Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the ... · Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in t ... Turtle River Forest River ... Model Calibration

Nustad and Bales–Sim

ulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North B

asin, North D

akota and M

innesota, 2003-04–Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5273

In cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation

Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, North Dakota and Minnesota, 2003-04

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5273

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological SurveyPrinted on recycled paper

Otter Tail River

Bois de Sioux River

Near Cooperstown

At Lisbon

At Valley City

Lake Ashtabula

Above Harvey Near Warwick

Near Kindred

At Emerson

At Drayton

MANITOBACANADA

UNITED STATESMINNESOTANORTH DAKOTA

At Oslo

At Grand Forks

Near Thompson

At Halstad

At confluence with Sheyenne River

At Fargo

At Hickson

At Wahpeton

At North DakotaHighway 30near Maddock

Sand Hill River

Marsh River

Wild Rice River

Buffalo River

Turtle River

Forest River

Park River

Pembina River

Two Rivers

Snake River

Red Lake RiverAt PetersonCoulee

Below Baldhill Dam

Above Sheyenne Riverdiversion near Horace

At Brooktree Park

Into Lake Ashtabula

SHEYENN

E

RIVE

RO

FTH

EN

ORT

HRE

D

RIVER

Goose River

Wild Rice River

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM


By Rochelle A. Nustad and Jerad D. Bales

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



par Inter No ry

olock L Dire

logi ston, V

.S. G rmation enve0225

rmat nd its pr-888-

Web: /

U.S. DeGale A.

U.S. GeP. Patri

U.S. Geo

For sale by UBox 25286, DDenver, CO 8

For more infoTelephone: 1World Wide

Any use of trade, endorsement by th

Although this reporeproduce any cop

tment of the rton, Secreta

gical Surveyeahy, Acting

cal Survey, Re

eological Survey, Infor Federal Center

ion about the USGS aASK-USGS http://www.usgs.gov

product, or firm names in this e U.S. Government.

rt is in the public domain, peryrighted materials contained

ior

ctor

irginia: 2005

Services

oducts:

publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply

mission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to within this report.

iii

Contents

Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Introduction

PurposStudy A

Methods . . . Data-CWater-WithdrChannDescri

Streamflow aSimulation of

ModelCS

ModelSW

ModelModel

S

SModel LimitaSummary. . . References.

Figures

1. Ma2. Gra3. Gra

Oc4. Gra

Se5. Gra

caSe

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1e and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2rea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3ollection Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Quality Sample Collection and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3awal and Return-Flow Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3el-Geometry Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3ption of HEC-5 and HEC-5Q Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7nd Water-Quality Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Conservative-Constituent Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14omputational Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14treamflow and Water-Quality Boundary Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21treamflow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21ater Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Performance Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24imulations with September 2003 Streamflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Total Dissolved Solids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Sulfate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Chloride. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Uncertainty of Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

imulations with Reduced Streamflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
p showing locations of sites used in study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39ph showing streamflows and flow duration curves for selected sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40phs showing streamflows for selected sites for August 15 through

tober 31, 2003, and April 15 through June 30, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41phs showing measured total dissolved-solids concentrations for

ptember 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43phs showing measured calcium, magnesium, sodium, bicarbonate,

rbonate, sulfate, and chloride concentrations for selected sites for ptember 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

iv

Figures, Continued

6. Graphs showing measured nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, ammonia as nitrogen, and organic nitrogen concentrations for selected sites for September 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

7. Graph showing measured total phosphorus concentrations for selected sites for September 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

8. Diagram showing schematic of Red River water-quality model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .519. Graphs showing measured and simulated streamflows for selected

Red River water-quality model control points for September 15, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5210. Graphs showing measured and simulated total dissolved-solids

concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points for September 15, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

11. Graphs showing measured and simulated sulfate concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points for September 15, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

12. Graphs showing measured and simulated chloride concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points for September 15, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

13. Graphs showing measured and simulated streamflows for selected Red River water-quality model control points for May 10, 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

14. Graphs showing measured and simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points for May 10, 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

15. Graphs showing measured and simulated sulfate concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points for May 10, 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

16. Graphs showing measured and simulated chloride concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points for May 10, 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

17. Graphs showing simulated streamflows for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne River for September 15, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

18. Graphs showing simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for water- supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne River for September 15, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

19. Graphs showing simulated sulfate concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne River for September 15, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

20. Graphs showing simulated chloride concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne River for September 15, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Tables

1. Data-collection network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42. Water-quality properties and constituents for which samples were

analyzed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53. Withdrawals from and return flows to the Red River of the North at Fargo,

North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, during September 2003 and May 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

4. Mean daily total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads for September 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods and for 1992-95 and 1998-99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5. Streamflow boundary conditions for September 2003 sampling period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

v

Tables, Continued

6. Streamflow boundary conditions for May 2004 sampling period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177. Water-quality boundary conditions for September 2003 and May 2004

sam8. Mo

tra9. Me

betsul

10. DePro

11. Prototalte

12. Mebet(th

13. Re14. Ab

bestr

15. Abbetan

16. Abbean

pling periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19del calibration points used for simulation of conservative-constituent

nsport in the Red River of the North Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22an calibration errors and maximum and minimum absolute differences ween measured (September 2003) and simulated total dissolved-solids, fate, and chloride concentrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23scription of water-supply alternatives for Red River Valley Water Supply ject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25jected return flows, imported flows, and withdrawals and estimated

al dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations for water-supply rnatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26an simulated concentrations for water-supply alternatives and difference ween concentration for alternative and concentration for alternative 1 e no-action alternative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30duced streamflows used in Red River water-quality model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32solute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences tween total dissolved-solids concentrations simulated with September 2003 eamflows and those simulated with reduced streamflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33solute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences ween sulfate concentrations simulated with September 2003 streamflows

d those simulated with reduced streamflows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34solute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences tween chloride concentrations simulated with September 2003 streamflows d those simulated with reduced streamflows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

vi

Conversion Factors and Datum

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

Volume

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Mass

pound per day (lb/d) 0.4536 kilogram per day (kg/d)

Hydraulic gradient

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or milliequivalents per liter.

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer (m/km)

Simu rvin the eand M -0

By Roche ale

Abstrac

Popula futurthe Red Riv n wiincreasing n hereresult of the 200of Reclama alte(including a ure wthe basin. B siblealternatives andRiver and in ureation needs t ct stdescribes th f eaTo provide impthe U.S. Ge ith Reclamatio nd aquality mod ed quality mod e Shto simulate t in Basin. The a onsional, stea for stituents in Rivesimulates th olvefate, and ch ons.model domthe Bois deEmerson, Mvey, N. Dak

The Rtested usingthrough 16,quality samtions from Sunsteady-flsimulated ttrations gencentrations

lation of Conse Red River of thinnesota, 2003

lle A. Nustad and Jerad D. B

t

tion growth along with possible er of the North (Red River) Basieed for reliable water supplies. T Dakota Water Resources Act oftion identified eight water-supply no-action alternative) to meet futecause of concerns about the pos on water quality in the Red River Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, the Bo prepare an environmental impae specific environmental effects oinformation for the environmentalological Survey, in cooperation wn, conducted a study to develop ael, hereinafter referred to as the Rel, to part of the Red River and th

conservative-constituent transporRed River water-quality model isdy-state flow and transport modelthe Red River and the Sheyenne e flow and transport of total dissloride during steady-state conditi
ain includes the Red River from the c Sioux and Otter Tail Rivers to the Reanitoba, and the Sheyenne River from., to the confluence with the Red Riv
ed River water-quality model was cal data collected at 34 sites from Septe 2003, and from May 10 through 13, ples were collected during low, steadeptember 15 through 16, 2003, and du

ow conditions from May 10 through 1otal dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloerally were within 5 percent of the m

.

ative-Constituent Transport North Basin, North Dakota 4

s

e droughts in ll create an fore, as a

0, the Bureau rnatives ater needs in

effects of the the Sheyenne u of Reclama-atement that ch alternative. act statement, the Bureau of pply a water-River water-eyenne River

the Red River e-dimen-selected con-r. The model d solids, sul- The physical

The Red River water-quality model was used to simulate conservative-constituent transport in the Red River and the Sheyenne River for the eight water-supply alternatives identi-fied by the Bureau of Reclamation. For the first set of eight sim-ulations, September 2003 streamflows were used with projected 2050 return flows and withdrawals. For the second set of eight simulations, the September 2003 streamflows were reduced by 25 percent. The simulated concentrations for three of the alter-natives generally were lower than for the no-action alternative. Of those alternatives, one would result in a decrease in concen-trations for two constituents, one would result in a decrease in concentrations for all three constituents, and one would result in a decrease in concentrations for one constituent and an increase in concentrations for another constituent. For four of the alter-natives, the differences between the mean simulated concentra-tions were less than calibration errors, indicating the effects of those alternatives on water quality in the rivers is uncertain. The effects of reduced streamflow on simulated total dissolved-sol-ids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations were greatest for alter-native 2. Reduced streamflow probably has an effect on simu-lated total dissolved-solids concentrations for alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 7 and on simulated sulfate concentrations for alternatives 2 and 5. Except for alternative 2, reduced streamflow had little effect on simulated chloride concentrations.

onfluence of d River at above Har-

er.

ibrated and mber 15 2004. Water-y-flow condi-ring medium, 3, 2004. The ride concen-easured con-

Introduction

Population growth along with possible future droughts in the Red River of the North (Red River) Basin (figure 1 at back of report) in North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota will create an increasing need for reliable water supplies. Therefore, the Dakota Water Resources Act passed by the U.S. Congress on December 15, 2000, authorized the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive study of the future water needs in the basin in North Dakota and of possible options to meet those water needs. As part of the comprehensive study, the Bureau of Reclamation identified eight water-supply alternatives (includ-ing a no-action alternative) for the Red River Valley Water Sup-ply Project (RRVWSP) (U.S. Department of the Interior,

2 S

Bureainclu

aboutwaterLakeprepathe spvide i(USGductepart oservanumeU.S. mode1998used tions.durinunstetions tratio

Purp

conseDevemodetives referroped waterEnginand aBureaconst

steadconstmodetotal dSepte2004physience at EmHarvat bacdomain the

imulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

u of Reclamation, 2005). Of those alternatives, four de the interbasin transfer of water.

Because many stakeholders have expressed concerns the possible effects of the water-supply alternatives on quality in the Red River and the Sheyenne River and in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the Bureau of Reclamation needs to re an environmental impact statement (EIS) that describes ecific environmental effects of each alternative. To pro-nformation for the EIS, the U.S. Geological Survey S), in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, con-d a study to develop and apply a water-quality model to f the Red River and the Sheyenne River to simulate con-tive-constituent transport in the Red River Basin. The rical HEC-5 and HEC-5Q models used previously by the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a water-quality l for part of the study area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ; Resource Management Associates, 1996a, 1996b) were to simulate flow and constituent transport for 2003 condi- In addition, selected water-quality constituents measured g low, steady-flow conditions and during medium, ady-flow conditions were characterized and the concentra-for those constituents were compared to historical concen-ns.

ose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the simulation of rvative-constituent transport in the Red River Basin. lopment, calibration, and testing of the water-quality l and model simulations for selected water-supply alterna-are documented. The numerical model, hereinafter ed to as the Red River water-quality model, was devel-from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003) HEC-5Q -quality model. For this study, the U.S. Army Corps of eers model was expanded to include the entire study area

pplied to the water-supply alternatives identified by the u of Reclamation to simulate changes in conservative-

ituent transport.

Study Area

The study area includes the Red River from the confluence of the Bois de Sioux and Otter Tail Rivers to the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba, the Sheyenne River from above Harvey, N. Dak., to the confluence with the Red River, and selected trib-utaries to the Red River. The Red River Basin is part of the Hud-son Bay drainage system. Parts of North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota in the United States and parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Canada are drained by the Red River, and the North Dakota-Minnesota boundary is formed by the river (figure 1 at back of report). The drainage area of the Red River at Emerson is 40,200 mi2. Downstream from Emer-son, the Red River drains into Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba. The streamflow-gaging station at Emerson is located 0.8 mi down-stream from the international boundary.

The Red River is formed by the confluence of the Bois de Sioux and Otter Tail Rivers at Wahpeton, N. Dak. (figure 1 at back of report), and flows northward 394 mi to the international boundary. The slope of the river is extremely flat. The river falls only about 200 ft over the reach between Wahpeton and the international boundary. Between 1990 and 2000, the population in the United States part of the Red River Basin increased 19 percent to 607,000 (Sether and others, 2004). About one-third of the population in the United States part of the basin resides in Fargo, N. Dak., Grand Forks, N. Dak., and Moorhead, Minn. (Stoner and others, 1998). In 1990, total water use in the United States part of the basin was about 196 Mgal/d. Most of the water was used for public supplies and irrigation. Slightly more than one-half of the water was obtained from ground-water sources, but the largest cities (Fargo, Grand Forks, and Moorhead) obtained most of their water from the Red River (Stoner and others, 1993).

Streamflow in the Otter Tail River has been regulated by Orwell Dam since 1953. Orwell Reservoir provides 13,100 acre-ft of storage for multiple uses. Numerous other controlled lakes and ponds and several powerplants affect streamflow in the Otter Tail River.

The Red River water-quality model is a one-dimensional, y-state flow and transport model for selected conservative ituents in the Red River and the Sheyenne River. The l was calibrated for the simulation of flow and transport of issolved solids, sulfate, and chloride. Data collected from

mber 15 through 16, 2003, and from May 10 through 13, , were used to develop, calibrate, and test the model. The cal model domain includes the Red River from the conflu-of the Bois de Sioux and Otter Tail Rivers to the Red River erson, Manitoba, and the Sheyenne River from above

ey, N. Dak., to the confluence with the Red River (figure 1 k of report). Although Lake Ashtabula is in the model in, water-quality processes for the lake were not included model.

Lake Traverse and Mud Lake are natural lakes near the headwaters of the Bois de Sioux River. In 1942, Reservation Dam on Lake Traverse and White Rock Dam on Mud Lake were completed. The combined flood storage capacity for the two lakes is 153,700 acre-ft at an elevation of 981 ft.

The Sheyenne River, one of the major tributaries to the Red River, has a drainage area of about 6,910 mi2 (not including the closed Devils Lake Basin) and is about 500 mi long. The average slope of the river ranges from 1.0 to 1.5 ft/mi. During the 1950s, zero streamflow was recorded along the Sheyenne River from above Harvey, N. Dak., to Lisbon, N. Dak. Flow in the lower reaches of the river is regulated partly by releases from Baldhill Dam, which was completed in 1949. Lake Ash-

tab69noimLasu

anitsRiaqchlanHama

M

waetrmaincanmeWodFimoen

Da

Ri(talocremRiRiShgatar

W

floing13sitwe

Methods 3

ula, which is formed by Baldhill Dam, has a capacity of ,100 acre-ft between the invert of the outlet conduit and the rmal pool elevation and a capacity of 157,500 acre-ft at max-um pool elevation (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003). ke Ashtabula is operated for flood control, municipal water pply, recreation, and stream-pollution abatement.

Ground water in the Red River Basin is primarily in sand d gravel aquifers near land surface or in buried glacial depos- throughout the basin. Ground water moves toward the Red ver through a regional system of bedrock and glacial-drift uifers (Sether and others, 2004). Saline ground-water dis-arge from the bedrock aquifers is known to collect in wet-ds that drain into tributaries of the Red River (Strobel and ffield, 1995). The Turtle, Forest, and Park Rivers are the jor contributors of salinity to the Red River.

ethods

The Red River water-quality model requires streamflow, ter-quality, withdrawal and return-flow, and channel-geom-y data. Methods used to collect or compile the data are sum-rized in this section. The data-collection network, which luded locations where water-quality samples were collected

d streamflow measurements were made, is presented, and thods used to collect water-quality samples are described.

ithdrawal and return-flow data used for the model and meth-s used to estimate channel-geometry data are described. nally, a brief overview is given of the HEC-5 and HEC-5Q dels, which were used to simulate streamflow and constitu-

t transport, respectively, in the study area.

ta-Collection Network

The data-collection network consisted of 34 sites (11 Red ver sites, 8 Sheyenne River sites, and 15 other tributary sites) ble 1, figure 1 at back of report). Of the 34 sites, 23 were co-ated with active USGS streamflow-gaging stations. Of the aining sites, three were located on the main stem of the Red

ods described by the U.S. Geological Survey (variously dated). The samples were analyzed by the North Dakota Department of Health Laboratory for an extensive set of water-quality proper-ties and constituents (table 2), and the water-quality data are given by Robinson and others (2004, 2005).

Although wastewater is discharged continuously from the Fargo, N. Dak., and Moorhead, Minn., wastewater-treatment facilities, the wastewater is not routinely analyzed for total dis-solved solids, sulfate, and chloride. Therefore, because concen-trations for those constituents were required for model calibra-tion, water-quality samples were collected from the Red River immediately upstream and immediately downstream from both facilities during the September 2003 sampling period. Loads and concentrations then were determined by mass balance, and the differences between the upstream and downstream concen-trations were attributed to the wastewater discharges.

Withdrawal and Return-Flow Data

Withdrawals are made from the Red River and the Shey-enne River primarily for municipal and industrial water sup-plies and for irrigation. Return flows generally are municipal and industrial wastewater discharges. Only withdrawals and return flows that were large in relation to flow in the river were included in the water-quality model (table 3). Withdrawal data were obtained from the water-treatment facility for each of the major cities (Ron Hendrickson, Fargo Water Treatment Facil-ity, oral commun., 2004; Hazel Sletten, Grand Forks Water Treatment Facility, oral commun., 2004; and Troy Hall, Moor-head Water Treatment Facility, oral commun., 2004). Return-flow data for Fargo, N. Dak., and Grand Forks, N. Dak., were obtained from the North Dakota Department of Health (Gary Bracht, North Dakota Department of Health, written commun., 2004) and the city of Moorhead, Minn. (Bob Zimmerman, Moorhead Wastewater Treatment Facility, oral commun., 2004).

Channel-Geometry Data
ver, and one was located on the main stem of the Sheyenne ver. Ungaged tributaries to the Red River (other than the eyenne River) were sampled at either the downstream-most ging station or at ungaged sites near the mouth of the tribu-y.
ater-Quality Sample Collection and Analysis

Water-quality samples were collected during low, steady-w conditions from September 15 through 16, 2003, and dur- medium, unsteady-flow conditions from May 10 through

, 2004. Streamflow measurements were made at the ungaged es at the time of sample collection. The field measurements re made and the samples were collected according to meth-

Channel geometry in the HEC-5 and HEC-5Q models is described by cross-section flow area, top width, and water-sur-face elevation for a range of streamflows. The channel-geome-try data for part of the study area were directly available in HEC-5 / HEC-5Q format from a HEC-5Q water-quality model previously developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003). However, that model did not include data for the Bois de Sioux River, the Otter Tail River, the Red River from Wah-peton, N. Dak., to Fargo, N. Dak., or the Sheyenne River upstream from Peterson Coulee. Therefore, measured channel cross sections for those reaches were processed into the HEC-5 / HEC-5Q format using the one-dimensional, unsteady-flow model HEC-RAS (Brunner, 2002). Channel cross sections were processed for streamflows of less than 10,000 ft3/s because only

4 S

Table

Snum

(figu


1. Data-collection network.

iteberre 1)

U.S. Geological Surveysite number

Site name

Activestreamflow-

gagingstation

1 05046502 Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minnesota No

2 05051300 Bois de Sioux River near Doran, Minnesota Yes

3 05051500 Red River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota Yes

4 05051522 Red River of the North at Hickson, North Dakota Yes

5 05053000 Wild Rice River near Abercrombie, North Dakota Yes

6 05053800 Red River of the North above Fargo, North Dakota No

7 05054000 Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota Yes

8 465602096472700 Red River of the North on Cass County Road 20 below Fargo, North Dakota No

9 05054500 Sheyenne River above Harvey, North Dakota Yes

10 05056000 Sheyenne River near Warwick, North Dakota Yes

11 05057000 Sheyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota Yes

12 05058000 Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota Yes

13 05058700 Sheyenne River at Lisbon, North Dakota Yes

14 05059000 Sheyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota Yes

15 05059300 Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace, North Dakota Yes

16 470000096535300 Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park, North Dakota No

17 05062000 Buffalo River near Dilworth, Minnesota Yes

18 05064000 Wild Rice River at Hendrum, Minnesota Yes

19 05064500 Red River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota Yes

20 05066500 Goose River at Hillsboro, North Dakota Yes

21 05067500 Marsh River near Shelly, Minnesota Yes

22 05069000 Sand Hill River at Climax, Minnesota Yes

23 05070000 Red River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota Yes

24 05080000 Red Lake River at Fisher, Minnesota Yes

25 05082500 Red River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota Yes

26 480239097115000 Turtle River above Manvel, North Dakota No

27 05083500 Red River of the North at Oslo, Minnesota No

28 482118097090500 Forest River near confluence with Red River of the North, North Dakota No

29 482451097062500 Snake River near Big Woods, Minnesota No

30 482736097112800 Park River near Oakwood, North Dakota No

31 05092000 Red River of the North at Drayton, North Dakota Yes

32 05095000 Two Rivers at Hallock, Minnesota No

33 485636097173800 Pembina River above Pembina, North Dakota No

34 05102500 Red River of the North at Emerson, Manitoba Yes

Ta

[Sa

S

S

p

p

T

T

B

T

D

H

A

T

C

M

S

P

S

P

B

C

S

C

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Methods 5

ble 2. Water-quality properties and constituents for which samples were analyzed.

mples were analyzed by the North Dakota Department of Health Laboratory; --, no data; <, less than; NA, not applicable]

Property or constituentParameter

codeMeasurement

type

Minimumreporting

limitUnits

treamflow 00060 Field -- Cubic feet per second

pecific conductance 00095 Field -- Microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius

H 00400 Field -- Standard units

H 00403 Laboratory -- Standard units

emperature, air 00020 Field -- Degrees Celsius

emperature, water 00010 Field -- Degrees Celsius

arometric pressure 00025 Field -- Millimeters of mercury

urbidity 61028 Field -- Nephelometric turbidity units

issolved oxygen 00300 Calculated -- Milligrams per liter

ardness 00905 Laboratory -- Milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate

cid neutralizing capacity 90410 Calculated < 1 Milligrams per liter

otal dissolved solids 70301 Calculated -- Milligrams per liter

alcium, dissolved 00915 Laboratory < 2 Milligrams per liter

agnesium, dissolved 00925 Laboratory < 1 Milligrams per liter

odium, dissolved 00930 Laboratory < 3 Milligrams per liter

ercent sodium 00932 Calculated -- Percent

odium adsorption ratio 00931 Calculated -- NA

otassium, dissolved 00935 Laboratory < 1 Milligrams per liter

icarbonate 90440 Laboratory < 1 Milligrams per liter

arbonate 90445 Laboratory < 1 Milligrams per liter

ulfate, dissolved 00945 Laboratory < 0.3 Milligrams per liter

hloride, dissolved 00940 Laboratory < 0.3 Milligrams per liter

itrite plus nitrate, total as nitrogen 00630 Laboratory < 0.02 Milligrams per liter

itrite plus nitrate, dissolved as nitrogen 00631 Laboratory < 0.02 Milligrams per liter

itrogen, ammonia, total 00610 Laboratory < 0.010 Milligrams per liter

itrogen, ammonia, dissolved 00608 Laboratory < 0.010 Milligrams per liter

itrogen, total 00600 Laboratory < 0.015 Milligrams per liter

itrogen, dissolved 00602 Laboratory < 0.015 Milligrams per liter

itrogen, total Kjeldahl 00625 Calculated < 0.001 Milligrams per liter

itrogen, dissolved Kjeldahl 00623 Calculated < 0.001 Milligrams per liter

6 S

Pho

Pho

Orth

Iron

Man

Coli

Chlo

Chlo

1An

TableMoor

Farg

Gran

Moo

1In 2In 3In 4In

Table

[Samp


sphorus, total 00665 Laboratory < 0.004 Milligrams per liter

sphorus, dissolved 00666 Laboratory < 0.004 Milligrams per liter

ophosphate, dissolved 00671 Laboratory < 0.01 Milligrams per liter

, dissolved 01046 Laboratory < 10 Micrograms per liter

ganese, dissolved 01056 Laboratory < 10 Micrograms per liter

form, fecal1 31625 Laboratory < 10 Colonies per 100 milliliters

rophyll a 70951 Laboratory -- Micrograms per liter

rophyll b 70952 Laboratory -- Micrograms per liter

alyzed for May 2004 samples.

3. Withdrawals from and return flows to the Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, and head, Minnesota, during September 2003 and May 2004.

City

Average dailywithdrawals forSeptember 2003(cubic feet per

second)

Average dailywithdrawals for

May 2004(cubic feet per

second)

Average dailyreturn flows

for September 15through 16, 2003(cubic feet per

second)

Average dailyreturn flowsfor May 10

through 13, 2004(cubic feet per

second)

o 20.3 16.8 17.5 15.4

d Forks 1 0 2 2.2 0 32

2. Water-quality properties and constituents for which samples were analyzed.—Continued

les were analyzed by the North Dakota Department of Health Laboratory; --, no data; <, less than; NA, not applicable]

Property or constituentParameter

codeMeasurement

type

Minimumreporting

limitUnits

rhead 3 7.1 4 6.3 5.8 6.7

addition, 13.0 cubic feet per second was withdrawn from the Red Lake River.

addition, 10.2 cubic feet per second was withdrawn from the Red Lake River.

addition, 1.1 cubic feet per second was withdrawn from ground-water sources.

addition, 0.4 cubic foot per second was withdrawn from ground-water sources.

6 pat an

De

is chrattrovousHyfersoboHEing(UU.HuCoCoDiRe(Ga w

19resdyenvoseincnitapwaApMArram

casestrobateplomainf

Streamflow and Water-Quality Conditions 7

ercent of the mean daily streamflows for site 25 (Red River Grand Forks, N. Dak.) exceeded 10,000 ft3/s between 1904 d 2004.

scription of HEC-5 and HEC-5Q Models

The HEC-5 model (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998) designed to simulate unsteady flows through a system of annels and reservoirs that have a branched network configu-ion. The model can be used to evaluate different flood-con-l scenarios as well as to size reservoirs and their flood-control lumes. One-dimensional channel routing is performed by ing one of seven available hydrologic-routing techniques. drologic routing (for example, the Muskingum method) dif-s from hydraulic routing in that hydrologic routing is based lely on conservation of mass. Hydraulic routing is based on th conservation of mass and conservation of momentum. The C-5 model has been applied to many managed rivers, includ- the Sacramento River (Willey, 1987), the Big Sandy River .S. Army Corps of Engineers, unpub. data, 1996, on file at S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, ntington District), and the Monongahela River (U.S. Army rps of Engineers, unpub. data, 1987, on file at U.S. Army rps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Pittsburgh strict). A more recent version of the model, known as HEC-sSim (Klipsch, 2003), includes a graphical user interface UI) to build model input files but does not include linkage to ater-quality model as was required for this study.

The HEC-5Q model (Resource Management Associates, 96a, 1996b), a companion to the HEC-5 model, is a river and ervoir water-quality model that can be used to simulate namic interactions of multiple, nonlinearly coupled constitu-ts in rivers and in longitudinally or vertically stratified reser-irs. The model can be used to simulate the transport of con-rvative and nonconservative properties and constituents, luding temperature, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, chloride, rate, ammonia, orthophosphorus, and phytoplankton. Recent plications of the HEC-5Q model include the simulation of

The HEC-5 model was used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003) to simulate streamflow, and the HEC-5Q model was used to simulate constituent transport in the Shey-enne River from the confluence of Peterson Coulee with the Sheyenne River, through Lake Ashtabula, to the confluence of the Sheyenne River with the Red River, and down the Red River to Emerson, Manitoba. The HEC-5Q water-quality model included Lake Ashtabula but did not include the Red River from Wahpeton, N. Dak., to Fargo, N. Dak., or the Sheyenne River upstream from Peterson Coulee. The model was applied to aid in the analysis of potential environmental effects of a proposed Devils Lake outlet and underwent extensive peer review prior to publication. Documentation of the model is given in appen-dix A of the Devils Lake EIS (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003).

Streamflow and Water-Quality Conditions

Streamflow and water-quality conditions are discussed in this section to place the conditions that occurred during the Sep-tember 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods into a historical perspective. In addition to data for total dissolved solids, sul-fate, and chloride, data for selected ions (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and bicarbonate) and nutrients (nitrogen and phospho-rus) are discussed to provide a perspective on overall water-quality characteristics. Nitrogen and phosphorus loads calcu-lated from data collected during this study are compared to his-torical nitrogen and phosphorus loads.

Streamflows during the September 2003 sampling period were low (figure 2 at back of report). For example, streamflows for the Red Lake River at the mouth and site 34 (Red River at Emerson, Manitoba) are historically lower than streamflows measured on September 15, 2003, for site 24 (Red Lake River at Fisher, Minn.) and site 34, respectively, about 16 percent of the time (figure 2 at back of report). Streamflows for the Otter Tail River at the mouth and the Sheyenne River at the mouth are historically lower than streamflows measured on September 16, 2003, for site 1 (Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge,

ter quality in the complex Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and alachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins (Resource

anagement Associates, unpub. data, 1999, on file at U.S. my Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Sac-

ento District and Mobile District).

A post-processing GUI for the HEC-5 / HEC-5Q models n be used to view model-generated results through time-ries plots and animated longitudinal and vertical profiles of eamflows and constituent concentrations. Measurements tained from data files can be plotted with the model-gener-d results for calibration exercises. The results are selected for tting by using a map-based interface that displays a sche-tic of the model configuration along with various geographic ormation system map layers.

Minn.) and site 16 (Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park, N. Dak.), respectively, about 30 percent of the time. Streamflows in the study area were generally decreasing before sample collection but were generally steady during the sampling period (figure 3a at back of report). Flow duration calculations were based on naturalized monthly streamflows for 1931-2001 [see Emerson (2005) for details of the calculations].

On May 11 and 12, 2004, during the middle of the May 2004 sampling period, widespread rainfall occurred throughout much of the Red River Basin. On May 11, rainfall amounts in the area east of the Red River and north of Fargo, N. Dak., were higher than those in the upper part of the Red and Sheyenne River Basins and ranged from 1.59 in. at Warren, Minn., to 2.21 in. at Perley, Minn. (North Dakota Agricultural Weather Net-

8 S

workShey0.6 in(Nort

2004less sexcep3b at Emerplingincrebasinoccurstreamthe pedurinsite (fRiversuredMinnTail RmeasStreecontrstreampercethe mMay N. DarepordurinrunofMay

Rivertion Amg/Lincreing thwere streamtotal betwethe RSiouxreporfigureof themg/LRiverreporwith tions


, 2005). Rainfall amounts in the upper part of the Red and enne River Basins on May 11 ranged from about 0.35 to . On May 12, rainfall amounts ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 in. h Dakota Agricultural Weather Network, 2005).

As a result of the widespread rainfall on May 11 and 12, , streamflows during the May 2004 sampling period were teady than during the September 2003 sampling period t in the Red River upstream from Fargo, N. Dak. (figure back of report). Streamflow for site 34 (Red River at son, Manitoba) increased about 50 percent during the sam- period. However, streamflows in the Sheyenne River ased only slightly because of less rainfall in that part of the than in other parts of the basin. In contrast to what red during the September 2003 sampling period when flows were consistently low throughout the study area, rcentage of time streamflow was equaled or exceeded

g the May 2004 sampling period varied widely from site to igure 2 at back of report). Streamflow for the Red Lake at the mouth is historically lower than streamflow mea- on May 11, 2004, for site 24 (Red Lake River at Fisher, .) about 30 percent of the time. Streamflow for the Otter iver at the mouth is historically lower than streamflow

ured on May 11, 2004, for site 1 (Otter Tail River at 11th t in Breckenridge, Minn.) about 55 percent of the time. In ast, streamflow for site 34 is historically lower than

flow measured on May 10, 2004, for that site about 70 nt of the time, and streamflow for the Sheyenne River at outh is historically lower than streamflow measured on 12, 2004, for site 16 (Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park, k.) about 85 percent of the time (figure 2 at back of

t). The unsteady flows and the collection of some samples g low-flow conditions and other samples during storm-f conditions complicated application of the model to the 2004 sampling period.

Measured total dissolved-solids concentrations for the Red generally were less than the U.S. Environmental Protec-gency (2005) secondary water-quality standard of 500

(figure 4a at back of report). The concentrations, which ased in a downstream direction, generally were higher dur-e September 2003 sampling period, when streamflows

the Bois de Sioux River (figure 4c at back of report) generally were greater than 500 mg/L and the concentrations elsewhere in the Red River upstream from Fargo, N. Dak., generally were less than 500 mg/L.

The long-term median total dissolved-solids concentration for site 34 (Red River at Emerson, Manitoba) during 1970-2001 was 438 mg/L (Tornes, 2005). The measured concentration for that site during the September 2003 sampling period was 640 mg/L, and the measured concentration during the May 2004 sampling period was 464 mg/L (figure 4a at back of report). Both of those concentrations are greater than the long-term median concentration.

During the September 2003 sampling period, all measured total dissolved-solids concentrations for the Sheyenne River were greater than 500 mg/L (figure 4b at back of report). The highest concentrations were for the upstream part of the Shey-enne River Basin. The concentrations were fairly uniform for all sites from Lisbon, N. Dak., downstream during both sampling periods. Concentrations for several tributaries to the Red River were fairly large (figure 4c at back of report), but streamflows in those tributaries were less than 12 ft3/s during the September 2003 sampling period. Thus, total dissolved-solids loads from those tributaries to the Red River were small.

Calcium and magnesium were present in approximately equal amounts for any given site (figure 5a at back of report) throughout the Red River Basin. Sodium was elevated in rela-tion to calcium and magnesium for sites in the upper part of the Sheyenne River Basin and lower in relation to calcium and magnesium for most sites on the Red River. Most of the sodium in the Sheyenne River was likely present as sodium sulfate and sodium bicarbonate.

Bicarbonate was the predominant anion in the Red River and the Sheyenne River (figure 5b at back of report). Sulfate was much lower than bicarbonate in the upper Red River but only slightly lower downstream from the confluence of the Red and Sheyenne Rivers. Carbonate made up a small percentage of the total anions at all sites, and chloride was low in relation to the other anions except near Fargo, N. Dak., and at the down-

low, than during the May 2004 sampling period, when flows were moderate. Sether and others (2004) measured

dissolved-solids concentrations during 1997-99 at 11 sites en the Otter Tail River above Breckenridge, Minn., and

ed River at Perley, Minn., which is between the Bois de River near Doran, Minn. (site 2, figure 1 at back of t), and the Wild Rice River at Hendrum, Minn. (site 18, 1 at back of report). The median concentration for each 11 sites, based on about 20 samples, was less than 500 except for the Bois de Sioux River and the Sheyenne at Harwood, N. Dak. (near site 16, figure 1 at back of t). The results from this study generally are in agreement those from Sether and others (2004) in that the concentra-for the Sheyenne River (figure 4b at back of report) and

stream end of the study reach. According to Tornes and others (1997), the ionic distribution was similar for streams that drain the same physiographic area of the Red River Basin.

During the September 2003 and May 2004 sampling peri-ods, most of the nitrogen in the Red River and the Sheyenne River was present as organic nitrogen (figures 6a and 6b at back of report). However, for site 8 (Red River below Fargo, N. Dak.) during both sampling periods and for most sites during the May 2004 sampling period, most of the nitrogen was present as nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, which can be derived from runoff of fertilizers or animal waste (figures 6a and 6b at back of report). Site 8 is affected by wastewater discharge from Fargo, N. Dak. Ammonia as nitrogen was present in small

amthesapecoabfigabcoingmeboorsit

RiRisapecesitoningfotimthewa

tercethestr7 arepHiRiwacesa

cuwelitingda(Tco

pebetranit


ounts at most sites during both sampling periods although concentrations were slightly higher during the May 2004

mpling period than during the September 2003 sampling riod. Sether and others (2004) reported median total nitrogen ncentrations for 21 samples collected during 1997-99 were out 0.7 mg/L for the Red River at Hickson, N. Dak. (site 4, ure 1 at back of report), and about 0.9 mg/L for the Red River ove Fargo, N. Dak. (site 6, figure 1 at back of report). Those ncentrations are higher than the concentrations measured dur- the September 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods. The dian organic nitrogen concentration was about 0.6 mg/L for th sites during 1997-99, indicating that, during 1997-99, ganic nitrogen made up most of the total nitrogen for those es.

Total nitrogen concentrations for most sites on the Red ver downstream from Halstad, Minn., and on the Sheyenne ver were about 40 to 100 percent higher during the May 2004 mpling period than during the September 2003 sampling riod, indicating the high streamflows increased nitrogen con-ntrations in the rivers. The total nitrogen concentration for e 8 (Red River below Fargo, N. Dak.), however, was about e-third lower during the May 2004 sampling period than dur- the September 2003 sampling period. Because streamflows

r site 8 during the May 2004 sampling period were about three es higher than during the September 2003 sampling period, high streamflows for that site likely diluted the effects of the stewater discharge from Fargo, N. Dak.

Total phosphorus concentrations followed the same pat-n as total nitrogen concentrations, with typically higher con-ntrations during the May 2004 sampling period than during September 2003 sampling period in the Red River down-eam from Halstad, Minn., and in the Sheyenne River (figure t back of report). The median total phosphorus concentration orted by Sether and others (2004) for both the Red River at

ckson, N. Dak. (site 4, figure 1 at back of report), and the Red ver above Fargo, N. Dak. (site 6, figure 1 at back of report), s about 0.2 mg/L. That concentration is similar to the con-

ntrations measured during the September 2003 and May 2004 mpling periods.

downstream from site 12 (Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, N. Dak.). Loads between site 12 and site 15 (Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace, N. Dak.) (a dis-tance of about 230 river miles) were generally steady during both sampling periods, but a large increase occurred between site 15 and site 16 (Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park, N. Dak.) during the May 2004 sampling period. The increase was primarily the result of an increase in streamflow from 306 to 538 ft3/s.

Total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads increased about three to eight times between site 7 (Red River at Fargo, N. Dak.) and site 8 (Red River below Fargo, N. Dak.) during both sam-pling periods. The increases probably were a result of loads from wastewater-treatment discharges. Nitrogen and phospho-rus likely were transformed quickly downstream from Fargo, N. Dak., during low-flow conditions. Compared to the loads at Fargo, the loads of both nutrients were lower by as much as half at all Red River sites downstream from Fargo during the Sep-tember 2003 sampling period. This pattern was not evident dur-ing the May 2004 sampling period because of the complicating effects of storm runoff.

Calculated loads for the three downstream-most Red River sites generally were lower than those for the upstream sites dur-ing the May 2004 sampling period because of the sampling pat-tern. The downstream Red River sites were sampled early in the sampling period before the widespread rains began and before storm runoff reached those sites. For example, streamflow for site 25 (Red River at Grand Forks, N. Dak.) on the date of sam-ple collection was 8,130 ft3/s, but streamflow for site 34 (Red River at Emerson, Manitoba) on the date of sample collection was 3,460 ft3/s.

Site 18 (Wild Rice River at Hendrum, Minn.), site 21 (Marsh River near Shelly, Minn.), and site 33 (Pembina River above Pembina, N. Dak.) all contributed high loads of nitrogen

Mean daily total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads cal-lated from a single sample are given in table 4. The loads re calculated by multiplying concentration, in milligrams per

er, by streamflow, in cubic feet per second, and then multiply- the coefficient by a conversion factor of 5.38. The mean

ily loads calculated from multiyear data-collection efforts ornes and others, 1997; Sether and others, 2004) are given for mparison.

Loads were much higher during the May 2004 sampling riod than during the September 2003 sampling period cause of the higher streamflows and generally higher concen-tions during May 2004. For the Sheyenne River, the total rogen and total phosphorus loads increased substantially

and phosphorus to the Red River during the May 2004 sampling period. Loads from the Marsh River represented about 40 to 50 percent of the loads measured for site 23 (Red River near Thompson, N. Dak.). That site is the nearest Red River site downstream from the confluence of the Marsh and Red Rivers.

In general, the loads measured during this study were lower than the loads calculated from multiyear data-collection efforts (table 4). Tornes and others (1997) noted that much of the annual total nitrogen load in the Red River occurs immedi-ately after the spring thaw and during snowmelt when nitrogen is released from thawing soils. The highest phosphorus loads, in contrast, occur after runoff events during the summer when soils are not frozen.

10 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04ho

spho

rus

load

s fo

r Sep

tem

ber 2

003

and

May

200

4 sa

mpl

ing

perio

ds a

nd fo

r 199

2-95

and

199

8-99

.

Tota

l nitr

ogen

load

(pou

nds

per d

ay)

Tota

l pho

spho

rus

load

(pou

nds

per d

ay)

nam

e

September 15 through 16, 2003

May 10 through 13, 2004

11992-95

21998-99



11992-95

21998-99

cken

ridg

e, M

inne

sota

312

764

3 2,6

903 2,

750

2412

93 14

73 59

7

neso

ta0

716,

810

1,81

00

598

428

0

, Nor

th D

akot

a34

11,

190

--4 5

,030

2116

8--

4 790

orth

Dak

ota

396

1,32

0--

5,20

013

342

2--

1,25

0

Nor

th D

akot

a2

74--

--0

34--

--

Nor

th D

akot

a41

11,

300

22,1

0010

,200

174

465

2,16

02,

120

rth

Dak

ota

369

1,70

0--

--10

444

7--

--

nty

Roa

d 20

bel

ow F

argo

, Nor

th

3,17

06,

290

----

660

1,29

0--

--

d, N

orth

Dak

ota

----

--11

,100

----

--2,

310

h D

akot

a17

111

----

319

----

Tabl

e 4.

M

ean

daily

tota

l nitr

ogen

and

tota

l p

[--,

no

data

; NA

, not

app

licab

le]

Site

num

ber

Site

1O

tter

Tai

l Riv

er a

t 11t

h St

reet

in B

re

2B

ois

de S

ioux

Riv

er n

ear

Dor

an, M

in

3R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th a

t Wah

peto

n

4R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th a

t Hic

kson

, N

5W

ild R

ice

Riv

er n

ear

Abe

rcro

mbi

e,

6R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th a

bove

Far

go,

7R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th a

t Far

go, N

o

8R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th o

n C

ass

Cou

Dak

ota

NA

Red

Riv

er o

f th

e N

orth

nea

r H

arw

oo

9Sh

eyen

ne R

iver

abo

ve H

arve

y, N

ort


orth

Dak

ota

105

384

----

2852

----

n, N

orth

Dak

ota

113

884

----

2415

4--

--

am, N

orth

Dak

ota

380

1,83

0--

--46

312

----

Dak

ota

212

1,51

04,

970

--20

275

959

--

rth

Dak

ota

209

1,52

05,

690

--35

350

903

--

Riv

er D

iver

sion

nea

r H

orac

e, N

orth

18

71,

550

----

4241

0--

--

k, N

orth

Dak

ota

208

3,39

0--

3 9,10

050

1,02

0--

3 2,78

0

neso

ta61

740

----

1319

4--

--

Min

neso

ta--

----

27,7

00--

----

6,21

0

nnes

ota

104

4,33

03 2,

780

--9

1,50

03 17

9--

l pho

spho

rus

load

s fo

r Sep

tem

ber 2

003

and

May

200

4 sa

mpl

ing

perio

ds a

nd fo

r 199

2-95

and

199

8-99

.—Co

ntin

ued

Tota

l nitr

ogen

load

(pou

nds

per d

ay)

Tota

l pho

spho

rus

load

(pou

nds

per d

ay)

ite n

ame



11992-95

21998-99



11992-95

21998-99

10Sh

eyen

ne R

iver

nea

r W

arw

ick,

N

11Sh

eyen

ne R

iver

nea

r C

oope

rsto

w

12Sh

eyen

ne R

iver

bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

13Sh

eyen

ne R

iver

at L

isbo

n, N

orth

14Sh

eyen

ne R

iver

nea

r K

indr

ed, N

o

15Sh

eyen

ne R

iver

abo

ve S

heye

nne

Dak

ota

16Sh

eyen

ne R

iver

at B

rook

tree

Par

17B

uffa

lo R

iver

nea

r D

ilwor

th, M

in

NA

Red

Riv

er o

f th

e N

orth

at P

erle

y,

18W

ild R

ice

Riv

er a

t Hen

drum

, Mi

Tabl

e 4.

M

ean

daily

tota

l nitr

ogen

and

tota

[--,

no

data

; NA

, not

app

licab

le]

Site

num

ber

S

12 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

inne

sota

1,96

014

,800

45,5

00--

430

5,67

06,

280

--

ota

481,

100

----

473

----

16,

880

----

01,

670

----

a35

1,88

0--

--4

48--

--

on, N

orth

Dak

ota

747

14,1

00--

--20

14,

410

----

598

1,60

03 10

,800

--34

903 92

5--

ks, N

orth

Dak

ota

1,46

041

,900

68,9

00--

260

10,2

007,

910

--

akot

a7

167

3 480

--1

383 69

--

neso

ta1,

990

28,6

00--

--42

113

,200

----

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th, N

orth

Dak

ota

6441

0--

--3

209

----

hosp

horu

s lo

ads

for S

epte

mbe

r 200

3 an

d M

ay 2

004

sam

plin

g pe

riods

and

for 1

992-

95 a

nd 1

998-

99.—

Cont

inue

d

Tota

l nitr

ogen

load

(pou

nds

per d

ay)

Tota

l pho

spho

rus

load

(pou

nds

per d

ay)

nam

e



11992-95

21998-99



11992-95

21998-99

19R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th a

t Hal

stad

, M

20G

oose

Riv

er a

t Hill

sbor

o, N

orth

Dak

21M

arsh

Riv

er n

ear

Shel

ly, M

inne

sota

22Sa

nd H

ill R

iver

at C

limax

, Min

neso

t

23R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th n

ear

Tho

mps

24R

ed L

ake

Riv

er a

t Fis

her,

Min

neso

ta

25R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th a

t Gra

nd F

or

26T

urtle

Riv

er a

bove

Man

vel,

Nor

th D

27R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th a

t Osl

o, M

in

28Fo

rest

Riv

er n

ear

conf

luen

ce w

ith R

Tabl

e 4.

M

ean

daily

tota

l nitr

ogen

and

tota

l p

[--,

no

data

; NA

, not

app

licab

le]

Site

num

ber

Site


nnes

ota

--13

03 70

7--

--25

3 78--

Dak

ota

840

9--

--1

68--

--

n, N

orth

Dak

ota

1,67

116

,200

----

727

2,46

0--

--

a27

573

----

210

0--

--

orth

Dak

ota

504,

490

3 8,50

0--

122,

020

3 1,79

0--

n, M

anito

ba1,

802

19,7

0088

,800

--30

44,

840

10,8

00--

ite.

y si

te.

l pho

spho

rus

load

s fo

r Sep

tem

ber 2

003

and

May

200

4 sa

mpl

ing

perio

ds a

nd fo

r 199

2-95

and

199

8-99

.—Co

ntin

ued

Tota

l nitr

ogen

load

(pou

nds

per d

ay)

Tota

l pho

spho

rus

load

(pou

nds

per d

ay)

ite n

ame



11992-95

21998-99



11992-95

21998-99

29Sn

ake

Riv

er n

ear

Big

Woo

ds, M

i

30Pa

rk R

iver

nea

r O

akw

ood,

Nor

th

31R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th a

t Dra

yto

32T

wo

Riv

ers

at H

allo

ck, M

inne

sot

33Pe

mbi

na R

iver

abo

ve P

embi

na, N

34R

ed R

iver

of

the

Nor

th a

t Em

erso

1 Fro

m T

orne

s an

d ot

hers

, 199

7.2 F

rom

Set

her

and

othe

rs, 2

004.

3 Cal

cula

ted

at s

ite u

pstr

eam

fro

m c

urre

nt s

tudy

s4 C

alcu

late

d at

site

dow

nstr

eam

fro

m c

urre

nt s

tud

Tabl

e 4.

M

ean

daily

tota

l nitr

ogen

and

tota

[--,

no

data

; NA

, not

app

licab

le]

Site

num

ber

S

14 S

SimTran

tested2003the flchlorconsiSulfaU.S. mode

Mod

qualicompBounwater

Com

incluand Oand thconflmodeinclutributment

by comust brancwhichIncreremostreamgainschargals). Rvirtuaon thSiouxHarvstream

addedreach


ulation of Conservative-Constituent sport

The Red River water-quality model was calibrated and using data collected from September 15 through 16,

, and from May 10 through 13, 2004. The model simulates ow and transport of total dissolved solids, sulfate, and ide during steady-state conditions. Those constituents are dered to be conservative constituents for this application. te also was simulated as a conservative constituent in the Army Corps of Engineers (2003) HEC-5Q water-quality l.

el Implementation

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003) HEC-5Q water-ty model was modified for this study by (1) extending the utational grid and (2) specifying boundary conditions. dary conditions included natural inflows and outflows of and constituents and withdrawals and return flows.

putational Grid

The physical domain of the Red River water-quality model des the Red River from the confluence of the Bois de Sioux tter Tail Rivers to the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba, e Sheyenne River from above Harvey, N. Dak., to the

uence with the Red River (figure 8 at back of report). The l domain is represented by a computational grid that des 2 main branches, 21 control points, 4 reservoirs, 15 aries (other than the Sheyenne River), and 331 stream ele-s.

The computational grid in the HEC-5 model is represented ntrol points and reservoirs. The downstream-most location be a control point, and the upstream-most location on each h must be a reservoir. Control points are locations at incremental flow is added to or removed from a river.

mental flow, which is the streamflow that is added to or

Stream elements are reaches in which water-quality conditions are fairly uniform. Tributaries are used to add constituent mass as a proportion of incremental flow, and more than one tributary can be located between two control points [for example, three tributaries are located between the Red River at Halstad, Minn., and the Red River near Thompson, N. Dak. (figure 8 at back of report)]. Tributary streamflow is treated as part of the incremen-tal flow between control points so that the total tributary stream-flow between two control points is equal to the incremental flow, minus any withdrawals, for that reach. For the Red River water-quality model, the reaches were divided into 331 stream elements that ranged in length from 1.5 to 6 mi.

Streamflow and Water-Quality Boundary Conditions

A time series of streamflow must be specified for each control point within the HEC-5 model. For this study, only a single streamflow value was required because streamflow was assumed to be steady. Streamflow boundary conditions for the September 2003 sampling period (table 5) were computed by using a moving average of measured daily mean streamflows for 3 to 5 days (September 11 through 17, 2003), and stream-flow boundary conditions for the May 2004 sampling period (table 6) were computed by using a moving average of mea-sured daily mean streamflows for 7 days (May 9 through 23, 2004). A longer averaging period was used for the May 2004 sampling period than for the September 2003 sampling period because of the highly unsteady streamflows during May 2004.

Incremental flow for a reach was determined by calculat-ing the difference between streamflow at the upstream control point and streamflow at the downstream control point of the reach (tables 5 and 6). For this study, streamflows were mea-sured for many of the reaches. If the difference between the accumulated upstream streamflows (the sum of the streamflow measured at the upstream control point and the streamflow mea-sured for the tributaries) and the downstream streamflow was near zero, most of the inflows to the reach probably were mea-

ved from a river at a control point, accounts for changes in flow that occur between control points (for example,

from tributaries, point sources, and ground-water dis-e and losses from ground-water recharge and withdraw-eservoirs can be actual reservoirs (Lake Ashtabula) or

l reservoirs. For this study, virtual reservoirs were created e Otter Tail River in Breckenridge, Minn., the Bois de River near Doran, Minn., and the Sheyenne River above

ey, N. Dak. For virtual reservoirs, outflow is equal to flow.

In the HEC-5Q model, stream elements and tributaries are to the computational grid of the HEC-5 model and the between control points is divided into stream elements.

sured (tables 5 and 6). If the difference was large in relation to the streamflow in the river, streamflows for several fairly large tributaries in the reach probably were not measured or ground-water discharge in the reach was high.

Water-quality boundary conditions were specified for the upstream-most points on each branch (the Sheyenne River above Harvey, N. Dak., the Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minn., and the Bois de Sioux River near Doran, Minn.); the mouth of each of the 15 tributaries; the incremental flows in reaches for which tributary streamflow was not mea-sured; and the Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, N. Dak. (table 7). September 2003 data for Lake Ashtabula (U. S. Army

Ta

[ft3

S

S

S

S

S

I

S

S

S

S

S

S

R

R

R

Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport 15

ble 5. Streamflow boundary conditions for September 2003 sampling period.

/s, cubic feet per second; --, no data; shading indicates control point location]

Location

Streamflowmeasuredat control

point(ft3/s)

Streamflowmeasured

for tributary(ft3/s)

Differencebetween

accumulatedupstream

streamflows anddownstreamstreamflow

(ft3/s)

Incremental flow

(ft3/s)

Percent ofstreamflowmeasuredat control

point

Sheyenne River

heyenne River above Harvey, North Dakota 2.5 -- -- -- --

heyenne River at North Dakota Highway 30 near Maddock, North Dakota1

2 10.8 -- 8.3 8.3 77

heyenne River at Peterson Coulee, North Dakota1 211.6 -- 0.8 0.8 7

heyenne River near Warwick, North Dakota 15 -- 3.4 3.4 23

heyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota 20 -- 5 5 25

nto Lake Ashtabula1 220.7 -- 0.7 0.7 3

heyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota 37 -- -- -- --

heyenne River at Valley City, North Dakota 238 -- 1 1 3

heyenne River at Lisbon, North Dakota 41 -- 3 3 7

heyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota 69 -- 28 28 41

heyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace, North Dakota

71 -- 2 2 3

heyenne River at Brooktree Park, North Dakota 80 -- 9 9 11

Red River of the North and tributaries

Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minnesota -- 114 -- -- --

Bois de Sioux River near Doran, Minnesota -- 0 -- -- --

ed River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota 110 -- - 4 - 4 4

ed River of the North at Hickson, North Dakota 119 -- 9 9 8

Wild Rice River near Abercrombie, North Dakota -- 0.3 -- -- --

Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, wastewater-treatment facilities withdrawals

-- - 28 -- -- --

ed River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota 104 -- 12.7 - 15.0 14

Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, wastewater-treatment facilities return flows

-- 23.3 -- -- --

16 S

Sh

RedN

B

W

Red

G

M

Sa

Red

R

Red

T

Red

Fo

Sn

Pa

Red

T

Pe

Red

1No2Es

Table

[ft3/s,


Red River of the North and tributaries, Continued

eyenne River at Brooktree Park, North Dakota -- 80 -- -- --

River of the North at confluence with Sheyenne River, orth Dakota

2223 -- 15.7 39 17

uffalo River near Dilworth, Minnesota -- 22 -- -- --

ild Rice River at Hendrum, Minnesota -- 46 -- -- --

River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota 278 -- - 13.0 55 20

oose River at Hillsboro, North Dakota -- 19 -- -- --

arsh River near Shelly, Minnesota -- 0.1 -- -- --

nd Hill River at Climax, Minnesota -- 22 -- -- --

River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota 325 -- 5.9 47 14

ed Lake River at Fisher, Minnesota -- 159 -- -- --

River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota 422 -- - 62 97 23

urtle River above Manvel, North Dakota -- 2 -- -- --

River of the North at Oslo, Minnesota 2425 -- 1 3 1

rest River near confluence with Red River of the North, North Dakota

-- 10 -- -- --

ake River near Big Woods, Minnesota -- 0 -- -- --

rk River near Oakwood, North Dakota -- 2 -- -- --

5. Streamflow boundary conditions for September 2003 sampling period.—Continued

cubic feet per second; --, no data; shading indicates control point location]

Location


point(ft3/s)

Streamflowmeasured


Differencebetween

accumulatedupstream


(ft3/s)

Incremental flow

(ft3/s)


point

River of the North at Drayton, North Dakota 440 -- 3 15 3

wo Rivers at Hallock, Minnesota -- 5 -- -- --

mbina River above Pembina, North Dakota -- 20 -- -- --

River of the North at Emerson, Manitoba 470 -- 5 30 6

data were collected at this location during this study.

timated value.

Ta

[ft3

S

S

S

S

S

I

S

S

S

S

S

S

R

R

R


ble 6. Streamflow boundary conditions for May 2004 sampling period.

/s, cubic feet per second; --, no data; shading indicates control point location]

Location


point(ft3/s)

Streamflowmeasured


Differencebetween

accumulatedupstream


(ft3/s)

Incremental flow

(ft3/s)


point

Sheyenne River

heyenne River above Harvey, North Dakota 18 -- -- -- --

heyenne River at North Dakota Highway 30 near Maddock, North Dakota1

2 66.2 -- 48.2 48.2 73

heyenne River at Peterson Coulee, North Dakota1 270.8 -- 4.6 4.6 7

heyenne River near Warwick, North Dakota 92 -- 21.2 21.2 23

heyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota 234 -- 142 142 61

nto Lake Ashtabula1 2241 -- 7 7 3

heyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota 423 -- -- -- --

heyenne River at Valley City, North Dakota 2435 -- 12 12 3

heyenne River at Lisbon, North Dakota 468 -- 33 33 7

heyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota 525 -- 57 57 11


550 -- 25 25 5

heyenne River at Brooktree Park, North Dakota 700 -- 150 150 21


Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minnesota -- 400 -- -- --

Bois de Sioux River near Doran, Minnesota -- 34 -- -- --

ed River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota 451 -- 17 17 4

ed River of the North at Hickson, North Dakota 494 -- 43 43 9

Wild Rice River near Abercrombie, North Dakota -- 20 -- -- --

Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, wastewater-treatment facilities withdrawals

-- - 23 -- -- --

ed River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota 643 -- 152 149 23

Fargo, North Dakota, and Moorhead, Minnesota, wastewater-treatment facilities return flows

-- 22 -- -- --

18 S

Sh

RedN

B

W

Red

G

M

Sa

Red

R

Red

T

Red

Fo

Sn

Pa

Red

T

Pe

Red

1No2Es

Table

[ft3/s,



eyenne River at Brooktree Park, North Dakota -- 700 -- -- --

River of the North at confluence with Sheyenne River, orth Dakota

21,400 -- 35 57 4

uffalo River near Dilworth, Minnesota -- 266 -- -- --

ild Rice River at Hendrum, Minnesota -- 813 -- -- --

River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota 2,630 -- 151 1,230 47

oose River at Hillsboro, North Dakota -- 242 -- -- --

arsh River near Shelly, Minnesota -- 557 -- -- --

nd Hill River at Climax, Minnesota -- 445 -- -- --

River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota 5,320 -- 1,446 2,690 51

ed Lake River at Fisher, Minnesota -- 5,580 -- -- --

River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota 10,600 -- - 300 5,280 50

urtle River above Manvel, North Dakota -- 100 -- -- --

River of the North at Oslo, Minnesota 211,000 -- 300 400 4

rest River near confluence with Red River of the North, North Dakota

-- 130 -- -- --

ake River near Big Woods, Minnesota -- 31 -- -- --

rk River near Oakwood, North Dakota -- 71 -- -- --

River of the North at Drayton, North Dakota 14,600 -- 3,368 3,600 25

6. Streamflow boundary conditions for May 2004 sampling period.—Continued

cubic feet per second; --, no data; shading indicates control point location]

Location


point(ft3/s)

Streamflowmeasured


Differencebetween

accumulatedupstream


(ft3/s)

Incremental flow

(ft3/s)


point

wo Rivers at Hallock, Minnesota -- 3,000 -- -- --

mbina River above Pembina, North Dakota -- 1,500 -- -- --

River of the North at Emerson, Manitoba 17,500 -- - 1,600 2,900 17

data were collected at this location during this study.

timated value.

Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport 19s

for S

epte

mbe

r 200

3 an

d M

ay 2

004

sam

plin

g pe

riods

.

atio

n

Sept

embe

r 200

3M

ay 2

004

Tota

ldi

ssol

ved

solid

s(m

g/L)

Sulfa

te,

diss

olve

d(m

g/L)

Chlo

ride

,di

ssol

ved

(mg/

L)

Tota

ldi

ssol

ved

solid

s(m

g/L)

Sulfa

te,

diss

olve

d(m

g/L)

Chlo

ride

,di

ssol

ved

(mg/

L)

Shey

enne

Riv

er

a1,

060

350

201,

320

580

26

a, to

War

wic

k, N

orth

Dak

ota

770

220

2574

023

020

Dak

ota,

to L

ake

Ash

tabu

la,

324

6313

690

260

17

Dak

ota

713

260

1934

713

08.

7

Dak

ota,

to L

isbo

n, N

orth

Dak

ota

1,52

078

024

01,

930

880

120

a, to

Kin

dred

, Nor

th D

akot

a46

011

014

560

535.

0

ta, t

o H

orac

e, N

orth

Dak

ota

340

1216

200

120

7.0

a, to

Bro

oktr

ee P

ark,

Nor

th D

akot

a1,

050

410

5474

042

056

h D

akot

a, to

con

flue

nce

with

41

038

020

440

190

0

Red

Rive

r of t

he N

orth

and

trib

utar

ies

ge, M

inne

sota

267

3111

243

2611

00

01,

400

860

29

kota

, to

Hic

kson

, Nor

th D

akot

a1,

470

270

280

420

014

0

akot

a1,

490

740

621,

210

580

49

, to

conf

luen

ce w

ith S

heye

nne

1,20

020

010

094

048

084

Tabl

e 7.

W

ater

-qua

lity

boun

dary

con

ditio

n

[mg/

L, m

illig

ram

s pe

r lit

er]

Loc

Shey

enne

Riv

er a

bove

Har

vey,

Nor

th D

akot

Incr

emen

tal f

low

fro

m H

arve

y, N

orth

Dak

ot

Incr

emen

tal f

low

fro

m C

oope

rsto

wn,

Nor

th

Nor

th D

akot

a

Shey

enne

Riv

er b

elow

Bal

dhill

Dam

, Nor

th

Incr

emen

tal f

low

fro

m B

aldh

ill D

am, N

orth

Incr

emen

tal f

low

fro

m L

isbo

n, N

orth

Dak

ot

Incr

emen

tal f

low

fro

m K

indr

ed, N

orth

Dak

o

Incr

emen

tal f

low

fro

m H

orac

e, N

orth

Dak

ot

Incr

emen

tal f

low

fro

m B

rook

tree

Par

k, N

ort

Red

Riv

er o

f th

e N

orth

, Nor

th D

akot

a

Otte

r T

ail R

iver

at 1

1th

Stre

et in

Bre

cken

rid

Boi

s de

Sio

ux R

iver

nea

r D

oran

, Min

neso

ta

Incr

emen

tal f

low

fro

m W

ahpe

ton,

Nor

th D

a

Wild

Ric

e R

iver

nea

r A

berc

rom

bie,

Nor

th D

Incr

emen

tal f

low

fro

m F

argo

, Nor

th D

akot

aR

iver

, Nor

th D

akot

a

20 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

Red

Rive

r of t

he N

orth

and

trib

utar

ies,

Con

tinue

d

407

788.

644

011

033

334

526.

726

552

5.3

1,02

047

053

981

460

37

458

8315

266

847.

9

326

467.

439

072

11

258

418.

829

565

11

2,55

054

098

01,

210

400

250

the

Nor

th, N

orth

Dak

ota

3,24

068

01,

300

1,12

035

027

0

00

048

212

032

14,4

001,

270

7,66

01,

480

350

480

379

4045

279

5317

555

190

2138

215

012

th D

akot

a, to

Em

erso

n, M

anito

ba6,

000

1,50

02,

000

2,10

024

00

or S

epte

mbe

r 200

3 an

d M

ay 2

004

sam

plin

g pe

riods

.—Co

ntin

ued

n

Sept

embe

r 200

3M

ay 2

004

Tota

ldi

ssol

ved

solid

s(m

g/L)

Sulfa

te,

diss

olve

d(m

g/L)

Chlo

ride

,di

ssol

ved

(mg/

L)

Tota

ldi

ssol

ved

solid

s(m

g/L)

Sulfa

te,

diss

olve

d(m

g/L)

Chlo

ride

,di

ssol

ved

(mg/

L)

Buf

falo

Riv

er n

ear

Dilw

orth

, Min

neso

ta

Wild

Ric

e R

iver

at H

endr

um, M

inne

sota

Goo

se R

iver

at H

illsb

oro,

Nor

th D

akot

a

Mar

sh R

iver

nea

r Sh

elly

, Min

neso

ta

Sand

Hill

Riv

er a

t Clim

ax, M

inne

sota

Red

Lak

e R

iver

at F

ishe

r, M

inne

sota

Tur

tle R

iver

abo

ve M

anve

l, N

orth

Dak

ota

Fore

st R

iver

nea

r co

nflu

ence

with

Red

Riv

er o

f

Snak

e R

iver

nea

r B

ig W

oods

, Min

neso

ta

Park

Riv

er n

ear

Oak

woo

d, N

orth

Dak

ota

Tw

o R

iver

s at

Hal

lock

, Min

neso

ta

Pem

bina

Riv

er a

bove

Pem

bina

, Nor

th D

akot

a

Add

ition

al in

crem

enta

l flo

w f

rom

Dra

yton

, Nor

Tabl

e 7.

W

ater

-qua

lity

boun

dary

con

ditio

ns f

[mg/

L, m

illig

ram

s pe

r lit

er]

Loca

tio

CococeDacorepLa

quflo

incanreatraFothefloalsMnochencodia20chflo


rps of Engineers, 2005) indicate conservative-constituent ncentrations within the lake were within 3 percent of the con-ntrations measured for the Sheyenne River below Baldhill m during this study. This indicates conservative-constituent ncentrations in the Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam are resentative of conservative-constituent concentrations in ke Ashtabula.

Water-quality boundary conditions were based on water-ality data for the tributaries and on calculated incremental ws (table 7). The cases considered are as follow:

• No tributary in the reach—Constituent concentrations for the incremental flow were calculated from a mass balance of constituent load based on streamflow and constituent concentrations at the upstream and downstream control points of the reach.

• One or more tributaries in the reach—Each tributary in the reach was assigned a streamflow that was equal to a percentage of the incremental flow in the reach. Measured constituent concentrations then were assigned to each tributary in the reach. Constituent concentrations for the incremental flows not assigned to tributaries were calculated from a mass balance of constituent concentrations in the respective reach. Mass balances were computed by determining the difference between the constituent load at the upstream point and the constituent load at the downstream point and then dividing the difference by the incremental flow to determine a concentration. Streamflows assigned to the tributaries were based on field measurements, but adjustments to the measured streamflows were required to ensure that the sum of the streamflows did not exceed the incremental flow in the reach.

Small point-source discharges and withdrawals were not luded in the model but were accounted for through mass bal-

ces of streamflow and constituent concentrations within a

Road 20 below Fargo, N. Dak., table 7). Discharge from the Grand Forks wastewater-treatment facility is pumped to a lagoon system and subsequently released to the Red River dur-ing the spring and fall. Because no releases were made from the lagoon during the September 2003 sampling period, discharge from the Grand Forks facility was assumed to be zero.

Model Calibration

Simulated streamflows and total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations at 11 model calibration points (table 8) were compared to measured streamflows and concen-trations. The calibration points are located throughout the model domain and several are located near withdrawal and return-flow locations.

Streamflow

The model was calibrated for steady-state conditions throughout the reach (streamflow varied from site to site but did not vary with time at a site). During September 2003, the streamflows ranged from 2.5 ft3/s for the Sheyenne River above Harvey, N. Dak., to 470 ft3/s for the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba (figures 9a and 9b at back of report). Because of the assumption of steady-state conditions, the simulated stream-flows were the same as the measured streamflows for all sites in the model domain.

Water Quality

During the September 2003 sampling period, measured total dissolved-solids concentrations ranged from 262 mg/L for the Red River at Wahpeton, N. Dak., to 1,060 mg/L for the Sheyenne River above Harvey, N. Dak. (figures 10a and 10b at back of report). The concentrations for the Sheyenne River were higher than the concentrations for the Red River (figure 4 at back of report), and the concentrations for the remaining tribu-taries were higher than the concentrations for the Sheyenne River [for example, the concentration for site 30 (Park River

ch in a manner similar to that for unknown tributary concen-tions. Withdrawals by the cities of Fargo, N. Dak., Grand rks, N. Dak., and Moorhead, Minn., also were not included in model but were accounted for through changes in stream-w at locations upstream and downstream from the withdraw-. Wastewater is discharged continuously from the Fargo and oorhead wastewater-treatment facilities, but the wastewater is t routinely analyzed for total dissolved solids, sulfate, and loride. Therefore, because concentrations for those constitu-ts were required by the model, water-quality samples were llected from the Red River immediately upstream and imme-tely downstream from both facilities during the September 03 sampling period. Concentrations attributed to the dis-arges then were determined by mass balance (incremental w from Fargo, N. Dak., to the Red River on Cass County

near Oakwood, N. Dak.) was 14,400 mg/L (figure 4c at back of report)]. The simulated concentrations were within 5 percent of the measured concentrations for all model calibration points (figures 10a and 10 b at back of report).

Measured sulfate concentrations ranged from 31.6 mg/L for the Red River at Wahpeton, N. Dak., to 348 mg/L for the Sheyenne River above Harvey, N. Dak., during the September 2003 sampling period (figures 11a and 11b at back of report). The concentrations for the Sheyenne River were higher than the concentrations for the Red River (figure 5b at back of report), and the concentrations for the remaining tributaries were higher in some instances than the concentrations for the Sheyenne River [for example, the concentration for site 30 (Park River near Oakwood, N. Dak.) was 1,270 mg/L or 26.44 meq/L]. The

22 S

simulconceRiverN. DabetweRiverflow no chWildreachwere Red Rwas aferenthe Rthe coN. DamoreForks

for thRed Rsampconcethose

Table

Shey

Shey

Shey

Shey

Shey

Shey

Red

Red

Red

Red

Red


ated concentrations were within 5 percent of the measured ntrations for all model calibration points except the Red at Fargo, N. Dak., and the Red River at Grand Forks, k. (figures 11a and 11b at back of report). The difference en the measured and simulated concentrations for the Red at Fargo was larger than 5 percent because loss of stream-between Hickson, N. Dak., and Fargo (table 5) resulted in anges in concentration in that reach (concentrations for the Rice River near Abercrombie, N. Dak., were added in the and withdrawals from Fargo and from Moorhead, Minn., made in the reach). The simulated concentrations for the iver at Fargo could be improved if another control point

(figure 5b at back of report). The concentration for the Red River at Emerson is high because some of the tributaries down-stream from the Red River at Grand Forks, N. Dak., are affected by ground water that has high chloride concentrations [for example, the concentration for site 30 (Park River near Oak-wood, N. Dak.) was 1,300 mg/L or 36.67 meq/L]. The simu-lated concentrations were within 5 percent of the measured con-centrations for all model calibration points except the Red River at Fargo, N. Dak., and the Red River at Grand Forks (figures 12a and 12b at back of report). The difference between the mea-sured and simulated concentrations for the Red River at Fargo was larger than 5 percent because loss of streamflow between

8. Model calibration points used for simulation of conservative-constituent transport in the Red River of the North Basin.

Model calibration pointU.S. Geological Survey

site number

enne River above Harvey, North Dakota 05054500

enne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota 05057000

enne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota 05058000

enne River at Lisbon, North Dakota 05058700

enne River near Kindred, North Dakota 05059000

enne River above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace, North Dakota 05059300

River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota 05051500

River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota 05054000

River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota 05070000

River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota 05082500

River of the North at Emerson, Manitoba 05102500

dded to the model at the Red River above Fargo. The dif-ce between the measured and simulated concentrations for ed River at Grand Forks was larger than 5 percent because mbined streamflow for the Red River near Thompson, k., and the Red Lake River at Fisher, Minn., was 62 ft3/s

than the streamflow measured for the Red River at Grand (table 5).

Measured chloride concentrations ranged from 10.8 mg/L e Red River at Wahpeton, N. Dak., to 96.7 mg/L for the iver at Emerson, Manitoba, during the September 2003

ling period (figures 12a and 12b at back of report). The ntrations for the Sheyenne River were similar in range to for the Red River except for the Red River at Emerson

Hickson, N. Dak., and Fargo (table 5) resulted in no changes in concentration in that reach (concentrations for the Wild Rice River near Abercrombie, N. Dak., were added in the reach and withdrawals from Fargo and from Moorhead were made in the reach). The difference between the measured and simulated concentrations for the Red River at Grand Forks was larger than 5 percent because the combined streamflow for the Red River near Thompson, N. Dak., and the Red Lake River at Fisher, Minn., was 62 ft3/s more than the streamflow measured for the Red River at Grand Forks (table 5).

Because of the steady-flow conditions for the model simu-lation and because total dissolved solids, sulfate, and chloride are considered to be conservative constituents, the model had no

kinibrmaensope

the1.3thefosoerr

M

cothestrba

Tatot

[Thpo

T

S

C


etic or transport parameters to adjust. Therefore, model cal-ation was accomplished by making small adjustments to esti-ted loads from unmeasured sources. Generally, the differ-

ces between the measured and simulated total dissolved-lids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations were less than 5 rcent of the measured concentrations.

To determine the mean calibration error for the model domain, the absolute difference between the measured and sim-ulated concentrations was calculated for the 11 model calibra-tion points. The absolute difference was averaged and the aver-age difference was considered to be the mean calibration error. The mean calibration error, which is shown in table 9 along with

maximum and minimum absolute differences, ranged from Measured and simulated total dissolved-solids, sulfate,

ble 9. Mean calibration errors and maximum and minimum absolute differences between measured (September 2003) and simulated al dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations.

e mean calibration error was determined by averaging the absolute difference between the measured and simulated concentrations for the 11 model calibration ints; the location for which the maximum or minimum difference occurred is indicated in parentheses]

ConstituentMean calibration error

(milligrams per liter)Maximum absolute difference

(milligrams per liter)Minimum absolute difference

(milligrams per liter)

otal dissolved solids

13 27(Sheyenne River above Sheyenne Riverdiversion near Horace, North Dakota)

8(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)

ulfate 4.4 20(Red River of the North at

Grand Forks, North Dakota)

0(Sheyenne River at Lisbon,

North Dakota)

hloride 1.3 5.9(Red River of the North at

Fargo, North Dakota)

0.4(Sheyenne River near Kindred, NorthDakota, and Sheyenne River above

Sheyenne River diversion nearHorace, North Dakota)

mg/L for chloride to 13 mg/L for total dissolved solids. If mean calibration error is expressed as a percentage, the error

r each of the three constituents is similar. For total dissolved lids and sulfate, the error is 2 percent, and for chloride, the or is 4 percent.

odel Performance Testing

The Red River water-quality model was tested using data llected from May 10 through 13, 2004. The unsteadiness in measured streamflows was smoothed using a 7-day average eamflow (May 9 through 23, 2004) (figures 13a and 13b at ck of report).

and chloride concentrations for the Sheyenne River were in agreement (figures 14a, 15a, and 16a at back of report), prima-rily because streamflows in the Sheyenne River during the May 2004 sampling period were fairly steady and instream water-quality conditions were not affected by storm runoff. Measured and simulated concentrations for the Red River were not in agreement (figures 14b, 15b, and 16b at back of report) because streamflows in the Red River were unsteady and samples were collected during differing flow conditions. The measured and simulated concentrations for the Red River at Fargo, N. Dak., and the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba, differed by as much as 194 percent. The large difference probably resulted from unmeasured and unknown loads from storm runoff during the sampling period. Concentrations in the runoff could have been estimated by mass balance, but the model then would apply

24 S

only tevent

Mod

conseSheyfied beightprojebratedrawflowsbecauflowssentereturn40 streled bHiemprojebetweBureaage AmatioFargo(G. HThosRed RSeptejectedadjustives durin

virtuaflowsOne sno-acwas u(G. HBecaprojeflowsreturnForks(tabletives woulwaterthe mSheytive o


o conditions such as those that occurred during the rainfall that preceded the runoff.

el Applications

The Red River water-quality model was used to simulate rvative-constituent transport in the Red River and the

enne River for the eight water-supply alternatives identi-y the Bureau of Reclamation (table 10). For the first set of

simulations, September 2003 streamflows were used with cted 2050 return flows and withdrawals. Because the cali-d model does not directly include return flows and with-als, the model was modified to accept projected return and withdrawals for the alternatives (table 11). Also, se the calibrated model does not directly include return and withdrawals, the projected return flows were repre-d as the difference between the average August 2050 flows modeled by the Bureau of Reclamation for 1931-eamflows and the average August 2005 return flows mod-y the Bureau of Reclamation for 1990-99 streamflows (G. enz, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2005). The cted withdrawals were represented as the difference en the average August 2050 withdrawals modeled by the u of Reclamation for 1931-40 streamflows and the aver-ugust 2005 withdrawals modeled by the Bureau of Recla-n for 1990-99 streamflows for Fargo, N. Dak., West , N. Dak., Grand Forks, N. Dak., and Moorhead, Minn. iemenz, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2005). e cities account for 85 percent of the withdrawals in the

iver Basin. For the second set of eight simulations, the mber 2003 streamflows were reduced by 25 percent. Pro- return flows, imported flows, and withdrawals were not

ted from previous simulations. The effects of the alterna-on constituent concentrations probably would be greatest g low-flow conditions.

Projected return flows were added to the model through l reservoirs so that the flows and the constituents in the were added as point sources at a given return location. et of projected return flows was used for alternative 1 (the tion alternative) and another set of projected return flows

eled to be conveyed to the Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam. Imported flows ranged from 30 ft3/s for alternative 2 to 114 ft3/s for alternative 5. For alternative 5, additional flow was added to the Sheyenne River at Valley City, N. Dak., to account for water conveyance in the Sheyenne River during nonpeak water-use demand. The additional flow for alternative 5 was modeled as a return flow but, during project operation, actually would be an additional release for Baldhill Dam.

Projected withdrawals were applied at three locations. The projected withdrawal for the Red River at Fargo, N. Dak., rep-resents withdrawals from Fargo and from Moorhead, Minn.; the projected withdrawal for the Sheyenne River above the Shey-enne River diversion near Horace, N. Dak., represents with-drawals from West Fargo, N. Dak.; and the projected with-drawal for the Red River near Thompson, N. Dak., represents withdrawals from Grand Forks, N. Dak. For alternative 2, an exported flow of 30 ft3/s at Grand Forks also was applied as a withdrawal.

Estimated constituent concentrations for the projected return flows were obtained from the Bureau of Reclamation (G. Hiemenz, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2005). The concentrations were estimated on the basis of source concentra-tions and current (2005) wastewater-treatment technology. Constituent concentrations for the imported flows for alterna-tives 2 and 7 were assumed to be equal to the median concen-trations of all available USGS water-quality data for the Red River at Grand Forks, N. Dak., and the Missouri River at Bis-marck, N. Dak., respectively (U.S. Geological Survey, accessed December 5, 2005). The concentration for the imported flow for alternative 5 was assumed to be equal to the median concentra-tion for Lake Audubon at the McClusky Canal Headworks (G. Hiemenz, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2005).

Simulations with September 2003 Streamflows

The effects of the water-supply alternatives identified by the Bureau of Reclamation (table 10) on conservative-constitu-ent transport in the Red River Basin were simulated with the low streamflows that occurred during September 2003. The

sed for alternatives 2 through 8 (the action alternatives) iemenz, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2005). use of the structure of the STATEMOD flow model, the cted return flow for Halstad, Minn., represented the return from Fargo, N. Dak., and Moorhead, Minn. Projected flows ranged from 1 ft3/s for the Red River at Grand , N. Dak., to 49 ft3/s for the Red River at Halstad, Minn. 11). Imported flows were added to the model for alterna-2, 5, and 7. During project operation, imported flows d be conveyed into Lake Ashtabula. However, because the -quality processes in Lake Ashtabula were not included in odel and conservative-constituent concentrations in the

enne River below Baldhill Dam, N. Dak., are representa-f those in Lake Ashtabula, the imported flows were mod-

simulated streamflows for each alternative (figures 17a and 17b at back of report) reflect the changes in streamflow that resulted from the projected return flows and withdrawals.

Total Dissolved Solids

Simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for alter-natives 2 through 8 (the action alternatives) for the Sheyenne River generally were equal to or less than those for alternative 1 (the no-action alternative) (figures 18a and 18b at back of report). Simulated concentrations for alternatives 2 through 8 for the Red River generally were higher than those for alterna-tive 1 except for alternatives 6 and 8 (figures 18c and 18d at back of report). Alternative 7 had the largest effect on total dis-

Ta

[M

A


ble 10. Description of water-supply alternatives for Red River Valley Water Supply Project.

odified from U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2005]

lternativenumber

Description of alternative

1 No-action alternative. Would use the current water supply in the Red River of the North Basin without the Red River Valley Water Supply Project.

In-basin alternatives

2 North Dakota in-basin alternative. Would use the Red River of the North and other North Dakota water sources to supplement the current water supply to meet predicted water shortages.

3 Red River Basin alternative. Would use the Red River of the North, other North Dakota water sources, and Minnesota ground water to supplement the current water supply to meet predicted water shortages.

4 Lake of the Woods alternative. Would use the Red River of the North, other North Dakota water sources, and water from Lake of the Woods, Minnesota, to supplement the current water supply to meet predicted water shortages.

Import alternatives

5 Garrison Diversion Unit import to Sheyenne River alternative. Would use the Red River of the North, other North Dakota in-basin sources, and Missouri River water to supplement the current water supply to meet predicted water shortages. The Garrison Diversion Unit Principal Supply Works would be linked to the Sheyenne River through a pipeline. The Principal Supply Works include the Snake Creek Pumping Plant on Lake Sakakawea, Audubon Lake, and McClusky Canal.

6 Garrison Diversion Unit import pipeline alternative. Would use the Red River of the North, other North Dakota in-basin sources, and imported Missouri River water to supplement the current water supply to meet predicted water shortages. The Garrison Diversion Unit Principal Supply Works and a pipeline system would convey water to the Red River Valley.

7 Missouri River import to Red River Valley alternative. Would use the Red River of the North, other North Dakota in-basin sources, and imported Missouri River water to supplement the current water supply to meet predicted water shortages. A pipeline from the Missouri River would convey water to the Red River Valley.

8 Garrison Diversion Unit water supply replacement pipeline alternative. Would use water imported from the Missouri River to replace other water supplies in the service area and to meet predicted water shortages. The Garrison Diversion Unit Princi-pal Supply Works and a pipeline system would convey water to the Red River Valley.

26 S

Tableconce

[Fromdicate

Red

Red

Sheyne

Red

Shey(i

Red

Red

Red

Red

SheyH

Red

Red

Red

Red

Red

SheyH

Red


11. Projected return flows, imported flows, and withdrawals and estimated total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride ntrations for water-supply alternatives.

G. Hiemenz, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2005; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; --, no data; negative withdrawals in-less water is being withdrawn in 2050 than what was withdrawn in the 1990s; GDU, Garrison Diversion Unit]

Location

Projected returnflows and

imported flows(ft3/s)

Projectedwithdrawals

(ft3/s)

Estimated concentration

Totaldissolved

solids(mg/L)

Sulfate(mg/L)

Chloride(mg/L)

Alternative 1

River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota 23 -- 1,009 110 60

River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota -- 7 -- -- --

enne River above Sheyenne River diversion ar Horace, North Dakota

-- 12 -- -- --

River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota -- 30 -- -- --

Alternative 2

enne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota mported flow from Grand Forks, North Dakota)

1 30 -- 339 70 9


River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota 1 -- 1,053 112 72

River of the North at Drayton, North Dakota 4 -- 1,053 112 72


enne River above Sheyenne River diversion near orace, North Dakota

-- 60 -- -- --


Alternative 3






-- - 6 -- -- --


R

R

R

R

S

R

S

S

R

R

R

R

S

R

R

R

R

R

Taco

[Frdic


Alternative 4

ed River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota 49 -- 1,001 95 90

ed River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota 1 -- 1,001 95 90

ed River of the North at Drayton, North Dakota 4 -- 1,001 95 90

ed River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota -- 17 -- -- --


-- - 3 -- -- --

ed River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota -- 11 -- -- --

Alternative 5

heyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota (imported flow from GDU)

1114 -- 583 256 15

heyenne River at Valley City, North Dakota (return flow to account for nonpeak demand)

2 71 -- 736 270 25




ed River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota -- 13 -- -- --

ble 11. Projected return flows, imported flows, and withdrawals and estimated total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride ncentrations for water-supply alternatives.—Continued

om G. Hiemenz, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2005; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; --, no data; negative withdrawals in-ate less water is being withdrawn in 2050 than what was withdrawn in the 1990s; GDU, Garrison Diversion Unit]

Location




(ft3/s)


Totaldissolved

solids(mg/L)

Sulfate(mg/L)

Chloride(mg/L)


-- 68 -- -- --

ed River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota -- 30 -- -- --

Alternative 6




ed River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota -- - 8 -- -- --

28 S

SheyH

Red

Shey(i

Red

Red

Red

Red

SheyH

Red

Red

Red

Red

Red

SheyH

Red

1Im2Re

Tableconce

[Fromdicate


Alternative 6, Continued


-- - 32 -- -- --

River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota -- - 23 -- -- --

Alternative 7

enne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota mported flow from Missouri River)

160 -- 436 172 9.5






-- 20 -- -- --


Alternative 8

River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota 49 -- 980 270 58

11. Projected return flows, imported flows, and withdrawals and estimated total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride ntrations for water-supply alternatives.—Continued

G. Hiemenz, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2005; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; --, no data; negative withdrawals in-less water is being withdrawn in 2050 than what was withdrawn in the 1990s; GDU, Garrison Diversion Unit]

Location




(ft3/s)


Totaldissolved

solids(mg/L)

Sulfate(mg/L)

Chloride(mg/L)

River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota 1 -- 980 270 58

River of the North at Drayton, North Dakota 4 -- 980 270 58

River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota -- - 8 -- -- --


-- - 32 -- -- --

River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota -- - 23 -- -- --

ported flow.

turn flow.

so18thaimenfrocosocealtmgFocoba

Su

8 (orexSiRe19effurfoimN.(fiGrtrafroN.(fifloenrel(taadco

Ch

threraaculaRianon20thaim


lved solids in the Sheyenne River at Lisbon, N. Dak. (figure a at back of report). The concentrations for alternative 7 for t site decreased from 792 mg/L to 581 mg/L as a result of an ported flow of 60 ft3/s from the Missouri River to the Shey-ne River below Baldhill Dam, N. Dak. (table 11). The water m the Missouri River had a fairly low total dissolved-solids ncentration. Alternative 2 had the largest effect on total dis-lved solids in the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba. The con-ntrations for alternative 2 increased in relation to those for ernative 1. The concentrations increased from 709 to 798 /L as a result of low streamflow in the reach between Grand rks, N. Dak., and Emerson and high total dissolved-solids ncentrations in tributary flows to that reach (figure 18c at ck of report).

lfate

Simulated sulfate concentrations for alternatives 2 through the action alternatives) for the Sheyenne River were equal to less than those for alternative 1 (the no-action alternative) cept for alternative 5 (figures 19a and 19b at back of report). mulated concentrations for alternatives 2 through 8 for the d River varied in relation to those for alternative 1 (figures c and 19d at back of report). Alternative 2 had the largest ect on sulfate in the Sheyenne River at Lisbon, N. Dak. (fig-

e 19a at back of report). The concentrations for alternative 2 r that site decreased from 306 to 207 mg/L as a result of an ported flow of 30 ft3/s from the Red River at Grand Forks, Dak., to the Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, N. Dak. gure 19a at back of report). The water from the Red River at and Forks had a fairly low sulfate concentration. The concen-tions for alternative 5 for the Sheyenne River downstream m Lisbon and for the Red River downstream from Fargo, Dak., were consistently higher than those for alternative 1 gures 19b and 19d at back of report) as a result of an imported w of 114 ft3/s from the Garrison Diversion Unit to the Shey-ne River below Baldhill Dam, N. Dak., and an additional ease of 71 ft3/s to the Sheyenne River at Valley City, N. Dak. ble 11). The water from the Garrison Diversion Unit and the ditional release from Baldhill Dam had fairly high sulfate

The water from the Missouri River had a fairly low chloride concentration. The concentrations for alternative 2 for the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba, increased in relation to those for alternative 1 (figure 20c at back of report). The concentrations increased from 103 to 112 mg/L as a result of low streamflow in the reach between Grand Forks, N. Dak., and Emerson and high chloride concentrations in tributary flows to that reach.

Uncertainty of Simulation Results

Simulation results obtained with the September 2003 streamflows contain some uncertainty as reflected in the mean calibration errors give in table 9. This uncertainty is a result of uncertainty in the data, limiting assumptions in the model framework, and uncertainty about constituent loads from all sources. If the difference between the simulated concentration for alternative 1 (the no-action alternative) and the simulated concentration for an action alternative exceeds the mean cali-bration error for a particular constituent, the proposed alterna-tive may have some effect on water quality. If, however, the dif-ference is less than the mean calibration error, the effect of the proposed alternative on water quality is uncertain.

To determine the effects of the water-supply alternatives on water quality in the Red River and the Sheyenne River, mean simulated total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride concen-trations for each of the alternatives were calculated from con-centrations at the 11 model calibration points (table 8). The mean simulated concentration for each action alternative then was subtracted from the mean simulated concentration for alter-native 1 (the no-action alternative) (table 12). Results indicate total dissolved-solids concentrations may decrease for alterna-tives 2 and 7, sulfate concentrations may decrease for alterna-tives 2 and 7 and increase for alternative 5, and chloride concen-trations may decrease for alternatives 5, 7, and 8. The differences between the mean simulated concentrations for alternatives 3, 4, 6, and 8 were less than calibration errors, indi-cating the effects of those alternatives on water quality in the rivers is uncertain.

ncentrations.

loride

Simulated chloride concentrations for alternatives 2 ough 8 (the action alternatives) for the Sheyenne River gen-lly were equal to or less than those for alternative 1 (the no-

tion alternative) (figures 20a and 20b at back of report). Sim-ted concentrations for alternatives 2 through 8 for the Red

ver varied in relation to those for alternative 1 (figures 20c d 20d at back of report). Alternative 7 had the largest effect chloride in the Sheyenne River at Lisbon, N. Dak. (figure b at back of report). The concentrations for alternative 7 for t site decreased from 40.4 to 22.0 mg/L as a result of an ported flow of 60 ft3/s from the Missouri River (table 11).

Simulations with Reduced Streamflows

The effects of the water-supply alternatives identified by the Bureau of Reclamation (table 10) on conservative-constitu-ent transport in the Red River Basin also were simulated with reduced streamflows. For this set of simulations, the stream-flows that occurred during September 2003 were reduced by 25 percent (table 13). The mean differences between the total dis-solved-solids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations simulated with the September 2003 streamflows and those simulated with the reduced streamflows then were computed for each of the 11 model calibration points. The absolute mean differences are given in tables 14 through 16 along with the maximum and min-imum absolute differences for each calibration point.

30 S

Tableconce

[--, no

A


12. Mean simulated concentrations for water-supply alternatives and difference between concentration for alternative and ntration for alternative 1 (the no-action alternative).

data]

lternativenumber

Mean simulated concentration(milligrams per liter)

Difference betweenconcentration for alternative

and concentration foralternative 1


Mean calibration error(milligrams per liter)

Total dissolved solids

1 635 -- --

2 615 - 20 13

3 644 9 13

4 642 7 13

5 636 1 13

6 634 - 1 13

7 600 - 35 13

8 632 - 3 13

Sulfate

1 189 -- 4.4

2 172 - 17 4.4

3 189 0 4.4

4 189 0 4.4

5 200 11 4.4

6 190 1 4.4

7 178 - 11 4.4

8 192 3 4.4

Chloride

1 33.1 -- 1.3

2 32.2 - 0.9 1.3

3 33.7 0.6 1.3

4 33.9 0.8 1.3

5 28.7 - 4.4 1.3

so(tadifmgmethehaaltsu15aberrpr2 aeff

M

erainsfieRito ditpliflobeflowo

Taco

[--

Model Limitations 31

The effects of reduced streamflow on simulated total dis-lved-solids concentrations were greatest for alternative 2 ble 14). Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 7 each had an absolute mean ference that was larger than the mean calibration error of 13 /L for total dissolved solids (table 9). Because the absolute an differences for alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 7 are greater than calibration error of 13 mg/L, reduced streamflow probably

s an effect on total dissolved-solids concentrations for those ernatives. The effects of reduced streamflows on simulated lfate concentrations also were greatest for alternative 2 (table ). Except for alternatives 2 and 5, each alternative had an solute mean difference that was less than the mean calibration or of 4.4 mg/L for sulfate. Therefore, reduced streamflow

obably has an effect on sulfate concentrations for alternatives nd 5. Except for alternative 2, reduced streamflow had little ect on simulated chloride concentrations (table 16).

Although water-quality processes in Lake Ashtabula were not included in the model, the September 2003 data indicate this was not a limiting factor for the simulation of conservative-con-stituent transport during low-flow conditions. However, the effects of those processes on nutrients may need to be consid-ered in future water-quality studies. Also, although the model currently simulates only conservative-constituent transport, the measured conditions were represented accurately. Therefore, testing of the model with a second set of data collected during steady-flow conditions would be beneficial.

Summary

Population growth along with possible future droughts in the Red River of the North (Red River) Basin in North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota will create an increasing need for

Chloride, Continued

6 32.0 - 1.1 1.3

7 29.4 - 3.7 1.3

8 31.6 - 1.5 1.3

ble 12. Mean simulated concentrations for water-supply alternatives and difference between concentration for alternative and ncentration for alternative 1 (the no-action alternative).—Continued

, no data]

Alternativenumber

Mean simulated concentration(milligrams per liter)

Difference betweenconcentration for alternative

and concentration foralternative 1


Mean calibration error(milligrams per liter)

odel Limitations

Although the Red River water-quality model includes sev-l assumptions and limitations, the model provides initial ight into the effects of the water-supply alternatives identi-d by the Bureau of Reclamation on water quality in the Red ver Basin. Because streamflows in the model were assumed be steady, the model cannot be applied to storm-runoff con-ions such as those that occurred during the May 2004 sam-ng period. However, the model can be applied to low, steady-w conditions such as those that occurred during the Septem-r 2003 sampling period. Steady flows often occur during low-w conditions when the effects of the alternatives probably uld be greatest.

reliable water supplies. Therefore, as a result of the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, the Bureau of Reclamation iden-tified eight water-supply alternatives (including a no-action alternative) to meet future water needs in the basin. Of those alternatives, four include the interbasin transfer of water.

Because of concerns about the possible effects of the water-supply alternatives on water quality in the Red River and the Sheyenne River and in Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba, the Bureau of Reclamation needs to prepare an environmental impact statement that describes the specific environmental effects of each alternative. To provide information for the envi-ronmental impact statement, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, conducted a study to develop and apply a water-quality model, hereinafter referred

32 S

to as Riveruent tqualiport mRiver

River

Table

Shey

Shey

Shey

Shey

Shey

Shey

Shey

Shey

Shey

Bois

Otte

Red

Red

Red

Red

Red

Red

Red

Red

Red

Red


13. Reduced streamflows used in Red River water-quality model.

LocationReduced streamflow

(cubic feet per second)

enne River above Harvey, North Dakota 1.9

enne River near Warwick, North Dakota 11.3

enne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota 15.8

enne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota 27.8

enne River at Valley City, North Dakota 28.5

enne River at Lisbon, North Dakota 30.8

enne River near Kindred, North Dakota 51.8

enne River above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace, North Dakota 53.2

enne River at Brooktree Park, North Dakota 60

de Sioux River near Doran, Minnesota 0

r Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minnesota 85.5

River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota 82.5

River of the North at Hickson, North Dakota 83.3

River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota 78

River of the North at confluence with Sheyenne River, North Dakota 167

River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota 209

River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota 244

River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota 317

River of the North at Oslo, Minnesota 319

River of the North at Drayton, North Dakota 330

River of the North at Emerson, Manitoba 353

the Red River water-quality model, to part of the Red and the Sheyenne River to simulate conservative-constit-ransport in the Red River Basin. The Red River water-

ty model is a one-dimensional, steady-state flow and trans-odel for selected conservative constituents in the Red

and the Sheyenne River.

The data-collection network consisted of 34 sites (11 Red sites, 8 Sheyenne River sites, and 15 other tributary sites).

Of the 34 sites, 23 were co-located with active U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations. Of the remaining sites, three were located on the main stem of the Red River, and one was located on the main stem of the Sheyenne River. Ungaged tributaries to the Red River (other than the Sheyenne River) were sampled at either the downstream-most gaging station or at ungaged sites near the mouth of the tributary.

Tasim

[Lo

Summary 33

ble 14. Absolute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences between total dissolved-solids concentrations ulated with September 2003 streamflows and those simulated with reduced streamflows.

cation for which the maximum or minimum difference occurred is indicated in parentheses]

Alternativenumber

Absolute meandifference


Maximum absolutedifference


Minimum absolutedifference


1 12 38(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)

0(Sheyenne River above Sheyenne Riverdiversion near Horace, North Dakota)


Emerson, Manitoba)




Emerson, Manitoba)

1(Sheyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota,

and Sheyenne River above Sheyenne Riverdiversion near Horace, North Dakota)

4 13 31(Red River of the North nearThompson, North Dakota)




Emerson, Manitoba)










34 S

TableSepte

[Locat

Aln


15. Absolute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences between sulfate concentrations simulated with mber 2003 streamflows and those simulated with reduced streamflows.

ion for which the maximum or minimum difference occurred is indicated in parentheses]

ternativeumber







1 1.6 7.2(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)


2 9.1 16.5(Sheyenne River at Lisbon,

North Dakota)

0.8(Red River of the North at



Emerson, Manitoba)






Emerson, Manitoba)


Emerson, Manitoba)




Emerson, Manitoba)




North Dakota)

0.4(Red River of the North nearThompson, North Dakota)

8 1.6 4.0(Red River of the North nearThompson, North Dakota)



Tawi

[Lo

Summary 35

ble 16. Absolute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences between chloride concentrations simulated th September 2003 streamflows and those simulated with reduced streamflows.

cation for which the maximum or minimum difference occurred is indicated in parentheses]

Alternativenumber








Emerson, Manitoba)




Emerson, Manitoba)










Emerson, Manitoba)




Emerson, Manitoba)




North Dakota)




Emerson, Manitoba)



36 S

flow ing m13, 2qualiupstrN. DaLoadance,streamchargrelatimode

were the mically2003Riverthe tithe SstreamTail Renne percethe sa

2004muchthe arhigheRiverflowsthan dRed RRed Rdurinenne part owhat whenarea, exceefrom mout11, 20cent omout11, 20Minnthe Rstreampercethe m


Water-quality samples were collected during low, steady-conditions from September 15 through 16, 2003, and dur-edium, unsteady-flow conditions from May 10 through

004. During the September 2003 sampling period, water-ty samples were collected from the Red River immediately eam and immediately downstream from the Fargo, k., and Moorhead, Minn., wastewater-treatment facilities.

s and concentrations then were determined by mass bal- and the differences between the upstream and down-

concentrations were attributed to the wastewater dis-es. Only withdrawals and return flows that were large in on to flow in the river were included in the water-quality l.

Streamflows during the September 2003 sampling period low. For example, streamflows for the Red Lake River at outh and the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba, are histor- lower than streamflows measured on September 15, , for the Red Lake River at Fisher, Minn., and the Red at Emerson, Manitoba, respectively, about 16 percent of me. Streamflows for the Otter Tail River at the mouth and heyenne River at the mouth are historically lower than

flows measured on September 16, 2003, for the Otter iver at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minn., and the Shey-

River at Brooktree Park, N. Dak., respectively, about 30 nt of the time. Streamflows were generally steady during mpling period.

On May 11 and 12, 2004, during the middle of the May sampling period, widespread rainfall occurred throughout of the Red River Basin. On May 11, rainfall amounts in ea east of the Red River and north of Fargo, N. Dak., were r than those in the upper part of the Red and Sheyenne Basins. As a result of the widespread rainfall, stream- during the May 2004 sampling period were less steady uring the September 2003 sampling period except in the iver upstream from Fargo, N. Dak. Streamflow for the iver at Emerson, Manitoba, increased about 50 percent

g the sampling period. However, streamflows in the Shey-River increased only slightly because of less rainfall in that f the basin than in other parts of the basin. In contrast to occurred during the September 2003 sampling period

May 12, 2004, for the Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park, N. Dak., about 85 percent of the time. The unsteady flows and the collection of some samples during low-flow conditions and other samples during storm-runoff conditions complicated application of the model to the May 2004 sampling period.

Measured total dissolved-solids concentrations for the Red River generally were less than the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency secondary water-quality standard of 500 milli-grams per liter. During the September 2003 sampling period, concentrations for the Sheyenne River were greater than 500 milligrams per liter. The highest concentrations were for the upstream part of the Sheyenne River Basin. Concentrations for several tributaries to the Red River were fairly large, but streamflows in those tributaries were less than 12 cubic feet per second during the September 2003 sampling period. Thus, total dissolved-solids loads from those tributaries to the Red River were small.

The Red River water-quality model was calibrated and tested using data collected from September 15 through 16, 2003, and from May 10 through 13, 2004. The model simulates flow and transport of total dissolved solids, sulfate, and chloride during steady-state conditions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers HEC-5Q water-quality model was modified for this study by (1) extending the computational grid and (2) specifying boundary conditions. Boundary conditions included natural inflows and outflows of water and constituents and withdrawals and return flows. The physical domain of the Red River water-quality model included the Red River from the confluence of the Bois de Sioux and Otter Tail Rivers to the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba, and the Sheyenne River from above Har-vey, N. Dak., to the confluence with the Red River.

Small point-source discharges and withdrawals were not included in the model but were accounted for through mass bal-ances of streamflow and constituent concentrations within a reach. Withdrawals by the cities of Fargo, N. Dak., Grand Forks, N. Dak., and Moorhead, Minn., also were not included in the model but were accounted for through changes in stream-flow at locations upstream and downstream from the withdraw-als.

streamflows were consistently low throughout the study the percentage of time streamflow was equaled or ded during the May 2004 sampling period varied widely site to site. Streamflow for the Red Lake River at the h is historically lower than streamflow measured on May 04, for the Red Lake River at Fisher, Minn., about 30 per-f the time. Streamflow for the Otter Tail River at the

h is historically lower than streamflow measured on May 04, for the Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge,

., about 55 percent of the time. In contrast, streamflow for ed River at Emerson, Manitoba, is historically lower than

flow measured on May 10, 2004, for that site about 70 nt of the time, and streamflow for the Sheyenne River at outh is historically lower than streamflow measured on

Simulated streamflows and total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations at 11 model calibration points were compared to measured streamflows and concentrations. The calibration points are located throughout the model domain and several are located near withdrawal and return-flow locations. The simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations were within 5 percent of the measured concentrations for all model calibra-tion points. The simulated sulfate and chloride concentrations were within 5 percent of the measured concentrations for all model calibration points except the Red River at Fargo, N. Dak., and the Red River at Grand Forks, N. Dak. The differences for those locations were larger than 5 percent because of loss of streamflow or a combined tributary streamflow that was more

thatio

coShfieula20sim25dreffbly

tratraaltaltthelownalattheun

sofosim2, naha

erainsqumoto theapocfloof

nowastiefferecume

References 37

n the streamflow measured for the next downstream loca-n.

The Red River water-quality model was used to simulate nservative-constituent transport in the Red River and the eyenne River for the eight water-supply alternatives identi-d by the Bureau of Reclamation. For the first set of eight sim-tions, September 2003 streamflows were used with projected 50 return flows and withdrawals. For the second set of eight ulations, the September 2003 streamflows were reduced by

percent. Projected return flows, imported flows, and with-awals were not adjusted from previous simulations. The ects of the alternatives on constituent concentrations proba- would be greatest during low-flow conditions.

Simulation results indicate total dissolved-solids concen-tions may decrease for alternatives 2 and 7, sulfate concen-tions may decrease for alternatives 2 and 7 and increase for ernative 5, and chloride concentrations may decrease for ernatives 5, 7, and 8. Other than for sulfate for alternative 5, concentrations for alternatives 2, 5, and 7 generally were er than for alternative 1 (the no-action alternative). For alter-

tives 3, 4, 6 and 8, the differences between the mean simu-ed concentrations were less than calibration errors, indicating effects of those alternatives on water quality in the rivers is certain.

The effects of reduced streamflow on simulated total dis-lved-solids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations were greatest r alternative 2. Reduced streamflow probably has an effect on

ulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for alternatives 3, 5, and 7 and on simulated sulfate concentrations for alter-tives 2 and 5. Except for alternative 2, reduced streamflow d little effect on simulated chloride concentrations.

Although the Red River water-quality model includes sev-l assumptions and limitations, the model provides initial ight into the effects of the water-supply alternatives on water ality in the Red River Basin. Because streamflows in the del were assumed to be steady, the model cannot be applied

testing of the model with a second set of data collected during steady-flow conditions would be beneficial.

References

Brunner, G.W., 2002, HEC-RAS, River analysis system user’s manual, version 3.1: Davis, California, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Report CPD-68, variously paginated.

Emerson, D.G., 2005, Historic and naturalized monthly stream-flow for selected sites in the Red River of the North Basin in North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota, 1931-2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5092, 228 p.

Klipsch, J.D., 2003, HEC-ResSim, Reservoir simulation system user’s manual, version 2.0: Davis, California, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Report CPD-82, 426 p.

North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network, 2005, NDAWN station locations (2005-06-08): accessed June 9, 2005, at http://ndawn.ndsu.nodak.edu/.

Resource Management Associates, 1996a, HEC-5 users man-ual, Simulation of flood control and conservation systems, Appendix on water quality analysis: Suisun City, California, Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 84 p.

Resource Management Associates, 1996b, Water quality mod-eling of reservoir system operations using HEC-5Q: Suisun City, California, Training document prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 99 p.

Robinson, S.M., Lundgren, R.F., Sether, B.A., Norbeck, S.W., and Lambrecht, J.M., 2004, Water resources data—North Dakota, Water year 2003, Volume 1, Surface water: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report ND-03-1, 583 p.

Robinson, S.M., Lundgren, R.F., Sether, B.A., Norbeck, S.W., and Lambrecht, J.M., 2005, Water resources data—North Dakota, Water year 2004, Volume 1, Surface water: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report ND-04-1, 621 p.

storm-runoff conditions such as those that occurred during May 2004 sampling period. However, the model can be

plied to low, steady-flow conditions such as those that curred during the September 2003 sampling period. Steady ws often occur during low-flow conditions when the effects

the alternatives probably would be greatest.

Although water-quality processes in Lake Ashtabula were t included in the model, the September 2003 data indicate this s not a limiting factor for the simulation of conservative-con-tuent transport during low-flow conditions. However, the ects of those processes on nutrients may need to be consid-d in future water-quality studies. Also, although the model

rrently simulates only conservative-constituent transport, the asured conditions were represented accurately. Therefore,

Sether, B.A., Berkas,W.R., and Vecchia, A.V., 2004, Constitu-ent loads and flow-weighted average concentrations for major subbasins of the upper Red River of the North Basin, 1997-99: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5200, 62 p.

Stoner, J.D., Lorenz, D.L., Goldstein, R.M., Brigham, M.E., and Cowdery, T.K., 1998, Water quality in the Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, 1992-95: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1169, 33 p.

Stoner, J.D., Lorenz, D.L., Wiche, G.J., and Goldstein, R.M., 1993, Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 29, no. 4, p. 575-614.

38 S

StrobwaDatio

Torneof Datig

TorneentReSoRe

U.S. flosioRe

U.S. Dasta

U.S. Ba


el, M.L., and Haffield, N.D., 1995, Salinity in surface ter in the Red River of the North Basin, northeastern North kota: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investiga-ns Report 95-4082, 14 p.

s, L.H., 2005, Water quality of streams in the Red River the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South kota, 1970-2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Inves-ations Report 2005-5095, 81 p.

s, L.H., Brigham, M.E., and Lorenz, D.L., 1997, Nutri-s, suspended sediment, and pesticides in streams in the d River of the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and uth Dakota, 1993-95: U.S. Geological Survey Water-sources Investigations Report 97-4053, 70 p.

Army Corps of Engineers, 1998, HEC-5, Simulation of od control and conservation systems user’s manual, ver-n 8.0: Davis, California, Hydrologic Engineering Center, port CPD-5, various pagination.

Army Corps of Engineers, 2003, Final Devils Lake, North kota, integrated planning report and environmental impact tement: St. Paul, Minnesota, various pagination.

Army Corps of Engineers, 2005, Water quality data, ldhill Reservoir above Valley City, ND: accessed June 27,

2005, at http://www.mvp-wc.usace.army.mil/cgi-bin/wq/wq_init.plx?site=baldhill

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2005, Reclamation, Managing water in the west--Executive sum-mary, Draft report on Red River Valley water needs and options: 24 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, List of drinking water contaminants and MCLs: accessed November 1, 2005, at URL http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, Water quality data for North Dakota: accessed December 5, 2005, at http://water-data.usgs.gov/nd/nwis/qw

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A9, available online at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A

Willey, R.G., 1987, Water quality modeling of reservoir system operations using HEC-5: Davis, California, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Training docu-ment 24, various pagination.

References 39

Red

River

ofthe

North

N O R T H D A K O T A M I N N E S O T A

M A N I T O B A

S O U T H D A K O T A

99˚ 97˚

95˚

95˚

49˚

47˚ 47˚

49˚

97˚

99˚

Base from U.S. Geological Survey1:2,000,000, 1972

0 20 40 60 MILES

9

11

12

13

14

16

15

4

7

8

6

53

2

1

2019 21

18

22

2423

25

26

17

27

28

BaldhillDam

Orwell Dam

EXPLANATION

Red River of the NorthBasin boundary

Subbasin boundaries

Site and number2

3029

31

32

33

34

10

GrandForks

Oslo

Warren

Hallock

Manvel

Drayton

Oakwood

Pembina

Emerson

FARGOHarwood MOORHEAD

Dilworth

HendrumHalstad

Shelly

Perley

Climax

FisherThompson

Lisbon

ValleyCity

Harvey

Maddock

Cooperstown

Hillsboro

Abercrombie

WahpetonDoran

Breckenridge

KindredHickson

Horace

East GrandForks

Warwick

SASKATCHEWAN MANITOBACANADA

ONTARIO

White Rock

Lake Traverse

Mud LakeWhite Rock Dam

Reservation Dam

SHEYENNE

RIVER

BASIN

DEVILS

LAKE

BASIN Big Woods

BrooktreePark

Winnipeg

Nel

son

R.

Red

Lake Winnipeg

HU

DSO

NB

AY

Upper

Red

LakeDevils

Lake

Sheyenne

River

River

River

Wild

Rice

River

Riv

erRiv

erRabbit R.

Mustinka R.

Pel

ican

Tail

OtterOrwell Reservoir

River

River

R.R

.

R.

R.

Tongue

Pembina

R.R

iver

R.

S. Br.

N. Br.

Roseau

R.

Two

River

R.

R.

MiddleTamarac

Thie

f

Red

Lake

Snake

Forest

Turtle

Park

RiceMarsh River

R.Sand Hill

Wild

BuffaloR.

R.

R.

Elm

Goose

Maple

Rush

Bois de Sioux R

.

Stump Lake

LakeAshtabula

Beaver

Baldhill

Cr.

Cr.

Lower

Red

Lake

Peterson Coulee

Figure 1. Locations of sites used in study.

INDEX MAP

RED RIVEROF THE

NORTH BASIN

UNITED STATES River

Of

TheN

orth

NORTH DAKOTA

SOUTH DAKOTA

MINNESOTA

40 SST

REAM

FLOW

, IN

CUB

IC F

EET

PER

SECO

ND

Fig


1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PERCENT OF TIME STREAMFLOW WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

EXPLANATION

Otter Tail River at mouth

Sheyenne River at mouth

Red Lake River at mouth

Red River of the North at Emerson, Manitoba (site 34)

Instantaneous streamflow for Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minnesota (site 1), for September 16, 2003

Estimated daily mean streamflow for Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minnesota (site 1), for May 11, 2004

Instantaneous streamflow for Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park, North Dakota (site 16), for September 16, 2003

Estimated daily mean streamflow for Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park, North Dakota (site 16), for May 12, 2004

Daily mean streamflow for Red Lake River at Fisher, Minnesota (site 24), for September 15, 2003

Daily mean streamflow for Red Lake River at Fisher, Minnesota (site 24), for May 11, 2004

Daily mean streamflow for Red River of the North at Emerson, Manitoba (site 34), for September 15, 2003

Daily mean streamflow for Red River of the North at Emerson, Manitoba (site 34), for May 10, 2004

ure 2. Streamflows and flow duration curves for selected sites (sites at the mouth are those given in Emerson, 2005).

References 41

September 2003sampling period

100,000

10,000

1,000

100

10

STRE

AMFL

OW, I

N C

UBIC

FEE

T PE

R SE

CON

D

Red River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota (site 3)

Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota (site 7)

Sheyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota (site 11)

Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion nearHorace, North Dakota (site 15)


(A)

30252015 30252015105 30252015105

Figure 3. Streamflows for selected sites for August 15 through October 31, 2003, and April 15 through June 30, 2004.

August September

2003

October

1

42 SST

REAM

FLOW

, IN

CUB

IC F

EET

PER

SECO

ND

Fig


100,000

10,000

1,000

100

10

May 2004sampling period

Red River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota (site 3)

Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota (site 7)

Sheyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota (site 11)

(B)

30252015 30252015105 302520151051

April May June

ure 3. Streamflows for selected sites for August 15 through October 31, 2003, and April 15 through June 30, 2004--Continued.

2004

Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion nearHorace, North Dakota (site 15)


References 43

0

600

900

300

700

800

400

500

200

100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,100

1,000

1,500CO

NCE

NTR

ATIO

N, I

N M

ILLI

GRAM

S PE

R LI

TER

Figure 4. Measured total dissolved-solids concentrations for September 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods.

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Emerson, M

anitoba (s

ite 34

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Wahpeton, North

Dakota (s

ite 3)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Hickson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

4)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Fargo, N

orth Dako

ta (site

7)

Red River o

f the N

orth above

Fargo, N

orth Dako

ta (site

6)

Red River o

f the N

orth on

Cass County

Road 20 below

Fargo, N

orth Dako

ta (site

8)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Halstad, M

innesota (s

ite 19

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Oslo, M

innesota (s

ite 27

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Drayton, N

orth Dako

ta (site

31)

Red River o

f the N

orth near

Thompson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

23)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Grand Forks

, North

Dakota (s

ite 25

)

Red River sites

September 2003 sampling period

May 2004 sampling period

U.S. Environmental Protection Agencysecondary water-quality standard

(A)

44 SCO

NCE

NTR

ATIO

N, I

N M

ILLI

GRAM

S PE

R LI

TER

Fi


Sheyenne Rive

r above

Harvey, N

orth Dako

ta

(site 9)

Sheyenne Rive

r near

Warwick,

North Dako

ta

(site 10

)

Sheyenne Rive

r below

Baldhill Dam, N

orth Dako

ta

(site 12

)

Sheyenne Rive

r near

Cooperstown, N

orth Dako

ta

(site 11

)

Sheyenne Rive

r near

Kindred, North

Dakota

(site 14

)

Sheyenne Rive

r at

Lisbon, N

orth Dako

ta

(site 13

)

Sheyenne Rive

r above

Sheyenne Rive

r dive

rsion near

Horace, North

Dakota

(site 15

)

Sheyenne Rive

r at

Brooktree Park,

North

Dakota

(site 16

)

0

600

900

300

700

800

400

500

200

100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,100

1,000

1,500

Sheyenne River sites




gure 4. Measured total dissolved-solids concentrations for September 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods--Continued.

(B)

References 45

0

600

900

300

700

800

400

500

200

100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,100

1,000

1,500

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Bois de Sioux R

iver n

ear Doran,

Minnesota (s

ite 2)

Pembina River a

bove Pembina,

North Dako

ta (site

33)

Red Lake

River a

t Fish

er,

Minnesota (s

ite 24

)

Turtle

River a

bove M

anvel,

North Dako

ta (site

26)

Forest

River n

ear conflu

ence

with Red Rive

r of th

e North

,

North Dako

ta (site

28)

Otter T

ail Rive

r at 1

1th

Street in

Breckenrid

ge,

Minnesota (s

ite 1)

Wild

Rice River n

ear Abercrombie,

North Dako

ta (site

5)

Park Rive

r near O

akwood,

North Dako

ta (site

30)

Goose Rive

r at H

illsboro,

North Dako

ta (site

20)

Marsh Rive

r near S

helly,

Minnesota (s

ite 21

)

Sand Hill Rive

r at C

limax,

Minnesota (s

ite 22

)

Wild

Rice River a

t Hendrum,

Minnesota (s

ite 18

)

Snake Rive

r near B

ig Woods,

Minnesota (s

ite 29

)

Buffalo Rive

r near D

ilworth

,

Minnesota (s

ite 17

)

Two Rive

rs at H

allock,

Minnesota (s

ite 32

)

NO

DATA

NO

DATA

14,4003,2402,550

Remaining tributary sites




Figure 4. Measured total dissolved-solids concentrations for September 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods--Continued.

(C)

46 S
esiu

m, s

odiu

m, b

icar

bona

te, c

arbo

nate

, sul

fate

, and

chl

orid

e co

ncen

tratio

ns fo

r sel

ecte

d si

tes

for S

epte

mbe

r 200

3 an

d M

ay 2

004

Calc

ium

Mag

nesi

um

Sodi

um

12.7

8

h at

a (site

7) Sheyenne Rive

r above

Harvey,

North Dako

ta (site

9)

Sheyenne Rive

r near W

arwick,

North Dako

ta (site

10) Sheye

nne River b

elow Baldhill Dam,

North Dako

ta (site

12)

Sheyenne Rive

r near C

ooperstown,

North Dako

ta (site

11)

Sheyenne Rive

r near K

indred,

North Dako

ta (site

14)

Sheyenne Rive

r at L

isbon,

North Dako

ta (site

13)

Sheyenne Rive

r above

Sheyenne Rive

r dive

rsion

near Horace, N

orth Dako

ta (site

15)

Sheyenne Rive

r at B

rooktree Park,

North Dako

ta (site

16)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Emerson, M

anitoba (s

ite 34

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Halstad, M

innesota (s

ite 19

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Oslo, M

innesota (s

ite 27

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Drayton, N

orth Dako

ta (site

31)

Red River o

f the N

orth near

Thompson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

23)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Grand Forks

, North

Dakota (s

ite 25

)

orth on Cass

County

rgo, North

Dakota (s

ite 8)

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIEQUIVALENTS PER LITER

Figu

re 5

.

Mea

sure

d ca

lciu

m, m

agn

sam

plin

g pe

riods

.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Wahpeton, North

Dakota (s

ite 3)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Hickson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

4)

Red River o

f the N

ort

Fargo, N

orth Dako

t

Red River o

f the N

orth above

Fargo, N

orth Dako

ta (site

6)

(A)

Red River o

f the N

Road 20 below Fa

References 47

ateon

ate

ride

rbon

ate

m, s

odiu

m, b

icar

bona

te, c

arbo

nate

, sul

fate

, and

chl

orid

e co

ncen

tratio

ns fo

r sel

ecte

d si

tes

for S

epte

mbe

r 200

3 an

d M

ay 2

004

7) heyenne Rive

r above

Harvey,

North Dako

ta (site

9)

Sheyenne Rive

r near W

arwick,

North Dako

ta (site

10) Sheye

nne River b

elow Baldhill Dam,

North Dako

ta (site

12)

Sheyenne Rive

r near C

ooperstown,

North Dako

ta (site

11)

Sheyenne Rive

r near K

indred,

North Dako

ta (site

14)

Sheyenne Rive

r at L

isbon,

North Dako

ta (site

13)

Sheyenne Rive

r above

Sheyenne Rive

r dive

rsion

near Horace, N

orth Dako

ta (site

15)

Sheyenne Rive

r at B

rooktree Park,

North Dako

ta (site

16)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Emerson, M

anitoba (s

ite 34

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Halstad, M

innesota (s

ite 19

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Oslo, M

innesota (s

ite 27

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Drayton, N

orth Dako

ta (site

31)

Red River o

f the N

orth near

Thompson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

23)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Grand Forks

, North

Dakota (s

ite 25

)

n Cass County

orth Dako

ta (site

8)

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIEQUIVALENTS PER LITER

Sulf

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Carb

Chlo

Bica

Figu

re 5

.

Mea

sure

d ca

lciu

m, m

agne

siu

sam

plin

g pe

riods

--Co

ntin

ued.

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Wahpeton, North

Dakota (s

ite 3)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Hickson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

4)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Fargo, N

orth Dako

ta (site

Red River o

f the N

orth above

Fargo, N

orth Dako

ta (site

6)

S

(B)

Red River o

f the N

orth o

Road 20 below Fa

rgo, N

48 S
te a

s ni

troge

n, a

mm

onia

as

nitro

gen,

and

org

anic

nitr

ogen

con

cent

ratio

ns fo

r sel

ecte

d si

tes

for S

epte

mbe

r 200

3 an

d M

ay 2

004

Amm

onia

as

nitro

gen

Orga

nic

nitro

gen

Nitr

ite p

lus

nitra

te a

s ni

troge

n

h at

a (site

7) Sheyenne Rive

r above

Harvey,

North Dako

ta (site

9)

Sheyenne Rive

r near W

arwick,

North Dako

ta (site

10) Sheye

nne River b

elow Baldhill Dam,

North Dako

ta (site

12)

Sheyenne Rive

r near C

ooperstown,

North Dako

ta (site

11)

Sheyenne Rive

r near K

indred,

North Dako

ta (site

14)

Sheyenne Rive

r at L

isbon,

North Dako

ta (site

13)

Sheyenne Rive

r above

Sheyenne Rive

r dive

rsion

near Horace, N

orth Dako

ta (site

15)

Sheyenne Rive

r at B

rooktree Park,

North Dako

ta (site

16)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Emerson, M

anitoba (s

ite 34

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Halstad, M

innesota (s

ite 19

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Oslo, M

innesota (s

ite 27

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Drayton, N

orth Dako

ta (site

31)

Red River o

f the N

orth near

Thompson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

23)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Grand Forks

, North

Dakota (s

ite 25

)

orth on Cass

County

rgo, North

Dakota (s

ite 8)

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figu

re 6

.

Mea

sure

d ni

trite

plu

s ni

trasa

mpl

ing

perio

ds.Se

ptem

ber 2

003

sam

plin

g pe

riod

5 4 3 2 1 0

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Wahpeton, North

Dakota (s

ite 3)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Hickson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

4)

Red River o

f the N

ort

Fargo, N

orth Dako

t

Red River o

f the N

orth above

Fargo, N

orth Dako

ta (site

6)

(A)

Red River o

f the N

Road 20 below Fa

References 49

as n

itrog

en, a

mm

onia

as

nitro

gen,

and

org

anic

nitr

ogen

con

cent

ratio

ns fo

r sel

ecte

d si

tes

for S

epte

mbe

r 200

3 an

d M

ay 2

004

Amm

onia

as

nitro

gen

Orga

nic

nitro

gen

Nitr

ite p

lus

nitra

te a

s ni

troge

n

7) heyenne Rive

r above

Harvey,

North Dako

ta (site

9)

Sheyenne Rive

r near W

arwick,

North Dako

ta (site

10) Sheye

nne River b

elow Baldhill Dam,

North Dako

ta (site

12)

Sheyenne Rive

r near C

ooperstown,

North Dako

ta (site

11)

Sheyenne Rive

r near K

indred,

North Dako

ta (site

14)

Sheyenne Rive

r at L

isbon,

North Dako

ta (site

13)

Sheyenne Rive

r above

Sheyenne Rive

r dive

rsion

near Horace, N

orth Dako

ta (site

15)

Sheyenne Rive

r at B

rooktree Park,

North Dako

ta (site

16)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Emerson, M

anitoba (s

ite 34

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Halstad, M

innesota (s

ite 19

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Oslo, M

innesota (s

ite 27

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Drayton, N

orth Dako

ta (site

31)

Red River o

f the N

orth near

Thompson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

23)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Grand Forks

, North

Dakota (s

ite 25

)

n Cass County

orth Dako

ta (site

8)


May

200

4sa

mpl

ing

peri

od

5 4 3 2 1 0

Figu

re 6

.

Mea

sure

d ni

trite

plu

s ni

trate

sa

mpl

ing

perio

ds--

Cont

inue

d.

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Wahpeton, North

Dakota (s

ite 3)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Hickson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

4)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Fargo, N

orth Dako

ta (site

Red River o

f the N

orth above

Fargo, N

orth Dako

ta (site

6)

S

(B)

Red River o

f the N

orth o

Road 20 below Fa

rgo, N

50 S
s co

ncen

tratio

ns fo

r sel

ecte

d si

tes

for S

epte

mbe

r 200

3 an

d M

ay 2

004

sam

plin

g pe

riods

.

Sept

embe

r 200

3 sa

mpl

ing

perio

d

May

200

4 sa

mpl

ing

perio

d

h at

a (site

7) Sheyenne Rive

r above

Harvey,

North Dako

ta (site

9)

Sheyenne Rive

r near W

arwick,

North Dako

ta (site

10) Sheye

nne River b

elow Baldhill Dam,

North Dako

ta (site

12)

Sheyenne Rive

r near C

ooperstown,

North Dako

ta (site

11)

Sheyenne Rive

r near K

indred,

North Dako

ta (site

14)

Sheyenne Rive

r at L

isbon,

North Dako

ta (site

13)

Sheyenne Rive

r above

Sheyenne Rive

r dive

rsion

near Horace, N

orth Dako

ta (site

15)

Sheyenne Rive

r at B

rooktree Park,

North Dako

ta (site

16)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Emerson, M

anitoba (s

ite 34

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Halstad, M

innesota (s

ite 19

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Oslo, M

innesota (s

ite 27

)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Drayton, N

orth Dako

ta (site

31)

Red River o

f the N

orth near

Thompson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

23)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Grand Forks

, North

Dakota (s

ite 25

)

orth on Cass

County

rgo, North

Dakota (s

ite 8)


Figu

re 7

.

Mea

sure

d to

tal p

hosp

horu

1

1.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8 0

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Wahpeton, North

Dakota (s

ite 3)

Red River o

f the N

orth at

Hickson, N

orth Dako

ta (site

4)

Red River o

f the N

ort

Fargo, N

orth Dako

t

Red River o

f the N

orth above

Fargo, N

orth Dako

ta (site

6)

Red River o

f the N

Road 20 below Fa

References 51

Near Cooperstown

At Valley City

Lake Ashtabula


At Emerson

At Drayton

MANITOBA

CANADAUNITED STATES

MINNESOTANORTH DAKOTA

At Oslo

At Grand Forks

Near Thompson

At Halstad


At Fargo


Sand Hill River

Marsh River

Wild Rice River

Buffalo River

Turtle River

Forest River

Park River

Pembina River

Two Rivers

Snake River


Below Baldhill Dam


At Brooktree Park

Into Lake Ashtabula

SHEYENNE

RIVE

ROF

THE

NOR

TH

RIVER

Goose River

WildRice

Figure 8. Schematic of Red River water-quality model.

Otter Tail River

Bois de Sioux River

At Lisbon

Near Kindred At Hickson

At Wahpeton

RED

River

EXPLANATION

Reservoir

Virtual reservoir--Point at whichoutflow is equal to streamflow

Control point--Point at whichincremental flow is added toor removed from a river

Tributary

52 S

F2


475

400

450

425

300

325

350

375

200

225

250

275

100

150

125

175

75

STRE

AMFL

OW, I

N C

UBIC

FEE

T PE

R SE

CON

D

w B

aldh

ill D

am

Lisb

on

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

rsto

wn

k alle

y Ci

ty

At B

rook

tree

Par

k

(A)

0

50

25

600 500 400 300 200 0100

DISTANCE FROM MOUTH OF SHEYENNE RIVER, IN MILES

igure 9. Measured and simulated streamflows for selected Red River water-quality model control points for September 15,003 (the simulated streamflows are the same as the measured streamflows for all sites in the model domain).

Bel

o

At

Nea

r Coo

pe

Nea

r War

wic

At V

Abo

ve H

arve

y

References 53

475

400

450

425

300

325

350

375

200

250

225

275

100

150

175

125

75

STRE

AMFL

OW, I

N C

UBIC

FEE

T PE

R SE

CON

D

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

At c

onflu

ence

with

She

yenn

e Ri

ver

At H

icks

on

At H

alst

ad

At O

slo

At D

rayt

on

(B)

0

50

25

600 500 400 300 200 0100

DISTANCE FROM MOUTH OF RED RIVER OF THE NORTH, IN MILES

Figure 9. Measured and simulated streamflows for selected Red River water-quality model control points for September 15,2003 (the simulated streamflows are the same as the measured streamflows for all sites in the model domain)--Continued.

54 S

Fifo


0

800

600

400

200

1,200

1,000

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

gure 10. Measured and simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration pointsr September 15, 2003.

Measured

Simulated

Bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

am

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

(A)

References 55

0

800

600

400

200

1,200

1,000

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Figure 10. Measured and simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration pointsfor September 15, 2003--Continued.

Measured

Simulated

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

(B)

56 S

FS


0

400

300

200

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

igure 11. Measured and simulated sulfate concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points foreptember 15, 2003.

Bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

am

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

Measured

Simulated

(A)

References 57

0

400

300

200

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Figure 11. Measured and simulated sulfate concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points forSeptember 15, 2003--Continued.

Measured

Simulated

At

Wah

peto

n

At

Far

go

Nea

r T

hom

pson

At

Em

erso

nAt

Gra

nd F

orks

(B)

58 S

FS


0

80

60

40

20

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

igure 12. Measured and simulated chloride concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points foreptember 15, 2003.

Bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

am

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

Measured

Simulated

(A)

References 59

0

80

60

40

20

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Figure 12. Measured and simulated chloride concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points forSeptember 15, 2003--Continued.

Measured

Simulated


At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

(B)

60 SST

REAM

FLOW

, IN

CUB

IC F

EET

PER

SECO

ND

Fi(th


18,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

10,000

11,000

9,000

8,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

7,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

dive

rsio

n ne

ar H

orac

e

(A)

0

2,000

1,000

600 500 400 300 200 0100


gure 13. Measured and simulated streamflows for selected Red River water-quality model control points for May 10, 2004e simulated streamflows are the same as the measured streamflows for all sites in the model domain).

Bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

am

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Nea

r War

wic

k

At V

alle

y Ci

ty

Abo

ve H

arve

y

At B

rook

tree

Par

k

References 61

18,000

14,000

13,000

12,000

10,000

11,000

9,000

8,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

7,000

17,000

16,000

15,000

STRE

AMFL

OW, I

N C

UBIC

FEE

T PE

R SE

CON

D

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

h Sh

eyen

ne R

iver

At O

slo

At D

rayt

on

(B)

0

3,000

2,000

1,000

600 500 400 300 200 0100


Figure 13. Measured and simulated streamflows for selected Red River water-quality model control points for May 10, 2004(the simulated streamflows are the same as the measured streamflows for all sites in the model domain)--Continued.

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

At c

onflu

ence

wit

At H

icks

on At H

alst

ad

62 S

Fifo


0

800

600

400

200

1,400

1,200

1,000

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

gure 14. Measured and simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration pointsr May 10, 2004.

Belo

w B

aldh

ill D

am

Measured

Simulated

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

(A)

References 63

0

800

600

400

200

1,400

1,200

1,000

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Measured

Simulated

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

Figure 14. Measured and simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration pointsfor May 10, 2004--Continued.

(B)

64 S

F2


0

400

500

600

300

200

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

igure 15. Measured and simulated sulfate concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points for May 10,004.

Belo

w B

aldh

ill D

am

Measured

Simulated

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y(A)

References 65

0

400

500

600

300

200

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Measured

Simulated

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

Figure 15. Measured and simulated sulfate concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points for May 10,2004--Continued.

(B)

66 S

F2


0

100

80

60

40

20

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

igure 16. Measured and simulated chloride concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points for May 10,004.

Belo

w B

aldh

ill D

am

Measured

Simulated

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

(A)

References 67

0

100

20

40

60

80

600 500 400 300 200 0100


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Measured

Simulated

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

Figure 16. Measured and simulated chloride concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points for May 10,2004--Continued.

(B)

68 S

FS


600

650

500

550

400

450

300

350

200

250

100

150

STRE

AMFL

OW, I

N C

UBIC

FEE

T PE

R SE

CON

D

w B

aldh

ill D

am

Water-supply alternative(given in table 10)

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

Alternative 6

Alternative 7

Alternative 8

At L

isbo

n Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

pers

tow

n

At V

alle

y Ci

ty

At B

rook

tree

Par

k

(A)

0

50

600 500 400 300 200 0100


igure 17. Simulated streamflows for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne River foreptember 15, 2003.

Bel

o

Nea

r Coo

Abo

ve H

arve

y

References 69

600

650

500

550

400

450

300

350

200

250

100

150

STRE

AMFL

OW, I

N C

UBIC

FEE

T PE

R SE

CON

D


Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Alternative 5

At W

ahpe

ton

go

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

At H

alst

ad

(B)

0

50

600 500 400 300 200 0100


Alternative 6

Alternative 7

Alternative 8

Figure 17. Simulated streamflows for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne River forSeptember 15, 2003--Continued.

At F

ar

70 S

FiS


0

800

900

1,200

1,100

1,000

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

am


Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

At B

rook

tree

Par

k

gure 18. Simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the

(A)

heyenne River for September 15, 2003.

References 71

0

800

900

1,200

1,100

1,000

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

am


Alternative 1

Alternative 5

Alternative 6

Alternative 7

Alternative 8

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

At B

rook

tree

Par

k

(B)

Figure 18. Simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and theSheyenne River for September 15, 2003--Continued.

72 S

FiS


0

800

900

1,200

1,100

1,000

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

gure 18. Simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the


Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

At H

alst

ad

(C)

heyenne River for September 15, 2003--Continued.

References 73

0

800

900

1,200

1,100

1,000

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R


Alternative 1

Alternative 5

Alternative 6

Alternative 7

Alternative 8

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

At H

alst

ad

(D)

Figure 18. Simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and theSheyenne River for September 15, 2003--Continued.

74 S

FR


400

350

300

150

100

250

200

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

am


At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

At B

rook

tree

Par

k

(A)

0

50

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


igure 19. Simulated sulfate concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the Sheyenneiver for September 15, 2003.

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

References 75

400

350

300

150

100

250

200

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R


Alternative 1

Bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

am

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

At B

rook

tree

Par

k

(B)

0

50

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


Alternative 5

Alternative 6

Alternative 7

Alternative 8

Figure 19. Simulated sulfate concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the SheyenneRiver for September 15, 2003--Continued.

76 S

FR


400

350

300

150

100

250

200

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Water-supply alternative(given table 10)

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

ton

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

At H

alst

ad

(C)

0

50

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


igure 19. Simulated sulfate concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the Sheyenneiver for September 15, 2003--Continued.

At W

ahpe

At F

argo

References 77

400

350

300

150

100

250

200

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R


Alternative 1

Alternative 5

Alternative 6

Alternative 7

Alternative 8

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

At H

alst

ad

(D)

0

50

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

DISTANCE FROM THE MOUTH OF THE RED RIVER OF THE NORTH, IN MILES

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

Figure 19. Simulated sulfate concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the SheyenneRiver for September 15, 2003--Continued.

78 S

FR


0

20

30

10

40

50

60

70

80

90

120

110

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

igure 20. Simulated chloride concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne

Bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

am


Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

At B

rook

tree

Par

k

(A)

iver for September 15, 2003.

References 79

0

20

30

10

40

50

60

70

80

90

120

110

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R

Bel

ow B

aldh

ill D

am


Alternative 1

Alternative 5

Alternative 6

Alternative 7

Alternative 8

At L

isbo

n

Nea

r Kin

dred

Abo

ve S

heye

nne

Rive

r div

ersi

on n

ear H

orac

e

Nea

r Coo

pers

tow

n

Abo

ve H

arve

y

At B

rook

tree

Par

k

(B)

Figure 20. Simulated chloride concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the SheyenneRiver for September 15, 2003--Continued.

80 S

FR


0

20

30

10

40

50

60

70

80

90

120

110

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R


Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

igure 20. Simulated chloride concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo

Nea

r Tho

mps

on

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

At H

alst

ad

(C)

iver for September 15, 2003--Continued.

References 81

0

20

30

10

40

50

60

70

80

90

120

110

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0


CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

MIL

LIGR

AMS

PER

LITE

R


Alternative 1

Alternative 5

Alternative 6

Alternative 7

Alternative 8

At W

ahpe

ton

At F

argo N

ear T

hom

pson

At E

mer

son

At G

rand

For

ks

At H

alst

ad

(D)

Figure 20. Simulated chloride concentrations for water-supply alternatives for the Red River of the North and the SheyenneRiver for September 15, 2003--Continued.

Nustad and Bales–Sim

ulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North B

asin, North D

akota and M

innesota, 2003-04–Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5273




U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological SurveyPrinted on recycled paper

Otter Tail River

Bois de Sioux River

Near Cooperstown

At Lisbon

At Valley City

Lake Ashtabula


Near Kindred

At Emerson

At Drayton

MANITOBACANADA

UNITED STATESMINNESOTANORTH DAKOTA

At Oslo

At Grand Forks

Near Thompson

At Halstad


At Fargo

At Hickson

At Wahpeton


Sand Hill River

Marsh River

Wild Rice River

Buffalo River

Turtle River

Forest River

Park River

Pembina River

Two Rivers

Snake River


Below Baldhill Dam


At Brooktree Park

Into Lake Ashtabula

SHEYENN

E

RIVE

RO

FTH

EN

ORT

HRE

D

RIVER

Goose River

Wild Rice River

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

Documents

Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the ... · Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in t ... Turtle River Forest River ... Model Calibration