Relationship between Water Withdrawals and Freshwater Ecosystem Water Scarcity Quantified at Multiple Scales for a Great Lakes Watershed

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

The relationship between water withdrawals and freshwater ecosystem water scarcity

quantified at multiple scales for a Great Lakes watershed

Stanley T. Mubako1, Benjamin L. Ruddell2 and Alex S. Mayer3

1Department of Engineering, College of Technology and Innovation, Arizona State University,

Mesa, AZ

2Department of Engineering, College of Technology and Innovation, Arizona State University,

Mesa, AZ

3Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University,

Houghton, MI

Abstract

Even in relatively water rich regions, withdrawal and consumption of water has the potential to

create instream freshwater ecosystem water scarcity, especially at seasonal and local scales.

Water resource policy must balance consumptive uses of water against corresponding ecosystem

impacts of flow depletion. In this study the concept of an Adverse Resource Impact threshold, as

established by the Michigan Water Withdrawal Assessment Process, is applied in conjunction

with a water use database to identify the cause, location, and scale in space and time of instream

freshwater ecosystem water scarcity caused by consumptive uses of water. The study results

show that there is a strong multi-scalar linear relationship between freshwater consumption,

Adverse Resource Impact ecological flow thresholds, and spatial scale. On average and at the

whole-watershed scale, water scarcity does not exist in this watershed, but water scarcity does

Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. Submitted June 12, 2012; accepted April 26, 2013; posted ahead of print April 30, 2013. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000374

Copyright 2013 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

occur on a localized basis, especially in the summer and at small watershed scales below 300

km2, due to a combination of irrigation withdrawals, concentrated urban withdrawals and low

ecological flow thresholds. The aggregated effects of localized flow depletion also impact 800-

2,000 km2 scale catchments. Management of water scarcity in water-rich areas should therefore

focus on the spatio-temporal locations where the impacts occur and where an average pattern of

water abundance yields to localized scarcity, in this case during late summer months in

subwatersheds smaller than 300 km2. This analysis informs integrated water resources

management approaches, contributes to a better understanding of the relationship between scale

and environmental impact as water is shared among competing uses, and sheds light on the use

of Adverse Resource Impact ecological flow thresholds to define water scarcity in relatively

water-rich regions. These results may be generalized to inform the implementation of the

Michigan Water Withdrawal Assessment Process and similar processes throughout the Great

Lakes region and in water-rich locations around the world where water is generally abundant but

localized water scarcity is becoming an increasingly important issue.

Keywords: Freshwater ecosystem; water withdrawals; ecological flows; scale; Great Lakes; MI

WWAP; IWRM; thresholds; economic use.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

Introduction

Effective management of watersheds, including instream water flow requirements, requires a

sound understanding of the interaction between natural and anthropogenic processes and patterns

at different spatial and temporal scales (Loik et al. 2004, Moerke and Lamberti 2006, Barlow et

al. 2004; Zorn et al. 2008, Schindler 1998, Jensen and Illangasekare 2011; Carreño et al. 2011).

Water withdrawals that have little impact at the regional scale may have significant impacts on

the sustainability of freshwater ecosystems at smaller watershed scales where the withdrawal

occurs. Furthermore, the aggregation of relatively small withdrawals at localized scales may

create cumulative impacts at larger scales as watersheds aggregate those impacts downstream.

Even in water-rich regions such as the Great Lakes, it is important to develop an accurate

understanding of the costs and benefits of consumptive uses of water. Freshwater ecosystems in

the Great Lakes region face water scarcity pressure from aggregated consumptive uses at

localized scales in space and time (Dore and Whorley 2009; Cruickshank and Grover 2012).

Some of these threats combine with broader environmental impacts from climate change,

invasive species, and land use effects in the Great Lakes region, which contain 96% of the

United States’ total supply of surface freshwater (Luukkonen et al. 2004; Steinman et al. 2004;

Dorfman and Rosselot 2010; Riseng et al. 2010). The world’s growing economies continue to

seek accessible, reliable, and affordable water supplies for the production of economic goods and

services, and a growing global “water crisis” has resulted from the location of much of this

growth in water-scarce regions. This trend creates increasing pressure to locate and outsource

water-intensive economic activities in water-rich regions, including the Great Lakes region of the

U.S., via “virtual water” based trade (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2004). Consumptive uses of




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

ground and surface water bring many benefits, but the contribution of these water uses to

instream water scarcity must be understood before it can be managed in a water-scarce situation

to optimize the benefits derived from competing uses and minimize environmental impacts.

Consumption as used throughout this study refers to the amount of water that is lost to

evaporation or is incorporated into a commodity and not returned quickly to the freshwater

ecosystem (Hoekstra and Mekonnen 2012).

A legal framework for the sustainable management of water resources in the Great Lakes

basin was established through the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources

Compact (Great Lakes Compact or Compact, Stack 2010). The purpose of the Compact is to

promote efficient use of water within the Basin as well as prevent diversion of Great Lakes and

St. Lawrence water outside of the Basin (Hobbs and Osann 2011). The Compact motivates our

technical quantification of the impacts of water withdrawals within the Great Lakes Basin, at

least to the extent that localized withdrawals result in significant aggregated flow impacts to

rivers at the point that they discharge directly into the Great Lakes, or to the extent that these

withdrawals for consumptive uses result in indirect “diversions” in the form of water consumed

to produce goods for export (Ruddell 2006; Hoekstra and Chapagain 2008; Ruddell 2009).

Yang and Cai (2011) classify environmental flow assessment methods into the following

three broad categories: (1) those that estimate flow requirements for restoring or maintaining fish

habitat, (2) those that mimic the natural flow regime, and (3) those that determine a suitable flow

regime on the basis of already existing fish community data. Other factors that could be

included in environmental flow assessments, such as growth of aquatic plants, channel stability,

and habitat, are not included in these methods. Most of these methods are data intensive and

assess environmental flows at very small localized scales in individual river channels (Bovee et




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

al., 1998; Tharme 2003, Arthington et al. 2006) or they are a broad framework for rapid

environmental flow assessments at a broad regional scale (Poff et al. 2010, Sanderson et al.

2011).

In fact, there is a continuum of scales between a specific stream segment and a large-

scale river basin. Schindler (1998) observes that spatial and temporal scales play a pivotal role in

the management of ecosystems, a point that is generally understood but seldom explicitly

incorporated into the science or practice of management.

Environmental flow assessment methods are essential for contributing to the

optimization of multiple goals such as water supply for economic activities and ecosystem

maintenance in a water-scarce situation (Sanderson et al. 2011). Examples include the Ecological

Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) framework (Kendy et al. 2009; Poff et al. 2010);

species–discharge relationships, or “fish curves” (Spooner et al. 2011), and the Instream Flow

Incremental Methodology (Bovee 1982; Cavendish and Duncan 1986), that includes the coupling

of a GIS-based model such as the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to an in-stream

hydraulic habitat model such as the Physical HABitat SIMulation (PHABSIM) model (Casper et

al. 2011).

Whereas the questions of scale and impact are universal to water resources management,

each locale has its own legal, cultural, economic, and ecological context. The framework of

analysis developed in this article is general, but we develop and apply it within the context of the

Great Lakes Basin, the Great Lakes Compact (Hamilton and Seelbach 2011), and the unique

flow impact assessment framework currently employed by the State of Michigan (Steinman et al.

2011). The potential for localized water scarcity to create conflict between economic and

environmental water uses, combined with the State of Michigan’s obligations under the Compact




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

(Seelbach 2009), motivated the recent creation of a legal definition of instream water scarcity via

the Michigan Water Withdrawal Assessment Process (MI WWAP, Steinman et al. 2011).

According to Hamilton and Seelbach (2011), the MI WWAP assists large quantity users (greater

than 100,000 gal/d (78,541 l/d) in any 30-day period), in determining if a withdrawal is likely to

cause an Adverse Resource Impact (ARI). The process considers the ecological sensitivity of fish

species and the flow patterns of each watershed in establishing a quantitative definition for water

scarcity.

In this work, we define an intuitive threshold-based water scarcity index for application

to the MI WWAP and other similar threshold-based water scarcity frameworks. D/T is the ratio

of aggregated flow depletions D to the allowable flow depletion threshold level T beyond which

an Adverse Resource Impact is said to occur. A scarcity index of greater than unity defines a

condition of instream freshwater ecosystem water scarcity, in a specific location of interest.

Impacts above and beyond the ARI threshold contribute to water scarcity, but those below the

threshold do not.

We build on the MI WWAP methodology for ARI determination to develop a general

framework for assessing water scarcity which explicitly incorporates location and scale in space

and time, using an example watershed that contributes flow directly to the Great Lakes: the

Kalamazoo River watershed in Michigan. This watershed is an excellent case study because it

features a diverse blend of stream types, stream scales, seasonal flow patterns, and consumptive

uses of water, including notable concentrations of consumptive water withdrawals for

thermoelectric power generation, irrigated agriculture, public water supply to mid-size urban

areas, and self-supplied industry. The Kalamazoo River is typical in many ways of mid-size

watersheds throughout the water-rich “Developed World”.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

This work investigates the following questions pertaining to consumptive water use,

freshwater scarcity, and scale: (1) what locations and scales in space and time suffer from

instream ecosystem water scarcity, (2) to what extent does consumptive withdrawal of ground

and surface freshwater contribute to freshwater ecosystem impacts, (3) at what spatial and

temporal scales should consumptive water withdrawals be managed under conditions of water

scarcity given local and aggregated impacts, and (4) are there general findings for the

relationship of consumptive water use, freshwater scarcity, and scale which can be used to guide

integrated water resource management?

Methods

The Kalamazoo River watershed is used as the test watershed for the water scarcity framework.

The watershed (Figure 1) is located in southwest Michigan and is contained entirely within the

Michigan-Indiana till plains ecoregion, draining an area of 5,232 km2, spanning ten counties over

a length of 261 km and width ranging from 18 to 47 km (Great Lakes Commission 2000).

Precipitation ranges from 711 mm annually in northeastern sections of the watershed to over 965

mm in far western counties. About 6% of the land in the watershed receives supplementary

irrigation if rainfall is inadequate during summer months, primarily to produce high value crops

such as vegetables, potatoes, seed crops, turf, and ornamentals (Michigan Department of

Agriculture 2004).

Estimation of Water Consumption by Major Processes




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

This analysis uses self-reported, annual water withdrawal data from the 2009 calendar

year, which is the most recent year of availability, covering five major water use sectors:

community water supply, irrigation, industrial self-supplied, thermoelectric power generation,

and public water supply. Community and public water supplies provide water to municipalities

or housing units; public water supplies are very small (less than 25 people and less than 15

connections) or transient, residential water supplies. Total consumptive water use from

residential self-supplied low-capacity wells is very small in comparison to major water use

sectors, despite the large number of such wells (MI DEQ, personal communication, February 3,

2012). These residential self-supplied wells serve single-family residences with small amounts of

potable water, and are generally coupled with a septic system which directly returns a high

percentage of withdrawals to the source aquifer. Also, small water users such as these would be

exempted from the MI WWAP if they withdrew directly from stream channels. As a result, these

residential self-supplied wells are neglected and the analysis focuses exclusively on the major

surface and groundwater withdrawals.

Water withdrawal quantity and location data for the Kalamazoo watershed were obtained

from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MI DEQ) water use withdrawal

records (MI DEQ, personal communication, February 3, 2012). The degree of uncertainty

present in these data is unknown. Personal communications with agency officials indicate that

the locations and use categories for the given withdrawals are expected to be reasonably

accurate; however, the database may be missing a small fraction of withdrawals, since some

users may have failed to comply with reporting requirements for their withdrawals. The major

sources of uncertainty are in the self-reported magnitudes of total withdrawal, and in the




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

consumptive use fractions associated with those withdrawals. As a result, our analysis considers

a range of likely consumptive use estimates.

Figure 1 shows the 146 water withdrawal locations for all water use sectors in the

Kalamazoo River watershed in 2009. Most withdrawal locations are concentrated along the main

stem of the Kalamazoo River and in the northwest in the Rabbit River subwatershed.

The month of August is chosen for the water stress calculations because it is the month

that corresponds both to annual low flows and to high consumptive use coefficients. According

to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MI DEQ, 2006), agricultural irrigation in

Michigan occurs predominantly in the summer months (May – October) which corresponds to

annual minima of stream flows and lake levels. A report by the United States Geological Survey

(Shaffer 2009) indicates that the highest monthly withdrawals and consumptive use coefficients

for annual withdrawal patterns and consumptive use coefficients in the Great Lakes region are

similar in July and August.Therefore, an analysis using July numbers would reach similar

conclusions.

Annual average withdrawal rates are adjusted to average monthly rates according to

USGS-published seasonal use patterns (Shaffer 2009) wherein summer withdrawals are above

the average annual rate and winter withdrawals are below the annual average rate. Consumptive

use for a process i in the low-flow month of August is:

88 8 ( )

12inet

a

FQ i C i Q i (1)

where 8 netQ is the net or consumptive water withdrawal by process i during the low-flow month

of August (volume per unit time), F8 (i) is the monthly USGS-published adjustment factor for

month 8 (August), C8(i) is the consumptive coefficient (dimensionless), and Qa (i) is the gross

annual withdrawal of process i (volume per unit time).




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

8netQ i is calculated for three C8(i) values: (a) 100 percent consumptive use for the

sector to which process i belongs (i.e. C = 1, such that no water is returned to the source), (b)

Shaffer (2009) estimates for the “high” range of consumptive use coefficients for the sector to

which process i belongs, and (c) Shaffer (2009) estimates for the“low” range of consumptive use

coefficients for the sector to which process i belongs. Because we lack accurate data for

consumptive use coefficients due to seasonal and process uncertainties, these three sets of C8(i)

values are included so that our results can explore the most likely range of consumptive use

values for water users in this watershed; the “high” and “low” results may be interpreted as the

“error bars” with respect to the sensitivity of this study’s results to the assumed consumptive use

coefficients. Tables 1 and 2, respectively, document these monthly withdrawal adjustment

factors and consumptive use factors.

Calculation of Flow Depletion and Ecological Thresholds in Stream Segments

The MI WWAP includes approved models for streamflow and flow depletions associated

with surface water and groundwater withdrawals from stream segments at a specific watershed

scale. These watersheds are defined at and slightly below the size of USGS-standard Hydrologic

Unit Code (HUC, Seaber et al. 1987) HUC-12 watersheds. There are 133 MI WWAP defined

watersheds in the Kalamazoo River watershed, ranging in area from 0.2 km2 to 181 km2.

A regression model to predict stream flows was calibrated from a series of gages in

Michigan and adjacent state streams (Steinman et al. 2011). The regression model is a function

of geomorphic parameters such as drainage area, slope, and soil type. It estimates an index flow

for the outlet of each watershed, defined as the median flow for the summer month with the

lowest flow. The index flows calculated with the regression model explain 94% of the variability




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

of flows in the historical data used to calibrate the model and no regional bias was found in the

model (Hamilton et al. 2008). Low-flow summer months coincide with the greatest stress on

fish, due to low flows and warm temperatures. For a more detailed description of the streamflow

regression model, see Hamilton et al. (2008), Reeves et al. (2009), and Lyons et al. (2009).

Streamflow depletions associated with groundwater extractions are based on the

following equation (Hunt 1999) applied to a process’s consumptive use at a point in space:

( ) = 24 − 24 + 2 24 + 24 8 ( ) (2)

Where d(i) is the streamflow depletion in the immediately adjacent stream segment resulting

from the withdrawal (volume per unit time), Sc is the storage coefficient of the aquifer

(dimensionless), Tr is the transmissivity of the aquifer (area per unit time), x is the distance from

well to stream (length), t is the time from the start of pumping, λ is the streambed conductance

term (length per unit time), given by: = ′⁄ 10⁄ (3)

B' is the thickness of permeable deposits (length), b is the depth to the top of the well screen

(length), w is the stream width (length), and exp and erfc are the exponential and complementary

error functions. This model assumes that the aquifer is of infinite extent, dominated by horizontal

one-dimensional flow, homogeneous and isotropic, of constant saturated thickness, and that

changes in hydraulic head are small compared to its saturated thickness. The stream is assumed

to remain in hydraulic connection with the aquifer, is straight, and is long relative to the distance

from well to stream (Reeves et al. 2009).

Note that all of the groundwater extractions are assumed to be drawn from wells installed

in aquifers that are hydraulically connected to streams. GIS data for the Kalamazoo River




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

watershed were obtained from an online repository of the MI WWAP (Reeves et al. 2008).

Points representing groundwater withdrawal locations for all water use sectors were then

generated in GIS and streamflow depletion factors calculated from the Hunt (1999) equation

using a standalone Python script (Watson et al. accepted).

The MI WWAP database contains hydrologic and hydrogeologic data for each MI

WWAP watershed, including index streamflows and all of the data necessary to calculate flow

depletions associated with groundwater extractions (see equations (2) and (3)). Distances from

well to stream are determined in GIS from the coordinates of the point of extraction to the

nearest stream segments that are mapped for each MI WWAP watershed. The depth to the top of

the well screen is estimated by evaluating typical, existing well geometries in the given

watershed (Watson et al. accepted). An estimate for depth to the top of the well screen was used

because well logs for these wells were not included in the water withdrawal database and it was

impossible to match well logs with the wells in the database.

The MI-WWAP (Hamilton and Seelbach, 2011) establishes ecological flow thresholds

using a combination of statistical methods quantifying the impact of streamflows on fish

populations, including those cited in the introduction (Sanderson et al. 2011, Kendy et al. 2009,

Poff et al. 2010, Cavendish and Duncan 1986, Spooner et al. 2011, Bovee 1982 and Casper et al.

2011). These thresholds are expressed as an allowable reduction in low-flow season baseflows

before an “Adverse Resource Impact” (ARI) occurs, where the definition of ARI is determined

by the legal processes established by the State of Michigan. Hamilton and Seelbach (2011)

establish the thresholds for MI for eleven stream classes, where classes are based on temperature

(cold, cold-transitional, cool, and warm) and size (large rivers, small rivers, and streams),

following the semantics of Reeves et al. (2008). The distribution of these stream classes for the




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

Kalamazoo River watershed is shown in Figure 1, and the corresponding flow depletion

thresholds established by Hamilton and Seelbach (2011) are shown in Table 3.

Flows and flow depletions are propagated downstream by imposing a network that connects

tributary MI WWAP watersheds, assuming zero losses or change in storage within the stream

segments and their adjoining aquifers as flows and depletions propagate downstream. These

assumptions are approximately valid for the Kalamazoo and for many similar water-rich

watersheds because major reservoirs capable of interannual storage and release are absent and

because the watershed’s aquifers remain relatively close to a saturated equilibrium at both annual

and seasonal timescales.

Models of Scarcity Thresholds and Aggregated Depletions as a Function of Scale

Once aggregated flow depletions have been calculated for each watershed, the

relationship between spatial watershed scale (S) and flow (D or T) is modeled using linear

regressions. The linear form is physically justified by the approximate proportionality of

streamflow output of a watershed to the rainfall input collection surface area of the watershed.

The four dependent variables for each watershed are D calculated assuming “total”, “high”, and

“low” consumptive use coefficients, and T. The independent variable, spatial scale S, is the

drainage area contributing flow to a specific stream segment. The S-intercept is zero, because a

watershed without spatial area cannot generate flow or accommodate withdrawals. Linear

coefficients aT and aD are the best-fit regression slopes for the models of T(S) and D(S),

respectively. The scarcity index, D/T, is the ratio of aggregated depletions D to the allowable

flow depletion threshold level T. A scarcity index of greater than unity defines instream

freshwater ecosystem water scarcity.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

These regression models define an average relationship between depletion, threshold,

and scale. We analyze the cause of scarcity in a watershed by computing the deviation of a

watershed from modeled and expected D and T values at the segment’s spatial scale. Fractional

deviations of the model-predicted from observed values for D and T in a stream segment are

calculated as:

ˆ D

D

D a SD

a S (8)

ˆ T

T

T a ST

a S (9)

where D̂ is the deviation of watershed stream segment from the model of D (dimensionless) and

T̂ is the deviation of a stream segment from the model of T (dimensionless). A scale-free

scarcity envelope is derived from the linear models for depletion and threshold as a line on a D̂

vs. T̂ plot as

ˆ ˆ 1aT aT

D TaD aD

(10)

Unless otherwise indicated with a “low” or “total” label, the flow depletion impacts of

withdrawals and the scarcity index are calculated using the “high” estimate of consumptive use

coefficients.

Results

Modeling the relationship between flow depletion, allowable flow depletion threshold, and

spatial scale




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

Figure 2(a) indicates that, on average, a strong linear relationship exists between aggregated flow

depletion and spatial scale in the Kalamazoo River watershed for all consumptive use

coefficients (Dtotal: full withdrawal or 100% consumptive use, Dhigh: upper-level consumptive use

coefficients, and Dlow: lower-level consumptive use coefficients). The substantial difference

between the three depletion level results in Figure 2(a) is caused by different assumed

consumptive use coefficients. The space between the Dhigh and Dlow results may be interpreted as

the range of uncertainty for the analysis; true values for a given stream segment likely fall within

this range.

The log-scale plot in Figure 2(b) indicates that there is a dramatically increased deviation

of flow depletions from the linear model at smaller spatial scales, especially at scales below 300

km2. This deviation from the linear model is averaged out as streams aggregate at larger scales,

such that individual segments converge to the average multi-scalar linear pattern for larger

scales.

The scarcity index is plotted in Figure 3. Markers above the D / T = 1 position on the

vertical axis represent watersheds experiencing water scarcity. Note that for these watersheds the

ecological threshold, T, has fractional values ranging from 1% to 13% of the lowest monthly

median discharge, with an average of T = 10%. This average T is identical to the 10% ecological

flow depletion threshold proposed by Richter et al. (2011) as a realistic, general purpose value

for this type of freshwater ecosystem. Because T averages to 10% of total flows (Figure 3), an

average value of D/T = 10 represents the average ratio where all streamflows have been depleted

(i.e. 10 / 10% = 100% of flow, on average), and therefore represents a conceptual upper limit on

the scarcity index for this scenario.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

On average, T > D even at the highest assumed consumptive use coefficients (i.e. Dtotal),

so water scarcity does not exist for the average stream segment in the Kalamazoo River

watershed, even in the month of August when flows are lowest and withdrawals are highest. It

must also therefore be true that water scarcity and ARI does not exist at the outlet of the

Kalamazoo River where it discharges into the Great Lakes. However, localized water scarcity

does exist (D > T) for seven specific stream segments out of the 133 total. This demonstrates that

localized water scarcity can and does exist at smaller scales even if the larger watershed system

is not water scarce.

Why is there water stress in specific stream segments?

Seven of the 133 watersheds in the Kalamazoo watershed experienced aggregated flow

depletions that exceed the threshold levels set by the MI WWAP (tabulated values for all

segments are given in Appendix 1). Our regression results show that D is less than T for the

average stream segment in the Kalamazoo, therefore, the scarcity index may exceed a value of

unity for these seven stream segments. This result occurs either because the aggregated flow

depletion D is greater in that segment than the average value at that scale or because the

threshold T is less in that segment than the average value at that scale, or, a combination of both

causes. It is possible to analyze the cause of this water scarcity independent of the spatial scale.

In Figure 4, we have plotted the relative deviation of a specific water-scarce stream segment

from the system’s average depletion and average threshold patterns (equations (8) and (9)) and

added a scale-free water stress envelope (equation (10)) using Dhigh assumptions. Figure 4

indicates that six of the seven stream segments exhibiting water scarcity (points above the scale-




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

free water stress envelope) have above- average depletions. Two of the six stream segments,

3437 and 3452, have above-average depletions and below-average thresholds. The remaining

stream segment, 13327, has a below-average threshold.

The water scarcity indices for stream segments are mapped in Figure 5. These results

show an interesting geographic pattern for water scarcity. Water scarcity occurs in (a) small scale

sensitive headwaters with relatively low ecological flow thresholds, (b) small-scale and mid-

scale highly urbanized tributary subwatersheds, and (c) small scale watersheds with concentrated

irrigation withdrawals. Moderate water stress below the water scarcity threshold of D/T=1 exists

in the mainstem of the river near the outlet due to the aggregated effects of many upstream water

uses, but this does not result in a condition of water scarcity under the MI WWAP at the point

where the Kalamazoo drains into the Great Lakes.

Table 4 summarizes the characteristics of the watersheds exhibiting scarcity, including

the watershed drainage area, the stream classification and associated allowable depletion, the

breakdown of withdrawals in the watershed by sector, and the contribution of upstream

withdrawals to water scarcity in downstream segments, broken down by withdrawal type.

Discussion and Conclusions

In the Kalamazoo River watershed, most instream water scarcity is caused by localized

consumptive uses of water in late summer months at small spatial scales below 300 km2. This

scarcity is caused by a combination of concentrated urban water withdrawals from small scale

tributaries near the river main stem and concentrated irrigation water withdrawals in small-scale

upland watersheds, and by modest withdrawals from particularly sensitive cool/cold stream types

that have lower ARI or ecological flow thresholds (Table 3). However, aggregated flow




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

depletion from many sources also impacts mid-scale watersheds (800-2,000 km2, see Figures 2

and 4). The specific watersheds in the northwest area of the Kalamazoo River watershed in

which the scarcity index exceeds a value of one are characterized by an unusually intense

concentration of irrigation withdrawals located in a small-scale upland watershed. These intense

localized withdrawals cause a cascade of water scarcity that impacts downstream segments all

the way to the main stem of the Kalamazoo River, but water scarcity does not occur under the

definition of the MI WWAP at the point where the Kalamazoo drains into the Great Lakes.

Irrigation withdrawals are particularly large contributors to ecological flow scarcity in

stream segments because they tend to be located during low-flow summer months and in

smaller-scale upland agricultural watersheds where stream baseflows are relatively small and

more vulnerable to seasonal changes. By contrast, most other large consumptive uses of water

are concentrated along the main-stem of the Kalamazoo River, where baseflows and ARI

thresholds are larger relative to withdrawals. In 2009, assuming high-range consumptive use

coefficients, irrigated agriculture accounts for 75% of the more than 38 billion liters of annual

freshwater consumption by major processes in the Kalamazoo, followed by community water

supply (15%) and industry (9%), with thermoelectric power generation and public water supply

each contributing less than 1%.

We establish average multi-scale or scale-free linear relationships between ecological

flow or ARI thresholds and aggregated flow depletions as a function of spatial scale. These

relationships are accurate on average but they break down at small spatial scales below 300 km2,

at which the localized nature of large water withdrawals and the unique ecological flow

requirements of specific stream segments render the existence of water scarcity unfeasible to

model and predict using average relationships and patterns. It will therefore be difficult to




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

accurately model or manage the ecological impacts of water use and water scarcity at these small

scales without streamflow and consumptive use data collection at correspondingly small scales.

Implied by this result is that adaptive management of water scarcity in water-rich regions

must occur at localized scales of space and time. Also, for example, offset-based or trading

mechanisms to manage water scarcity and optimize for social, economic, and environmental

objectives would need to be designed to operate at correspondingly localized scales of space and

time, in this case below 300km2 (ideally 50km2) and during late summer months, where water

scarcity is likely to occur. Also implied by these results is that withdrawals located along the

mainstem low in the watershed are less likely to create problems of water scarcity or ecological

flow impacts. Finally, these results make it clear that the effective management of water scarcity

in small-scale subwatersheds will safeguard larger-scale river segments because the aggregated

and averaged effects of many water-abundant small-scale tributaries create accumulated water

abundance in segments downstream.

Consider, as an example, the water-scarce watersheds 13327 and 11884 (Table 4 and

Figures 4 and 5). For the former watershed, most of the aggregated flow depletions are local and

attributed to withdrawals for community water supply, with only 6% of the 242 M liters/yr total

aggregated flow depletion originating from other various upstream consumptive uses. In the

latter case, watershed 11884 would not be water scarce if considered in isolation, since local

withdrawal for community water supply is negligible. However, 98% of the 21 billion liters/yr

total aggregated flow depletion contributing towards water scarcity in this watershed originates

from upstream depletions in watershed 11876 that propagate downstream (Figure 5 and Table 4).

Managing at the larger scale would not be sufficient to mitigate water scarcity in this specific

case.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

The analysis of scale reveals a strong linear correlation between hydrological structure

and water-intensive human economic processes in the Kalamazoo River watershed. Water

consumption (with the noted exception of irrigation uses) is concentrated around larger scale

river segments in roughly linear proportion to the spatial area drained and the baseflow of the

river segment. This observation supports the venerable hypothesis that the development of

human civilization and economic activity tends to be closely correlated with a region’s

hydrology. Weerasinghe and Schneider (2010) note that water scarcity is one of the key

constraints to economic development. Dodge (2004) argues that future water allocation conflicts

will become more intense due to a combination of economic development and population

increase, and the contribution of science to water management issues will become increasingly

important. McDonald et al. (2011) demonstrate that both water availability and water delivery

(along with water quality) are major issues for the sustainability of urban growth worldwide, and

all three of these issues are directly affected by the scaling effects that this and other studies

show are inherent in watersheds, and by which watershed networks aggregate and concentrate

both water supplies and the effects of the depletion of water supplies.

Future work might investigate the extent to which this observed correlation between

consumptive water use and watershed scale is universal to the world’s hydro-economies, and

whether departures from this observed linear pattern result in increased or decreased water

scarcity, increased or decreased water supply infrastructure cost, and/or long-term economic

stability and water-related risk. This study suggests additional research questions. First, are the

watershed scales impacted by water scarcity in the Kalamazoo River watershed the same as in

the rest of the Great Lakes Basin, or in water-rich watersheds around the world where water

scarcity is primarily an issue impacting ecosystem services during low-flow months? To what




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

extent can the water management recommendations derived from the current findings and

scaling relationships be adopted in geographically, geologically, spatially, or economically

different watersheds? Based on this study, potential exists to understand and classify all kinds of

watersheds according to their spatial distribution of consumptive water use using our proposed

model. This would allow the estimation of water use from economic activity and vice versa, at

least at larger scales where our model appears to be valid. In exploring this research question, it

is also important to bear in mind the limitations associated with scale extrapolation, for example

as articulated by Miller et al. (2004), and Carreño et al. (2011). Our findings emphasize that the

scaling relationships for anthropogenic water use and flow depletion are well-behaved above a

watershed area scale of roughly 300 km2, but that below this scale large individual water uses

create unpredictability in models of water use and water scarcity. Second, what are effective

mechanisms to ensure success in the implementation of adaptive management of water resources

in the Kalamazoo and similar watersheds? To address this question, local administrative and

state institutions’ relationships to watershed structures need to be evaluated, given the fact that

administrative and watershed boundaries do not coincide. Third, what is the role of inter-

seasonal and inter-annual water storage and climate variability, in exacerbating and/or mitigating

the risk of water scarcity, and what is the relative role of human processes vs. natural variability

in the creation of water scarcity? Fourth and finally, is it possible and useful to associate the

Adverse Resource Impact of economic processes via the creation of ecological instream water

flow scarcity with the economic outputs of these processes, and thereby account for the

ecological flow impacts embedded in goods and services traded in the human economy?

Our findings advance the hydrology and water management communities’ understanding

of the relationship between consumptive water use and the scale at which the instream ecosystem




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

impacts of water use occur. As observed by Hooper (2003), comprehensive and integrated water

management approaches should occur at the most appropriate scale, taking into account the

structures and mechanisms appropriate to local regional settings. This approach is adaptable to

all watersheds covering the state of Michigan and similar watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin,

and more generally to water-rich watershed systems everywhere in the world where seasonal

water scarcity for ecosystem services is the primary concern. However, the MI WWAP is unique

to Michigan and the Great Lakes, so a similar stakeholder-driven process that sets ecological

thresholds at politically agreeable levels and that establishes a framework for enforcement and

regulation must occur for the approach to be extended to other locations.

We are currently extending our scaling analysis in two directions. First, we are analyzing

scarcity thresholds at watershed scales smaller than those addressed here, to determine the

sensitivity of headwaters catchments to water withdrawals. Second, we are extending the

analysis to the entire US side of the Great Lakes basin, so that we can explore the effects of scale

to a more hydrologically diverse set of watersheds.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding provided by the Great Lakes Protection Fund grant

#946; conclusions are those of the authors, not necessarily the Great Lakes Protection Fund. We

thank our project advisory board’s valuable contributions to this work, and Katelyn (FitzGerald)

Watson for providing important technical support.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

References

Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. E., Poff, N. L., and Naiman, R. J. (2006). “The challenge of

providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems.” Ecol. Appl., 16, 1311–

1318.

Barlow, P.M., Alley, W. M., and Myers, D. N. (2004). “Hydrologic aspects of water

sustainability and their relation to a national assessment of water availability and use.”

Water Res.Update, 127, 76-86.

Bovee, K. D., Lamb, B. L., Bartholow, J. M., Stalnaker, C. B., Taylor, J., and Henriksen, J.

(1998). “Stream Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology.”

Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD-1998-004, United States Geological

Survey, Biological Resources Division: Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bovee, K. D. (1982). “A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental

methodology.” Instream Flow Information Paper No. 12, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, FWS/OBS 82/26, Washington, D.C.

Carreño, L., Frank, F. C., and Viglizzo, E. F. (2011). “Tradeoffs between economic and

ecosystem services in Argentina during 50 years of land-use change.” Agric., Ecosys.

Environ., in press. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.019.

Casper, A. F., Dixon, B., Earls, J., and Gore, J. A. (2011). “Linking a spatially explicit watershed

model (SWAT) with an in-stream fish habitat model (PHABSIM): A case study of setting

minimum flows and levels in a low gradient, sub-tropical river.” River Res. Appl., 27,

269-282.

Cavendish, M. G., and Duncan, M. I. (1986). “Use of the Instream Flow Incremental

Methodology: A tool for negotiation.” Environ. Imp. Assess. Rev. 6, 347-363.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

Chapagain, A.K. and A.Y. Hoekstra (2004), Water Footprints of Nations, UNESCO-IHE

Research Report Series No. 16.

Cruickshank, A., and Grover, V. I. (2012). A brief Introduction to Integrated Water Resources

Management. In: Grover, V. I. and Krantzberg, G. (Eds.). “Great Lakes: Lessons in

participatory governance. ” Science Publishers, 167–183.

Dodge, J. C. I. (2004). “Background to modern hydrology.” In: J. C. Rodda and L. Ubertini.

2004. The basis of civilization--water science? International Association of Hydrological

Sciences Press, Italy.

Dore, M. H. I., and Whorley, D. (2006). “A Tale of Two Waters: the Missouri River, the Great

Lakes and Management of Future Water Conflicts.” Water International, 31, 488-498.

Dorfman, M., and Rosselot, K. S. (2010). “A guide to water quality at vacation beaches.”

Twentieth annual report, The Natural Resources Defense Council.

Great Lakes Commission. (2000). “Assessment of the Lake Michigan monitoring inventory.” A

report on the Lake Michigan Tributary Monitoring Project.

<http://www.glc.org/monitoring/lakemich/pdf/full_report.PDF.> Last accessed (Sept. 20,

2011).

Hamilton, D. A., and Seelbach, P. W. (2011). Michigan’s Water Withdrawal Assessment Process

and Internet Screening Tool, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries

Special Report 55, Lansing.

Hamilton, D. A., Sorrell, R. C., and Holtschlag, D. J. (2008). “A regression model for computing

index flows describing the median flow for the summer month of lowest flow in

Michigan.” United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5096,

43 p.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

Hobbs K. and Osann, E. R. (2011). Assessing and Advancing the Sustainable Management of the

Great Lakes through Water Conservation and Efficiency. Natural Resources Defense

Council: New York City.

Hoekstra, A. Y., and Mekonnen, M.M. (2012). The water footprint of humanity. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences, doi/10.1073/pnas.1109936109.

Hoekstra, A.Y., and Chapagain, A. K. (2008). Globalization of water: Sharing the planet’s

freshwater resources. Blackwell, Oxford.

Hooper, B. P. (2003). “Integrated Water Resources Management and River Basin Governance.”

Water Res. Update 126, 12-20.

Hunt, B. (1999). “Unsteady stream depletion from ground water pumping.” Ground Water,

37(1), 98–102.

Jensen, K. H., and Illangasekare, T. H. (2011). “HOBE: A hydrological observatory.” Vadose

Zone J., 10(1), 1-7. doi: 10.2136/vzj2011.0006.

Kendy, E., Sanderson, J. S., Olden, J. D., Apse, C. D., DePhilip, M. M., Haney, J. A., Knight, R.

R., and Zimmerman, J. K. H. (2009). “Applications of the Ecological Limits of

Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) in the United States.” Int. Conf. on Implementing

Environ.Water Allocations, 23-26 February, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Loik, M. E., Breshears, D. D., Lauenroth, W. K., and Belnap, J. (2004). “A multi-scale

perspective of water pulses in dryland ecosystems: Climatology and ecohydrology of the

western USA.” Oecologia, 141, 269–281.

Luukkonen, C. L., Blumer, S. P., Weaver, T. L., and Jean, J. (2004). “Simulation of the ground-

water-flow system in the Kalamazoo county area, Michigan.” United States Geological

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5054.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

Lyons, J., Zorn, T. G. Stewart, J. Seelbach, P. W., Wehrly, K. E. and Wang, L. (2009).

“Defining, characterizing, and quantifying coolwater streams and their fish assemblages

in Michigan and Wisconsin, USA.” N. American J. of Fisheries Manage., 29(4), 1130-

1151.

McDonald, R.I., I. Douglas, C. Revenga, R. Hale, N. Grimm, J. Gronwall, and B. Fekete (2011),

Global urban growth and the geography of water availability, quality, and delivery,

Ambio, v.40(5), pp.437-446, doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0152-6.

Michigan Department of Agriculture. (2004). “Generally accepted agricultural and management

practices for irrigation water use.” Michigan Commission of Agriculture, Lansing.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MI DEQ). (2006). “Water withdrawals for

agricultural irrigation in Michigan 2006.”

<http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-wd-wurp-

Agriculture2006_208270_7.pdf.> ( Oct. 5, 2011).

Miller, J. R., Turner, M. G., Smithwick, E. A. H., Dent, C. L., and Stanley, E. H. (2004). “Spatial

extrapolation: The science of predicting ecological patterns and processes.” Bio-Science,

54, 310–320.

Moerke, A. H., and Lamberti, G. A. (2006). “Scale-dependent influences on water quality,

habitat, and fish communities in streams of the Kalamazoo River Basin, Michigan

(USA).” Aquatic Science, 68,193-205.

Poff, N. L., Richter, B. D., Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. E., Naiman, R. J., Kendy, E., Acreman,

M., Apse, C., Bledsoe, B. P., Freeman, M. C., Henriksen, J., Jacobson, R. B., Kennen, J.

G., Merritt, D.M., O’Keeffe, J. H., Olden, J. D., Rogers, K., Tharme, R. E., and Warner,

A. (2010). “The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): A new framework




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

for developing regional environmental flow standards.” Freshwater Biol. 55(1), 1147–

1170.

Reeves and others. (2008). “Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool GIS data download.”

http://www.miwwat.org/download.asp (Dec. 30, 2011).

Reeves, H. W., Hamilton, D. A., Seelbach, P. W., and Asher, A. J. (2009). “Ground-water-

withdrawal component of the Michigan water-withdrawal screening tool.” United States

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5003, 36 p.

Richter, B. D., Davis, M. M., Apse, C., and Konrad, C. (2011). Short Communication: A

presumptive standard for environmental flow protection. River Res. Applic. doi:

10.1002/rra.1511.

Riseng, C. M., Wiley, M. J., Seelbach, P. W., and Stevenson, R. J. (2010). “An ecological

assessment of great lakes tributaries in the Michigan peninsulas.” J. of Great Lakes Res.

36(3), 505-519.

Ruddell B. L., Virtual Water (for the future of the great lakes), ASCE World Environmental and

Water Resources Congress, May 2009, Kansas City, MO, USA.

Ruddell B. L. (2006) Virtual Water Trade for the Future of the Great Lakes, web published manuscript at: http://www.public.asu.edu/~bruddell/documents/Ruddell%20(2006)%20Virtual%20Water%20for%20the%20Future%20of%20the%20Great%20Lakes.pdf Sanderson, J. S., Rowan, N., Wilding, T., Bledsoe, B. P., Miller, W. J., and Poff, N. L. (2011).

Getting to scale with environmental flow assessment: the watershed flow evaluation tool.

River Res. Applic. doi: 10.1002/rra.1542.

Schindler, D. W. (1998). “Replication versus realism: The need for ecosystem-scale

experiments.” Ecosys. 1, 323–334.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L. (1987), Hydrologic Unit Maps: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294, 63 p.

Seelbach, P. W. (2009). “Environmental flow tools used to frame new water management policy

in Michigan.” The North American Benthological Society (NABS) 57th annual meeting,

(16-23 May, 2009), Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Shaffer, K. H. (2009). “Variations in withdrawal, return flow, and consumptive use of water in

Ohio and Indiana, with selected data from Wisconsin, 1999–2004.” United States

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5096, 93 p.

Spooner, D. E., Xenopoulos, M. A. Schneider, C., and Woolnough, D. A. (2011).

“Coextirpation of host–affiliate relationships in rivers: The role of climate change, water

withdrawal, and host-specificity.” Global Change Biol. 17(4), 1720–1732.

Stack, N. T. (2010). “Note: the Great Lakes Compact and an Ohio constitutional amendment:

Local protectionism and regional cooperation.” Boston College Envtl. Aff. L. Rev., 493.

Steinman, A. D., Nicholas, J. R. Seelbach, P. W. Allan, J. W. and Ruswick, F. (2011). “Science

as a fundamental framework for shaping policy discussions regarding the use of

groundwater in the State of Michigan: A case study.” Water Policy, 13(1), 69–86.

Steinman, A. D., Luttenton, M., and Havens, K. E. (2004). “Sustainability of surface and

subsurface water resources: Case studies from Florida and Michigan, U.S.A.” Water

Resour. Update 127, 100-107.

Tharme R. E. (2003). “A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: Emerging trends

in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers.”

River Res. Appl. 19, 397–442.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

Watson, K., Mayer, A., and Reeves, H. (2013). “Groundwater Availability as Constrained by

Hydrogeology and Environmental Flows.” Ground Water, accepted.

Weerasinghe, H., and Schneider, U. A. (2010). “Assessment of economically optimal water

management and geospatial potential for large-scale water storage.” Geophy.

Res. Abstr. 12, EGU2010-6696, 2010.

Yang, Y. E. and Cai, X. (2011). Reservoir reoperation for fish ecosystem restoration using daily

inflows—case study of Lake Shelbyville. J. Water Resour. Plan. and Manage. doi:

10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000139.

Zorn, T. G., Seelbach, P. W. Rutherford E. S., Wills, T. C. Cheng, S. T., and Wiley, M. J. (2008).

“A regional-scale habitat suitability model to assess the effects of flow reduction on fish

assemblages in Michigan streams.” Michigan Department of Natural Resources,

Fisheries Research Report 2089, Ann Arbor.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Stream types and withdrawal locations in Kalamazoo watershed. Figure 2. Flow depletion D vs. aggregated scale S in the Kalamazoo watershed during the month of August: (a): arithmetic scale; (b) log scale. Deviations from the multi-scale linear pattern are increase below S of roughly 300 km2. Figure 3. Scarcity index ratio D/Tof aggregated flow depletion (D) to ARI or ecological scarcity threshold (T) for the Kalamazoo watershed, plotted against spatial scale S. Scarcity indices average below a value of 1 for all scales, but deviations from the average pattern reduce as spatial scale increases. Figure 4. Attribution of water scarcity or stress in the Kalamazoo watershed: Water-scarce stream segments under “high” consumptive use assumptions are identified by numeric codes. Two segments, 3437 and 11876, - have extremely high agricultural/irrigation withdrawals relative to their scale and are plotted above the vertical axis. Points to the left of 0% on the T axis are stream segments with a lower than average ARI or ecological flow threshold T relative to their spatial scale, and points above 0% on the D axis are stream segments with a higher than average aggregated flow depletion D relative to their spatial scale. Figure. 5. Geographic distribution of the threshold-based water scarcity index D/T in the Kalamazoo watershed. Water scarcity is spatially associated with sensitive cool/cold type small-scale headwater streams, urban areas, and a cluster of large agricultural withdrawals. Moderate water stress below the water scarcity threshold of D/T=1 exists in the mainstem of the river near the outlet, due to the aggregated effects of many upstream water uses.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Accep

ted M

anus

cript

Not Cop

yedit

ed

Table Captions

Table 1. Low flow month (August) withdrawal adjustment factors for Kalamazoo watershed.

Table 2. Consumptive use coefficients from USGS sources (Shaffer 2009).

Table 3. MI WWAP ARI or ecological flow depletion threshold percentages by stream class in

the Kalamazoo River watershed, from Hamilton and Seelbach (2011).

Table 4. Sources of withdrawals in stressed stream segments at high consumptive use.




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Acc

epte

d M

anus

crip

t N

ot C

opye

dite

d




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Acc

epte

d M

anus

crip

t N

ot C

opye

dite

d




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Acc

epte

d M

anus

crip

t N

ot C

opye

dite

d




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Acc

epte

d M

anus

crip

t N

ot C

opye

dite

d




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Acc

epte

d M

anus

crip

t N

ot C

opye

dite

d




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Acc

epte

d M

anus

crip

t N

ot C

opye

dite

d




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Table 1. Low flow month (August) withdrawal adjustment factors for Kalamazoo watershed. Water use sector

Adjustment factor

Irrigation 3.95 Community water supply 1.35 Industry 1.11 Thermoelectric power generation 1.19 Public water supply 1.14

Source: Shaffer (2009)

Accepted Manuscript Not Copyedited




Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Table 2.

Consumptive use coefficients from USGS sources (Shaffer 2009).

Water use sector

Consumptive use Coefficient (%)

High Low Irrigation 96 70 Community water supply 12 10 Industry 14 7 Thermoelectric power generation 96 70 Public water supply 96 70 Source: Shaffer (2009)





Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Table 3. MI WWAP ARI or ecological flow depletion threshold percentages by stream class in the Kalamazoo River watershed, from Hamilton and Seelbach (2011).

Stream class Threshold depletion (%) Cold stream 20 Cold transitional small river

2

Cold transitional stream 4 Cool small river 25 Cool stream 25 Warm large river 22 Warm small river 17 Warm stream 24 Source: Hamilton and Seelbach (2011)





Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Table 4. Sources of withdrawals in stressed stream segments at high consumptive use.

Stressed watershed (Dhigh>T) identifier

Drainage area (km2)

Stream type and allowable flow depletion threshold

(Ml/yr)

Attribution of Depletion to

Segment-Local Water Use Sectors

Proportion of aggregated flow depletion originating from upstream watersheds

11884 764 Cool small river 12412 Ml/yr

Community Water Supply (100%) (12 Ml/yr)

98% of 21357 Ml/yr total aggregated flow depletion originates from irrigation in upstream segment 11876; remaining 2% is local and used for community water supply

13327 249

Cold transitional small river 231 Ml/yr

Community Water Supply (100%) (229 Ml/yr)

6% of 242 Ml/yr total aggregated flow depletion originates from other various uses upstream; remaining 94% is local and used for community water supply

3521 65 Warm stream 1491 Ml/yr

Irrigation (5%); Community Water Supply (95%) (Total 1722 Ml/yr)

0

3452 28 Cold transitional stream 87 Ml/yr

Irrigation (100%) (Total 193 Ml/yr)

0

11876 26 Cool stream 454 Ml/yr

Irrigation (99.9%); (21880 Ml/yr) Community Water Supply (<0.1%) (Total 21009 Ml/yr)

0

3462 10 Cold stream 132 Ml/yr

Irrigation (20%); Industry (80%) (Total 140 Ml/yr)

0

3437 5 Cold transitional stream 15 Ml/yr

Irrigation (100%) (Total 428 Ml/yr)

0

Ml/yr = million liters per year





Dow

nloa

ded

from

asc

elib

rary

.org

by

UN

IV O

F W

YO

MIN

G L

IBR

AR

IES

on 0

9/29

/13.

Cop

yrig

ht A

SCE

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y; a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Documents

Relationship between Water Withdrawals and Freshwater Ecosystem Water Scarcity Quantified at Multiple Scales for a Great Lakes Watershed