.L . r.r..~.r 711:111 . a... « \.r1.1‘iv. .1... :I~!.. \L..wnz.u1v.: . 1.11.1.1! “3:113... 31:32.. 2. e... 71. 29.1.1... a: 551... 15': $112.. 1. , 71.1.2415; I... . 1.0.1.111 1..w....,,..ynL17..11.v1.x.srx3:45.1 wit: . .111. .r. 1.15.1 ain'tlwnd... ,.1A1 . r3 .-1.§..,...:... 1 . . 71:1 1.5.1.1).1997 1.1 1:0.r»;1..-.1:.r ‘kul'tlI c""i.uv’ . . . . 'A’I11Ilvfill n. c...3...a‘..,.:.r..1! 11:11:11 11...... :3... r: r. . ukhv..d&Lw 1.12: .1115)... 1:25.191 11.. .7.t\lu,.. :- . . :1 £3... '12:... . . 1);.312-rv...:..,.w..\1a. 11.11.36.511... 1. . 1.1.; 3.... v. 533611.159“. .V..l.l..9 1|... gr-q .. ‘1 . 1.. .. 1.x. 1.. 1,1,113131111; .uyv.....§1I1.. 1!... 11:15:21.... 23......111.’ .11 .1. 1.1.: 8! I11... 1... 41.11.!) v... 1.11.: 11......xvxrv. 7- 17v. 72115.... . 11.1137... 1......1.1... :7 .111: 1. rewr|r1|xtft c).... :1 11.7713 v...1.v:v$..)1.r.1(. 52...... 1.1.3.2... D7. .11. yr... ktl\.719511l~ u..!\0.11.tvsn.v..vx. 1.1311,... 11’1“: 11.1 V 1).]l-iv v .II~.1.2._.!.01...1.1 llitx1lr>11v3=3vn1 1... T w “Ll!IllIILlHjfllflllllLll‘jllljlwflljlllflzlllzlllfllflfl L This is to certify that the thesis entitled Physical and Cultural Characteristics Of an Urbanizing Watershed presented by i Harry Kenneth Stevens r has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Fisheries & Wildlife 6/ wow” Major professor Date May 18, 1967 0‘169 22m. 223% W ‘3‘? " 253W ‘. -'; 14,39? $22279, F_ 427277 ‘8 ~.‘§w311~ 2 MAGIC 2 va n. 2* R9 JAN f’fié’ag :27 J71? 1031' g 963:3 @1333? pm i 0 39% OCT 17 2005 «2'2 {1,2 ‘0 7 9.4 2,1 9. :V fiagg 2r.2 R12 ”wepgwm sfilL ————r SUPPE BAENTARY 2' M Erfl‘b ‘ lunar}- agthCKOFBc “OK ABSTRACT PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN URBANIZING WATERSHED by Harry Kenneth Stevens The purpose of this study is to help provide a better understanding of the water resource of a small water- shed, a subbasin of the Red Cedar River drainage basin of Southern Lower Michigan. Selected natural characteristics and relevant cultural characteristics of this study basin are described. In addition to the customary review of the formal literature for each topic considered, the unpublished, local information was sought. Local representatives of various governmental agencies, personnel of Michigan State University, and long-time residents of the study basin were interviewed. Field and office work were used to supplement and analyze se— lected topics. Techniques of geography, geology, engineering, soil science, ecology and hydrology were used. Some of the findings are given below. The area of the study basin is 335.8 square miles as determined by using the watershed divide bounding the study basin which was de- lineated by map and field procedures. The pattern of the Harry Kenneth Stevens stream drainage net is a combination of rectangular and dendritic types reflecting the recent continental glaciation. In terms of stream order the study basin is a fourth order basin. The long profile of the main stream is the usual concave—up type. The history of stream gaging in the study basin is given. Based on a soil type-forest type corre— lation the presettlement vegetation was essentially a com— plete forest cover. The hydrologic cycle is considered in general terms; the major variables are quantified as they occur in the Red Cedar study basin. The long—term temperature and precipi— tation norms were considered and the base period, 1931—1960, was selected to allow comparisons among hydrologic variables. All available precipitation records were inspected, and the average annual precipitation for the base period is 30.78 inches. By using the inflow—outflow method and the Thornthwaite method, evapotranspiration is estimated at ap— proximately 73% of annual precipitation. Runoff from the study basin is analyzed by hydro— graphs, frequency distribution, regional runoff comparison, flow-duration curve, and double—mass curves. Although the Red Cedar is a highly variable stream with occasional very low flows, no evidence was detected to indicate that the known variations in mean annual runoff cannot be accounted for by natural variation in the hydrologic cycle. Harry Kenneth Stevens In the northwestern portion of the study basin the piezometric surface of the bedrock aquifer has become a part of the growing composite cone of depression created by the metropolitan area adjacent to and encroaching into the study basin. \ The population density of the presettlement Indian occupance was probably less than one person per square mile. ; From the mid-1830's to 1900 the agriculturally oriented occu- pance of the early white settlers was dominant. By 1900 the density was approximately 39 persons per square mile, and dramatic changes had occurred in both land and water use. Modern occupance of the study basin is a mixture of urban, suburban and agricultural types. In 1960 the overall popu- lation density of the study basin was 105 persons per square mile. In the urban segment it was 3,519 and in the most sub- urbanized township it was 408. In the more rural townships the density was 20 to 50 persons per square mile. n/ All water uses combined were equivalent to 0.25 inches] of water over the entire study basin per year.wm fi_wwniw/” w..._...,.... PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN URBANIZING WATERSHED BY Harry Kenneth Stevens A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 1967 B77” 7/ 7/:7 ACKNOWLEDGMENT S First, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Gilbert w: Mousery chairman of the doctoral guidance committee, for his continued help, encouragement and patience. To the other members of the guidance committee, Drs. Robert C. Ball, Henry D. Foth and Peter I. Tack, I wish to acknowledge their suggestions and assistance during the planning and execution of the doctoral program. To all of the many other persons in a wide-variety of positions who have helped with this study, I express genuine appreciation. Although some of these persons appear in the reference list, I want to acknowledge several indi- vidually for thought-stimulating discussions and for help in the search for obscure records: Paul C. Bent, U. S. Geo— logical Survey; A. H. Eichmeier, formerly with the U. S. Weather Bureau; Ernest H. Kidder, Agricultural Engineering Department, Michigan State University; and, Ivan F. Schneider, Soil Science Department, Michigan State University. Also, I wish to acknowledge two other Michigan State University personnel: Paul J. Schneider, Resource Development Depart- ment, for aid in drafting techniques; and, Nathan W. Shier, graduate assistant, Physiology Department, for assistance in field work. ii Personnel of several agencies were especially help- ful: the Archives of the Michigan Historical Commission; the State of Michigan Library; the Documents Division, Michigan State University Libraries, particularly, Eleanor J. Boyles; and, Commercial Blueprint, Inc. To the National Science Foundation and the National Wildlife Federation, I express gratitude for both moral and financial support during this study. To my friends and family, especially my wife, Marjorie, I wish to acknowledge the interest, patience and encouragement given during the entire doctoral program. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. SELECTED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RED CEDAR STUDY BASIN . . . . . . . . . . 5 Location Topography Boundary and Area Determination III. SURFACE WATERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9 Lakes and Swamps l9 Streams 21 Introduction Drainage Pattern Stream Order River Profile Available Stream Measurement Records IV. PRESETTLEMENT FOREST COVER . . . . . . . . . . 35 Introduction Classification and Terminology Reconstruction of the Original Forest Cover V. THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Introduction 45 The Cycle in General Terms The Hydrologic Budget iv Chapter Climate Classification Temperature and Precipitation Norms Study Basin Precipitation Evapotranspiration Inflow-Outflow Method Thornthwaite Method Runoff Introduction Hydrographs Dimensionless Hydrographs Runoff Compared to Precipitation Red Cedar Runoff Compared with Regional Runoff Frequency Distribution of Runoff Long-Term Trends in Runoff Ground Water Introduction Water Table and Piezometric Surface Cone of Depression VI. HUMAN SETTLEMENT IN THE STUDY BASIN Overview Indian Occupance Agricultural Occupance by the White Man Population Land and Water Use Modern Occupance Population: Number and Trends Water Use Land Use Geographic Name of the River Early Usage Recent Usage VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION Summary Conclusions and Discussion REFERENCES Page 56 67 77 110 117 117 118 119 151 159 166 Table 10. LIST OF TABLES Selected long— profile values for the Red Cedar River . . . . . . . . . . Forest cover types of the Red Cedar River study basin showing corresponding tree species and soil series Natural drainage of the Red Cedar River study basin by forest cover types . . . . . Average or normal monthly temperature and precipitation for Lansing, Michigan Annual precipitation for 1931-1964 and the 30—year mean for the Red Cedar study basin Precipitation norms for stations near the Red Cedar study basin Summary of values of the Thornthwaite method applied to the study basin using monthly normal values for temperature and precipitation Annual precipitation of the Red Cedar study basin expressed as a percent of the 30-year mean (1931—1960), as the cumulative de— parture from the 30—year mean, and as an accumulated value . Annual runoff of the Red Cedar study basin expressed as a percent of the 30-year mean (1931—1960), as the cumulative departure from the 30—year mean, and as an accumu— 1ated value Estimates of population in the Red Cedar study basin for 1850, 1900 and 1960 by minor civil divisions . . . . . . vi Page 27 42 44 58 64 66 72 87 88 121 Table Page 11. Population of the Meridian Township seg— ment of the Red Cedar study basin for 1960 and 1965 by census tracts . . . . . . . 132 12. Population trends in Michigan, Ingham County and the study basin during 1960—1965 . . . 134 13. Livestock water use in the Red Cedar study basin by county segments . . . . . . . . . . 144 14. Terminology used by some early works re— ferring to the main stream of the study basin . . . . . . . . . . 154 Figure 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF FIGURES Location map showing the Grand River and its major tributaries Detailed location map Township and topographic map coverage Long profile of the Red Cedar River Forest Type classification and terminology Presettlement forest cover A diagram of the hydrologic cycle Normal monthly temperature and precipitation for Lansing, Michigan Average water balance for Lansing, Michigan Hydrographs for the Red Cedar River at East Lansing, the Huron River at Ann Arbor and the Manistee River near Sherman Average monthly precipitation and runoff for the Red Cedar River at East Lansing for 1931-1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual precipitation and annual runoff for the Red Cedar study basin each expressed as a percent of the corresponding 30—year mean annual value . . . . . . Annual precipitation and annual runoff for the Red Cedar study basin expressed as the cumulative departure from the 30—year mean Annual runoff for the Red Cedar study basin and for the Midwest region . . viii Page 12 28 38 47 59 76 79 83 89 91 93 Figure Page 15. Runoff for the Red Cedar study basin for 1931—1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 16. A hydrograph for the Red Cedar River at East Lansing for June 1948 . . . . . . . . . . . 99 17. Flow—duration curve for the Red Cedar River at East Lansing, 1931-1960 . . . . . . . . . 101 18. Frequency distribution of daily discharges for the Red Cedar River at East Lansing, 1931—1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 19. Double-mass curve for the Red Cedar study basin for 1931—1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 20. Double—mass curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 21. Profiles of the piezometric surface in the Lansing—E. Lansing—Meridian Twp. area for 1945 and 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 22. Population growth curves for the state of Michigan, Ingham County and the study basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 23. 1960 population density by minor civil divisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 *In map pocket. ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One hundred—forty years ago the land that was to be- come southern Lower Michigan was covered with a mature“ 9%6“ forest. The land and water, the biota and the Indian inhabi- /T tants comprised a slowly changing ecosystem. With the ar— rival of the white man and a new culture the system changed abruptly and has continued to change rapidly ever since. This then is a study focusing on a small drainage basin, refererred to as the study basin, that received the new human culture. It is an attempt to document and under— stand some of the characteristics of the waters of the study basin as they have responded to the human inhabitants of the last 135 years. Change seems to be a necessary element of the culture of the present inhabitants of the study basin. It appears in- evitable that the waters of the study basin will continue to be altered in response to various cultural changes. Compre- hensive plans and policies regarding the use of water as a natural resource have been poorly defined or non—existent. But one of the goals of modern water—use planning is to con- sider practicable alternative plans (National Acad. Sci. 1966). The formation of such planning alternatives requires an understanding of both the relevant physical and the rele— vant cultural factors (including the economic ones) that are involved in the complex water resource—human relationship. There are a variety of ways to view this man—water relation. In the broad View I concur with Dice (1955) that in their essential ecologic features human communities are not different from nonhuman communities and that, ”Man also is directly or indirectly dependent upon the physical con- ditions that occur in the habitats in which he lives.” This \ leads to the hypothesis that the concept of ecologic limiting 7 factors does apply to man in spite of man's relatively great ; ability to alter his environment. Thus, in addition to eco- nomic and social considerations alternative water-use plans should include a thorough appraisal of the physical nature, including the limitations, of the water resource being considered. No preexisting model was used for this study. Each inhabited watershed is unique in a physical sense and in terms of the culture imposed on it. In as much as this study reflects such a watershed it too is unique. Nonetheless this study may serve as an example of what can be known about similar small drainage basins and their water resource. For each of the topics studied a general review of the formal literature was made, including correspondence with several of the authors read. For each topic an attempt was made to find the relevant nonpublished, local information. This phase of the study took the form of personal interviews with local representatives (including several retired workers) in various federal, state, county, township and city govern— mental agencies and units. It also included similar contacts with persons in various departments of Michigan State Uni- versity and some long—time residents of the study basin. This procedure led to a review of a large quantity of a variety of widely scattered and largely unpublished, open- file and personal information. Field and office work was used to supplement, verify and analyze selected topics of the in- formation available. It was necessary to utilize principles and techniques from several disciplines, mainly, geography, geology, engineering, soil science, ecology and hydrology. First, the boundary (the watershed divide) of the study basin was delineated and the drainage area was de- termined to be 336 square miles. The nature of the existing surface waters was considered in terms of extent, drainage pattern, stream order and river profile. A compilation of known stream records was made. The nature and extent of the presettlement forest cover was determined from a forest type- soil type correlation. Climate, evapotranspiration, runoff and ground water as elements of the hydrologic cycle were considered in gener— al, and as they operate through the study basin. Human occupance of the basin was considered at three points in time: presettlement, i.e., Indian, prior to 1835; early agricultural occupance by the white man, approximately 1835 to 1900; and modern occupance by a mixed urban—suburban— agricultural society, 1900 to the present. For each type of occupance an attempt was made to estimate the water use and related land uses. Finally, the origin and usage of the geo— graphic name of the main stream of the study basin was reviewed. This study was designed to consider selected aspects of water and water use in the study basin through an inter- disciplinary approach and to complement past and current studies that treat some aspects of the study basin. Fish biology, limnology and pollution of the Red Cedar River are not considered per se in this paper. These topics have been a continuing research area of the Fisheries and Wildlife De— partment of Michigan State University, and the findings are reported mainly in the graduate theses of Brehmer (1956 & 1958), Meehan (1958), Grzenda (1960), Kevern (1961), Rawstron (1961), Vannote (1961 & 1963), King (1962 & 1964), and Linton (1964 & 1967). CHAPTER II SELECTED PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RED CEDAR STUDY BASIN Location.-—The Red Cedar River is a small, warm—water stream located in the central section of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan (Fig. 1). The focus of this study is a subbasin of the Red Cedar drainage basin. The Red Cedar is one of the main tributaries in the second largest river basin of Michigan, the Grand River basin (Mich. Water Res. Comm. 1961; Brown, no date). From its headwaters in Jackson County the Grand River flows north—northwesterly to Lansing, the state capital. It then flows generally westerly, passing through the city of Grand Rapids as it flows to its mouth at Grand Haven where it empties into Lake Michigan. The Red Cedar River has its headwaters in Livingston County from where it flows northwesterly to Fowlerville and then westerly to Lansing where it joins the Grand River (Fig. 2, map pocket). The study basin is that portion of the Red Cedar drainage basin which lies upstream of the r A...“ United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gaging station ggi at Farm Lane on the main campus of Michigan State Universi.y / (MSU) at East Lansing, Michigan. The one major tributary flowing into the Red Cedar below (west of) Farm Lane bridge, O 25 50 MICHIGAN mu== SOUTHERN MILES PENINSULA N K .7 ‘f 6‘ Z ’S ‘T C 70 O O - Z I U :. 2 . .0. .0 o a: ... 0 I 6 .0. Lu . 0. . . 4 o. x .. I... '3}... < z 7 9. 3 o. ' ‘1 0.. .0 o. .. .. \u} ... . °. '4‘ o . 1 .. 2 .. .0 l Figure 1. Location map showing the Grand River and its major tributaries. The watershed divide is given for the Grand River, Sycamore Creek and the Red Cedar study basin. Streams identified by number: 1 - Grand River 5 - Maple River 2 - Sycamore Creek 6 - Flat River 3 - Red Cedar River 7 - Thornapple River 4 - Lookingglass River Sycamore Creek, drains approximately 24% of the entire Red Cedar basin. An additional 2% is drained by small streams emptying directly into the Red Cedar below Farm Lane bridge. The study basin lies east of Farm Lane bridge and drains ap— proximately 74% of the entire Red Cedar River drainage basin. Topography.-—The topography of the study basin reflects the work of the most recent continental ice sheet to cover the Central Michigan area, the Cary stage of the Wisconsin glaciation which retreated some fifteen thousand years ago. The surface of the study basin is generally level to rolling except for the three elevated hilly belts which trend east and west. These belts are recessional moraines left by the Saginaw Lobe of the ice sheet as it retreated in a general northeasterly direction. Along the southern perimeter of the study basin the watershed divide is located on the Charlotte Moraine (Mich. Dept. Cons. 1955 & 1958). The Lansing Moraine trends northeastward as it passes south of East Lansing and Okemos; then it turns eastward and forms the northern boundary of the eastern half of the study basin. The western half of the northern divide is located on the east—west trending Grand Ledge Moraine which joins the Lansing Moraine to the east. 11 three of these moraines are discontinuous as they cross the study basin and both the main stream and some tributaries flow through them. The major portions of the relatively low, level areas are ground moraines or till plains. Small areas of outwash occur adjacent to and south of the Charlotte Moraine. Glacial river channels and old lake beds account for some of the broad wet lands. The Red Cedar River flows for most of its east-west direction in an oversized glacial river channel which previously carried larger amounts of water westward along the face of the stagnant glacier (Mich. Dept. Cons. 1958). Thus most of the Red Cedar is an underfit stream (Amer. Geol. Inst. 1960). The study basin contains several eskers, locally called hogbacks, which are low, symmetrical, serpentine ridges. They are of glacio-fluvial origin and made up of water—sorted material, gravel for the most part. All five esker systems in the study basin trend north—south and so are perpendicular to the morainic belts (Mich. Dept. Cons° 1955 & 1958; USGS topographic maps). Parts of these ridges have been removed since their gravel has economic value. The highest point in the study basin occurs along the eastern divide and is located at the summit of a kame which forms the highest hill of the Howell State Hospital grounds located in Marion Township, Livingston County (TZN, R4E) as shown in Figure 2. The elevation of that summit is 1086 feet above mean sea level. The lowest point in the study basin occurs where the Red Cedar flows westerly out of the study basin as it passes under the Farm Lane bridge, Meridian Township, Ingham County. The river“s elevation at that point is about 825 feet above mean sea level. Boundary and Area Determination.--The Red Cedar River leaves the study basin as it flows westerly under the Farm Lane bridge which is presently a four lane road bridge that is located on the Michigan State University, East Lansing campus. \ The concrete base of this bridge houses the recording instru— ) / / L I I 1 age basin remains relatively unchanged since settlement by / ment which provides the official flow record published by the USGS. Although extensive drainage projects have been carried out in the study basin, the total area of the drain— \I . ,. x~ the white man. 7' -e The area of the watershed above the Farm Lane gaging station (i.e., the study basin) usually is given in the literature as 355 square miles (USGS 1958; Hariri 1960; Mich. Water Res. Comm. 1961; Vannote 1961). The earliest reference to this 355 square mile value is not in the paper which de- scribes the initiation of the gaging station in the vicinity of Farm Lane in 1931 (Strom and Ackley 1931) or the first official report, Water-Supply Paper 714 (USGS 1933). The Water-Supply Paper which gives observations of the 1936—1937 water year (USGS 1938) is the first to report a drainage area above the gage and the 355 square mile value is given. Apparently this is the value which is repeated in later USGS reports and references by other authors. In the general introduction of the most recent de— cennial review and summary of the records of the present gaging station by the USGS it is stated that for some sta- tions drainage area values are not given because of a lack 10 of suitable maps, or because the divides cannot be delimited and so the effective drainage area cannot be determined (USGS 1964). In the station report for the (Red) Cedar River at East Lansing, Michigan the 355 square mile value is given, implying that it was possible to determine the lo— cation of the divide and the effective drainage area from available maps. Although the 355 square mile value is not reported until 1937 a value of 358 square miles is given in reports for thfijflégisthlstic.bridgsistation as early as_1903m(USGS 1904). The athletic bridge is about 0.6 mile below the Farm Lane bridge: Laterreports covering the same location also give the 358_square mile value (e.g., Strom and Ackley 1931: USGS 1958).. As early as 1901 the now—famous hydrologist, Robert E. Horton, gave the area of the entire Red Cedar basin as 472 square miles in a paper in an engineering journal (Horton 1901). His value was determined from a road map with a scale of one inch equal to three miles. The same value is given in the early Water—Supply Paper series (USGS 1901 & 1904) and later in other places (Strom and Ackley 1931; Vannote 1963; Mich. Dept. Agr., no date). Thus the value for the drainage area of the Red Cedar River apparently was introduced into the literature by a prominent worker whose calculations were based on inspection of an early road map of relatively small scale. Subsequently, that value became 11 a quotable standard which was not investigated further in the field or office. The source of the 355 square mile value for the Farm Lane station or the earlier 358 square mile value for the downstream station was not found. The 355 value may have been derived from the larger value by considering the differ- ence in drainage areas between the two gaging stations which is about three square miles. Even so the method of obtain- ing the 358 square mile value is still in doubt, but it is probable that it originated from a map study during the first few years of the 1900's. This paper includes a detailed attempt to determine the area of the study basin by utilizing several field and office procedures. I first determined the location of the basin divide by inspection of a topographic base map of the study basin which was a composite map made of USGS lS—minute quadrangles (Fig. 3). This is the ”study basin divide“ of Figure 2 (map pocket). In some areas the validity of this determination was poor because of the large contour interval of the maps being used compared to the relatively slight local relief. Most of the study basin is given in 20—foot contour intervals (Mason, Fowlerville and Howell sheets) the remainder in ten—foot intervals. Rasmussen and Andreason (1959) encountered the same problem in a study of a water- shed in Maryland. They found it necessary to construct maps with a five foot contour interval for some areas. 12 n 5 m 20:22 III I I v m‘ :1 3250: H .l... "" “ :«QUOIOU m mmii N — w“ w _ ”H o Z_m03hm «(emu 0mm i332< / _ _ . _ 5.0 “:13 u _ _ . .n _ .... q (325.. ..........<.w.._mw._...b.. .m...&fl._amv._U:...0pw. " _ ...................... . - -II It a Q \I s ////////////// / FIIII§\I I III IN I l‘n‘\l\ mo .. .mlmwobm ”4.7. lezlalmvaDml 1W I/WM om" _ 2053 \ _ _ _>> I .. ..H..... IIIII I~I _ _ _ _ . _ _ g __ 205233;). , AVABA ll QUE oinoumouo. .omo.o>ou 1.5 £5330... . m 0.50: 200347;. ___+___.___ //////////,f////z////j I I I I l // 13 In fact, the divide is not necessarily a discrete boundary; in some instances the divide varies according to the nature of the precipitation or melt water and the con- ditions of two or more alternate drainage outlets. For ex- ample, in sections 17 and 20, Conway Township, Livingston County (T4N, R3E) the surface runoff may flow either way through a road culvert depending on prevailing conditions (Graham 1964).* Since the roadbed is elevated above the flat fields adjacent to it, it serves as the divide. Be— cause of the reversible flow through the culvert, a discrete, stationary divide does not exist in that locality. In other instances the divide lies in swampland where the divide is also neither discrete nor stationary. An example occurs in sections 14 and 15, Alaiedon Township, Ingham County (T3N, R1W). In addition to inspection of the topographic maps several other sources and methods were considered in order to arrive at the final approximation of the watershed divide. For the Deer Creek subwatershed Kidder (1964) reported that he had used aerial photographs and detailed field work, which included walking the boundary and talking with local residents when in doubt, to determine the location of the di- vide. In part, that boundary coincides with the divide of the study basin and it was used as a standard of comparison for the results of other sources and methods (Fig. 2). *Also confirmed by local residents. 14 The drainage district maps which show drainage basins for tax and legal purposes were studied. They are located in the drain commissioner’s office in each county represented in the study basin.* These maps are generally prepared from engineering studies where the divide is de- termined by ”walking it out" with some aid from local resi- dents. In order to facilitate governmental actions the natural divides are somewhat modified on the map allowing them to account for field lines and property lines. Mr. Gerald Graham (1964), Ingham County Drain Commissioner, also contributed personal knowledge for a few areas. Stereoscopic pairs of aerial photographs of several areas of the study basin were also studied. I found they could not be used to replace field work in divide determi- nation but only to supplement it. This agrees with the con— clusion of Kidder (1964). The divide locations from the above sources were plotted on the same base map as the original approximation. In some areas this led to four different boundary esti— mations; in other areas the several approximations were es- sentially superimposed. By visual inspection and use of a planimeter, 13 areas were identified in which the determi- nation by the topographic map was sufficiently different from the other determinations to create a watershed surface *Drain offices which were visited: Ingham Co., Mason; Livingston Co., Howell; Clinton Co., St. Johns; Shiawassee Co., Corunna. 15 difference of more than 0.15 square mile (96 acres). After inspecting the size distribution of all the parcels involved, this value was more or less arbitrarily selected as the mini- mum size of parcels to be considered further. In each of these 13 cases I inspected the area in question in the field and talked to local residents when still in doubt. In all but one case this procedure resolved the choice of the best estimate of the divide location. The exception is that part of the basin located near the head— waters of the Red Cedar River in Marion Township in Livingston County (T2N, R4E)--the Triangle Lake—Pleasant Lake area. In that area a distinct surface divide does not exist since the local topography is gently undulating with surface depres- sions which have internal drainage only. The final approxi— mation there was the result of differential surveying and field inspection of the area by Dr. John Hughes (1963), a physical geographer, and myself. In the urbanized area of the study basin the natural surface divide is modified by the storm sewer network which is reflected in straight map lines in the East Lansing- Michigan State University area. Storm sewer maps of the engineering divisions of the City of East Lansing and Michi~ gan State University were studied in order to locate the man— modified divide. The modified divide is not stationary be- cause the surface inlets (catchment basins) are interconnected by storm sewers which cross under the surface divides in 16 order to allow for the transfer of excess storm runoff water between adjacent parts of the system. The divide shown for the East Lansing—Michigan State University area is believed to be the normal location. The final delineation of the boundary of the study basin is the l‘study basin divide" of Figure 2 as it is altered in several places by the ”modifi- cation of divide'l symbol. The final estimate of the drainage area of the study basin is 335.8 square miles (214,912 acres). The frequently quoted value, 355 square miles, is 5.7% larger than this estimate. The area was determined by planimetering the sur- face within the final estimate of the basin divide. The basin was divided into workable-sized units, and a polar compensating planimeter was used to determine the area of each in square inches._ Each reading is the result of three or more separate planimeter trials. The total map area was converted to land surface area by a conversion factor which was determined by comparing linear map distances with the Michigan rectangular coordinate system 10,000-foot grid ticks shown on the margins of some of the topographic sheets. An average value was used since the vertical and horizontal scales of the individual sheets were not identical and the several topographic sheets used had scales which were not exactly identical with each other. In addition, the area of the study basin was de- termined by using a ”cut and weigh” method similar to those 17 described by Curtis (1959) and Schneider (1965). The boundary of the study basin was traced on a piece of engi— neering drafting tracing paper. Several quadrilaterals bounded by known lines of latitude and longitude were de- termined and their areas were found in standard tables (USGS, no date). The various areas were separated by cutting, and each area was weighed on an analytical balance. The areas of the irregularly shaped sections were determined by as- suming that surface area is directly proportional to weight and using the area and weight of the standard quadrilaterals as a base for comparison. This result served as a check on the planimeter method and differed from the planimeter re- sult by less than one percent. Although the contour intervals of the available topo— graphic maps are admittedly too large to allow precise de- termination of the divide, especially in areas of small local relief, the maps incorporating these intervals did al- low for a fairly close approximation without the expenditure of time and money inherent in the other procedures. The first approximation was determined from detailed topographic map inspection and supplemental field work at only two locations where the maps were obviously inadequate. The final approximation was the result of a modification of the first approximation by a detailed comparison of infor— mation from other sources and procedures, including field work in 13 locations. The watershed area as determined by 18 using the first approximation of the divide was only 0.51 square miles (326 acres) larger than the final value attained. This small difference is somewhat misleading however, since some of the changes in area were added and some were sub- tracted from the original value. Actually, it was necessary to add or subtract 3.60 square miles (2,304 acres). Even so it appears that the existing topographic maps and selected, limited field inspection provide a means for determining the watershed divide with a level of accuracy suitable for many purposes and with more accuracy than is often given in the literature. For greater accuracy the expenditure of effort required to compare other sources and to utilize other methods may be warranted. Part of this decision would de— pend on the accuracy and availability of other sources. CHAPTER III SURFACE WATERS OF THE RED CEDAR STUDY BASIN Lakes and Swamps Rivers, creeks, lakes, ponds and swamps are ex- pressions of surface water in the study basin. As used locally, a lake is a body of standing water which is sur— rounded by land. Pond, hole, pothole, cathole and kettle- hole are names applied to bodies of water that are quite small. There is no sharp distinction between lake and pond, or between pond and the other terms. In addition the local usage varies widely (Veatch and Humphrys 1964). For example, in Central Michigan "lake" is the more common term, but in New England ”pond" or "reservoir” are commonly used for equally large bodies of water. The study basin contains only a small number of lakes, the exact number depending on the definition used. There are eleven "lakes“ each having a surface area of at least six acres. Lake Lansing, a second order temperate lake, is the largest with a surface area of approximately 452 acres (Mich. Water Res. Comm. 1961) which is larger than the combined surface area of the other ten lakes. The next largest are Cedar and Triangle lakes. each having 19 20 approximately 50 to 55 acres of surface area. These two lakes are located in the southeast corner of the study basin. Just to the southeast of these lakes is Pleasant Lake which is often included in the drainage basin of the Red Cedar. When Pleasant Lake's basin is full the area of the water sur- face is approximately 85 acres, but in dry years (such as 1963) the water level drops so that extensive mud flats ap- pear around much of the shoreline until about only half of the original surface area remains. The nearest lakes which are at least as large as Lake Lansing are located about 25 miles from it and outside the study basin. Thus for area which lies in the ”Heart of the Water Wonderland,” to use chamber of commerce jargon, the study basin offers little to its residents in lake—oriented esthetic and recreational opportunities. Generally, a swamp is flat wetland which supports trees and shrubs, while a marsh is a flat wetland which sup~ ports grasses and sedges (Reid 1961). Originally, Central Michigan had extensive wetlands which impressed the early settlers to such an extent that some wet areas were given names, e.g., Chandler Marsh and Big Swamp which lie near the study basin. Using wetland soil types as an indicator of land that has been or is swampy approximately 23% of the study basin is classified as wetland. Some of this land has been drained for agricultural purposes, and the water table has been lowered correspondingly. 21 mg Introduction.-—A stream is a continuous, elongated body of water which flows downslope in a more or less definite channel (modified from Reid 1961). River, creek, brook, rivulet, streamlet, rill and rillet are used to refer to streams of differing size and permanence; and, again, local usage varies widely. Central Jichigan is an area of relative— ly small streams, and its residents tend to use ”river" for the larger local streams which in other locations would be called creek or brook. In the study basin the main stream is a ”river” and the tributaries are ”creeks.“ Even the distinction between "lake" and I'stream" is not distinct, es— pecially when a stream appears to have little or no current, e.g., pond, millpond, reservoir, floodwater or lake are all applied to impounded waters. An example is Webber Pond, the water of the Grand River which is impounded behind the dam near Lyons in Ionia County. Drainage Pattern.—-The main stream. the Red Cedar River, and its tributaries comprise the natural surface drainage system or drainage net of the study basin. The major tributaries trend north and south and join the main stream as it flows westerly (Fig. 2). Recently glaciated areas typically have immature drainage systems; the study basin is no exception. Natural surface drainage is poor with small wet depressions and broad swamps being rather common. Some of the major 22 tributaries are interconnected by swampy lowlands, some of which have ditches through them now. Although the tribu- taries and the main stream have their sources in wetlands, many of the smaller streams become nearly stagnant during normal seasonal droughts. The drainage pattern is a combination of the rectan— gular and dendritic patterns, or disordered drainage (von Engeln 1942). The natural drainage pattern is a type of consequent drainage implying that the drainage pattern was at least partially determined by the terrain left by the most recent glaciation. Since the arrival of the original white settlers, man has made significant changes in stream channels and water courses by cleaning out, straightening and deepening them in order to achieve faster surface drain— age. These changes are the "improvements” of drainage engi- neering terminolOgy. Stream Order.——Several methods of quantifying drainage nets have been proposed and used. In 1945 R. E. Horton developed the concept of stream order which is now widely used in the United States (Scheidegger 1965). LeOpold (1962) briefly discussed stream order using essentially Horton's system. Strahler (1964) reports on his own earlier modification of Horton's system. In Strahler‘s modification the order numbers are applied to stream channel segments only rather than entire tributary streams. 23 Scheidegger (1965) presents a different system of stream order numbering. He attempts to eliminate the situ- ation inherent in the other systems where the determination of stream segment numbering depends on the order of stream junctions. Scheidegger feels that his stream order desig- nations are more representative of the hydraulic character— istics of each segment since at each junction the two up- stream segment order numbers are added to the designation for the next, lower segment. Wisler and Brater (1949) and Langbein and Iseri (USGS 1960) present the modified Horton version of stream order. Using the U. S. Geological Survey topographic maps I applied this method to the drainage net of the study basin. For the study basin these maps are lS-minute quadrangles with a scale of 1:62,500, or 1 inch = approximately 1 mile. Each stream segment was assigned an order number with the smallest periennial or intermittant streams which flow in "clearly defined valleys” being designated first order. The stream segment below the junction of two first order seg- ments was designated second order, etc. Strahler's (1964) terminology may be represented in the following way: 24 a?” z u+l bifucation ratio Us 2 II the number of stream segments of order u Nu+l = the number of stream segments of order u+l The results for the study basin follow: for Nu where u = l, N = 94, Rb - 3.48 for N where u = 2, N = 27, Rb = 5.40 u for N where u = 3, N = 5, Rb = 5.00 u for Nu where u = 4, N = l, Rb does not apply The relatively small number of first order segments causes the corresponding bifurcation ratio (where u = l) to be smaller than expected considering the values of the other bifurcation ratios in the series since the series should tend to be constant for a given watershed. This anomalous value is probably due to wetlands, existing in some of the broad, poorly defined valleys rather than segments of first Order streams in clearly defined valleys. The relatively flat topography and the numerous improved channels were prObably contributing factors too, because they contributed to the difficulty of distinguishing natural stream channels in some cases. 25 According to Strahler (1964), the bifurcation ratio, Rb’ usually occurs in the range 3.0—5.0 for a watershed which does not have dominant geologic features. Except for the first order streams the bifurcation ratios of the study basin do occur at or above the upper limit of this range im— plying that geologic features of the study basin have been influential in developing the drainage net. This is in agreement with the known recent geologic history of the basin. The study basin is classified as a fourth order basin since the highest stream order designation is of the fourth order. This designation and the bifurcation ratios could be used to help compare the study basin to other watersheds. River Profile.-—The origin of the Red Cedar River is usually taken to be Cedar Lake in sections 28 and 29 of Marion Town— ship, Livingston County. The elevation of Cedar Lake is given as 934 feet above mean sea level on the Howell quad— rangle, USGS topographic map (1907). In 1965 the level of the lake was legally established at 936.1 feet above mean Sea level (Livingston Co. Drain Off. 1965). The Red Cedar joins the Grand River in the near south side of the city of Jkinsing at an elevation of approximately 817 feet above mean Sea level. The overall length of the Red Cedar is approximately 50-8 miles and that portion of the river in the study basin 26 is approximately 45.0 miles long. These values were de— termined by direct measurement of the stream course as shown on the USGS topographic maps utilizing a series of tick marks on the margin of strips of tracing paper. This pro- cedure allowed a fairly accurate measurement of the winding course of the river and yields a substantially larger value than is commonly obtained by using a map measurer. For selected stations, river miles upstream from the mouth and the corresponding elevations are given in Table 1. These values are presented graphically in Figure 4, and the resulting profile is of the usual concave-up configuration. (The vertical scale is greatly exaggerated for if the verti- cal and horizontal scales were identical the profile would appear to be a straight horizontal line.) The total fall of the river is about 117 feet, and the average gradient is approximately 2.3 feet per river mile. But the average gradient above the 900—foot elevation is ap- proximately 7.0 feet per river mile while that below the 900-foot elevation is approximately 1.8 feet per river mile. The relatively low gradient in the lower nine-tenths of the river is reflected in the sluggish flow, numerous meanders and greater flood frequency. The slight rise in the profile at the Farm Lane station is due to the higher than normal elevation of the river which is ponded behind the Michigan State University dam located about 0.2 miles downstream. The natural local base level (the lowest possible erosion 27 Table 1. Selected long—profile values for the Red Cedar River. Station River miles upstream from mouth Elevation in feet above mean sea level Junction with the Grand River Junction with Sycamore Creek South of Kalamazoo Street Bridge MSU dam Farm Lane Hagadorn Road Junction with Lake Lansing Drain Grand River Road Williamston Dam Junction with Sullivan Creek Near Junction with the Middle Branch Section 4, Marion Township Section 16, Marion Township Cedar Lake 15 22. 26. 37 45 48. 50. .58 .66 .61 .81 .67 .02 .86 31 73 .83 .97 27 84 817 820 827 840 860 880 900 920 936 aFirst and third entries from USGS (Bent 1966), last entry from the Livingston County Drain Office (1965), all others from USGS topographic maps. 28 .3an “com can cams» mOmD 59C 32o 36mm 60:5 .33." 3 :03m 3 £505 0>ond 00:33“..— Ao>o~ «on cave: o>ona «new 5 Coin 0.3 ucoflm>o~m £03m .3600 tom 05 Go ofiwoum mcoq .7 ousmwh mO=E 59’;— e S cw an ce cm 77 as 9 .3 rMIIIIIIl m u U P m m. / a O J M. u w { cow . o m. l/ u w m. x. o u P. w m f can 3 / A a w. / w .... w m. m- I0. a K 2; 1 / 3a oaodsovou - com 29 plane) is the elevation of the Grand River at its junction with the Red Cedar. Available Stream Measurement Records.——Although the flow of the streams of the study basin has not been thoroughly ob— served and recorded, the records of the Red Cedar River are relatively abundant and continuous compared to other, simi- lar streams of the area. To 1967 the Red Cedar has stage records which were taken in the vicinity of the MSU campus starting in 1902 and covering 45 years completely and parts of 12 additional years. A continuous record extends from March 1931 to the present, more than 35 years. The William— ston station on the Red Cedar has records of flood periods only for all except four years (1934—1937) beginning with 1919. The Sloan Creek and Deer Creek records are continuous from mid—1954 to the present. The gaging station locations are shown in Figure 2. The United States Geological Survey began its stream gaging activities in the United States in 1888 (Grover and Harrington 1943; USGS 1958). Although the Red Cedar study basin received its first white settlers in the 1830's, the earliest stream gaging in the study basin for which records are known began in 1902 (USGS 1904). However, as early as January 1901 Professor H. K. Vedder of the Michigan Agri— cultural College supervised the first station which was a staff gage attached to the mid—stream pilings of the 3O railroad bridge on the college campus.* Professor Vedder also supervised the station established on the Grand River in North Lansing. Beginning with March 1901 the records for the North Lansing station are reported in the USGS Water—Supply Papers for the Grand River at Lansing, but in the same series of reports the Red Cedar River at East Lansing does not have its first recorded report until August 31, 1902 (USGS 1904). This record gives daily gage heights and a rating table for conversion to discharge, and it is continuous from August 31, 1902 to December 31, 1903. These observations were made by a Mr. Clifford Walters for the USGS under the supervision of R. E. Horton, district hydrographer, and originally they were reported in the USGS Water—Supply Paper 97 published in 1904. Later they were checked for consistency and calcu— lational accuracy and summarized in the USGS Water—Supply Paper 1307 published in 1958. The 1902-1903 readings were taken with a wire gage located on the downstream side of the highway bridge which was located just downstream (west) of the MSU gymnasium (now the Women's Gymnasium) and immediately downstream of the *Michigan Agricultural College (MAC) became Michigan State College (MSC) which later became Michigan State Uni— versity (MSU). In the literature the railroad bridge is re- ferred to in a variety of ways, e.g., Grand Trunk Railroad Bridge, Pere Marquette Railroad Bridge, and the college spur railroad bridge. The spur is currently a part of the Grand Trunk Western Railway. In this paper the bridge is referred to as the railroad bridge on the MSU campus. 31 present "athletic bridge" at this site (Strom and Ackley 1931; USGS 1904 & 1958). According to Strom and Ackley (1931) the railroad bridge gage and the athletic bridge gage had simultaneous readings which were essentially identical. Although no additional USGS reports are available until March 1931 some other records are extant. The United States weather Bureau (USWB) made noncontinuous readings during the period from 1911 through 1930. Most, but not all, of these observations are reported in the Weather Bureau's annual series, Daily River Stages. The reports for January l, 1911 to October 31, 1919 give daily stage readings taken from a l4—foot wooden gage located on the mid—stream pilings (north face of the downstream side) of the MSU campus rail— road bridge. The reports for 1920 through 1930 give the same type of information but for the flood season only (i.e., March, April and May) except that the 1924 report includes readings for the five months January through May and the 1929 and 1930 reports are incomplete. A rating table for the Red Cedar at MSC is given by Preston and Wrench (1926) in conjunction with their daily stage readings for the period May 1, 1925 through April 30, 1926. This rating table is also given by Sprague and Neff (1930) and Strom and Ackley (1931). Flood period daily gage readings which are not found elsewhere are given by Strom and Ackley for 1929 and 1930. Although Strom and Ackley do not acknowledge them as original observations, they may have 32 been taken in conjunction with the U. 8. Weather Bureau office which was located on the MSU campus at that time. The USGS in cooperation with the Civil Engineering Department of Michigan State College established an auto— matic recording station on the Red Cedar in March 1931. Under the supervision of a Mr. Berkeley Johnson of the USGS the instrument was housed initially in a small building lo— cated on the south bank of the river about 250 feet upstream from the present Farm Lane bridge on the MSU campus (USGS 1958). Apparently Strom and Ackley (1931) worked with Johnson in setting up the new station. In 1967 only a small portion of the concrete pier remained at the site. In November 1940 the recorder location was changed to the down— stream (southwest) abutment of the Farm Lane bridge where it is still located (USGS 1958). This record is nearly con— tinuous from 1931 to the present and is annually reported in the appropriate USGS Water-Supply Paper. This record is summarized from 1931 to 1950 in Water-Supply Paper 1307 (USGS 1958) and from 1950 to 1960 in Water-Supply Paper 1727 (USGS 1964). Relatively few other records are available on either the main stream or the tributaries of the study basin. The U. S. weather Bureau's Daily River Stages gives stage read- ings for the Red Cedar at Williamston during March, April and May for the years 1919 through 1928 with the report for 1924 including readings for January through May. The 33 Williamston readings first appear in the report for 1919 and were taken from a staff gage located on the downstream face of the south abutment of the Bridge Street bridge (presently the Putnam Street bridge). A dam was and still is located a few hundred feet downstream. Beginning with the 1924 read— ings a chain gage was used which was located below the dam on the downstream side of the Grand River Road (formerly U. S. Route 16, presently Michigan Route 43) highway bridge over Deer Creek (USWB 1925). This site is near the junction of Deer Creek and the Red Cedar River and about 1500 feet downstream from the previous station. No rating tables are given for these readings. Although not reported in Daily River Stages partial flood period records were taken at Williamston during 1929- 1933. These records are missing for 1934—1936, inclusive, but they are complete from 1937 to the present. The U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U. S. Weather Bureau, the Agricultural Engineering Department of Michigan State University and the Water Resources Com— mission of the State of Michigan began gaging the Sloan Creek tributary in June 1954 at a station located near Meridian Road in Section 1, Alaiedon Township, Ingham County. Gaging began on the Deer Creek tributary in May 1954 at a station located near Clark Road in Section 33, Wheatfield Township, Ingham County. These records are continuous to the present time and the records are reported in the 34 appropriate annual series and decennial summary of the Water— Supply Papers. The locations of these two gages and the watersheds above them are given in Figure 2. Details regard— ing the instrumentation and observations on these small agri— cultural watersheds is given by the Water Resources Com- mission (1958 & 1960) and Eichmeier, Wheaton and Kidder (1955). During recent years the local USGS office has taken several low—flow discharge readings for each of several small streams in the study basin: Doan Creek, Squaw Creek, Kalamink Creek and the Red Cedar River near Fowlerville. These data were used to graphically determine the low—flow characteristics of the four streams and are in open—file re- ports at the USGS Lansing office. CHAPTER IV PRESETTLEMENT FOREST COVER Introduction.-—The vegetative cover which was found on the land of the study basin by the pioneer white settlers is re- ferred to in a variety of ways, e.g., ”primeval forest," ”original forest,” "original vegetation,” “native vege— tation,” and ”presettlement vegetation." At the time of settlement the natural vegetation was essentially all forest without sizeable areas of wet or dry treeless vegetation (Veatch, no date; Arend 1965; Schneider 1965). However, the forest cover was not uniform; on the contrary it was quite varied reflecting, in part, the variety of forest sites or habitats present. This variety of sites especially reflected the effective moisture available which in turn reflected lepe, height of the local water table, soil texture, soil structure, soil reaction and organic content. The presettlement forest was not necessarily perma- nent or stable over long periods (Curtis 1959; Spurr 1965). Natural forces such as flood, drought, fire caused by lightning, soil development, climatic change, plant suc— cession and chance interacted after the last glacial retreat tending to produce several forest types in addition to the climatic climax. 35 36 Classification and Terminology.-—The study basin is located in an area where the regional vegetative climax is usually referred to in terms similar to "Central (Hardwood) Forest Region“ (U. S. Forest Service 1948; Soc. Amer. Foresters 1954) or "Broadleaf Deciduous Trees" (Kuchler 1964). The regional forest boundary which separates the Northern Forest from the Central Forest usually is shown near the study basin (e.g., U. S. Forest Service 1948; Soc. Amer. Foresters 1954; Curtis 1956; Kuchler 1964). In such classifications allowance is made to subdivide the region so that the study basin falls in the beech-maple category which was well repre- sented in the study basin. i The other major forest types in the basin are edaphic climaxes, nonclimatic seral stages or possibly disclimaxes due to anthropogenic activity. According to Curtis (1959) Indian food-gathering, domestic planting, accidental plant introduction, hunting and trapping and particularly burning significantly influenced an estimated 47 to 50 percent of the presettlement vegetation in Wisconsin. Although Indians did crop, hunt and use trails in the study basin (Fuller 1924) the evidence does not indicate a great influence on the local presettlement cover. Reasons for this difference probably include differences in Indian land management practices and perhaps population densities, and the fact that Wisconsin had significant amounts of treeless (grass— land and savanna) climax vegetation. 37 There is a variety of patterns of terminology of forest types.* Since I followed Veatch's method for recon— structing forest types I also followed his terminology (Veatch 1928, 1932, 1953 & 1959) with some modification. The forest types used are not formal types recognized by the Society of American Foresters (1954) or professional botan— ists (e.g., Curtis 1956 & 1959); however, they have been used in the county Soil Surveys, and they are recognizable as more or less distinct forest types (Cantlon 1964). Although such grouping is based on a reconnaissance forest survey which is basically a species list which is qualitative, subjective and somewhat inconsistent, similar types can be recognized and classified by using such a sur— vey (Spurr 1964). One reason that such forest groups are so elusive is because most of the groups are not neatly de- limited seral stages but are intermediate and transitory in nature. This difficulty can be explained in terms of the concept that forest types frequently are not, in fact, dis- crete entities but rather recognizable phases along a forest- type, space-time continuum (Curtis 1959; Spurr 1964). The terminology used in this paper is given in Figure 5. It gives reasonable accuracy and is fine enough *For example with reference to the same or very simi— lar forests, Curtis (1959) used Xeric, Dry-Mesic, Mesic, Wet- Mesic and Wet to categorize the Southern Hardwoods of Wis— consin; Braun (1950) used dry oak forest, oak-hickory forest, swamp forest and mixed mesophytic forest in reference to sub- divisions in the Beech-Maple Forest Region; and the U. S. Forest Survey (Soc. Amer. Foresters 1954) used Oak-Hickory, Elm-Ash-Cottonwood and Maple-Beech—Birch in reference to Eastern Forests. 38 r as? # 282-903 0802 — onmz-»mo ome . .. _ . . . . E0uu>m 0.03.30 . ., . . . . 3m 093.. and; as 2:3 as 2F: .2 09:; ouméfiu 24m 562042 04.22 madam :5:on Sdnw IIUHHQ IMdmI24M HEW“... HAQEIEUHNQ Eng? H. .w MOMOHmIvij vatv M40 _ Annouwsoo 5M3. mQOOBQHXg QZOA 03.nummfioo ioudsmxoummd 5?; H092“ 35 5 U00: >mo~o§Eu0u can sowudommuudao 0&8 unouoh /\ Annoumsou «50515 mQOOBQ mg 924 1:504 mhmm MOW 924430...— < M s . m ...xhw..m...\,.mw..\,.. z A Hamauum czonmv . Ammumz . \\\\ mmopm>v pamm mumaaammo coHumumd wo mCON r. paom mumHUmEumDCH / I, L (lllllllm uHmm umpmz Haom q Emummao mnu mo camume umma may :0 mmonu ou pcommwuuoo wumuuma pom mmcHA mMZON mmafig momwnom xooupmmllm «magma HmumBIJZ qkum3 Haom mo pHEHd.Hm30qriw .mommuom pcmqllq mm0¢mm3m .waoho UHmoHoupmn map mo Emummap fl .5 madman wumwflswm xooupmfl Dyna coaumaouuwm ommnoum compo map pum3ou onHmc3om cofiumaoonmm AEmummao mnu CH c3onm pocv ommuoum ammoo ou onHmczop Emmuum ca wmocsm .mumumB oommnsm mo uoo no ODGH ucoEw>OE kumz pcsouo Hmamz HHOm mo coHumHomm>m mEmmuum w moxma Eoum coHumHomm>m moamesm Ham3 OD mop :oflmmoummp mo mcoo coHumHHchmHB whoou wn mxmpms Hmum3 HHOm ucmsHmww w #cooamcfl xcmu oaummm Hmfluwumfi ucmumm poumpHHOmcoooo may nmoonnu coaumaoouom pawn oumapweumucfl nmsounu ommmmom pawn Houmz Haom oucfl coapmnuaflmcH mmocou oommuom.uo 3on pcmaum>o mommuom puma Eoum coaumuomm>m cofiumoououcH unwnno pcsonmlm>OQm cm Eoum coflmeHHQSm Ho ooflumnomm>m COADmDHQHUme Ham Hmucmcflucoo mCHEoqu Ham mEHuHHmE coflumuamflomum mcausp coflumuomm>m mEOm buHS mmmuoum ammoo oucfl coflumuflmaownm mmmuoum amwoo Eoum coHumnomm>m mBZm2m>OS_MME§3 .muw 48 .393 uwmoaounaa 05 m0 5.3.336 < . N. 933% 49 Since the overall movement of water on the earth is in fact a cycle there is no best place to begin its de- scription. The oceans contain an estimated 97% of the earth's water (Chow 1965) and are continuously being evapor- ated by the solar radiation striking their surfaces (1). This gaseous form of evaporated water is atmospheric vapor and may condense and return to the ocean (2). If the mari— time air mass moves over a land surface (3) condensation may give rise to one of the various forms of precipitation (4). If precipitation strikes an object before reaching the ground surface and subsequently evaporates or sublimes be- fore it flows or falls to the ground the process is called interception (4 & 5). Vegetation is the usual intercepting object. The quantity of interception is difficult to measure but may be a significant portion of total precipi— tation. During precipitation in the form of summer rain, deciduous trees in leaf intercept more than conifers; but during precipitation in the form of winter snow, conifers intercept more than the bare deciduous trees. Upon striking the ground the rainwater may run down— slope to the stream channels (7). This class of runoff is called surface runoff or overland flow. Snowmelt may also be a part of this class of runoff. Evaporation of some of the rainwater or snowmelt may occur before it reaches a stream channel or enters the soil (6). This is particularly likely to occur if it is temporarily detained in surface depressions. 50 That portion of the rainwater which penetrates the soil surface and enters the soil body is referred to as soil water and occupies the soil water belt (8). The penetration is called infiltration. The rate of infiltration varies widely depending on the nature of the precipitation and the nature of the soil, particularly the permeability of the uppermost portion and the antecedent soil—water content. The soil water moves downward through the soil saturating each portion before advancing further into unsaturated soil. Thus the additiOnal water moves in a more or less uniform "wetted front" until all of the soil is saturated to its total ca- pacity (field capacity) before water is available for flow to the lower strata. The soil water is an extremely im- portant phase of the cycle for most of the water utilized by plants is taken from this source. The excess water flows downward through macroscopic and microscopic interstices. Some water may remain in this intermediate belt (9) as a film of water around the uncon— solidated mineral particles but most responds to gravity and continues to flow downward. The next lower major zone lies below the water table (W) which is the upper surface of the zone where the pore space is normally filled with water rather than with air. The level of the water table varies seasonally and also in response to multi—year periods of ex— cess or deficient precipitation. Just above the water table the unconsolidated material is usually saturated by water 51 held in the capillary fringe or.capillary belt (shown only in part at the left margin). The thickness of this zone may vary from zero to several tens of feet depending on the nature of the interstitial space above the water table. Water below the water table tends to percolate down- ward, usually with a considerable horizontal component (10 & 19). The general direction is toward sea level but most ground water returns to the land surface before actually reaching the ocean. Some of this water percolates into permeable bedrock strata (20). The formations which are quite permeable and allow the ground water to pass into and through them are aquifers and are sources of ground water for man. The formations which have relatively low permea- bility do not permit the flow of water to any extent are aquicludes. Typical aquifers are sand, sandstone, gravel, conglomerate and cavernous limestone. Typical aquicludes are clay, shale, slate and crystaline rocks in general. If an aquifer is more or less confined by aquicludes the water in a well tapping the aquifer may rise above the bottom of the confining bed. This is an artesian system and the well may or may not be a flowing well. The related piezometric surface is discussed below in the section on ground water. An artesian aquifer may be recharged where it contacts the ground water in the overburden (20) or at the land surface in an outcrop. There may also be leakage of ground water to or from the confining, relatively nonperme- able strata. 52 Soil water is the main source used by plants for their water needs. The part of soil water which is avail— able for intake by plant roots, available capillary water (12), is a part of the water which remains after the gravi— tational water has drained away. After a soil has been saturated the amount of soil water which is retained is ap- proximately equal to the gravitational water, but the amount which is available to plants is only about half of the re— tained water, i e., 25% of the total soil water. The soil is at "field capacity” when the gravitational water has been removed and at the "wilting point“ when the available water has been removed. The water which remains in the soil (un— available capillary water and hygroscopic water) is held by forces greater than the forces which move water into plant roots and thus is unavailable for plant use. A soil must reach its field capacity before it yields gravitational water to the intermediate belt. Approximately 95% of the water absorbed by the roots of a plant is returned to the atmosphere as a vapor via transpiration (13) (Ferry and Ward 1959). The remaining 5% is utilized by the plant in the manufacture of plant ma— terial, in photosynthesis or in other metabolic processes. Transpirational use of water often accounts for a major por— tion of precipitation. Soil water is returned to the atmos— phere by direct evaporation too (16). As the upper portion of the soil dries out the rate of evaporation of soil water 53 decreases sharply. Normally most of the evaporated soil water comes from the upper foot of the soil (Ackermann, Colman and Ogrosky 1955). The combined vaporization of soil water and surface waters from a land area by both transpir— ation and evaporation is called evapotranspiration. Since it is difficult to separately measure the evaporation and transpiration, evapotranspiration is commonly used in esti- mating values for this portiofi\of the hydrologic cycle. In addition to evaporation from bodies of surface water (15), during the winter season sublimation occurs from the ice and snow cover if it is present. If the bottoms of lakes and streams are permeable movement of water will occur between the surface water and the ground water if an hydro~ static gradient exists (17). In perennial streams the net gain of water flows downslope to larger streams whose net gain flows to the ocean (18). yd////«/“““iwé of man's major uses and modifications of the \ water in the cycle are repreSented by the septic tank (11) \ and the well (14). The septic tank represents water being 1 ) used as a medium to dispose of unwanted materials. In the case of septic tanks the partially treated sewage is re- turned to the zone of aeration. In the case of municipal sewage effluent the partially treated sewage is usually re— «,,,/H/ turned to a surface stream or lake. The well (14) repre— sents a source of water for man. The major source is sur— face water but groundwater from confined or unconfined 54 aquifers (14) locally may be the major source. A cone of depression develops when the rate of pumping exceeds the rate at which the aquifer can supply water. Ground water ob- tained in this way may be returned to the cycle via a re— charge well or bed to ground water, but more often it is re— turned to the cycle as atmospheric vapor or surface water. The Hydrologic Budget.~—In order to study the hydrologic cycle for a specific land area a hydrologic budget or balance is commonly used. The budget is often represented by a verbal or symbolic equation. This hydrologic equation, which may be stated or simply implied, rests on the concept that for a given area and for a given time period all water inputs are exactly equal to all water outputs making neces- sary adjustments, if any, for changes in stored waters. The "given area" may be a natural hydrologic unit as a single aquifer, a unit of soil, or a drainage basin; or it may be an artificial unit such as a county or metropolitan area. Although the natural unit is preferred as the study unit, political and related tax structures frequently give rise to problems of financial support which dictate that artificial units be used. Local examples of water studies based on natural units are Water Resource Conditions and Uses in the Upper Grand River Basin (Mich. Water Res. Comm. 1961); the U. S. Army Engineer's (1963) comprehensive study of the entire Grand River basin; and this paper. Local examples of studies 55’ based on artificial units are the Alternative Long_Range water Use Plans for the Tri-County Region, Michigan (Tri— County Plan. Comm. 1964) and Ground water Resources of the Lansing Area, Michigan (Stuart 1945). For a given area and specified period of time a simple form of the hydrologic equation is: P=ET+R (l) where: P = total precipitation ET evapotranspiration R = streamflow To use equation 1 it is necessary to assume that the amount of storage of surface and subsurface waters has remained un— changed during the given time period and that there is either no subsurface flow into or out of the given area or that if such flow does occur its net value is zero. Although equa— tion 1 is frequently used to estimate evapotranspiration it may be of limited use since the assumptions may or may not be valid. It is known that surface divides, water table di- vides and piezometric surface divides often are not located in the same vertical plane which would create a subsurface lateral component of water flow that would not be readily ac— counted for in the record of streamflow. Schicht and Walton (1961) give one version of a more complex form of the hydrologic equation for a drainage basin: P=ET+R+UiAS :AS (2) where: P = precipitation ET = evapotranspiration R = streamflow U = subsurface underflow [XS = change in soil moisture [58g = change in ground water storage Some of these parameters are difficult or impossible to de- termine, but by careful selection of the beginning and end of the study period the changes in subsurface—water storage can be estimated or eliminated. Although Schicht and Walton (1961) studied basins where the land use was mainly agri« cultural, equation 2 holds equally well for basins with urban land uses if man's urban or suburban modifications of the hydrologic cycle are taken into account. Climate Classification.—~Trewartha (1964), using a modification from Koppen, classified the Lansing area (including the study basin) as Daf which is a humid mesothermal climate type. Specifically this designation refers to a snow—forest climate in which the coldest mean monthly temperature is below 320E, the warmest mean monthly temperature is above 71.6OF, and the precipitation is more or less equally distributed 57 throughout the year. The climate of the Lansing area is al— so described as one that alternates between continental and semi-marine types (USWB 1959 & 1965a). The Great Lakes and the prevailing southwesterly winds cause central Michigan to have fewer temperature extremes than it would have under purely continental conditions. In brief then, the climate of the study basin is a humid continental type somewhat modi— fied by the Great Lakes., The average or normal monthly temperatures and precipitation values are given in Table 4 and Figure 8. Temperature and Precipitation Norms.-—Although the complete role of near-surface air temperature with regard to the hydrologic cycle is not known it is important in several obvious ways: it helps to determine the form of precipi- tation, the rate of evapotranspiration, and the melting rate of snow and ice. Three months (January, February and December) have average temperatures below freezing. Another indication of temperature is the average length of the grow— ing season which is 154 days for the Lansing station (USWB 1965a). Although the significance of a gradual long-term temperature change would be difficult or impossible to quantify in short-term values, such changes have occurred in the past and most likely will occur in the future. In the recent past Michigan and its neighboring states have gradual- ly registered higher average temperatures as evidenced by an 58 Table 4. Average or normal monthly temperature and precipi- tation for Lansing, Michigan.a Nbrmal Normal temperature precipitation Month in 0F in inches of rain Jan. 24.3 1.96 Feb. 24.2 1.95 Mar. 32.4 2.40 Apr. 45.7 2.87 May 57.1 3.73 June 67.4 3.34 July 71.7 2.58 Aug. 70.2 3.05 Sept. 62.0 2.60 Oct. 51.3 2.50 Nov. 37.9 2.21 Dec. 27.5 1.99 Monthly .Mean 47.6 2.60 Annual Mean 31.18 as used by the USWB. period 1931—1960. aNormal refers to the climatological standard normal It is an arithmetic mean based on the Data from USWB (1965a). 59 3 - ... r——-! Mean :- — — — T" ‘“' —* — —*——1—— _z."'6' - ‘F—__ ""—_T 2 B:- __ "' '1 l -— .1 o A J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Figure 8 . Normal monthly temperature and precipitation for Lansing. Michigan. Temperature in Fahrenheit, precipitation in inches of rain. Data from USWB (1964). 60 average annual temperature of 44.80F for 1887—1920 compared to 45.4OF for 1921-1955 for Michigan (Baten and Eichmeier 1956; Eichmeier 1965). Even though the short-range effects of a gradual change in temperature are small, perhaps neg— ligible, the long—range effects will be significant and necessarily will be considered as the effects are understood. The Lansing-area precipitation is fairly well dis- tributed throughout the year with May, June and August having the highest average monthly precipitation and January, February and December having the lowest average values. The annual mean for the Lansing station is 31.18 inches which includes the water equivalent of about 45 inches of snow. The general rainstorms are associated with frontal weather systems which usually move from west to east over the study basin. In the warmer months the high-intensity rains that occur are normally thunderstorms which may or may not be as- sociated with frontal systems. Reporting on the same time periods that were cited above as evidence for a trend in annual temperature, Baten and Eichmeier (1956) stated that virtually no change has oc- curred in average monthly precipitation for Michigan. The average precipitation values mask the extreme values and the frequency of their occurrence. For the Lansing station for the period 1931-1960 the mean monthly precipitation was 2.60; however, only 0.25 inches were re- corded in July 1946, and 9.21 inches were recorded in August 61 1940. If the period 1864—1964 is considered, no precipi— tation was recorded in both February 1877 and August 1894, and 11.35 inches were recorded in June 1883 (USWB, no date). The masking effect of average values will be considered in the analysis of runoff data. Studnyasin Precipitation.-—The Lansing-area temperature and precipitation values cited above are all point values and care must be used before applying such values to areas. A1- so, the observations reported for the "Lansing station” were taken at four different geographic locations--two on or near the Michigan State University campus and two at the Capital City Airport (northwest of the city of Lansing). The re- ported temperature values are probably reasonably representa- tive of the whole study basin, but because of inherent er— rors of point precipitation observations I attempted to obtain a more representative average for the area of the study basin. The Thiessen method and other methods of weighting records were considered but not used because only sparse records are available from stations within or near the study basin, and those are scattered in both time and location. Thus, I felt, that the weighted average methods would not give results of greater accuracy than a nonweighted method even though the weighted average calculations would be more involved. 62 A recent attempt to understand the relationship among rain gages, precipitation and microrelief is reported by Eichmeier, Wheaton and Kidder (1965). In an interim re- port of their study of precipitation on Deer and Sloan basins they tentatively conclude that only slight variations in topography can significantly alter the catch of a standard rain gage. Thus, in addition to the problem of expanding point values to areas there is a fundamental problem of the correspondence between the rain-gage records and the actual precipitation. In order to estimate the average annual precipi— tation for the study basin the records from five stations were used. The station records used were from all the sta- tions with relatively long and complete records and located either on or, in the case of Howell, within approximately three miles of the study basin. For each year with more than one available record the arithmetic mean was derived from the several data available for that year. The period 1931-1960 was used as a basis for a long- term mean to be used for comparative purposes because this particular 30-year period is used as a base by several organizations which publish information regarding elements of the hydrologic cycle. The USWB currently uses the 1931— 1960 period as the basis for their climatological standard normals which are sliding means and are a part of their regular analysis of weather—station records, and thus, 63 readily obtainable. Also, this 30—year period is now used by the USGS as the long—term period for comparison in order to coincide with the climatological standard period used by the world Meteorlogical Organization (USGS 1963). (Fortunate— ly, continuous streamgaging began on the Red Cedar at Farm Lane in 1931.) Table 5 displays the available records and the study basin average annual precipitation for 1931—1964. The standard 30—year mean (1931—1960) was calculated from the annual average to be 30.78 inches. Assuming that the above value is as close an esti- mate as it is possible to obtain for the study basin precipi- tation, I analyzed several other procedures utilizing readily available published norms to determine if these alternate methods would yield a comparable value, while at the same time eliminating the time—consuming task of finding and ana— lyzing the published and unpublished minor records of the weather Bureau and other sources. Two procedures were con— sidered in detail: 1) The assumption that the 30—year mean of one station on or near the study basin would approximate the basin mean; and 2) The assumption that the average of all such available 30-year means would approximate the study basin mean. To test these two assumptions I assembled the information presented in Table 6. No continuous records were available for stations located on the study basin it— self, but six complete records were available for stations located within approximately 24 miles of the study basin. 64 no.0m No.mm mm.mm m¢.©m omma oa.mm m¢.¢m mm.vm mm.mm mwma Hw.om om.mm om.mm mwma mm.wm mm.hm mm.mm ¢>.mm nvma wa.mm mo.am ©m.am om.mm mvma H>.nm mv.nm na.©m mm.mm mvma nv.vm mm.mm na.mm oo.©m om.mm wwma om.mm wo.mm vw.om mo.am mv.®m mwma no.¢m m0.@m oom.mm mo.>m mvma ©>.mm mm.©m ma.nm mm.mm mea um.mm mm.mm vw.hm coma ov.©m v>.mm ma.nm mmma mm.mm mm.mm mmma Q©.mm ow.nm nmma mo.nm mo.nm omma mm.am mm.am mmma oo.Hm oo.Hm vmma ©©.Hm ©©.Hm mmma mm.vm mm.¢m mmma m©.mm m©.wm Hmmfi Dommuo>m .Q.m .COHumum HHoBOm comemHHHflz .A.m .Eumm .q.m nomouon Hmox Gamma oamoHompmm HmpcoEHHomxm Hozpmoz Hmpcoamo xosum mmococfl CH .GOHDmyHQHUmHQ coaumpm mcapuooom .cammn hpsum Hmpoo pom map How cmmE Hmomlom onp pom vbmalamma Mom coapmpamflooum Hmoccfi .m oHQmB 65 .Awume one «am: 6cm Amaam ammo 6cm .nmmmH .mmoma .neooH .meoma .moma .momH .oemav mam: scum mama oammm .mcoHumum manned Hoom How osam> some mzu one upcam an poumafluwo mmB pa pom moammaa mmB moam> wanucoe moo .oDHm> poumEHumo emu .puooon mo xoma m mpmoapca canoe may wo paoflm may CH mwommm Momam .puooou mo whom» oHQmHHm>m mnu mo some oeuoenuflum on» ma ommum>¢n .mcowpmoflansm mzmb mumflumoummm may mo coauomw :muoumam pom xoUCH coaumum: map CH GCSOM on hoe mcoflumum mcflpuooou msoflum> mnp Mom mc0aumooH omaomum ouoz .mcflmcmq ummm How mpcmum .A.mm .mummm omocu How mommno>m Gamma mpoum opp mo some oauoeauflum may ma pom oomalamma poHumm map so momma mfl some chB .monoca mn.om ma cammn mpsuw onu How coflumuflmaooum Hmoccm cmoE Hmmmlom one IlllllllllllllllIllllllllIlllllllllllllllllll mm.©m Hm.vm Ho.om No.0N vmma mm ON mm.om hm.ma mh.om moma HO.¢N om.vm Oh.@m flv.om Noma v©.mm mm.mm hm.Hm HH.mN Homa hm.mm NB.NN Hm.mm gm.¢m coma om.mm vN.hm ha.®¢ mo.Nm mmma hv.mm vm.vN mm.vm mh.HN mmma mm.¢m mN.Nm mm.©m mm.mm hmma ©©.om Oh.Hm ¢©.Hm m®.mm mmma hv.nm v5.5N ONO.®N mm.wm om.hm mmma mm.mm om.Hm mm.hm hb.mm NH.Hm mea mm.vm ¢©.¢N mm.mm om.hm .mm.mm mmma 00.5N m¢.hm mm.mm NN.®N om.hm Nmma HH.Nm om.om mn.dm mn.om Hmma 66 TableES. Precipitation norms for stations near the Red Cedar study basin. Approx. mileage Normal and direction from precipitation, closest point of in inches Station the study basin (1931—1960) Lansing now: 7-NW, 31.18 Capital City Airport formerly: 1—NW Charlotte 22-SW 32.24 Jackson 18—S 31.15 FAAAP Milford 12—E 33.08 GM Prov Gd Flint 24—NE 30.14 WB AP Owosso lS-N 29.37 Sewage Plt The 30-year mean for the above stations is 31.19 inches. Basic data from USWB (1960, 1964a & 1965a). 67 These six stations are spaced more or less evenly around the study basin. Half of them turned out to have means within one inch of the basin mean which is within approximately 3% of the basin mean. The largest difference from the study basin mean is Milford with 2.30 inches, approximately 7.5% more than the study basin mean. Milford is the second closest to the study basin divide being only about 12 miles distant. No pattern is evident with regard to distance or direction for the three stations with the closer estimates. Apparently, single station estimates are of limited value. The average of the six nearby stations is 31.19 inches which is close to the study basin estimate. This suggests a tentative generalization for southern Lower Michigan: a ring of several nearby stations yield a usable approximation of the precipitation of a small geographic area such as a small watershed. Evapotranspiration In considering the hydrologic cycle as it operates through a particular three dimensional piece of the earth's crust, one of the difficult aspects to quantify is evapo— transpiration, the combination of evaporation from the land surface (including surface waters) and transpiration of vege- tation. A variety of methods have been designed to estimate evapotranspiration. Bordne (1960) used four methods in a 68 study of the Genesee River basin in western New York. He concluded that the Thornthwaite method gave the best results. Considering the level of hydrologic knowledge and the amount and kind of basic data available in the Red Cedar study basin I will estimate evapotranspiration by the inflow— outflow or difference method and by the Thornthwaite method. Inflow—Outflow Method.--By rearranging equation 1: ET=P-R (3) For the study basin the 30-year mean annual precipitation is 30.78 inches (see section on climate), and the corresponding value for runoff is 7.66 inches per calendar year (see section on runoff). Therefore, evapotranspiration is 23.12 inches per year. As mentioned above the use of equation 1 (and its de— rivative equation 3) requires assuming that net subsurface flow is zero and that storage of surface and subsurface waters remains unchanged during the time period being con— sidered. Although these conditions are not precisely met in the study basin the evapotranspiration value calculated by the inflow-outflow method is useful as one estimate for this hydrologic element. ThornthWaite-Method.--The Thornthwaite method is an attempt to empirically estimate the evapotranspiration by utilizing climatic records and soil water storage capacity in a 69 bookkeeping format. This method gives an estimate of evapo— transpiration and runoff by utilizing several concepts, par— ticularly potential evapotranSpiration. The climatic water balance, utilizing the evapotranspiration concept, was intro— duced into the literature by Thornthwaite in 1944 (Thornthwaite 1944; Thornthwaite and Mather 1957), and subse— quently has been used by him and others in various ways, e.g., to classify climates (Thornthwaite 1948) and to serve as a guide in scheduling irrigation water application (Thornthwaite and Mather 1955a & 1955b). The water balance is mainly con— cerned with changes in the relative amounts of soil water or moisture of a given area. Once the values for evapotranspi— ration are determined estimates of runoff are possible. The central concept, potential evapotranspiration, is defined as the evaporation and transpiration loss under optimum moisture conditions, i.e., the soil continuously at field capacity (Thornthwaite, et a1. 1958). Normally vege— tation will transpire at the maximum rate possible under the prevailing climatic conditions some of which will be limiting. In order to arrive at estimates of evapotranspiration and runoff on a monthly basis it is necessary to have the mean monthly temperatures, the mean monthly precipitation, the latitude of the area in question and an estimate of the average effective soil water depth. The temperature and- precipitation.are available for the study basin inzthe U. S. Weather Bureau's Annual Summary of climatological 7O observations, and latitude is readily obtainable from a map or atlas. The average effective soil water depth is not easily estimated because it is variable in both time and space de— pending on the nature of the soil and the vegetation being considered. Plants vary in rooting depth from species to species and from seedling to maturity. For example, in a clay loam the water holding capacity for shallow—rooted crops (such as peas or beans) is estimated as 4.0 inches, for deep-rooted crops (such as alfalfa) the estimate is 10.0 inches, and for mature forests the estimate is 16.0 inches (Thornthwaite and Mather 1957). For wide areas four inches was given as a reasonable soil water estimate (Thornthwaite and Mather 1955b). Bordne (1960) used the four inch value with good results. In the calculations for the Red Cedar study basin I first used the four inch value but found a wide discrepancy between calculated values of runoff and values given by the USGS stream gaging records. I found that for the long-term climatic averages a value of 12 inches gave calculated values which were in reasonably close agreement with the ob- served stream flow values. This result is in agreement with more recent work of Thornthwaite and Mather (1958) where they suggest that the 12 inch value is applicable over wide areas and also use that value in their calculations for the monthly values of the water balance at Lansing, Michigan. 71 In working out the water balance of the southern peninsula of Michigan Messenger (1962) used a value of 14 inches. The calculations for the study basin are summarized on a water year basis in Table 7. The revised Thornthwaite method as given by Thornthwaite and Mather (1957) was fol— lowed unless otherwise noted.* The temperature (OE) and precipitation (P) values used are long—term monthly averages or standard normal values used by the U. S. Weather Bureau (1965a). The monthly heat index (i) is an empirically de— rived value dependent on the monthly temperature. The annual heat index (I) is the sum of the monthly heat indices. The potential evapotranspiration (PE) is arrived at through two steps which are not shown in the table. The unadjusted potential evapotranspiration is found and adjusted by a cor— rection factor which is based on average insolation and thus latitude. P - PE is the algebraic sum of the two values. When precipitation is less than the potential evapotranspi- ration a potential water loss exists. This potential loss normally occurs in the period of summer months; even though precipitation is relatively great the potential evapotranspi— ration is greater. These values are added to give the accumu— lated potential water loss (APWL). The soil moisture storage (ST) reflects utilization or recharge of the soil water available to vegetation. *Evapotranspiration values may also be determined by the use of graphs and nomograms given in Palmer and Havens (1958). .Anmmav umnpmz 6cm muam3rucuoze co ommmn mcoaumasoamo .Ammoma mszv oomalamma poHumm Hmomlom man so comma coflpmum comanoaz .mcamCmq map How mHmEHoc manucoe pumpcmum onu mum modam> coaumuflmaoouo pom ououmnmmEou Macpcoz .wmocou Hmuou u om Hmuoa .uHmE 30am Eoum mmocsu n omzw .chH Eoum mmocsu n om .BOCm umooxm msamnsm ousumfloe u m .uauawmp musumHoE u G .COHumHHmmCmuuomm>m Hmsuom H mm .ououmfloe HHOm Ca omcmno u BmAV .ommuoum musumaoe HHOm n am .mmoH woumz Hmaucou 10m poumaossoom n 93mm .meuHquSU o3u map mo Eon Uflmuflmmam way u mmlm .COHumpHQHooHQ wacucoe HmEHoc u m .coflumuammcmuuomm>o Hmfiucopom H mm .mwoam>la och mo Eon wcw ma roHEB xopca umon mammox n H .xoGCH umoc manucoe u H .muopwuomfimu Hmsnoc Ho ommuo>m Bump 72 mcoH n mo .xmpCH pom: pom ousumummEmu unmoxm monoca CH co>flm mum mosam> Ham vm.> vH.o hm.o vm.o mo.H ©H.N OH.N mm.H o 0 No.0 vo.o oo.o om HmuOB om.m no.0 ¢H.o mm.o om.o NH.H dh.o mm.o o o Ho.o No.0 mo.o omzm v@.¢ no.0 ma.o om.o mm.o vo.a mm.a om.H o o Ho.o No.0 mo.o om vo.¢ o o o o an.o mm.a ow.m o o o o o m mm.H Hm.o mm.o No.0 HH.o Q vm.mm Hm.m mo.¢ om.v mm.v No.m vm.H o o o o mv.o Hh.H mm Hm.OI ¢O.HI NN.NI om.al o o o o H©.o mm.H Nh.a mh.o BmAV mw.© om.h vN.m ov.oa oo.ma oo.ma oo.mH om.mH mm.ma mm.HH o¢.m mm.n Em vo.ol NH.©I mv.vl m©.HI ABmm mm.0| mm.H| vm.~u m©.HI an.o mm.a o¢.N mm.a mm.a mm.H mh.a mh.o mmjm mH.Hm ow.m mo.m mm.m om.m mn.m hm.m oo.m mm.a om.H mm.a Hm.m om.m m hh.vm ma.m m©.¢ mv.m mm.v No.m om.H m¢.o Hh.a mm mm.mv ma.o mm.m mv.m mm.h Nh.¢ mm.H Ho.o mm.o ma.m H\fl b.5v o.m© N.Oh h.H> v.nm H.5m b.mv v.Nm N.vN m.¢m m.nm m.hm m.Hm mo Hmsccm .ummm .mom wasp mono mm: .Hmm .Hmz .Qom .cmb .qu .>oz .uuo .coflumpflmaooum pom musumuomsou Mom mooam> HmEHoc macucoe moans Gamma xpsum on» Op pmflammm pocuoE ouaanucuocB wnu mo mooam> mo MHmEEom .n magma 73 For the study basin the soil normally reaches maxi— mum capacity during the winter months and is partially de- pleted during the summer months. As mentioned above a value of 12 inches was used, and the soils of the study basin are normally at this maximum capacity during January through May. Values which are greater than 12 inches are shown for January and February and reflect the above ground accumulation of precipitation as snow during months when the average tempera— ture is below 300E. (300E is used rather than 32°F as the temperature above which the snow will be converted to water since the average temperature represents a range of values which extends significantly above the freezing point.) The change in soil moisture storage ([58T) indicates the signed difference from the preceding month. Actual evapotranspiration (AB) is the estimation of the water vapor- ized from both land and vegetation. In months where precipi— tation is equal to or greater than potential evapotranspi— ration the actual evapotranspiration equals the potential evapotranspiration. In months where precipitation is less than potential evapotranspiration the actual evapotranspi— ration is equal to the precipitation plus a portion of the water in soil moisture storage. The amount of soil moisture utilized is not directly proportional to the accumulated po— tential water loss, rather this relationship is direct and nonlinear. This relation reflects the decreased availability of soil water as the soil goes from field capacity to wilting 74 point. The values shown are based on Thornthwaite's empiri— cally derived tables. The moisture deficit is the differ— ence between potential evapotranspiration and actual evapo- transpiration. In essence the vegetation and land surface could have vaporized this much more water had it been available. The moisture or water surplus is that part of the liquid precipitation, if any, in excess of the demands for both evapotranspiration and an increase in soil moisture re— charge (up to its maximum capacity). Surpluses occurred in March, April and May when the soil moisture was at capacity. Runoff (R0) is the direct result of the surplus water but it does not leave the area being considered immediately. Due to the nature of the surface and subsurface drainage ways a time lapse occurs between the availability of the surplus water and the time when it shows up as runoff. Thornthwaite and Mather (1957) suggest that during the first month that the surplus water is available one—half will appear as runoff, and that during each succeeding month one—half will appear as runoff until, for practical purposes, none remains. The snow melt runoff (SMRO) is that portion of the snow melt which is in excess of the demands for evapotranspi- ration and soil moisture recharge. The snow is assumed to be held in above ground storage until the first month in which the mean temperature is equal to or greater than 300E. Then it is released from the watershed slowly over a period 75 of months. The relation used was that one-tenth of the available snow melt would appear as runoff the first month, one-fourth the second month and one—half each successive month until, for practical purposes, none remained. The total runoff (Total RO) is the monthly sum of the runoff (due to rain) and snow melt runoff. These values are com— parable to the stream flow as measured by the stream gaging stations of the USGS. The value calculated for actual evapotranspiration (23.24 inches) is quite close to the corresponding value (23.12 inches) calculated above by the inflow—outflow method. The value calculated for the total annual runoff (7.94 inches) is quite close to the recorded value (7.66 inches) given by USGS. Another way to represent the average water balance value is shown in Figure 9. This graphic presentation uti— lizes some of the calculated values from Table 7 to show the basic relationships of the water balance for the area around Lansing, Michigan including the study basin. The year falls into three distinct periods. The soil becomes fully saturated during January and remains so through May since evapotranspiration is equal to or less than pre- cipitation for the entire period. During the first part of this period the precipitation is in the form of snow and for the most part accumulates as above ground storage. During the last part of the period the precipitation is rain and is 76 Inches J A O D Months Figure 9. Average water balance for Lansing, Michigan. Soil moisture utilization A--Potential evapotranspiration [M] Soil moisture recharge Bu-Actual evapotranspiration E Surplus moisture C--Prccipitation Moisture deficit Calculations. by the Thornthwaite Method. Chmatic data from the U. 5. Weather Bureau. 77 directly available as runoff. This is the only period when surplus water occurs. From June through September evapo- transpiration exceeds precipitation and some soil water is utilized to partially make up the difference. During this time a moisture deficit occurs. From October through December evapotranspiration is less than precipitation and the excess precipitation is used to recharge the partially depleted soil water. The three periods occur in all years but their lengths may vary a month or more depending on the variations in weather. Periods would be absent only in years, or per— haps periods of several years, of extreme climatic occurrences . Runoff Introduction.-—When considering the hydrologic budget for a particular drainage basin, precipitation minus evapotranspi— ration leaves a quantity of water called the water yield (USGS 1960a). The water yield includes both surface—water and ground—water outflow from the basin. The surface-water outflow is mainly streamflow which is also referred to as runoff. The ground—water outflow may occur in the alluvium underneath the bed of the main stream where it leaves the basin, or it may occur in the consolidated or unconsolidated rock material where the ground—water divide does not lie in the same vertical plane as the surface drainage divide. 78 One way to detect long-range trends in stream flow patterns is to compare one relatively long time period with another. Generally it is considered that the periods should be at least 30 years long. It would be desirable to compare the most recent 30-year period with records of stream flow before the white man's settlement and the accompanying dras- tic changes in land use. Unfortunately, such records simply do not exist (the entire continuous gaging record is only 36 years long), and such a comparison for the Red Cedar is im— possible. However, the nature of the study basin's runoff as indicated by some characteristics of the one 30wyear base period that has been observed and recorded will be con— sidered. Also, the study basin runoff will be compared to study basin precipitation, to runoff from other Michigan basins and to the Midwest regional runoff. Hydrographs.——The runoff of the Red Cedar study basin is measured at the USGS stream gaging station at Farm Lane bridge (Fig. 2). A hydrograph for the Red Cedar at Farm Lane for 1931-1960 is given in Figure 10. March, April and May comprise over half (53%) of the mean annual runoff. July, August and September comprise less than one—tenth (8%) of the mean annual runoff. The hydrograph reaches its maximum in March. If floods occur in the study basin they are likely to be the result of a combination of warm spring rains and the conse— quent snow and ice melt and runoff. The month of greatest 20 p m 12 96 30-year mean annual runoff 79 1' , . .I ,. x . I Manuteek ./ /4 \\ 74:5 . 1’ a“ Huronv/ \’ - \~__ ' \ . ' \ / Red Cedar / ‘t / \l ‘ F M A M J 1 Months Figure 10. Hydrographs (or the Red Cedar River at East Lansing, the Huron River at Ann Arbor and the Manistee River near Sherman. Monthly runoff values are means for 1931-1960. except 1932 and 1933 are not included for Basic data from USGS (1958 and 1964). the Mania tee. 80 runoff for the 1931-1960 period was April of 1947 which had an average discharge of 1494 cfs (cubic feet per second), the equivalent of 4.70 inches of water spread over the en— tire drainage basin. The maximum momentary flood discharge, 5920 cfs, was recorded on April 7, 1947 at a gage height of 11.58 feet (USGS 1964). The hydrograph for the Red Cedar reaches its minimum in August indicating that the low flows of the Red Cedar normally occur in late summer. The month of least runoff during 1931-1960 was July 1934 which had an average of 5.70 cfs, the equivalent of 0.02 inches of water over the drain- age basin. The minimum momentary 1ow flow, 3 cfs, occurred on July 31, 1931 (USGS 1964). The greatest monthly runoff is 262 times larger than the lowest monthly runoff. The maximum momentary flood dis- charge is 1,973 times greater than the minimum momentary low flow. These differences undoubtedly will increase as the stream flow record of 36 years lengthens. The general pattern for the Red Cedar is one of spring floods and late— summer low flows with occassional extremes of each. For comparison Figure 10 also shows the long—term hydrographs for two other Lower Michigan streams. Since the runoff values are given in percent of the respective long- term means and since the time periods are almost identical, the hydrographs are comparable. 81 The Huron River basin lies to the southeast of and adjacent to the Red Cedar study basin and is hydrologically similar to the Red Cedar. The long—term mean annual runoff for the Red Cedar is 7.61 inches per water year; the Huron has a corresponding value of 8.32 inches. The pattern of the hydrograph for the Huron is basically similar to that of the Red Cedar, but the Huron does have a smaller range of values with a smaller maximum and a larger minimum. As— suming that the precipitation pattern is essentially identi— cal for the two watersheds, the difference probably is due in part to the larger size of the watershed area of the Huron (711 square miles) and in part to its greater capacity to temporarily retain runoff on and below the surface. The greater surface detention is expressed in the relatively large number of lakes present in the Huron basin. Greater permeability and porosity of the soils and the underlying glacial drift would permit faster infiltration rates which would decrease flood flows and allow a larger contribution of ground water to streamflow during periods of low flow. The Manistee River is a well—known northern Lower Michigan trout stream which lies about 140 miles north— northwest of the Red Cedar. Its hydrograph (Fig. 10) re— flects a basin that is hydrologically quite different from the Red Cedar. The long—term mean annual runoff is 8.99 inches for the Manistee compared with the 7.61 inches for the Red Cedar. The pattern of the hydrograph for the Manistee 82 shows a significant difference from that of the Red Cedar. The Manistee has a smaller range of monthly values and two maxima and two minima rather than one of each. The differ- ence from the Red Cedar is explained partially by the larger size (900 square miles) of the Manistee drainage basin, partially by its more severe winters and partially by its sandy soils and glacial drift which are highly permeable. Dimensionless Hydrographs.——A procedure utilizing hydro— graphs to classify streams in the Great Lakes drainage basin is given by Browzin (1962 & 1964a). He uses a variety of meteorlogical parameters, the frequency of monthly coeffi- cients, and a dimensionless hydrograph as the criteria for grouping in his system. The dimensionless hydrograph is a plot of the monthly coefficient against the months of the year where the monthly coefficient is calculated by dividing each average monthly discharge by the mean annual discharge. This type of comparison appears promising for streams of southern Lower Michigan as a means of classifying main streams and in some cases their tributaries (Browzin 1964b). This type of classification may prove to be useful in help— ing to determine which streams are hydrologically similar and might respond in similar ways to the same watershed management practices. Runoff Compared to Precipitation.——Figure 11 presents aver— age monthly precipitation and average monthly runoff for the 83 f Pre cipitation 4 '- .z..‘ -‘ Runoff #33533 b J — — m _ ‘1 - 2 L- — -( ‘ O F- 0..'.s:s:.. d D. 0.... .z. ::...o.o...,-W‘ h:,. ...o'e....: 1': 20:0...s.. ::.. e::: ........ 0.1 p. ‘ ........ d P. ..... 7 ......... .0 ‘0‘) .......... ‘ I- """" J .......... ‘H—I—‘l 1 b ........... ’.0.0 .... : ’.:..... 0.: 0.1 fl ........ ..01 ....O..‘ oooooooooo .olo's.'..01 -.0( e '0 .' o e ' s q q ..s ..... o' ' ‘4'! Months Figure 11 . Average monthly precipitation and runoff for the Red Cedar River at East Lansing for 1931-1960. Precipitation based on Lansing-East Lansing records (USWB 1965a). Runoff based on East Lansing records (USGS 1958 and 1964). 84 study basin for 1931—1960. Both quantities are given in inches of water over the drainage area. Since runoff from a basin is usually generated by precipitation onto that basin a close correlation might be expected between the two, but the three months of highest runoff (March, April and May) do not correspond to the three months of highest precipitation (May, June and August). Nor do the three months of lowest runoff (July, August and September) correspond to the three months of lowest precipi— tation (December, January and February). Other demands on precipitation alter the direct cause and effect relationship between runoff and precipitation. Generally, runoff is the remainder of precipitation after a variety of other needs have been satisfied. These other needs are mainly evapo- transpiration and soil—water recharge which are relatively constant from year to year. Since precipitation is variable from year to year, runoff is even more variable in most basins. In addition, runoff for a particular month is not en- tirely derived from that month's precipitation because sur- face and subsurface detention of water moving toward the stream channel. During the winter months this also involves water being held as snow and ice, both in and on the soil. In order to describe the relationship quantitatively ante— cedant precipitation as well as precipitation for the given period should be considered (USGS 1960b). For the study 85 basin Hariri (1960) gave antecedent precipitation a relative weight of one-third and current precipitation a relative weight of two—thirds in establishing the runoff-precipitation relationship on an annual basis. For the 1931-1960 calendar—year period the mean annual precipitation for the study basin is estimated to be 30.78 inches (see section on climate), and the mean annual runoff is calculated to be 7.66 inches. The remainder, 23.12 inches, leaves the basin in other ways, mainly as evapo- transpiration. The study basin mean runoff for the 30—year period is 24.9% of the average precipitation for the same period. To illustrate the difference between short—term and long—term averages I calculated the driest (1960-1964) and wetest (1947—1951) five-year periods during 1931—1965. The mean annual precipitation for the study basin for 1960-1964 was 24.77 inches while the mean annual runoff for the same period was 4.84 inches. During this period the runoff was 19.5% of the precipitation. The mean annual precipitation for 1947-1951 was 34.96 inches while the mean annual runoff for the same period was 11.60 inches. During this wet period the runoff was 33.2% of the precipitation. In addition to illustrating the wide differences of absolute values obtained when using short—term periods, the values also show that the runoff not only decreases during periods of low precipitation, but the decrease is relatively 86 more than the decrease in precipitation. Conversely, during periods of high precipitation the increase in runoff is relatively greater than the increase in precipitation. The variability of annual runoff and of annual pre— cipitation are shown for the study basin in Tables 8 and 9 and Figure 12 where values of each variable are expressed as a percent of its 30-year mean. Although there is general agreement between the two curves, the runoff is much more variable. The precipitation displays a range from 66% to 126% of its 30—year mean while the runoff displays a range from 27% to 184% of its 30~year mean. The average citizen is probably aware of unusually wet or dry years as they are determined by extremes of precipitation. Although the ex— tremes are relatively much greater in streamflow, that same citizen is probably unaware of most of these extremes unless a particular high or particular low flow should directly inconvenience him by a flood or lack of water. Even though the runoff curve tends to follow the precipitation curve the correlation is not uniform in di- rection or degree. Wide differences occur between precipi— tation and runoff in 1931, 1943, 1947, 1948 and 1950 where in each case the difference is greater than approximately 50% of the 30—year mean. In addition, nine other years vary by more than 30%: 1935, 1936, 1940, 1941, 1951, 1952, 1956, 1960 and 1961. The difference is also shown by comparing the standard deviations for the precipitation and the runoff 87 Table 8. Annual precipitation of the Red Cedar study basin expressed as a percent of the 30—year mean (1931- 1960), as the cumulative departure from the 30- year mean, and as an accumulated value. Cumulative Calendar In Percent of departure from Accumulated Year inches 30—year mean mean in % units in inches 1931 28.63 93.0 -7 28.63 1932 34.22 111.2 4 62.85 1933 31.66 102.9 7 94.51 1934 21.00 68.2 -25 115.51 1935 31.28 101.6 -23 146.79 1936 27.65 89.8 —33 174.44 1937 33.60 109.2 -24 208.04 1938 32.39 105.2 —19 240.43 1939 26.46 86.0 —33 266.89 1940 35.54 115.5 -17 302.43 1941 28.76 93.4 -24 331.19 1942 34.67 112.6 —11 365.86 1943 32.86 106.8 —4 398.72 1944 24.47 79.5 -24 423.19 1945 37.71 122.5 —1 460.90 1946 22.17 72.0 —29 483.07 1947 38.88 126.3 -3 521.95 1948 30.71 99.8 —3 552.66 1949 35.10 114.0 11 587.76 1950 38.02 123.5 35 625.78 1951 32.11 104.3 39 657189 1952 27.66 89.9 29 685.55 1953 24.92 81.0 10 710.47 1954 33.89 110.1 20 744.36 1955 24.47 89.2 9 771.83 1956 30.66 99.6 9 802.49 1957 34.93 113.5 23 837.42 1958 23.47 76.3 —1 860.89 1959 38.50 125.1 24 899.39 1960 23.87 77.6 2 923.26 1961 28.64 93.0 —7 951.90 1962 24.01 78.0 —29 975.91 1963 20.35 66.1 —63 996.26 1964 26.98 87.7 -75 1023.24 Basic data from USWB. 88 Table 9. Annual runoff of the Red Cedar study basin ex— pressed as a percent of the 30-year mean (1931— 1960), as the cumulative departure from the 30— year mean, and as an accumulated value. Cumulative Calendar In Percent of departure from Accumulated Year Cfs 30—year mean mean in % units in cfs 1931 54 27.0 -73 54 1932 192 95.8 —77 246 1933 186 92.8 —84 432 1934 118 58.9 —125 550 1935 133 66.4 —159 683 1936 103 51.4 —208 786 1937 203 101.3 -207 989 1938 189 94.3 —213 1178 1939 122 60.9 —252 1300 1940 145 72.4 -280 1445 1941 127 63.4 —317 1572 1942 212 105.8 —311 1784 1943 318 158.7 ~252 2102 1944 158 78.9 -273 2260 1945 208 103.8 —269 2468 1946 151 75.4 —294 2619 1947 350 174.7 «219 2969 1948 316 157.7 —161 3285 1949 207 103.3 -158 3492 1950 369 184.2 —74 3861 1951 272 135.8 —38 4133 1952 252 125.8 —12 4385 1953 135 67.4 -45 4520 1954 219 109.3 —36 4739 1955 156 77.9 —58 4895 1956 270 134.8 —23 5165 1957 217 108.3 -15 5382 1958 106 52.9 —62 5488 1959 289 144.3 ~18 5777 1960 233 116.3 —2 6010 1961 118 58.9 ~41 6128 1962 142 70.9 —70 6270 1963 93 46.4 —124 6363 1964 47 23.3 -201 6410 Basic data from USGS. 89 ZOOIIIIIIII Precipitation :Z: 7 \ . /1\-. y\\/ '\\/A\ / \/ Percent of 30—year mean annual value Runoff 20 lllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1931 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 Calendar years Figure 12 . Annual precipitation and. annual runoff for the Red Cedar study basin each expressed as a percent of the corresponding 3anear mean annual value. 110”) means are based on the period 1931-1960. Beale data from US W1} and USGS. 90 which are 17% and 39% respectively. This difference implies that the distribution of the runoff values has a much larger range and less tendency to cluster about the mean. Tables 8 and 9 and Figure 13 show the precipitation and the runoff of the study basin expressed as the cumu- lative departure which is given as a percent of the 30—year' mean. Each series of values was determined by a series of algebraic summations of the annual percentages of the 30- year mean. The graphs were extended beyond the 1931-1960 base period to show the trend for additional years for which observations were available. Once again, much greater vari— ation is shown for the runoff than for the precipitation. The annual values for runoff ranged from —317% in 1941 to the mean at the end of the base period in 1960. During the same period the precipitation ranged from —33% in both 1936 and 1939 to +39% in 1951. One of the difficulties in drawing conclusions based on a period of record of a given finite length is illus- trated by the precipitation record shown in Figure 13 for the four years after the standard 30-year base period. Of these four years two of them (1963 and 1964) exceeded the previous 30-year minimum for departure from the 30-year mean. Red Cedar Runoff Compared with Regional Runoff.—-Busby (USGS 1963) divided the conterminous United States into nine regions which are geographic areas having stream flow records which exhibit similar patterns of annual runoff. All of 91 .mUmD use mng 50.8 snow 3qu .022an cornea 2: no doses 3 case 2:. duo»: .3973 on» 50.: ouauuonou 033353 05 no consensus» Econ >3: .3600 60% 05 now Conan "sauce was comuoummmuuud ~s:cc<.m.n 0.5th one?» nonnouso wean com; mmo~ ommL m3; ovo~ mmod damn i A d _ _ _ 2:1 I 1 2:. 305.5 1 cow- 1 1 o2- c/. . . . . \./.\.\./...I. /.\ /.\.l./.\./ \. ...... so“ “336 on m \I ueaui JeaA-og go $ s'e asnnedap annemmng 92 Michigan falls within the Midwest Region which also includes all of Wisconsin and Indiana and major portions of Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky and Ohio. Figure 14 shows the annual runoff for the Midwest Region expressed as a percent of the 30—year mean (1931- 1960). The same information is shown for the Red Cedar study basin for comparison, and in general the study basin curve follows the pattern of the regional runoff curve.* The study basin‘s maxima and minima are farther from the 30— year mean than the corresponding points for the region. This is expected, and in part is a reflection of the large influence of the occurrence or absence of local rainstorms on the relatively small area of the study basin. The region— al curve represents average conditions over a much larger area where the local departures from the norm tend to offset each other. In 1935, 1943 and 1958 the annual runoff values for the study basin and the region are quite different but the curves peak in the same direction. In 1945, 1948, 1954 and 1956 the annual values for the study basin and the region are quite different but the curves peak in opposite directions. *Figures 12 and 14 both express study basin annual runoff as a percent of the 30—year mean. The graphs are slightly different because one is based on water years and the other on calendar years. It was necessary to use calen- dar years in the one case in order to avoid an excessive number of conversions of meteorlogical data to the water year basis. 93 mm: new: 89: 3% 33m 32-22 source of GO ”vaun— uM AUMSB cave knotwuom 05? mo gauchon m an VOGQOHQMU am toad—m .GOmMOh umvkfiumz on: ham de cmmdn hmudau hdqu 60m 0:“ Haw Coca.“ HQSGGAV . .VH Uhdwmh «use.» .333 cm: m2: 0+2 mmofl ~mo~ % a u q d — nie___qq._—fi4 om omsuu>s scams." “oozing; II I ow mcmucmq “saw us .2300 com I on om 00‘ own 0: on: om~ oom young [‘emm‘e ueaw xeaA-og 3° iuaoxad 94 The lowest runoff for the study basin occurred in 1931 at approximately 26% of the 30—year mean while the low- est runoff for the Midwest Region occurred in 1934 at ap— proximately 38% of the 30-year mean. The highest runoff for the study basin occurred in 1948 at approximately 183% of the 30—year mean while the highest runoff for the region oc- curred in 1950 at approximately 170% of the 30-year mean. Thus the flow of the Red Cedar varied widely from year to year with the maximum annual flow during the 30—year period being seven times greater than the minimum annual flow during the same period. Since the annual runoff percentage values are ap- proximately normally distributed, about two—thirds of the annual runoff values should lie within one standard devi— ation of the mean value (USGS 1963). When considered in this way, the least variable region was the humid Northeast Region with a standard deviation of 20% (New York City's re— curring water supply problems notwithstanding). The most variable regions were the Southwest and the Lower Plains, each with a standard deviation of 75%. The standard devi— ation for the Midwest Region is given as 35%, thus two- thirds of the regional average annual discharges lie between 65% and 135% of the 30—year mean. I calculated the standard deviation for the study basin to be 41%, thus two-thirds of the annual discharges of the Red Cedar lie between 59% and 95 141% of the 30-year mean. Again the greater variation oc— curs in the study basin. The Huron River that lies adjacent to and southeast of the Red Cedar basin is the closest watershed which is roughly comparable in size (711 square miles) and also has long-term discharge records (USGS 1964). For the period 1931-1960 the Huron at Ann Arbor had a maximum annual flow of approximately 188% of the 30-year mean discharge and a minimum annual flow of approximately 40% of the 30-year mean. For the Huron River the standard deviation of the annual dis— charge values for 1931-1960 is 39% which is similar to corresponding value of 41% for the Red Cedar. The Huron's maximum annual flow is within three percentage points of the Red Cedar's maximum, but the Huron's minimum is 14 percent— age points above the Red Cedar's minimum. This implies that the Red Cedar has numerous relatively small low flow values even though the distributions of annual flow values for the two basins are basically similar. Assuming that a 30—year period provides a reasonably long base for quantitative comparisons such as those made above, the question becomes, "Is the 1931—1960 period a typi- cal 30—year period?" Busby (USGS 1963) presents evidence that the 1931-1960 period is a typical period. In the Huron River basin the mean annual runoff at Ann Arbor for the 30- year period 1931-1960 is 8.42 inches; for the 25—year period 1921-1945 it is 6.98 inches; and for the 50-year period 1911— 96 1960 it is 8.51 inches. These values indicate that the 30- year period 1931—1960 is probably a typical 30—year period. Thus the only 30—year period of record for the Red Cedar, 1931—1960, is probably a more or less typical 30-year period. Frequency Distribution of Runoff.——A1though average runoff values such as the annual and 30—year means used in previous sections are useful to help understand the hydrologic nature of a drainage basin, they do not reveal the range and the distribution of the runoff data. Figure 15 gives the mean monthly runoff values for the study basin for 1931-1960. The nature of the distribution of values is shown in terms of the upper quarter, the middle half and the lower quarter. None of the twelve distributions appear to be a normal distribution; rather, all are skewed toward the high end of the range. The distributions for October and September are so greatly skewed that the mean falls in the upper quarter, not in the middle half as expected. April has the largest range of any month, from 0.20 inches in 1931 to 4.70 inches in 1947, a range of 4.50 inches. August has the smallest range of any month, from 0.03 inches in both 1934 and 1936 to 0.42 inches in 1959, a range of 0.39 inches. Just as the 30—year monthly mean fails to reveal the extremes among the annual monthly runoff values, in turn the frequency distribution of monthly values does not reveal the nature of either momentary or daily runoff values. For ex— ample, the extreme momentary flood value for 1931-1960 of 97 Upper 25% Monthly Mean Middle 50% Lower 25% Inches ..... _.'.._.':'I . . .. Figure 15 . J FMAMJ JAS Months Runoff for the Red Cedar study basin for 1931-1960. The monthly mean, the upper quarter, the middle half and the lower quarter of the distribution of runoff values for each month are shown. Basic data from USGS (1958 and I964). . 1 P 98 5920 cfs (April 7, 1947) is masked in the corresponding monthly mean of 1494 cfs. The extreme momentary low flow of 3 cfs (July 31, 1931) is masked in the corresponding monthly mean of 40.5 cfs. To illustrate the masking effect of the monthly mean discharge a month with a relatively compact 30—year distri- bution, June, was selected. The 30-year mean for June is 0.54 inches, so June 1948 with a discharge of 0.55 inches was selected to demonstrate how the ”typical" month achieved its close—to—the~mean value (Fig. 16). The 0.55 inches is equivalent to an average discharge of 176 cfs for the month. The first 22 days of the month are moderately below the monthly mean, and the last eight are well above the mean while the mean itself did not occur even once as a daily dis— charge. June of other years would show even greater vari— ation from the long—term mean since June 1948 was selected because it is so close to the mean. To more fully understand the nature of runoff several other procedures are commonly used. A thorough graphical statistical analysis of low—flow characteristics is pre- sented by Velz and Gannon (1960) and in a supplement by Gannon (1964). A set of drought duration vs. severity curves, a set of minimum flow curves and a flow duration curve are given for the Red Cedar at East Lansing. In the original paper these plots are based on the l6—year period 99 .82.: mum: 89: 33 32m .3: 538s as E 5.6:. s Jun 0: £505 tadtcofi 03H. .pcoovo nun “sou amass a: voouonmxu 2 09:38:. 33G .91: 0:3. you 93254 “new as uofim unnou com 05 no. nmmuwouv>£ .4. . 0H enough 5:9: 9: ho mama cm mm ca 3 3 m u a _ J a a e r 1 =3 1 - as I 1 can I 1 coo _ _ _ _ L can sgo u! aBJeqosga 100 1939—1954. They were updated by the supplement to cover the years 1955—1960. The streams of central Lower Michigan are character- ized as having extremely poor drought flow discharge per square mile. The Red Cedar has a most probable yield of 0.077 cfs per square mile for a consecutive seven—day drought which ranks among the lowest values for southern Lower Michi— gan streams of comparable size. The Red Cedar's variability ratio is given as 0.390 which again occurs among the lower values of comparable streams. This ratio for the Red Cedar means that the most severe once—in—ten—year, seven—day low flow is 39% of normally expected low flow which classes the Red Cedar among the " . . . highly unstable streams with great risk of occasional extremely severe drought flows de— cidedly below normal."(Velz and Gannon 1960). The flow—duration curve is a plot of discharge against percent of time in the total period being considered. Such a curve for the study basin is shown in Figure 17. Daily discharge in cfs for 1931—1960 is given on the ordi— nate on a four—cycle logarithmic scale. The raw daily dis— charge data were grouped by the U. 8. Geological Survey (no date) into 29 classes. The number of items per class was calculated and then accumulated in a series from the maximum discharge value to the minimum discharge value. The percent of the total time period was determined for each accumulated value. These values are plotted on the abscissa on a 10,000 100 Discharge in cfs 1.0 Figure 17 . lOl \— 1 10 30 50 70 90 99 99.99 Time as percent of total period Flow-duration curve for the Red Cedar River at East Lansing, 1931-1960. Daily discharge is given in cubic feet per second. Time is expressed as the percent of the total period for which the corresponding daily discharge was equaled or exceeded. Basic data from USGS (no date). 102 probability scale. The abscissa thus represents the percent of time that daily discharges either equaled or exceeded the discharge shown.* Although the flow-duration curve does not provide a probability of occurrence (Velz and Gannon 1960), it does summarize conditions for the 30-year base period. In as much as the next 30—year period will resemble the base period used, the flow—duration data preview what may be expected for the long term. For example, during ten percent of the base period the daily discharge was equal to or greater than 480 cfs. The discharge which is equaled or exceeded 90% of the time may be used as an index of drought flow which is assumed to be base flow only (Cross 1949). For the Red Cedar this flow is 28 cfs. Thus during the base period the daily discharge underneath the Farm Lane bridge was less than 28 cfs 10% of the time. The discharge was less than 9.6 cfs one percent of the time or for approximately 110 days. In order to appreciate the nature of the distri— bution of the discharge values I plotted a regular frequency distribution on linear by linear graph paper using the same *If the same values are plotted on standard linear by linear graph paper the resulting plot is similar to an equilateral hyperbola in the first quadrant. Such a curve is extremely inefficient to use to read values from one axis to the other. The logarithmic, extremal probability plot yields a slightly curved line with a sufficient angle to each axis to allow efficient reading of values from one scale to the other. 103 values that were used for the flow—duration plot. The re- sulting curve for 1931-1960 is shown in Figure 18. The curve is highly skewed to the right showing that the majority of daily discharges lie below the 30—year mean of 199 cfs. Considering the various analyses of the runoff from the study basin, the Red Cedar River may be characterized as a small, highly variable stream that has a relatively low yield per square mile during drought conditions. The bulk of the daily discharges are smaller than the mean values which are often quoted. Long—Term Trends in Runoff.——One way to detect long-range trends in hydrologic variables is by use of the double-mass curve in which the accumulation of one variable is plotted against the accumulation of another. The resultant curve should be a straight line if the variables are directly pro— portional to each other. The lepe of the line is the pro— portionality constant associated with the two variables. If the relation between the two variables should change the straight line would reflect the change as a change in direction, that is, a break in slope. Such a break in slope is more readily detected if the array of points is at approximately 45 degrees to both axes which can be achieved by proper selection of the vertical and hori— zontal scales. Year to year minor variations between the variables cause minor breaks in slope which are usually ig- nored as insignificant. Only changes in slope that persist 104 m? *o 35305 E owcmsoma m N nun]! |Nr Jf/b/ demo 8o: 8% 33m .3242; $583 “now as swim .3600 tom of ecu momumnuflv Swap ..o coflsfluuumc >uaosvouh .3 £ng ace cam— 82 sKep 1° JeqwnN 105 for more than five years are considered significant (USGS 1960b). However, even then, such a break may not be due to an actual change in the relation between the variables, but rather due to a change in the procedure for collecting the data for one or both of the variables. For example, the change in the location of a rain gage or a stream gage may produce such an effect. An actual change in the relation be- tween the variables may be due to either natural or man-made alteration of the hydrologic variables in the system being considered. A double-mass curve for the Red Cedar study basin in which the cumulative mean annual runoff is plotted against the cumulative annual precipitation for 1931—1965 (calendar years) is given in Figure 19. The runoff data were obtained from the USGS (1958 & 1964) and from open file reports in the Survey's Lansing office. The precipitation data were ob- tained from a variety of published and unpublished records of the USWB and the Bureau's Lansing office (see section on climate). Although the interpretation of such a curve is some— what arbitrary, I have shown the array of points defining a line with two breaks in slope, one at 1940, and the other at 1960. The annual precipitation values are averages of sever- al stations none of which was relocated in or near the years of 1940 or 1960. Even if one station had been relocated it probably would not have changed the overall average since in cfs Cumulative runoff 106 1000 0000 /’1960 1000 ; $000 flu) 1000 1000 / 1940 L000 / / Figure 19. 200 400 600 800 1000 Cumulative precipitation in inches Double-mass curve for the Red Cedar study basin for 1931-1965. Runoff is the accumulated mean annual runoff for the Red Cedar River at East Lansing. Precipitation is the accumulated annual precipitation over the study basin. Breaks in slope are shown at 1940 and 1960. Basic data from USGS and USWB. 107 individual station relocations did occur at other times but are not reflected as major breaks in slope. The runoff values are based on the record from one stream gage (East Lansing) which was relocated in 1940. However, this change should not be the cause of a major break in slope because the gage was moved about 250 feet downstream remaining in the same pool at the same reference datum (Bent 1966). These two breaks are probably due to the decrease in runoff as a percent of percipitation that occurs during low— precipitation years. During 1931—1941 runoff as the cumu- lative departure from the 30—year mean steadily declined in response to the dry-weather decade of the 1930's (Fig. 13). During this time runoff as a percent of precipitation was below normal. In the 1941-1960 period cumulative runoff re— turned to and remained near the mean while cumulative pre— cipitation was near or above the mean. During 1960-1965 precipitation and runoff declined sharply, again with the resulting effect of runoff becoming a smaller percent of the precipitation. During the two dry periods included in the record the corresponding portion of the double—mass curve has less than normal slope and the beginning and end of these periods probably account for the breaks in slope. Other changes were not detected by this runoff—precipitation, double-mass curve. If other breaks had occurred further analysis of them would 108 be warranted as outlined in Water-Supply Paper lS4l—B (USGS 1960b). Four other double-mass curves were plotted covering the water years 1931-1965 (Fig. 20, map pocket). Each curve has the cumulative mean annual runoff of the Red Cedar plotted against the cumulative mean annual runoff of a rela- tively nearby stream with a continuous, long—term gaging record. The other four river gaging stations used are all in southern Lower Michigan: the St. Joseph River at Niles, the River Rouge at Detroit, the Huron River at Ann Arbor and the Grand River at Grand Rapids. The river gaging data were obtained from USGS published records (1958& 1964) and from open file reports in the Survey's Lansing office. The curve for the Red Cedar vs. the Rouge showed no major breaks in slope while the other three curves each had one major break. The break in the Red Cedar-St. Joseph curve occurred about 1941. Although the Red Cedar stream gage was relocated during the preceding year, it should not affect the cumulative discharge series as noted above. The St. Joseph did not have a gage relocation during the period of record. This change in slope was probably due to the change from the series of dry years in the 1930's in the Red Cedar basin to the series of normal or wet years as Was noted above. The break in the Red Cedar-Grand curve occurred about 1943. The Grand did not have a gage relocation during the 109 period of record. Thus this break in slope in the same di- rection at about the same time as the Red Cedar-St. Joseph break, probably can be accounted for in the same way, that is, a change from a dry period to a normal period in the study basin. Since the Red Cedar—Rouge and the Red Cedar-Huron curves show no breaks during the early 1940's the River Rouge and the Huron River probably had runoff patterns simi- lar to the Red Cedar's during these years. The Red Cedar—Huron curve does have a break about 1947 that is probably a result of the relocation of the Huron River stream gage in that year. Each of the curves except the Red Cedar—Rouge has a slight change in slope in the most recent six years of record. These minor changes are probably due to the dry period beginning in 1961 experienced on the Red Cedar but not experienced, at least to the same degree, on the other river basins. Since the trend extends for only the several most recent years of record the conclusion must be tentative, but it does support the similar conclusion based on the Red Cedar's runoff—precipitation, double—mass curve discussed above. Since all of the major breaks in slope can be ac- counted for by known phenomena, these four double—mass curves do not indicate any long-range trend in the quantity of the mean annual runoff of the Red Cedar from the study 110 basin. If such a trend does exist it is not apparent from this analysis. Ground Water Introduction.—-In the study basin ground water occurs in the Pleistocene glacial drift and in the Pennsylvanian bedrock below it. For the most part the drift is a heterogeneous mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders, but it con— tains some interspersed units of sorted materials. It varies in thickness from just a few feet to more than 200 feet (Moore 1959; Vanlier, no date). In general the drift is low in permeability and only provides water for low-yield wells. For most of the study basin the bedrock lying im— mediately below the drift is the Saginaw Formation. This early Pennsylvanian formation contains sandstone and shale with some limestone and coal (Mich. Water Res. Comm 1961; Mich. Dept. Conserv. 1964). Some younger bedrock of the Grand River Group (sandstone and shale) occurs in the southern portion of Meridian Township; and some older bed— rock, a complex of Mississippian strata, occurs in the eastern townships of the study basin (Mich. Dept. Conserv. 1957; Mich. Water Res. Comm. 1961). The bedrock strata of the study basin are located south and east of the center of the Michigan Basin and generally dip northwestward. 111 The upper portion of the bedrock provides the main supply of the ground water in the study basin; the deeper bedrock produces mineralized water (Vanlier, no date). For the study basin then, usable ground water occurs in both the unconfined aquifers of the glacial drift and the confined aquifers of the upper bedrock, mainly the Saginaw Formation. The amount of ground water which is available for human utilization in the Lansing area is unknown, but it is esti— mated to be about three times the recent annual usage of 30 mgd (Tri—Co. Reg. Plan. Comm 1963). Water Table and Piezometric Surface.——The upper surface of the zone of saturation, the water table, is at a pressure of one atmosphere. The water in the confined bedrock is under pressure of more than one atmosphere and will rise in a well which is cased from the surface down into the consolidated aquifer. This artesian system may or may not produce a flow- ing well depending on the relative elevations of the land surface and the water level. The surface defined by the static water levels in the deep wells that penetrate the bed- rock aquifer is a pressure surface, the piezometric surface. The piezometric surface was originally probably at or near the land surface in the western portion cufthe study basin as indicated by flowing wells at various locations ‘which have been reported by several sources. Lane reported flowing wells on what is now the Michigan State University campus (USGS 1899) and at four other locations in the 112 Lansing-EaSt Lansing area (USGS 1906). Cooper refers to flowing wells in Okemos and Meridian in Meridian Township (Mich. Geol. Surv. 1905). The flowing wells no longer exist in the extreme western end of the study basin which is adja— cent to large-scale municipal and industrial pumping, but some flowing wells still exist at locations removed from the metropolitan area. For example, in the town of Williamston (Firouzian 1963) and in section 23 of Iosco Township where the continuous discharge is used to help maintain a swimming pond. Cone of Depression.—-The water table and the piezometric surface fluctuate in response to natural and man-made vari— ations in the hydrologic cycle. For example, a pumpingwell discharging water to the surface creates a cone of depres- sion in the water table or the piezometric surface depending on whether a confined or an unconfined aquifer is being used. In the Lansing metropolitan area before municipal wells were installed in the late 1800's, the piezometric sur— face was probably in a state of dynamic equilibrium and probably more or less flat dipping slightly to the west of north (Stuart 1945). Municipal and industrial deep wells have increased in number as the area has grown with the re- sult that a cone of depression has formed in the piezometric surface. With the increasing pumpage of the metropolitan areathe cone of depression has not remained static, but has expanded both vertically and horizontally. The cone is a 113 composite cone reflecting the influence of the several well fields of the cities of Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan State University, Meridian Township and privately owned industries. For comparison, a profile extending from one of the depressions near the middle of the composite cone in the city of Lansing to a point six miles due east in Meridian Township is given in Figure 21. The profile is shown for 1945 and 1962. The piezometric surface has been significant- ly lowered under Lansing, East Lansing (including Michigan State University), and the western half of Meridian Township. The greatest lowering to occur in the l7—year period as indi- cated by the distance between the profiles was about 46 feet. Firouzian (1963) reports a maximum lowering in the composite cone of between 80 and 90 feet on the north side of Lansing. Thus the piezometric surface under the western portion of the study basin is influenced by the adjacent water—demanding urbanized area that lies mainly outside the study basin. The residents of the study basin who do not use municipal water supplies use their own well supply. This sort of discharge also affects the piezometric surface but apparently only locally and in a minor way (Stuart 1945; Mencenberg 1963; Vanlier 1963). Mr. Ralph Hudson, a long—time resident of the East Lansing area, reported (1964) that in about l900 a domestic well was installed on his farm in the northwest quarter of 114 gnome: aduusofih use 7303 gypsum JAMS. uEQmumomou. m0mD 89C dump uwmam domes 3 3 nonuouo 05 use? vocal—3Q 40>: moo smog osonm uoou 5 am sofim>3m .NoS can mvS new sous .QBH camcauo§-wsmosmd .Mamswucmd 05 3 custom omuaofiouoa o5 ..o moduounm AN ousmwh was: .< < u m o m N a c 4 2:. _ mcicoiw _ -mcicod n“ .. . < \ ”.I \\.\.)b a: _ . \ 29:69 3:05. \\ \x t \ \ \ \\ \ \\ x. s: 3 \ \ I \ \\. Ill \ 8 \ l \ Ill IIL. % \ \ \ \ 1.- \ Of \ I. f\ 60 \L o \ . x... . \Ln\\\\\ i. i. \N \ \\ O ...\ \ V L D .. wUdeDw OZm> cm cm ma maa cc cm mc.m ma.m sm.cm mmcaaaxooam omac ms ca Umsm.ma mcea mam mm am ms.cm mc.cm smacaaws mm mm m cmc sch sma ma mm as ac mc cm maooa mm am a amaa mmca emm mc.em .mzs no amccamsmm mmsm amma n ecc cam n sm.c mmmaaa> maaa>amaamz ma.mm cc cca ma.mm soama am am mm was mac mcc mm.cm .mze no amccamsmm was com a mme mac n Nc.a mmmaaa> maaa>mcmo ce.cm cm cm mm.mm smrmca m m m m m m mc.c ca.c sm.mm aaam amaccm mm mm ca amp ccv ama mm.ma mm.em ma.cm cocmamam MMCSOU EmchH aca mm c mma me m am.a cc.e sc.sm sham Npssoo CODCHHO ccma ccma cmma ccma ccma cmma mmmaaz amaoa we a Wwmaas manmczoa mmum oacmmamooo moHHE\.oc ampflmcoa HoQEsz Gamma woopm CHEDMB Hmpoe mamha ucoEmom onEmom cameImUSDm och ca coaumasmom .msoflmfl>flp HH>HU HOQHE %Q ccma cam ccma .cmca aoa gamma macaw amcmo was was ca coaamasdom mo mwamsanmm .ca magma 122 .Aacma cam acma ocu oucam mooam> mangBOD opmaamonmmm may Ca cocoaoca mam was: wasp Mow mama nmmmav wswcou was mo smoasm .m .D anm sump coapmasmom oammm lumocz cam CBODmEmaaaaB LDOQ Ca moaa hpao coumEmaaaaz oocam co>am mosam> amauumm .mmaamczoa camaa c .mpomnp womcoo >3 mangBOD cmapaamz mo mammamcm poaampop ocp anw cwxmeo .ansm mm: ©a0mxoomv ma machBOp aaam uoxcsm mo Hocaoo aamEm macs ca wpcmpacmcca mo aoQEoc och .wwmp wasp How msmcoo och Ca maopmammom popuoooa #0: ma was: .moacmGBOD ucoommpm och ob HmaaEam ma om: ccma oca ucoEmom ocp Ca cosmooa mum mpacs mcaaaozp o: oucaw oaoN haflmfloam a .asmma mm gm mm 0% 0% ON mg @m mmma 0N hm gm mm mm ma hm om mm om amo mm mm mm mm mm ma ma va Na Va om Ohm mew me mama whoa aam v mm mom mom mam mmoa ova wmm m am va mum Nam vmw ova m vN.o mm.o wh.m ma.o mw.ma mm.mm mm.aa mm.mm hm.a om.mm mm.aa ma.o 00.0 om.m mm.n av.o No.0m oo.ooa ha.am oo.ooa gm.am mm.o 00. mo. gm. us. me. .mm om. mm cm. ac. we. mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm huaom Eaupcm %HCSOO womwm3macm maaameD Emcusm coaamz OUmOH aamBOm .QBB mo Hotcamfiom mmmaaa> maaa>amazom wpcmm WMBGOU amcccacc sccscc cccmccasaa 123 (Zonsidering the existing culture, by 1900 the land was some- Vvhat overpopulated. In the decade or two before and after Ll900 most of the rural townShips of the study basin reached 21 population maximum and then began to decline. The use of nnarginal farm land was reflected in farm abandonment and its eaventual return to the state for nonfarm uses such as some c>f the land included in the Rose Lake Wildlife Experiment Eftation just north of the study basin in Bath Township. The year 1900 was the more or less average time of 'tlie peak of rural population for the study basin. In 1900 'tlie population of the study basin was mostly rural and is easstimated to have been 13,063 with a population density of EaIDout 39 persons per square mile (Table 10). Iaaind and Water Use.--This rural population changed the land- £3Cape significantly in a variety of ways. Almost all of the upland forests were removed to allow farming and for the ‘7Eilue of the timber. Only the inaccessible wet forests re— InEiined little changed (Bryant 1963). Partially unprotected SCDils and hard surfaces such as roads and roof tops were ESL13:)stituted for the trees and their litter. The soil itself ‘VEis changed by exposing it to the weather and physically re— aI-‘ranging its structure. Organic matter and some minerals VVere reduced in quantity by the physical and chemical pro~ ce sses that resulted. 1 2 4 T\\‘ Water use increased for domestic and livestock pur-{ poses. Dams were built early at Okemos and Williamston. '1.“ Some swamps and wetlands were drained. From these generali— ties it is not possible to determine the hydrologic budget for the study basin at this time, but it was not possible to find records that are needed for such an analysis. During the early years of settlement of southern ‘ ”alas-fl" K \K‘\‘ Lower Michigan, \1830—1850, :there was agitation for a canal ‘ -_ . , w- 1.. ' 4P7w....,_,_, from Lake Huron or Lake St. Clair to Lake Michigan. Several M .aw, preliminary plans and engineering plans were presented for . -_..1 . -..... «f4». ‘v-v.‘ .p the Clinton and Kalamazoo Canal; even a ground—breaking cere— mony and celebration occurred at Mt. Clemens “'(‘Inngersoll 1882) . 7 'chévésfione of the plans‘was executednin part, ”due to serious fiscal difficulties of the young-state that caused funds forpubl1cworks to become very scarce (Ellis 1880) . Depending on the particular route proposed the Red Cedar or its tributaries would have become a part of the canal system (Blcis 1838; Hunt 1839; E. Hurd 1839,- J. Hurd 1839; Crittenden 1911) .* \ *A similar proposal has been presented recently by U‘ S. Representative John C. Mackie of Flint. In the pro— posed Trans-Michigan Waterway, water would be taken from flake Huron at Port Huron and channeled to Lake Michigan alnly using streams which are not highly polluted at the pre sent (Baird 1966). 125 1 Modern Occupance Population: Number and Trends.——Beginning about 1900 the nature of the occupance of the study basin changed consider— ably. During the previous period (1840-1900) the change was mainly quantitative, but since 1900 the change has been qualitative as well as quantitative. The population growth curves for the state of Michi— gan, Ingham County and the study basin are given in Figure 22. Michigan was admitted as a state to the Union 1n I837. The population has increased continuously since the first de— cennial census in 1840, and it is expected to continue to do so in the foreseeable future. The rate of increase diminished regularly until the 1910-1920 and 1920-1930 decades which show marked increases again. The Great Depression of the/2 1930's is reflected in the sharp decrease in the rate of growth during that decade. The 1940—1960 period had, and '\ \ \-. «MWW the 1960-1980 is expected to have, a fairly constant growth rate. The population growth curve of the entire state is an average of extremely diverse regions. Demographers take this divergence into account by dividing the state into relatively homogeneous regions that reflect the highly urban- ized southeast (metropolitan Detroit), the moderately urban- ized southern Lower Michigan (mixed agricultural lands and metropolitan areas south of the Muskegon—Bay City line), and 126 Study basin and Ingham Co. scale 107 10° 2 fl 3 / / 6 5 I: 10 10 3 z / .2 / E ’4 v"\;’ . y s‘ A I I I I, 105 .1 10‘ T !/ / -I d I I 1820 40 60 80 1900 20 40 60 80 2000 Years Figure 22 . Population growth curves for the state of Michigan. Ingham County and the study basin. Note the two vertical scales used. Basic data from U. S. Bureau of the Census (l853, 1901 and 1961). Michigan Dept. Public Health (1965) and Tri-County Reg. Plan. Comm. (1966). 127 the very slightly urbanized north (northern Lower Michigan and all of the Upper Peninsula). Because of the highly diverse regions of the state the overall growth curve for the state masks the regional population trends. The southern Lower Peninsula (including the metropolitan Detroit area) has accounted for most of the state's growth since 1900 (Mich. Dept. Pub. Health 1965). Moreover, within this region the metropolitan centers have accounted for most of the growth. Considering the popu- lation as either "rural" or "urban," the rural population was the larger from the time of statehood (96% in 1840) un- til about 1912 when each class contained 50% of the total population (Hawley 1949). Since then the urban population has increased its percentage until in 1965 the rural popu— lation was down to 28%, and the trend is expected to con— aw. Dept. Pub. 11231811 1965). Another trend which is not evident in the overall state curve is the composition of the non-metropolitan popu- lation. Although there has been an absolute increase in the size of the rural population since 1900, the relative number of rural-farm residents compared with the rural—nonfarm resi- dents has reversed. Since 1933 the rural—nonfarm has been the larger segment (Beegle and Thaden 1960). \ The growth curve for Ingham County indicates more directly the growth pattern of a relatively small land unit. Its pattern is essentially the same as that of the state but 128 with fewer of the masking effects that stem from averaging data from several widely diverse areas. Although Ingham County was legally organized in 1829, there were few white men in the area until the mid—1830's (Fuller 1928). During the first several decades after set- tlement began the population growth rate was particularly great (Fig. 22). From 1880 to 1900 there was a marked de- crease in the rate of growth. From 1900 through 1990 the in- crease in rate of growth has been, or is expected to be, moderately high but never at the same level that occurred during the first decades. .{ Several interrelated factors in the pattern of occu— pance may account for the variation in this growth curve. From 1850 to 1900 the curve resembles the upper part of the sigmoid portion of a growth curve of a biological population which has been introduced into a new, highly favorable en- vironment. This period of rapid increase in population, the logarithmic phase, is often followed by a phase of dynamic equilibrium in which the population increase approximately equals the population decrease, i.e., the environmentwiswsus- -mmurw —~-' —_.. ”...-aux, f.— . taining a maximum number of organisms, the carrying capacity. w’ M “R...“- x.“- Such relatively constant population level usually indicates a situation in which there is no basic change in either the environment or the requirements of the population. The Ingham County growth curve gives evidence of approaching a plateau as it tends to level off between 1880 and 1900. 129 This leveling-off phenomenon is more clearly illus- trated if the population of the city of Lansing and the re- mainder of the county are considered separately. The non- Lansing population reached a maximum about 1880 and then declined slightly until about 1910. Thus the trend of the rural population was masked by the relatively rapid urban growth in the city of Lansing. The sharp rise in the growth curve beginning in 1900 suggests another logarithmic phase. Essentially the white man's first occupance (before 1900) was self-sufficient, mainly based on the resources and energy available locally. The second form of occupance (after 1900) is not based main— ly on the resources of Ingham County only, for both energy and material imports and exports are a vital aspect of this system. ‘ _ During the late 1800'sand the early 1900's in Ingham County, particular cultural changes were initiated which had, and continue to have, a marked effect on the re- quirements of the local human population. During thisfitime the following innovations camewto Ingham County: the munici- rm a“- ,_ — —.~- ~ #m*—-_ pal distribution of electricity for use in lighting and g ._.__....__“_, _.—a drivihg machinery; municipal water suppliesdependent on deep wells? theinternal combustion engine as the power source for automobiles and farm machines; and electric rail- ways serving both intra— and interurban traffic. “In general, these innovations were first used by the metropolitan area 130 (Lansing) and later were established in the rural parts of the county. N. The advances in science and technology have become a 1 I part of the culture because of the population's willingness i to utilize them. These cultural changes have allowed a 1 corresponding change in the size of the population. In ap— \ .\ a proximately 1904 the Lansing population exceeded the popu— I \Maaa'»: I lation of the rest of the county for the first time. " Since I ...r-t..- "W‘. m—u—M- I” i then the population of Ingham County has been predom1nantly ‘a’a‘... -_‘_ ,ya ~~.~-"*" urban and suburban in character I i V i 1 1X * In summary, it appears that about 1900 Ingham County approached the carrying capacity for its human population considering the existing mode of occupance. About that time technological changes initiated overall changes which gave rise to a new type of occupance. The growth curve from 1900 to 1960, and projected to 1990, gives no indication of ap- proaching an horizontal asymptote which would indicate a new carrying capacity is being approached. However, a decrease in the growth rate is apparent after 1930. The growth curve for the study basin indicates only the general trend of population growth in the study basin (Fig. 22). Actually the pattern of growth in the study basin probably follows the pattern of growth in Ingham County except that the increased growth rate due to urbani- zation began at a later date since the study basin remained essentially rural until after WOrld War II. By 1960 the 131 estimated population of the study basin was\35,101 with a corresponding density of about 105 persons per square mile (Table 10). NOW that urbanization is occurring in the study basin its growth rate will assume more and more the nature of the dominant urban influence. Geographic Meridian town- ship (in contradistinction to political Meridian Township) is receiving the major share of the urban—suburban residents migrating into the study basin. It is the only rapidly urbanizing area for which recent detailed population figures are available. What is currently happening there will probably happen in the adjacent townships later, depending on the pattern of urban growth in this portion of Ingham County. That portion of the city of East Lansing lying within the study basin had a population of 7,276 in 1960 and a population of 8,111 in 1965-(Table ll). I(As before these estimates are based on cutting and weighing.) The corre- sponding densities were 3,519 persons per square mile in 1960 and 3,923 persons per square mile in 1965. That portion of political Meridian Township lying within the study basin had a population of 12,067 in 1960 and a population of 13,604 in 1965 (Table 11). The corresponding densities were 408 and 460, respectively. Population trends during the 1960—1965 period for the state, for the county and for the most populated segment .Aoomav COammaEEOU mCHCCmam amCOamom mucsoolaue Eouw momeaumo moma ecu new sump oammm .Ammmav msmcoo was 00 smoasm..m .D anm muomuu mamcoo och mo coapmocaaop pom 000a aom pump oammm 132 ama maa Saga saga mamm.aa mh.a0 0¢m0.ma 0m BE mom who mama anav 0V0a.0 00.00a 0v0a.0 ms 92 mm0 com. 000m 000m a000.¢ 0w.mm 00m0.¢ mg 92 nmm 0mm Nmma mmma wb¢¢.m 0a.mm wmam.m mg as man aoo mmmm mama 0mam.m ¢>.¢m hmam.m 0g 82 hmm wow am mm VNm0.0 ma.N m00m.a mg BE .QBB Hmuumcu cmaoaaoz 0mma 0mam mmoa mmna chmm.0 mm.mm mmac.m av am ammm vmmv mnmm comm 0ah0.0 00.00 amvh.0 mg am www.ma 0mm.ma mmaa mmaa 0m00.0 mm.0m aam¢.0 Nu am mamm mamm amma mvoa thw.0 00.0m mamm.a mm Am span mcamCma ummm moma 000a moma 000a Nmoaaz amuou m0 X NmoaaE Downy \J. nmwam wowcoo Amoaasa mom .Ozv>0amcmm HmQESZ Gamma wpsum map amuOB CasuaB mcaha mon< ucoemow Gamma modum onu Ca coapmasmom .mpomau momcoo >9 moma 0cm 000a How gamma wpopw umpou pom ecu mo pcofimwm maswCBOu cmapaumz may mo coaumasmom .aawoaflmfi 133 of the study basin are given in Table 12. While the state had an increase of 7.2% during 1960—1965, Ingham County had an increase of 15.1%. The East Lansing—Meridian Township segment of the study basin had an increase of about 12% show— int that it shared in the relatively large increase of the county. During 1960—1965 the state population increased at an average rate of 1.4% per year. The corresponding values for Ingham County and the East Lansing-Meridian Township study basin segment are 2.8% per year and 2.3% per year, respectively. These comparisons show that the study basin is lo— cated in an area which during the last five years of record has had a growth rate considerably higher than that for the state as a whole. Within the study basin the Meridian Town— ship segment experienced a slightly greater rate of growth than did the East Lansing segment. By using the census tract data for East Lansing and Meridian Township and applying Ingham County township data (Tri—County Reg. Plan. Comm. 1966) for all other parts of the study basin an estimate of the 1965 population of the study basin was calculated to be 38,454. This gives an aver— age 1960 to 1965 increase for the entire study basin of 9.6%. Another way to View the population in the study basin is to consider the population density as determined from the most recent complete census data (1960). The pattern shown in Figure 23 is somewhat artificial; the true 134 .Ammmav ceammaEEou moaccmam amcoamom >DCSOOIHHB Eoum pump :0 momma maocpo .Ammmav cuamom caaaom mo ucmEuHmooQ cmmacoaz Eoum macaw cmmacuazn .Amcma cam acmav msmcmu was we smmesm .m.cm m.m m.aa aaa.c cem.e seas meamcma emmm mo ucoEmom v.m e.ma ecc.ma ccc.ma daemczos smacaamz amoauaaom mo Dcofimom gamma macaw m.m a.ma cca.m¢m cmm.aam season seemea v.a m.c oooqnmmam 000.mmch cmmacuaz Aamox Hod my mums ommouocH mmma momma has: oacmmumooo £u3ou0 ucoam>asqm mo ucmouom Q c0aumaomom .mmmanomma moausp Gamma xmoum ocu com mucooo EmcmcH .cmmanoaz Ca mpcosu COaumasmom .Na wanme 135 I'lllll mm...<< H n a _ o Z_woDhm «(GNU Qua IIIIiIIlII | .A—oo: «3:00 of mo 300.50 .m.D Ea: 0.03 umnom Momoz; to :u u:_uoauv (Bonn E a 8.8 D «3.2302 30936 6:07.21 :39 .35.: >3 57:01 co_.u_:noa 000— Adzfi. coautoiv wow 02.; . mm 0.50: 136 pattern would reflect the natural features and cultural features (especially the transportation net) of the land. Nonetheless the pattern shown does provide the overall trend. The East Lansing segment has the highest density with 3,519 persons per square mile. Williamston City and webberville Village have moderately high values of 2,069 and 2,459, re— spectively. Fowlerville Village has a value of 1,222 and Dansville Village has a value of 444. With the exception of wmbberville the cities and villages of the study basin can be arranged in a series of decreasing size in which the larger the population the greater is the population density. The townships (exclusive of the villages and cities) that have relatively high proportions of rural farm resi— dents have a population ranging from 20 to 46 persons per square mile (Fig. 23 and Table 10). All the townships of the study basin except those in the northwest quarter are in this class. Four townships in the study basin had densities that show the result of the influx of rural—nonfarm residents. Three townships show moderately higher densities: Alaiedon with 57; Williamstown with 67; and Bath with 101. Meridian Township constitutes a class by itself with a density of 408 persons per square mile. The overall pattern is one of high density in the urban area, low density in the rural area, with a gradational change in the zone between the extremes. Density appears to be a function of proximity tx>the urban center. 137 In summary, the study basin has experienced a large --.,‘..c~ “-" ...—w"; .J—IvU-r :I'“ ~ V...—. population increase during the last 150 years. During the _‘_ -1 . —1.- Indian occupancemthe population totaled something less than 500 with a density of less than one person per square mile. During the muscle-powered early agricultural occupance the maximum population was about 13,000 with a density of 39. In the most recent urban and mechanical-powered agricultural occupance, by 1960 the pOpulation had grown to over 35,000 with a density of 105. Since 1900 the portion of the basin that has remained predominantly in agricultural production has experienced a nearly stable or slightly decreasing popu- lation. Since 1900 the portion of the basin that has had an influx of urban, suburban or rural-nonfarm residents has had, and is still experiencing, a high rate of growth. During 1960—1965 the main area of such change, the Meridian Town- ship segment,experienced a growth of about 12% which is al- most twice as large as the rate for the state as a whole. The adjacent townships are experiencing moderately high growth rates, others most likely will later depending on the pattern of population growth. water Use.——The amount of water used by humans, as individuals or as groups,is quite variable. For all classes of users the amount available may be limited by either physical or eco- nomic factors, or both. For nations and states geographic location, climate, recent weather, level of technology, and tradition help to determine the water use. As part of a 138 state and a nation the individual is influenced, at least indirectly, by these group-influencing factors. In addition the individual is influenced by several factors that only apply to individuals. In order to satisfy normal physiological needs a human requires somewhat more than two quarts of water per day (Anthony 1959). More than half of this requirement is met by drinking water or bever- ages. The remainder is derived from "solid foods" or is a product of normal metabolic processes. The minimum water intake required by an individual varies, especially reflect— ing the temperature and humidity of the environment and the amount of physical activity of the individual. In considering the water used by units of population the amount used by a family dwelling is the smallest unit generally available. Water used in and around the home is called domestic use and is usually stated on a per capita basis. Domestic use includes all of the water used from the home water system, so in addition to the drinking water it includes cooking, laundering, bathing, lawn sprinkling, con- sumption by pets, etc. For the conterminous United States MacKichan and Kammerer (1961) estimated the 1960 domestic water use by state to range from 35 gpd (gallons per day) \«_a. . \\ per person for the lowest state to 100 gpd per person for .1‘ the highest state. Most states were estimated at 50 gpd per / person. In the United States domestic water use per family dwelling appears to be positively correlated to several 139 socioeconomic factors such as education, occupation and in- come (Hansen and Hudson 1956; Dunn and Larson 1963). The domestic water use does not truly represent the amount of water used to support the typical urban or sub— urban resident who is connected to a municipal water supply system. Part of the water produced by the system does not supply dwellings but is lost through leakage or is used by various industrial, commercial and governmental operations that are a part of the community. Considering all users of the municipal water supply the use in the conterminous United States average 151 gpdber person in 1960 (MacKichan and Kammerer 1961).(1v. I But even this rate of water use does not truly repre- sent the water necessary to support one person in our present society. In addition to the municipal water, selfesupplied business and industry, and rural uses (mainly irrigation) should be considered. For the conterminous United States the 1960 water use of all types except for water power uses was estimated to be about 1,500 gpd per person (MacKichan and Kammerer 1961). This was an increase of 62% over the per capita use in 1940, and an increase of 120% over the actual use in 1940 (Pavelis and Gertel 1963). Thus, not only is the demand for water rising because of the general increase in population, it is also rising because of greater per capita use. No significant change in this trend is pro- jected in the foreseeable future (Picton 1960). 140 As used above ”water use” refers to water which is taken from its natural place in the hydrologic cycle. This diversion of surface water or ground water constitutes the withdrawal uses. Other uses of water that do not require diversion are on—site or nonwithdrawal uses. The demand for nonwithdrawal uses include water—oriented recreation and sewage dilution both of which will probably increase at least as rapidly as the withdrawal uses. In comparing Michigan with the nation the Michigan averages are near the national averages (MacKichan and Kammerer 1961). For domestic water use Michigan is approxi— mately at the national average of 50 gpd per person. For municipal use Michigan is approximately at the national aver- age of 153 gpd per person. However, in total water used ex— cepting waterpower uses, Michigan used 870 gpd per person compared with the national average of 1,500 gpd per person. Although Michigan as a state is relatively very well endowed with natural waters it uses far less per capita than the_ nation. . ‘Water use in the study basin in the past has been mainly rural domestic and related agricultural uses. Now in the villages and suburbanizing portion of the study basin water use is mainly domestic with a relatively small use by commerce and industry. In order to determine the water use in the study basin for l965,water use in domestic, business and 141 agricultural use categories will be estimated. In the study basin as elsewhere domestic use varies considerably from household to household, season to season, and community to community. Here in southern Lower Michigan the variation is exemplified by comparing Holt using 50 gpd per person with Birmingham using about 150 gpd per person (Richmond 1963). In a river basin study in western New York state Bordne (1960) used 80 gpd per person as an estimate of domestic usage. The same value was suggested by Smith (1967) for use in the Study basin. A value of 100 gpd per person is often currently used in planning water systems but this allows for an expected increase in water use during the useful life of the system. The above estimates of water use are for homes which have running water. In the study basin virtually all of the new houses have running water either supplied by a public water system or private well. Nonetheless about 6% of the rural—farm and rural—nonfarm housing units do not have running water (U. S. Bur. Census 1963) and these on the aver- age use only about 20% as much as the units with running water. Rather than adjust the overall estimate for this re» duced use I assumed that the excess water use would be an estimate of the water use of the relatively few business places located in the study basin (Mich. Water Res. Comm. 1961). 142 The value of 80 gpd per person was used to estimate domestic water use in the study basin. As given in the section on population the 1965 population of the study basin is estimated to be 38,454. Thus the domestic water use for the entire study basin is estimated to be 3,076,320 gpd. This estimate includes urban, suburban, rural—nonfarm and rural—farm domestic water use, and the relatively small business use. The 3,076,320 gpd is equivalent to 4.76 cfs or 0.192 inches of water over the entire study basin per year. In order to determine the water used for agricultur- al stock watering I used the 1964 United States Census of Agriculture (U. S. Bur. Census 1966a & 1966b) as the basis to estimate the number and kind of livestock present in the study basin. Since the smallest units reported were counties I assumed that the mean animal population density for the county would apply to that segment of the study basin lying in each county. The small segments of the study basin lying in Bath Township (Clinton County) and Perry Township (Shiawassee County), totaling less than two square miles, were included as a part of the Ingham County segment of the study basin. This segment equals 220.7 square miles, or 39.5% of Ingham County. The small segment of the study basin lying in Antrim Township (Shiawassee County), equaling less than one square mile, was included as a part of the Livingston County 143 segment of the study basin. This segment equals 115.1 square miles, or 20.2% of Livingston County. The types of livestock and their water needs are given in Table 13. The total livestock watering use in the Ingham County segment of the study basin is estimated to average 427,338 gpd which is equivalent to 0.041 inches of water per year over this segment. The total livestock water— ing use in the Livingston County segment of the study basin is estimated to average 166,898 gpd which is equivalent to 0.031 inches of water per year over this segment. The weighted average for the entire study basin is 0.036 inches of water per year. An accurate estimate of annual water use for irri— gation in the study basin is especially difficult to obtain due to the wide year to year variation and the lack of re— cords. Irrigation uses on homesites and business sites (i.e., lawn sprinkling and garden watering) are included in the domestic water use given above. Irrigation as a user class refers to operations which have an irrigation system mainly for application of water to agricultural crops or golf course turfs. Although the study basin is located in the Humid East, supplemental irrigation of some crops and turf is becoming standard pmactice to meet demands for high quality products and to avoid the economic disaster of a very dry season. Public records of irrigation water use are meager. The 1964 U. S. 144 .Anmmma m mmmmav msmcwo ocu mo :mmHsm .m.D ecu Eonm Q .Aommav ocpuom kumm madame ammo: Mom .mp0 Hod macaamwm mmm.cca mmm.smv amsos a m as ca «ca mas cc.c msmxncs aem mcm.ea cam.cm amm.a mom.mm ecm.em ec.c mcmxoano mmm.s cce.m cvm.ma mcm.ea mmm.e cem.ma m somem cce.e maa.a mmm.m ecm.cm aea.m mma.mm e mmom cmm.am mc~.v cma.am mma.mma emc.aa aca.mm ma maunmo umnuo cem.mca amm.m cam.ma ccm.aem mec.e aam.ma cs maoo xaaz mom ucoEmom hucsoo cam ucoEmom Qwucsou momma Hod xooumm>aa om: Houmz ca HoQEDZ muaucm mms swung ca HoQESZ unauco cam Ca ucoemmm Gamma NWDDm ca uwQESZ mpcsoo coummca>aq ucwfimum Gamma >msum ca HoQEsz mucoou Emcmca mm: Munoz .mucoEmom >DCSOU ha Gamma hunch ammoo pom ocu ca own umumB xooumo>aq .ma oanB 145 Census of Agriculture (U. S. Bur. Census 1966a & 1966b) re- ports fewer acres of irrigated farmland for Ingham and Livingston counties combined than the Michigan water Re— sources Commission (1961) reported for the Red Cedar basin only. In order to estimate the irrigation water use in the study basin I assumed that the study basin used an amount pro- portional to its area (74% of the entire Red Cedar basin) and that a 10% increase had occurred since the Michigan Water Re— source Commission's survey taken in 1957-1958 and 1960 that was reported in 1961. The estimate for 1965 is 625 acres of irrigated land in the study basin. In order to estimate the water used in irrigation it is necessary to estimate the rate of water use on the irri— gated land. This is not possible with a high degree of pre~ cision since local irrigation is mainly supplemental and has an irregular, inverse relationship to precipitation which it- self is not uniform. As a rough approximation, irrigation water may be applied at a rate of one to two inches per week for anywhere from zero to ten or more weeks per season. An estimate of 1.5 inches per week for five weeks was used which leads to an estimate of 4,688 acre—inches of irrigation water used per year in the study basin. This is equivalent to 348,761 gpd or 0.022 inches of water over the entire study basin per year. Considering all uses the average water use for the study basin is 0.250 inches per year which seems quite small 146 when compared to the average precipitation of 30.78 inches per year. Although these averages are useful to give the overall relationships they obscure some of the details. For example, in residential communities the heaviest water use occurs during the summer when lawn sprinkling and air con— ditioning may cause daily demands on the local system several times greater than the average daily use. Irrigation de— mands are concentrated also during the summer months. Since the peak demand for withdrawal uses occurs during the period when natural waters generally are least available even rela- tively small needs may be impossible to satisfy without con— flicting with other needs. For example, if we assume that one half of the study basin's irrigated acreage uses surface water as a source and that during a long drought it is desirable to apply two inches of water per week on these acres, the daily water use would be 2,424,464 gallons or 3.75 cfs. For comparison, the record minimum daily low flow for the Red Cedar at Farm Lane was 3 cfs (USGS 1964). During the 1931—1960 base period the Farm Lane station recorded less than 9.6 cfs for 1% of the time and less than 28 cfs for 10% of the time (see section on.frequency distribution of runoff). Thus several large- scale irrigators using a surface water source could signifi— cantly affect the streamflow of the study basin. The legality of such influence is questionable under the local riparian doctrine and explains, in part, why the 147 trend in irrigation water source is to ground water. When recreational uses, esthetic values, sewage dilution needs, fish and wildlife needs (i.e., the on—site uses) are also considered, the relatively small requirements of each cate— gory are in conflict with the others during summer drought periods when demand is at its peak. Land Use.——Clearly the most dramatic land use change in the Red Cedar study basin was the deforestat1on by the early agriculturally or1ented set_tlers. Nonetheless, since then thengmghds of the evolving society in the study basin have continuously modified the land uses of the basin. As mentioned previously the agricultural land of the study basin was fully settled by about 1900. Since that time there has been no further increase in the amount of farm land, rather there has been a gradual reduction of land used for agriculture. This trend still continues.) In 1959, 79% owangh m County was in farms and in 1964, 72% was in farms; the corresponding values for Livingston County are 63% in 1959 and 58% in 1964 (U. S. Bur. Census 1966a & 1966b). In the study basin the land that is shifting out of agriculture is becoming idle or is being used for urban sprawl or highway construction. Moore (1953) studied the ef- . .w-v ‘ __, .... fects of suburbanizatlon on land use in the Lansing rural— urban fringe. He found that as the rural—nonfarm residents and the part—time farmers increased in number the amount of .idle land increased and that the agricultural land use 148 tended to shift to more small grain and row crops with corre- sponding decreasing numbers of livestock. Jensen (1958) al- so noted the increase in idle land in the fringe of the Lansing area, and he estimated that the Lansing area had doubled in size during the 1940-1955 period. Barlowe (no date) states that in rural Michigan the shift from farm land to urban sprawl, forest, parks and throughways will reduce the amount of farm land by 20% during the period 1964-1980. Philbrick (1961 & 1963) re- corded this kind of change in rural areas of southern Lower Michigan by a land use survey that utilized quarter sections of land as the smallest mapping unit. His concept of the Dispersed City of Lansing indicates that significant amounts of the non-farm land uses associated with the metropolitan area extend eastward in the study basin to include Williams— town and Wheatfield Townships. In this way the rural—nonfarm activities are shown to extend far beyond the corporate city limits and beyond the area usually designated as the rural— urban fringe. The Disperse City of Lansing roughly coin— cides with the population density class 51—110 persons per square mile that was previously noted in the section on study basin population. About 54% of the land area of the entire state of Michigan is in woodland (Barlowe, no date). Ingham County had about 12% of its total land area in woodland according to the recent land use report of the Tri—County Regional 149 Planning Commission (1966b). For the rural townships in the Ingham County portion of the study basin (with a population density of 20—50 persons per square mile) the percent in woodland is 10% to 20%. This agrees with the woodland acre— age reported by Horton (1908) for Ingham County in about 1900. For the townships in the 51—110 population density class the woodland value is 13% to 14%; for Meridian Town— ship the value is 19%; and for the East Lansing City segment of the study basin the value is 3%. Thus from virtually a 100% forest cover portions of the study basin have shifted to a forest cover of 3% to about 20%. Highway and street rights of way as a land use class equals about 4% of Ingham County (Tri-County Reg. Plan Comm. 1966b). In the study basin the typical rural townships have about 2.5% of their land in this use. The rural townships that have the Interstate 96, limited access expressway cross— ing them have about 3% to 4% of their land in the right—of— way land use. The Meridian Township segment of the study basin has about 4.5% in right of way land use reflecting the greater frequency subdivision streets. The East Lansing seg~ ment of the study basin has about 17% in right—of—way re- flecting the more complete urbanization of this segment. Whenthe first settlers began to farm the land of the study basin the poorly drained sites were avoided. In time, man—made surface and subsurface drainage (tiling) was used to decrease the moisture in some soils, particularly in 150 order to get into the field in the spring. Horton (1908) reported that by about 1900 the Red Cedar study basin had 20% to 30% of its land area tributary to artificial drains. Many segments of study basin streams have been altered by being extended, straightened or cleaned out, sometimes more than once. Since such drainage work is initiated and paid for by the citizens of the drainage districts, flurries of drainage work coincide with periods of wet years (Graham ...-“.4 __..1 - ,- -.- —.--......._....\.‘.._ ...”, / 1964): Each highway, road and street alters the natural Lfaa/ drainage pattern to some extent with its right of way sur- face drain or storm drain system. Road maps, drain maps and records (in the county drain office), and graphic presenta- tions (e.g., Mich. Water Res. Comm. 1961) indicate a large portion of the study basin is now influenced by artificial surface drainage. With thedemand for more quality and quantity per unit of land in agricultural production, tiling of farm fields has become a wide—spread practice in the study basin. Consideringuthe present circumstances the overall effective- ness of the surface aha“saseuifaee manamade drainage is im— possible to determine due to lack of records and the con- tinually changing efficiencies of drainage works due to plant growth and siltation in the surface waterways, and siltation, misalignment and deterioration of tile systems. Thus the present state of knowledge regarding the influence of artificial drainage on the hydrology of the study basin 151 prohibits generalizations in terms of the overall effects of drainage on the water budget. The state of the art is ex- emplified in the study of the Upper Grand River basin by the Michigan Water Resources Commission (1961) which contains this statement: "The effect of artificial drainage upon flooding is obscure." Land use activities often allow organic and inorganic 7 materials to be washed into waterways by rain and surface runoff. Agricultural land use practices allow mineral { solids, fertilizer, pesticides and bacteria to be washed in— to streams. Construction of buildings and highways allow solid mineral matter to be washed into streams. Keller t (1962) reports a six—fold increase in stream sediment load in an urbanizing area in Maryland. Guy and Ferguson (1962) report more than a one-hundred—fold increase in such an area near Washington, D. C. King and Ball (no date) report large increases in stream sedimentation during expressway con— . struction in the study basin during the early 1960's. ,// Geographic Name of the River Through time the main stream of the study basin has been referred to by several different terms, but mainly, "Cedar River" and " Red Cedar River." I have tried to trace the origin of the name and the common and official usage. In addition to the usual vagaries of the usage of place names through time, streams may be called different 152 names at the same time by persons associated with it at different geographic locations. Regarding place names in Ingham County, Foster (1942) reported that he found it not uncommon for a stream at the same point in time to be desig— nated by three different names depending on the place of residence (headwaters, mid—section or mouth) of the user. For the main stream of the study basin I found present usage, both verbal and in print, to be limited to either "Cedar River" or "Red Cedar River.” Early Usage.——In the original land survey notes of 1824, Joseph Wampler, the surveyor, used ”Misticen" which may have been an English version of an Indian word (Foster 1942). Ellis (1880) reported that "Iosco” was the Chippewa Indian name used for one of the main branches of the river in what is now Iosco Township, Livingston County. Neither of these names were used widely either officially or unofficially. Two historical sources state that the name ”Red Cedar" originated from red cedar trees which grew in the vicinity of the river (Fuller 1928; Foster 1942). Two other sources refer to a grist mill called the ”Red Cedar Mill'I ..__77 7 * _ 7_‘~,. that was built in 1842 at the dam site at Okemos (Durant ‘mwm ,_. - Wan“... - M" ..I—'" mean-..“ . r 11. 1880; Adams 1923). According to a local professional forester (Arend 1965) it is possible that clumps of red cedar grew in openings along the banks of the river. Thus the names which have been most widely used, ”Cedar" and "Red Cedar,” may have originated with early residents and their 153 recognition of a local tree species. (Pine Lake which is now Lake Lansing probably received its name in the same way.) A sample of the terminology used in some early refer— ences is given in Table 14. Although this sample is not com- plete it does show the mixed usage during roughly the first half of the white man's occupance of the study basin. The first two entries in Table 14 are nongovernmental and use ”Red Cedar.” The third entry is governmental (the state topographer's report to the first state geologist, Douglass Houghton), and it uses "Red Cedar.” But another report in the same series (C. C. Douglass to Houghton) used ”Cedar River.” Yet another report in the same series (Hubbard to Houghton) uses "Red Cedar River.” As the entries in Table 14 illustrate, through the early years the usage by both governmental and nongovernmental sources is divided between the two terms, but the earliest usage in both sectors was "Red Cedar River." Recent Usage.-—During the more recent half of the white man's occupance I found that the frequency of usage in both govern— mental and private sectors favor "Red Cedar River." During my ten years of residence in the Lansing—East Lansing area I have found that local laymen use "Red Cedar” almost exclusive— ly. All the public media reflect this use, as do place names such as Red Cedar Road, Red Cedar School, Red Cedar Golf Course and Red Cedar WOOlet. This usage is also that of a local commercial map maker (Dreher's 1961), the 154 Table 14” Terminology used by some early works referring to the main stream of the study basin. Date, title and authora Term used "Cedar "Red Cedar River" River" 1835. The tourist's pocket map of Michigan, J. H. Young. 1838. Gazetteer of the State of Michigan, John T. Blois. 1839. A geological survey report, S. W. Higgins. In G. N. Fuller (1928a). Geological reports of Douglass Houghton. (Higgins was the topographer for the state.) 1839. A geological survey report, C. C. Douglass. 712 G. N. Fuller (1928a), Geological reports of Douglass Houghton. (Douglass was an assistant geologist for the state.) 1839. Report on the Cedar and Grand River branch of the Clinton and Kalamazoo Canal, Jarvis Hurd. .12 Documents of the House (of Michigan). 1841. A geological survey report, B. Hubbard. “In G. N. Fuller (1928a), Geological reports of Douglass Houghton. (Hubbard was an assistant geologist for the state.) 1844. Map of the state of Michigan and the surrounding country, John Farmer. 1861. First biennial report of the progress of the Geological Survey of Michigan. 1874. County atlas of Ingham Michigan, F. W. Beers. 1874. Ingham County News, I. H. Kilbourne. .In F. L. Adams, Pioneer history of Ingham County. (Used both in the same article.) 155 Table 14. Continued Term used Date, title and authora "Cedar "Red Cedar River" River" 1880. History of Ingham and Eaton counties, Michigan; Samuel W. Durant. (Used "Red Cedar Mill" for mill at Okemos.) X 1880. History of Livingston County, Michigan; Franklin Ellis. X 1884. The Cedar River state swampland improvement, Mich. Dept. Conservation. X Late 1800's (?) Map of the drainage basin of Grand River Michigan (no author given). (Map not dated. Received as gift by Grand Rapids Public Library in 1912. Contains the notation "Agrl. College" [now MSU] which was founded in 1855.) X 1903—1907, 1910 & 1912. water-Supply Papers, nos. 83, 97, 129, 170, 206, 244 & 284; USGS. X 1907, 1908, 1910 & 1911. Topographic maps for Howell, Fowlerville, Lansing and Mason: USGS. (These are still used in 1967.) X 1923. Pioneer history of Ingham County, (Mrs.) Franc L. Adams. (Used "Red Cedar Mill" for mill at Okemos.) X 1928. Historic Michigan, Ingham County; George N. Fuller. (Used both.) X X 1931. Michigan lakes and streams di— rectory, Magazine of Mich. Co. Ingham Co. entry ; X Livingston Co. entry X ._(Also used "Cedar,Creek.9) aFull bibliographic citations given in the list of references. 156 Automobile Club of Michigan (1961), and the 4-H Sponsored Ingham County Plat Book (Rockford Map Publ. 1957). From my contacts with residents of the study basin beyond the metropolitan area, I found that both terms were used, sometimes by the same individual during the same conversation. Also, the Livingston County Plat Book (Rock- ford Map Publ. 1958) uses "Cedar River." Local or locally oriented governmental agencies or quasi—governmental agencies use "Red Cedar" for the most part. For example, the Road Map of Ingham County by the Ingham County Road Commission (1958), the Campus Map by Michigan State University (1965), various maps and text by Professor Humphrys (1964) of Michigan State University, and various maps and text by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (no date & 1963). However, the Livingston County Road Map by the Livingston County Road Commission (1959) uses "Cedar River." State-level, governmental agencies have used both terms. The Michigan Department of Conservation publishes a widely used series of county maps that have an approximate scale of 0.4 inches equal to one mile. Both the old series (before about 1960) and the new series (from about 1960 to date) use "Red Cedar" on the Ingham County map and "Cedar River" on the Livingston County map. The Michigan Highway Department uses both terms in the same way in their series of county maps. "Red Cedar" is used in the Outline of 157 Geologic History of Ingham County (Mich. Dept. Conserv. 1958) and ”Cedar River" is used on the map of surface formations of Southern Michigan (Mich. Dept. Conserv. 1955). The Michigan Water Resources Commission (1961) uses both terms in their study of the Upper Grand River Basin. At the federal, governmental agency level once again the usage is mixed. The U. S. Army Engineers (1963) use "Red Cedar" in its study of the Grand River basin. The U. S. Weather Bureau (1913—1930) used ”Red Cedar River” in the first third of the series, DailyfRiver Stages, and "Cedar River” in the last two-thirds. The U. S. Geological Survey used "Cedar River” on the original topographic quadrangle sheets covering the study basin (1907, 1908, 1910 & 1911) which are still the most recent issue. The Survey originally used "Red Cedar River" to report stream gaging in its Water—Supply _gap§£ series (1903—1907, 1910 & 1912), but when the Farm Lane bridge station was reported in the same series ”Cedar River" was used (various dates from 1933 through the present). When Mr. Berkeley Johnson submitted his report regarding the establishment of the new station in March 1931 he used "Red Cedar at East Lansing." Later he received a memorandum in the form of a letter from the Washington office of the Sur— vey stating that the official designation would be changed to "Cedar River at East Lansing" since the topographic maps and the base map of Michigan used that term (USGS 1931). 158 In summary, in both the early and recent history of the study basin the use of terminology has been variable. The fact that the residents of the watershed have used both terms simultaneously is reflected in print from both govern— mental and private sources. Even within a single source, sometimes within the same series of publications, occasional- ly within a single publication, and in one case on a single map, both terms have been used at different locations or at different times, or both. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION Summary.—-Se1ected physical and cultural characteristics of a small drainage basin, the Red Cedar study basin, were studied. This watershed is the major portion of one of the tributary basins of the Grand River basin of south central Lower Michigan. The topography of the study basin is typi- cal of many other small watersheds of the glaciated North Central States. A detailed attempt was made to delineate the watershed divide which bounds the study basin and subse- quently the drainage area was determined to be 335.8 square miles. Only a few lakes occur in the study basin. The pattern of the stream drainage net is a combination of the rectangular and dendritic types reflecting the most recent continental glaciation of the area. By using the modified version of Horton's stream order system the study basin was determined to be a fourth order basin. The long profile of the main stream, the Red Cedar River, was of the usual concave-up type with the lower nine-tenths of the river having an average gradient of only 1.8 feet per river mile. The history of stream gaging in the study basin on the main stream and on the tributaries was followed. The 159 160 main records are found in the Water—Supply Paper series of the U. S. Geological Survey, but minor additions are found in U. S. Weather Bureau publications, in Michigan State Uni- versity theses, and in open-file reports of the Lansing office of the U. S. Geological Survey. By using a soil type-forest type correlation method the presettlement vegetation was determined to be essential— ly one of complete forest cover. Approximately 76% of the study basin was in upland forest types (mainly the climatic climax, beech-maple) and approximately 23% was in the low— land forest types with less than 1% covered with water or otherwise treeless. The hydrologic cycle was presented in general terms and then the main variables were quantified as they are found in the study basin. The study basin lies in the humid mesothermal climate type. The long—term temperature and precipitation norms were considered and the base period, 1931-1960, was selected to allow comparisons with other hydrologic variables. All available precipitation records for the base period were inspected. After several methods were considered, annual precipitation for the study basin was calculated by taking the arithmetic mean of all pertinent weather station records. The average annual precipitation for the base period was 30.78 inches. By using the inflow— outflow method and the Thornthwaite method, evapotranspi— ration during the base period was determined to be 161 approximately 23 inches of water per year or about 73% of the annual precipitation. From June through September evapo— transpiration exceeds precipitation and a moisture deficit occurs. Runoff from the study basin during the base period was analyzed in several ways: 1) hydrograph comparisons; 2) comparison to study basin precipitation; 3) comparison to regional runoff; 4) frequency distribution analysis; 5) flow- duration curve; and, 6) double-mass curves with four other drainage basins. The Red Cedar is a highly variable stream with occasional very low flows. No evidence was detected to indicate that the known variables in mean annual runoff can— not be accounted for as the consequence of natural variation in the other hydrologic variables, particularly precipitation. The piezometric surface of the bedrock aquifer of the northwestern portion of the study basin is part of the composite cone of depression created by the metropolitan area adjacent to and encroaching into the study basin. I-The presettlement Potawatomi—Indian occupance was 1 based on hunting, fishing, and food—gathering and a little . )7maize agriculture. The population density was probably less: (than one person per square mile. This culture altered the natural ecosystem of the study basin only slightly. From the mid—1830's to about 1900 the agriculturally oriented occupance of the early white settlers was dominant. Population increased rapidly so that by 1850 the study basin 162 had a population density of approximately 14 persons per square mile. By 1900 the density was approximately 39 persons per square mile. Dramatic changes occurred in both land and water use. Most of the forest was cut except for the inaccessible swamp type and drainage projects were begun. Lack of records prevents precise understanding of the affect on the waters of the study basin. Modern occupance of the study basin is a mixture of urban, suburban and agricultural types. POpulation con— tinued to increase until in 1960 the overall pOpulation density of the study basin was 105 persons per square mile. In the urban segment the density was 3,519 and in the most suburban township it was 408. In the more rural townships the density was between 20 and 50 persons per square mile. All water uses combined are estimated to be equiva- lent to 0.25 inches of water over the entire study basin per year. Highest water demands occur during the summer months when the water supply is at its seasonal low. Drainage pro— jects are widespread since they are associated with roads, streets and agricultural land use. The origin and usage of the geographic name of the main stream of the study basin were traced from the notes of the original land survey to the present. "Red Cedar River" is the most common term. 71 163 Conclusions and Discussion.-—Considering the history of man, in only a short time a slowly evolving ecosystem, the study basin, has become a relatively rapidly changing, man-dominated system that has been altered in a variety of both obvious and subtle ways. Historically, few official or unofficial records have been made of the water resource of the study basin, yet the study basin has more records than most other similar drainage basins of southern Lower Michigan. The lack of records prevents a thorough understanding of the nature of the changes among the variables of the hydrologic cycle which have accompanied the changes in land and water use. This inability to quantify the nature of the changes does not diminish their importance in terms of the utility of the waters of the study basin. This study has several implications regarding water use in the study basin. More basic data needs to be col— lected for both physical and cultural phenomena to allow a better understanding of the complex man—resource relation— ship. These data should be continuous through time. They should be recorded and stored in the smallest, feasible units in order to allow the greatest flexibility attainable for various kinds of analyses both at the present and in the future. Rapid, accurate, flexible retrieval is essential to allow articulation in the design and execution of inter— disciplinary studies. The problem of information retrieval is critical when studying a natural unit such as the study 164 basin which is only 336 square miles in size but lies in parts of 32 governmental units below the state and federal level. Even at the present population density the natural waters of the study basin are not sufficient to supply all needs at all times. Water—use decisions should be purpose— fully made with long—range goals in mind, not simply ignored until a crisis-level problem demands a sudden, short—range solution. Water-use decisions for a small watershed should be made with an awareness of their implications for regional river basin planning and in the context of other natural resource decisions. Water-use decisions should include both cultural and physical considerations. If a human community does in fact operate according to general ecological principles (as as- sumed at the outset), the environment sets the overall limi— tations within which cultural principles are necessarily limited even though they may be by their nature more easily quantified. Thus, physical explanations and esthetic con— siderations should not be less influential in water—use de— cisions than more quantified economic and other social factors. Recognition of the evolving nature of physical explanations, cultural theories, and human desires warrants attempting to make water—use plans as flexible as short—range necessities will allow. 165 Since tax-paying citizens are directly or indirectly influential in resource-use decisions in our society, they should be aware of the resource situation. Lack of under— standing and interest are reflected in our past use of natural waters as expressed by Stewart Udall, Secretary of the Interior (1965): "Water is the conservation scandal of our generation. . . . From the Hudson to the Great Lakes to the Colorado most of our water crises are man—caused. It is not that existing, finite supplies aren't, in most areas, adequate. It's rather a case of infinitely poor management of these supplies." Formal and informal teaching for en- vironmental awareness is particularly necessary now that most of the population are urban and have little opportunity to understand the nature of their place in the ecosystem. REFERENCES Ackermann, W. C., E. A. Colman and H. O. Ogrosky. 1955. From ocean to sky to land to ocean. .12 U.S. Dept. Agr., Water, the yearbook of agriculture, 1955. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Adams, (Mrs.) Franc L. 1923. Pioneer history of Ingham County. Lansing, Michigan. American Geological Institute. 1960. Glossary of geology and related sciences with supplement. 2nd. ed. Washington, D.C. Anthony, Catherine Parker. 1959. Textbook of anatomy and physiOIOgy. 5th ed. The C. V. Mosby Co., St. Louis. Arend, John L. 1965. Personal communication. U.S. Dept. Agr., Forest Service, Lake States Forest Exp. Sta., E. Lansing, Mich. Automobile Club of Michigan. 1961. Map of Lansing, Michi- gan. Approx. scale: 3 inches = one mile. Baird, Willard. 1966. Mackie prOposes state waterway, p. lff. .12 The State Journal, Oct. 24, 1966. Lansing. Barlowe, Raleigh. No date (ca. 1966). Land and water re- sources. Natural resources, project '80, rural Michigan, now and in 1980. Research Report 52. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. and Coop. Ext. Service, E. Lansing. Baten, W. D., and A. H. Eichmeier. 1956. Is Michigan getting warmer? Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bull. 39 (1): 97—101. Beegle, J. A. and J. F. Thaden. 1960. Population changes in Michigan, 1950—1960. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. (MSU Dept. Soc. and AnthropolOQY); E. Lansing. Beers, F. W. 1874. County atlas of Ingham, Michigan. F. W. Beers and Co., New York. Bent, Paul C. 1966. Personal communication. U.S. Geoloqi— cal Survey, Water Resources Div., Lansing, Mich. 166 167 Blois, John T. 1838. Gazetteer of the State of Michigan. Detroit. Bordne, Erich F. 1960. Water resources of a western New York region; a case study of water resources and use in the Genesee valley and western Lake Ontario basin. Syracuse Univ. Press. Braun, E. Lucy. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner Pub. Co., New York. Brehmer, Morris L. 1956. A biological and chemical survey of the Red Cedar River in the vicinity of Williamston, Michigan. M. S. Thesis. Mich. State Univ., E. Lansing. Brehmer, Morris L. 1958. A study of nutrient accrual, up- take, and regeneration as related to primary pro- duction in a warm-water stream. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Brown, C. J. D. No date. Michigan lakes and streams. Fish division pamphlet no. 24, Institute for Fisheries Research, Mich. Conservation Dept. (Reprinted from Mich. Conservation June 1943 and June 1944.) Lansing. Browzin, Boris S. 1962. On classification of rivers in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin. Great Lakes Res. Div., Inst. Sci. and Technol., Univ. Mich., Proc. 5th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Publ. 9:86-92. Browzin, Boris S. 1964a. Seasonal variations of flow and classification of rivers in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin. Great Lakes Res. Div., Inst. Sci. and Technol., Univ. Mich., Proc. 7th Conf. Great Lakes Res., Publ. 11:179—204. Browzin, Boris S. 1964b. Personal communication. Prof., Dept. Civil Engineering, Catholic Univ. Amer., Washington, D.C. Bryant, Robert L. 1963. The lowland hardwood forests of Ingham County, Michigan, their structure and ecology. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Cantlon, John E. 1964. Personal communication. Prof., Dept. Botany and Plant Pathology, Mich. State Univ., E. Lansing. Chow, Ven Te, (ed.). 1964. Handbook of applied hydrolOgy. McGraw—Hill Book Co., New York. 168 Crittenden, A. Riley. 1911. A history of the township and village of Howell, Michigan. Livingston Tidings Print, Howell. Cross, William P. 1949. The relation of geology to dry- weather stream flow in Ohio. Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union. 30(4):563—566. Curtis, J. T. 1956. Plant ecology workbook; laboratory, field and reference manual. Burgess Publ. Co., Minneapolis. Curtis, John T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin. Univ. of Wis. Press, Madison. ‘ Dice, Lee R. 1955. Man's nature and nature's man, the ecology of human communities. The Univ. of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Dreher's Simplex Guides, Inc. 1961. Map of greater Lansing. Scale: 2.3 inches = one mile. Driver, Harold E. 1961. Indians of North America. The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago. Dunn, D. F., and T. E. Larson. 1963. Relationship of do— mestic water use to assessed valuation, with se- lected demographic and socioeconomic variables. Jo. Amer. Water WOrks Assoc. 55(4):44l-450. Durant, Samuel W. 1880. History of Ingham and Eaton counties, Michigan. D. W. Ensign and Co., Philadelphia. Eichmeier, A. H. 1965. Personal communication. State Climatologist, U.S. Weather Bureau, Lansing, Michigan. Eichmeier, A. H., R. Z. Wheaton, and E. H. Kidder. 1965. Local variation in precipitation induced by minor topographical differences. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bull. 47(4):533—541. Ellis, Franklin. 1880. History of Ingham County, Michigan. Everts and Abbott, Philadelphia. Farmer, John. 1844. Map of the State of Michigan and sur- rounding country. Approx. scale: one inch = 12 miles. Detroit. Ferry, J. F. and H. S. Ward. 1959. Fundamentals of plant physiology. The Macmillan Co., New York. 169 Firouzian, A. 1963. Hydrological studies of the Saginaw ,Formation in the Lansing, Michigan area — 1962. Foster, Fuller, Fuller, Gannon, Graham, Grover, Grzenda, Guy, H. Hanson, \y i / \1 / 0 s zfiHarirl, M. S. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Theodore G. 1942. Place names of Ingham County. Mich. History Magazine. XXVI:480—517. George N. (ed.). 1928a. Geological reports of Douglass Houghton, First State Geologist of Michigan, 1837—1845. The Mich. Historical Commission, Lansing. George N. (ed.). 1928b. Historic Michigan, land of the Great Lakes; Vol. III, An Account of Ingham County from its organization. (Frank N. Turner, ed.) National Historical Association, Inc., Dayton, Ohio. John J. 1964. Supplement to drought flow of Michi- gan streams. Dept. of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Univ. of Michigan in c00peration with the Mich. Water Resources Comm., Lansing. Gerald L. 1964. Personal communication. Drain Com- missioner, Ingham County, Mason, Michigan. Nathan C., and Arthur W. Harrington. 1943. Stream flow, measurements, records and their uses. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Alfred R. 1960. Primary production, energetics, and nutrient utilization in a warm-water stream. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. P., and G. E. Ferguson. 1962. Sediment in small reservoirs due to urbanization. Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers, Jo. Hydraulics Div. 88(HY2,pt.l): 27—37. Ross, and H. E. Hudson, Jr° 1956. Trends in resi— dential water use. Jo. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 48 (ll):l347—l358. Davood. 1960. Hydrologic studies on the Cedar River basin. M.S. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Hawley, Amos H. 1949. The population of Michigan, 1840 to 1960: an analysis of growth, distribution and compo— sition. Univ. of Michigan, Michigan Governmental Studies, No. 19. Univ. of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Hinze, William J. 1964. Personal communication. Assoc. Prof., Dept. Geology, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. 170 Horton, Robert E. 1901. Available water power of Michigan and its economical development. The Michigan Engineer. 1901:73-92. Horton, Robert E. 1908. Deforestation, drainage and till— age, with special reference to their effect on Michigan streams. The Michigan Engineer. 1908: 175-194. Hudson, Ralph S. 1964. Personal communication. Long-time resident of the East Lansing area, formerly farm supervisor and instructor at Michigan State Univ., Suburban Meridian Township. Hughes, John D-. 1963. Personal communication. Assis. Prof., Dept. Geography and Geology: Northern Michigan Univ., Marquette. .Q/Humphrys, C. R. (ed.). 1964. Anatomy of a watershed, Red 'tx Cedar River, Michigan. Dept. Resource Development, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Hunt, James B. 1839. Report on the Clinton and Kalamazoo Canal, p. 291-297. .In Documents of the House, 1839. State of Mich. Hurd, Erastus. 1839. Map and profile of the south route of the Clinton and Kalamazoo Canal through a part of Livingston and Ingham counties. Map; approx. scale: one inch = one mile. (Location: Mich. Historical Comm., Archives, Lansing.) Hurd, Jarvis. 1839. Report on the Cedar and Grand River branch of the Clinton and Kalamazoo Canal, pp. 834- 924. _In Documents of the House, 1839. State of Mich. Ingersoll, John N. 1882. The Clinton and Kalamazoo Canal celebration, pp. 469—471. .In Michigan Pioneer Col— lections. 5:459-471. Ingham County Road Commission. 1958. Road map of Ingham County, Michigan. Scale: 0.8 inches = one mile. Mason. James, Preston E. 1951. A geography of man. Ginn and Co., New York. Jensen, C. W. 1958. The effects of urbanization on agri- culture land use in Lower Michigan. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. 171 Keller, Frank J. 1962. Effect of urban growth on sediment discharge, northwest branch Anacostia River basin, Maryland, p. C129—Cl3l. In U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Papers 450-C, Article 113.Wbshington, D.C. Kenoyer, Leslie A. 1930. Ecological notes on Kalamazoo County, Michigan, based on the original land survey. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts Letters. 11:211-217. Kevern, Niles R. 1961. The nutrient composition, dynamics, and ecological significance of drift material in the Red Cedar River. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Kidder, Ernest H. 1964. Personal communication. Assoc. Prof., Dept. Agr. Engineering, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Kilbourne, I. H. 1874. Article in the Ingham County News, p. 673ff. .In F. L. Adams, 1923, Pioneer history of Ingham County. Lansing, Mich. King, D. L., and R. C. Ball. No date (ca. 1964). The in— fluence of highway construction on a stream. Re- search report 19, natural resources. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta., E. Lansing. King, Darrell L. 1962. Distribution and biomass studies of the aquatic invertebrates of a warm-water stream. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. King, Darrell L. 1964. An ecological and pollution-related study of a warm—water stream. Ph.D. Thesis. Michi— gan State Univ., E. Lansing. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Natural vegetation, pp. 54—55. Map; approx. scale: one inch = 200 miles. _ln E. B. Espenshade, Jr. (ed.), Goode's world atlas. Rand McNally & Co., Chicago. Leopold, Luna B. 1962. Rivers. Amer. Sci. 50(4):511—537. Linton, Kenneth J. 1964. Dynamics of the fish populations in a warm—water stream. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Linton, Kenneth J. 1967. The dynamics of five rock bass populations in a warm—water stream. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. 172 Livingston County Drain Office. 1965. Cedar Lake report. Open file report. Howell. Livingston County Road Commission. 1959. Road map, Livings— ton County, Michigan. Scale: 0.6 inches = one mile. Howell. MacKichan, K. A., and J. C. Kammerer. 1961. Estimated use of water in the United States, 1960. (USGS Circular 456.) Washington, D.C. Magazine of Michigan Co. 1931. Michigan lakes and streams directory. E. Lansing, Mich. Map of the drainage basin of Grand River Michigan. (No author, no date.) Approx. scale: one inch = 3 miles. (Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan, Public Library.) Marschner, F. J. No date. Original forests of Michigan. Map; approx. scale: one inch = 42 miles. (U.S.?) Dept. of Agr. Redrawn by A. D. Perejda. 1946. Wayne State Univ. Press, Detroit. (Location: Map Room, Detroit Public Library; also in, Bert Hudgins, 1961, Michigan: Geographic background in the de- velopment of the commonwealth. 4th ed. Privately published, Detroit.) Meehan, William R. 1958. The distribution and growth of fish in the Red Cedar River drainage in relation to habitat and volume of flow. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Mencenberg, F. E. 1963. Groundwater geology of the Saginaw Group in the Lansing, Michigan area. M.S. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Messenger, Stephen A. 1962. The water balance of the lower peninsula of Michigan. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts Letters. 47:383-392. Michigan Department of Agriculture. Division of Drains. No date. Map showing major drainage basins and drainage areas tributary to Michigan streams. Approx. scale: one inch = 12 miles. Lansing. Michigan Department of Conservation. Geological Survey Di- vision. 1905. Annual report of the Michigan Geo- logical Survey for 1903. Lansing. 173 Michigan Department of Conservation. Geological Survey Di— vision. 1955. Map of the surface formations of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan. (Departmental Publi— cation 49, by Helen M. Martin.) Approx. scale: one inch = 8 miles. Lansing. Michigan Department of Conservation. Geological Survey Di- vision. 1957. Geological map of Michigan. Scale: one inch = 40 miles. Michigan Department of Conservation. Geological Survey Di— vision. 1958. Outline of the geologic history of Ingham County. Lansing. Michigan Department of Conservation. Geological Survey Di— vision. 1964. Stratigraphic succession in Michigan, Paleozoic through Recent. Lansing. Michigan Department of Conservation. Lands Division. 1884. Records relating to the Cedar River state swampland improvement. (Location: Historical Comm. Archives.) Michigan Department of Public Health. 1965. Michigan popu- lation handbook. Compiled and edited by R. Raja Indra, Health Statistics and Evaluation Center (Lansing). Michigan Geological Survey. 1861. First Biennial Report of the progress of the Geological Survey of Michigan, 1860. Hosmer and Kerr, Lansing. \;.Michigan State University. 1965. Michigan State University CatalOg, 1965. E. Lansing. Michigan Water Resources Commission. 1958. Hydrologic studies of small watersheds in agricultural areas of southern Michigan; report No. l, Deer-Sloan basin. Lansing. Michigan Water Resources Commission. 1960. Hydrologic studies of small watersheds in agricultural areas of southern Michigan; report No. 2, Deer—Sloan basin, precipitation studies, 1956-59. Lansing. Michigan Water Resources Commission. 1961. Water resource conditions and uses in the upper Grand River Basin. Lansing. Moore, Eldon H. 1953. The effects of suburbanization on land use in a selected segment of the Lansing rural— urban fringe. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. 174 Moore, Roderick K. 1959. Pre—Pleistocene typography, lith- ology and glacial drift thickness of Livingston and Shiawassee Counties, Michigan. M.S. Thesis. Michi- gan State Univ., E. Lansing. Palmer, W. C., and A. V. Havens. 1958. A graphical tech- nique for determining evapotranspiration by the Thornthwaite method. Monthly Weather Rev. (U.S. Dept. Commerce, Weather Bur.) 86(4):123—128. Pavelis, G. A., and Karl Gertel. 1963. The management and use of water, pp. 83—93. _ln USDA, A place to live, the yearbook of agriculture, 1963. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Philbrick, Allen K. 1961. Analysis of the geographical patterns of gross land uses and changes in numbers of structures in relation to major highways in the lower half of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan State Univ. Highway Traffic Safety Center and Dept. of Geography, E. Lansing. Philbrick, Allen K. 1963. Personal communication. Assoc. Prof., Dept. Geography, Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Picton, Walter L. 1960 (March). Water use in the United States, 1900—1980. (U.S. Dept. Commerce, Business and Defense Services Admin.) U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Preston, E. A., and M. K. Wrench. 1926. Red Cedar stream measurement and general data. B.S. Thesis. Michi- gan State College, E. Lansing. Rasmussen, W. C., and G. E. Andreason. 1959. Hydrologic budget of the Beaverdam Creek basin, Maryland. (USGS Water-supply paper 1472). U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Rawstron, Robert R. 1961. A study of primary production on artificial substrates in a riffle and pool area of the Red Cedar river. M.S. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Reid, George K. 1961. Ecology of inland waters and estu- aries. Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York. Richmond, Morris. 1963. Personal communication. Michigan Dept. of Public Health, Lansing. 175 Rockford Map Publishers. 1957. Farm plat book, Ingham County, Michigan. (Sponsored by Ingham Co. 4—H Service Club.) Scale: 1.25 inches = one mile. Rockford, Ill. Rockford Map Publishers. 1958. Farm plat book, Livingston County,.Michigan. (Sponsored by Livingston County 4—H Council.) Scale: 1.25 inches = 1 mile. Rockford, Ill. Scheidegger, Adrian E. 1965. The algebra of stream order numbers. _;n U.S. Geological Survey, Professional paper 525-B, Geological survey research 1965, Chapter B. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Schicht, R. J., and W. C. Walton. 1961. Hydrologic budgets for three small watersheds in Illinois. (Report of investigation 40, Illinois State Water Survey.) Urbana. Schneider, Ivan F. 1965. Personal communication. Assoc. Prof., Dept. Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Smith, Gaylord. 1967. Personal communication. Superinten— dent of Public Works, Meridian Township, Haslett, Mich. Society of American Foresters. Committee on Forest Types. 1954. Forest cover types of North America. Philadelphia. Sowder, Arthur M. 1955. The age-old debate about a forked stick, pp. 118—119. _In USDA, Water, the yearbook of agriculture, 1955. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washing— ton, D.C. Sprague, H. E., and J. R. Neff. 1930. Red Cedar River normal probability of flow and general data. B.S. Thesis. Michigan State College, E. Lansing. Spurr, Stephen H. 1964. Forest ecology. The Ronald Press Co., New York. Strahler, Arthur N. 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. _In Ven Te Chow, Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw—Hill Book Co., New York. 176 Strom, G. E., and Lyle Ackley. 1931. The establishment of a rating table for the Red Cedar River and other general data. B.S. Thesis. Michigan State College, E. Lansing. Stuart, W. T. 1945. Ground water resources of the Lansing area, Michigan, 1945. (Progress report 13, Mich. Dept. Conserv., Geol. Surv. Div.) Lansing. Thornthwaite, C. W. 1944. Individual member report_in Re- port of the Committee on Transpiration and Evapor— ation, 1943—44, H. G. Wilm, Chairman. Trans., Amer. Geophy. Union. 25:683-93. Thornthwaite, C. W. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogr. Rev. 38(1):55—95. Thornthwaite, C. W., and J. R. Mather. 1955a. Climatology and irrigation scheduling. Weekly Weather and Crop Bull., National Summary. June 27, 1955. Thornthwaite, C. W., and J. R. Mather. 1955b. The water budget and its use in irrigation, p. 346—58. .12 U.S. Dept. Agr., Water, the yearbook of agriculture, 1955. U.S. Gov. Print. Off., Washington, D. C. Thornthwaite, C. W., and J. R. Mather. 1957. Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance. Publications in Climatology (Lab. Climatology, Drexel Inst. Technol.). 10(3): 181—311. Thornthwaite, C. W., J. R. Mather, and D. B. Carter. 1958. Three water balance maps of Eastern North America. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. Todd, David K. 1959. Ground water hydrology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Trewartha, Glenn T. 1964. Climates of the earth, pp. 8-9. Map; approx. scale: one inch = 1200 miles. .12 E. B. Espenshade, Jr. (ed.), Goode's world atlas. Rand McNally & Co., Chicago. Tri—County Regional Planning Commission. 1963. Alternative long range water use plans for the Tri—County Region, Michigan. (A technical-economic report to Tri—Co. Reg. Plan. Comm. by the Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio.) Lansing, Michigan. 177 Tri—County Regional Planning Commission. 1966a. 1965 popu- lation estimates by census tract and minor civil di— vision. Open—file report. Lansing, Michigan. Tri—County Regional Planning Commission. 1966b. Computer analysis of 1962 tri-county land use survey. Open— file report. Lansing, Michigan. Tri—County Regional Planning Commission. No date (Ca. 1965). Tri—County regional transportation study, Natural re— source problem study. Lansing, Michigan. Udall, Stewart L. 1965. Ending the water crisis. (Guest editorial by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.) Saturday Review. Oct. 23, 1965. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1951. Soil survey manual. (USDA Agr. Handbook 18.) U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1955. Water, the yearbook of agriculture, 1955. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Ag. Res. Service and State Agr. Exp. Stations. No date. Monthly precipitation and runoff for small agricultural watersheds in the United States. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. 1928. Soil survey, Livingston County, Michigan. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Plant Industry. 1941. Soil Survey, Ingham County, Michigan. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Plant Industry. 1942. Soil survey, Clinton County, Michigan. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1948. Forest regions of the United States. Map; approx. scale: 0.5 inches = 100 miles. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Army Engineer District Detroit. 1963. Information book— let; comprehensive water resource planning study, Grand River basin, Michigan. U. 178 Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Office). 1853. The seventh census of the United States: 1850. Washing— ton, D.C. Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Office). 1901. Census reports, volume 1, 1900; population. Washing- ton, D.C° Bureau of the Census. 1961. United States Census of population: 1960. Number of inhabitants, Michigan. Final report PC(l)—24A. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Bureau of the Census. 1962. United States census of population and housing: 1960. Census tracts, Lansing, Mich., standard metropolitan statistical area. Final report, PHC(l)—73. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Bureau of the Census. 1963. United States census of housing, 1960. Vol. 1: states and small areas; part 5: Michigan—New Hampshire. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Bureau of the Census. 1966a. United States census of agriculture, 1964, preliminary report, Ingham County, Michigan. Series AC 64—Pl. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Bureau of the Census. 1966b. United States census of agriculture, 1964, preliminary report, Livingston County, Michigan. Series AC 64—Pl. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1899. Water—supply paper, 31. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1901. Water—supply paper, 49. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1903. Water—supply paper, 83. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1904. Water-supply paper, 97. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1905. Water-supply paper, 129. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1906a. Water—supply paper, 170. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. 179 Geological Survey. 1906b. Water-supply paper, 182. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1907. Water-supply paper, 206. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1910. Water—supply paper, 244. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1912. Water-supply paper, 284. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1931. Letter from Chief, Surface Water Division, washington, D.C. to Mr. Berkeley Johnson, Lansing, Mich. office. (Location: open- file report, Lansing office, USGS.) Geological Survey. 1933. Water-supply paper, 714. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1938. Water—supply paper, 824. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1958. water—supply paper, 1307. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1960a. Water-supply paper, 1541-A. (Langbein, W. B. and K. T. Iseri, Manual of hy- drology: part 1, General surface-water techniques; general introduction and hydrologic definitions.) U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1960b. Water-supply paper, 154l—B. (SearcY, J. K. and C. H. Hardison, Manual of hy- drology: part 1, General surface-water techniques; double—mass curves.) U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1963. Water—supply paper, l669-S. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. 1964. Water—supply paper, 1727. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Geological Survey. No date. Tables of areas of quadri— laterals of the earth's surface. Open-file report. Lansing office. Geological Survey. No date. Duration table of daily discharge. Open—file report. Lansing office. 180 Geological Survey. Topographic maps, lS-minute series. Corunna, 1926. Dexter, 1902. Fowlerville, 1908. Howell, 1907. Laingsburg, 1928. Lansing, 1910. Mason, 1911. Rives Junction, 1919. Stockbridge, 1919. Washington, D.C. Weather Bureau. 1925. Daily river stages at river gage stations on the principal rivers of the United States. Vol. XXII for 1924. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. (This is an example of one of the series.) Weather Bureau. 1959. Climates of the States, Michi- gan. Climatography of the United States No. 60—20. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Weather Bureau. 1960. Climatic summary of the United States; supplement for 1931 through 1952. Clima- tography of the United States No. 11-16. Reprinted and corrected ed. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washing- ton, D.C. Weather Bureau. 1962. Climatological data, Michigan, annual summary, 1961. Vol. 76, No. 13. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Weather Bureau. '1963. Climatological data, Michigan, annual summary, 1962. Vol. 77, No. 13. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Weather Bureau. 1964a. Decennial census of United States climate; climatic summary of the United States; supplement for 1951 through 1960, Michigan. Climatography of the United States No. 86—16. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Weather Bureau. 1964b. Climatological data, Michigan, annual summary, 1963. Vol. 78, No. 13. U.s. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Weather Bureau. 1965a. Local climatological data with comparative data, 1964, Lansing, Michigan. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Weather Bureau. 1965b. Climatological data, Michigan, annual summary, 1964. Vol. 79, No. 13. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. Weather Bureau. 1966. Climatological data, Michigan, annual summary, 1965. Vol. 80, No. 13. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, D.C. 181 U.S. Weather Bureau. No date. Lansing, Michigan, monthly and annual precipitation, 1864—1963. Open—file re— port, Lansing Station. van Hylckama, T. E. A. 1958. Modification of the water balance approach for basins within the Delaware Valley. Publications in Climatology. (Lab. Clima- tology, Drexel Inst. Technol.). 11(3):271—302. Vanlier, K. E. No date (ca. 1965). Ground water in the Tri— County Region, Michigan, p. 1-19. .12 Tri—County Reg. Plan. Comm., Tri—County regional transportation study, natural resource problem study. Lansing, Mich. Vanlier, Kenneth. 1963. Personal communication. Ge010gist, U.S. Geol. Survey, Water Resources Div. Lansing, Mich. Vannote, RObin L. 1961. Chemical and hydrological investi— gations of the Red Cedar watershed. M.S. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Vannote, Robin L. 1963. Community productivity and energy flow in an enriched warm-water stream. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Veatch, J. O. 1928. Reconstruction of forest cover based on soil maps. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Quart. Bull. 10 (3):ll6—126. Veatch, J. O. 1932. Soil maps as a basis for mapping origi— nal forest cover. Papers Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts Letters. 15:267—273. Veatch, J. O. 1959. Presettlement forest in Michigan. Map; scale: one inch = 12 miles. Michigan State Univ., Dept. Resource Development, E. Lansing. Veatch, J. O. 1964. Personal communication. Prof. Emeritus, Dept. Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing. Veatch, J. O. No date. (ca. 1948). Types of original forest, Ingham County. Map; approx. scale: 0.5 inches = one mile. Personal file report. (Location: personal files of Dr. John E. Cantlon, Prof., Dept. Botany and Plant Pathology) Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing.) Veatch, J. O. and C. R. Humphrys. 1964. Lake terminology. (Dept. Resource Development, Michigan State Univ., Water Bull. 14.) Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta., E. Lansing. 182 Velz, C. J., and J. J. Gannon. 1960. Drought flow charac- teristics of Michigan streams. Mich. Water Resources Comm., Lansing. Vogt, E. Z., and R. Hyman. 1959. Water Witching, U.S.A. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago. von Engeln, O. D. 1942. Geomorphology, systematic and regional. The Macmillan Co., New York. Wisler, C. 0., and E. F. Brater. 1949. Hydrology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Young, J. H. 1835. The tourist's pocket map of Michigan. Approx. scale: one inch = 26 miles. S. A. Mitchell, Philadelphia. (Location: Vault, State of Mich. Library.) IN MILES l 2 SCALE V. QM; FROM FARM LANE BRIDGE UPSTREAM ...? My , . he. images-g LAMOREUX , 1.... RED CEDAR RIVER WATERSHED no. tutu...‘ n s a. (V. ....u.......... .. g is. 3 $3.... .ii afimlwlfllliivé‘nnfliulll kwmww , 11 w. F. n I. O D. .l u& H A Mr.” Fe 5 M men L ..I Y Am A D «mm. M NR m MMMEIH .... 0 EE .0 K A Rd mm ..m y... M n I _L| AV Sm na cw 0 e H H mm Mm Aa wewy EC 9 K ... c _m .1. ..m cvm... ..l e m m H M( W( W( mmbm L B E E E a s m _._T.__.<|. . if U SE N .mfraS 9 ER \\ .I R0 F PF H.K. STEVENS fl 0/ K960 / / / RO‘O\K \ \\ \ Aeak CUMULATIVE RUNOFF OF THE RED CEDAR IN THOUSANDS OF CFS o o w \ 3 \ DJ :- \ / / / / Break A5 / o o / 1940 I ’ " o 0 St. Joseph 0 24 48 72 96 120 Rouge 0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 Huron 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Grand 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 CUMULATIVE RUNOFF OF OTHER STREAMS IN THOUSANDS OF CFS Figure 20. DOUBLE-MASS CURVES. Basic data from USGS. H-K-STEVENS 3‘20 I. II 'J 1’1" J. I Frfl‘, J [Ix/y .L-(‘I/ \ k 'IVIHEIl-VN AHVlNEIWEI'IdzIOS OI III II 88” A1 6 1'9 IIIIIII IS Penman nOCZ._.< _._Zm ._.O<0m an._.m_~ mdco< m>m_Z U_<_Um ZOU_m_n>=OZ Om 0.5 2563 0." 20.92 >20 0mm» nzmmxm MICHIGAN STATE U I III 312931 NIV. LIBRARIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 2275 3116