuenced more by
surface runoff generated from loss of forested land cover. Jacobson et al. (2008)
examined the effects of groundwater withdrawals on habitat availability of three
freshwater ﬁshes and related it to stream discharge and annual ﬂow regime. While the
study by Jacobson et al. (2008) did not speciﬁcally address thermal habitat alteration or
the inﬂuences of land use alteration, they did ﬁnd that groundwater extraction, through its
reductions in stream discharge, reduced available habitat for three distinct species of
freshwater ﬁsh (brown trout, tessellated darter, and fallﬁsh).

Evaluating the midstream section of Twin Creek only, we found that an increase
in stream temperatures of 006°C due to a groundwater extraction rate of 700 gpm could
be mitigated by implementing a 15% (6.65 kmz) change in land cover from forest to
shrub land, which provided for an increase in recharge and thus baseﬂow (Table 6). In
this case, the increase in temperature related to groundwater extraction would be
ameliorated by the increased recharge rates to the aquifer due to the change in land cover
from forest to shrub land. For example, while a high capacity well at 700 gpm may result
in increased temperatures at the midstream reach of Twin Creek in midsummer, from
18.47°C to l8.53°C, a land use change would actually result in 18.44°C, thus resulting in
stream temperatures lower than the average monthly mean before pumping began.

Alternatively, a 30% (1.7km2) change of grassland to urban under a 700gpm extraction

28

rate could potentially result in further loss of thermal habitat (l8.53°C to l8.56°C) due to
reductions in recharge to the aquifer

The upper section of Twin Creek in midsummer under a groundwater extraction
rate of 400gpm pumping rate results in a 0.07°C (18.32°C) change in temperature while a
change in land cover from forest to shrub land resulted in a less pronounced decrease in
temperature in this reach (-0.01°C), a change in land use from grassland to urban results
in a further increase in temperature of 0.1°C (18.42°C) (Table 7). In the upper reach of
Chippewa Creek in midsummer, we ﬁnd that land cover changes from cropland to
grassland and forest to shrub land may result in decreases in the rise in temperatures
incurred through pumping by -0.09°C and -0.06°C (Table 8), respectively. Therefore, it is
important to consider land use practices and their potential impact on stream temperatures
as groundwater recharge is inﬂuenced by land use/cover and it is the groundwater that
provides the needed cool temperatures in streams for coldwater biota such as brook charr.

Our research provides one of the ﬁrst studies that directly link groundwater
withdrawal and land use alterations to impacts on brook charr thermal habitat. The
methodology used in this study proved to be an effective way to examine the impact of
land cover alteration and groundwater withdrawal on thermal habitat for brook charr.
The method uses readily available tools that are easy-tO-use and understand, are visual in
nature and based on veriﬁable scientiﬁc premises. These methods allow for a linkage of
water policy and land use management directly to ﬁsh populations and their production
dynamics. In Michigan, brook charr are the foundation of an important recreational
ﬁshery, which provides a signiﬁcant amount of revenue to the state from recreational

activities by the public. Continued examination and use Of this methodology is warranted

29

as groundwater-dominated streams in Michigan and elsewhere will likely continue to be
impacted by increased groundwater withdrawal coupled with land use/cover alterations,
both of which we have shown to inﬂuence thermal habitat of streams and consequently,
will impact brook charr viability and productivity. As such, collaboration between water,
land and ﬁsheries managers is imperative to optimize the use of our groundwater
resource while ensuring brook charr viability and sustainability in the face of increased

human demands and global environmental change.

30

 

 

 

mBa.08m< a. 8.2.0.395. .m.m Sim. m.c>o. .563 2.95 wESESS.
58.. Sen. Ewe—.03 cocoa—«mace .0 DE: as $.03 magic ER. 205. 883 0.3m
E. 0.5:. 8.8.3). .3 .5235 3% 25... Exam EB. .55th $38.36 26.. 8mm.
coumcaﬁv
£002 goo... .EEmmowm< 53>? ow ..om 8.8 c3303.
53... 3mm Ewe—.03 8.58:. BEEP... .Ew Bobs. o_wo.8w (.0 5.33.0 .3205: ooﬂcsmnsm
323083. a. 8.2.0.69“; .m.mv ooom ..m .o 25.x. 8.8.3). 83% Bangs? comma—m
3:32.88 .358 >90. 55.3 382.38. zﬁﬁwoas use 32:30.0 cont—Sm
6m 88 Eamcmoi: .8237. mOmD $23.03 dome. .8853 gouge—o was 850.8% £838. 853 custom
5%.
casom E8885.

 

 

 

 

.Aooom 21. can .1: 8332580 03882:. 8.. See 858 .38 E80883 Home. A. «Bah.

31

Table 2: Recharge rates for land use/land cover types within the watershed from the soil
and water assessment tool (Available at: www.brc.tamus.edu/swat).

 

 

 

Recharge Rate
Land use/Land Cover (in/year)
Commercial 1 .07
Industrial 1 . 10
Open Land 4.01
Pasture 6.33
Residential 6.51
Deciduous Forest 7.35
Forested Wetland 7.40
Crop land 7.90
Mixed Forest 8.49
Non-Forested Wetland 8.81
Coniferous Forest 8.83
Shrub land 11.52
Clear-cut/Range Brush 11.80
Grassland 14.30

 

32

 

 

0.0E..m0 .0005

w0.00..m E00..m

 

o
00:.0> 5.3.00.3. 0000.w 000 .00.0...000 .000 00 0000m. .0\m»0.mw001.\w 02.0.00. .0.0m
90.3.. .0500... .x. 3.3.02.3. 0000.0
.3... C .0500... 000.00.000E.0 .00.0....000 .mzn.
00.0.. 00.0903 - ODUZ o\a 00m 0.0.000.
..00.0D 0.0.w0.n. ”SEE... .00.00.w .0E.0.....
2.3 .5308: - 0002 is 08% 053
.88 30.0.0.0... 00.0.0200 .x. >..0.EE 03.0.3.
00.03. am. I .007. .00E.00.... .203 0.003 Uo 0.0.0.0900. ..<
00..0E.0.0. .00.w0.0.00.0$.
..=0.0Q E0.w0.n. E0000 0 m.w0.000.>.
00>..0n. E .00000x0\.00.0...000 0.0.3 E00..m
002 0.000.300... m.0.m.D E E00000300 00..0>0.m.
00.). 0.000.w000.. .m.O.m.D E E00000: 00..0>0.m.
.000.0Q b...0.m0.0>.. .m.O.m.D E0. 0300. .00Ew00 E00..m
0.-...m 0% ...m .0. 000.0000 .00Ew0m .0 000.. .0 E00
00.). 0.....0.w000... m.O.m.D 000...“..00 002.3.
.0E.000
b.0E00O E00..m
.0800...0m ..m:w0< .30.. 0. >00 0 .0 00..0.=E.m .00 000 E00E 00..0.:E.m
.00. 0.0... E3202. 0.00 30.. E003 E0... 00>..0Q 0E0 30:0m0m.
ooa. ..0 .0 ..0.0>0.. Uo 0.0.0.00E0. 30...... .0.0.0..
C00E0w0002 .00.w0.00m 00000>0< 000 00. 0.0.... E6202. 00.00003. Uo 0.0.0.0900. 32.0. E00..m
.00. 0.0... E.00.0.>.. 005000.). 0E0 0.0m. 30....
00000 00..0.:E.m 000 30.0.0»...
00.00m ..0D 0.0.00.0.0...

 

.Noom .30.0~...0m.. 0.0.0E0.0.. .000E AA..>.m....mm. .000.>. 0.0.0.0..th .000.w0m E00bm ”m 030...

33

 

 

 

00.00 0...... 0.0. .00 0.0 00.. 0000.0 .200 .020 0300020
00.: 00.0 0.0 00.0 0.... 00.0 000000 00000. 0.00.0 0500020
00.0 .00 00.. 0: 00.0 000 00.0.0 .005 0.00.0 0E
00.0. .00 :1. 00.0 00.0 .00 00.000 0000:. 000.0 Es.
0.00 000m E00 000.. 0.00 00» E00 03 E00 02‘ E00 0.. .008. 30:00.3 0000. 0.00.5

30.00000 0. 00300.00. 300.00

0000.0 03000.00 000 0.3.0 .0. E0wooom 000 do... don .000 .00. .00 .0 00.0. wE0E=0 .0 3050000 0. 0w0000 .0080. "v 0.00H

34

35

 

.00 0.0 00.0 0 .0 00.0 00.0 €09.00: 0.00.0 0300020
00.0 00.0 0.0 .0 00.0 00.0 000001020 0200020
.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 .00 0 E80005. 0.020 52,.
000 0.0 0.0 .00 00.0 .00 00003 0.090 55
.0000<

.00 00.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 €09.0251090 02,8030
00.0 00.0 00.0 :0 00.0 00.0 00000. 0.00.0 0300000
0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 0 Emmigé 0.00.0 5;.
00.0 0.0 :0 00.0 00.0 .00 00000. 0.00.0 53
>000

 

800 0000 500 000. 500 00. E00 00.. 500 00. £00 0.

0e 0. 000000 0.0.0.0050. 0.00.5
..00w0< 000 0.0.. 0. .0>00 000.000 000.
moom 00>.w E0wooom 000 .000. .00.. dov 6.0. .00 .0 00.0. w0.0E00 .0. 0w0000 0.0.0.00E0. E00..m ”m 0.00...

Table 6: Land use/land cover alteration impact on the midstream reach of Twin Creek
when land cover is changed from grassland to urban and from forest to shrub land under

 

 

 

 

 

umping rates of 150 gpm, 700 gpm and 1000 am.
High Capacity Well
Pumping Rates
150 gpm 700 gpm 1000 gpm
Land-use Change +0.01°C +0.06°C +0.21°C
Grassland to urban +0.03°C +0.04 +0.09 +0.24
Forest to shrubs -0.09°C -0.08 -0.03 +0.12

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

Table 7: Land use/land cover alteration impact on the midstream reach of Twin Creek
when land cover is changed from grassland to urban and from forest to shrub land under

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ umping rates of 150 gpm, 400 gpm and 1000 m.
High Capacity Well
Pumping Rates
150 gpm 400 gpm 1000 gpm
Land-use Change +0.03°C +0.07°C +0.19°C
Grassland to urban +0.1°C +0.13 +0.17 +0.29
Forest to shrubs -0.01°C +0.02 +0.06 +0.18

 

37

 

Table 8: Land use/land cover alteration impact on the upstream reach of Chippewa Creek
when land cover is changed from grassland to urban and from forest to shrub land under
umping rates of 150 gpm, 400 gpm and 1000 gpm.

High Capacity Well

 

Pumping Rates

150 gpm 400 gpm 1000 gpm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land-use Change +0.04°C +0.11°C +0.29°C
Cropland to grassland -0.09°C -0.05 +0.02 +0.20
Forest to shrubs -0.06°C -0.02 +0.05 +0.23

 

 

38

 

= upper/lower lethal limit Optimal Range (Juvenile)

 

_ Optimal Range (Adult)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

= lethal range
_.......... Optimal Range (Fry)
Preferenda (all life stages)
iéioiézzumgsq 1 r I;::::::::::::z::;;:;;§g
r + t + + + t
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Thermal gradientPC)

 

Figure 1: Gradient of temperature preferenda for brook charr (Salvelinusfontinalis)
based on data for fry from (Brett, 1940; McCormick et al., 1972; Hokanson, 1973) ,
juveniles from (Fry, 1946; McCormick et al., 1972; Cherry et al., 1977) and adults from
(Fry, 1946; Hokanson, 1973; Cherry et al., 1977) . Thermal preferences for brook charr
range between 12-19°C, with lethal temperatures below 2°C and above 24-25°C.

39

80:0 0005 0:0 00800000800 800.00 80000008 0.030000% 80000020 .0>00 000— 800.500 000.008: $8008.00 0008088 ”N 0.8%”—

 

 

$200808

800bm .000Q
808:0
.0800.
8000m

 

ohsuahomzmb

 

 

 

 

809.5 __

 

 

 

 

 

 

530000000 < b

 

 

080308.000
03000.88—

 

 

0000m $08800
2000 200003
\000Q
Eaﬁmeam
000000 Z

P

 

 

 

0.? 7
3030000800.
80003 <

 

f

0800005 4

 

0 0.... i:

 

 

 

__ 0.00.2.

 

 

 

I I

 

a 0000M
080.30%

 

 

 

 

—GO.H. aﬂoammvmwdw
085$ 0. =00

 

 

 

 

8080 000.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>005 000.000“.

 

 

 

 

 

00D DADA

000m .0000
30.000

Samﬁwoaoh

0000.50
”0%. 00m

 

 

40

 

 

 

     
 
  
 

  

Twin Creek
Watershed

Chippewa Creek
Watershed

o 0.51 2 3 Kilometers

Muskegon River

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Study area; Twin and Chippewa Creek Watersheds, located within the
Muskegon River Watershed, Michigan, USA.

41

 

IVA—plif—‘r’J-J‘

(r3

tie/”Li

 
 
 

B0
Study area “Rf“mfkhh
Entire stream network
Sampled reaches
=-=-=-=- Upper Twin Creek

 

Midstream Twin Creek
— Upper Chippewa Creek

Muskegon Rlver

H+ Midstream Chippewa Creek

0 850 1,700 3,400 Meters

l 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 J

 

 

 

Figure 4: Stream reaches modeled with SSTEMP

42

.805 coon .ooo. don .000 .8 0 .2. .00 $030.05.?
0000308000w .0 0000000 0300800 0:0 830. 8 E08w00 80000 008800 5000 00.0 330000 8 0w00ao um 0.83m

lilili

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ 0005 V00.0 0.50020 . I r 8.5 08.0 0.5 llw,
A0003 00000 030.320 Ill $0.53 x0000 0050. l - l v 0
0
g A803 000.. 900800—
00 80m 00.: 000. 003 com. 80. com 000 000 com o
W .................. illlulHIIllllilllul L. WOOd «UJI _
lilillliuﬁll l + 00.0 m
. 9 0
_ i mmo O m. i
_ \ \ \\ + 00.0 m.
w \\\\\\ 0.000%
0 i \ i \ .. 8.0 M
_ \ \ a o
\ 4. 0000 m

(
k

l 006

43

.0880 .39 00 $2 ”NEx mod boﬁgxeaav can. £55 9 50.50 ABS—080 :39 00 $3 ”NEV— N 308898008
wan—mmﬁw 9 83—23%“ .9036me .88 00 33 was. 0.0 06880080003 03.5 8 cam—mmﬂw 58.50 :38 .8
$2 ”NEV— mm.m 30805080003 8330 9 8800 532—00 3 8m 8558 020832 .358me 885 0053
x020 «3000200 98 53H 2: 5 8380088 88% so 88:: 85:08 count—BE .530 can; no «2&3

 

 

85208 550 8: 0:3 ,

9:5 9 0850 «8% 8 33020 53.5 8 $80 2330 o. 5800
0 1 m _ .o- 0
i 33.3

 

 

 

1.1 —.o..

 

 

 

 

+ 8.?
_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4- mod

////,
o
3) 91mmadma J. m aﬂueq 3

+ _.o 0

w 25

 

0
0

€303 £30. I 5:: £30. I ©0003 «300030 0 GE: m3o00EU D 0

 

 

 

44

 

 

July

 

A = midstream reach 0 = upstream reach

 

   

 

Twin Creek Q
Chippewa Creek O
Twm Creek ‘ .
Ch' pewa Creek A
Ip L). O

 

«L-

L k
1 l T 1

5 10 15 20 25 30
Thermal gradient(°C)

 

 

 

 

 

A = midstream reach 0 = upstream reach

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

>. Twin Creek +053 , +0.51 Q? 4. +6.53 , +6.51
3
ﬂ
Chippewa Creek "'13'0'92 . t 0 " +7.13 . +5.08
Twrn Creek +1.89 . +0.75 ‘ ﬂ 4' +7.89 ’ +6.75
Ch'ppewa C'ee" +2.01 ,- 0.28 5.x. <> : + 3.01 ,+5.72
5 10 15 20 25 30
Thermal gradient(°C)
‘

 

Figure 7: Mean monthly stream temperatures for Twin and Chippewa Creek stream
reaches in July and August (A) and the required change in mean monthly stream
temperature (°C) to exceed both optimal range (right) and upper lethal limit (253°C)
(left) for brook charr (B) in relationship to the thermal gradient established for brook

45

LITERATURE CITED

Allan, J .D. and M.M. Castillo, 2007. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running
Waters. Springer, Dordrecht

Anderson, MP. and W.W. Woessner, 1992. Applied Groundwater Modeling. Academic
Press, San Francisco.

Apple, BA. and H.W. Reeves, 2007. Summary of Hydrogeologic Conditions by County
for the State of Michigan. US Geological Survey & the State of Michigan,
Department of Environmental Quality, Open-File Report 2007-1236, 78p.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/ot72007/ 1236/. Date posted: September 21, 2007.

Balon, E.K., 1980. Charrs: Salmonid Fishes of the Genus Salvelinus. Kluwer, Boston.

Bartholic, J .F . et al., 2007. Restoring the Great Lakes Water Through the Use of Water
Conservation Credits and Integrated Water Balance Analysis System. Final
Report Prepared Under the Great Lakes Protection Fund Grant Number 763.
Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University.
http://www.iwr.msu.edu/research/projects.html.

Bartholic, J .F., B.D. Knezek and R.L. Cook, 1983. Impact evaluation of increased water
use by agriculture in Michigan. Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report
449, Michigan State University.

Bartholow, J .M., 1991. A Modeling Assessment of the Thermal Regime for an Urban
Sport Fishery. Environmental Management 15: 833-845.

Bartholow, J.M., 2002. SSTEMP for Windows: The Stream Segment Temperature Model
(Version 2). US Geological Survey computer model and documentation.
Available at: httg//www.fort.usgs.gov/.

 

Bedient, PB. and WC. Huber, 1992. Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis. Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA.

Behnke, R.J., 2002. Trout and salmon of North America. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New
York.

46

Bowlby, J.N. and J .C. Roff, 1986. Trout Biomass and Habitat Relationships in Southern
Ontario Streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 503-514.

Brett, J .R., 1940. Tempering versus acclimation in the planting of speckled trout.
American Fisheries Society 70: 397-403.

Brooks, K.N., O.F. Folliott, H.M. Gregersen and LP. DeBano, 2003. Hydrology and the
management of watersheds. Ames: Iowa Sate Press.

Cherry, D.S., K.L. Dickson and J. Cairns Jr., 1977. Preferred, avoided, and lethal
temperatures of ﬁsh during rising temperature conditions. Journal of the Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 34: 239-246.

Curry, RA. and D.L.G. Noakes, 1995. Groundwater and the selection of spawning sites
by brook trout (Salvelinusfontinalis). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 52: 1733-1740.

Davie, T., 2003. Fundamentals of Hydrology. Routledge, London.

Drake, MT and W.W. Taylor, 1996. Inﬂuence of spring and summer water temperature
on brook char (Salvelinus fontinalis) growth and age structure in the Ford River,
Michigan. Environmental Biology of Fishes 45: 41-51.

Dunne, T. and LB. Leopold, 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and
Company, San Francisco.

Eaton, J .G. and RM. Scheller, 1996. Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat
in streams of the United States. Limnology and Oceanography 41: 1109 -1115.

ESRI, 2008. ArcGIS 9.0. In: E.S.R. Institute (Ed.).

Freeze, RA. and J .A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, 604 pp.

Fry, F.E.J., 1971. The effect of environmental factors on the physiology of ﬁsh. . In: W.S.
Hoar and DJ. Randall (Eds), Fish Physiology. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-
98.

47

Fry, F.E.J.F.E.J., J.S. Hart, K.F. Walker, 1946. Lethal Temperature Relations for a
sample of young speckled trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Publications of the Ontario
Fisheries Research Laboratory, No. 66, Toronto, The University of Toronto Press
University of Toronto Studies Biological Series, No. 54: 9-35.

Gafﬁeld, S.J., K.W. Potter and L. Wang, 2005. Predicting the Summer Temperature of
Small Streams in Southern Wisconsin. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association February: 25-36.

Gassman, P.W., M.R. Reyes, C.H. Green and J .G. Arnold, 2007. The Soil and Water
Assessment Tool: Historical Development, Application, and Future Research
Directions. . Transactions of the American Society of Agriculture and Biological
Engineers 50: 1211-1250.

Grannemann, N.G., R.J. Hunt, J .R. Nicolas, T.E. Reilly and TC. Winter, 2000. The
importance of groundwater in the Great Lakes Region. US. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4008.

Gringarten, E. and CV. Deutsch, 2001. Teacher's Aide Variogram Interpretation and
Modeling. Mathematical Geology 33: 507-534.

Hayes, D.B., W.W. Taylor, M. Drake, S. Marod and G. Whelan, 1998. The value of
headwaters to brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the Ford River, Michigan,
USA. In: M.J. Haigh, J. Krecek, G.S. Rajwar and MP. Kilmartin (Eds),
Headwaters: Water Resources and Soil Conservation. Oxford and IBH Publishing
Co. . Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi.

Hendrickson, GE. and OJ. Donnan, 1972. Hydrology and Recreation on the Cold- Water
Rivers of Michigan's Southern Peninsula: Geological Survey Water Information
Series Report 3. 83.

Hokanson, K., 1973. Thermal requirements for maturation, spwaning and embryo
survival of brook trout. Journal of Fishereis Research Board of Canada 30: 975-
984.

Hudy, M., T.M. Thieling, N. Gillespie and BF. Smith, 2008. Distribution, Status, and
Land Use Characteristics of Subwatersheds within the Native Range of Brook
Trout in the Eastern United States. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management 28: 1069-1085.

48

Hunter, C.J., 1991. Better trout habitat: a guide to stream restoration and management.
Island Press, Washington, DC.

Jacobson, R.A., G.S. Warner, P. Parasiewicz, A.C. Bagtzoglou and F.L. Ogden, 2008. An
interdisciplinary study of the effects of groundwater extraction on freshwater

ﬁshes.(Report). lntemational Journal of Ecological Economics &amp; Statistics
12: 7(19).

Karas, N., 1997. Brook Trout. Lyons & Burford, New York, 371 pp.

Latta, W.C., 1965. Relationship of Young-of-the-year Trout to Mature Trout and
Groundwater. Institute for Fisheries Research, Michigan Department of
Conservation.

Leverett, F., 1906. Flowing wells and Municipal Water Supplies in the Sputhern Portion
of the Southern Penninsula of Michigan Department of the Interior United States
Geological Survey.

Li, S.-G. and Q. Liu, 2003. Interactive Ground Water (IGW): An Innovative Digital
Laboratory For Groundwater Education and Research. Computer Applications In
Engineering Education 11: 179-202.

Li, S.G., H. Liao, S. Afshari, M. Oztan and H. Abbas, 2009. A GIS-enabled hierarchical
patch dynamics paradigm for modellnig complex groundwater systems across
multiple spatial scales. In: G. Hanrahan (Ed.), Modelling of Pollutants in
Complex Environmental Systems, Volume I. ILM Publications, St. Albans.

Li, S.G. and Q. Liu, 2009. Interactive Groundwater Model: Michigan State University
Civil and Environmental Engineering computer model and documentation. .
Available at: http://www.egr.msu.edu/igw/.

Malcolm Pimie Inc, 2006. Report in Support of Application for Determination of No
Adverse Resource Impact.

McCormick, J.H., K.E.F. Hokanson and B.R. Jones, 1972. Effects of temperature on
growth and survival of young brook trout, Salvelinusfontinalis. Journal of the
Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29: 1107-1112.

49

Meisner, J .D., 1990. Effect of climatic warming on the southern margin of the native
range of brook trout, Salvelinusfontinalis. Canadian Journal of Fisheries &
Aquatic Sciences 47: 1065-1070.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 2006. Water Use. Available at:
http://www.michigan.gov/deq/O,1607,7-135-3313__3684_45331-7293 l--,00.htm1.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, US. Geological Survey and MIchigan
State University Institute of Water Research, 2006. Groundwater Inventory and
Mapping Project Technical Report. State of Michigan Public Act 148. Available
at: http://gwmem.rsgis.msu.edu/Technical_Report.pdf

Michigan Groundwater Conservation Advisory Council, 2006. Final Report to the
Michigan Legislature in response to Public Act 148 of 2003. Available at:

httpz/lwwwmichi gan. gov/ documents/ act 1 48reportlegi slatureil 57533_7.pdf.

 

Naiman, R.J., J .J . Magnuson, D.M. McKnight and J .A. Stanford, 1995. The Freshwater
Imperative: A Research Agenda. Island Press, Washington DC.

Neitsch, S.L., J .G. Arnold, J .R. Kiniry and J .R. Williams, 2005. Soil and Water
Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation (Version 2005). Temple, Texas:
USDA - ARS Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory. .

Owen, M., 1991. Groundwater Abstraction and River Flows. Water and Environment
Journal 5: 697-702.

Pajak, P., 1992. Developing integrated fisheries objectives for land and water resource
management: The Milwaukee River experience. . American Fisheries Society
Symposium 13: 175-196.

Poff, N.L. et al., 1997. The Natural Flow Regime. Bioscience 47: 769-784.

Power, G., 1980. The brook charr, Salvelinusfontinalis. In: E.K. Balon (Ed.), Chan's:
Salmonid Fishes of the Genus Salvelinus. Kluwer Academic, The Hague, The
Netherlands, pp. 142-203.

. Power, G., R.S. Brown and J .G. Irnhof, 1999. Groundwater and ﬁsh- insights from
northern North America. Hydrological Processes 13: 401-422.

50

Pringle, CM. and F.J. Triska, 2000. Emergent Biological Patterns and Surface-
Subsurface Interactions at Landscape Scales. In: J .B. Jones and P.J. Mulholland
(Eds), Streams and Ground Waters Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 167-189.

Raleigh, RF, 1982. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Brook Trout. Us Department of
the Interior, Fisheries and Wildlife Service.

Stranko, S.A. et al., 2008. Brook Trout Declines with Land Cover and Temperature

Changes in Maryland. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:
1223-1232.

Taylor, W.W. et al., 2002. Integrating landscape ecology into ﬁsheries management: A
rationale and practical considerations. In: J. Liu and W.W. Taylor (Eds),
Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 366-389.

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1972. Heat and mass transfer between a water surface and
the atmosphere. Water Resources Research Lab Report 14. Norris, TN. 166 pp.

Theurer, F.D., K.A. Voos and W.J. Miller, 1984. Instream Water Temperature Model.
U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service.

Wang, L., R.M. Hughes and P.W. Seelbach, 2006. Introduction to landscape inﬂuences
on stream habitats and biological assemblages. In: L. Wang, R.M. Hughes and
P.W. Seelbach (Eds), Landscape inﬂuences on stream habitats and biological
assemblages. . American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 1-23.

Wang, L., J. Lyons and P. Kanehl, 2003. Impacts of Urban Land Cover on Trout Streams
in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:
825-839.

Wehrly, K.E., M.J. Wiley and P.W. Seelbach, 1998. Landscape-Based Models that
Predict July Thermal Characteristics of Lower Michigan Rivers. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report No. 2037. Available
at:
http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/ifrlibra/Research/report
s/203 7rr.pdf.

5,1

Wehrly, K.E., M.J. Wiley and P.W. Seelbach, 2003. Classifying regional variation in
thermal regime based on stream ﬁsh community patterns. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 132: 18-38.

Whitledge, G.W., C.F. Rabeni, G. Annis and SP. Sowa, 2006. Riparian shading and
groundwater enhance growth potential for Smallmouth Bass in Ozark Streams.
Ecological Applications 16: 1461-1473.

Wiley, M.J. and P.W. Seelbach, 1997. An Introduction to Rivers - the Conceptual Basis
for the Michigan Rivers Inventory (MRI) Project. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources Fisheries Division, Fisheries Special Report 10. Available at:
http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/iﬁlibra/special/reports/
205r.pdf.

Winter, T.C., J .W. Harvey, O.L. Franke and W.M. Alley, 1998. Ground Water and
Surface Water: A Single Resource. US. Department of the Interior, US.
Geological Survey.

Zorn, T.G., P.W. Seelbach and M.J. Wiley, 2002. Distributions of Stream Fishes and
their Relationship to Stream Size and Hydrology in Michigan's Lower Peninsula.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131: 70-85.

52

_. 44

 

   

WIIIIILIIIIIIEIJ

IIIIIIIIITIII“

083 0