ANALYSIS OF THE PEAK-FLOW GAGING 

NETWORK IN NORTH DAKOTA

By Tara Williams-Sether

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4178

Prepared in cooperation with the

NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Bismarck, North Dakota 

1996
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

GORDON P. EATON, Director

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only 

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information Copies of this report can be

write to: purchased from:

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services

Water Resources Division Box 25286

821 East Interstate Avenue Denver, CO 80225-0286

Bismarck, ND 58501-1199
CONTENTS

Abstrat..........................................._

Introduction..............................^

Network analysis technique.........................................................................................................................................3

Peak-flow gaging network analysis.............................................................................................'.................................4

Approach ......................................................................^^

Residts............................................~^

Network sensitivity analysis......................................................................................................................................12

Summary....................................................................................................................................................................15

References..............................................................................................................................................

Supplement l.m^^^»^^m^n~..~.»n^m~n~~m~~mnm~m~~~..m^m.........-.~-.............~.....-...--...~.ll

FIGURES

1. Graph showing distribution of current (1993) strearaflow-gaging stations, by drainage area, 

mNormDakota..................................................................^^

2. Map showing location of gaging stations and hydrologic-region boundaries used in the 

generalized least-squares regression analysis update and the network analysis in 

North Dakota..................................................^^

3. Graphs showing results of network strategy in hydrologic regions A, B, and C to provide

regional information on 15-year peak flow in North Dakota......................................,.........................................6

4. Graphs showing results of network strategy in hydrologic regions A, B, and C to provide

regional information on 50-year peak flow in North Dakota................................................................................?

5. Graphs showing results of network strategy in hydrologic regions A, B, and C to provide

regional information on 100-year peak flow in North Dakota..............................................................................8

6. Graphs showing example of the network sensitivity analysis in hydrologic regions A, B, and C

to provide regional information on 15-year peak flow in North Dakota ............................................................14

TABLES .

1. Gaging station ranking in providing regional peak-flow information for hydrologic region A

and the percent reduction in the average sampling mean-square error.................................................................9

2. Gaging station ranking in providing regional peak-flow information for hydrologic region B

and the percent reduction in the average sampling mean-square error............................................................... 10

3. Gaging station ranking in providing regional peak-flow information for hydrologic region C

and the percent reduction in the average sampling mean-square error............................................................... 11

4. Reduction in average sampling mean-square error with the addition of new gaging stations

in hydrologic regions A, B, and C ......................................................................................................................13

HI
Analysis of the Peak-flow Gaging Network in 

North Dakota

By Tara Williams-Sether

ABSTRACT

A network analysis technique using generalized least-squares regression was used to evaluate 

the current (1993) peak-flow gaging network that provides regional peak-flow information for 

North Dakota. The analysis was conducted to evaluate the current (1993) network and to 

determine if reactivating discontinued gaging stations and adding new gaging stations on small 

drainage areas would improve regional peak-flow information.

Peak flows having recurrence intervals of 15, 50, and 100 years and planning horizons of 

zero and 10 years for three hydrologic regions in North Dakota were used in the network analysis. 

Results of the network analysis indicate that the average sampling mean-square error could be 

reduced by about 10 percent for the 15-, 50-, and 100-year recurrence intervals by reactivating a 

minimum of two to five discontinued gaging stations in each hydrologic region. The reactivated 

discontinued gaging stations added to the current (1993) network should be located on streams 

having small drainage areas and steep main-channel slopes. For the 15-year recurrence interval 

and a 10-year planning horizon, adding a new gaging station at two new locations hi each region 

instead of reactivating two discontinued gaging stations in each region would reduce the average 

sampling mean-square error by an average of about 13 percent in each region. The new gaging 

stations added to the current (1993) network should be located on streams having small drainage 

areas and mild or steep main-channel slopes in order to obtain improved regional peak-flow 

information.

INTRODUCTION

Streamflow information are gathered at selected sites on streams across North Dakota on a continuous 

basis. Not all streams in the State are gaged, however. Peak-flow estimates for many of these ungaged 

streams are needed to provide essential flood information to planners and designers for various waterrelated projects. Peak-flow information collected at gaged streams are transferable to ungaged streams in a 

region through an empirical functional relation (usually a regression model) developed between 

Streamflow characteristics and selected basin characteristics. This procedure is commonly referred to as 

"regionalization". Many of the streamflow-gaging stations in North Dakota were established primarily to 

provide information on current Streamflow conditions at particular locations. However, information from 

some of these particular gaged locations may have limited transfer value, and are not suitable for regional 

analyses. Placement of streamflow-gaging stations to be used expressly for regionalization should provide 

spatial coverage of a region and should provide improved information for a range of basin and Streamflow 

characteristics. Considered together, the group of stations and their characteristics make up a hypothetical 

data-collection "network" suitable for providing regional information.
Any long-term data collection network should be evaluated periodically because of changes in 

objectives, technology, or external constraints. The last major evaluation of the streamflow-gaging 

network in North Dakota was performed by Crosby (1970). The uses, funding, and availability of 

streamflow data in North Dakota through 1984 were documented by Ryan (1985). The cost effectiveness 

of the streamflow-gaging network in eastern North Dakota was addressed by Ryan (1989). A network 

analysis that addresses the effect on the regional information that might be obtained from improved 

regional regression equations has not been attempted recently.

Regression equations for estimating peak flow for selected recurrence intervals for rural ungaged 

drainage areas throughout North Dakota were reported by Crosby (1975) and were updated by WilliamsSether (1992) using generalized least-squares (GLS) regression. The GLS technique not only provides an 

improved method for developing estimating equations based on data from an existing streamflow gaging 

network, but also may be used in evaluating the effectiveness of hypothetical changes to the gaging 

network in improving regional flood information. The current (1993) streamflow-gaging network in North 

Dakota consists of 107 continuous- and partial-record streamflow-gaging stations. Most of the gaging 

stations are located in drainage areas larger than 100 square miles (fig. 1). Williams-Sether (1992) 

reviewed the flood frequency data base and concluded that not enough current peak-flow records exist for 

small drainage areas. According to Williams-Sether (1992, p. 18), "Future peak-flow frequency studies for 

North Dakota streams could be improved if additional gaging stations were established or previously 

discontinued gaging stations were reestablished on natural-flow streams, especially for sites on streams 

with drainage areas of less than 200 mi2." Thus, a need exists to evaluate the current streamflow network 

emphasizing watersheds having small drainage areas.

35

30

25

U_ 

O

LU

m

10

29

24

21

12

"

DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES 

Figure 1. Distribution of current (1993) streamflow-gaging stations, by drainage area, in North Dakota.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the North Dakota streamflow-gaging network to determine 

what changes to the streamflow network would provide improved regional peak-flow information for small 

drainage areas. Improved information is obtained by relating peak-flow estimates to selected basin 

characteristics. Specific objectives were to (1) determine the effectiveness of the 1993 streamflow-gaging 

network in providing regional peak-flow information and (2) evaluate the potential improvements in the 

effectiveness of the 1993 network that would result from reactivating discontinued gaging stations and 

adding new gaging stations to the network. New gaging stations, unless otherwise noted, includes both 

continuous- and partial-record gaging stations. The study was limited to analysis of gaging stations in 

North Dakota and selected gaging stations in adjacent states. The streamflow-gaging network that was 

evaluated consisted of streamflow-gaging stations that were active in 1993 and gaging stations used by 

Williams-Sether (1992) updated through 1993. This report, which was prepared in cooperation with the 

North Dakota Department of Transportation, describes results of the study.

NETWORK ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

The network analysis technique used in this study is based on the GLS regression (Tasker, 1986; 

Tasker, 1987). The GLS regression (Stedinger and Tasker, 1985) allows adjustments to be made for the 

cross correlation in concurrent record and for various lengths of record among gaging stations. A valuable 

feature of the GLS regression procedure for network analysis is that it provides a reliable estimate of the 

regression sampling error. The sampling error is the error in predicting the value of a particular flow 

statistic (in this case peak flow) due to estimating the true regression parameters. The sampling error is 

affected by the length of peak-flow record at a gaging station, the variability of the peak-flow values, the 

cross correlation with data from other gaging stations, and the combination of physical and climatic 

characteristics associated with the gaging station drainage area. The sampling error can be used to help 

evaluate the effect of either discontinuing existing gaging stations or adding new gaging stations to the 

network.

The network analysis can be used to address the question of whether to spend limited resources on 

collecting additional data at existing gaging stations, adding new gaging stations, or doing both. This 

determination is made by maximizing the regional regression model's predictive capability which is 

expressed as the inverse of the average variance of prediction of the model. The average variance of 

prediction is the variances of prediction averaged for a representative set of streamflow sites in a region. 

The variance of prediction at a site is made up of two independent parts: (1) the model error, which can be 

improved only by choosing a better model and (2) the sampling error, which can be improved by collecting 

additional data at existing or new gaging stations. It is assumed that the model will not change; therefore, 

the model error remains constant The objective then is to minimize the sampling error. The average 

sampling mean-square error is a measure of the error in the average regression prediction in a region due to 

estimating with sample estimates of the regression coefficients. The average sampling mean-square error 

is a function of not only how long the gaging stations have been operated, but also where the gaging 

stations are in relation to each other and what values of basin and climatic characteristics are used in the 

regression. These properties make the average sampling mean-square error a good criterion by which to 

evaluate the trade off between extended records and additional gaging stations in a network analysis (Ruhl, 

1993). Further explanations and examples of using the GLS regression procedure for network analyses 

may be found in reports by Medina (1987), Omang (1992), and Ruhl (1993).
PEAK-FLOW GAGING NETWORK ANALYSIS

Approach

The network analyzed in this report consists of three sub-networks (fig. 2) corresponding to the three 

hydrologic regions specified by Williams-Sether (1992). In the network analysis, unregulated annual peak 

flow was the streamflow characteristic used for each gaging station for the period of record through water 

year 1993. All periods of record are in terms of water year. Water year in U.S. Geological Survey reports 

dealing with surface-water supply is the 12-month period October 1 through September 30. The water 

year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends and which includes 9 of the 12 months. Thus, the 

year ending September 30,1993, is called the "1993 water year."

The basin characteristics used in the network analysis were those identified as significant in the GLS 

regression analyses by Williams-Sether (1992). The characteristics were contributing drainage area and 

main-channel slope. Because the flow of streams having large drainage areas generally is regulated and, 

therefore, is not applicable to the analysis, only gaging stations having drainage areas of 1,000 square 

miles or less were used in the network analysis.

Streamflow-gaging stations with 10 years or more of record were considered appropriate for use in the 

analysis. Exceptions were made for recently installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network that 

had 4 years or more of record. Three gaging stations in the current (1993) network had 3 years or less of 

record and were treated as new gaging stations in the network analysis. The gaging stations used in the 

analysis are listed in supplement 1 at the end of the report, and the locations are shown in figure 2.

The peak-flow regional regression equations for 15-, 50-, and 100-year recurrence intervals as defined 

by Williams-Seiner (1992) were updated to include data through 1993. Two hundred and one gaging 

stations were used to update the regression analyses, and the results were used for the network analysis 

(supplement 1). Only 175 gaging stations were used in the network analysis. The gaging stations that 

were not used in the analyses did not have the necessary basin characteristics or they were discontinued 

gaging stations located outside of North Dakota. Planning horizons of zero and 10 years were chosen for 

the network analysis. A zero-year planning horizon refers to conditions of the current (1993) network 

zero years into the future and assumes that no additional data would be collected at existing gaging stations 

and no reactivated or new gaging stations would be added to the network. A 10-year planning horizon 

. refers to conditions of the current (1993) network 10 years into the future and implies 10 years of 

additional data would be collected at existing gaging stations. A 10-year planning horizon may or may not 

include reactivated or new gaging stations added to the network during the 10-year period. The network 

analysis for each of the 15-, 50-, and 100-year recurrence interval peak flows consisted of (1) the existing 

gaging stations and (2) the existing gaging stations plus discontinued gaging stations and recently installed 

(3 years or less of record) gaging stations.

Results

Results of the network analysis for hydrologic regions A, B, and C using the 15-, 50-, and 100-year 

recurrence interval peak flow are presented in figures 3,4, and 5 and tables 1,2, and 3. The discontinued 

gaging stations and the recently installed gaging stations (one in region A and two in region B) are ranked 

in providing regional peak-flow information in tables 1,2, and 3. The gaging stations are ranked 

according to a 10-year planning horizon and 15-, 50-, and 100-year recurrence intervals.
- - -49-

Oi

!__..___ __103*ASASKATCHEWAN 102*__ '___I 101* ___ ___100* MANITOBA 99* A« X~ii^~ 

z^r/ &

~J A!S

EXPLANATION 

'' Hydrologic-region boundary

Location of potential new gaging stations 

A Hydrologlc region

A18? Gaging station-Number Is map number shown In 

supplement 1. Used In analyses

^O80828oo Qag|ng station-Number Is map or station number ____shown In supplement 1. Not used In analyses

1 Q1 ' .SOUTH DAKOTA " A.ss , IM A A1M

0 10 20 30 40 MILES

[ I I I I

0 10 20 30 40 KILOMETERS

*A A"

/

(

\

Figure 2. Location of gaging stations and hydrologic-region boundaries used In the generalized least-squares regression analysis update and the network analysis in North Dakota.
0.00600

Region A

O !

°cpooooooooooooooooo0

20 25 30 35 40 45

rr 

o

tr 

rr

LU 

LU

rr 

<

a

CO

0.00420

0.00400

0.00380

' < C- rb*»

' .C^^S^

23 active stations *v;^^

Region B

A :

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

O 0.00680

D_

<

CO 

LU

S

rr

LU

0.00660

0.00640

0.00620

0.00600

0.00580

Region C

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 

NUMBER OF STATIONS OPERATED

EXPLANATION 

Active stations in the current (1993) network

. . p0jni at which the average sampling mean-square error would be 

reduced by about 10 percent

| Current (1993) network at 0-year planning horizon

A Current (1993) network at 10-year planning horizon

A Recently installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network

O Discontinued stations to be reactivated

Figure 3. Results of network strategy in hydrologic regions A, B, and C to provide regional information on 

15-year peak flow in North Dakota.
0.00700

0.00680

0.00660

O

ID 0.00640

cc 

<

g 0.00620

CO

CO 0.00600

D 0.00580 

2.

E 0.00560

Region A

O \

Cpoooooooooooooooooo0

0.00760

0.00740

0.00720

0.00700

0.00680

0.00660

0.00640

0.00620

^^:7-rV-.-.--.-rVvv'-- .^

. : y*C=" } ' 

/*-,^ 4KRegion C

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

NUMBER OF STATIONS OPERATED

EXPLANATION 

Active stations in the current (1993) network

 Point at which the average sampling mean-square error would be 

reduced by about 10 percent

 Current (1993) network at 0-year planning horizon

A Current (1993) network at 10-year planning horizon

A Recently Installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network

O Discontinued stations to be reactivated

Figure 4. Results of network strategy in hydrologic regions A, B, and C to provide regional information on 

50-year peak flow in North Dakota.

60
>s^^^'<s£^^^^-^'-^^^~^~^:^i^'^'-'

|?^*^P?* ^t-*<%^:S:«^v'*'«,<Pf ^-'^,v' ^|ji|^^17:actJve'statior»^^^u

~.i^*Y^%^^.if«~^'I^r*^*^^->«*:?*>>K.^l!?*

0.00700

Q

UJ 0.00680

CC

<

g 0.00660

CO

CO 0.00640

§5 0.00620

i 0.00600 l="i^V--i-"r--l-i^i^r- i-I" 

£ 0 5 10

3

O 0.00600

2 0.00580

8

CO 0.00560 |

'^Jif*' 23'active stations 

§ 0.00540 Sfett 

CC

UJ 0.00520 

Ul

< 0.00500 -

o

CO

z 0.00480

I

O 0.00810

z

a! 0.00790

CO 0.00770

UJ

< 0.00750

> 0.00730 

<

0.00710

0.00690

0.00670

Region A

A

O !

°poooooooooooooooooo0

15 20 25 30 35 40

Region B

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Region C

45

80

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 

NUMBER OF STATIONS OPERATED

EXPLANATION 

Active stations in the current (1993) network

. . point ^ Which the average sampling mean-square error would be 

reduced by about 10 percent

 Current (1993) network at 0-year planning horizon

A Current (1993) network at 10-year planning horizon

A Recently installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network

O Discontinued stations to be reactivated

Figure 5. Results of network strategy in hydrologic regions A, B, and C to provide regional information on 

100-year peak flow in North Dakota.
Table 1. Gaging station ranking in providing regional peak-flow information for hydrologic region A and the percent 

reduction in the average sampling mean-square error

Station 

number

05056900

05056950

05062200

05065500

05082600

^5082625

05082680

05082700

05082900

05083600

05088000

05089100

05089200

05089500

05089700

05089800

05092200

05099400

05098800

05122500

05123300

05123350

05123500

Ranking for 

15-year 

recurrence 

interval

6

2

15

21

18

1

9

20

14

19

7

16

10

11

13

. 23

22

17

12

8

4

3

5

Cumulative 

error 

reduction 

(percent)

10.1

8.2

10.4

10.4

10.6

6.3

10.2

10.6

10.4

10.6

10.1

10.4

10.2

10.1

10.2

10.8

10.4

10.2

10.2

10.1

9.9

9.4

9.9

Ran king for 

50-year 

recurrence 

interval

6

2

14

20

19

1

9

21

15

18

7

16

10

11

13

23

22

17

12

8

4

' 3

5

Cumulative 

error 

reduction 

(percent)

11.0

8.9

11.3

11.6

11.6

6.6

11.2

11.5

 11.5

113

11.0

11.5

11.2

11.0

11.2

12.0

11.5

11.2

 113

11.0

10.7

10.4

10.9

Ranking for 

100-year 

recurrence 

Interval

6

2

14

20

19

1

7

21

15

18

9

16

11

10

13

23

22

17

12

8

4

3

5

Cumulative 

error 

reduction 

(percent)

11.4

9.2

11.7

12.1

12.1

7.0

11.7

12.0

12.0

11.8

11.6

11.8

11.6

11.6

11.7

12.4

12.0

11.7

11.8

11.7

11.2

10.7

113

Composite 

ranking

6

2

14

20

19

1

9

21

15

18

7

16

10

11

13

23

22

17

12

8

4

3

5

Recently installed gaging station in the current (1993) network.

Series of symbols plotted on figures 3,4, and 5 will be referred to as curves. The steep part of each 

curve represents the gaging stations that would be most effective in reducing the average sampling meansquare error. The flat part of each curve represents the gaging stations that would be least effective in 

reducing the average sampling mean-square error for the respective recurrence interval and would 

probably not be considered for inclusion into the network.

Results of the 15-year peak-flow recurrence interval analyses for hydrologic regions A, B, and C are 

shown in figure 3. The average sampling mean-square error for the current (1993) network from the zeroyear to the 10-year planning horizon is reduced by 4.6 percent (from 0.00585 to 0.00558) in region A, by 

6.8 percent (from 0.00455 to 0.00424) in region B, and by 5.9 percent (from 0.00677 to 0.00637) in 

region C. Adding additional gaging stations to the network (23 in region A, 55 in region B, and 35 in 

region Q would reduce the average sampling mean-square error by 10.8 percent (from 0.00585 to 

0.00522) in region A, by 13.4 percent (from 0.00455 to 0.00394) in region B, and by 12.3 percent (from 

0.00677 to 0.00594) in region C. The additional gaging stations used in the analysis consisted of recently 

installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network and reactivated gaging stations that had been 

previously discontinued. The average sampling mean-square error would be reduced by about 10 percent 

(tables 1-3) by retaining recently installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network and by 

reactivating a minimum of three discontinued gaging stations in region A, a minimum of two discontinued 

gaging stations in region B, and a minimum of five discontinued gaging stations in region C.
Table 2. Gaging station ranking in providing regional peak-flow information for hydrologic region B and the percent 

reduction in the average sampling mean-square error

Station 

number

06329597

06329700

06329800

06329900

06330100

06331900

06332000

06332150

06332520

1 06332770

06335000

06335700

06336100

06336200

06336300

06336400

06336980

06337100

06337600

06337900

06339300

06339560

06340528

06340905

06341400

06342050

06342100

06342150

06342250

06342300

06342350

06343200

06344200

06345000

06345100

06345200

06345300

. 06345700

06347000

06348500

06349200

1 06354815

06355310

06353600

06353700

06353800

06353900

06354500

06354700

06354750

06354800

06354900

06354950

06355000

06355200

Ranking for 

15-year 

recurrence 

interval

26

16

52

27

33

44

48

4

 22

1

36

8

5

28

3

32

7

29

12

6

49

25

18

13

39

55

53

17

15 ' 24

20

10

14

38

50

35

34

46

42

47

19

2

9

11

21

45

43

37

30

23

41

54

40

31

51

Cumulative 

error 

reduction 

(percent)

13.4

13.0

13.4

13.4

13.4

13.4

13.4

9.9

13.4

7.7

13.4

11.4

103

13.4

9.2

13.4

11.0

13.4

123

10.5

13.4

13.2

13.0

12.5

13.4

13.4

13.4

13.0

12.7

13.4

13.2

11.9

12.5

13.4

13.4

13.6

13.4

13.4

13.2

13.4

13.0

8.6

11.4

12.1

13.2

13.4

13.4

13.4

13.4

13.4

13.4

13.4

13.4

13.4

13.4

Ranking for Cumulative 

50-year error 

recurrence reduction 

Interval (percent)

25

16

52

28

32

46

47

419'

1

34

8

339 '

7

31

6

27

12

5

48

26

22

- 15

35

5553 '

17

13

23

20

11

14

37

50

38

33

45

41

49

18

2

9

10

21

44

42

36

30

24

43

54

40

29

51

13.8

13.2

14.0

13.8

13.8

13.8

14.0

9.8

13.4

7.8

13.8

11.5

93

13.8

11.2

13.8

10.6

13.8

12.5

10.2

14.0

13.6

13.6

13.0

13.8

14.2

14.0

13.2

12.8

13.6

13.6

123

12.8

13.6

14.0

13.6

13.8

13.8

13.6

14.0

13.2

8.5

11.7

11.9

13.8

13.8

13.8

13.6

13.6

13.8

13.8

14.2

13.8

13.6

14.0

Ranking for 

100-year 

recurrence 

interval

25

17

52

28

32

46

48

4

19

1

34

8

3

39

7

31

6

26

12

5

47

27

22

16

35

55

53

15

13

23

20 

11

14

36

50

38

33

44

42

49

18

2

10

9

21

45

41

37

30

24

43

54

40

29

51

Cumulative 

error 

reduction 

(percent)

13.9

13.2

14.2

13.9

13.9

14.1

14.2

9.8

13.6

7.8

13.9

11.5

93

13.9

11.2

13.9

10.7

14.1

12.7

10.3

14.1

13.9

13.7

13.2

14.1

14.4

14.2

13.0

12.9

13.7

13.7

12.4

13.0

14.1

14.1

13.9

13.9

13.9

13.9

14.1

13.4

8.6

12.0

12.0

13.9

13.9

13.9

13.9

13.9

13.9

13.9

14.4

13.9

13.7

14.2

Composite 

ranking

25

16

52

28

32

46

47

4

19

1

34

8

3

39

7

31

6

27

12

5

48

26

22

15

35

55

53

17

13

23

20

11

14

37

50

38

33

45

41

49

18

2

9

10

21

44

42

36

30

24

43

54

40

29

51

Recently installed gaging station in the current (1993) network.

10
Table 3. Gaging station ranking in providing regional peak-flow information for hydrologic region C and the percent 

reduction in the average sampling mean-square error

Station 

number

05051800

05051900

05052500

05055000

05055100

05055200

05055520

05056020

05056040-

05056080

05056300

05059800

05059850

05059900

05059950

05113450

05113520

05116100

05116200

05116550

05117200

05123520

05123540

05123560

05123580

05123600

06349100

06467650

06467800

06467900

06469500

06469600

06470200

06470300

06470400

Ranking for 

15-year 

recurrence 

interval

4

24

30

10

34

22

8

27

19

31

23

33

14

28

18

9

2

1

5

12

3

15

32

7

35

26

13

20

21

11

29

16

6

25

17

Cumulative 

error 

reduction 

(percent)

9.3

12.3

12.3

11.1

12.1

12.1

11.1

12.3

12.1

12.3

12.1

12.3

11.5

12.3

12.1

11.2

8.3

7.2

9.7

11.1

8.7

11.8

12.3

10.8

12.3

12.4

11.4

12.3

12.1

11.2

12.3

12.0

10.3

12.4

12.0

Ranking for 

50-year 

recurrence 

interval

3

28

26

11

34

21

8

29

19

31

25

32

13

30

18

9

2

1

4

 12

6

14

33

7

35

24

15

20

22

10

27

16

5

23

17

Cumulative 

error 

reduction 

(percent)

10.3

14.0

13.8

12.8

13.8

13.8

12.5

13.8

13.8

13.8

14.0

13.8

12.9

13.8

13.8

12.8

9.5

8.3

10.9

12.6-

11.7

13.2

14.0

12.2

14.0

14.0

13.4

13.8

. 13.8

13.0

13.8

13.6

11.5

14.0

13.7

Ranking for 

100-year 

recurrence 

interval

3

28

26

11

34

20

8

2919'

31

25

32

13

30

18

10

2

1

 4

12

6

14

33

7

35

22

15

21

24

9

27

16

5

23

17

Cumulative 

error 

reduction 

(percent)

10.7

14.5

14.5

13.2

14.5

14.4

13.0

14.5

14.4

. 14.4

14.5

14.5

13.4

14.4

14.4

13.5

9.9

8.6

11.4

13.2

12.2

13.7

14.5

12.7

14.5

14.5

13.8

14.4

14.5

13.4

14.4

14.1

12.1

14.5

14.2

Composite 

ranking

3

28

26

11

34

21

8

29

19

31

25

32

13

30

18

9

2

1

4

12

6

14

33

7

35

24

15

20

22

10

27

16

5

23

17

Results of the 50-year peak-flow recurrence interval analyses for hydrologic regions A, B, and C are 

shown in figure 4. The average sampling mean-square error for the current (1993) network from the zeroyear to the 10-year planning horizon is reduced by 5.0 percent (from 0.00661 to 0.00628) in region A, by 

6.8 percent (from 0.00529 to 0.00493) in region B, and by 6.7 percent (from 0.00745 to 0.00695) in 

region C. Adding additional gaging stations to the network (23 in region A, 55 in region B, and 35 in 

region C) would reduce the average sampling mean-square error by 12.0 percent (from 0.00661 to 

0.00582) in region A, by 14.2 percent (from 0.00529 to 0.00454) in region B, and by 14.0 percent (from 

0.00745 to 0.00641) in region C. The additional gaging stations used in the analysis consisted of recently 

installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network and reactivated gaging stations that had been 

previously discontinued. The average sampling mean-square error would be reduced by about 10 percent 

(tables 1-3) by retaining recently installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network and by 

reactivating a minimum of two discontinued stations in regions A and B and a minimum of three 

discontinued gaging stations in region C.

11
Results of the 100-year peak-flow recurrence interval analyses for hydrologic regions A, B, and C are 

shown in figure 5. The average sampling mean-square error for the current (1993) network from the zeroyear to the 10-year planning horizon is reduced by 5.3 percent (from 0.00717 to 0.00679) in region A, by 

6.9 percent (from 0.00590 to 0.00549) in region B, and by 6.9 percent (from 0.00801 to 0.00746) in 

region C. Adding additional gaging stations to the network (23 in region A, 55 in region B, and 35 in 

region C) would reduce the average sampling mean-square error by 12.4 percent (from 0.00717 to 

0.00628) in region A, by 14.4 percent (from 0.00590 to 0.00505) in region B, and by 14.5 percent (from 

0.00801 to 0.00685) in region C. The additional gaging stations used in the analysis consisted of recentiy 

installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network and reactivated discontinued gaging stations. The 

average sampling mean-square error would be reduced by about 10 percent (tables 1-3) by retaining 

recentiy installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network and by reactivating two discontinued 

gaging stations in region A and a minimum of two discontinued gaging stations in regions B and C.

The results of the network analysis indicate that in order to obtain improved regional peak-flow 

information and reduce the average sampling mean-square error, emphasis should be on reactivating 

discontinued gaging stations at stream locations having small drainage areas and steep main-channel 

slopes. The average contributing drainage area and average main-channel slope of the current (1993) 

network with no additional gaging stations added to the network are 332 square miles and 7.8 feet per mile 

in region A, 264 square miles and 12.9 feet per mile in region B, and 263 square miles and 6.6 feet per 

mile in region C. The average contributing drainage area and average main-channel slope of the 

reactivated discontinued gaging stations in each region that provide about 10 percent reduction in the 

average sampling mean-square error of the current (1993) network for the 15-, 50-, and 100-year 

recurrence intervals are 1.2 square miles and 164 feet per mile in region A, 0.31 square miles and 120 feet 

per mile in region B, and 1.24 square miles and 103 feet per mile in region C.

NETWORK SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

A network sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate drainage area, main-channel slope, and 

location of gaging stations in reducing the average sampling mean-square error of the current (1993) 

network. Also determined in the analysis was whether a greater reduction in the average sampling meansquare error would occur by reactivating discontinued gaging stations or by adding new gaging stations to 

the network. Several analyses were made for each hydrologic region (A, B, and C) using peak flow for the 

15-year recurrence interval and a 10-year planning horizon. Combinations of three drainage areas (0.5, 

5.0, and 25.0 square miles) and three values of main-channel slopes (3.0,30.0, and 300 feet per mile) were 

tested at various locations (fig. 2) in each region for a total of nine different site conditions at each new 

gaging-station location. Small drainage areas were chosen because of the general lack of small drainage 

areas in the current (1993) network, because the results of the network analysis for the 15-, 50-, and 

100-year peak-flow recurrence intervals indicated their importance, and because most large drainage areas 

(> 1,000) have regulation of some kind. Mild (3.0 feet per mile) and moderate (30.0 feet per mile), mainchannel slopes were chosen because of the good possibility of finding such a slope at a given location. 

Steep (300 feet per mile) main-channel slopes, although uncommon, were chosen because the results of 

the network analysis for the 15-, 50-, and 100-year peak-flow recurrence intervals indicated their 

importance.

The results of the sensitivity analyses indicated that location was a factor in new gaging-station site 

selection. Selecting a location that is distant from existing gaging stations would provide greater reduction 

in error than selecting a location in an area with existing gaging stations. Small drainage areas and mild 

and steep main-channel slopes were indicated to be the preferable site conditions to be considered for 

potential new gaging-station sites (table 4). Depending on site conditions, adding a new gaging station at

12
the best two of the six locations (fig. 1) in each region instead of reactivating two discontinued gaging 

stations in each region would reduce the average sampling mean-square error from about 9 percent in 

region A (table 1), about 10 percent in region B (table 2), and about 8 percent in region C (table 3) to an 

average of about 13 percent in each region. By adding a new gaging station at all six locations in each 

region, the average reduction in the average sampling mean-square error for all of the regions combined is 

about 19 percent. For a drainage area of 0.5 square mile and a main-channel slope of 3.0 feet per mile, 

adding two new locations for gaging stations in region A, one in region B, and two in region C instead of 

reactivating two discontinued gaging stations in each region would reduce the average sampling meansquare error by about 15 percent (fig. 6). If new locations with small drainage areas and mild or steep 

main-channel slopes are considered in future gaging-station site selections, a greater reduction in the 

average sampling mean-square error would occur than by reactivating discontinued gaging stations.

Table 4. Reduction in average sampling mean-square error with the addition of new gaging stations in hydrologic 

regions A, B, and C (for example, by adding a new gaging station that has a drainage area of 0.5 square mile and a 

main-channel slope of 3 feet per mile at the best two locations in region A, the error would be reduced by 15.2 percent)

Reduction in average sampling mean-square error1 

(percent)

Drainage area Main-channel slope 

(square miles) (feet per mile)

0.5 3

.5 30

5 300

5 3

5 30

5 300

25 3

25 30

25 300

0.5 3

.5 30

.5 - 300

5 3

5 30

5 - 300

25 3

25 30

25 300

Region A

Best two locations

15.2

13.7

16.4

11.8

10.8

15.0

9.9

9.7

14.7

All six locations

21.4

20.7

23.9

17.4

16.6

22.0

216.2

14.5

21.2

Region B

17.4

12.8

13.8

14.5

10.8

14.7

123

10.6

15.6

22.2

17.8

19.8

193

143

20.2

16.7

13.8

20.7

Region C

15.1

12.0

14.6

11.4

9.6

143

93

9.3

14.8'

21.4

18.6

21.4

173

14.8

20.5

215.2

13.7

20.5

1 Applies to current (1993) network at 10-year planning horizon and 15-year peak flow. One percent reduction in error is the error percentage 

of the current (1993) network that would be reduced if indicated number of new gaging stations were added.

2One discontinued gaging station included prior to inclusion of final six new gaging stations.

13
0.00600

10 20. 30 40 50 

NUMBER OF STATIONS OPERATED

60 70

EXPLANATION

Active stations in the current (1993) network 

. . p0|nt at Which the average sampling mean-square error would be reduced by about 15 percent . 

| Current (1993) network at 0-year planning horizon 

A Current (1993) network at 10-year planning horizon 

A Recently installed gaging stations in the current (1993) network 

O Discontinued stations to be reactivated 

-j- New stations with site conditions: drainage basin = 0.5 square miles; slope = 3.0 feet per mile

Figure 6. Example of the network sensitivity analysis in hydrologic regions A, B, and C to provide regional 

information on 15-year peak flow in North Dakota.

14
SUMMARY

A network analysis technique using generalized least-squares regression was used to evaluate the 

current (1993) peak-flow gaging network in North Dakota. The analysis was conducted to determine the 

effectiveness of the 1993 network in providing regional peak-flow information and to evaluate the 

potential improvements in the effectiveness of the 1993 network by reactivating discontinued gaging 

stations and adding new gaging stations on small drainage areas to provide improved regional peak-flow 

informatioa A network analysis that addresses the effect on the regional information that might be 

obtained from improved regression equations has not been attempted since the 1970's.

The network analysis was performed for three hydrologic regions using peak flows having recurrence 

intervals of 15, 50, and 100 years. Zero-year and 10-year planning horizons were considered. Results of 

the network analysis determined which discontinued gaging stations, if reactivated, would contribute most 

to reducing the average sampling mean-square error for the indicated recurrence intervals and planning 

horizons. If the current (1993) network with no additional gaging stations is continued for 10 additional 

years, the reduction in the average sampling mean-square error would range from 4.6 to 6.9 percent among 

the three hydrologic regions. The average sampling mean-square error of the current (1993) network 

would be reduced by about 10 percent for the 15-, 50-, and 100-year recurrence intervals by reactivating a 

minimum of two to three discontinued gaging stations in region A, two discontinued gaging stations in 

region B, and two to five discontinued gaging stations in region C. Results of the network analysis 

indicate that to obtain improved regional peak-flow information, emphasis should be on reactivating 

discontinued gaging stations in the current (1993) network that are located on streams having small 

drainage areas'and steep main-channel slopes.

A network sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate drainage area, main-channel slope, and 

location of gaging stations in reducing the average sampling mean-square error of the current (1993) 

network. For the 15-year recurrence interval and a 10-year planning horizon, adding a new gaging station 

at two new locations in each region instead of reactivating two discontinued gaging stations in each region 

would reduce the average sampling mean-square error by an average of about 13 percent in each region. 

Results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that adding new gaging stations with small drainage areas and 

mild or steep main-channel slopes would provide improved peak-flow information.

REFERENCES

Crosby, O A., 1970, A proposed streamflow data program for North Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report, 68 p.

 1975, Magnitude and frequency of floods in small drainage basins in North Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Resources Investigations Report 19-75,24 p.

Medina, K.D., 1987, Analysis of surface-water data network in Kansas for effectiveness in providing regional 

streamflow information: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2303,28 p.

Omang, R.J., 1992, Analysis of the magnitude and frequency of floods and the peak-flow gaging network in 

Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4048,70 p.

Ruhl, KJ., 1993, Effectiveness of the streamflow-gaging network in Kentucky in providing regional streamflow 

information: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4106,28 p.

15
Ryan, G.L., 1985, Data uses and funding of the streamflow-gaging program in North Dakota: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 85-349,29 p.

 1989, Cost effectiveness of the stream-gaging program in North Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 89-4068,34 p.

Stedinger, JJR., and Tasker, GJD., 1985, Regional hydrologic analysis, 1. Ordinary, weighted, and generalized least 

squares compared: Water Resources Research, v. 21, no. 9, p. 1421-1432.

Tasker, GJD. 1986, Generating efficient gaging plans for regional information, in Moss, MJE., ed., Integrated design 

of hydrologic networks: International Association of Hydrological Sciences, no. 158, p. 269-281.

 1987, Theory and application of GLS, in Medina, K.D., Analysis of surface-water data network in Kansas for 

effectiveness in providing regional streamflow information: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2303, 

p. 24-26.

Williams-Seiner, Tara, 1992, Techniques for estimating peak-flow frequency relations for North Dakota streams: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4020,57 p.

16
Supplement 1. Selected information for the gaging stations used in the study

[D, discontinued; A, active; --, no data]

Map 

number

Station 

number Station name Status Period of record used

Drainage area 

(square miles)

Total Contrib- uting

Mainchannel slope 

(feet 

per 

mile)

Hydrologlc region A

20

212329

3031

32

33

'34

35

36

3738

39

40

414243444546

47

4849

50

0505690005056950

050596000506050005062200

050649000506550005082600

050826250508268005082700

05082900

05083000

0508360005084000

05085000

05088000

0508910005089200

05089500

05089700050898000509000005092200

05098700

Sheyenne River tributary near Cooperstown, N. Dak.Sheyenne River tributary no. 2 near Cooperstown, N. Dak.

Maple River near Hope, N. Dak.

Rush River at Amenia, N. Dak.

Elm River near Kelso, N. Dak.

Beaver Creek near Finley, N. Dak.

Goose River near Portland, N. Dak.English Coulee tributary near Grand Forks, N. Dak.

Turtle River at Turtle River State Park near Arvilla, N. Dak.

Saltwater Coulee tributary near Emerado, N. Dak.Saltwater Coulee near Emerado, N. Dak.Freshwater Coulee near Emerado, N. Dak.

Turtle River at Manvel, N. Dak.

Middle Branch Forest River near Whitman, N. Dak.Forest River near Fordville, N. Dak.Forest River at Minto, N. Dak.

South Branch Park River near Park River, N. Dak.

Middle Branch Park River near Union, N. Dak.North Branch Park River at Gardar, N. Dak.

Cart Creek at mountain, N. Dak.Cart Creek at Crystal, N. Dak.Cart Creek tributary near Crystal, N. Dak.Park River at Grafton, N. Dak.

Pembina County drain 20 near Glasston, N. Dak.Hidden Island Coulee near Hansboro, N. Dak.

D

DA

A

D

ADD

ADD

D

A

DA

ADDDD

DD

A

D

A

1959-731959-73

1965-93

1947-93

1956-73, 1981-86

1965-93

1940-76, 1982-88

1955-73, 1984

1993

1955-67, 1969-73

1950, 1955-73

1955-73

1946-70, 1972-73, 1980-90, 1993

1961-90

1940-93

1882, 1897, 1907, 1916, 1944-93

1940-501966-86

1955-741954-84

1955-74

1955-73

1897, 1916, 1932-93

1972-86

1962-93

15.2

.08

20.2

116

194

148

517

4.7

311

22.0

110

31.0

613

47.7

456

740214

15.3

51.8

16.9

74.0

3.80

695

80.0

26.2

15.2

.08

17.4

116194

98.0

407

4.7

311

22.0

110

31.0

556

38.6

336

620

214

15.3

51.8

16.9

74.0

3.80

695

80.0

23.4

29.0

300.0

11.0

3.5

5.5

7.27.03.4

11.3

17.0

12.0

6.4

7.8

4.5

11.0

10.0

8.3

21.0

19.0

58.0

12.0

6.4

6.5

5.3

8.6
Supplement 1. Selected information for the gaging stations used in the study Continued

[D, discontinued; A, active; --, no data]

Map Station 

number number Station name Status Period of record used

Drainage area 

(square miles)

Total Contrib- uting

Mainchannel 

slope 

(feet 

per 

mile)

Hydrologlc region A Continued

5152

253

254

55

356

6667

6869

76

164

168

4 1694 170

171172

173

4 174

175

4 176

4 177

050988000509882005099100

05099150

05099400

05101000

05122500

05123300

0512335005123500

0512390005060800

0506250005062700

05062800

0506750005069000

05076000

050766000508750005095500

05096000

Cypress Creek near Sarles, N. Dak.Cypress Creek above International Boundary near Sarles, N. Dak.

Snowflake Creek near Snowflake, Manitoba

Mowbray Creek near Mowbray, Manitoba

Little Pembina River near Walhalla, N. Dak.

Tongue River at Afcra, N. Dak.

Willow Creek at Dunseith, N. Dak.Oak Creek tributary nearBottineau. N. Dak.

Oak Creek tributary no. 5 near Bottineau, N. Dak.

S^one Creek near Kramer, N. Dak.

Boundary Creek near Landa, N. Dak.

Buffalo River near Callaway, Minn.

Wild Rice River at Twin Valley, Minn.Wild Rice River tributary near Twin Valley, Minn.Coon Creek near Twin Valley, Minn.Marsh River near Shelly, Minn.

Sand Hill River at Climax, Minn.

Thief River near Thief River Falls, Minn.

Red Lake River tributary near Thief River Falls, Minn.

Middle River at Argyle, Minn.

Two Rivers below Hallock, Minn.North Branch Two Rivers near Lancaster, Minn.

DA

A

A

D

A

DD

DD

A

AA

DD

AAAD

AD

D

1962-881989-93

1961-93

1962-93

1956-82

1939-46. 1948-93

1954-73

1955, 1959-73

1959-73

1986-93

1958-81, 1985-93

1960-93

1909-17, 1931-93

1961-85

1962-841944-931943-93

1909-17, 1919-26, 1929-93

1962-81

1945, 1950-93

1945-55

1930-38, 1941-55

57.2

83.0

377

101

182160142

3.10

.56

168

230

94.5

888

4.72

50.8

151

426959

2.33

265

644

32.0

51.2

83.094.4

65.7

172

160

91.0

3.10

.56

168

170

94.5

888

4.72

50.8

151

426

959

2.33

265

644

32.0

1.0

4.3 _11.6

21.7

36.4

58.3

135.0

8.0

5.9

6.0

7.2

17.9

15.2

3.2

7.2

1.0

5.77.55.4

4.8
Supplement 1. Selected information for the gaging stations used in the study Continued

[D, discontinued; A, active; , no data]

Map 

number

Station 

number Station name Status Period of record used

Drainage area 

(square miles)

Total Contrib- uting

Mainchannel 

slope 

(feet 

per 

mile)

Hydrologlc region B

77

78

79

80

81

82

838485

86

87

J 88

89

90

91

929394

495

496

97

9899

100101

06329597063297000632980006329900

0633010006331000

063319000633200006332150

06332515

06332520

063327700633500006335700063361000633620006336300

06336400

0633645006336500

06336600

0633698006337100

0633760006337900

Charbonneau Creek near Charbonneau, N. Dak.

Painted Woods Creek tributary near Williston, N. Dak.Painted Woods Creek near Williston, N. Dak.Painted Woods Creek tributary no. 2 near Williston, N. Dak.Sand Creek near Williston, N. Dak.Little Muddy Creek below Cow Creek near Williston, N. Dak.

While Earth River tributary near Tioga, N. Dak.While Earth River at White Earth, N. Dak.White Earth River iribulary near While Earth, N. Dak.

Bear Den Creek near Mandaree, N. Dak.Shell Creek near Parshall, N. Dak.Deepwater Creek at mouth near Raub, N. Dak.Little Beaver Creek near Marmarth, N. Dak.

Deep Creek near Bowman, N. Dak.

Sheep Creek tributary near Medora, N. Dak.

Sheep Creek tributary no. 2 near Medora, N. Dak.Liltle Missouri River iribulary near Medora, N. Dak.

Jules Creek near Medora, N. Dak.

Spring Creek near Wibaux, Mont.

Beaver Creek at Wibaux, Mont.

Beaver Creek near Trolters, N. Dak.Little Missouri River iribulary near Watford City, N. Dak.

Spring Creek near Waiford Ciiy, N. Dak.

East Branch Douglas Creek tributary near Garrison, N. Dak.Snake Creek iribulary near Garrison, N. Dak.

DDDD

DA

D

DD

A

D

A

D

D

D

DDD

D

D

A

DDD

D

1967-81

1955-73

1955-73

1955-73

1955-731955-93

1960-73

1955-811960-73

1967-931966-81

1992-93

1939-791955-73

1955-65, 1968-73

1958-73

1955-73

1955-73

1956-60, 1962-73

1938-44, 1946, 1948-67, 1969, 1979-83

1978-93

1960-73

1960-73

1957, 1959-73

1959-73

149

.37

17.0

8.30

38.0

875

9.60

780

.32

74.0

,465

220587

.29.29.42

.32

3.804.00

351

616

2.10

22.7

1.39

1.22

149

.37

17.0

8.30

38.0

775

9.60

490

.32

74.0

145

220

587

.20

.29.42.32

3.80

4.00

351

616

2.10

22.7

1.391.22

9.0

80.0

35.0

30.0

20.0

8.3

29.0

7.4

35.0

16.5

2.6

10.7

11.4

190

129

91.0

195

36.574.0

5.0

5.7

59.0

18.0

53.0

17.0
Supplement 1. Selected information for the gaging stations used in the study Continued

[D, discontinued; A, active; --, no data]

Map 

number

Station 

number Station name Status Period of record used

Drainage area 

(square miles)

Total Contrib- uting

Mainchannel 

slope 

(feet 

per 

mile)

Hydrologlc region II Continued

102

103

104

105

106107108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116117

118119

120121

122

123124

125126

063391000633930006339490063395600634000006340200

06340528

06340905

06341400

06341410

06341800

0634205006342100

06342150

0634225006342300

06342350

06342450

06343000

06343200

06344200

06344600

06345000

06345100

06345200

Knife River at Manning, N. Dak.Knife River at Marshall, N. Dak.Elm Creek near Golden Valley, N. Dak.

Brush Creek near Beulah, N. Dak.

Spring Creek at Zap, N. Dak.

West Branch Otter Creek near Beulah. N. Dak.West Branch Antelope Creek no. 4 near Zap, N. Dak.

Coal Lake Coulee near Hensler, N. Dak.

Turtle Creek near Turtle Lake, N. Dak.

Turtle Creek above Washburn, N. Dak.

Painted Woods Creek near Wilton, N. Dak.Square Butte Creek at Center, N. Dak.

Square Butte Creek tributary no. 2 near Center, N. Dak.

Square Butte Creek tributary near Center, N. Dak.

Square Butte Creek tributary no. 3 near Center, N. Dak.

Burnt Creek tributary near Baldwin, N. Dak.

Burnt Creek tributary no. 2 near Baldwin, N. Dak.

Burnt Creek near Bismarck, N. Dak.

Heart River near South Heart, N. Dak.Heart River tributary near South Heart, N. Dak.

Heart River tributary near Dickinson, N. Dak.

Green River near New Hradec, N. Dak.

Green River near Gladstone, N. Dak.Antelope Creek near Dickinson, N. Dak.Antelope Creek tributary near New England, N. Dak.

AD

A

D

AAD

DD

A

' A

DD

DDDDA

ADDADD

D

1968-93

1971-811968-931975-90

1924, 1946-93

1965-93

1977-861978-881957-761987-93

1958-81, 1983-93

1956-73

1955-721955-731956-73

1956-73

1956-73

1968-93

1947-72, 1978-93

1955-731955-73

1964-93

1946-76

1955-73

1955-73

205

722

82.0

23.9

549

26.5

8.46

70.5

310

350

427

56.8

13.0

.19

1.68

2.982.12

108

315

.13

1.72

152

356

69.2

13.0

205722

82.0

23.9

549

26.5

8.46

17.2

115155

117

56.8

13.0

.19

1.68

2.982.12

108

315

.13

1.72

152

356

69.2

13.0

7.24.5

7.3

16.5

3.3

16.4

32.232.9

2.13.0

3.5

15.6

28.0

158.0

59.8

43.8

67.9

10.5

3.1

148

32.6

6.8

3.0

15.0

25.0
Supplement 1. Selected information for the gaging stations used in the study Continued

[D, discontinued; A, active; --, no data]

Map 

number

Station 

number Station name Status Period of record used

Drainage area 

(square miles)

Total Contrib- uting

Mainchannel 

slope 

(feet 

per 

mile)

Hydrologic region 11 Continued

127128129

130

131

133

134

135136137138139140141142143

144145

146

! 147

148

149150

151

152

06345300

06345700

063470000634750006348500

06349200063492150635000006351680

06352000

0635360006353700063538000635390006354500063545800635470006354750

0635480006354815

06354900

06354950063550000635520006355310

Antelope Creek tributary no. 2 near New England, N. Dak.

Government Creek near Richardton, N. Dak.Antelope Creek near Carson, N. Dak.Big Muddy Creek near Almonl, N. Dak.

Sweetbriar Creek near Judson, N. Dak.

West Branch Long Lake Creek near Hazelton, N. Dak.

Long Lake Creek above Long Lake near Moffill, N. Dak.

Cannonball River at Regent, N. Dak.

White Butte Fork Cedar Creek near Scranton, N. Dak.

Cedar Creek near Haynes, N. Dak.

Louise Creek tributary near Brisbane, N. Dak.Louise Creek tributary near Lark, N. Dak.Louise Creek tributary no. 2 near Lark, N. Dak.Louise Creek above Flasher, N. Dak.

Beaver Creek at Linlon, N. Dak.Beaver Creek below Linton, N. Dak.

Spring Creek near Linton, N. Dak.

Sand Creek tributary near Hazellon, N. Dak.

Sand Creek near Temvik, N. Dak.Porcupine Creek near Fort Yatcs, N. Dak.

Spring Creek near Bowman, N. Duk.Spring Creek tributary near Bowman, N. Dak.

North Fork Grand River at Haley, N. Dak.Buffalo Creek tributary near Buffalo Springs, N. Dak.

Buffalo Creek tributary near Gascoyne, N. Dak.

D

D

DA

. D

D

AA

A

A

D

D

D

DDAD

DD

A

D

D

D

DD

1955-73

1950, 1955-731943, 1949-76

1946-73, 1991-93

1950, 1952-63

1955-58, 1960-73

1989-931950-931965-93

1950-931955-731956-73

1956-73

1955-73

1950-891990-93

1955-731960-73

1955-731992-93

1955-731955-73

1909, 1912-15, 1917, 1946-66

1955-73

1975-87

22.433.4

221

456

157

16.5

280580

42.9

553

.29.79

7.70

110

717

765

22.9

3.00

23.3

220

51.2

11.4

509

3.39

15.7

22.4

33.4

221456

157

16.5

280

580

42.9

553

.29.76

7.70

110

617

665

22.9

3.00

23.3

220

51.2

11.4

509

3.39

15.4

23.0

12.0

5.2

7.3

8.7

14.6

4.84.5

9.6

4.2

64.6

62.2

36.8

16.2

3.03.0

20.2

24.022.4

7.6

20.0

20.0

4.9

15.0

30.8
Supplement 1. Selected information for the gaging stations used in the study Continued

(D. discontinued; A, active; -, no data]

Map 

number

Station number Station name Status Period of record used

Drainage area 

(square miles)

Total Contrib- uting

Mainchannel 

slope 

(feet 

per 

mile)

Hydrologic region U Continued

180181

4 182

4 1834 184

4 192

4 1934 194

4 195

196

4 1974 198

4 199

200

4201

4202

420342044205

206

4207

06354860063560000635852006358600

06358620061812000618510006185200

06185300061854000632665006326700063268000632694006326950063277000632880006328900

06329200

0632957006334720

Spring Creek near Herreid, S. Dak.

South Fork Grand River ai Buffalo, S. Dak.

Deadman Creek tributary near Mobridge, S. Dak.South Fork Moreau River tributary near Redig, S. Dak.

Sand Creek tributary near Redig, S. Dak.Missouri River tributary no. 2 near Brockton, Mont.

Big Muddy Creek tributary near Culberlson, Mont.

Missouri River tributary no. 3 near Culbenson, Mont.

Missouri River tributary no. 4 near Culbenson, Mont.Missouri River tributary no. 5 near Culbenson, Mont.O'Fallon Creek tributary near Ismay, Mont.

Deep Creek near Baker, Mont.

Fennel Creek near Baker, Mont.

Spring Creek tributary near Fallon, Mont.Yellowslone River tributary no. 5 near Marsh, Mont.Griffith Creek near Glendive, Mont.Indian Creek at Intake, Mont.War Dance Creek near Intake, Mont.

Bums Creek near Savage, Mont.

First Hay Creek near Sidney, Mont.

Soda Creek tributary near Webster, Mont.

A

A

D

DDDDD

D

A

D

DD

A

DDD

DDA

D

1963-86, 1989-93

1956-931956-80

1956, 1958-80

1956, 1958-72

1962-76

1963-77

1963-77

1963-771963-93

1962-76

1962-76, 1978

1962-911972-93

1962-72, 1974-88

1955-60, 1962-63, 1965-67

1958-73

1958-73, 1980

1958-67, 1975-84, 1986

1963-931962-91

440

148

.30

2.33

.06

1.60

7.38

1.23

11.6

3.67

.16

3.79

.86

3.10

.87

15.5

.46

3.69

233

30.0

2.22

220

148

.30

2.33

.06

1.60

7.38

1.23

11.6

3.67

.16

3.79

.86

3.10

.87

15.5

.46

3.69

233

29.1

2.22

4.7

17.8

158

12.6

100

86.934.5

82.8

41.7

119198

52.9

87.4

27.6

109

69.869.762.5

27.2

11.3

29.0
Supplement 1. Selected information for the gaging stations used in the study Continued

[D, discontinued; A, active; --, no data]

Map 

number

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14151617

1819

2224

25

262728

Station number

05051600050518000505190005052500

05054500

05055000

05055100

05055200

05055520

0505602005056040

05056060

0505608005056100

0505620005056215

05056239

050563000505639005057200

05059700

05059800

05059850

0505990005059950

Station name

Wild Rice River near Rutland, N. Dak.

Grass Lake tributary near Lidgerwood, N. Dak.

Wild Rice River tributary near Mantador, N. Dak.

Antelope Creek near Dwight, N. Dak.

Sheyenne River above Harvey, N. Dak.Sheyenne River near Harvey, N. Dak.

North Fork Sheyenne River near Wellsburg, N. Dak.Big Coulee near Maddock, N. Dak.Big Coulee near Fort Totlen, N. Dak.

Mauvais Coulee tributary near Bis bee, N. Dak.

Mauvais Coulee tributary no. 2 near Cando, N. Dak.Mauvais Coulee tributary no. 3 near Cando, N. Dak.

Mauvais Coulee tributary no. 4 near Bisbee, N. Dak.

Mauvais Coulee near Cando, N. Dak.

Edmore COulee near Edmore, N. Dak.Edmore Coulee tributary near Webster, N. Dak.

Starkweather Coulee near Webster, N. Dak.Little Coulee at Leeds, N. Dak.

Little Coulee near Brinsmade, N. Dak.

Baldhill Creek near Dazey, N. Dak.

Maple River near Enderlin, N. Dak.

Swan Creek near Absaraka, N. Dak.

Swan Creek tributary near Ayr, N. Dak.

Swan Creek near Cassellon, N. Dak.Swan Creek tributary near Cassellon, N. Dak.

Status

Hydrologlc region C

A

DDD

ADD

DDDD

AD

AAAA

DAA

ADDDD

Period of record used

1960-76, 1978-80, 1982-93

1958-731958-73

1944-47, 1949-73, 1975

1956-93

1943,1946-56

1958-67

1957-67, 1969-73

1966-75

1955-73

1955-73

1955-73, 1989-93

1955-731957-93

1956-931988-931980-93

1956-67, 1969-73

1976-931956-93

1956-931955-73

1955, 1957-73

1955-62, 1964-73

1955-73

Drainage area 

(square miles)

Total

546

.61

65.0

293424

534

693

140

23.2

8.90

17.1

129

59.6

387382

148

310

280350

691843

28.9

4.00

14.0

56.6

Contributing

250

.61

4.20

278

154

173

203

97.0

7.70

8.90

17.1

60.253.0

377

282

104

210

140

190

351796

28.9

4.00

14.0

14.1

Mainchannel 

slope 

(feet 

per 

mile)

2.1

10.0

24.0

3.4

3.0

2.74.0

3.3

19.0

9.07.1

11.0

10.0

5.1

3.5

1.3

3.0

4.2

4.3

3.03.0

12.0

12.910.5

7.7
Supplement 1. Selected information for the gaging stations used in the study Continued

[D, discontinued; A, active; , no data]

Map 

number

Station 

number Station name Status Period of record used

Drainage area 

(square miles)

Total Contrib- uting

Mainchannel 

slope 

(feet 

per 

mile)

Hydrologlc region C Continued

57

58

259

60616263

6465

70

71

7273

74

75

132

153

154

155156

157

158159160

161

05113450

05113520

05113800

05116100051162000511655005117200

05119410

05120500

0512351005123520

05123540

0512356005123580

0512360006349100

0646760006467650

06467800

064679000646940006469500064696000647020006470300

Long Creek tributary no. 2 near Crosby, N. Dak.Long Creek tributary near Crosby, N. Dak.

Short Creek below international boundary near Roche Percee,

Saskatchewan

Souris River tributary near Burlington, N. Dak.

Des Lacs River tributary near Donnybrook, N. Dak.

Fuller Coulee at Foxholm, N. Dak.

Souris River tributary no. 2 near Burlington, N. Dak.

Bonnes Coulee at Velva, N. Dak.

Wintering River near Karlsruhe, N. Dak.

Deep River near Upham, N. Dak.Egg Creek near Glenbum, N. Dak.

Egg Creek near Ruthville, N. Dak.

Egg Creek tributary near Deering, N. Dak.

Egg Creek near Deering, N. Dak.

Egg Creek near Granville, N. Dak.Dead Buffalo Lake tributary near Steele, N. Dak.

James River near Manfred, N. Dak.

James River tributary near Manfrcd, N. Dak.

James River tributary no. 3 near Manfred, N. Dak.

Big Slough at Hamberg, N. Dak.Pipestem Creek near Pingree, N. Dak.

Pipestem Creek near Buchanan, N. Dak.

Minneapolis Flats Creek tributary near Eldridge, N. Dak.

Beaver Creek tributary near Eldridge, N. Dak.

Beaver Creek near Sydney, N. Dak.

DD

ADD

DD

A

AA

D

D

D

D

D

DA

D

DD

ADD

D

D

1960-73

1960-70, 1972-731960-77, 1979-93

1959-731956-73

1955-73

1960-73

1987-931937-93

1951, 1958-80, 1985-93

1955-73

1955-73

1955-73

1956-73

1957-81

1960-73

1955-93

1955-61, 1963-73

1955-73

1958-68, 1970-75

1974-93

1950-74

1955-68, 1970-73

1955-73

1955-73

6.70

.40

466

.13

3.82

5.90

2.04

53.0

705

975

20.9

108

4.20

136

289

5.90

253

90.2

23.5

60.0

700758

9.91

.19

224

5.60

.40

125

.13

3.825.902.04

53.0

285

369

7.00

26.0

2.80

43.6

143

5.90

56.0

39.4

20.6

42.0

260298

9.91

.19

62.0

15.018.0

270

113

49.0

60.0

21.0

3.7

2.4

4.4

5.2

6.0

4.2

3.6

17.0

6.4

4.4

5.8

3.12.5

2.3

30.9

48.6

14.1
Supplement 1. Selected information for the gaging stations used in the study Continued

[D, discontinued; A, active; , no data]

Drainage area 

(square miles)

Map 

number

Station number Station name Status ' Period of record used

Total Contrib- uting

Mainchannelslope 

(feet 

per 

mile)

Hydrologlc region C Continued

162

163

165

166

167

178179

4 185

186

4 1874 188

4 1894 1904191

06470400

06470800

05061200

0506140005061500

0529000005291000

06471050

06471200

064713500647140006472200

06472250

06472500

Buffalo Creek tributary near Sydney, N. Dak.Bear Creek near Oakes, N. Dak.Whiskey Creek at Bamesville, Minn. ;

Hay Creek above Downer, Minn.South Branch Buffalo River at Sabin, Minn.

Little Minnesota River near Peever, S. Dak.

Whetstone River near Big Stone City, S. Dak.

Elm River tributary near Leola, S. Dak.

Maple River at North Dakota-South Dakota Slate LineMaple River at Frederick, S. Dak.

Willow Creek tributary near Leola, S. Dak.

Mud Creek tributary near Groton, S. Dak.Mud Creek tributary no. 2 near Groton, S. Dak.

Mud Creek near Stratford, S. Dak.

D

A

A

, A

A

A

A

DA

DDD

D

D

1955-731977-931961-93

1961-931945-93

1940-81, 1990-931910-12,1931-93

1956-801957-93

1956-691956-80

1960-69, 1974-80

1960-80

1956-73. 1977

23.7

369

62.5

5.81

522447

389

18.0

750

822

6.69

65.5

84.6

730

11.3

114

25.3

5.81

522

447

389

18.0

480

552

6.69

56.775.8

460

20.9

2.9

18.6

16.0

13.8

3.2

10.9

32.3

4.8

4.1

10.0

20.5

19.4

5.4

Current crest-stage gages (not used in analyses)

..~-- 05082500 05083500 05102490 Red River of the North at Grand Forks, N. Dak. Red River of the North at Oslo, Minn. Red River of the North at Pembina, N. Dak. AA 1936-37 A 1882-1983, 1987-93 , 1941-43, 1945-60, 1985-93 1985-93 30,100 31,200 40,200 ..~-- ._

'Stations not used in the generalized least-squares regression analysis, but used in the network analysis. 

2Slation$ not used in the analyses.3Only unregulated period, 1939-46 and 1948-54, was used in the generalized least-squares regression analysis. 

4Stalions not used in the network analysis, but used to update the generalized least-squares regression analysis.