Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program

Landscape effects on stream temperature in

�
Minnesota streams of the Lake Superior Basin
�

Brian Black
�
Lucinda Johnson
�
Natural Resources Research Institute
�

Project Partners:
�
Valerie Brady, Minnesota SeaGrant
�
Richard Axler, Natural Resources Research Institute
�
Howard Mooers, University of Minnesota Duluth – Dept. of Geoscience
�

May 28, 2009

�

Project No. 306-STAR08-08

Contract No. B18556

This project was funded in part under the Coastal Zone Management Act, by NOAA’s
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, in cooperation with Minnesota’s
Lake Superior Coastal Program. Additional funding came from Minnesota SeaGrant.
 INTRODUCTION
Stream temperature plays a critical role influencing aquatic communities such as fish and
invertebrates. North Shore streams of Lake Superior are historically cool/coldwater systems supporting aquatic
communities adapted to low temperatures and typically intolerant of high temperatures. Temperature-intolerant
aquatic organisms native to North Shore streams theoretically would be negatively impacted by rising and
frequently fluctuating temperatures (Poole & Berman 2001). Due to their temperature-intolerant physiology,
trout are among those species greatly impacted by increasing temperatures (Raleigh, 1982). Declining trout
populations could have a negative impact on tourism and fisheries revenue. Concern for adequate trout habitat
has led to an increased effort to restore and maintain cool water. Research designed to better understand thermal
controls on streams will benefit restoration projects, land use planning and future management of these natural
resources.
Many studies (Leblanc et al. 1997, Paul & Meyer 2001, Allan 2004) have examined changes in stream
temperature as well as other ecological degradations resulting from increasing urbanization. Land development
has increased the percent impervious ground surface, and therefore, is thought to greatly influence stream
temperature (Wang et al. 2003, Krause et al. 2004). Conversely, water storage, defined as the proportion of
lakes and wetlands within a watershed, may moderate temperature variability by stabilizing baseflows
(Detenbeck et al. 2005). The degree to which each mechanism influences maximum temperature ranges and
variability when combined is not currently well understood.
We addressed this issue by examining the effects of impervious surfaces and water storage on stream
temperature in Minnesota’s Lake Superior Basin. Local variables were also measured to account for natural
variation in stream temperature between study sites. Both local and regional environmental variables influence
stream temperature, but the strength of their relationships can be time and space dependent (Allen 2004). The
objectives of this project are to: 1) determine the influence of impervious surfaces and water storage capacity on
stream temperature, and 2) determine the extent to which local and regional environmental variables influence
stream temperature. Since the scale at which these local and landscape-scale features influence stream
temperature is unknown, the second objective will evaluate relationships between in-stream temperature and
landscape variables.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
We addressed these objectives by selecting study sites that span both gradients of land development and
water storage capacity of stream catchments. Land development was quantitatively measured by percent
impervious surface cover (ISC) within each catchment. Water storage capacity was quantitatively measured by
the percent of each catchment covered by lakes and wetlands, referred to herein as total wetland proportion.
This project, funded by the Lake Superior Coastal Program, was comprised of 23 study sites within the coastal
zone of Lake Superior; however 52 sites were included in the overall study (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Site map displaying locations of 23 study sites within the coastal zone of Lake Superior. Data for 52
sites within Minnesota’s Lake Superior Basin were used in statistical analyses.

WORK COMPLETED
SITE SELECTION
We delineated watersheds in the Lake Superior Basin using ArcHydro software. To identify delineation
errors, the ArcHydro stream network was visually compared with a map of Minnesota streams developed by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) at a scale of 1:24,000. We randomly selected 52 sites
within the Lake Superior Basin, across gradients of impervious surface proportion and total wetland proportion
of stream catchments. Individual catchments were delineated for each site location as the area upstream that
drains to each site. To reduce the influences of geographic position and elevation, site selection was limited to
stream sections within sixty miles of Duluth, MN and above the Duluth escarpment. Stream temperature can
also be influenced by stream size and longitudinal position from headwater to mouth. To address size
variability, we chose first, second, or third order streams with catchment areas ranging from 1 – 91 km2.
Figure 2. Site map displaying 52 sampling locations and their catchments within the Lake Superior Basin.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
We summarized land cover and geology for each catchment using a Geographic Information System
(ArcGIS). Landscape variables were characterized from National Land Cover Data (NLCD) developed by the
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC) in 2001 (Figure 3). Land cover classes summarized
for each catchment include agriculture, forest, impervious, open water, forested wetland, and unforested
wetland. We report land cover as a percentage of total catchment area; however, we also quantified land cover
as the proportion connected to the stream, and as a distance weighted proportion of the catchment. For the latter,
land use classes were weighted by the inverse of their flow-path distance to the study site using the same
methods as Van Sickle & Johnson (2008).
Since stream temperatures are strongly influenced by groundwater contributions, we used hydraulic
conductivity as an indicator of the extent of groundwater contribution to base flow. Hydraulic conductivity is
defined as the ability of water to flow through sediments. From Darcy’s law, we can estimate potential
groundwater input to streams by the product of hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic gradient. Surficial geology
data, acquired from MNDNR, were used to map hydraulic conductivity in the Lake Superior Basin (Figure 4).
Conductivity values were estimated for each surficial geology class based on published ranges (Fetter, 2000).
 Lake
Superior

National Land
Cover Data (2001)
All other values

Open water

Impervious

Wetland

Figure 3. Map displaying the spatial relationship of land cover

types with sample locations. This map was generated from
National Land Cover Data (2001).

Figure 4. Hydraulic conductivity map of the Minnesota Lake

Superior Basin based on surficial geology.
WATER QUALITY
Water quality parameters were measured using a YSI multimeter, in conjunction with habitat
assessments (once during August – October). Parameters included: temperature, dissolved oxygen,
conductivity, and pH. In addition, we measured transparency with a 120 cm transparency tube. Turbidity was
measured from a water sample in the laboratory using standard methods. We also measured discharge using a
Marsh-McBirney flow meter.

STREAM HABITAT
Each site was assigned a reach length of 35 times the mean stream width. Local variables were
measured within each stream reach by conducting habitat assessments once during baseflow, between August
and October. Habitat assessments utilized the transect-point method (modified from: Simonson et al. 1994).
Each reach was divided into ten equally spaced transects. Water depth, refusal depth, and substrate size classes
were measured at four equally spaced points and the thalweg within each transect. Stream width, riparian shade,
riparian land use, and riparian buffer width were also measured at each transect.

TEMPERATURE
Air temperature and stream temperature data were continuously recorded at 52 sites during summer
months (July – September) of 2008. Air temperature sensors were placed in the most shaded location available
nearest the corresponding water temperature sensor, and recorded air temperature at 30-minute intervals. Water
temperature sensors were placed in the deepest section of the stream reach with the greatest amount of riparian
shade and flow possible, and recorded water temperature at 5-minute intervals. The purpose of this position
within a reach was to ensure that the sensor remained underwater for the duration of the summer, and to reduce
the amount of sunlight directly hitting the sensor. Sensors were downloaded and redeployed every three to four
weeks.

IN-STREAM TEMPERATURE RESPONSE VARIABLES

Numerous water temperature variables can be calculated to characterize in-stream temperature
responses. We calculated maximum, minimum, average, range, and variance of several different time periods
during summer months. The time intervals were: 1-day, 7-day, 21-day, total summer, low flow, and high flow.
Five different statistics for six different time intervals produced 30 temperature response variables. For the
purposes of this report, we chose to discuss two of these variables: 1) maximum 7-day water temperature and 2)
summer water temperature variance. Maximum 7-day water temperature is a measure of how warm each stream
can become, whereas water temperature variance is a measure of diel and seasonal temperature fluctuation.
These two variables were chosen because they displayed the highest correlations with both local and
environmental variables.
 For each site, we determined the period of seven consecutive days with the warmest maximum water
temperatures. An average of daily maximum water temperature during this period was calculated for each site,
and designated as the maximum 7-day water temperature. The second temperature response variable, water
temperature variance, was calculated as the variance in water temperature during July 1st – September 30th.
All data were checked for errors and entered into an Access database. Data were screened for normality
and transformed appropriately where necessary (e.g., proportions as arc-sin square root; catchment area and
water depth as loge). We have completed preliminary analyses including a multiple linear regression analysis to
predict stream temperature from local and regional environmental variables. Statistical Analysis Software
(SAS) was used to compare all subsets regression models selecting the best model based on Akaike Information
Criterion (AIC). Diagnostic tests were conducted to confirm that the assumptions of multiple regression were
met, and to identify the presence of outliers and collinearity among the independent variables.

RESULTS
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Average stream widths ranged between one and eight meters, with average depths less than one meter.
Land use and land cover were far more variable among site catchments (Table 1). Maximum stream
temperatures ranged from 18 – 29 °C at 52 site locations during July – September, 2008. Maximum diel in-
stream temperature fluctuations ranged from 4 – 13 °C.

Table 1. Range of land use/cover and shading

among 52 study catchments.
Land Use / Cover Catchment Ranges
Impervious Surfaces 0 - 26%
Total Wetlands 0 - 86%
Forested Wetlands 0 - 78%
Unforested Wetlands 0 - 45%
Open Water 0 - 12%
Riparian Shading 16 - 97%

REGRESSION ANALYSES
The all subsets multiple linear regression models predicting maximum 7-day water temperature
consistently included the variables: catchment area, proportion open water, shade, and hydraulic conductivity.
Other variables appearing in the top five models include stream depth and proportion total wetland. The top
model (AIC = 30.3) was:

Max 7-Day Water Temp. = 19.27 + 0.416*(AREA) + 0.257*(OW)

– 0.39*(SHADE) – 0.24*(k).

where AREA = catchment area, OW = open water, SHADE = riparian shading, and k = hydraulic conductivity.
This model explained 58 percent (adjusted R2) of the variation in maximum 7-Day water temperature.
 The top models predicting summer water temperature variance consistently included riparian shading,
impervious surface proportion, and depth. Other variables appearing in the top five models include: summer air
temperature variance, catchment area, proportion total wetland, proportion open water, proportion forested
wetland, and proportion unforested wetland. We did not report a specific regression model due to the
confounding influence of air temperature variance and riparian shading in predicting summer water temperature
variance. We are conducting additional analyses to address this issue. Without separating the effects of each of
these variables, it is impossible to determine the direction or strength of the relationship between impervious
surface and water temperature variance.
Below, we present bivariate plots displaying the strongest correlations between the predictor variables
included in the best response model and in-stream response variables (Figure 5).

18 30
Summer Water Temperature Variance

16 2
R = 0.48 R2 = 0.39

14

Water Temperature (C)

12 Maximum 7-Day 25

10
8
6 20

4
2
0 15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 20 40 60 80 100
A Summer Air Temperature Variance
B Shade (Percent)

30 30
R2 = 0.32 2
R = 0.25
Water Temperature (C)

Water Temperature (C)

Maximum 7-Day

Maximum 7-Day

25 25

20 20

15 15
0 1 2 3 4 5 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
C Watershed Area (LN [Km ])
2 D Distance Weighted Proportion of Open Water

Figure 5. Bivariate plots displaying predictor variables identified by all subsets multiple linear regression and
in-stream temperature response variables. (A) Variance in air temperature during July – September; p < 0.01,
n = 51. (B) Riparian shade quantified using a densiometer; p < 0.01, n = 46. (C) Loge-transformed watershed
area; p < 0.01, n = 52. (D) Proportion of catchments classified as open water were weighted by inverse
distance along the flow-path to the site location and arcsine-transformed; p < 0.01, n = 52.
IMPLICATIONS
�
These preliminary analyses suggest that land cover and hydraulic conductivity can be useful in
predicting stream temperature maxima and fluctuation. For example, the proportion of open water within a
stream catchment influences maximum stream temperatures during summer months. Large open bodies of water
heat up during the day by absorbing energy from the sun. They then contribute warm water to nearby streams,
resulting in warmer summer maximum water temperatures. However, large groundwater inputs (high hydraulic
conductivity) may be able to mitigate high water temperatures caused by open water or a lack of riparian
shading. These results agree with the findings of Wehrly et al. (2006), who concluded that catchment area and
air temperature were positively correlated with mean July stream temperature, whereas local groundwater and
local forest (shade) decrease mean July stream temperature.
In previous studies, impervious surfaces have been observed to increase summer stream temperatures.
Wang et al. (2003) found that connected impervious area in the watershed increased maximum daily mean water
temperature in Minnesota and Wisconsin streams. Pluhowski (1970) found a similar trend in streams on Long
Island, New York. In Pluhowski’s study, urbanization increased average summer stream temperature by as
much as 5-8°C. We are continuing our analysis of proportion impervious land cover to separate confounding
influences on stream temperature.
We observed interesting trends related to the scale at which land cover classes influence stream
temperature. For each land cover class, an inverse-distance weighted proportion of the catchment explained a
greater percent of the variation in stream temperature responses than non-weighted proportions. Land cover
classes such as proportions of open water, impervious surface, total wetland, forested wetland, and unforested
wetland displayed better correlations with stream temperature when they were weighted by their flow-path
distance to the study site than when left as simple proportions of the catchment. Additionally, distance-weighted
proportions of land cover classes within a catchment were selected more often in top models of an all subsets
regression predicting maximum 7-day water temperature than non-weighted land cover proportions. These
trends indicate that the influence of land cover on stream temperature decreases the farther it exists from the
study site. Surprisingly, inverse-distance weighted proportion of open water was a better predictor of maximum
7-day water temperature than the proportion of open water connected to the stream, suggesting that position
within a watershed is more important than connectivity.
Land and fisheries managers can use this knowledge to predict stream sensitivity to changes in land use
and land cover. Future development within the coastal zone of Lake Superior may affect nearby streams by
reducing riparian shading, increasing overland flow, or changing channel morphology. Models developed from
this project may allow managers to predict resulting impacts to stream temperatures. Streams with higher
sensitivity to development can then be protected to maintain suitable trout habitat. Understanding stream
thermal dynamics will become even more important in the future as stream temperatures are projected to
increase under conditions of atmospheric warming (Eaton and Scheller 1996, Mohseni et al. 1999, Mohseni et
al. 2003, Gooseff et al. 2005).
 This project generated a wealth of in-stream temperature data that can be utilized in future research
projects that may require extensive temperature data to estimate the effects of climate change. Fish and
invertebrate data were also collected concurrently on a subset of these streams by researchers from the Natural
Resources Research Institute. Future projects could use their data in conjunction with temperature data from this
project to determine community responses to changes in stream temperature. A map of hydraulic conductivity
was also generated from this project. This map has generated interest from numerous biologists interested in
quantifying potential groundwater contribution to streams. Potential groundwater contributions have been
difficult to estimate in the past, however Baker et al. (2003) successfully mapped potential groundwater
contribution to Michigan streams using surficial geology. Our project is the first to apply their method within
Minnesota’s Lake Superior Basin. Although we continue to work on the hydraulic gradient portion of
estimating potential groundwater, it is encouraging that our results display a significant correlation between
hydraulic conductivity and maximum stream temperatures.

LEVERAGED DOLLARS
SeaGrant provided additional funding in the amount of $10,000. The Integrated Biosciences Graduate
Program at the University of Minnesota Duluth also contributed $7,000.

CONCLUSIONS
One of the most difficult problems associated with research at a basin wide scale is the confounding
regional effects of geographic position. We selected sites to represent as much of the impervious and wetland
gradients as possible. Unfortunately, stream catchments with a large proportion of impervious surfaces tend to
be located near Duluth, MN; whereas stream catchments with more abundant wetlands are found further from
Lake Superior (Figure 3). This creates collinearity between environmental variables, making it difficult to
distinguish between variable influences. Covariates should be taken into consideration when choosing study
sites, and when deciding which statistical analyses will best fit the data. Future analyses will address these
confounding factors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was funded in part by NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, in
cooperation with Minnesota’s Lake Superior Coastal Program. Additional funding came from Minnesota
SeaGrant and the Integrated Biosciences Graduate Program at the University of Minnesota Duluth. We would
also like to acknowledge the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, and
University of Minnesota for use of equipment and resources. We are grateful for the contributions of Richard
Axler, Valerie Brady, Howard Mooers, Tom Hollenhorst, and numerous field assistants working on this project.
 APPENDICIES
�

Appendix A. Local stream and regional watershed characteristics for 52 study sites in the Lake Superior Basin.
�
* - Denotes streams within the Lake Superior Coastal Zone. Impervious surface was summarized as a flow-distance weighted value.
�
Mean Mean Open Unforeste
Catchment Stream Stream Shad Fores Imperviou Wate Forested d Hydraulic
Area Width Depth e t s Surfaces r Wetland Wetlands Conductivity
Stream (km2) (m) (m) (%) (%) (%) (%) s (%) (%) (cm/s)
*Amity Creek 14.2 3.3 0.11 92 78 2.9 0.9 0.3 0.1 1.58E-06
*Amity Creek, East Branch 21.0 3.5 0.13 74 82 2.2 0.2 0.6 0.7 8.00E-04
Big Sucker Creek 30.0 4.0 0.61 59 95 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.00E-03
Chalberg Creek 23.2 2.9 0.23 50 74 1.3 1.5 6.8 2.5 1.00E-03
*Chester Creek 6.8 2.3 0.14 89 52 12.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 1.39E-06
*Chester Creek, East Branch 8.1 2.6 0.12 93 80 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.57E-06
Cloquet River 91.4 7.7 0.22 42 74 0.1 1.4 15.9 0.4 2.18E-04
*Crystal Creek 9.3 3.3 0.36 93 36 3.6 0.0 1.9 4.1 5.00E-05
East Two River 46.8 3.8 0.55 61 45 10.9 6.2 0.3 2.5 1.17E-06
Elbow Creek (Eveleth) 3.8 1.4 0.14 70 52 19.9 1.0 0.4 0.3 2.21E-08
Elbow Creek (Iron Jct.) 20.3 3.6 0.24 32 55 4.8 6.6 2.0 1.2 1.00E-05
Ely Creek 54.0 3.0 0.15 74 49 3.1 11.8 18.4 1.7 1.00E-04
*Encampment River 27.9 4.2 0.18 73 88 0.4 0.3 3.2 2.9 1.00E-05
*Hay Creek 18.2 4.2 0.21 94 59 1.5 0.1 2.5 4.2 4.54E-05
Johnson Creek 12.9 52 2.8 0.3 1.9 7.3 8.00E-02
Joula Creek 23.3 1.8 0.20 81 39 0.3 0.2 48.3 5.8 1.00E-03
*Keene Creek 7.4 2.6 0.18 90 66 4.1 0.0 0.9 0.3 1.55E-06
*Kingsbury Creek 20.8 4.3 0.23 88 60 7.9 0.2 3.7 1.4 1.55E-06
*Knife River 21.5 4.3 0.46 81 94 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.3 1.00E-05
Lester River 15.4 2.3 0.18 64 80 1.8 2.3 2.4 1.5 1.00E-03
*Little Knife River 16.0 3.7 0.59 36 73 1.9 0.1 2.4 0.3 8.00E-06
Little Otter Creek 26.8 3.1 0.48 61 65 1.5 0.1 13.3 3.4 1.00E-02
*Little Stewart River 10.5 4.4 0.32 77 67 2.4 0.0 6.0 0.0 1.00E-05
Long Lake Creek 17.0 2.0 0.15 58 55 6.8 8.4 2.8 1.4 1.00E-04
*McCarthy Creek 13.9 3.5 0.26 77 95 0.1 0.2 1.1 1.0 8.00E-04
*Miller Creek 19.0 3.4 0.32 53 47 20.6 0.2 0.3 1.8 5.00E-04
Murphy Creek 37.1 5.4 0.51 57 86 0.3 0.7 8.6 0.1 1.00E-05
Muskrat Creek 45.5 3.9 0.32 37 52 2.2 1.4 28.3 13.3 1.00E-03
Otter Creek (CR 5) 40.8 2.1 0.17 27 54 0.7 2.4 30.4 7.4 8.00E-04
*Otter Creek (Cartwright Rd.) 24.9 3.6 0.38 16 69 1.3 0.2 12.8 7.1 4.30E-03
Pine Creek 41.8 6.9 0.38 54 90 0.2 1.5 4.0 0.4 1.00E-04
Rocky Run Creek (St. Louis River Rd.) 22.5 5.2 0.37 91 58 2.1 0.1 0.6 2.4 1.00E-03
*Rocky Run Creek (Maple Grove Rd.) 31.4 5.3 0.70 28 67 3.9 0.1 0.5 1.1 1.00E-03
Skunk Creek 61.0 1.3 0.06 97 15 6.0 0.0 41.6 28.8 1.00E-03
*Talmadge River 7.9 2.4 0.14 85 77 1.1 0.1 14.4 0.6 1.00E-05
*Tischer Creek 14.1 4.0 0.16 97 55 10.3 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.56E-06
Trib. to East Swan River (CR 5) 42.6 28 0.9 0.0 19.4 45.2 1.00E-03
Trib. to East Swan River (Koivu Rd.) 19.4 3.0 0.43 29 52 3.8 0.3 2.0 2.4 9.71E-07
Trib. to East Two River (CR 7) 19.9 3.8 0.31 21 35 10.1 5.5 1.6 6.5 6.39E-07
Trib. to Floodwood River (Hwy 73) 25.6 1.6 0.21 59 33 0.8 0.0 49.3 13.0 1.00E-03
Trib. to Floodwood River (Wawina Rd.) 29.1 5.0 1.01 35 72 0.1 0.6 15.2 4.4 1.00E-03
*Trib. to Kingsbury Creek 1.4 2.1 0.07 90 28 19.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.00E-08
Trib. to St. Louis R. (McGonagle Rd.) 23.3 38 1.9 0.1 36.2 16.7 1.00E-03
Trib. to St. Louis River (Creek Rd.) 13.4 1.7 0.26 88 10 1.7 0.1 78.0 8.1 1.00E-03
*Trib. to St. Louis River (Hwy 61) 4.9 1.4 0.12 58 25 26.1 0.0 3.9 3.2 1.00E-01
Trib. to St. Louis River (Pirtalla Rd.) 3.6 1.4 0.20 93 15 7.4 0.0 48.3 11.8 1.00E-03
*Trib. to Stewart River 2.7 91 0.9 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.46E-07
*Trib. to Thompson Reservoir 4.9 3.4 0.40 93 64 11.3 1.1 2.1 7.6 8.00E-02
*Trib. to Tischer Creek 4.0 1.3 0.10 82 72 8.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.00E-08
Trib. to Whiteface River 14.6 61 0.3 0.3 32.4 2.8 1.00E-03
Us-Kab-Wan-Ka River 17.1 79 0.1 6.0 1.3 0.2 2.01E-05
White Pine River 22.7 3.7 0.50 54 65 5.4 9.3 1.5 0.9 1.00E-03
Appendix B. Temperature characteristics of 52 study sites in the Lake Superior Basin. Data were
recorded during July – September, 2008. * - Denotes streams within the Lake Superior Coastal Zone.
Max 7-Day Summer Water Summer Air
Water Temp. Temperature Temperature
Stream (oC) Variance (oC)2 Variance (oC)2
*Amity Creek 19.9 6.3 26.5
*Amity Creek, East Branch 21.3 6.8 26.5
Big Sucker Creek 20.0 8.1 35.4
Chalberg Creek 22.1 12.9 30.3
*Chester Creek 22.4 8.2 22.7
*Chester Creek, East Branch 20.1 5.2 22.7
Cloquet River 24.4 12.9 38.9
*Crystal Creek 17.9 4.1 26.9
East Two River 25.3 6.7 29.6
Elbow Creek (Eveleth) 19.9 6.1 33.6
Elbow Creek (Iron Jct.) 23.0 10.5 36.6
Ely Creek 22.6 11.6 45.4
*Encampment River 21.5 8.8 38.9
*Hay Creek 21.3 9.3 26.1
Johnson Creek 21.9 8.4 41.5
Joula Creek 22.2 12.7 49.5
*Keene Creek 19.8 6.4 21.7
*Kingsbury Creek 21.7 7.5 22.6
*Knife River 21.8 9.0 32.0
Lester River 22.8 9.6 41.6
*Little Knife River 23.1 9.9 38.3
Little Otter Creek 20.3 6.8 28.2
*Little Stewart River 20.8 8.2 26.9
Long Lake Creek 25.1 12.6 45.0
*McCarthy Creek 21.3 8.9 32.0
*Miller Creek 20.7 6.9 21.1
Murphy Creek 21.9 11.3 35.2
Muskrat Creek 23.0 10.8 39.2
Otter Creek (CR 5) 22.3 11.1 36.3
*Otter Creek (Cartwright Rd.) 26.7 16.4 31.3
Pine Creek 22.2 11.0 45.3
Rocky Run Creek (St. Louis River Rd.) 19.6 7.2 26.6
*Rocky Run Creek (Maple Grove Rd.) 23.5 10.1 34.5
Skunk Creek 22.5 12.3 33.2
*Talmadge River 22.4 8.4 27.4
*Tischer Creek 19.2 4.3 16.0
Trib. to East Swan River (CR 5) 22.6 15.2 49.8
Trib. to East Swan River (Koivu Rd.) 21.5 9.5 39.3
Trib. to East Two River (CR 7) 26.5 13.2 37.7
Trib. to Floodwood River (Hwy 73) 22.7 12.0 41.4
Trib. to Floodwood River (Wawina Rd.) 22.4 9.8 41.8
*Trib. to Kingsbury Creek 19.1 4.1 19.3
Trib. to St. Louis R. (McGonagle Rd.) 17.2 1.7 43.7
Trib. to St. Louis River (Creek Rd.) 19.8 6.5 26.7
*Trib. to St. Louis River (Hwy 61) 17.5 4.6 28.7
Trib. to St. Louis River (Pirtalla Rd.) 18.8 6.1 30.3
*Trib. to Stewart River 18.5 4.8 34.1
*Trib. to Thompson Reservoir 19.2 6.0 20.9
*Trib. to Tischer Creek 19.8 5.5 16.0
Trib. to Whiteface River 20.9 8.1 41.5
Us-Kab-Wan-Ka River 22.9 10.5 41.8
White Pine River 20.7 6.9 28.3
Appendix C. Ancillary Materials
A) ACTIVITIES RELATED TO GRANT
i) Presented poster at the North American Benthological Society’s 57th Annual Meeting in Grand
Rapids, MI.
ii) Presented project to University of Minnesota Duluth students in Research Club and Fisheries
Ecology.

B) PRODUCTS
i) We created an Access database containing water (5-min interval) and air (30-min interval)
temperature data during July – September, 2008 for 52 study sites within Minnesota’s Lake
Superior Basin. Data will be available upon request. Map products will be posted on the
www.duluthstream.org website when finalized.
 LITERATURE CITED
�
Allan, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review
of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 257-284.
Baker, M.E., M.J. Wiley, M.L. Carlson, and P.W. Seelbach. 2003. A GIS model of subsurface water potential
for aquatic resource inventory, assessment, and environmental management. Environmental Management
32(6): 706-719.
Detenbeck, N.E., V.J. Brady, D.L. Taylor, V.M. Snarski, and S.L. Batterman. 2005. Relationship of stream flow
regime in the western Lake Superior basin to watershed type characteristics. Journal of Hydrology 309: 258-
276.
Eaton, J.G. and R.M. Scheller. 1996. Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United
States. American Society of Limnology and Oceanography 41(5): 1109-1115.
Fetter, C.W. 2000. Applied Hydrogeology. 4th edition. Prentice Hall.
Gooseff, M.N., K. Strzepek, and S.C. Chapra. 2005. Modeling the potential effects of climate change on water
temperature downstream of a shallow reservoir, Lower Madison River, MT. Climatic Change 68: 331-353.
Krause, C.W., B. Lockard, T.J. Newcomb, D.Kibler, V. Lohani, and D.J. Orth. 2004. Predicting influences of
urban development on thermal habitat in a warm water stream. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 40(6): 1645-1658.
Leblanc R.T., R.D. Brown, J.E. Fitzgibbon. 1997. Modeling the effects of land use change on water temperature
in unregulated urban streams. Journal of Environmental Management 49: 445–469.
Mohseni, O., H.G. Stefan, and J.G. Eaton. 2003. Global warming and potential changes in fish habitat in U.S.
streams. Climatic Change 59: 389-409.
Mohseni, O., T.R. Erickson, and H.G. Stefan. 1999. Sensitivity of stream temperatures in the United States to air
temperatures projected under global climate scenarios. Water Resources Research 35: 3723-3733.
Paul, M.J. and J.L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics
32: 333-365.
Pluhowski, E.J. 1970. Urbanization and its effect on the temperature of streams on Long Island, New York.
Geological Survey Professional Paper, 627-D.
Poole, G.C. and C.H. Berman. 2001. An ecological perspective on in-stream temperature: natural heat dynamics
and mechanisms of human-caused thermal degradation. Environmental Management 27: 787-802.
Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: Brook trout. U.S. Dept. Int., Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-82/10.24. 42 pp.
Simonson, T.D., J. Lyons, and P.D. Kanehl. 1994. Quantifying fish habitat in streams: Transect spacing, sample
size, and a proposed framework. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14: 607-615.
Van Sickle, J. and C.B. Johnson. 2008. Parametric distance weighting of landscape influence on streams.
Landscape Ecology 23(4): 427-438.
Wang, L., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 2003. Impacts of urban land cover on trout streams in Wisconsin and
Minnesota. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 132: 825-839.
Wehrly, K.E., M.J. Wiley, and P.W. Seelbach. 2006. Influence of landscape features on summer water
temperatures in lower Michigan streams. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 48: 113-127.