U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5007

Prepared in cooperation with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

Assessment of Aquifer Properties, Evapotranspiration, 

and the Effects of Ditching in the Stoney Brook Watershed, 

Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota, 2006–9
Cover. Northeast end of Rice Portage Lake, which is located in the Stoney Brook watershed. Photograph by Perry M. Jones, 

U.S. Geological Survey, August 22, 2005.
Assessment of Aquifer Properties, 

Evapotranspiration, and the Effects of 

Ditching in the Stoney Brook Watershed, 

Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota, 

2006–9

By Perry M. Jones and Abigail A. Tomasek

Prepared in cooperation with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

Scientific Investigations Report 2015–5007

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Jones, P.M., and Tomasek, A.A., 2015, Assessment of aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and the effects of ditching in the Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota, 2006–9: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2015–5007, 33 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155007.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................vi

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Description of Study Area, Physiography, Hydrology, and Hydrogeology..................................3

Methods of Study...........................................................................................................................................6

Hydrologic Monitoring .........................................................................................................................6

Hydrologic and Hydrogeologic Analysis...........................................................................................9

Specific Yield and Hydraulic Conductivity...............................................................................9

Groundwater Levels and Flow Direction ...............................................................................10

Groundwater Recharge ............................................................................................................10

Streamflow-Recession Analysis ....................................................................................10

Water-Table Fluctuation Analysis ..................................................................................11

Evapotranspiration ....................................................................................................................12

Assessment of Aquifer Properties and Evapotranspiration .................................................................13

Specific Yield and Hydraulic Conductivity......................................................................................13

Groundwater Levels and Flow Direction ........................................................................................14

Groundwater Recharge .....................................................................................................................17

Streamflow-Recession Analysis .............................................................................................17

Water-Table Fluctuation Analysis ...........................................................................................17

Evapotranspiration..............................................................................................................................21

Effects of Ditching on Groundwater Resources, Recharge Estimation, and 

Evapotranspiration Estimation .....................................................................................................25

Summary........................................................................................................................................................28

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................29
iv

Figures

1. Map showing location of study wells, precipitation gages, and streamgages,

Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota........................................................................................5

2. Map showing surficial geology of the Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota....................7

3. Map showing topography of the Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota .............................8

4. Graph showing example of evapotranspiration estimation using White (1932) 

and water levels in well 1, Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, July 2007....................13

5. Graphs showing well hydrographs for wells in the Stoney Brook watershed,

Minnesota, 2006–9......................................................................................................................15

6. Map showing water-table surface of the shallow groundwater, Stoney Brook

watershed, Minnesota...............................................................................................................16

7. Graphs showing monthly recharge estimated by the RORA computer program for

the Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, April 2006 through December 2009................19

8. Graphs showing monthly recharge estimated by the RISE computer program for

wells in Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, July 2006 through December 2009.........22

9. Graphs showing daily evapotranspiration estimated from water levels in wells in

Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, with corresponding cloud cover ..........................24

10. Conceptual shallow groundwater flow to ditches under different hydrologic

conditions.....................................................................................................................................27

Tables

1. U.S. Geological Survey wells, precipitation gages, test holes, and streamgage in

the Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota.................................................................................4

2. Specific yield estimates for wells in Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota.....................14

3. Hydraulic conductivities from slug tests done on wells in Stoney Brook

watershed, Minnesota...............................................................................................................14

4. Seasonal and annual water-table recharge estimated by the RORA computer

program for the Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, April 2006 through

December 2009............................................................................................................................18

5. Annual water-table recharge estimates from RISE computer program analysis,

manual groundwater recession analysis, and master recession curve analysis of

well hydrographs in Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, 2007–9...................................20

6. Daily evapotranspiration estimates and groundwater levels in wells in Stoney

Brook watershed, Minnesota, for various days in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 .................23

7. Monthly and annual potential evapotranspiration for Stoney Brook watershed,

Minnesota, using the Thornthwaite-Mather method ..........................................................25
v

Conversion Factors

[Inch/Pound to International System of Units]

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) 

Flow rate

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

inch per day (in/d) 0.0254 meter per day (m/d)

Hydraulic conductivity

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as:

°F = (1.8 × °C) + 32.

Datums

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Water year is the 12-month period of October 1 through September 30 designated by the 

calendar year in which it ends.
vi

Abbreviations

® registered trademark

ET evapotranspiration

FDLGWSW Fond du Lac Groundwater Surface Water

FDL-RMD Fond du Lac Resource Management Division

MRC master recession curve

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service

NWIS National Water Information System (U.S. Geological Survey database)

PET potential evapotranspiration

PVC polyvinyl chloride

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa for their support and assistance with field aspects of the study. In particular, the authors thank Nancy Schuldt, Tom Howes, 

and Reggie De Foe, Fond du Lac Band Resources Management Program, for their assistance.

Mike Menheer, Wally Larson, John Greene, Matt Hammitt, Sheldon Misquadace, and Jenifer Bode of the U.S. Geological Survey are acknowledged for assistance with office and field 

aspects of the study. Tim Erickson, Jason Menard, and Chris Sanocki of the U.S. Geological Survey are acknowledged for assistance with data analyses and graphics. The authors also thank 

Alan Knaeble, Minnesota Geological Survey, for his assistance in the geologic interpretation of 

the Stoney Brook watershed.
Assessment of Aquifer Properties, Evapotranspiration, and 

the Effects of Ditching in the Stoney Brook Watershed, 

Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota, 2006–9

By Perry M. Jones and Abigail A. Tomasek

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, assessed 

hydraulic properties of geologic material, recharge, and evapo

transpiration, and the effects of ditching on the groundwater 

resources in the Stoney Brook watershed in the Fond du Lac 

Reservation. Geologic, groundwater, and surface-water data 

were collected during 2006–9 to estimate hydrologic properties in the watershed. Streamflow and groundwater levels in 

the shallow glacial deposits in the Stoney Brook watershed 

were analyzed to estimate groundwater-flow directions, 

groundwater recharge, and evapotranspiration within the 

watershed and to assess the effect of ditches on surrounding 

groundwater resources. Groundwater, streamflow, and precipitation data collected during the study (2006–9) can be used to 

update the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource

Conservation Service and Fond du Lac Resource Management

Division surface-water models, which are used to evaluate 

the effect of proposed adjustments to the ditching system on 

streamflow on wild rice production and aquatic habitats.

Specific yields calculated from the well water levels 

ranged from 0.11 to 0.40, and hydraulic conductivities 

determined from water levels measured during well slug tests 

ranged from 1 to 7 feet per day. The values for specific yields 

were similar to values obtained in other studies done in glacial

materials of similar composition in Minnesota. The higher 

hydraulic conductivity estimate (7 feet per day) was similar to

lower hydraulic conductivities estimated in another hydrologi

study conducted in Carlton County, Minnesota.

The installation of drainage ditches in the Stoney Brook 

watershed has reduced water levels in lakes connected to the 

ditch system, and has locally reduced groundwater levels 

in shallow groundwater adjacent to the ditches and lakes. 

Differences in near-ditch groundwater hydrographs relative 

to far-ditch groundwater hydrographs indicate that the effect 

of the ditches on groundwater is only localized to near-ditch 

areas. These hydrograph differences resulted in large differences between recharge estimated at wells near and far from 

ditches. In this study, recharge estimated at wells within 

50 feet of a ditch was influenced by ditch-water levels. 

-

c 

Annual groundwater recharge estimates from water levels and 

streamflows during 2006–9 ranged from 0.36 to 34.8 inches, 

and varied with climate, geology, and well location relative 

to ditches. The higher recharge estimates were determined 

from analysis of groundwater levels in wells near the ditches 

because the shallow groundwater in these wells received 

both infiltration from ditches and areal groundwater recharge 

from precipitation. The water-table fluctuation method using 

a manual groundwater recession approach for wells far from 

ditches provided the best estimates of areal groundwater 

recharge to the shallow glacial aquifer because water levels in 

these wells were not affected by water infiltrating from ditches 

(bank storage). For wells more than 400 feet from ditches, 

mean annual areal groundwater recharge estimates using the 

manual groundwater recession approach for wells screened 

mostly in outwash sands during 2007, 2008, and 2009 ranged 

from 4.47 to 18.6 inches (wells 5, 7, 13, 14 and 15), and 

ranged from 0.43 to 2.85 inches for wells screened mostly in 

clayey sand or sandy clay (wells 9 and 16). Recharge estimates 

at wells far from ditches were similar to basinwide recharge 

estimates from streamflow.

Daily fluctuations in water levels in two wells indicated 

that the evapotranspiration extinction depth in the Stoney 

Brook watershed is approximately 4.6 to 6 feet below the 

land surface. A polynomial regression fit of the daily evapotranspiration rates during 2006–9 for well 1 produced a total 

evapotranspiration estimate of 16.1 inches from June 26 to 

October 6 for every year. Evapotranspiration estimated from 

daily water-level fluctuations in wells near ditches is relatively 

high. The ditch-water surface allowed for relatively high 

evaporation compared to the land surface, which, with a good 

hydraulic connection to surrounding groundwater, resulted in 

relatively high fluctuations in daily groundwater levels near 

ditches, resulting in high evapotranspiration estimates.

Introduction

Wild rice (Zizania aquatic) is an important source of 

food and a large part of the cultural heritage of the Fond du 

Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Fond du Lac Natural 
2 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

Resources Program, 2013; Schwarzkopf and Defoe, 1999) 

and other members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 2013). The growth of wild rice often 

is affected by the water level of a lake or wetland, which can 

be effected by nearby ditching. The U.S. Geological Survey, 

in cooperation with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior 

Chippewa, assessed hydraulic properties of geologic material, 

recharge, and evapotranspiration (ET) , and the effects of ditching on the groundwater resources in the Stoney Brook watershed in the Fond du Lac Reservation. Geologic, groundwater, 

and surface-water data were collected during the study (2006–

9) can be used to update the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and Fond du 

Lac Resource Management Division (FDL-RMD) surfacewater models, which are used to evaluate the effect of proposed 

adjustments to the ditching system on streamflow, wild rice 

production, and aquatic habitats (Fond du Lac Environmental 

Department, 2010; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, 2013).

Wild rice is a native grass that forms dense stands and 

is harvested annually in wetlands and lakes across northern 

Minnesota (Oelke and others, 1982). Changes in water levels, 

including flooding, result in substantial changes in wild rice 

yields (Dukerschein and Langrehr, 2000; Stevenson and Lee, 

1987), such as total crop loss (Vennum, 1988; Pip and Stepaniuk, 1988). Wild rice grows best at shallow to moderate 

depths (1 to 3 feet [ft]) in areas containing soft, organic bottom 

sediments or clay to sandy loams, with steady water levels and 

clear water (1854 Treaty Authority, 2005). During the first 8 to 

10 weeks of wild rice growth, stable water levels are needed to 

ensure vigorous plant growth (Zepp and others, 1996). Lakes 

and wetlands that receive a substantial amount of groundwater 

discharge tend to have higher and more stable water levels 

(Hunt and others, 1999), and, therefore, may produce more 

productive wild rice beds than lakes and wetlands that receive 

less groundwater discharge (Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, 2005; Thompson and Luthin, 2004).

The amount of groundwater discharge to wetlands can 

have a profound effect on wetland water-quality properties, such 

as pH, and constituents like major ions, metals, and nutrients 

(Carter, 1986; Nimmo and others, 2003; Hunt and others, 1997; 

Siegel, 1983), which can affect wild rice production (Painchaud 

and Archibold, 1990; Durkee Walker and others, 2010). Pillsbury and McGuire (2009) determined that wild rice growth 

in Wisconsin and Minnesota wetlands was optimal in waters 

with relatively low nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate) and phosphorus 

concentrations, and low pH at water depths generally less than 

4 ft. Pastor and Durkee Walker (2006) demonstrated that the 

delay in the release of nutrients from decomposing litter and 

associated ecosystem processes can cause oscillations in wild 

rice populations. Preliminary results from wild rice studies 

conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency have 

indicated that sulfate and sulfide in sediment pore waters in 

wetlands can limit the ability of wild rice to grow, depending 

on their concentrations and the concentrations of iron present in 

waters (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2014).

Water levels in closed-basin lakes and wetlands 

commonly are controlled by a balance between precipitation, the amount of groundwater discharge to the lake or 

wetland, and the ET from the watershed of the lake or 

wetland (LaBaugh and others, 1997; Winter, 1999; Winter 

and others, 2003). Wetlands with stable water levels depend 

on a relatively constant influx of groundwater throughout 

changing seasonal and annual climatic cycles (Alley and 

others, 1999). Groundwater discharge to lakes and wetlands 

varies with spatial and temporal changes in areal groundwater recharge. Areal groundwater recharge is defined as the 

downward movement and entry of water into the saturated 

zone at the water table (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Rates of 

groundwater recharge to shallow aquifers vary because of 

differences in hydrogeology, topographic setting, antecedent 

moisture conditions, and precipitation (Carter, 1996). The 

quantity and composition of peat in wetlands are important 

factors controlling the amount of groundwater discharge to 

northern Minnesota lakes, wetlands, and rivers (Winter, 1999; 

Siegel, 1992; Siegel and Glaser, 1987). Variations in groundwater recharge and ET rates can change groundwater levels, 

potentially changing groundwater-flow directions (Reeve 

and others, 2006) and groundwater discharge to lakes and 

wetlands (Rosenberry and LaBaugh, 2008). Rates of groundwater recharge to and ET from water-table aquifers have been 

estimated from daily fluctuations in water levels in wells 

during dry periods (Cowdery, 2004; Gerla, 1992; White, 1932; 

Rosenberry and Winter, 1997; Butler and others, 2007).

Drainage ditches, commonly installed in the early 1900s 

to dewater lands in wetland-dominated areas of northern 

Minnesota and the Great Lakes Basin for agriculture (Dahl, 

1990), have decreased groundwater, lake, and wetland water 

levels (Wilcox and Whillans 1999; Bradof, 1992a), and 

resulted in losses of wild rice stands (Fond du Lac Natural 

Resources Program, 2013). In the United States, ditching in 

the Great Lakes Basin has resulted in an estimated 70-percent 

loss of wetland area (Detenbeck and others, 1999). Ditches 

established to reduce water levels in low-lying flat lands, 

lakes, and wetlands also can change groundwater-flow directions (Boelter, 1972), resulting in decreases in groundwater 

discharge to lakes and wetlands. Ditching has altered runoff 

patterns, increased runoff, and increased beaver populations, 

which can greatly affect hydrology (Bradof, 1992b).

Ditches installed in the early 1900s on the Fond du Lac 

Reservation in northern Minnesota lowered lake water levels 

and caused greater lake-level fluctuations (Jacobsen, 2003; 

Schwarzkopf and Defoe, 1999). Rice Portage Lake on the 

reservation lost more than 80 percent of its original surface 

area, declining from 635 acres in the early 1900s to 114 acres 

in the late 1990s (Schwarzkopf and Defoe, 1999). These 

lower water levels with higher water-level fluctuations in 

lakes following precipitation after ditch installation resulted 

in lower wild rice production (Schwarzkopf and Defoe, 

1999). In an effort to improve wild rice production, the Fond 

du Lac Band installed a system of water control structures 

and impoundments to restore the lakes to their original 
Introduction 3

elevations and hydrologic functions (Schwarzkopf and Defoe, 

1999).

The effect of ditching on the groundwater hydrology of 

a watershed depends on properties of the ditching system, 

including ditch spacing, depth, orientation, and maintenance (Koivusalo and others, 2008), and on properties of the 

groundwater-flow system, such as hydraulic conductivity and 

storativity (specific yield) (Boelter, 1972). Boelter (1972) 

determined that the effect of ditching on local hydrology in 

northern Minnesota depended on the hydraulic properties of 

peat. Bradof (1992b) determined that the installation of ditches 

in the Red Lake peatlands of northern Minnesota resulted 

in water-table drawdown and reversals in groundwater-flow 

direction within 30 ft of the ditches.

An understanding of the effects of ditching on water 

levels in wild rice lakes and groundwater in the Fond du Lac 

Reservation is needed to assess the effectiveness of any waterlevel restoration plans for the lakes. The Fond du Lac Band 

is committed to restoring lake-water levels to those recorded 

before the construction of the judicial ditch system to improve 

wild rice production in lakes and attached wetlands. Judicial 

ditch systems are systems that were constructed under the 

State of Minnesota Judicial Ditch Law of 1909 (Minnesota 

Office of the Revisor of Statutes, 1910), which allowed individuals to request district courts to order counties to construct 

ditches, at county expenses, to drain the individual’s land if 

the court was convinced that the land needed to be drained for 

agricultural or other purposes.

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the assessment of aquifer properties and ET in the Stoney Brook watershed in the Fond du 

Lac Reservation and the effects of ditching on the shallow 

groundwater resources from 2006 to 2009. Groundwater 

recharge estimates, groundwater-flow directions, groundwater specific yields, and ET estimates for the shallow glacial 

aquifer in the watershed were determined from analysis 

of groundwater levels, streamflow data, and precipitation data collected from 2006 to 2009. Sixteen wells and 

12 precipitation gages (9 by USGS, table 1, fig. 1; 3 by 

FDL-RMD, fig. 1) were installed in 2006 and 2007 in the 

watershed to monitor groundwater levels and precipitation, 

and one streamgage was installed in 2005 in Stoney Brook 

to continuously monitor streamflow. Slug tests in 2 of the 

16 wells were done to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow glacial aquifer. The effects of ditching 

on the shallow glacial aquifer were assessed by comparing 

groundwater-level variability and recharge estimates between 

wells close to ditches and those far from ditches. Geologic 

variability within the study area also was considered in this 

analysis. Annual, seasonal, and daily ET were estimated from 

air temperature and daily groundwater-level fluctuations in 

wells, and compared to estimates determined in other hydrologic studies in Minnesota.

Description of Study Area, Physiography, 

Hydrology, and Hydrogeology

The study area is located in the southern two-thirds of the 

Stoney Brook watershed in St. Louis and Carlton Counties, 

northeastern Minnesota (fig. 1). The eastern two-thirds of the 

Stoney Brook watershed is located on the Fond du Lac Band 

Reservation, whereas the southwestern part of the watershed 

is located within the Fond du Lac State Forest (fig. 1). The 

watershed area is 92.6 square miles (mi2) and contains five 

productive wild rice lakes (Perch, Jaskari, Rice Portage, Miller, 

and Dead Fish Lakes). In addition to wild rice production, the 

watershed is used for logging and hunting. The 30-year (1981–

2010) normal annual precipitation from the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather station 

at Cloquet, Minnesota (NOAA station number MN211630, 

located approximately 8 miles [mi] east of the Stoney Brook 

watershed, fig. 1) was 31.83 inches (in.) (National Climatic 

Data Center, 2013). The mean annual ET for the Stoney Brook 

watershed between 1960 and 1970 was estimated to be approximately 18 in. (Baker and others, 1979; Lindhom and others, 

1979; Sanford and Selnick, 2012). The watershed is part of the 

Laurentian Mixed Forest Province and occupies the western 

part of the Superior Upland (Vigil and others, 2000).

The surface-water hydrology of the Stoney Brook watershed is complex, with 47 mi of ditches interacting with water 

from lakes, wetlands, streams, and groundwater (Fond du Lac 

Environmental Department, 2010). Approximately 54 percent 

of the watershed is covered by lakes and wetlands (fig. 1). 

Wetlands consist of forested (black spruce, tamarack, and 

black ash), scrub shrub (alder or willow dominant), and emergent wetlands (Fond du Lac Resource Management, 2008). 

Stoney Brook is the main stream in the watershed, flowing 

northeasterly and discharging to the St. Louis River. The 

natural course of Stoney Brook was altered by judicial ditching (fig. 1) in the early 1900s (Fond du Lac Natural Resources 

Program, 2013). Forty-seven miles of judicial ditches were 

installed in an effort to reduce the amount of water present 

on the land surface for agricultural purposes (Jacobsen, 2003; 

Fond du Lac Environmental Department, 2010). Rice Portage 

Lake, Jaskari Lake, Miller Lake, Hardwood Lake, and Dead 

Fish Lake were connected to the judicial ditch system (fig. 1). 

After ditch installation, water levels in lakes and wetlands in 

the watershed fluctuated more following precipitation events, 

reducing wild rice production (Schwarzkopf and Defoe, 1999). 

This ditching had the largest effect on water levels in Rice 

Portage Lake, reducing its surface area from approximately 

635 to 114 acres (Schwarzkopf and Defoe, 1999). Watercontrol structures (dams) have been installed at lake outlets 

where ditching intercepts the lakes to manage lake water-level 

fluctuations. In early spring and fall, water levels in northern 

lakes and wetlands are controlled by the amount of snowmelt, 

precipitation, and groundwater flow that occurs, whereas in 

late spring and summer, water levels are controlled by the 

amount of exchange with groundwater, surface-water evaporation, and ET from the adjacent land surface.
4 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

Table 1. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) wells, precipitation gages, test holes, and streamgage in the Stoney Brook watershed, 

Minnesota.

[FDLGWSW, Fond du Lac Groundwater Surface Water; no., number; ID, identifier; NE, northeast; SE, southeast; ATV, all-terrain vehicle; W, west; Brg, bridge; 

Port, portage; Rd, Road; nr, near; precip., precipitation; --, no data]

Site name USGS site ID

Monitoring well, 

precipitation gage, 

test hole, and 

streamgage name 

(fig. 1)

Geology at well screen

FDLGWSW01 049N18W18CDDD01 First Bridge 685830 464322092401401 Monitoring well no. 1 and 

precipitation gage

Fine to medium sand, some clayey 

intervals.

FDLGWSW02 049N18W30BBDA01 Rice Portage 685831 464222092403801 Monitoring well no. 2 Medium sand, some clayey 

intervals.

FDLGWSW03 049N18W18ABBB02 Second Bridge 685829 464412092401002 Monitoring well no. 3 and 

precipitation gage

Medium to coarse sand.

FDLGWSW04 049N18W18ABBB01 Second Bridge 685828 464412092401001 Monitoring well no. 4 Medium to coarse sand.

FDLGWSW05 049N19W13BDDB01 NE of Miller Lake 685824 464351092413801 Monitoring well no. 5 Medium to coarse sand.

FDLGWSW06 049N19W12DABB01 SE Dead Fish Lake 685822 464437092410801 Monitoring well no. 6 Sandy clay, medium to coarse 

sand.

FDLGWSW07 049N19W10DDCC01 ATV Trail W 685825 464412092434201 Monitoring well no. 7 and 

precipitation gage

Medium to very coarse sand, 

pebbles, cobbles.

FDLGWSW08 049W19W12BBCC01 W Dead Fish Lake 685823 464453092420701 Monitoring well no. 8 Peat.

FDLGWSW09 050N19W35DBBC01 Arrowhead Forest 685821 464629092424301 Monitoring well no. 9 Clayey sand, sandy clay, some 

gravel.

FDLGWSW10 050N18W31BABA01 near Lost Lake 685826 464700092402301 Monitoring well no. 10 Clayey sand, gravel, pebbles, 

cobbles.

FDLGWSW11 049N19W02CABC01 Upper Dead Fish 685832 464529092430101 Monitoring well no. 11 Sandy clay.

FDLGWSW12 049N19W09CDDD01 State Forest 685827 464412092452001 Monitoring well no. 12 Fine to medium sand, some coarse.

FDLGWSW13 049N18W19BABA01 West First Brg0000685835 464321092402301 Monitoring well no. 13 Medium sand, some gravel, 

pebbles.

FDLGWSW14 049N19W26ACBD01 West Rice Port0000685840 464210092424001 Monitoring well no. 14 Coarse to very coarse sand.

FDLGWSW15 049N19W21DAAC01 Spirit Lake Rd0000685834 464247092444901 Monitoring well no. 15 Medium sand, some sandy clay.

FDLGWSW16 050N19W33BDBA01 Berthiaume Rd.0000685841 464639092453501 Monitoring well no. 16 Sandy clay.

FDLGWSW09B Arrowhead Forest Road - Precipitation 464629092424302 Precipitation gage 5 --

FDLGWSW12B State Forest - Precipitation 464412092452002 Precipitation gage 6 --

FDLGWSW17 Precip Gage at Berthiaume Rd. nr Brookston 464721092461701 Precipitation gage 1 --

FDLGWSW18 Precip Gage at Brandon Road nr Brookston, Minn. 464825092420301 Precipitation gage 2 --

Precip. Gage South of Spruce Lake near Sawyer, Minn. 464151092433301 Precipitation gage 3 --

FDLGWSW19 Precip gage W of Rice Portage nr Sawyer, Minn. 464221092425301 Precipitation gage 4 --

FDLGWSW20 049N18W06CCCC01 464506092404701 Test hole no. 1 --

FDLGWSW21 049N18W04CCCC01 464503092381801 Test hole no. 2 --

FDLGWSW22 049N19W02BDDA01 464542092424801 Test hole no. 3 --

FDLGWSW23 049N18W19BBAB01 464321092404001 Test hole no. 4 --

FDLGWSW24 049N18W06CAAB01 464536092402101 Test hole no. 5 --

Stoney Brook at Pine Drive near Brookston, Minn. 04021520 Open-channel flow 

streamgage --
Introduction 5

2 2

210

210

2

1

2

6 3, 4

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

5

2

4

5

6

1

3

St. Louis

River

Stoney

Brook

Martin Branch

Perch

Lake

Rice Portage 

Lake

Big Lake

Miller

Lake

Dead Fish

Lake

Lost 

Lake

Twin

Lakes

Torchlight

Lake

Hardwood

Lake

Jaskari

Lake

FOND DU LAC INDIAN RESERVATION

FOND DU LAC INDIAN RESERVATION

FOND DU LAC STATE FOREST

FOND DU LAC STATE FOREST

BURLINGTON NORTHERN

RAILROAD

BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

CARLTON COUNTY

MINNESOTA

Map

area Cloquet

46 ̊40'

46 ̊45'

46 ̊50'

92 ̊50' 92 ̊45' 92 ̊40' 92 ̊35'

T.

51

N.

T.

50

N.

T.

49

N.

T.

48

N.

R. 20 W. R. 19 W. R. 18 W.

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

digital data, 1:24,000 and U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

Continuous water-level well—Black number is 

2 site identifier, red number is number of wells 

1

EXPLANATION

Minor roads

Ditches

Wetlands—From U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1994

Study area boundary

Stoney Brook watershed

1 Intermittant water-level well—Number 

is site identifier 

U.S. Geological Survey streamgage

Fond du Lac Reservation precipitation gage 

1

U.S. Geological Survey precipitation 

gage—Number is site identifier 

Fond du Lac Reservation streamgage 

0 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 3 MILES 4

Figure 1. Location of study wells, precipitation gages, and streamgages, Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota.
6 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

The topography of the Stoney Brook watershed is formed 

by the surficial geology, with relatively flat peatlands in the 

central part of the watershed and bounded by higher supraglacial till, ice-contact, and outwash deposits to the northwest 

and east (Boerboom, 2009) (figs. 2 and 3). Holocene peat and 

other organic sediments cover approximately 40 percent of the 

watershed and 49 percent of the study area (fig. 2). Peat and 

Pleistocene glacial tills and outwash lie above the Thomson 

Formation of Early Proterozoic age, which is composed 

mostly of low permeability slate and greywacke (Boerboom, 

2009). Pleistocene till and isolated outwash of the Independence Formation of the Rainy lobe underlie Pleistocene till, 

sand, and gravel complexes of the Cromwell Formation of the 

Superior lobe throughout most of the study area (Boerboom, 

2009). Pleistocene till deposits cover approximately 47 percent 

of the watershed and 39 percent of the study area (fig. 2). 

Isolated Pleistocene outwash of the Cromwell and Barnum 

Formations deposited by the Superior lobe also are present 

throughout the watershed. Ice-contact deposits and kames of 

the Cromwell Formation are present southwest of Lost Lake 

(fig. 1). Outwash and ice-contact deposits cover 6 percent of 

the watershed and study area (fig. 2). Little is known about 

groundwater and groundwater/surface-water interactions 

among shallow aquifers, lakes, wetlands, and the ditch system 

in the Stoney Brook watershed. Shallow groundwater flow 

occurs in the Holocene peats and Pleistocene glacial outwash 

and tills (fig. 2), consisting of gravels, sands, and silts. These 

deposits form the shallow glacial aquifer in the study area. 

Residents in the watershed obtain their water from Quaternary 

buried glacial sand and gravel aquifers and from weathered 

parts of the Thomson Formation. Soils in the watershed 

consist of poorly drained organic material (peat, mucky peat, 

and muck), loamy sand, sandy loams, loamy till, and loams 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

1978). Maximum soil thicknesses are more than 6 ft.

Methods of Study

Groundwater levels, streamflow, and precipitation were 

measured in the Stoney Brook watershed between 2006 and 

2009 (fig. 1). These data were analyzed to estimate specific 

yield, hydraulic conductivity, groundwater-flow directions, 

groundwater recharge, and ET in shallow groundwater. 

Estimates of specific yield were determined by analyzing 

groundwater-level rises following precipitation events, and 

hydraulic conductivity was estimated from groundwater-level 

rises and recoveries from slug tests done in two wells. Shallow 

groundwater-flow directions were determined from a watertable surface interpolated from mean water levels in wells 

and lakes in the watershed. Annual and monthly groundwater 

recharges were estimated using streamflow recession and 

water-table fluctuation analyses. Groundwater-level responses 

to precipitation and groundwater recharge estimates were 

compared among the wells to assess the effect of the judicial 

ditch system on surrounding groundwater. Daily ET from 

shallow groundwater was estimated for 70 periods of daily 

water-level fluctuations in four wells. A second-order polynomial trend line was fitted to daily ET estimates from one of 

the wells (well 1) to determine mean monthly and annual ET 

estimates for 2006–9. Well 1 was the only well that produced 

enough accurate daily ET estimates (31 days) throughout 

spring, summer, and fall to fit a trend line. These estimates 

were compared to annual and monthly potential ET estimated 

using the Thornthwaite-Mather method (Thornthwaite, 1948; 

Thornthwaite and Mather, 1957) with mean monthly air 

temperature.

Hydrologic Monitoring

Geologic, groundwater, and surface-water data were 

collected to estimate hydrologic properties in the watershed. 

These estimates were made using groundwater levels, streamflow, and precipitation data collected during 2006–9. Streamflow and precipitation data collected by USGS and FDL-RMD 

can be used by the Natural Resource Conservation Service 

and FDL-RMD to update a continuous hydrologic model for 

the Stoney Brook watershed. The model was used to better 

understand how to effectively restore water levels in the wild 

rice lakes and preserve the aquatic environment (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

2013).

All groundwater-level, streamflow, precipitation, and 

geologic boring data collected by the USGS are stored in the 

USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2015). Streamflow and precipitation 

data collected by FDL-RMD (fig. 1) were used in hydrologic 

models used to evaluate the effects of potential changes in 

surface-water discharge associated with ditch adjustments, 

but were not used in this study or stored in the USGS NWIS 

database.

Sixteen wells were installed by the USGS throughout the 

watershed between May 2006 and June 2007 in the study area 

to measure shallow groundwater levels (fig. 1; table 1). The 

wells were installed using auger drilling techniques outlined 

by Shuter and Teasdale (1989). Hollow-stem augers with an 

8.25-in. inside diameter were used to drill the boreholes and 

collect 2-in.-diameter sediment cores during well installation. 

The sediment cores, supplemented with geologic descriptions made by the authors from cuttings during drilling, were 

used to log the geology of the boreholes. The wells were 

constructed of 2-in.-inside-diameter, schedule 40, flushthreaded polyvinyl chloride (PVC) casing and 0.01-in.-slotted 

PVC screens set to intersect the water table. Screens were set 

at the water table to access shallow groundwater potentially 

affected by ditching. The wells were protected by a 6-in.-

diameter, schedule 40 steel pipe set 3 ft into concrete, covered 

by a locking well cap. The annulus of each well was allowed 

to collapse around the screen to a height of 9 ft above the 

bottom of the screen. If aquifer material did not collapse to 
Methods of Study 7

T.

51

N.

T.

50

N.

T.

49

N.

T.

48

N.

R. 20 W. R. 19 W. R. 18 W.

Perch

Lake

Rice Portage 

Lake

Miller

Lake

Dead Fish

Lake

Lost Lake

Twin

Lakes

Torchlight

Lake

Hardwood

Lake

2 2

210

210

BURLINGTON

NORTHERN

RAILROAD

BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD

46 ̊40'

46 ̊45'

46 ̊50'

92 ̊50' 92 ̊45' 92 ̊40' 92 ̊35'

St. Louis

River

Big Lake Stoney

Martin

Brook

Branch

Qct

Qcc

Qct

Qhp

Qao

Qco

Qct

Qct

Qao

Qci Qcc

Qhp

Qhp

Qhp Qhp

Qco

Qct

Qhp Qct

Qct Qhp

Qcc

Qct

Qcc

Qhp

Qct

Qhp

Qcc Qct

Qhp

Qcc

Qco

Qct

Qct

Qhp

Qhp

Qct Qcc Qcc

Qct Qct Qco

Qcc

Qco Qct

Qcc

Qct

Qhp

Qco

Qct

Qhp

Qhp

Qcc

Qlo

Qct

Qct Qco Qct

Qcc

Qco

Qct

Qcc

Qct

Qhp

Qhp

Qco

Qcc

Qct

Qct Qcc

Qlo

Qcc

Qct

Qct

Qct

Qct

Qha

Qha

1

2

3,4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

5

1

2

3

4

5

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

digital data, 1:24,000 and U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

CARLTON COUNTY

MINNESOTA

area

Map

EXPLANATION

Minor roads

Ditches

Study area boundary

Stoney Brook watershed

Qcc—Till, sand and gravel complex

Qao—Outwash deposits

Qco—Outwash deposits

Qha—Flood-plain alluvium Qct—Till deposits

Qhp—Peat and other organic sediments

Qlo—Outwash deposits

Holocene Pleistocene—Continued U.S. Geological Survey monitoring 

well—Number is site identifier, 

table 1

U.S. Geological Survey geologic 

test hole—Number is site identifier, 

table 1 

Pleistocene

Qci—Ice-contact deposits

1

1

0 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 3 MILES 4 1:24,000 surficial geology data modified 

from Boerboom, 2009, plate 3 

Figure 2. Surficial geology of the Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota.
8 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

Lakes

Perch

Rice Portage Lake

Lake

Big Lake

Miller

Lake

Dead 

Fish

Lake

Lost Lake

Twin

Torchlight

Lake

Hardwood

Lake

210

210

2 2

U.S. Geological Survey monitoring 

well—Black number represents well 

number, table 1

U.S. Geological Survey geologic 

test hole—Red number represents 

test hole number, table 1 

1

1

St. Louis River

Stoney

Martin

Brook

Branch

BURLINGTON

NORTHERN

RAILROAD

1

2

3,4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

5

1 2

3

4

5

BURLINGTON NORTHERN

RAILROAD

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

CARLTON COUNTY

MINNESOTA

Map

area

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

digital data, 1:24,000 and U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

EXPLANATION

Minor roads

Ditches

Study area boundary

Stoney Brook watershed

0 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 3 MILES 4

Land-surface elevations—In feet above 

North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) 

1,184 to 1,200

1,200.01 to 1,250

1,250.01 to 1,300

1,300.01 to 1,350

1,350.01 to 1,400

1,400.01 to 1,450

1,450.01 to 1,500

1,500.01 to 1,550

T.

51

N.

T.

50

N.

T.

49

N.

T.

48

N.

46 ̊40'

46 ̊45'

46 ̊50'

92 ̊50' 92 ̊45' 92 ̊40' 92 ̊35'

R. 20 W. R. 19 W. R. 18 W.

Figure 3. Topography of the Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota.
Methods of Study 9

this depth, sand was added to the annulus. Wells were then 

sealed to the surface with bentonite grout. Wells were developed with a submersible pump using overpumping techniques 

(Shuter and Teasdale, 1989).

Well sites were selected to (1) assess the variety of 

shallow groundwater conditions present in the watershed, 

(2) be accessible, and (3) provide an even spatial distribution throughout the watershed. Well depths ranged from 9.5 

to 27.5 ft, with screen lengths ranging from 1.6 to 4.9 ft. The 

geologic material present in the screened intervals of the wells 

included peat and glacial gravel, sand, and silt. Pressure transducers and data loggers were installed in 13 of the 16 wells 

(continuous water-level wells; fig. 1) to record groundwater 

levels every 30 minutes using methods described in Cunningham and Schalk (2011). Groundwater levels were periodically 

measured in the other three wells using an electrical tape to the 

nearest 0.01 ft (Cunningham and Schalk, 2011). The pressure 

transducers were periodically calibrated by measuring water 

levels in the wells to the nearest 0.01 ft using an electrical 

tape. The Minnesota Geologic Survey used geologic logs for 

the wells and other geologic information to construct a surficial geology map for Carlton County and the southern part of 

St. Louis County, including most of the Stoney Brook watershed (fig. 2) (Boerboom, 2009).

Geologic information was collected from five shallow 

test holes to determine the geology of shallow glacial deposits 

in areas where no wells were installed or existing geologic 

information existed (fig. 2, table 1). The test holes ranged in 

depth from 1.5 to 8.8 ft below the land surface. Peat, glacial 

till, and outwash sand were collected from the boreholes using 

a hand soil auger. Geologic logs for the wells and test holes 

are stored in the USGS NWIS database and are available upon 

request from the USGS Minnesota Water Science Center, 

Mounds View, Minn.

A streamgage (USGS site number 04021520) was 

installed on May 26, 2005, in Stoney Brook southeast of Lost 

Lake (fig. 1) to record continuous streamflow using methods 

described in Rantz and others (1982). As of January 2015, 

the streamgage continues to operate (U.S. Geological Survey, 

2015). Stream stage heights are measured every 15 minutes. 

Streamflow is calculated from stream stage using a flow/stage 

rating curve, which was developed for the streamgage from 

stream-discharge measurements (Rantz and others, 1982). 

Estimates of streamflow were made during periods of backwater resulting from winter ice or beaver activity using discharge 

measurements, plots of gage height, temperature data from 

nearby precipitation gages, and hydrologic comparison with 

nearby streamgages.

Twelve precipitation gages were installed throughout the 

watershed (fig. 1; table 1). Total precipitation at each gage was 

recorded every 30 minutes in the spring, summer, and fall. 

These gages were tipping-bucket gages operated at various 

times between 2005 and 2009 by USGS or FDL-RMD.

Hydrologic and Hydrogeologic Analysis

Groundwater levels and streamflow collected between 

March 2006 and December 2009 were used to estimate 

specific yield, hydraulic conductivity, groundwater-flow direction, groundwater recharge, and ET for shallow groundwater 

in the Stoney Brook watershed. Groundwater recharge is an 

important hydrologic variable for any hydrologic model, and 

local and basinwide values can be estimated using a variety of 

approaches (Healy, 2010). In this study, three approaches were 

used and compared to estimate local recharge using groundwater levels, and one approach was used to estimate basinwide 

recharge using streamflow.

Specific Yield and Hydraulic Conductivity

Specific yield estimates were needed to determine 

groundwater recharge using the water-table fluctuation method 

(Healy, 2010) and to estimate ET from groundwater levels. 

Specific yield is the volume of water that an unconfined 

aquifer releases from storage per unit surface area of aquifer 

per unit decline in the water table (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). 

Specific yield can vary with (1) soil properties, (2) antecedent soil moisture content, (3) the depth to the water table, 

(4) the time between groundwater-level rises, (5) duration 

and intensity of rainfall, (6) changes in atmospheric pressure, 

and (7) the presence of entrapped air (Gerla, 1992; Healy and 

Cook, 2002; Loheide and others, 2005; Scanlon and others, 

2002). Specific yields used in equations following the White 

(1932) method tend to produce higher estimates of groundwater recharge and ET compared to estimates made using other 

methods (Gillham, 1984; Gerla, 1992).

Meyboom (1967) recommended using a “readily available” specific yield value instead of specific yield to determine groundwater recharge and ET rates. “Readily available” 

specific yield is the amount of water that is released from the 

vadose zone during diurnal fluctuation (Loheide and others, 

2005). “Readily available” specific yield (hereafter referred 

to as “specific yield”) was estimated by dividing the amount 

of infiltrated precipitation by the resulting groundwater rise 

as described by Gerla (1992). It was assumed that infiltrated 

precipitation equaled the amount of precipitation measured 

at the gages because the gages measured precipitation close 

to the ground surface and the water table was shallow in the 

watershed. Loheide and others (2005) stated that this is a 

reasonable method for calculating specific yield in wetlands 

because the moisture content in the vadose zone is high, the 

water table is shallow, and overland flow is negligible or 

quantifiable.

Specific yield was determined for precipitation events 

during the spring, summer, and fall periods during the study. 

Mean specific yield for each well was calculated for all 

precipitation events for a well. Mean specific yields were used 
10 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

with groundwater hydrographs to estimate monthly groundwater recharge and daily ET at 6 wells where water levels were 

continuously measured (wells 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 12, figs. 1, 2). 

The groundwater levels in the other seven continuous waterlevel wells (wells 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 16, figs. 1, 2) were 

not analyzed for specific yield because (1) groundwater levels 

responded too slowly to precipitation events, or (2) the record 

was too “noisy” to provide reliable estimates of specific yield. 

Specific yield at these wells was estimated from geology and 

soil characteristics at the well site based on information in 

Todd (1980).

Slug tests were conducted on two wells (numbers 14, and 

15, figs. 1, 2) far from any ditches to estimate the hydraulic 

conductivity of the shallow, unconfined glacial aquifer. For 

each slug test, 1.3 and 0.5 gallons of water were added to the 

well for the slug tests conducted in wells 14 and 15, respectively. Following water addition, the subsequent water-level 

recovery to static conditions was recorded. Water levels 

were measured using an electrical tape at 0.16- to 5-minute 

intervals. The water-level declines were analyzed using the 

Springer and Gelhar method (Springer and Gelhar, 1991) to 

produce estimates of hydraulic conductivity.

Groundwater Levels and Flow Direction

Groundwater levels among the wells were compared 

to assess their response relative to precipitation, distance 

from ditches, and geology. Mean groundwater levels in 15 

of the 16 wells (excluding well 3) along with mean lake 

levels were used to construct a water-table surface map of the 

watershed. Mean water levels were calculated for continuous 

water-level wells and three lakes from water levels collected 

between January 2007 and December 2008. The lake levels 

were collected periodically by FDL-RMD for Miller Lake, 

Rice Portage Lake, and Dead Fish Lake. Water levels of 

wetlands were not used to construct the water-table surface 

map because the hydraulic connection between the wetlands 

and shallow groundwater was unknown through most of the 

watershed.

Groundwater Recharge

Monthly groundwater recharge was estimated using 

two sets of data: (1) daily streamflow data from the Stoney 

Brook streamgage from April 2006 to December 2009 and 

(2) changes in groundwater levels in continuous water-level 

wells following recharge events (snowmelt and storms) from 

July 2006 to December 2009. Streamflow recession during 

base flow was analyzed using the RORA computer program, 

a program that produces annual and monthly estimates 

of groundwater recharge from a water-level hydrograph 

(Rutledge, 1998; Rutledge, 2000). The water-table fluctuation 

method was used to estimate recharge following precipitation 

using three different approaches described in the subsequent 

section “Water-Table Fluctuation Analysis.”

Streamflow-Recession Analysis

The RORA program uses a recession-curve displacement method to estimate groundwater recharge on a watershed 

scale using streamflow (Rorabaugh, 1964; Rutledge, 2007). 

The recession-curve displacement method estimates recharge 

for each peak in a streamflow record (Rutledge, 2007). The 

RORA program uses a median recession index of a streamflow 

record to estimate groundwater recharge after each precipitation event. The recession index for a recession period is the 

time required for groundwater discharge to recede by one 

log cycle after the recession becomes linear on a semilog 

hydrograph (Rutledge, 1998; Rutledge, 2007). The RECESS 

computer program (Rutledge, 1998), a program that determines a median recession index from water-level hydrographs, 

was used to determine a median recession index from daily 

streamflow at the Stoney Brook streamgage. The RECESS and 

RORA programs require a continuous record of daily average 

flow for the duration of evaluation. To meet this requirement, 

streamflow was linearly interpolated to estimate three missing 

daily values for the entire 4-year record.

The RECESS program was run using daily streamflow 

data to determine recession indexes for recessions of at least 

7 days in duration at the Stoney Brook streamgage. The 7-day 

minimum duration was chosen to ensure that the recession 

periods were long enough to represent periods of base flow but 

short enough to provide enough recession periods to calculate 

a representative median recession index. Each 7-day minimum 

recession was evaluated for log-normal linearity, trends in 

streamflow at nearby streamgages before and after the regression, and precipitation to ensure that each recession was a true 

period of recession between precipitation events. Recession 

indexes were determined for each of the selected recessions 

and plotted in relation to log streamflow to determine extreme 

outliers. Outliers were eliminated from the analysis if there 

were explanations for their large variation, such as prolonged 

periods of slight precipitation. A median recession index was 

calculated from the resulting set of recession indexes.

The drainage area, mean daily streamflow, and median 

recession index at the Stoney Brook streamgage were entered 

into the RORA program to produce monthly estimates of 

groundwater recharge in the watershed. The RORA program 

was used to (1) identify the segments of the streamflow record 

that represent groundwater discharge, (2) identify recharge 

events, and (3) extrapolate procedures for determining 

recharge (Rutledge, 2007). The drainage area of the Stoney 

Brook watershed above the streamgage (101 mi2) was used to 

specify the part of the stream-discharge record that represents 

groundwater discharge using the following equation:

N = A0.2 (1)

where

N is the number of days following peak flow at 

which streamflow is assumed to represent 

groundwater discharge, and

A is the drainage area, in square miles.
Methods of Study 11

The RORA program identifies all of the streamflow peaks 

and calculates recharge following each peak (event) using the 

following equation:

R = 2 (Q2 – Q1) K / 2.3026 (2)

where

R is the total volume of recharge, in cubic feet;

Q1 is the groundwater discharge at the critical 

time determined from the streamflow 

recession preceding the event, in cubic feet 

per day;

Q2 is the groundwater discharge at the critical 

time determined from the streamflow 

recession following the event, in cubic feet 

per day; and

K is the median recession index, in days per log 

cycle.

Errors in the recharge estimate for each event can occur 

because a linear recession may not be an appropriate representation of groundwater discharge for that single event, or the 

end of the recession period may not contain all of the groundwater recharge from that event; therefore, monthly recharge 

estimates were determined by summing the recharge from all 

of the events during each month and comparing the basinwide 

estimates to monthly recharge estimates determined from the 

water-table fluctuation method.

Water-Table Fluctuation Analysis

The water-table fluctuation method was used to estimate 

annual and monthly groundwater recharge from July 2006 to 

December 2009 at 12 of the 13 continuously monitored wells 

in the Stoney Brook watershed. The water-table fluctuation 

method was applied using three approaches: (1) the RISE 

computer program (A. Rutledge, U.S. Geological Survey, 

oral and written commun., 2005; Delin and others, 2007), 

(2) manual extrapolations of groundwater recessions following each precipitation event (Healy and Cook, 2002), and 

(3) development of a master recession curve (MRC) for each 

well (Delin and others, 2007). The RISE program simply uses 

a total rise in groundwater level following a precipitation 

event to estimate recharge, whereas the other two approaches 

(manual and MRC approaches) determine differences between 

the peak groundwater level and the projected groundwater 

level had the precipitation event not occurred (Healy and 

Cook, 2002; Delin and others, 2007).

Using the water-table fluctuation method, groundwater 

recharge is calculated using the following equation:

(3)

where

R(t

j

) is the recharge at time t

j

, in inches; 

Sy is the specific yield, dimensionless; and 

ΔH(t

j

) is the peak groundwater-level change for a 

single event at time (t

j

), in inches.

This water-table fluctuation method assumes that (1) the 

groundwater hydrograph depicts only natural water-table 

fluctuations caused by recharge and discharge; (2) specific 

yield is constant during a water-table fluctuation; and (3) 

water-level recessions before recharge can be extrapolated to 

find the change in peak groundwater-level change, ΔH(t

j

). The 

water-table fluctuation method produces the best estimates 

of recharge when used during short time periods, in areas of 

shallow groundwater, and where the groundwater hydrograph 

displays sharp rises and declines for recharge events (Scanlon 

and others, 2002).

The RISE program (A. Rutledge, U.S. Geological Survey, 

oral and written commun., 2005) determines daily groundwater recharge from changes in daily mean groundwater levels. 

The program identifies recharge events, calculating the amount 

of daily groundwater rise for days when the mean groundwater 

levels are higher than the previous daily mean. Each groundwater rise for a well is numbered starting from the period of 

first rise and ending the first day groundwater levels are lower 

than the previous day. Total weekly, monthly, quarterly, and 

annual recharge estimates are calculated by the RISE program 

by summing the daily groundwater rises during the desired 

period, and multiplying the summed groundwater rise by the 

specific yield. This method was used to calculate monthly 

recharge estimates for 12 of the 13 continuously monitored 

wells in the Stoney Brook watershed. The groundwater 

levels for wells 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 16 (fig. 1) were “noisy,” 

with many minor fluctuations occurring before and following precipitation events at consistent and inconsistent time 

intervals. These minor fluctuations could be caused by precision errors in the pressure transducer, by clogging of the vent 

tubes or other reasons. The water levels in these records were 

smoothed before running the RISE program to prevent overestimation of recharge. To smooth the water-level data, a fixed 

second-order polynomial smooth was applied in S-PLUS® 

(TIBCO Software, Inc., 2008) to the water levels on a 15-day 

interval to determine mean values (Wood and Hockens, 1970; 

Kessler and Lorenz, 2010). This smoothing reduced annual 

recharge estimates between 0.37 and 19 inches. The RISE 

approach likely underestimates the amount of recharge for 

each event because it does not take into account the projected 

groundwater recession during the period of groundwater rise, 

which the manual and MRC methods do take into account 

(Healy and Cook, 2002; Delin and others, 2007).

The manual approach used with the water-table fluctuation method involves determining the peak groundwater-level 

change, ΔH(t

j

), between the peak groundwater level and the 

groundwater recession curve at the time of the peak for each 

precipitation event (Delin and others, 2007). Recharge estimates 

from this method are somewhat subjective, varying with the 

chosen recession curves. This water-table fluctuation approach 

was applied to 12 of the 13 continuous water-level wells in the 

Stoney Brook watershed. As with the RISE approach, wells 

with “noisy” groundwater-level records (wells 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 

and 16) were smoothed before applying the manual approach to 

improve the estimated groundwater rise caused by recharge.

R t Sy H t ( )j j = *∆ ( )
12 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

Similar to the RORA median recession index in the 

streamflow-recession analysis, the MRC approach involves 

determining an MRC for a well hydrograph and applying 

the MRC to all events in the hydrograph (Delin and others, 

2007). For each precipitation event, the peak groundwaterlevel change, ΔH(t

j

), was determined by the difference 

between peak groundwater level and the MRC. The MRC 

approach requires a complete daily record of groundwater 

levels throughout a water year, so any missing groundwater 

levels were estimated using linear interpolation between 

measured groundwater levels. The USGS FALL program (A. 

Rutledge, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2003) 

is a program that determines an MRC from a groundwaterlevel hydrograph using a user-specified recession duration. It 

was used to determine MRC for groundwater-level data from 

monitoring wells in the Stoney Brook watershed. Similar to 

the RORA streamflow-recession analyses, a 7-day minimum 

recession duration was chosen for all wells to ensure that 

the recession periods were long enough to represent periods 

of base flow and allow for enough recessions to accurately 

estimate an MRC. The program selects all groundwater recession with a duration of at least 7 days. Each recession was 

manually inspected for linearity, groundwater-level trends in 

nearby wells, and precipitation events during the recession to 

ensure that selected recessions were acceptable for the MRC 

analysis. Acceptable recessions were used to determine an 

MRC for each of the well hydrographs. The statistical analysis software S-Plus® was used to find the MRC recession 

parameters of d and RR from the following nonlinear equation 

(Delin and others, 2007):

 (4)

where

Ht is the water level at the end of recession time 

t, in feet; 

d is the water level at which no groundwater 

discharge occurs, in feet; 

H0 is the water level at the start of the recession, 

in feet;

RR is the master recession rate (which is 

negative), in feet per day; and

t is the time at the end of the recession, in 

days.

For some wells, values for d and RR could not be 

computed because the precision of the groundwater-level 

records were poor or the records were too “noisy.” In these 

cases, d was initially set as a value just lower than the 

minimum water level at the end of each recession, and a corresponding RR value was determined from equation 4 using that 

d value. For every groundwater-level rise from a precipitation 

or snowmelt event, the hydraulic head difference between 

the peak groundwater level and the projected pre-recharge 

water level (the MRC) at that date was determined and used 

in equation 3 as ΔH(t

j

) to estimate groundwater recharge. The 

MRC approach tends to overestimate the amount of recharge 

because it accounts for all recharge indicated by water-table 

fluctuations, no matter how short in duration or magnitude 

(Delin and others, 2007).

Evapotranspiration

Evapotranspiration from shallow groundwater can result 

in daily water-level fluctuations in well hydrographs (White, 

1932). In late spring, summer, and early fall, these daily waterlevel fluctuations often can be large enough to be measured in 

wells and used to estimate ET rates from shallow groundwater 

(Rosenberry and Winter, 1997; White, 1932).

The ET estimates were determined for the Stoney Brook 

watershed using two methods: (1) daily ET estimates from 

daily fluctuation in groundwater levels using the White 

method (White, 1932) and (2) monthly potential ET (PET) 

values using the Thornthwaite-Mather method (Thornthwaite, 1948; Thornthwaite and Mather, 1957). Daily ET was 

estimated from daily groundwater-level fluctuations during 

groundwater recession periods between precipitation events 

during spring, summer, and fall. The White method (White, 

1932) uses groundwater levels to find daily ET values at individual sites using the following equation: 

 (5)

where

ET is the evapotranspiration, in inches per day;

Sy is the readily available specific yield, 

dimensionless;

r is the hourly rise in groundwater level 

between midnight and 4 a.m., in inches; 

and

s is the daily change (rise or fall) in 

groundwater level, in inches.

A graphical example of this hydrograph analysis for well 1 is 

shown in figure 4.

Daily groundwater-level change (s) was calculated using 

three different approaches: (1) groundwater-level changes 

from midnight one day to midnight of the next day; (2) the 

difference between groundwater-level peaks on consecutive 

days; and (3) the difference between minimum groundwater 

levels on consecutive days. A mean s determined from these 

three approaches was calculated for each day and used in 

equation 5 to calculate daily ET. Where consecutive daily 

ET values were calculated, daily r values for the period were 

averaged. Because r values are calculated during periods when 

plants are not transpiring, r values should be nearly identical 

for consecutive days if climatic conditions have not drastically 

changed (White, 1932).

Estimates of ET from groundwater-level changes will 

vary with the depth of the water table below the land surface 

and soil properties (Todd, 1980; Gerla, 1992). For the wells in 

the Stoney Brook watershed, daily groundwater-level fluctuations occurred when groundwater levels typically were 

less than 6 ft below the land surface. Of the 13 continuous 

ln H d ln H d RR t ( ) t − = − ( ) + ∗ 0

ET = ± Sy

( ) 24 r s
Assessment of Aquifer Properties and Evapotranspiration 13

water-level wells, daily groundwater-level fluctuations only 

were recorded in wells 1, 2, 4, and 12 because water levels in 

these wells were less than 6 ft below the land surface during 

groundwater recessions and precise enough to record daily 

variations caused by ET. Water levels in wells 2 and 4 often 

were too deep to indicate any daily fluctuations caused by ET; 

therefore, temporal trends in ET using the White method were 

determined for water levels at wells 1 and 12 only because ET 

estimates at wells 2 and 4 were too few to estimate temporal 

trends. Precision of the groundwater levels for wells 13, 14, 

and 15 was not high enough to determine accurate ET estimates. Daily groundwater-level fluctuations in well 8 were 

too small to estimate ET because the well is located in a large 

wetland, where the water table is at the land surface, and the 

well is screened in peat. Specific yield in peat typically is large 

and variable, and the volume of peat also changes with changing water levels (Siegel, 1992). As a result, groundwater-level 

fluctuations in peat often are too complex to estimate ET.

An annual estimation of ET was calculated by summing 

daily ET estimates that were calculated using the White method 

at well 1. Daily ET values were plotted by date, and a secondorder polynomial trend line (S-PLUS®, TIBCO Software, 

Inc., 2008) was fitted to the data. An annual ET value was 

determined by integration of the area under the trend line. This 

method also estimated the duration of ET from shallow groundwater in the area (where the trend line crossed the x-axis).

The Thornthwaite-Mather method estimates monthly PET 

for a site using monthly mean air temperatures (Thornthwaite, 

1948). Monthly mean air temperatures for the NOAA weather 

station in Cloquet, Minn. (NOAA station number MN211630; 

Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2013) were used 

to estimate the PET for the Stoney Brook watershed. The 

Thornthwaite-Mather method typically is used to find monthly 

values for ET (Thornthwaite and Mather, 1957); however, the 

method can be manipulated to calculate daily values using the 

following equation (Mather, 1978):

 (6)

where

PET is the potential evapotranspiration, in inches 

per day;

C is the correction factor for monthly sunshine 

duration based on latitude;

Ta is the air temperature, in degrees Celsius; 

I is the annual heat index 

 , in degrees 

Celsius; and 

d is the number of days in the month.

The calculated daily PET values from equation 6 were 

summed for individual months and were similar to the 

monthly values calculated using the Thornthwaite-Mather 

equation. The sums of the daily PET values varied only from 

the monthly values when mean temperatures were below 

freezing and monthly PET is assumed to be zero.

Assessment of Aquifer Properties and 

Evapotranspiration

Groundwater hydrology of the Stoney Brook watershed 

is controlled by wetlands and surficial geology, and locally 

is controlled by constructed ditches in the watershed. This 

section provides results for specific yields, groundwaterrecharge estimates, and ET estimates obtained from the well 

water-level analyses, and hydraulic conductivities obtained 

from slug-test analyses. Annual groundwater-recharge estimates varied with climate, geology, and proximity of wells to 

ditches. The mean annual ET estimate for 2006–9 from waterlevel analysis at well 1 amounts to 74 percent of the mean 

annual PET estimated from the Thornthwaite-Mather method 

for that period.

Specific Yield and Hydraulic Conductivity

Sixty-seven estimates of specific yield were determined 

from water levels in six wells (table 2). These estimates ranged 

from 0.10 to 0.40, with mean estimates at wells ranging from 

0.18 to 0.23 (table 2). These mean values are similar to a range 

Net daily change in water level

Hourly rate of groundwater and soil-water

influx (water-level recovery) midnight 

to 4:00 a.m.

“Readily available” specific yield

Evapotransipiration = Sy (24r ± s)

EXPLANATION

4-Hour water-level recovery 

Daily change in water level 

ET

Sy

r 

s 

1,289.70

1,289.75

1,289.80

1,289.85

1,289.65

Water level, in feet above North American 

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Dates

July 15 July 16 July 17 July 18 July 19 July 20

r

s

Figure 4. Example of evapotranspiration estimation using 

White (1932) and water levels in well 1, Stoney Brook watershed, 

Minnesota, July 2007.

PET C

T

I

a

I I

= 























∗ − ∗ + ∗ − − −

1 6

10 6 75 10 7 71 10 1 79 10 7 3 5 2

.

. . . 2 0 492

1

2 54

I

d

 +













































.

.

( , ( / ) ) . I i i i Ta = = ∑ =1

12 1 514 5
14 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

of values for the Stoney Brook watershed (0.16 to 0.25) estimated by Lorenz and Delin (2007) in a statewide assessment 

of recharge. Only one of these six wells (well 7) was located 

more than 50 ft from a ditch. The estimated specific yields 

for the sands in the screened interval of well 7 were similar to 

estimates at other wells (table 2).

Hydraulic conductivity estimates from slug tests 

conducted in wells 14 and 15 were 7 and 1 foot per day (ft/d) 

(table 3). The lowest hydraulic conductivity was estimated at 

well 15, which was screened in medium sand and sandy clay. 

The highest hydraulic conductivity was estimated at well 14, 

which was screened in coarse to very coarse sand (table 3). 

The highest estimate is similar to the lowest hydraulic conductivities that Berg (2011) estimated based on six aquifer tests 

conducted in municipal and public supply wells screened in 

surficial sand aquifers in Carlton and southern St. Louis Counties, which ranged from 8 to 50 ft/d. The hydraulic conductivities estimated at well 14 likely represent the more permeable 

conditions in the watershed. Wells 14 and 15 were screened in 

outwash deposits (fig. 2; table 3), whereas tills and peat with 

low permeability are at land surface in most of the watershed 

(fig. 2).

Table 3. Hydraulic conductivities from slug tests done on wells in 

Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota.

[ft/d, feet per day; m/d, meters per day]

Inaccuracies in these hydraulic conductivity estimates 

may have resulted from the use of a poured slug rather than 

a pneumatic or a solid slug during the tests. The use of a 

pneumatic or solid slug results a more instantaneous waterlevel rise in the well compared to a poured slug of water, 

which potentially results in a dampened response and greater 

error. An instantaneous water-level change is required for 

any slug test method, providing more accurate early waterlevel data following the maximum water-level rise during the 

test. Matching of both early and later water levels following 

the maximum water-level rise to slug test models is needed 

to accurately estimate hydraulic conductivity. Errors associated with using a poured slug are reduced when using a small 

amount (less than 1 gallon) of water.

Small percent differences (less than 1 percent) between the 

measured and theoretical instantaneous water-level rises for the 

slug tests conducted in wells 14 and 15 suggest that the errors 

involved in using the poured slugs in these tests were small. 

Theoretical instantaneous water-level rises were calculated 

based on the volume of water added to the well, the well casing 

diameter, and the assumption that little water was leaving the 

well during the slug injection. The measured and theoretical 

instantaneous water-level rises in the slug test conducted in well 

14 were 8.18 and 8.13 ft, respectively. The measured and theoretical instantaneous water-level rises in the slug test conducted 

in well 15 were 2.20 and 2.19 ft, respectively.

Groundwater Levels and Flow Direction

The groundwater-level response to precipitation events 

varied across the watershed, primarily because of the proximity of wells to ditches and varying geology. Water levels in 

the wells generally fluctuated within a range of 3–5 ft; water 

levels in most wells rose 1–2 ft during 2006–9 (fig. 5). The 

largest water-level range, approximately 5 ft, was in well 

16, which was screened in brown sandy clay (fig. 5F). Water 

levels in wells located near the ditches (wells 1, 8, and 12) 

rose rapidly in response to precipitation and snowmelt (fig. 5A, 

C, and E). The rapid rise of these water levels was a response 

to water-level rises in nearby ditches and groundwater flow 

associated with areal groundwater recharge. Near ditches, 

large water-level rises followed snowmelt, whereas waterlevel rises in the summers were small (fig. 5A, C, and E). 

Water levels in wells far from the ditches (wells 5, 14, and 16) 

rose gradually following precipitation and snowmelt responding to areal groundwater recharge (fig. 5B, D, and F).

Shallow groundwater flowed generally from the northwest 

to the east/southeast (fig. 6). The hydraulic gradient in shallow 

groundwater ranged from 0.0006 between wells 14 and 15 

to 0.003 between wells 11 and 16 (figs. 1 and 6). Water-table 

contours for shallow groundwater are concave in the direction 

of flow in the main ditches northwest of Dead Fish Lake, indicating groundwater discharge to the ditches (fig. 6).

Table 2. Specific yield estimates for wells in Stoney Brook 

watershed, Minnesota.

Monitoring 

well number

Specific yield (dimensionless)

Number of 

estimates Mean Range

1 15 0.23 0.17–0.31

2 12 0.20 0.11–0.40

3 10 0.22 0.14–0.37

7 10 0.19 0.10–0.26

8 9 0.19 0.13–0.31

12 11 0.18 0.12–0.23

Mean 11 0.20 0.10–0.40

Monitoring 

well number 

(fig. 1)

Date of 

slug test

Hydraulic conductivity Geology in well 

screen intervals (ft/d) (m/d)

14 05/30/2007 7 2 Coarse to very 

coarse sand.

15 06/08/2007 1 0.3 Medium sand 

and sandy 

clay.
F. Well 16 Brown sandy clay 1,331 1,333 1,335 1,330 1,336 1,334 1,332 2006 2007 2008 

Year E. Well 12 Fine to medium sand, some coarse 2006 2007 2008 2009 1,317 1,319 1,321 1,316 1,322 1,320 1,318 Year

D. Well 14

1,2981,3001,3021,2971,3031,3011,299

Coarse to very coarse sand

C. Well 8

1,2881,2901,2941,2871,2931,2911,289

Peat

A. Well 1

Fine to medium sand, some clayey intervals

1,2891,2911,2931,2881,2941,2921,290

B. Well 5

Medium to coarse sand

1,2991,3011,3031,2981,3041,3021,300

Water level, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)

Wells near ditches Wells far from ditches

Figure 5. Well hydrographs for wells in the Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, 2006–9.
16 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

Rice Portage

Lake

Big Lake

Miller

Lake

Dead Fish

Lake

Lost Lake

Hardwood

Lake

1,300

1,305

1,310

1,295

1,315

1,320

1,290

1,325

1,330

1,299.7

1,306.3

1,292.5

1,332.7

1,309.2

1,318.9 1,311.1

1,289.3

1,288.2

1,291.1

1,290.7

1,292.6

1,296.2

1,288.7

1,301.1

10

11

6

4

16

9

8

13

2

14

15

5

12

1

7

1,292.1

1,288.2

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

CARLTON COUNTY

EXPLANATION

Monitoring well—Red number is site identifier, black number is mean

water level between January 2007 and December 2008, in feet above 

North American Vertical Datum 1988

Minor roads

Ditches

Study area boundary

Stoney Brook watershed

2

1,291.1

Wetlands—From U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1994

Base data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 

digital data, 1:24,000 and U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 15

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to 

the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) 

Potentiometric contours—Shows altitude at which water would have 

stood in tightly cased, nonpumping wells. Contour interval is 5 feet. 

Altitude is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Groundwater flow—Arrow indicates direction of groundwater flow

Lake—Green number is mean water level between January 2007 and 

December 2008, in feet above North American Vertical Datum of 1988

0 1.6 3.2 KILOMETERS

0 1 2 MILES

1,315

1,292.1

46 ̊46'

46 ̊48'

46 ̊44'

46 ̊42'

46 ̊40'

92 ̊46' 92 ̊44' 92 ̊42' 92 ̊40' 92 ̊38'

MINNESOTA

area

Map

Figure 6. Water-table surface of the shallow groundwater, Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota.
Assessment of Aquifer Properties and Evapotranspiration 17

Groundwater Recharge

Groundwater recharge determined from water levels in 

wells in the Stoney Brook watershed varied with precipitation, geologic materials, and proximity of wells to ditches. 

In this study, recharges estimated at wells within 50 feet of a 

ditch were influenced by ditch-water levels. The amount and 

percentage of total precipitation areally recharging shallow 

groundwater generally increased from 2006 to 2009, resulting in groundwater-level rises. Below-normal precipitation in 

2006, 2007, and 2008 (National Climatic Data Center, 2013) 

caused smaller-than-normal groundwater recharge and low 

groundwater levels that gradually rose. Recharge estimates 

from groundwater-level analysis for wells close to the ditches 

are large because water levels in those wells rose in response 

to water inflow from the ditches as well as areal groundwater 

recharge following precipitation. Recharge estimates at wells 

far from ditches were similar to basinwide recharge estimates 

from streamflow.

Streamflow-Recession Analysis

Basinwide annual recharge, determined by the streamflow-recession analysis using the RORA program, increased 

from 2.21 in. in 2006 to 8.47 in. in 2009 (table 4). The 

increase in recharge from 2006 to 2009 corresponded to a 

rise in total annual precipitation (table 4), and resulted in an 

overall rise in groundwater levels in wells (fig. 5). Estimates 

of annual areal recharge to shallow groundwater for 2006 

and 2007 of 2.21 and 4.64 in., respectively, were lower than 

estimates for 2008 and 2009. Mean annual recharge for the 

Stoney Brook watershed from a statewide recharge map for 

Minnesota developed by Lorenz and Delin (2007) ranged 

from 7.9 to 11.8 in. The low recharge in 2006 and 2007 was 

likely because of below normal annual precipitation (table 4). 

The total annual 2006 and 2007 precipitation for the NOAA 

weather station at Cloquet, Minn. (NOAA station number 

MN211630) departed from normal by 10.17 and 4.87 in., 

respectively, being lower than the 30-year (1981–2010) annual 

normal precipitation of 31.83 in. for the station (table 4). 

Total annual precipitation for 2008 also was less than the 

30-year (1981–2010) annual normal precipitation by 2.72 in.; 

however, annual recharge was large (8.18 in.) because spring 

(April–June) recharge (4.82 in.) was large, associated with a 

large amount of over-winter snowfall and spring rain (table 4). 

The percentage of annual total precipitation that recharged the 

shallow aquifer ranged from 11 percent in 2006 to 28 percent 

in 2008 (table 4).

Monthly basinwide, areal groundwater recharge ranged 

from 0.00 to 3.16 in. from April 2006 through December 2009 

(fig. 7). This range is similar to monthly recharge estimates 

made by Nichols and Verry (2001) for forested watersheds in 

north-central Minnesota between 1987 and 1991. The monthly 

recharge was bimodally distributed, with high recharge in 

spring and fall in each year except 2006, when little fall 

precipitation occurred (fig. 7). This bimodal groundwater 

recharge distribution commonly occurs in Minnesota (Baker 

and others, 1979). The highest monthly recharge in the Stoney 

Brook watershed was in the spring (April, May, and June) 

for each year, augmented by snowmelt, whereas the lowest 

monthly recharge was in the summers and winters, with the 

exception of winters 2007 and 2009 (fig. 7; table 4). The 

percentage of total precipitation that recharged the shallow 

groundwater was the highest in the spring of 2006, 2007, 

and 2008 (table 4), and lowest in the summers. The highest 

monthly recharge occurred in April 2008 following a large 

snowmelt and total spring precipitation (fig. 7).

Water-Table Fluctuation Analysis

Annual local groundwater recharge estimates for 2007, 

2008, and 2009 determined using well hydrographs varied 

depending on the analytical method, the proximity of wells to 

ditches, and the geologic materials at the wells. Annual local 

recharge estimated by the three approaches described earlier 

ranged from 0.36 to 34.8 in. (table 5). Recharge for wells 1 

and 2 was largest using the MRC approach and smallest based 

on the RISE program (table 5). The RISE estimates should be 

smaller because this approach calculates the total groundwater-level rise following precipitation to estimate recharge, not 

accounting for continued groundwater-level declines had the 

recharge not occurred.

Larger annual recharge was estimated for wells located 

near (less than 50 ft) ditches or screened in sandy material (wells 1, 2, 3, and 12) than for wells far (greater than 

400 ft) from ditches or screened in peat (fig. 1; table 5). For 

example, the lowest recharges were estimated from wells 9 

and 16, which are located more than 1,000 ft from a ditch and 

screened in clay-rich sediments (table 5). The highest recharge 

estimated was higher than estimates made by Lorenz and 

Delin (2007) (7.9 to 11.8 in.) for the Stoney Brook watershed 

as part of a statewide recharge assessment for Minnesota and 

higher than those estimated by Nichols and Verry (2001) (2.1 

to 8.0 in.) for two forested wetlands in north central Minnesota. The recharge estimated in well 8 was slightly lower 

than recharge estimated for other wells located near ditches 

(table 5) likely because well 8 was screened in low permeability peat. For wells located more than 400 ft from a ditch, 

the annual recharge estimates ranged from 0.36 to 2.85 in. 

for wells screened in clay-rich sediments (wells 9 and 16) 

and ranged from 3.55 to 18.6 in. for wells screened in sands 

and coarser sediments (wells 5, 7, 13, 14, and 15, table 5). 

Recharge estimates for wells screened in sands and coarser 

sediments far from ditches were more similar to recharge 

estimates from streamflow (table 4) than wells near ditches 

(table 5).

Similar to the basinwide, areal recharge estimated from 

streamflow (RORA program, table 4 and fig. 7), annual local recharge estimated from well hydrograph analysis using 

the RISE program generally increased from 2007 to 2009; 

however, the highest RISE estimates were in 2008 for 9 of the 

12 wells (table 5). Similarly, annual local recharge estimated 
18 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

Table 4. Seasonal and annual water-table recharge estimated by the RORA computer program for the Stoney Brook 

watershed, Minnesota, April 2006 through December 2009.

[Streamflow data used in the RORA program were from streamgage 04021520 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2013), and precipitation records 

were from National Weather Service weather station 211630 at Cloquet, Minnesota (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2013). 

Recharge estimates and precipitation values are in inches per 3-month period; departure from normal is the difference, in inches, between 

measured annual snowfall or total annual precipitation and the 30-year (1981–10) normal annual snowfall or total annual precipitation; --, 

no data]

Year

3-month period 

and 

annual

Recharge 

(inches)

Percentage of seasonal 

or annual precipitation 

that recharged 

groundwater

Precipitation (inches)

Snowfall

(annual departure 

from normal)

Total precipitation1

(annual departure 

from normal)

2006 January–March -- -- 45.5 2.23

April–June 1.88 21 0.0 9.16

July–September 0.10 2 0.0 6.50

October–December 0.23 6 18.0 3.77

Annual2 2.21 11 63.5 (-2.7) 21.66 (-10.17)

2007 January–March 0.50 16 43.7 3.22

April–June 2.95 49 15.5 5.97

July–September 0.22 3 0.0 8.55

October–December 0.97 11 34.4 9.22

Annual 4.64 17 93.6 (27.4) 26.96 (-4.87)

2008 January–March 0.17 16 19.3 1.08

April–June 4.82 41 16.8 11.81

July–September 0.67 6 0.0 10.38

October–December 2.52 43 30.6 5.84

Annual 8.18 28 66.7 (0.5) 29.11 (-2.72)

2009 January–March 2.43 48 30.5 5.04

April–June 1.98 43 2.1 4.62

July–September 0.35 2 0.0 15.19

October–December 3.71 45 37.5 8.32

Annual 8.47 26 70.1 (3.9) 33.17 (1.34)

1

Total precipitation includes the water equivalent of snowfall.

2

Annual recharge and annual percentage of annual precipitation that recharged groundwater in 2006 represent values from April to 

December 2006.
0

3.00.51.52.52.01.03.5

Total monthly recharge, in inches

2009

24608

2006 2007 2008

Month/Year

Total monthly precipitation (includes waterequivalent snowfall), in inches

Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July

Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July

Total monthly snowfall Total monthly precipitation—Includes water-equiva

EXPLANATION

Total monthly recharge

Recharge estimated using streamflow records for streamgage 04021520 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2013) Precipitation and snowfall from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station 211630 at Cloquet, Minnesota (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2

Figure 7. Monthly recharge estimated by the RORA computer program for the Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, April 2006 through De
Table 5. Annual water-table recharge estimates from RISE computer program analysis, manual groundwater recession analysis, and master recesswell hydrographs in Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, 2007–9. [MRC, master recession curve; --, no data] Monitoring well number (fig. 1) Geology at well screen Approximate distance from ditch (feet) Recharge (inches/year) 2007 2008 

RISE estimate Manual estimate MRC estimate RISE estimate Manual estimate MRC estimate R

est

Wells screened in mostly sands and near ditches (less than 50 feet) 1 Fine to medium sand, some clayey intervals 35 27.0 29.7 34.8 26.0 28.3 33.5 2

2 Medium sand, some clayey intervals 45 22.3 26.0 27.9 26.5 31.5 33.9 23 Medium to coarse sand 40 18.4 18.6 -- 22.7 24.8 -- 212 Fine to medium sand, some coarse 25 25.5 26.2 -- 23.8 26.1 -- 2

Mean annual recharge 23.3 25.1 24.7 27.7 2

Wells screened in mostly sand and far from ditches (greater than 400 feet) 5 Medium to coarse sand 3,600 6.16 8.73 -- 8.70 12.1 -- 

7 Medium to very coarse sand, pebbles, cobbles 3,900 15.2 15.4 -- 17.7 17.5 -- 113 Medium sand, some gravel, pebbles 450 9.05 9.91 -- 14.4 14.8 -- 114 Coarse to very coarse sand 2,000 3.55 4.47 -- 14.4 16.8 -- 115 Medium sand, some sandy clay 2,300 6.61 7.58 -- 10.5 12.4 -- 

Mean annual recharge 8.11 9.22 13.1 14.7 1

Difference between mean annual recharge for wells screened in mostly sands near ditches and mean annual recharge for wells screened in mostly sands far from ditches 15.2 15.9 11.6 13.0 1

Wells screened in peat and near ditches (less than 50 feet) 8 Peat 25 10.3 12.3 -- 20.6 22.0 -- 1

Wells screened in clay-rich sediments and far from ditches (greater than 400 feet) 9 Clayey sand, sandy clay, some gravel 6,000 1.32 1.46 -- 2.19 2.52 -- 

16 Sandy clay 1,300 0.36 0.43 -- 2.54 2.85 -- 
Assessment of Aquifer Properties and Evapotranspiration 21

using the manual groundwater recession approach generally 

increased from 2007 to 2009, with the highest recharge estimated in 2008 for 8 of the 12 wells (table 5).

Monthly local recharge estimated using the RISE 

program ranged from 0.00 to 7.20 in. from July 2006 to 

December 2009 (fig. 8). Similar to the annual recharge, the 

monthly recharge was higher at wells located less than 50 ft 

from a ditch (wells 1, 8, and 12) than it was at wells more than 

400 ft from a ditch (wells 5, 14, and 16; fig. 8). The lowest 

monthly RISE recharges were at well 16, which was 1,300 ft 

from a ditch and screened in sandy clay (fig. 8; table 5).

Evapotranspiration

Daily ET from the water table was estimated for 70 

daily water-level fluctuations at four wells (31 days in well 

1, 6 days in well 2, 9 days in well 4, and 24 days in well 12) 

from 2006 to 2009 between June 26 and October 6 of each 

year (table 6). Daily ET at wells ranged from 0.01 to 0.28 

in. under various cloud cover (table 6; fig. 9). This range is 

larger than the range of daily ET (0.03 to 0.13 in.) estimated 

by Bay (1968) during a season for select drying periods at 

a bog near Grand Rapids, Minn., which is approximately 

50 miles northwest of the study area. The daily ET range is 

smaller than the range of daily ET (0.04 to 0.66 in.) estimated by Rosenberry and Winter (1997) at an upland area 

between two prairie-pothole wetlands in North Dakota; 

however, if the two largest values estimated in their study 

are eliminated, the range (0.04 to 0.36 in.) is quite similar 

to the ET range determined in this study. The ET at wells 

2 and 4 generally was lower than ET at wells 1 and 12 for 

the same or similar dates of the year (table 6). Water levels 

in wells 2 and 4 were more than 6 ft below the land surface 

during each of the ET estimation periods (table 6), and may 

have been at or near a depth at which ET was close to zero 

(ET extinction depth) (Shah and others, 2007). The water 

levels in wells 1 and 12 generally were less than 6 ft below 

the land surface.

Daily water-level fluctuations caused by ET were not 

visible in water-level records for any wells before June 26 in 

any year; however, ET from shallow groundwater may have 

occurred in the spring before June 26. Before this date, daily 

water-level fluctuations likely were not visible because either 

large water-level changes from spring snowmelt and precipitation overwhelmed any groundwater-level changes from ET, or 

ET in the early spring was too low to be recorded.

Seasonal trends in the daily ET differed between wells 1 

and 12. During 2006 and 2009, daily ET at well 1 generally 

increased from about 0.03 in. in late June to a peak value of 

0.24 in. by the middle of August, after which values declined 

to 0.03 in. by early October (fig. 9A). At well 12, daily ET 

tended to be lower than daily ET determined for well 1. All 

but two values at well 12 were less than 0.18 in., and no 

seasonal trend existed, even when considering differences in 

cloud cover (fig. 9B).

The differences in daily ET between the two well locations could be explained by (1) differences in groundwater 

depths, and (2) a better hydraulic connection between ditches 

and geologic material at well 1 than at well 12. Daily mean 

water levels in well 12 were at least 0.14 ft lower than water 

levels in well 1 from 2006 to 2009, with summer water-level 

differences as large as 0.88 ft. Water levels in well 12 ranged 

from 3.6 to 6.8 ft below the land surface, whereas water levels 

in well 1 ranged from 5 to 6 ft below the land surface. The ET 

was more variable with depth at well 12 than at well 1 because 

the water level at well 12 generally was deeper. A deeper 

water table may result in lower ET and a lack of a seasonal ET 

trend at well 12. If the hydraulic connection between the ditch 

and geologic material at well 1 is better than at well 12, then 

ET from the ditch-water surface would result in greater daily 

water-level fluctuations in well 1.

A polynomial regression fit (S-PLUS®, TIBCO Software, Inc., 2008) of daily ET values determined from daily 

groundwater-level fluctuations in well 1 (fig. 9A) produced 

a “growing season” ET (between June 26 and October 6) of 

16.1 in. This estimate represents the mean amount of ET lost 

from shallow groundwater at well 1 between June 26 and 

October 6 during 2006–9. The ET likely occurred in the spring 

before June 26, but daily water-level fluctuations were not 

visible before June 26.

The mean growing season ET estimate (16.1 in.) at well 1 

is similar to but slightly lower than other growing season ET 

estimates for northern Minnesota. Baker and others (1979) 

produced a statewide, mean annual ET map that showed 

approximately 18 in. for the Stoney Brook watershed. Mean 

annual ET estimates on Baker and others (1979) map were 

based on differences between annual precipitation and annual 

runoff. Bay (1968) determined growing season ET (May 1 to 

November 1) ranging from 18.31 to 20.19 in. during 1961–66 

for two peatland watersheds near Grand Rapids, Minn. In 

their national assessment of ET, Sanford and Selnick (2012) 

estimated that mean annual ET for northeastern Minnesota 

ranges between 16.1 and 19.7 in. (41 and 50 centimeters). A 

lower mean annual ET estimate would be expected at well 1 

from the polynomial regression fit because (1) the estimate 

did not account for ET before June 26 and after October 6, 

and (2) the ET estimate did not account for ET occurring in 

wetlands that may not have been hydraulically connected to 

shallow groundwater.

Annual PET estimated for 2006–9 using the Thornthwaite-Mather method ranged from 21.10 to 23.62 in. using 

the air temperature from the NOAA Station at Cloquet, Minn. 

(NOAA station number MN211630, Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2013, table 7). During 2006–9, annual 

PET was 81 percent of the total precipitation at Cloquet. The 

growing season ET estimated from the polynomial regression model at well 1 during 2006–9 (16.1 in.) was 74 percent 

of the mean annual PET. Most of the differences between the 

growing season ET and mean annual PET were before June 

26, when daily water-level fluctuations caused by ET were 

not visible on the hydrograph (tables 6 and 7). Annual PET 
Wells near ditches (less than 50 feet) A. Well 1

Monthly recharge, in inchesSpecific yield=0.23

0

2.44.87.2

No

record

B. Well 5

Monthly recharge, in inches

0

2.44.87.2

Wells far from ditches (greater than 400 fe

Estimated specific yield=0.24 (medium sand; Todd, 1980)

No record

C. Well 8

0

2.44.87.2

Monthly recharge, in inches No record Specific yield=0.19

D. Well 14

0

2.44.87.2

Monthly recharge, in inches

Estimated specific yield=0.23 (coarse sand; Todd, 1980)

No record

E. Well 12

Monthly recharge, in inches

0

2.44.87.2

Specific yield=0.18

No

record

2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

F. Well 16

Monthly recharge, in inches

0

2.44.87.2

Estimated specific yield=0.04 (sandy clay; Todd, 1980)

No record

2006 2007 2008 

Year

Figure 8.

Monthly recharge estimated by the RISE computer program for wells in Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, July 2006 through 
Assessment of Aquifer Properties and Evapotranspiration 23

Table 6. Daily evapotranspiration estimates and groundwater levels in wells in Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, for various days 

in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

Monitoring 

well number 

(fig. 1)

Date

Daily 

evapotranspiration 

(inches)

Average water 

level 

(feet below 

land surface)

1 07/27/2006 0.20 5.90

1 07/28/2006 0.22 5.91

1 08/08/2006 0.19 5.82

1 09/04/2006 0.19 6.00

1 09/05/2006 0.22 6.01

1 09/13/2006 0.17 6.07

1 10/02/2006 0.05 5.71

1 10/06/2006 0.04 5.56

1 06/29/2007 0.14 5.43

1 06/30/2007 0.13 5.45

1 07/17/2007 0.22 5.68

1 07/18/2007 0.19 5.71

1 08/03/2007 0.22 5.94

1 08/04/2007 0.28 5.96

1 09/02/2007 0.24 5.94

1 07/04/2008 0.12 4.92

1 08/07/2008 0.12 5.41

1 08/09/2008 0.12 5.45

1 08/10/2008 0.18 5.48

1 08/11/2008 0.23 5.50

1 08/16/2008 0.23 5.59

1 08/17/2008 0.24 5.61

1 08/21/2008 0.22 5.68

1 08/25/2008 0.24 5.72

1 08/26/2008 0.23 5.74

1 06/26/2009 0.10 5.19

1 07/06/2009 0.07 5.34

1 07/07/2009 0.05 5.38

1 08/14/2009 0.18 5.05

1 09/17/2009 0.08 5.01

1 09/18/2009 0.05 5.03

2 07/04/2008 0.05 8.74

2 07/26/2008 0.06 8.74

2 07/27/2008 0.07 8.76

2 08/09/2008 0.01 8.99

Monitoring 

well number 

(fig. 1)

Date

Daily 

evapotranspiration 

(inches)

Average water 

level 

(feet below 

land surface)

2 07/28/2009 0.01 8.1

2 07/05/2009 0.07 8.48

4 07/28/2007 0.04 6.40

4 07/29/2007 0.10 6.40

4 08/03/2007 0.13 6.39

4 08/04/2007 0.13 6.38

4 08/08/2007 0.08 6.32

4 08/16/2007 0.01 6.23

4 08/19/2008 0.05 6.08

4 08/20/2008 0.05 6.09

4 08/21/2008 0.06 6.09

12 07/21/2006 0.16 5.89

12 07/24/2006 0.19 6.10

12 07/25/2006 0.16 6.10

12 08/18/2006 0.17 6.33

12 09/14/2006 0.07 6.54

12 09/15/2006 0.08 6.59

12 06/30/2007 0.01 5.03

12 07/17/2007 0.02 5.42

12 08/09/2007 0.12 6.28

12 08/25/2007 0.06 6.82

12 09/15/2007 0.13 6.84

12 08/10/2008 0.11 5.38

12 08/11/2008 0.06 5.38

12 08/19/2008 0.12 5.47

12 08/20/2008 0.04 5.50

12 10/03/2008 0.01 4.66

12 06/26/2009 0.05 5.20

12 07/07/2009 0.13 5.53

12 07/08/2009 0.11 5.59

12 07/12/2009 0.20 5.79

12 07/13/2009 0.13 5.85

12 08/05/2009 0.08 5.05

12 09/02/2009 0.07 3.58

12 09/08/2009 0.06 3.84
24 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

B. Well 12

A. Well 1

Daily evapotranspiration, in inches

0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.30

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Daily evapotranspiration = -6.19 x 10 (Julian date) -5 2 + 2.8 x 10 -2 (Julian date) - 2.86

2 Coefficient of determination (R ) = 0.59

Daily evapotranspiration, in centimeters

June 1 July 1 August 1 September 1 October 1 November 1

Date (Julian date)

(152) (182) (213) (244) (274) (305)

June 1 July 1 August 1 September 1 October 1 November 1

Date (Julian date)

(152) (182) (213) (244) (274) (305)

0

0.06

0.12

0.18

0.24

0.30

Daily evapotranspiration, in inches

Daily evapotranspiration, in centimeters

EXPLANATION

[Cloud cover data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station 211630 

at Cloquet, Minnesota (Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2013)]

Clear—Clouds cover 0 to 1/10 of sky

Scattered—Clouds cover 1/10 to 5/10 of sky

Clear to scattered

Scattered to broken

Broken—Clouds cover 6/10 to 9/10 of sky 2007

2006 2008

2009

Figure 9. Daily evapotranspiration estimated from water levels in wells in Stoney Brook 

watershed, Minnesota, with corresponding cloud cover.
Effects of Ditching on Groundwater Resources, Recharge Estimation, and Evapotranspiration Estimation 25

was highest in 2006 and 2007 (table 7), when groundwater 

levels were lowest but evaporation from wetlands was likely 

the highest with higher air temperatures. Annual PET for this 

study was slightly higher than the annual estimate of 20.5 in. 

determined by Baker and others (1979) for their statewide 

PET map using the Thornthwaite-Mather method and air 

temperatures during October 1960–September 1976. Monthly 

PET was highest in July of each year (table 7).

Table 7. Monthly and annual potential evapotranspiration 

for Stoney Brook watershed, Minnesota, using the 

Thornthwaite-Mather method (Thornthwaite and Mather, 

1957).

[Air temperature records were from National Weather Service 

weather station 211630 at Cloquet, Minnesota (Minnesota 

Climatology Working Group, 2013)]

Month

Potential evapotranspiration (inches)

Year

2006 2007 2008 2009

January 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

February 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

March 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

April 1.76 0.97 0.94 1.15

May 3.07 3.33 2.36 2.78

June 4.55 4.71 4.18 4.00

July 5.81 5.21 4.90 4.57

August 4.66 4.59 4.57 4.00

September 2.76 3.16 2.94 3.41

October 0.87 1.65 1.37 0.76

November 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43

December 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Annual 23.48 23.62 21.26 21.10

Effects of Ditching on Groundwater 

Resources, Recharge Estimation, and 

Evapotranspiration Estimation

Ditching in the Stoney Brook watershed has affected 

lakes connected to the ditches and groundwater near the 

ditches, but has had minimal effects on regional hydrology. 

The installation of ditches in the watershed has reduced water 

levels in lakes connected to the ditch system. Shallow groundwater levels likely have dropped locally around the ditches 

and near these lakes in response to lower lake levels and ditch 

installation; however, no known historical groundwater-level 

data exist before the installation of ditches to document that 

groundwater levels throughout the watershed were affected 

by the ditching. Some water-table contours determined in 

this study were affected by ditching (fig. 6), indicating that 

ditching was lowering local groundwater levels in some areas 

during May 2006–June 2007. Lakes affected most by the 

ditching (Rice Portage, Jaskari, Dead Fish, and Miller) are 

connected directly to the ditch system, and are some of the 

more productive wild rice lakes on the Fond du Lac Reservation (Schwarzkopf and Defoe, 1999). No known large waterlevel fluctuations or long-term lowering of water levels have 

been measured in lakes not connected to the ditch system. 

Boelter (1972) determined that ditching in peatlands in northern Minnesota had little effect on water-table aquifers beyond 

16 to 160 ft (5 to 50 meters) from the ditches, depending on 

the depth of the water table and the composition of the organic 

material surrounding the ditches.

Although no known lake-level and groundwater-level 

data exist before ditch installation, the lack of large agricultural development in the watershed and the continued presence of large wetland complexes in the watershed following 

the installation of the ditches suggest that the ditches are 

not removing substantial amounts of water from parts of the 

watershed far from the ditch system. The surficial geology 

in most of the watershed where ditches are present is low 

permeability peat and till deposits (fig. 2), indicating poor 

hydraulic connection between ditches and shallow groundwater; therefore, ditches likely only have a local hydrologic 

effect on groundwater. Also, in watersheds with many large 

wetlands and isolated, closed-basin lakes, like Stoney Brook, 

the rainfall-runoff response is buffered, resulting in a gradual 

water-level response to precipitation (Jones and Winterstein, 

2000). Any changes made to the ditches or streams will likely 

have the largest effect on the lakes connected directly to these 

ditches and any effects on the groundwater will be localized 

near the ditches.

The differences between the recharge estimated at wells 

near ditches, at wells far from ditches, and basinwide from 

streamflow further indicate that the ditches have only affected 

groundwater near the ditches, and do not produce large 

changes to groundwater throughout the watershed. Annual 

basinwide recharge estimated from streamflow during 2007–9 

was much lower than annual recharge at wells near ditches 

and more similar to annual recharge at wells screened in sands 

far from ditches (tables 4 and 5). These basinwide recharge 

estimates were more similar to recharge estimates that Lorenz 

and Delin (2007) produced using STATSGO soils data and the 

Rawls method (Rawls and others, 1982) without considering 

ditching. The basinwide recharge estimates were higher than 

estimates determined from water levels in wells screened in 

sandy clays and clayey sands far from ditches (tables 4 and 5). 

The low topography and low permeable surficial material in the Stoney Brook watershed likely limit the ability of 

the ditches to move water from areas far from the ditches. 

The effectiveness of ditching to remove water from peatlands 

depends on the topography of a watershed (Lane and others, 

2004; Holden and others, 2006). Most of the Stoney Brook 

watershed is relatively flat, with organic-rich peat wetlands 

often present in the lower areas (figs. 1, 2, and 3). Most of the 

ditches in the watershed are located in these low, flat areas 

(fig. 3).
26 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

Large water-level changes in wells near ditches following precipitation and snowmelt indicate that a hydraulic 

connection exists between the ditch and the shallow groundwater system near the ditches. These large groundwater-level 

changes in wells near ditches resulted in larger groundwater 

recharge estimates than for wells located far from the ditches 

with smaller water-level changes following precipitation and 

snowmelt. The hydraulic connection between ditches and 

shallow groundwater causes recharge to adjacent geologic 

material, causing higher groundwater levels and total recharge 

at wells near ditches than at wells farther from ditches. The 

smaller water-level changes at wells farther from ditches 

mainly were caused by recharge to the water table from infiltrating precipitation.

Groundwater and surface-water exchanges near ditches 

are spatially and temporally complex, varying with ditch and 

groundwater levels. During periods of little precipitation, 

when water levels in the ditches and nearby groundwater are 

low, groundwater flows towards the ditches, discharging at 

low rates (fig. 10A). Immediately following major precipitation or snowmelt, water levels in ditches rise to elevations 

higher than adjacent shallow groundwater (fig. 10B). Much of 

the water entering the ditch immediately after precipitation or 

snowmelt is runoff from upgradient lakes, wetlands, and the 

land surface. Surface-water levels generally rise more quickly 

than shallow groundwater from precipitation or snowmelt. 

When ditch-water levels rise as ditch water flows downgradient through the ditches following precipitation and snowmelt, 

ditch water flows into the adjacent groundwater system as 

bank storage, recharging local groundwater and raising water 

levels in nearby wells (fig. 10B). The amount of ditch water 

recharging shallow groundwater depends on the water-level 

difference between the ditch and shallow groundwater and the 

hydraulic conductivity and thickness of the geologic material of the aquifer near the ditch. Following precipitation and 

snowmelt, upgradient shallow groundwater also flows towards 

the ditches, resulting in a “backwatering” effect near ditches, 

raising local groundwater levels. As ditch-water levels decline 

with time, the amount of water entering groundwater from 

the ditches declines until the ditch-water level and groundwater levels are the same. At that moment, groundwater levels 

will continue to rise from areal groundwater recharge and 

groundwater flow towards the ditches, while ditch-water levels 

continue to decline. As ditch-water levels decline, groundwater-flow directions will reverse, and groundwater will 

again discharge to the ditch (fig. 10C). Water levels in wells 

near ditches will continue to rise as infiltrating precipitation 

recharges shallow groundwater. The amount of groundwater 

discharging to the ditch will increase as groundwater levels 

rise and ditch-water levels are maintained or decrease. Without 

more precipitation or snowmelt, the amount of discharge to the 

ditch will decrease with time as groundwater levels decline.

The higher recharge estimated at wells near the ditches 

(wells 1, 2, 3, 8, and 12; table 5) in Stoney Brook watershed 

were a result of ditch-water recharge and areal groundwater recharge. All wells near ditches are screened in outwash 

sands or peat. The lower recharge estimated at wells far from 

ditches resulted from areal recharge alone, and were screened 

in outwash sands, pebbles, and gravels (wells 5, 7, 13, 14, 

and 15) and in sandy clay (wells 9 and 16) (table 5). Using 

recharge determined by the manual groundwater recession 

analysis, differences in mean annual recharge between wells 

screened in outwash sands near ditches and the mean annual 

recharge for wells screened in outwash sands far from ditches 

were 15.9, 13.0, and 15.0 in. for 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively (table 5). These differences are 63, 47, and 55 percent of 

the annual mean recharge for wells screened in outwash sands 

near ditches for 2007, 2008, and 2009, respectively. These 

percent differences likely represent the effects of bank storage 

on recharge near ditches; however, some of these differences 

may be because of shallow groundwater levels near ditches if 

the capillary fringe extends close to the ground surface, resulting in high groundwater level rises and recharge following 

precipitation (Gillham, 1984). Depth to groundwater generally 

is smaller in wells near ditches than in wells far from ditches.

Backwater conditions commonly occur in ditches in 

Minnesota and other parts of North America in the winter 

ice-covered period and from beaver dams (Naiman and others, 

1988). Backwater in ditches can raise groundwater levels 

locally, sometimes resulting in long-term, high groundwater 

levels and reduced groundwater discharge to ditches (Koerselman, 1989). Recharge estimated at wells near ditches with 

backwater conditions can be affected by these conditions, 

resulting in recharge estimates that do not represent actual 

areal groundwater recharge or localized recharge associated 

with bank storage.

The location of wells relative to ditches needs to be 

considered when using well hydrographs to estimate recharge. 

Areal groundwater recharge is defined as the downward movement and entry of water into the saturated zone at the water 

table (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Recharge estimated at wells 

near ditches likely overestimates areal groundwater recharge 

because water-level rises in these wells are caused by (1) ditch 

water locally recharging the shallow groundwater and unsaturated zone when ditch-water levels are high immediately 

following precipitation or snowmelt, (2) areal groundwater 

recharge, and (3) groundwater flowing horizontally towards 

the well following areal groundwater recharge (Boelter, 1972). 

Recharge from these three sources would cause a rise in 

groundwater levels near ditches. Areas located farther from the 

ditches primarily receive areal groundwater recharge, resulting 

in smaller recharge estimates more indicative of groundwater 

recharge to the aquifer.

The water-table fluctuation method using the manual 

groundwater recession approach at wells far from the ditches 

seemed to provide the best estimates of areal groundwater 

recharge to the shallow glacial aquifer because water levels in 

these wells are not affected by bank storage and the groundwater hydrographs display sharp rises and declines during 

recharge. Mean annual recharge during 2007–9 using the 

manual approach for wells far from ditches and screened 

mostly in outwash sands (wells 5, 7, 13, 14, and 15) ranged 
Effects of Ditching on Groundwater Resources, Recharge Estimation, and Evapotranspiration Estimation 27

 A. Low ditch flow and water level

B. High ditch flow and water level

 C. Moderate ditch flow and water level 

Hydraulic gradients to ditch are low

Groundwater recharge rates are low

Near ditch, ditch water discharges to aquifer

Away from ditch, groundwater flows in direction 

of ditch

Groundwater levels and discharge to ditch are low 

Groundwater discharges to ditch at relatively 

high rates 

Hydraulic gradients to ditch are high

Groundwater recharge rates are high

Groundwater recharge rates are medium

Typically occurs in late summer

Characteristics

Occurs following precipitation or snowmelt 

Characteristics

Characteristics

Occurs in middle to late spring

EXPLANATION

Monitoring well near ditch Monitoring well far from ditch Ditch Groundwater-flow direction Water table

Groundwater levels are low to moderate, rising 

slower than ditch levels 

Groundwater levels are high 

Figure 10. Conceptual shallow groundwater flow to ditches under different hydrologic conditions.
28 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

from 4.47 to 18.6 in. and from 0.43 to 2.85 in. for wells far 

from ditches and screened mostly in clayey sand or sandy 

clay (wells 9 and 16, table 5). No recharge was estimated 

in peat areas far from the ditches because no wells far from 

ditches were screened in peat; however, the range of annual 

basinwide recharge estimated from streamflow during 2007–9 

(4.64 to 8.47 in.) is within the range of recharge determined at 

wells that are screened mostly in outwash sand. Even though 

the surficial geology of the watershed mainly consists of peat 

and till (fig. 2), the annual basinwide recharge estimate is 

similar to the areal groundwater recharge estimated for wells 

screened in outwash sands, which indicates that recharge rates 

in peatlands may be closer to the areal groundwater recharge 

rates in outwash sands, rather than recharge rates in sandy 

clay or till.

The effects of ET on shallow groundwater varies with 

land cover, vegetation, geology, and groundwater depth 

(Renger and others, 1986; Shah and others, 2007; Zhang 

and Schilling, 2006). The amount of ET from the water table 

will decrease with groundwater depth to zero at the extinction depth. Daily hydrograph fluctuations in wells 1 and 12 

indicated that the ET extinction depth (Shah and others, 2007) 

in the Stoney Brook watershed is approximately from 4.6 to 

6 ft below the land surface. This range in extinction depths is 

similar to ranges presented in other research studies. Rosenberry and Winter (1997) determined that the ET extinction 

depths from hydrographs in wells installed between two 

prairie-pothole wetlands in North Dakota was greater than 4 

to 4.6 ft below the land surface. Zhang and Schilling (2006) 

determined an ET extinction depth of 4.6 ft for grass cover 

in central Iowa. Cowdery (2004) determined ET extinction 

depths ranging from 4.6 to 4.9 ft for land being restored to 

prairie grasslands and wetlands at Glacial Ridge National 

Wildlife Refuge in northwestern Minnesota. The large amount 

of wetlands and trees (aspen, cedar, and hardwoods) in the 

Stoney Brook watershed (Fond du Lac Forestry Department, 

2015) make it likely that the ET extinction depth is deeper 

than in North Dakota prairie-pothole wetlands and grasslands 

(Winter and Carr, 1980; Stewart and Kantrud, 1972), Iowa 

grasslands (Zhang and Schilling, 2006), and northwestern 

Minnesota prairie grasslands and wetlands (Melesse and 

others, 2006).

Diurnal changes in ditch-water levels affected diurnal 

water-level changes in nearby monitoring wells, which 

could affect ET estimation from well hydrographs. Variations in ditch-water levels can be caused by (1) evaporation 

directly from the ditch, (2) changes in amounts of groundwater discharge to upstream parts of the ditch, or (3) changing amounts of evaporation from upstream lakes that are 

connected to the ditch. The ditch-water surface allowed for 

relatively high evaporation compared to the land surface, 

which, with a good hydraulic connection to surrounding 

groundwater, resulted in relatively high fluctuations in daily 

groundwater levels near ditches. Water-table fluctuations are 

larger than they would otherwise be because the water table 

also is influenced by changing water levels in nearby ditches.

Summary

Water levels of lakes in the Stoney Brook watershed in 

the Fond du Lac Reservation were lowered because of ditch 

installation in the early 1900s. The Fond du Lac Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa is committed to restoring lakes to levels 

recorded before the construction of the judicial ditch system to 

improve wild rice production on the lakes. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewa, assessed hydraulic properties of geologic 

material, recharge, and ET, and the effects of ditching on the 

groundwater resources in the Stoney Brook watershed in the 

Fond du Lac Reservation. Geologic, groundwater, and surfacewater data were collected to estimate hydrologic properties 

in the watershed. Streamflow and groundwater levels in the 

shallow glacial aquifer Stoney Brook watershed were analyzed 

to estimate groundwater-flow directions, groundwater recharge, 

and ET within the watershed and to assess the effect of the 

judicial ditch system on surrounding groundwater resources.

Specific yield from well water-level analyses ranged from 

0.11 to 0.40, and hydraulic conductivities from slug-test analyses ranged from 1 to 7 feet per day. The values for specific 

yields were similar to values obtained in other studies done 

in glacial materials of similar composition in Minnesota. The 

higher hydraulic conductivity estimate (7 feet per day) was 

similar to lower hydraulic conductivities estimated in another 

hydrologic study conducted in Carlton County, Minnesota.

Ditching in the Stoney Brook watershed has reduced 

water levels in lakes connected to ditches, and have reduced 

groundwater levels in shallow groundwater locally around the 

ditches and near these lakes. Differences in near-ditch groundwater hydrographs relative to far-ditch groundwater hydrographs indicate that the effect of the ditches on groundwater is 

only localized to near-ditch areas. These hydrograph differences resulted in large differences between recharge estimated 

at wells near and far from ditches. In this study, recharge 

estimated at wells within 50 feet of a ditch was influenced 

by ditch-water levels. Annual groundwater-recharge during 

2006–9 ranged from 0.36 to 34.8 inches, and varied with 

climate, geology, and proximity of wells to ditches. Higher 

recharge occurred near ditches because shallow groundwater near the ditches received both ditch-water flow and areal 

recharge. The water-table fluctuation method using the manual 

groundwater recession approach at wells far from the ditches 

seemed to provide the best areal recharge estimates to the 

shallow glacial aquifer because water levels in these wells are 

not affected by bank storage and the groundwater hydrographs 

display sharp rises and declines during recharge. Mean annual 

areal recharge during 2007–9 from wells more than 400 feet 

from ditches using the manual groundwater recession approach 

ranged from 4.47 to 18.6 inches for wells screened mostly in 

outwash sands (wells 5, 7, 13, 14, and 15), and from 0.43 to 

2.85 inches for wells screened mostly in clayey sand or sandy 

clay (wells 9 and 16). Recharge estimates at wells far from 

ditches were similar to basinwide recharge estimates from 

streamflow.
References Cited 29

Daily fluctuations in water levels in wells 1 and 12 

indicated that the ET extinction depth in the Stoney Brook 

watershed is approximately from 4.6 to 6 feet. Daily ET 

estimated at wells ranged from 0.01 to 0.28 feet under different cloud cover. A polynomial regression fit of the daily ET 

during 2006–9 at well 1 produced a total growing season ET 

from June 26 to October 6 of 16.1 inches. ET estimated from 

daily water-level fluctuations in wells near ditches are relatively high. The ditch-water surface allowed for relatively high 

evaporation compared to the land surface, which with a good 

hydraulic connection to surrounding groundwater, resulted in 

relatively high fluctuations in daily groundwater levels near 

ditches, resulting in high ET estimates.

References Cited

1854 Treaty Authority, 2005, Biology of wild rice: accessed 

December 12, 2005, at http://1854treatyauthority.org/wildrice/biologyofwildrice.htm.

Alley, W.M., Reilly, T.E., and Franke, O.L., 1999, Sustainability of groundwater resources: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1186, 79 p. [Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

circ/circ1186/.]

Baker, D.G., Nelson, W.W., and Kuehnast, E.L., 1979, Climate 

of Minnesota, part XII—The hydrologic cycle and soil 

water: University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment 

Station, Technical Bulletin 322, 24 p.

Bay, R.R., 1968, Evapotranspiration from two peatland 

watersheds, in International Association of Hydrological 

Sciences, ed., Geochemistry, precipitation, evapotranspiration, soil-moisture, hydrometry: General Assembly of 

Bern, UVESCO/IAHS, v. 78, p. 300–307. [Also available at 

http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/12895.]

Berg, J.A., 2011, Hydrogeology of the surficial aquifer: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, County Atlas 

Series C–19, Part B, plate 7 of 10. [Also available at http://

files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/

cga/c19_carlton/pdf_files/plate07.pdf.]

Boelter, D.H., 1972, Water table drawdown around an open 

ditch in organic soils: Journal of Hydrology, v. 15, no. 4, p. 

329–340. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-

1694(72)90046-7.]

Boerboom, T.J., 2009, Geologic atlas of Carlton County and 

the southern portion of St. Louis County, Minnesota: Minnesota Geological Survey, County Atlas C–19, Part A.

Bradof, K.L., 1992a, Ditching of Red Lake peatland during the 

homestead era, in Wright, H.E., Coffin, B.A., and Aaseng, 

N.E., eds., The patterned peatlands of Minnesota: Minneapolis, Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press, p. 263–284.

Bradof, K.L., 1992b, Impact of ditching and road construction 

on Red Lake peatland, in Wright, H.E., Coffin, B.A., and 

Aaseng, N.E., eds., The patterned peatlands of Minnesota: 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press, 

p. 173–186.

Butler, J.J., Jr., Kluitenberg, G.J., Whittemore, D.O., Loheide, 

S.P., II, Jin, Wei, Billinger, M.A., and Zhan, Xiaoyong, 

2007, A field investigation of phreatophyte-induced fluctuations in the water table: Water Resources Research., 

v. 43, no. 2, W02404 [Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1029/2005WR004627.]

Carter, Virginia, 1986, An overview of the hydrologic concerns related to wetlands in the United States: Canadian 

Journal of Botany, v. 64, no. 2, p. 364–374. [Also available 

at http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/b86-053.]

Carter, Virginia, 1996, Wetland hydrology, water quality, and 

associated functions, in Fretwell, J.D., Williams, J.S., and 

Redman, P.J., comps., National water summary on wetland 

resources: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

2425, p. 35–48. [Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/

wsp/2425/report.pdf.]

Cowdery, T.K., 2004, Ground-water evapotranspiration 

estimates near wet meadows using well hydrographs, in 

Minnesota Water 2004—Policy and planning to ensure Minnesota’s water supplies, 2004, Abstracts: St. Paul, Minn., 

p. 44.

Cunningham, W.L., and Schalk, C.W., comps., 2011, Groundwater technical procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 1, 

chap. A1, 151 p., accessed July 2, 2013, at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/tm/1a1/.

Dahl, T.E., 1990, Wetlands losses in the United States 1780’s 

to 1980’s: Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Report to Congress, 13 p.

Delin, G.N., Healy, R.W., Lorenz, D.L., and Nimmo, J.R., 

2007, Comparison of local- to regional-scale estimates 

of ground-water recharge in Minnesota, USA: Journal of 

Hydrology, v. 334, no. 1–2, p. 231–249. [Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.10.010.]

Detenbeck, N.E., Galatowitsch, S.M., Atkinson, Jim, and 

Ball, Helen, 1999, Evaluating perturbations and developing 

restoration strategies for inland wetlands in the Great Lakes 

Basin: Wetlands, v. 19, no. 4, p. 789–820. [Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03161785.]

Dukerschein, Terry, and Langrehr, Heidi, 2000, Distribution of 

wild rice (Zizania aquatica L.) before and after the flood of 

1993 in Pool 8 of the Upper Mississippi River: U.S. Geological Survey Project Status Report 2000–01, accessed 

December 12, 2005, at http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/reports_

publications/psrs/psr_2000_01.html.
30 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

Durkee Walker, R.E., Pastor, John, and Dewey, B.W., 2010, 

Litter quantity and nitrogen immobilization cause oscillations in productivity of wild rice (Zizania palustris L.) in 

northern Minnesota: Ecosystems, v. 13, no. 4, p. 485–498. 

[Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-010-

9333-6.]

Fond du Lac Environmental Department, 2010, Lakes and 

streams—Stoney Brook watershed: accessed August 19, 

2010, at http://www.fdlrez.com/newnr/environ/waterlakestream.htm#stoneybrook.

Fond du Lac Forestry Department, 2015, Fond du Lac Forest 

Cover-type Map: accessed Janaury 7, 2015, at http://www.

fdlrez.com/newnr/forestry/FDL_Covertypes_aug2012.pdf.

Fond du Lac Natural Resources Program, 2013, Wild rice: 

accessed April 12, 2013, at http://www.fdlrez.com/newnr/

natres/wildrice.htm.

Fond du Lac Resource Management, 2008, Fond du Lac Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa 2008 integrated resource management plan: 91 p., accessed July 9, 2013, at http://www.

fdlrez.com/newnr/IRMP.pdf.

Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 211, 604 p.

Gerla, P.J., 1992, The relationship of water-table changes to 

the capillary fringe, evapotranspiration, and precipitation 

in intermittent wetlands: Wetlands, v. 12, no. 2, p. 91–98. 

(Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03160590.)

Gillham, R.W., 1984, The capillary fringe and its effects 

on water-table response: Journal of Hydrology, v. 67, p. 

307–324. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-

1694(84)90248-8.]

Healy, R.W., and Cook, P.G., 2002, Using groundwater levels 

to estimate recharge: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 10, no. 1, 

p. 91–109. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

s10040-001-0178-0.]

Healy, R.W., 2010, Estimating groundwater recharge: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 264 p.

Holden, J., Evans, M.G., Burt, T.P., and Horton, M., 2006, 

Impact of land drainage on peatland hydrology: Journal of 

Environmental Quality, v. 35, p. 1764–1778. [Also available 

at http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0477.]

Hunt, R.J., Krabbenhoft, D.P., and Anderson, M.P., 

1997, Assessing hydrogeochemical heterogeneity in 

natural and constructed wetlands: Biochemistry, v. 

34, no. 3, p. 271–293. [Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1023/A:1005889319205.]

Hunt, R.J., Walker, J.F., and Krabbenhoft, D.P., 1999, Characterizing hydrology and the importance of ground-water 

discharge in natural and constructed wetlands: Wetlands, 

v. 19, no. 2, p. 458–472. [Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1007/BF03161777.]

Jacobsen, S.M., 2003, Modeling wild rice lakes for optimum 

production, in the 2003 American Society of Agricultural 

Engineers Annual International Meeting, 2003, Proceedings: Las Vegas, Nev., paper no. 032101. [Also available at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.13781.]

Jones, P.M., and Winterstein, T.A., 2000, Characterization of 

rainfall-runoff response estimation of the effect of wetland 

restoration on runoff, Heron Lake Basin, southwestern Minnesota, 1991–97: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00–4095, 48 p., 1 CD Rom.

Kessler, Erich, and Lorenz, D.L., 2010, Low-flow characteristics of the Mississippi River upstream from the Twin Cities 

Metropolitan Area, Minnesota, 1932–2007: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5163, 14 p.

Koerselman, Willem, 1989, Groundwater and surface water 

hydrology of a small groundwater-fed fen: Wetlands Ecology and Management, v. 1, no. 1, p. 31–43. [Also available 

at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00177888.]

Koivusalo, H., Ahti, E., Laurén, A., Kokkonen, T., Karvonen, 

T., Nevalainen, R., and Finér, L., 2008, Impacts of ditch 

cleaning on hydrological processes in a drained peatland 

forest: Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences, v. 12, no. 5, 

p. 147–182. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/

hess-12-1211-2008.]

LaBaugh, J.W., Winter, T.C., Rosenberry, D.O., Schuster, P.F., 

Reddy, M.M., and Aiken, G.R., 1997, Hydrological and 

chemical estimates of the water balance of a closed-basin 

lake in north central Minnesota: Water Resources Research, 

v. 33, no. 12, p. 2799–2812. [Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1029/97WR02427.]

Lane, S.N., Brookes, C.J., Kirkby, M.J., and Holden, J., 2004, 

A network-index-based version of TOPMODEL for use 

with high-resolution digital topographic data: Hydrological Processes, v. 18, p. 191–201. [Also available at http://

dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5208.]

Lindholm, G.F., Ericson, D.W., Broussard, W.L., and Hult, 

M.F., 1979, Water resources of the St. Louis River watershed, northeastern Minnesota: U.S. Geological Survey 

Hydrologic Atlas HA–586, 3 sheets.

Loheide, S.P., II, Bulter, J.J., Jr., and Gorelick, S.M., 

2005, Estimation of groundwater consumption by phreatophytes using diurnal water table fluctuations—A 

saturated-unsaturated flow assessment: Water Resources 

Research, v. 41, W07030. [Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1029/2005WR003942.]
References Cited 31

Lorenz, D.L., and Delin, G.N., 2007, A regression model to 

estimate regional ground water recharge: Ground Water, 

v. 45, no. 2, p. 196–208. [Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2006.00273.x.]

Mather, J.R., 1978, The climatic water budget in environmental analysis: Lexington, Massachusetts, Lexington Books, 

D.C. Heath and Co., 239 p.

Melesse, A.M., Oberg, J., Nangia, V., Berri, O., and Baumgartner, D., 2006, Spatiotemporal dynamics of evapotranspiration at the Glacial Ridge prairie restoration in northwestern 

Minnesota: Hydrological Processes, v. 20, p. 1451–1464.

Meyboom, Peter, 1967, Groundwater studies in the Assiniboine River drainage basin, part II, Hydrologic characteristics of phreatophytic vegetation in south-central Saskatchewan: Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 139, 64 p.

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, 2013, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe: 

accessed April 12, 2013, at http://www.mnchippewatribe.

org/.

Minnesota Climatology Working Group, 2013, Historical climate data retrieval: accessed July 10, 2013, at http://climate.

umn.edu/doc/historical.htm.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2005, Wild rice 

management: accessed December 9, 2005, at http://www.

dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/shallowlakes/wildrice.html.

Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, 1910, Revised 

laws of Minnesota, Supplement 1909, the amendments to 

the revised laws, and other laws of a general and permanent 

nature, enacted by the legislature in 1905, 1907, and 1909: 

St. Paul, Minnesota, accessed July 11, 2014, at https://www.

revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=44&year=1909.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2014, Wild Rice Sulfate 

Standard Study Preliminary Analysis, accessed October 30, 

2014, at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=20743.

Naiman, R.J., Johnston, C.A., and Kelley, J.C., 1988, Alternation of North American streams by beaver: Bioscience, 

v. 38, no. 11, p. 753–762. [Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.2307/1310784.]

National Climatic Data Center, 2013, NOAA’s 1981–2010 climate normals data: accessed March 8, 2013, at http://www.

ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html.

Nichols, D.S., and Verry, E.S., 2001, Stream flow and groundwater recharge from small forested watersheds in north 

central Minnesota: Journal of Hydrology, v. 245, p. 89–103. 

[Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-

1694(01)00337-7.]

Nimmo, D.W., Preul, M.A., Castle, C.J., Self, J.R., Pillsbury, 

R.W., and Bergey, E.A., 2003, Effects of excess copper on 

growth of wild rice (Zizania palustris) seedlings tested in 

reconstructed and natural waters: Environmental Management, v. 32, no. 4, p. 466–475. [Also available at http://

dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-2899-4.]

Oelke, E., Grava, J., Noetzel, D., Barron, D., Percich, J., 

Schertz, C., Strait, J., and Stucker, R., 1982, Wild rice production in Minnesota: University of Minnesota Agricultural 

Extension Service Publication AG–BU–0546, 39 p.

Painchaud, D.L., and Archibold, O.W., 1990, The effect of 

sediment chemistry on the successful establishment of wild 

rice (Zizania palustris L.) in northern Saskatchewan water 

bodies: Plant and Soil, v. 129, p. 109–116.

Pastor, John, and Durkee Walker, Rachel, 2006, Delays in 

nutrient cycling and plant population oscillations: OIKOS, 

v. 112, no. 3, p. 698–705. [Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14478.x.]

Pillsbury, R.W., and McGuire, M.A., 2009, Factors affecting the distribution of wild rice (Zizania palustris) and the 

associated macrophyte community: Wetlands, v. 29, no. 2, 

p. 724–734. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1672/08-

41.1.]

Pip, E., and Stepaniuk, J., 1988, The effect of flooding on wild rice, Zizania aquatica L.: Aquatic Botany, 

v. 32, no. 3, p. 283–290. [Also available at http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/0304-3770(88)90121-0.]

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation of streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 2175. [Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/

wsp2175/.] 

Rawls, W.J., Brakensiek, D.L., and Saxton, K.E., 1982, Estimation of soil water properties: Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, v. 25, p. 1316–1320.

Reeve, A.S., Evensen, R., Glaser, P.H., Siegel, D.I., and 

Rosenberry, D., 2006, Flow path oscillations in transient 

ground-water simulations of large peatland systems: Journal 

of Hydrology, v. 316, p. 313–324. [Also available at http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.05.005.]

Renger, M., Strebel, O., Wessolek, G., and Duynisveld, 

W.H.M., 1986, Evapotranspiration and groundwater 

recharge—A case study for different climate, crop patterns, soil properties and groundwater depth conditions: 

Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, v. 149, no. 4, 

p. 371–381. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/

jpln.19861490403.]
32 Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota

Rorabaugh, M.I., 1964, Estimating changes in bank storage 

and ground-water contribution to streamflow: International Association of Scientific Hydrology, Publication 63, 

p. 432–441.

Rosenberry, D.O., and LaBaugh, J.W., eds., 2008, Field techniques for estimating water fluxes between surface water 

and ground water: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and 

Methods, book 4, chap. D2, 128 p. [Also available at http://

pubs.usgs.gov/tm/04d02/.]

Rosenberry, D.O., and Winter, T.C., 1997, Dynamics of watertable fluctuations in an upland between two prairie-pothole 

wetlands in North Dakota: Journal of Hydrology, v. 191, 

p. 266–289. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

S0022-1694(96)03050-8.]

Rutledge, A.T., 1998, Computer programs for describing the 

recession of groundwater discharge and for estimating mean 

ground-water recharge and discharge from streamflow 

records—Update: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 98–4148, 43 p. [Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri984148/.]

Rutledge, A.T., 2000, Considerations for use of the RORA 

program to estimate ground-water recharge from streamflow 

records: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00–156, 

44 p. [Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr00-

156/.]

Rutledge, A.T., 2007, Update on the use of the RORA program for recharge estimation: Ground Water, v. 45, no. 3, 

p. 374–382. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.1745-6584.2006.00294.x.]

Sanford, W.E., and Selnick, D.L., 2012, Estimation of evapotranspiration across the conterminous United States using 

a regression with climate and land-cover data: Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association, v. 49, no. 1, 

p. 217–230. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

jawr.12010.]

Scanlon, B.R., Healy, R.W., and Cook, P.G., 2002, Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater 

recharge: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 10, no. 1, p. 18–39. 

[Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-

0176-2.

Schwarzkopf, L., and Defoe, R., 1999, Rice Portage wild rice 

and wetland restoration project, Proceedings of the Wild 

Rice Research and Management Conference: Carlton, Minnesota, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 

p. 158–163.

Shah, N., Nachabe, M., and Ross, M., 2007, Extinction depth 

and evapotranspiration from groundwater under selected 

land covers: Ground Water, v. 45, no. 3, p. 329–338. 

[Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-

6584.2007.00302.x.]

Shuter, E., and Teasdale, W.E., 1989, Application of drilling, 

coring, and sampling techniques to test holes and wells: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 2, chap. F1, 97 p. [Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/twri/twri2-f1/pdf/TWRI_2-F1.pdf.]

Siegel, D.I., 1983, Ground water and the evolution of patterned mires, Glacial Lake Agassiz peatlands, northern Minnesota: Journal of Ecology, v. 71, no. 3, p. 913–921. [Also 

available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2259601.]

Siegel, D.I., 1992, Groundwater hydrology, in Wright, H.E., 

Coffin, B.A., and Aaseng, N.E., eds., The patterned peatlands of Minnesota: Minneapolis, Minnesota, University of 

Minnesota Press, p. 163–172.

Siegel, D.I., and Glaser, P.H., 1987, Groundwater flow in a 

bog-fen complex, Lost River Peatland, northern Minnesota: 

Journal of Ecology, v. 75, no. 3, p. 743–754. [Also available 

at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2260203.]

Springer, R.K. and Gelhar, L.W., 1991, Characterization of 

large-scale aquifer heterogeneity in glacial outwash by 

analysis of slug tests with oscillatory response, Cape Cod, 

Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 91-4034, pp. 36–40.

Stevenson, S.C., and Lee, P.F., 1987, Ecological relationships 

of wild rice, Zizania aquatica. 6. The effects of increases 

in water depth on vegetative and reproductive production: 

Canadian Journal of Botany, v. 65, no. 10, p. 2,128–2,132. 

Stewart, R. E., and Kantrud, H. A., 1972, Vegetation of prairie 

potholes, North Dakota, in relation to quality of water and 

other environmental factors: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 585–D, 36 p.

Thompson, A.L., and Luthin, C.S., 2004, Wetland restoration handbook for Wisconsin landowners: Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, publication no. SS–989, 

p. 177–122.

Thornthwaite, C.W., 1948, An approach toward a rational 

classification of climate: Geographical Review, v. 38, 

no. 1, p. 55–94. [Also available at http://www.jstor.org/

stable/210739.]

Thornthwaite, C.W., and Mather, J.R., 1957, Instructions and 

tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the 

water balance: Drexel Institute of Technology, Publications 

in Climatology, v. 10, no. 3, 311 p.

TIBCO Software, Inc., 2008, TIBCO Spotfire S+ 8.1 for Windows: Palo Alto, Calif., TIBCO Software, Inc., 572 p.

Todd, D.K., 1980, Groundwater hydrology: New York, John 

Wiley and Sons, p. 230–235.
References Cited 33

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2013, Fond du Lac water management project—Carlton County Minnesota: accessed July 10, 2013, at 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/mn/newsroom/stories/?cid=nrcs142p2_023850.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

1978, Soil survey of Carlton County, Minnesota: accessed 

July 28, 2014, at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/

surveylist/soils/survey/state/?stateId=MN.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 1994, National wetlands inventory digital data, October 1991 to 1994: accessed July 17, 

2013, at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2015, U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Information System (NWISWeb): U.S. Geological Survey database, accessed January 5, 2015, at http://

waterdata.usgs.gov/mn/nwis/nwis.

Vennum, T., 1988, Wild rice and the Ojibway People: St. Paul, 

Minnesota, Minnesota Historical Society Press, 368 p.

Vigil, J.F., Pike, R.J., and Howell, D.G., 2000, A tapestry of 

time and terrain: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigations Series I–2720, 32 p. and 1 sheet. [Also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i2720/.]

White, W.N., 1932, A method of estimating groundwater supplies based on discharge by plants and evaporation from 

soil: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 659–A, p. 

l–105.

Wilcox, D.A., and Whillans, T.H., 1999, Techniques for restoration of disturbed coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes: 

Wetlands, v. 19, no. 4, p. 835–857. [Also available at http://

dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03161787.]

Wood, L.C., and Hockens, S.N., 1970, Least squares smoothing operators: Geophysics, v. 35, no. 6, p. 1,005–1,019.

Winter, T.C., 1999, Relation of streams, lakes, and wetlands 

to groundwater flow systems: Hydrogeology Journal, v. 7, 

no. 1, p. 28–45. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

s100400050178.]

Winter, T.C., and Carr, M.R., 1980, Hydrologic setting of wetlands in the Cottonwood Lake area, Stutsman County, North 

Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 80–99, 42 p.

Winter, T.C., Rosenberry, D.O., and LaBaugh, J.W., 2003, 

Where does the ground water in small watersheds come 

from?: Ground Water, v. 41, no. 7, p. 989–1000. [Also 

available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2003.

tb02440.x.]

Zepp, G., Harwood, J., and Somwaru, A., 1996, Wild rice—

An economic assessment of the feasibility of providing multiple-peril crop insurance: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, accessed December 8, 2005, at 

http://www.rma.usda.gov/pilots/feasible/PDF/wildrice.pdf.

Zhang, Y.-K., and Schilling, K.E., 2006, Effects of land 

cover on water table, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge—A field observation 

and analysis: Journal of Hydrology, v. 319, no. 1–4, p. 

328–338. [Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

jhydrol.2005.06.044.]

Publishing support provided by: 

Rolla Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact: 

Director, USGS Minnesota Water Science Center 

2280 Woodale Drive 

Mounds View, Minnesota 55112 

(763) 783–3100

Or visit the Minnesota Water Science Center Web site at: 

http://mn.water.usgs.gov/


Jones and Tomasek—Aquifer properties, evapotranspiration, and effects of ditching in Stoney Brook watershed, Fond du Lac Reservation, Minnesota—SIR 2015–5007

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20155007