Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries 

to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010, and 

Identification of Watersheds for Future Modeling 

for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

Lake Superior

Lake 

Michigan

Lake 

Huron

 Lake 

Erie

Lake Ontario

Open-File Report 2011–1202

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover. Watershed boundary dataset for Great Lakes Region, accessed July 20, 2011, at http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov.
Compilation of Watershed Models for 

Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United 

States, as of 2010, and Identification of 

Watersheds for Future Modeling for the 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

By William F. Coon, Elizabeth A. Murphy, David T. Soong, and Jennifer B. Sharpe

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Open-File Report 2011–1202

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011

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

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

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

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Coon, W.F., Murphy, E.A., Soong, D.T., and Sharpe, J.B., 2011, Compilation of watershed models for tributaries to 

the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010, and identification of watersheds for future modeling for the Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1202, 23 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.

gov/of/2011/1202.)
iii

Contents

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

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Compilation of Existing Watershed Models ..............................................................................................2

Assessment of Watershed Characteristics...............................................................................................4

Criteria for Selection of Tributary Watersheds for Future Modeling ....................................................4

Identification of Modeling Software and Candidate Watersheds for Modeling ................................5

Kalamazoo River, Michigan.................................................................................................................5

Tonawanda Creek, New York..............................................................................................................6

Bad River, Wisconsin ...........................................................................................................................6

Summary..........................................................................................................................................................6

References Cited............................................................................................................................................7

Figures

1. Map showing hydrologic soil groups of the Great Lakes Basin, United States, 

and three tributary watersheds identified for modeling .....................................................24

 2. Map showing land uses and land covers of the Great Lakes Basin, United States,

and three tributary watersheds identified for modeling ......................................................25

 3. Map showing surficial deposits of the Great Lakes Basin, United States, and three

tributary watersheds identified for modeling.........................................................................26

Tables

1. Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, with existing watershed models, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Areas of Concern, and (or) U.S. Geological

Survey water-quality monitoring sites for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as

of 2010 ..........................................................................................................................................10

2. Watershed models and selected hydraulic, sediment, and (or) water-quality 

models for tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010 .................................14
iv

Conversion Factors, Datums, and Abbreviations

Multiply By To obtain

Length

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2

) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to North American Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NAVD 29).

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

List of Acronyms

AFINCH Analysis of Flows In Networks of CHannels 

AGNPS Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution 

AHPS Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service

AOC Area of Concern 

BMP Best-management practice 

CAFO Concentrated animal feeding operation 

DLBRM Distributed Large Basin Runoff Model 

GIS Geographic information system 

GLERL Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 

GLRI Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

HIT High Impact Targeting 

HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran 

LBRM Large Basin Runoff Model 

L–THIA Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment 

NHDPlus National Hydrography Dataset Plus 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NWS National Weather Service 

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl 

PRMS Precipitation–Runoff Modeling System 

RFC River Forecast Center 

SAC-SMA Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting 

SPARROW SPAtially Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes
v

SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool 

TMDL Total maximum daily load 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WATER Water Availability Tool for Environmental Resources 

WEPP Water Erosion Prediction Project 

WWTP Wastewater-treatment plant 
This page has been left blank intentionally.
Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the 

Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010, and Identification 

of Watersheds for Future Modeling for the Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative

By William F. Coon, Elizabeth A. Murphy, David T. Soong, and Jennifer B. Sharpe

Abstract

As part of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) 

during 2009–10, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

compiled a list of existing watershed models that had been 

created for tributaries within the United States that drain to the 

Great Lakes. Established Federal programs that are overseen 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

are responsible for most of the existing watershed models for 

specific tributaries. The NOAA Great Lakes Environmental 

Research Laboratory (GLERL) uses the Large Basin Runoff 

Model to provide data for the management of water levels in 

the Great Lakes by estimating United States and Canadian 

inflows to the Great Lakes from 121 large watersheds. GLERL 

also simulates streamflows in 34 U.S. watersheds by a gridbased model, the Distributed Large Basin Runoff Model. The 

NOAA National Weather Service uses the Sacramento Soil 

Moisture Accounting model to predict flows at river forecast 

sites. The USACE created or funded the creation of models for 

at least 30 tributaries to the Great Lakes to better understand 

sediment erosion, transport, and aggradation processes that 

affect Federal navigation channels and harbors. Many of 

the USACE hydrologic models have been coupled with 

hydrodynamic and sediment-transport models that simulate 

the processes in the stream and harbor near the mouth of the 

modeled tributary. 

Some models either have been applied or have the 

capability of being applied across the entire Great Lakes 

Basin; they are (1) the SPAtially Referenced Regressions 

On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model, which was 

developed by the USGS; (2) the High Impact Targeting (HIT) 

and Digital Watershed models, which were developed by the 

Institute of Water Research at Michigan State University; (3) 

the Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L–THIA) 

model, which was developed by researchers at Purdue 

University; and (4) the Water Erosion Prediction Project 

(WEPP) model, which was developed by the National Soil 

Erosion Research Laboratory of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. During 2010, the USGS used the PrecipitationRunoff Modeling System (PRMS) to create a hydrologic 

model for the Lake Michigan Basin to assess the probable 

effects of climate change on future groundwater and 

surface-water resources. The Water Availability Tool for 

Environmental Resources (WATER) model and the Analysis 

of Flows In Networks of CHannels (AFINCH) program also 

were used to support USGS GLRI projects that required 

estimates of streamflows throughout the Great Lakes Basin.

This information on existing watershed models, along 

with an assessment of geologic, soils, and land-use data across 

the Great Lakes Basin and the identification of problems that 

exist in selected tributary watersheds that could be addressed 

by a watershed model, was used to identify three watersheds 

in the Great Lakes Basin for future modeling by the USGS. 

These watersheds are the Kalamazoo River Basin in Michigan, 

the Tonawanda Creek Basin in New York, and the Bad 

River Basin in Wisconsin. These candidate watersheds have 

hydrogeologic, land-type, and soil characteristics that make 

them distinct from each other, but that are representative of 

other tributary watersheds within the Great Lakes Basin. These 

similarities in the characteristics among nearby watersheds 

will enhance the usefulness of a model by improving the 

likelihood that parameter values from a previously modeled 

watershed could reliably be used in the creation of a model 

of another watershed in the same region. The software 

program Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran (HSPF) 

was selected to simulate the hydrologic, sedimentary, and 

water-quality processes in these selected watersheds. HSPF 

is a versatile, process-based, continuous-simulation model 

that has been used extensively by the scientific community, 

has the ongoing technical support of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and USGS, and provides a means to 

evaluate the effects that land-use changes or management 

practices might have on the simulated processes. 
2 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010

Introduction

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) (White 

House Council on Environmental Quality and others, 2010) 

identified five major focus areas to improve the water 

quality and aquatic habitat of the Great Lakes: (1) toxic 

substances in water and sediment; (2) invasive aquatic species; 

(3) degradation of nearshore habitat owing, at least partly, 

to nonpoint-source contamination from tributary inflows; 

(4) loss and degradation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, 

especially coastal wetlands, and the associated negative 

effects on native species; and (5) inadequate monitoring of 

ecosystem health, assessment of restoration progress, and 

coordination of efforts among Great Lakes’ stakeholders. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), began 

at least 25 projects during 2009–10 to address these issues 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2010a). Among these projects 

were several that required understanding of the hydrologic 

and water-quality processes within the watersheds of many 

tributaries that drain to the Great Lakes. GLRI objectives 

can be supported by the estimation of tributary flows, water 

temperatures, and nonpoint-source loads of sediment and 

nutrients, the assessment of their effects on aquatic habitats, 

and identification of the probable improvements to ecosystem 

health and functions by mitigation of these effects. 

Precipitation-runoff watershed models, which are 

valuable tools used to understand hydrologic processes and 

to guide water-resources managers in making decisions 

on water-related issues, are a means by which all of these 

GLRI objectives can be addressed. In addition, output 

from a watershed model can be used to identify subbasins 

that generate disproportionately large loads of sediment or 

nutrients; watershed managers can then target these subbasins 

for mitigation measures. Scenarios that reflect future landuse changes or management practices in a watershed can 

be simulated, and their probable effects on streamflows and 

water-quality loads can be assessed. Similarly, reconstructed 

meteorological data that reflect anticipated changes in climate 

can be simulated by a watershed model, and probable changes 

in the magnitude and frequency of peak and low flows and in 

sediment and nutrient loads can be noted. Watershed managers 

can then assess climate-change effects on transportation 

infrastructure and aquatic biota and habitat.

Watershed models of tributaries throughout the Great 

Lakes Basin have been created with different software 

programs and for different purposes. In 2009, surface-water 

modelers of the USGS were charged with creating watershed 

models for up to three Great Lakes tributaries in the United 

States where identifiable water-related problems could be 

addressed using this approach. The first step in this project was 

to compile a list of existing watershed models. To that end, 

Federal and state agencies, consulting firms, and academic 

institutions were contacted to identify (1) existing models for 

that part of the Great Lakes Basin within the United States, 

(2) the application or purpose for which the model was 

created, and (3) the modeling software used. The second step 

was to assess the regional characteristics—hydrogeology, 

land use, land cover, and soils—of the Great Lakes Basin and 

to use this information to identify candidate watersheds for 

modeling that would be representative of a large region of 

the Great Lakes Basin. This assessment step would enhance 

the usefulness of a model by improving the likelihood that 

parameter values from a modeled watershed could reliably be 

transferred to, and used in, the creation of a model of another 

watershed with similar hydrogeologic, land-type, and soil 

characteristics. The third step was to identify a public-domain 

modeling software that had the potential to meet the objectives 

of the GLRI. 

This report presents a compilation of known watershed 

models and other modeling tools that have been developed 

for, or applied to, tributaries throughout that part of the Great 

Lakes Basin within the United States as of 2010. On the basis 

of regional characteristics—hydrogeology, land-type, and 

soils—and other selection criteria, three watersheds—the 

Kalamazoo River in Michigan (Mich.), Tonawanda Creek 

in New York, and the Bad River in Wisconsin (Wis.)—

are identified for future modeling. Problems and distinct 

characteristics that qualify these watersheds for modeling 

are presented. 

Compilation of Existing 

Watershed Models

Watershed models have been created for many of the 

United States tributaries in the Great Lakes Basin. The 

tributaries for which a model exists, as well as those that 

are considered Areas of Concern by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA, 2010) or that have some 

component of water-quality monitoring as part of the GLRI 

by the USGS are listed in table 1 (at back of report). In a few 

cases—for example, the Fox River (Wis.), Saginaw River 

(Mich.), St. Joseph River (Mich. and Indiana), and Maumee 

River (Ohio)—several models have been created for a given 

watershed, as well as for particular subbasins within the larger 

watershed. At least 17 different types of modeling software, 

ranging from complex numerical models to interactive 

geospatial-analytical tools, have been used to simulate 

the hydrology and, in many cases, sediment and nutrient 

processes, of tributaries to the Great Lakes (table 2, at back 

of report). The purposes for which the models were created 

vary widely and include simulation of sediment processes, 

estimation of nutrient loads, assessment of best-management 

practices (BMPs), and calculation of total maximum daily 

loads (TMDLs). 

Several modeling tools have been developed that are 

applicable to the entire Great Lakes Basin. Among these 

is the Large Basin Runoff Model (LBRM) (Croley, 1982), 

a physically based, lumped-parameter model, which was 

developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Compilation of Existing Watershed Models 3

Administration (NOAA), Great Lakes Environmental 

Research Laboratory (GLERL) to simulate rainfall-runoff 

relations for 121 large watersheds surrounding the Great 

Lakes (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

2009a). NOAA, which is concerned with providing data 

for the management of water levels in the Great Lakes for 

purposes of flood control, navigation, and hydropower, 

requires a method of estimating tributary inflows to the Great 

Lakes. The LBRM models are run daily to provide estimates 

of United States and Canadian inflows to each Great Lake. 

Streamflows in 34 United States watersheds (tables 1 and 2, at 

back of report) have been simulated by a spatially distributed, 

two-dimensional, grid-based model, the Distributed Large 

Basin Runoff Model (DLBRM) (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 2009b). Enhancements to these 

DLBRM models by collaboration among NOAA–GLERL 

and researchers at several academic institutions through the 

Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research 

will incorporate simulation of sediment and nutrient transport 

and change the simulation time step from daily to hourly 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010). 

During 2010, as part of the GLRI, the USGS began 

creation of a hydrologic model for the Lake Michigan Basin 

using the Precipitation–Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) 

(Leavesley and others, 1983; U.S. Geological Survey, 

2011a). The model will be used to simulate inflows to Lake 

Michigan and to assess the probable effects of climate change 

on future groundwater and surface-water resources (Hunt, 

2010). The USGS also has developed a SPAtially Referenced 

Regressions On Watershed attributes model (SPARROW) 

(Schwarz and others, 2006; Preston and others, 2009; U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2010b) to (1) estimate long-term average 

annual loads of nutrients that enter the Great Lakes from their 

tributaries, (2) describe the distribution of nutrient loading 

and the factors affecting this distribution throughout the Great 

Lakes Basin, and (3) rank the tributaries on the basis of their 

relative yields of nutrients (Robertson and Saad, 2011). The 

SPARROW model will be coupled with water-quantity models 

to predict probable changes in nutrient loading as a result of 

future climatic conditions. The resultant model, referred to as 

HydroSPARROW, will be linked with streamflow estimates 

(1) from PRMS (Hunt, 2010) to predict changes in nutrient 

loading to Lake Michigan and (2) from the Water Availability 

Tool for Environmental Resources (WATER) (Williamson 

and others, 2009; U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b) to predict 

changes in nutrient loading throughout the Great Lakes Basin. 

HydroSPARROW also will be used to assess the effects of 

land-use changes on nutrient loads. 

Another USGS GLRI project (Reeves, 2010) is designed 

to generate a unified stream classification system that will link 

landscape, hydrologic, and biologic information to stream 

networks within the framework of the National Hydrography 

Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2011a). To help assess the effects that hydrologic 

alterations, which result from changes in land use or climate 

conditions, are likely to have on aquatic ecosystems, a 

hydrologic dataset that provides consistent estimates of 

streamflows across the entire Great Lakes Basin is required. 

To that end, the program, Analysis of Flows In Networks 

of CHannels (AFINCH) (Holtschlag, 2009), is being used 

to estimate time series of monthly streamflows for reaches 

in gaged and ungaged watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin. 

These flows, as well as water yields, will be added to attribute 

tables for stream segments and their associated catchments as 

defined in NHDPlus.

The High Impact Targeting (HIT) model, which was 

developed by the Institute of Water Research (2011a) at 

Michigan State University, couples the revised universal soilloss equation (Renard and others, 1997 ) and a geographic 

information system (GIS), Digital Watershed (Institute of 

Water Research, 2011b), to identify areas susceptible to 

erosion, estimate soil losses from agricultural areas, and assess 

BMPs. An interactive application of the HIT model provides 

these capabilities for the Great Lakes Basin (Institute of 

Water Research, 2011c). The Long-Term Hydrologic Impact 

Assessment (L–THIA) model, developed by researchers 

at Purdue University (2011), uses runoff estimated by the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service TR–55 method 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986) and event mean 

concentrations that are based on land uses to estimate longterm average annual recharge, runoff, and contaminant loads 

in urban areas. An interactive application of the L–THIA 

model provides these data for most of the states in the Great 

Lakes Basin (Purdue University, 2011). L–THIA also can be 

used to assess the water-quality effects of land-use changes 

and BMPs. The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) 

model is a process-based, distributed-parameter, erosionprediction model that was developed by the National Soil 

Erosion Research Laboratory of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 2010). The WEPP model can be used to 

estimate long-term sediment yields from cropland, rangeland, 

and disturbed forest sites for hillslope applications or small 

watersheds. An online site on a public server hosted at 

Washington State University (2011) has been established for 

application of WEPP throughout the Great Lakes Basin.

The NOAA National Weather Service (NWS) has 

compiled a suite of rainfall-runoff, hydraulic, and flowrouting models that are used by River Forecast Centers 

(RFC) (National Weather Service, 2011a) to estimate near 

future runoff and predict water levels at river forecast sites. 

The three RFCs—North Central (Minnesota), Ohio, and 

Northeast (Massachusetts)—that make runoff predictions for 

the drainage area of the Great Lakes use the Sacramento Soil 

Moisture Accounting (SAC–SMA) model (Burnash, 1995) 

and SNOW–17 (Anderson, 2006), a snow accumulation and 

ablation model, to estimate runoff and snow melt, respectively. 

These forecasts are made for streams at USGS streamgage 

stations with drainage areas greater than about 75 square 

miles (mi2) so that timely predictions can be made at a 6-hour 

simulation time step. Because predictions are made for 

hundreds of sites in the Great Lakes Basin and a given stream, 
4 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010

including its tributaries, can have multiple forecast sites, these 

streams are not included in tables 1 and 2. These forecast sites 

can be identified at the NWS Advanced Hydrologic Prediction 

Service (AHPS) website (National Weather Service, 2011b).

Most of the remaining known watershed models that 

have been created for specific tributaries in the Great Lakes 

Basin were created by or for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE; table 2). The USACE has been charged with 

the responsibility of maintaining Federal navigation channels 

and harbors (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). Because 

sediment aggradation is a major problem that interferes with 

harbor operations, and to better understand sediment erosion, 

transport, and aggradation processes, the USACE, under Section 516(e) of the Water Resources Development Act (U.S. 

Congress, 1996), has been authorized to develop, or fund the 

development of, models to simulate sediment processes in 

tributaries that drain to the Federal harbors (U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, 2005, 2006; Great Lakes Commission, 2009). 

To date (2010), 30 tributary watersheds have been modeled 

for this purpose; models for several more watersheds are being 

created. The watershed-wide sediment models can be used to 

assess mitigative measures that will decrease the loading of 

sediment and contaminants to tributaries and thereby decrease 

the need for, and costs of, dredging the navigation channels. 

A wide variety of modeling software has been used in different watersheds to best address the specific issues and provide 

the desired outputs for a given watershed. The Soil and Water 

Assessment Tool (SWAT) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

2011a) was used to model most of the tributary watersheds, 

but the Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran (HSPF) 

model (Bicknell and others, 2001) and the Agricultural NonPoint Source Pollution (AGNPS) model (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2011b) also were used. All three of these models 

are physically based, spatially distributed, and capable of 

simulating sediment and nutrient processes. AGNPS is an 

event-based model that primarily is used in watersheds dominated by agricultural uses. SWAT and HSPF are continuoussimulation models, and although HSPF can be applied in a 

watershed with any combination of land uses, SWAT often is 

used in watersheds dominated by rural land uses only. Many 

of the USACE watershed models were coupled with hydrodynamic and sediment-transport models to assess, in detail, the 

processes in the stream and harbor near the mouths of modeled tributaries. These ancillary models are included in table 2. 

Those tributaries for which hydrodynamic and sedimenttransport models were created without a watershed model to 

simulate sediment loads to stream channels are not included in 

table 2. 

Excluding the models that have been applied across the 

entire Great Lakes Basin, one or more models have been created for at least 72 individual tributary watersheds. The most 

commonly used modeling software includes SWAT, DLBRM, 

HSPF, and L–THIA. 

Assessment of Watershed 

Characteristics

By identifying those tributary watersheds in the Great 

Lakes Basin for which models exist, the compilation of 

watershed models consequently identified those watersheds 

that have not been modeled or have models that do not 

adequately address GLRI objectives. These watersheds 

could be considered as candidates for modeling in the 

future. The second step toward identification of candidate 

tributary watersheds for modeling was the assessment of 

watershed characteristics that strongly affect the hydrologic 

and water-quality processes in a watershed. The intent of this 

assessment was to identify distinct regional characteristics 

that are applicable to large areas of the Great Lakes Basin, 

such as the Lower Peninsula of Michigan or the area south 

of Lake Superior. Then a watershed within a given region 

could be selected for modeling with the increased likelihood 

that parameter values used for the modeled watershed could 

be transferred to, and used in, a model for another watershed 

within the same region. To that end, GIS coverages were 

created for soil characteristics (hydrologic soil group), landuse and land-cover types, and geological characteristics, such 

as surficial deposits (figs. 1, 2, and 3, at back of report).

Criteria for Selection of Tributary 

Watersheds for Future Modeling

Candidate watersheds for modeling were assessed on the 

basis of the following criteria:

• lack of an existing watershed model or a watershed 

model that with upgrades or modifications could serve 

the same purposes as a new model;

• problems in the watershed, including flooding, sediment 

erosion and aggradation, and water quality, that could be 

addressed by a watershed model; 

• tributary is in a USEPA (2010) Area of Concern (AOC) 

or drains to a Federal navigation harbor;

• dominant land uses–land covers and soil types;

• regional bedrock and surficial geological characteristics;

• availability of flow data from USGS streamgages for 

model calibration; 

• existence and availability of water-quality data for 

model calibration; 

• presence of a USGS GLRI water-quality monitoring 

station in the watershed; and 

• existence of a watershed association of concerned 

stakeholders that would be interested in using the model 

for watershed management and decision making. 
Identification of Modeling Software and Candidate Watersheds for Modeling 5

Identification of Modeling Software 

and Candidate Watersheds 

for Modeling 

Several watershed modeling programs were assessed for 

their capabilities to meet the multiple objectives of the GLRI. 

A public-domain, process-based, continuous-simulation model 

that was capable of simulating the hydrologic, sedimentary, 

and water-quality processes in a watershed and providing 

a means for evaluating the effects that land-use changes or 

management practices might have on these processes was 

desirable. The program HSPF (Donigian and others, 1995) was 

selected to model the candidate watersheds for these reasons. 

Although HSPF is a data-intensive model, it is supported 

by USEPA and USGS and has been used extensively and 

for various applications by the scientific community. HSPF 

enables scenario development for the analysis of the probable 

effects of land-use changes, BMPs, and climate change.

Using the selection criteria listed in the previous section, 

three watersheds were selected as potential candidates for 

watershed modeling—the Kalamazoo River in Michigan 

(a tributary to Lake Michigan), Tonawanda Creek in New 

York (a tributary to the Niagara River and Lake Ontario), and 

the Bad River in Wisconsin (a tributary to Lake Superior; 

fig. 1). These watersheds exhibited geologic, soil, and landtype characteristics that make them distinct from each other 

but representative of a large region of the Great Lakes Basin 

that encompasses other tributary watersheds that share 

these characteristics. The candidate watersheds also have 

water-quality problems that impede progress toward the 

GLRI objective to improve the water quality and the aquatic 

habitat of the Great Lakes. Stakeholders in each watershed 

would benefit from a model that could estimate flows, water 

temperatures, and nonpoint-source loads of sediment and 

nutrients. The candidate watersheds are described below. 

Kalamazoo River, Michigan

• The Kalamazoo River Basin has been modeled by NOAA 

with DLBRM and by Kieser and Associates (2011) 

with the L–THIA model. DLBRM is a process-based, 

distributed model capable of simulating streamflows on 

a daily basis, but in its present form, it cannot simulate 

sediment and nutrient processes as can HSPF. L–THIA 

is a quick and accessible model for estimating long-term 

average annual runoff and nutrient loads in order to 

evaluate the effects of land-use changes. Unlike HSPF, 

L–THIA cannot simulate watershed processes at daily 

or hourly time steps, nor is L–THIA output calibrated 

to observed data from streamflow and water-quality 

monitoring sites. 

• The 80-mile (mi) reach from Morrow Dam, just east of 

river sediments are contaminated with polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) that originated from paper industry 

de-inking processes prior to the mid-1970s (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2011b).

• Besides the ecological degradation that has resulted from 

PCB contamination, other problems in the watershed 

include agricultural and urban nonpoint sources, 

concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and 

industrial and wastewater-treatment-plant (WWTP) 

discharges. Also, the river and its tributaries have 

many dams that are being considered for removal, 

which could cause new problems from resuspension of 

trapped sediments.

• The drainage area of the watershed is 2,020 mi2, 

45 percent of which is used for agriculture (cultivated 

crops and pasture-hay); 41 percent is forested or open 

rural areas (Kieser and Associates, 2001). Large urban 

areas are found along the Kalamazoo River corridor. 

• The watershed’s surficial deposits are dominated by sand 

and sandy and loamy till.

• The watershed characteristics are representative of those 

found in a large part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan.

• There are 10 USGS streamgages that monitor streamflow 

in the watershed. Water quality (nutrients, major 

ions, physical characteristics, and mercury) has been 

monitored at various sites in the watershed by the 

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. As 

part of the GLRI water-quality monitoring program, 

the USGS site at New Richmond was upgraded from a 

streamflow-monitoring gage to a long-term water-quality 

sampling site for sediment and nutrients. Two samples—

one water and one bed sediment—also were collected 

and analyzed for pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personalcare products, wastewater-indicator compounds, organic 

compounds, and PCBs.

• Detailed hydraulic data are available from a recent 

USGS flood-inundation mapping project for the 

15-mi reach from Marshall to Battle Creek (Hoard 

and others, 2010). A less detailed data set that covers 

the reach from Marshall to the river’s mouth also is 

available (C.M. Rachol, U.S. Geological Survey, written 

commun., 2010).

• The Kalamazoo River Watershed Council works 

collaboratively with the community, government 

agencies, local officials, and businesses to improve and 

protect the health of the Kalamazoo River, its tributaries, 

and its watershed (Kalamazoo River Watershed 

Council, 2011).

Kalamazoo, to Lake Michigan is a USEPA AOC because 
6 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010

Tonawanda Creek, New York

• There is no known watershed model of the Tonawanda 

Creek Basin.

• Problems in the watershed include agricultural nonpoint 

sources, CAFO point sources, sewage and WWTP 

discharges, erosion and sedimentation, flooding, habitat 

degradation, and the effects of future development. The 

creek is the source of drinking water for the City of Batavia.

• The watershed has a drainage area of 658 mi2, which is 

dominated by agricultural uses (45 percent), forested areas 

(27 percent), and wetlands (11 percent) (Tonawanda Creek 

Watershed Committee, 2011).

• The surficial deposits of the watershed are mainly loamy 

and clayey till.

• The watershed characteristics are representative of those 

found along the northeastern shore of Lake Erie and the 

southern shore of Lake Ontario. 

• Streamflow is monitored at four USGS streamgages in the 

watershed. Some water-quality monitoring of nutrients 

and suspended solids is conducted by Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts. A water sample was collected from 

Tonawanda Creek at Rapids for the GLRI water-quality 

monitoring program and was analyzed for pesticides, 

pharmaceuticals, personal-care products, wastewaterindicator compounds, organic compounds, and PCBs.

• The Tonawanda Creek Watershed Committee represents 

a diverse collection of Federal, state, and local agencies, 

the Tonawanda Seneca Indian Nation, and concerned 

individuals and citizen groups.

• Great interest has been expressed by the USACE (Byron 

Rupp, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, oral commun., 2010) 

for a watershed model that can simulate sediment processes 

in the Tonawanda Creek Basin.

Bad River, Wisconsin

• There is no known watershed model of the Bad 

River Basin.

• Problems that exist in the watershed include nonpointnutrient generation and transport, municipal wastewater 

discharges, erosion and sedimentation, contaminants 

(copper, zinc, and sulfate) associated with iron-ore mining, 

flooding, and aquatic-habitat degradation.

• The drainage area of the watershed is 1,061 mi2 and is 

dominated by forested land (79 percent); a large percentage 

(16 percent) of the watershed is covered by wetlands (Bad 

River Watershed Association, 2011).

• The surficial deposits of the upper watershed are loamy till; 

that of the lower watershed are clayey till.

• The watershed characteristics are representative of those 

found along the western part of the southern and northern 

shores of Lake Superior.

• Streamflow is monitored at one site on the Bad River near 

Odanah and at one site on its tributary, the White River 

near Ashland. Water-quality data are sparse, but the Bad 

River Watershed Association collects water samples at 

many sites in the watershed; samples are analyzed for 

nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and chloride. As part of the 

GLRI water-quality monitoring program, the USGS site at 

Odanah was upgraded from a streamflow-monitoring gage 

to a long-term water-quality monitoring site for sediment 

and nutrients. In addition, a water sample was collected 

and analyzed for pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personalcare products, wastewater-indicator compounds, organic 

compounds, and PCBs.

• The Bad River Watershed Association is a community 

organization that works to involve citizens in watershed 

activities. Other groups and agencies, including the 

Bad River Tribe, the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, and the U.S. Forest Service, are also involved in 

watershed activities.

Summary

As part of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) 

during 2009–10, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) proposed 

the creation of watershed models for up to three Great Lakes 

tributaries where identifiable water-related problems could 

be addressed using such a tool. To that end, the USGS first 

compiled a list of existing watershed models that had been 

created for United States tributaries to the Great Lakes. At 

least 17 different types of modeling software have been 

used to simulate the hydrologic processes in watersheds of 

tributaries to the Great Lakes. Most of the watershed models 

were created to meet program needs of the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE). The NOAA Great Lakes 

Environmental Research Laboratory uses the Large Basin 

Runoff Model to provide data for the management of the water 

levels in the Great Lakes by estimating United States and 

Canadian inflows to the Great Lakes from 121 watersheds. 

The NOAA National Weather Service uses the Sacramento 

Soil Moisture Accounting model to predict flows at river 

forecast sites. The USACE created or funded the creation of 

models for at least 30 tributaries to the Great Lakes to better 

understand sediment erosion, transport, and aggradation 

processes that affect Federal navigation channels and harbors. 

Many of the USACE hydrologic models have been coupled 

with hydrodynamic and sediment-transport models that 
References Cited 7

simulate the processes in the stream and (or) harbor near the 

mouth of the modeled tributary. 

Some models either have been applied or have the 

capability of being applied across the entire Great Lakes 

Basin; they are the SPAtially Referenced Regressions 

On Watershed attributes (SPARROW) model, which was 

developed by the USGS; the High Impact Targeting (HIT) 

model and Digital Watershed geographic information system, 

which were developed by the Institute of Water Research 

at Michigan State University; the Long-Term Hydrologic 

Impact Assessment (L–THIA) model, which was developed 

by researchers at Purdue University; and the Water Erosion 

Prediction Project (WEPP) model, which was developed by 

the National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. During 2010, the USGS used the 

Precipitation–Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) to create a 

hydrologic model for the Lake Michigan Basin to assess the 

probable effects of climate change on future groundwater 

and surface-water resources. Estimated flows generated 

by the PRMS model and by a Water Availability Tool for 

Environmental Resources (WATER) model will be linked 

with nutrient outputs from the USGS SPARROW model to 

assess the effects that future climate changes might have on 

nutrient loadings to Lake Michigan and throughout the Great 

Lakes Basin, respectively. The Analysis of Flows In Networks 

of CHannels (AFINCH) program was used to support a 

USGS GLRI project that required estimates of streamflows 

throughout the Great Lakes Basin to assess the effects that 

hydrologic alterations resulting from changes in land use or 

climate conditions might have on aquatic ecosystems.

After compilation of existing watershed models, the next 

step toward identification of tributary watersheds for modeling 

was the analysis of geospatial data to identify regional 

characteristics, including hydrologic soil groups, land-use and 

land-cover types, and geological characteristics, that were 

distinct among the regions but applicable to a large area of the 

Great Lakes Basin. On the basis of this analysis, a watershed 

within a given region could be selected for modeling with 

the increased likelihood that parameter values used for the 

modeled watershed could be transferred to and used in a 

model for a nearby watershed with similar characteristics. 

A list of criteria for watershed selection, which includes 

problems that could be addressed by a watershed model, the 

existence of streamflow and water-quality data that could 

be used for model calibration, and the existence of an active 

watershed association of concerned stakeholders that would 

be interested in using the model for watershed management 

and decision making, was generated. Three watersheds in 

the Great Lakes Basin were identified for future modeling as 

part of the USGS involvement in the GLRI—the Kalamazoo 

River Basin in Michigan, the Tonawanda Creek Basin in 

New York, and the Bad River Basin in Wisconsin. The 

software program Hydrological Simulation Program–Fortran 

(HSPF) was selected to simulate the hydrologic, sedimentary, 

and water-quality processes in these selected watersheds. 

HSPF is a process-based, continuous-simulation model that 

provides a means to evaluate the effects that land-use changes 

or management practices might have on these processes. 

The versatility of HSPF, its extensive use by the scientific 

community, and the ongoing technical support provided by 

USEPA and USGS also are factors in favor of selecting HSPF 

for future watershed modeling. 

References Cited

Anderson, Eric, 2006, Snow accumulation and ablation 

model—SNOW–17: National Weather Service, Office of 

Hydrologic Development, accessed June 2, 2011, at http://

www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/nwsrfs/users_manual/part2/_

pdf/22snow17.pdf.

Bad River Watershed Association, 2011, Background 

information, Bad River Watershed Association: Bad 

River Watershed Association, accessed April 25, 2011, 

at http://learnscape.org/brwa/index.php?option=com_

frontpage&Itemid=1.

Bicknell, B.R., Imhoff, J.C., Kittle, J.L., Jr., Jobes, T.H., 

and Donigian, A.S., Jr., 2001, Hydrological Simulation 

Program-Fortran, user’s manual for version 12: Athens, Ga., 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 873 p., accessed 

April 15, 2005, at http://www.epa.gov/docs/ostwater/

BASINS/bsnsdocs.html#hspf.

Burnash, R.J.C., 1995, The NWS river forecast system—

Catchment modeling, in Singh, V.P., ed., Computer models 

of watershed hydrology: Highlands Ranch, Colo., Water 

Resources Publications, p. 311–366.

Croley, T.E., II, 1982, Great Lakes Basins runoff modeling: 

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical 

Memorandum ERL GLERL–39, 96 p., accessed December 

2, 2010, at ftp://ftp.glerl.noaa.gov/publications/tech_reports/

glerl-039/tm-039.pdf.

Donigian, A.S., Jr., Bicknell, B.R., and Imhoff, J.C., 1995, 

Hydrological simulation program–Fortran (HSPF), in

Singh, V.P., ed., Computer models of watershed hydrology: 

Highlands Ranch, Colo., Water Resources Publications, 

p. 395–442.

Great Lakes Commission, 2009, Great Lakes tributary 

modeling program: Great Lakes Commission, accessed 

September 10, 2009, at http://www.glc.org/tributary/.

Hoard, C.J., Fowler, K.K., Kim, M.H., Menke, C.D., Morlock, 

S.E., Peppler, M.C., Rachol, C.M., and Whitehead, M.T., 

2010, Flood-inundation maps for a 15-mile reach of the 

Kalamazoo River from Marshall to Battle Creek, Michigan: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3135, 

6 p. pamphlet, 6 sheets, scale 1:100,000.
8 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010

Holtschlag, D.J., 2009, Application guide for AFINCH 

(analysis of flows in networks of channels) described by 

NHDPlus: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2009–5188, 106 p. (Also available at http://pubs.

usgs.gov/sir/2009/5188/pdf/sir20095188.pdf.)

Hunt, Randy, 2010, Forecasting Great Lakes Basin responses 

to future change: U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes 

Restoration Initiative, accessed November 15, 2010, at 

http://cida.usgs.gov/glri/projects/accountability/responses_

future_change.html.

Institute of Water Research, 2011a, HIT—High impact 

targeting: Institute of Water Research, Michigan State 

University, accessed February 1, 2011, at http://www.iwr.

msu.edu/hit/.

Institute of Water Research, 2011b, Digital watershed: Institute 

of Water Research, Michigan State University, accessed 

February 1, 2011, at http://www.iwr.msu.edu/dw/.

Institute of Water Research, 2011c, HIT (High impact 

targeting) —A tool for optimizing sedimentation reduction 

efforts in the Great Lakes Basin: Institute of Water 

Research, Michigan State University, accessed May 20, 

2011, at http://35.9.116.206/hit2/home.htm.

Kalamazoo River Watershed Council, 2011, Partnership 

agreement: Kalamazoo River Watershed Council, accessed 

April 25, 2011, at http://www.kalamazooriver.org//content/

view/38/51/.

Kieser and Associates, 2001, Non-point source modeling of 

phosphorus loads in the Kalamazoo River/ Lake Allegan 

watershed for a total maximum daily load: Kieser and 

Associates, 59 p., accessed April 25, 2011, at http://www.

kalamazooriver.net/tmdl/docs/Final%20Report.pdf.

Kieser and Associates, 2011, Watershed and lake 

management—Kalamazoo River watershed modeling 

and build-out analysis: Kieser and Associates, accessed 

April 22, 2011, at http://kieser-associates.com/inside.

php?a=PG:590.

Leavesley, G.H., Lichty, R.W., Troutman, B.M., and Saindon, 

L.G., 1983, Precipitation-runoff modeling system—

User’s manual: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 83–4238, 207 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

2009a, Large basin runoff model (LBRM): Great Lakes 

Environmental Research Laboratory, accessed September 

11, 2009, at http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/pep/

dlbrm/lbrm.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009b, 

Distributed large basin runoff model: Great Lakes 

Environmental Research Laboratory, accessed September 

11, 2009, at http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/pep/

dlbrm/dlbrm.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010, 

Next generation large basin runoff models: Great Lakes 

Environmental Research Laboratory, accessed July 16, 

2010, at http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Task_rpts/2000/

wrcroley05-6.html.

National Weather Service, 2011a, River forecast centers: 

National Weather Service, accessed May 26, 2011, at http://

water.weather.gov/ahps/rfc/rfc.php.

National Weather Service, 2011b, Advanced hydrologic 

prediction service: National Weather Service, accessed May 

26, 2011, at http://water.weather.gov/ahps/.

Preston, S.D., Alexander, R.B., Woodside, M.D., and 

Hamilton, P.A., 2009, SPARROW MODELING—

Enhancing understanding of the Nation’s water quality: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009–3019, 6 p. 

(Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3019/pdf/

fs_2009_3019.pdf.)

Purdue University, 2011, Impacts of land use change on 

water resources: Long-term hydrologic impact analysis 

(L–THIA): College of Engineering, Purdue University, 

accessed February 1, 2011, at https://engineering.purdue.

edu/~lthia/.

Reeves, H.W., 2010, Watershed modeling for stream 

ecosystem management: U.S. Geological Survey, Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative, accessed November 15, 

2010, at http://cida.usgs.gov/glri/projects/accountability/

watershed_modeling.html.

Renard, K.G., Foster, G.R., Weesies, G.A., McCool, D.K., 

Yoder, D.C., 1997, Predicting soil erosion by water—A 

guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal 

Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE): United States Department 

of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Agricultural 

Handbook No. 703, 385 p., accessed March 15, 2011, at 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/64080530/

RUSLE/AH_703.pdf.

Robertson, D.M., and Saad, D.A., 2011, Nutrient inputs 

to the Laurentian Great Lakes by source and watershed 

estimated using SPARROW watershed models: Journal 

of the American Water Resources Association, DOI no. 

10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00574.x.
References Cited 9

Schwarz, G.E., Hoos, A.B., Alexander, R.B., and Smith, 

R.A., 2006, The SPARROW surface water-quality 

model—Theory, application and user documentation: 

U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 6, 

section B, chap. 3 (online only), accessed March 22, 2011, 

at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2006/tm6b3/.

Tonawanda Creek Watershed Committee, 2011, Tonawanda 

Creek Watershed: Tonawanda Creek Watershed Committee, 

accessed April 25, 2011, at http://www.wcswcd.org/images/

uploads/Tonawanda_Creek_Brochure.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2005, Great Lakes tributary 

modeling program—Status report: U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 82 p., accessed March 30, 2011, at http://www.

lrb.usace.army.mil/missions/516%20fact.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006, Great Lakes tributary 

modeling: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, accessed 

December 3, 2010, at http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/

missions/516%20fact.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010, Great Lakes navigation: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, accessed December 2, 2010, 

at http://www.lrd.usace.army.mil/navigation/glnavigation/.

U.S. Congress, 1996, Water resources development act of 

1996: Public Law 104–303, 136 p., accessed February 4, 

2011, at http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/Omnibus/

WRDA1996.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986, Urban hydrology for 

small watersheds TR–55: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Technical Release 

55, 164 p., accessed May 19, 2011, at http://www.cpesc.org/

reference/tr55.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010, Water erosion 

prediction project (WEPP): U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Erosion 

Research Laboratory, accessed November 15, 2011, at 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=10621.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011a, Soil and water 

assessment tool (SWAT): Temple, Tex., U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Grassland, Soil 

and Water Research Laboratory, accessed February 4, 2011, 

at http://swatmodel.tamu.edu/.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011b, Agricultural non-point 

source pollution model: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, accessed February 

4, 2011, at http://www.wsi.nrcs.usda.gov/products/w2q/

h&h/tools_models/agnps/index.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, Great Lakes 

areas of concern: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

accessed December 1, 2010, at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/

aoc/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011a, National 

hydrography dataset plus: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, accessed May 24, 2011, at http://www.horizonsystems.com/nhdplus/.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011b, Great Lakes 

areas of concern–Kalamazoo River area of concern: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, accessed April 25, 2011, 

at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/kalriv.html.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010a, Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed December 1, 

2010, at http://cida.usgs.gov/glri/. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010b, SPARROW Surface waterquality modeling: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed 

November 15, 2010, at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/

sparrow/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011a, PRMS, Precipitation–runoff 

modeling system: U.S. Geological Survey, accessed March 

22, 2011, at http://water.usgs.gov/software/PRMS/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2011b, WATER–Water availability 

tool for environmental resources: U.S. Geological Survey, 

accessed April 13, 2011, at http://ky.water.usgs.gov/projects/

waterbudget/index.html.

Washington State University, 2011, Water erosion prediction 

project (WEPP): Washington State University, Department 

of Biological Systems Engineering, accessed May 19, 

2011, at http://134.121.202.207/wepp/ [Login: weppwsu; 

password: nserl].

White House Council on Environmental Quality and others, 

2010, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan: 41 p., 

accessed December 1, 2010, at http://greatlakesrestoration.

us/action/wp-content/uploads/glri_actionplan.pdf.

Williamson, T.N., Odom, K.R., Newson, J.K., Downs, A.C., 

Nelson Jr., H.L., Cinotto, P.J., and Ayers, M.A., 2009, 

The Water Availability Tool for Environmental Resources 

(WATER)—A water-budget modeling approach for 

managing water-supply resources in Kentucky—Phase 

I—Data processing, model development, and application 

to non-karst areas: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2009–5248, 34 p.
10 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010

Table 1. Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, with existing watershed models, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Areas 

of Concern, and (or) U.S. Geological Survey water-quality monitoring sites for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as of 2010.

—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; GLERL, Great Lakes Environemtal Research 

Laboratory ; DLBRM, Distributed Large Basin Runoff Model; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 

GLRI, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; U, model under development; X, model exists or condition applies for given tributary; L, long-term, year-round 

monitoring for nutrients, sediment, chloride, and physical parameters; O, one sample for anthropogenic contaminants, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, 

personal-care products, wastewater-indicator compounds, and other organic compounds; HUC, hydrologic unit code; --, no data. State abbreviations: 

MN, Minnesota; WI, Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; NY, New York]

Tributary State

USACE

model

(See table 2)

NOAA

GLERL

DLBRM

model

Other models

(See table 2)

USEPA 

Area of 

Concern

USGS GLRI

waterquality

monitoring

Lake Superior

Bad River WI -- -- -- -- L/O

Deer Lake / Carp River MI -- -- -- X --

Knife River MN U -- -- -- --

Knowlton Creek MN U -- -- -- --

Montreal River WI -- -- -- -- O

Nemadji River MN–WI X -- -- X O

Ontonagon River MI -- -- -- -- L/O

Pigeon River MN -- -- -- -- O

Presque Isle River MI -- -- -- -- O

St. Louis River MN -- -- -- X L/O

Sturgeon River MI -- -- -- -- O

Tahquamenon River MI -- X -- -- O

Torch Lake MI -- -- -- X --

White River WI -- -- -- -- O

Whittlesy Creek WI X -- -- -- --

Lake Michigan

Battle Creek MI X -- -- -- --

Boardman River–Lake Charlevoix (HUC 04060105) MI -- -- X -- --

Burns Ditch IN X -- -- -- L/O

Escanaba River MI -- -- -- -- O

Ford River MI -- -- -- -- L/O

Fox River (Wolf River) WI -- X X X L/O

Fremont Lake Basin (Brooks Creek) MI -- -- X -- --

Galien River MI -- X -- -- --

Grand Calumet River IN X -- -- X --

Grand River MI X X -- -- L/O

Indiana Harbor Canal IN -- -- -- -- L/O

Kalamazoo River MI -- X X X L/O

Kinnickinnic River WI -- -- X -- --

Kintzele Ditch IN -- X -- -- --

Manistique River MI -- -- -- X O

Manistee River MI -- -- -- -- O

Manitowoc River WI U -- U -- L/O

Menominee River WI–MI -- -- -- X L/O

Menomonee River WI X -- X -- --
Table 1 11

Table 1. Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, with existing watershed models, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Areas 

of Concern, and (or) U.S. Geological Survey water-quality monitoring sites for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as of 2010.

—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; GLERL, Great Lakes Environemtal Research 

Laboratory ; DLBRM, Distributed Large Basin Runoff Model; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 

GLRI, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; U, model under development; X, model exists or condition applies for given tributary; L, long-term, year-round 

monitoring for nutrients, sediment, chloride, and physical parameters; O, one sample for anthropogenic contaminants, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, 

personal-care products, wastewater-indicator compounds, and other organic compounds; HUC, hydrologic unit code; --, no data. State abbreviations: 

MN, Minnesota; WI, Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; NY, New York]

Tributary State

USACE

model

(See table 2)

NOAA

GLERL

DLBRM

model

Other models

(See table 2)

USEPA 

Area of 

Concern

USGS GLRI

waterquality

monitoring

Lake Michigan

Milwaukee River WI -- X X X L/O

Mona Lake Basin (Black Creek) MI -- -- X -- --

Muskegon Lake MI -- -- -- X --

Muskegon River MI -- X X -- L/O

Oak Creek WI -- -- X -- --

Oconto River WI -- -- -- -- O

Paw Paw River MI -- -- X -- O

Pere Marquette River MI -- -- -- -- O

Peshtigo River WI -- -- -- -- O

Platte River MI -- -- X -- --

Root River WI -- -- X -- --

Sheboygan River WI -- -- -- X O

Spring Lake Basin (Norris Creek) MI -- -- X -- --

St. Joseph River MI X X X -- L/O

Trail Creek IN X X -- -- --

Waukegan River/Harbor IL X -- -- X --

White Lake MI -- -- -- X --

White River MI -- -- -- -- O

Lake Huron

Au Gres - Rifle Rivers (HUC 04080101) MI -- X X -- --

Au Sable River MI -- -- -- -- L/O

Cass River MI -- -- X -- --

Cheboygan River MI -- -- -- -- O

Flint River MI -- -- X -- --

Indian River MI -- -- -- -- O

Kawkawlin-Pine Rivers (HUC 04080102) MI -- X X -- --

Pigeon-Wiscoggin Rivers (HUC 04080103) MI -- X X -- --

Pine River (HUC 04080202) MI -- -- X -- --

Rifle River MI -- -- -- -- L/O

Saginaw River MI X X X X L/O

Sebewaing River MI X -- -- -- --

Shiawassee River (HUC 04080203) MI -- -- X -- --

St. Marys River MI -- -- -- X --

Thunder Bay River MI -- -- -- -- O

Tittabawassee River (HUC 04080201) MI -- -- X -- --
12 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010

Table 1. Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, with existing watershed models, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Areas 

of Concern, and (or) U.S. Geological Survey water-quality monitoring sites for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as of 2010.

—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; GLERL, Great Lakes Environemtal Research 

Laboratory ; DLBRM, Distributed Large Basin Runoff Model; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 

GLRI, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; U, model under development; X, model exists or condition applies for given tributary; L, long-term, year-round 

monitoring for nutrients, sediment, chloride, and physical parameters; O, one sample for anthropogenic contaminants, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, 

personal-care products, wastewater-indicator compounds, and other organic compounds; HUC, hydrologic unit code; --, no data. State abbreviations: 

MN, Minnesota; WI, Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; NY, New York]

Tributary State

USACE

model

(See table 2)

NOAA

GLERL

DLBRM

model

Other models

(See table 2)

USEPA 

Area of 

Concern

USGS GLRI

waterquality

monitoring

Detroit River and Lake St. Clair

Belle River MI -- -- X -- --

Black River MI -- -- X -- O

Clinton River MI X X X X L/O

Detroit River MI -- -- -- X --

Huron River MI -- X X -- L/O

Pine River (HUC 0409000103) MI -- -- X -- --

River Rouge (Rouge River) MI -- X -- X L/O

St. Clair River MI -- -- -- X --

Lake Erie

Ashtabula River OH -- X -- X --

Auglaize River OH X -- -- -- --

Black River OH X X -- X L/O

Blanchard River OH X -- -- -- --

Buffalo River NY X X X X --

Cattaraugus Creek NY X X -- -- L/O

Cayuga Creek NY X -- -- -- --

Chagrin River OH -- X X -- --

Conneaut Creek OH -- X -- -- --

Cuyahoga River OH X X -- X L/O

Grand River OH X X -- -- O

Lower Maumee River / Harbor OH X -- X -- --

Maumee River OH X X X X L/O

Mill Creek / Cascade Creek PA X -- -- -- --

Ottawa River OH -- X -- -- --

Portage River OH -- X -- -- L/O

Presque Isle Bay PA -- -- -- X --

River Raisin MI X X -- X L/O

Rocky River OH -- X -- -- L/O

Sandusky River OH X X -- -- O

Stony Creek MI -- X -- -- --

Swan Creek OH X -- -- -- --

Tiffin River (Bean Creek) OH -- -- X -- --

Vermilion River OH -- X -- -- O
Table 1 13

Table 1. Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, with existing watershed models, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Areas 

of Concern, and (or) U.S. Geological Survey water-quality monitoring sites for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, as of 2010.

—Continued

[USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; GLERL, Great Lakes Environemtal Research 

Laboratory ; DLBRM, Distributed Large Basin Runoff Model; USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; 

GLRI, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; U, model under development; X, model exists or condition applies for given tributary; L, long-term, year-round 

monitoring for nutrients, sediment, chloride, and physical parameters; O, one sample for anthropogenic contaminants, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, 

personal-care products, wastewater-indicator compounds, and other organic compounds; HUC, hydrologic unit code; --, no data. State abbreviations: 

MN, Minnesota; WI, Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; NY, New York]

Tributary State

USACE

model

(See table 2)

NOAA

GLERL

DLBRM

model

Other models

(See table 2)

USEPA 

Area of 

Concern

USGS GLRI

waterquality

monitoring

Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River

Black River NY -- -- -- -- O

Eighteenmile Creek NY X -- -- X --

Genesee River NY X X X X L/O

Grass River NY -- -- -- -- O

Irondequoit Creek NY -- -- X -- --

Niagara River NY -- -- -- X --

Oak Orchard Creek NY X -- -- -- --

Onondaga Lake Basin NY -- -- X -- --

Oswegatchie River NY -- -- -- -- O

Oswego River NY -- -- -- delisted L/O

Raquette River NY -- -- -- -- O

St. Lawrence River at Massena NY -- -- -- X --

St. Regis River NY -- -- -- -- L/O

Tonawanda Creek NY -- -- -- -- O
14 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010 Table 2.

Watershed models and selected hydraulic, sediment, and (or) water-quality models for tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010.—Continued

[Model software names are identified at their first use along with their abbreviations (in bold print), which are used thereafter. NOAA-GLERL, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; HUC, hydrologic unit code; IWR-MSU, Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University; MDEQ, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; SUNY, State University of New York. State abbreviations: MN, Minnesota; WI, Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; NY, New York]

Models applicable to the entire Great Lakes Basin

Large Basin Runoff Model (LBRM) to estimate inflows to the Great Lakes; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great Lakes Environmental Research LaboratoryHigh Impact Targeting (HIT) to predict soil losses in agricultural areas; Institute of Water Research, Michigan State UniversityLong-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA) to estimate runoff and pollutant loads in urban areas; College of Engineering, Purdue UniversityWater Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) to estimate sediment loads in cropland, rangeland, and disturbed forest areas; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service and Washington State UniversitySpatially Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes (SPARROW ) to estimate nutrient yields; U.S. Geological SurveyWater Availability Tool for Environmental Resources (WATER) to estimate daily streamflows; U.S. Geological SurveyAnalysis of Flows In Networks of CHannels (AFINCH) to estimate time series of monthly flows; U.S. Geological Survey

Model applicable to entire Lake Michigan Basin

Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS); U.S. Geological Survey

Models applicable to a specific tributary watershed

[The following list does not include those tributaries for which the National Weather Service has created models to predict streamflows and water levels at their river forecast sites.]

Tributary (State) Model software Model creator Federal program

Completed models

Ashtabula River (OH) Distributed Large Basin Runoff Model (DLBRM) NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Auglaize River (OH) Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution model (AGNPS) Toledo Harbor AGNPS Project Team USACE

Au Gres - Rifle Rivers (MI) 

(HUC 04080101)

DLBRM;Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT);

Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA) 

NOAA-GLERL;IWR-MSU;MDEQ

NOAA

Battle Creek (MI) SWAT Baird & Associates USACE

Belle River (MI) Pollutant Loading (PLOAD) U.S. Geological Survey

Blanchard River (OH) Annualized Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution model (AnnAGNPS) LimnoTech USACE

Black River (MI) PLOAD U.S. Geological Survey

Black River (OH) DLBRM;

SWAT

NOAA-GLERL;Tetra Tech

NOAA;

USACE

Boardman River - Lake Charlevoix (MI) 

(HUC 04060105)

Integrated Landscape Hydrology Model (ILHM) Michigan State University
Table 2 15

Table 2. Watershed models and selected hydraulic, sediment, and (or) water-quality models for tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010.—Continued[Model software names are identified at their first use along with their abbreviations (in bold print), which are used thereafter. NOAA-GLERL, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great 

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; HUC, hydrologic unit code; IWR-MSU, Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University; MDEQ, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; SUNY, State University of New York. State abbreviations: MN, Minnesota; WI, Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; NY, New York]

Models applicable to a specific tributary watershed—Continued

[The following list does not include those tributaries for which the National Weather Service has created models to predict streamflows and water levels at their river forecast sites.]

Tributary (State) Model software Model creator Federal program

Completed models

Buffalo River (NY) DLBRM;

Better Assessment Science Integrating point and Nonpoint Sources 

(BASINS) -SWAT and Estuarine, coastal, and ocean model–sediment (ECOMSED; 3D sediment transport and riverbed-change model);

Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC; 3D hydrodynamic and 

sediment model) and Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis 

System (HEC-RAS; near mouth)

NOAA-GLERL;Buffalo State College plus 

USACE - Buffalo;

ENVIRON International Corporation,

MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc., plus LimnoTech

NOAA;

USACE

Burns Ditch (IN) Digital Watershed and L-THIA IWR-MSU + Purdue University USACE

Cass River (MI) SWAT;

L-THIA

IWR-MSU;MDEQ

Cattaraugus Creek (NY) DLBRM;

SWAT, Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP), and HEC-RAS

NOAA-GLERL;SUNY-Buffalo

NOAA;

USACE

Cayuga Creek (NY) SWAT SUNY-Buffalo USACE

Chagrin River (OH) DLBRM;

Loading Simulation Program-C++ (LSPC)

NOAA-GLERL;Tetra Tech

NOAA

Clinton River (MI) DLBRM;

SWAT, Gridded Surface-Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA; 

for 3 subbasins), and EFDC (near mouth);

Hydrological Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF)

NOAA-GLERL;Baird & Associates;Tetra Tech

NOAA;

USACE

Conneaut Creek (OH) DLBRM NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Cuyahoga River (OH) DLBRM; 

SWAT (sediment model upgraded to simulate nutrients)

NOAA-GLERL;University of Michigan

NOAA;

USACE

Eighteenmile Creek (NY) BASINS-SWAT Buffalo State College USACE

Flint River (MI) SWAT;

L-THIA

IWR-MSU;MDEQ
16 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010

Table 2.

Watershed models and selected hydraulic, sediment, and (or) water-quality models for tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010.—Continued

[Model software names are identified at their first use along with their abbreviations (in bold print), which are used thereafter. NOAA-GLERL, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great 

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; HUC, hydrologic unit code; IWR-MSU, Institute of 

Water Research, Michigan State University; MDEQ, Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality; SUNY, State University of New 

York. State abbreviations: MN, Minnesota; WI, 

Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; 

NY, New York]

Models applicable to a specific tributary watershed —Continued

[The following list does not include those tributaries for which the National 

Weather Service has created models to predict streamflows and water levels at their river forecast sites.]

Tributary (State) Model software Model creator Federal program

Completed models

Fox River (WI) DLBRM;

SWAT;High-Impact 

Targeting (HIT) and L-THIA;

Water-quality analysis program (

WASP4; PCB transport model);

ECOMSED;FoxSim (polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) fate and transport model)

NOAA;University of 

Wisconsin, Green Bay;

IWR-MSU + Purdue University;U.S. Geological Survey;Baird & Associates;LimnoTech 

NOAA

Fremont Lake Basin (Brooks Creek, MI) PLOAD, L-THIA Nonpoint Source Pollutant (

LTHIA-NPS), and 

Impervious Surface Assessment 

Tool (ISAT)

Grand 

Valley State University, MI

Galien River (MI) DLBRM NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Genesee River (NY) DLBRM;

SWAT;HIT and L-THIA

NOAA-GLERL;USACE - Buffalo plus Cornell 

University;

IWR-MSU plus Purdue University

NOAA;

USACE

Grand Calumet (IN) HSPF plus Special Contributing Area Loading Program (SCALP) and 

HEC-RAS

USACE - Chicago USACE

Grand River (OH) DLBRM;

SWAT (sediment model upgraded to simulate nutrients)

NOAA-GLERL;University of Michigan

NOAA;

USACE

Grand River (MI) DLBRM;

SWAT

NOAA-GLERL;Baird & Associates

NOAA;

USACE

Huron River (MI) DLBRM;

SWAT;HSPF

NOAA-GLERL;University of Michigan;Tetra 

Tech

NOAA

Irondequoit Creek (NY) HSPF U.S. Geological Survey

Kalamazoo River (MI) DLBRM;

L-THIA

NOAA-GLERL;Kieser & Associates

NOAA

Kawkawlin-Pine Rivers (MI) 

(HUC 04080102)

DLBRM;SWAT;L-THIA

NOAA-GLERL;IWR-MSU;MDEQ

NOAA
Table 2 17

Table 2. Watershed models and selected hydraulic, sediment, and (or) water-quality models for tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010.—Continued[Model software names are identified at their first use along with their abbreviations (in bold print), which are used thereafter. NOAA-GLERL, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great 

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; HUC, hydrologic unit code; IWR-MSU, Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University; MDEQ, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; SUNY, State University of New York. State abbreviations: MN, Minnesota; WI, Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; NY, New York]

Models applicable to a specific tributary watershed —Continued

[The following list does not include those tributaries for which the National Weather Service has created models to predict streamflows and water levels at their river forecast sites.]

Tributary (State) Model software Model creator Federal program

Completed models

Kinnickinnic River (WI) HSPF Tetra Tech

Kintzele Ditch (IN) DLBRM NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Lower Maumee River / Harbor (OH) Advanced Aquatic Ecosystem Model (A2EM) and EFDC;

High-resolution HIT using 10-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

LimnoTech;IWR-MSU

USACE

Maumee River (OH) DLBRM;

SWAT (sediment model upgraded to simulate nutrients);HIT and L-THIA

NOAA-GLERL;University of Michigan;IWR-MSU + Purdue University

NOAA;

USACE

Menomonee River (WI) BASINS-HSPF and HEC-6 (scour and deposition model);

HSPF

Baird & Associates;Tetra Tech

USACE

Mill Creek / Cascade Creek (PA) BASINS-SWAT Gannon University, PA USACE

Milwaukee River (WI) DLBRM;

HSPF

NOAA-GLERL;Tetra Tech

NOAA

Mona Lake Basin (Black Creek, MI) Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) 

and HYDROL-INF (infiltration and runoff, Windows-based hydrologic modeling system)

Grand Valley State University, MI

Muskegon River (MI) DLBRM;

HSPF and Great Lakes Ecosystem model (GLECO);

Muskegon River Ecological Modeling System (including ILHM, 

MODFLOW (3D groundwater-flow model), HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS, 

and Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF))

NOAA-GLERL;LimnoTech;Muskegon Watershed Research 

Partnership 

NOAA

Nemadji River (MN, WI) Nemadji Sediment Transport Modeling System (MIKE-11 rainfall-runoff 

and hydrodynamic models and ArcView geographic information system (GIS) sediment-transport model)

Baird & Associates USACE

Oak Creek (WI) HSPF Tetra Tech

Oak Orchard Creek (NY) SWAT SUNY - Brockport USACE

Onondaga Lake Basin (NY) HSPF U.S. Geological Survey
18 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010

Table 2.

Watershed models and selected hydraulic, sediment, and (or) water-quality models for tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010.—Continued

[Model software names are identified at their first use along with their abbreviations (in bold print), which are used thereafter. NOAA-GLERL, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great 

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; HUC, hydrologic unit code; IWR-MSU, Institute of 

Water Research, Michigan State University; MDEQ, Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality; SUNY, State University of New 

York. State abbreviations: MN, Minnesota; WI, 

Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; 

NY, New York]

Models applicable to a specific tributary watershed —Continued

[The following list does not include those tributaries for which the National 

Weather Service has created models to predict streamflows and water levels at their river forecast sites.]

Tributary (State) Model software Model creator Federal program

Completed models

Ontonagon River (MI) SWAT South Dakota State University, 

Brookings plus University of Oregon, Eugene

Ottawa River (OH) DLBRM NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Paw Paw River (MI) SWAT and L-THIA Kieser & Associates

PigeonWiscoggin Rivers (MI)

 (HUC 04080103)

DLBRM;SWAT;L-THIA

NOAA-GLERL;IWR-MSU;MDEQ

NOAA

Pine River (MI; HUC 04080202, tributary to 

Tittabawassee River)

SWAT;L-THIA

IWR-MSU;MDEQ

Pine River (MI; HUC 0409000103, tributary 

to St. Clair River)

PLOAD U.S. Geological Survey

Platte River (MI) HSPF LimnoTech

Portage River (OH) DLBRM NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Rifle River (MI) DLBRM;

SWAT

NOAA_GLERL:IWR-MSU

NOAA

River Raisin (MI) DLBRM;

SWAT (sediment model upgraded to simulate nutrients)

NOAA-GLERL;University of Michigan

NOAA;

USACE

River Rouge (Rouge River, MI) DLBRM NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Rocky River (OH) DLBRM NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Root River (WI) HSPF

Tetra 

Tech

Saginaw River (MI) DLBRM;

AGNPS plus HEC-6 and MIKE-21 (hydrodynamic sediment-transport 

model for lakes and coastal environments);

SWAT;HIT and L-THIA;L-THIA

NOAA-GLERL;Baird & Associates;IWR-MSU ;IWR-MSU plus Purdue University;MDEQ

NOAA;

USACE
Table 2 19

Table 2. Watershed models and selected hydraulic, sediment, and (or) water-quality models for tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010.—Continued[Model software names are identified at their first use along with their abbreviations (in bold print), which are used thereafter. NOAA-GLERL, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great 

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; HUC, hydrologic unit code; IWR-MSU, Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University; MDEQ, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; SUNY, State University of New York. State abbreviations: MN, Minnesota; WI, Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; NY, New York]

Models applicable to a specific tributary watershed —Continued

[The following list does not include those tributaries for which the National Weather Service has created models to predict streamflows and water levels at their river forecast sites.]

Tributary (State) Model software Model creator Federal program

Completed models

Sandusky River (OH) DLBRM;

SWAT (sediment model upgraded to simulate nutrients)

NOAA-GLERL;University of Michigan

NOAA;

USACE

Sebewaing River (MI) SWAT and Channel Stability Tool Baird & Associates USACE

Shiawassee River (MI)

 (HUC 04080203)

SWAT;L-THIA

IWR-MSU;MDEQ

Spring Lake Basin (Norris Creek, MI) PLOAD Grand Valley State University, MI

St. Joseph River (MI, IN) DLBRM;

St. Joseph River Watershed Modeling System (SWAT and GSSHA for 

one subbasin plus RMA2 hydrodynamic model and SED-2D sediment transport model near mouth);

SWAT;Nonpoint Source model

NOAA-GLERL;Baird & Associates;Kieser & Associates;Kieser & Associates

NOAA;

USACE

Stony Creek (MI) DLBRM NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Swan Creek (OH) HIT, Digital Watershed, and L-THIA IWR-MSU plus Purdue University USACE

Tahquamenon River (MI) DLBRM NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Tiffin River/Bean Creek (OH) AGNPS Natural Resources Conservation 

Service

Tittabawassee River (MI)

 (HUC 04080201)

SWAT;L-THIA

IWR-MSU;MDEQ

Trail Creek (IN) DLBRM;

Digital Watershed and L-THIA

NOAA-GLERL;IWR-MSU plus Purdue University

NOAA;

USACE

Vermilion River (OH) DLBRM NOAA-GLERL NOAA

Waukegan River (IL) Stormwater Management Model (PCSWMM.NET) and HEC-RAS 

(sediment transport)

USACE - Chicago USACE

Whittlesey Creek (WI) HEC-RAS and Sediment Impact Analysis Methods (SIAM) USACE - Detroit plus USGS USACE
20 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010

Table 2.

Watershed models and selected hydraulic, sediment, and (or) water-quality models for tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010.—Continued

[Model software names are identified at their first use along with their abbreviations (in bold print), which are used thereafter. NOAA-GLERL, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great 

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; HUC, hydrologic unit code; IWR-MSU, Institute of 

Water Research, Michigan State University; MDEQ, Michigan 

Department of Environmental Quality; SUNY, State University of New 

York. State abbreviations: MN, Minnesota; WI, 

Wisconsin; MI, Michigan; IL, Illinois; IN, Indiana; OH, Ohio, PA, Pennsylvania; 

NY, New York]

Models applicable to a specific tributary watershed —Continued

[The following list does not include those tributaries for which the National 

Weather Service has created models to predict streamflows and water levels at their river forecast sites.]

Tributary (State) Model software Model creator Federal program

Model under development

Knife River (MN) HSPF Baird & Associates USACE

Knowlton Creek (MN) HEC-HMS USACE - Detroit USACE

Manitowoc River (WI) HIT;

SWAT

IWR-MSU;U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

USACE

Western Lake Superior tributaries Channel Stability 

Tool Baird & Associates USACE
Figure 1 21

0 5 10 15 20 25 MILES

0 5 10 15 20 25 KILOMETERS

Drainage basins shown at a scale of 1:1,100,000

Bad River Watershed

Wisconsin 

Tonawanda Creek Watershed

New York

Kalamazoo River Watershed

Michigan

Watershed

boundary

A

B

C

D

Unknown

EXPLANATION

Hydrologic soil group

92° 88° 84° 80° 76°

48°

46°

44°

42°

Illinois Indiana

Ohio

Iowa

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

New York

Michigan

Michigan

Ontario Quebec U N I T E D S T A T E S

C A N A D A

0 100 200 MILES

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

Base from Digital General Soil Map of U.S., National Cooperative Soil Survey, 2006.

Lake Superior

Lake

Michigan

Lake Huron

Lake

 Erie

Lake 

Ontario

TONAWANDA

CREEK

Watershed

KALAMAZOO

RIVER

Watershed

BAD RIVER

Watershed

Odanah

Ashland

Rapids

Buffalo

Batavia

New Richmond

Kalamazoo

Battle Creek

Marshall

Saugatuck

Figure 1. Hydrologic soil groups of the Great Lakes Basin, United States, and three tributary watersheds identified for modeling.
22 Compilation of Watershed Models for Tributaries to the Great Lakes, United States, as of 2010

Coon_fig 02

Buffalo

92° 88° 84° 80° 76°

48°

46°

44°

42°

Illinois Indiana Ohio

Iowa

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

Michigan

Michigan

Lake Superior

Lake

Michigan

Lake Huron

Lake

 Erie

Lake 

Ontario

Ontario

Quebec

 

0 100 200 MILES

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

Drainage basins shown at a scale of 1:1,100,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 MILES

0 5 10 15 20 25 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. National Land Cover Database, 2006,

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2010.

Wisconsin

New York

U N I T E D S TAT E S

C A N A D A

TONAWANDA

CREEK

Watershed KALAMAZOO

RIVER

Watershed

BAD RIVER

Watershed

Open water/

wetland

Developed

Barren

Forest

Scrub/shrub

Grassland/herbaceous

Cultivated crops/pasture

EXPLANATION

Watershed boundary

Land use or land cover

Odanah

Ashland

Rapids

Buffalo

Batavia

New Richmond

Kalamazoo

Battle Creek

Marshall

Saugatuck

Bad River Watershed

Wisconsin 

Tonawanda Creek Watershed

New York

Kalamazoo River Watershed

Michigan

Figure 2. Land uses and land covers of the Great Lakes Basin, United States, and three tributary watersheds identified for modeling.
Figure 3 23

Coon_fig 03

92° 88° 84° 80° 76°

48°

46°

44°

42°

Illinois Indiana Ohio

Iowa

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

NewYork 

Michigan

Michigan

Lake Superior

Lake

Michigan

Lake Huron

Lake

 Erie

Lake 

Ontario

Ontario

Quebec

U N I T E D S T A T E S

C A N A D A

0 100 200 MILES

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

0 5 10 15 20 MILES 25

0 5 10 15 20 KILOMETERS 25

Drainage basins shown at a scale of 1:1,100,000

Base from Surficial Deposits and Materials in the Eastern and Central United States (East of 102°

West Longitude),U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Investigation Series I-2789, 2003.

EXPLANATION

Mixed 

Clayey till

Loamy till

Sandy till

Sand

Sand-gravel

Peat-muck

Open water

Surficial deposits

Bad River Watershed

Wisconsin 

Tonawanda Creek Watershed

New York

Kalamazoo River Watershed

Michigan

Watershed boundary

Odanah

Ashland

Rapids

Buffalo

Batavia

New Richmond

Kalamazoo

Battle Creek

Marshall

Saugatuck

TONAWANDA

CREEK

Watershed KALAMAZOO

RIVER

Watershed

BAD RIVER

Watershed

Figure 3. Surficial deposits of the Great Lakes Basin, United States, and three tributary watersheds identified for modeling.
This page has been left blank intenttionally
Prepared by the Pembroke and West Trenton 

Publishing Service Centers.

For additional information write to:

New York Water Science Center

U.S. Geological Survey

30 Brown Rd.

Ithaca, NY 14850

Information requests:

(518) 285-5602

or visit our Web site at:

http://ny.water.usgs.gov
Coon and others—Watershed Models for Tributaries and Identification of Watersheds for Future Watershed Modeling, Great Lakes, United States—Open-File Report 2011–1202