Nustad and Bales–Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, North Dakota and

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

Printed on recycled paper
Simulation of Conservative-Constituent 

Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, North Dakota and Minnesota,2003-04By Rochelle A. Nustad and Jerad D. Bales
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, SecretaryU.S. Geological SurveyP. Patrick Leahy, Acting DirectorU.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal CenterDenver, CO 80225For more information about the USGS and its products:Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGSWorld Wide Web: http://www

usgs

gov/
 iii

ContentsAbstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Study Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Data-Collection Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Water-Quality Sample Collection and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Withdrawal and Return-Flow Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Channel-Geometry Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Description of HEC-5 and HEC-5Q Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Streamflow and Water-Quality Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Model Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Computational Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Streamflow and Water-Quality Boundary Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Model Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Streamflow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
iv 

Figures, Continued

6. Graphs showing measured nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen, ammonia as

nitrogen, and organic nitrogen concentrations for selected sites for September2003 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

10. Graphs showing measured and simulated total dissolved-solids

concentrations for Red River water-quality model calibration points forSeptember 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 forMay 10, 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

15

Graphs showing measured and simulated sulfate concentrations for
 v

Tables, Continued

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

sampling periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

8. Model calibration points used for simulation of conservative-constituent

transport in the Red River of the North Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

9. Mean calibration errors and maximum and minimum absolute differences

between measured (September 2003) and simulated total dissolved-solids,sulfate, and chloride concentrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

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

Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

11. Projected return flows, imported flows, and withdrawals and estimated

total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations for water-supplyalternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

12. Mean simulated concentrations for water-supply alternatives and difference

between concentration for alternative and concentration for alternative 1(the no-action alternative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

13. Reduced streamflows used in Red River water-quality model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3214. Absolute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences

between total dissolved-solids concentrations simulated with September 2003streamflows and those simulated with reduced streamflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

15. Absolute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences
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
Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport

in the Red River of the North Basin, North Dakotaand Minnesota, 2003-04By Rochelle A. Nustad and Jerad D. BalesAbstract

Population growth along with possible future droughts in 

the Red River of the North (Red River) Basin will create an 

increasing need for reliable water supplies. Therefore, as a result of the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, the Bureau of Reclamation identified eight water-supply alternatives (including a no-action alternative) to meet future water needs in the basin. Because of concerns about the possible effects of the 

alternatives on water quality in the Red River and the Sheyenne River and in Lake Winnipeg

Manitoba

the Bureau of Reclama

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 identified by the Bureau of Reclamation. For the first set of eight simulations, 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 alternatives generally were lower than for the no-action alternative. Of those alternatives, one would result in a decrease in concentrations for two constituents, one would result in a decrease in concentrations for all three constituents, and one would result in 
2 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

Bureau of Reclamation, 2005). Of those alternatives, four include the interbasin transfer of water.

Because many stakeholders have expressed 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 (EIS) that describes the specific environmental effects of each alternative. To provide information for the EIS, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, conducted a study to develop and apply a water-quality model to part of the Red River and the Sheyenne River to simulate conservative-constituent transport in the Red River Basin. The numerical HEC-5 and HEC-5Q models used previously by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a water-quality model for part of the study area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998; Resource Management Associates, 1996a, 1996b) were used to simulate flow and constituent transport for 2003 conditions. In addition, selected water-quality constituents measured during low, steady-flow conditions and during medium, unsteady-flow conditions were characterized and the concentrations for those constituents were compared to historical concentrations.Purpose and Scope

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 tributaries to the Red River. The Red River Basin is part of the Hudson 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 Emerson, the Red River drains into Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba. The streamflow-gaging station at Emerson is located 0.8 mi downstream 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
Methods 3

tabula, which is formed by Baldhill Dam, has a capacity of 69,100 acre-ft between the invert of the outlet conduit and the normal pool elevation and a capacity of 157,500 acre-ft at maximum pool elevation (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003). Lake Ashtabula is operated for flood control, municipal water supply, recreation, and stream-pollution abatement.

Ground water in the Red River Basin is primarily in sand 

and gravel aquifers near land surface or in buried glacial deposits throughout the basin. Ground water moves toward the Red 

River through a regional system of bedrock and glacial-drift aquifers (Sether and others, 2004). Saline ground-water discharge from the bedrock aquifers is known to collect in wetlands that drain into tributaries of the Red River (Strobel and Haffield, 1995). The Turtle, Forest, and Park Rivers are the major contributors of salinity to the Red River.Methods

The Red River water-quality model requires streamflow, 

water-quality, withdrawal and return-flow, and channel-geometry data. Methods used to collect or compile the data are summarized in this section. The data-collection network, which 

included locations where water-quality samples were collected and streamflow measurements were made, is presented, and methods used to collect water

quality samples are described

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

Table 1. Data-collection network.

Site

number

(figure 1)

U.S. Geological Survey

site number Site name

Active

streamflowgaging

station

1 05046502 Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minnesota No2 05051300 Bois de Sioux River near Doran, Minnesota Yes3 05051500 Red River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota Yes4 05051522 Red River of the North at Hickson, North Dakota Yes5 05053000 Wild Rice River near Abercrombie, North Dakota Yes6 05053800 Red River of the North above Fargo, North Dakota No7 05054000 Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota Yes8 465602096472700 Red River of the North on Cass County Road 20 below Fargo, North Dakota No9 05054500 Sheyenne River above Harvey, North Dakota Yes

10 05056000 Sheyenne River near Warwick, North Dakota Yes11 05057000 Sheyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota Yes12 05058000 Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota Yes13 05058700 Sheyenne River at Lisbon, North Dakota Yes14 05059000 Sheyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota Yes15 05059300 Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace, North Dakota Yes
Methods 5

Table 2. Water-quality properties and constituents for which samples were analyzed.[Samples were analyzed by the North Dakota Department of Health Laboratory; --, no data; <, less than; NA, not applicable]

Property or constituent Parameter code Measurement type Minimum reporting limit Units

Streamflow 00060 Field -- Cubic feet per secondSpecific conductance 00095 Field -- Microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees CelsiuspH 00400 Field -- Standard unitspH 00403 Laboratory -- Standard unitsTemperature, air 00020 Field -- Degrees CelsiusTemperature, water 00010 Field -- Degrees CelsiusBarometric pressure 00025 Field -- Millimeters of mercuryTurbidity 61028 Field -- Nephelometric turbidity unitsDissolved oxygen 00300 Calculated -- Milligrams per literHardness 00905 Laboratory -- Milligrams per liter as calcium carbonateAcid neutralizing capacity 90410 Calculated <1 Milligrams per literTotal dissolved solids 70301 Calculated -- Milligrams per liter
6 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

Phosphorus, total 00665 Laboratory <0.004 Milligrams per literPhosphorus, dissolved 00666 Laboratory <0.004 Milligrams per literOrthophosphate, dissolved 00671 Laboratory <0.01 Milligrams per literIron, dissolved 01046 Laboratory <10 Micrograms per literManganese, dissolved 01056 Laboratory <10 Micrograms per literColiform, fecal1 31625 Laboratory <10 Colonies per 100 millilitersChlorophyll a 70951 Laboratory -- Micrograms per literChlorophyll b 70952 Laboratory -- Micrograms per liter

1Analyzed for May 2004 samples.

Table 2. Water-quality properties and constituents for which samples were analyzed.—Continued[Samples were analyzed by the North Dakota Department of Health Laboratory; --, no data; <, less than; NA, not applicable]

Property or constituent Parameter code Measurement type Minimum reporting limit Units
Streamflow and Water-Quality Conditions 7

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

and 2004.

Description of HEC-5 and HEC-5Q Models

The HEC-5 model (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998) 

is designed to simulate unsteady flows through a system of channels and reservoirs that have a branched network configuration. The model can be used to evaluate different flood-control scenarios as well as to size reservoirs and their flood-control 

volumes. One-dimensional channel routing is performed by using one of seven available hydrologic-routing techniques. Hydrologic routing (for example, the Muskingum method) differs from hydraulic routing in that hydrologic routing is based solely on conservation of mass. Hydraulic routing is based on both conservation of mass and conservation of momentum. The HEC-5 model has been applied to many managed rivers, including the Sacramento River (Willey, 1987), the Big Sandy River (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, unpub. data, 1996, on file at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Huntington District), and the Monongahela River (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, unpub. data, 1987, on file at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Pittsburgh District). A more recent version of the model, known as HECResSim (Klipsch, 2003), includes a graphical user interface 

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 Sheyenne 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 appendix 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 September 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods into a historical 

perspective. In addition to data for total dissolved solids, sulfate, and chloride, data for selected ions (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and bicarbonate) and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) are discussed to provide a perspective on overall water

lit

h

t

i

ti

Nit

d 

h

h

l

d

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

work, 2005). Rainfall amounts in the upper part of the Red and Sheyenne River Basins on May 11 ranged from about 0.35 to 0.6 in. On May 12, rainfall amounts ranged from 0.2 to 0.5 in. (North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network, 2005).

As a result of the widespread rainfall on May 11 and 12, 

2004, streamflows during the May 2004 sampling period were less steady than during the September 2003 sampling period except in the Red River upstream from Fargo, N. Dak. (figure 

3b at back of report). Streamflow for site 34 (Red River at Emerson, Manitoba) increased about 50 percent during the sampling period. However, streamflows in the Sheyenne River 

increased only slightly because of less rainfall in that part of the basin than in other parts of the basin. In contrast to what occurred during the September 2003 sampling period when streamflows were consistently low throughout the study area, the percentage of time streamflow was equaled or exceeded during the May 2004 sampling period varied widely from site to site (figure 2 at back of report). Streamflow for the Red Lake River at the mouth is historically lower than streamflow measured on May 11, 2004, for site 24 (Red Lake River at Fisher, Minn.) about 30 percent of the time. Streamflow for the Otter Tail River at the mouth is historically lower than streamflow measured on May 11, 2004, for site 1 (Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minn.) about 55 percent of the time. In contrast, streamflow for site 34 is historically lower than streamflow measured on May 10, 2004, for that site about 70 

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 Sheyenne 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 
Streamflow and Water-Quality Conditions 9

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

Total nitrogen concentrations for most sites on the Red 

River downstream from Halstad, Minn., and on the Sheyenne River were about 40 to 100 percent higher during the May 2004 sampling period than during the September 2003 sampling period, indicating the high streamflows increased nitrogen concentrations in the rivers. The total nitrogen concentration for 

site 8 (Red River below Fargo, N. Dak.), however, was about one-third lower during the May 2004 sampling period than during the September 2003 sampling period. Because streamflows for site 8 during the May 2004 sampling period were about three times higher than during the September 2003 sampling period, the high streamflows for that site likely diluted the effects of the 

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 distance 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 wasprimarily 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 sampling periods. The increases probably were a result of loads 

from wastewater-treatment discharges. Nitrogen and phosphorus 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 September 2003 sampling period. This pattern was not evident during 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 durTable 4. Mean daily total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads for September 2003 and May 

[--, no data; NA, not applicable]

Site

number Site name

September 15 through 16, 2003

1 Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minnesota 312 

2 Bois de Sioux River near Doran, Minnesota 0 

3 Red River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota 341 

4 Red River of the North at Hickson, North Dakota 396 

5 Wild Rice River near Abercrombie, North Dakota 2 

6 Red River of the North above Fargo, North Dakota 411 

7 Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota 369 

8 Red River of the North on Cass County Road 20 below Fargo, North 

Dakota

3,170 

NA Red River of the North near Harwood, North Dakota -- 

9 Sheyenne River above Harvey, North Dakota 17 
10 Sheyenne River near Warwick, North Dakota 105 

11 Sheyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota 113 

12 Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota 380 

13 Sheyenne River at Lisbon, North Dakota 212 

14 Sheyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota 209 

15 Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River Diversion near Horace, North 

Dakota

187 

16 Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park, North Dakota 208 

17 Buffalo River near Dilworth, Minnesota 61 

NA Red River of the North at Perley, Minnesota -- 

18 Wild Rice River at Hendrum, Minnesota 104 

Table 4. Mean daily total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads for September 2003 and May 

[--, no data; NA, not applicable]

Site

number Site name

September 15 through 16, 2003
19 Red River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota 1,960 

20 Goose River at Hillsboro, North Dakota 48 

21 Marsh River near Shelly, Minnesota 1 

22 Sand Hill River at Climax, Minnesota 35 

23 Red River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota 747 

24 Red Lake River at Fisher, Minnesota 598 

25 Red River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota 1,460 

26 Turtle River above Manvel, North Dakota 7 

27 Red River of the North at Oslo, Minnesota 1,990 

28 Forest River near confluence with Red River of the North, North Dakota 64 

Table 4. Mean daily total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads for September 2003 and May 

[--, no data; NA, not applicable]

Site

number Site name

September 15 through 16, 2003
29 Snake River near Big Woods, Minnesota -- 

30 Park River near Oakwood, North Dakota 8 

31 Red River of the North at Drayton, North Dakota 1,671 

32 Two Rivers at Hallock, Minnesota 27 

33 Pembina River above Pembina, North Dakota 50 

34 Red River of the North at Emerson, Manitoba 1,802 

1From Tornes and others, 1997.

2From Sether and others, 2004.

3

Calculated at site upstream from current study site.

4Calculated at site downstream from current study site.

Table 4. Mean daily total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads for September 2003 and May 

[--, no data; NA, not applicable]

Site

number Site name

September 15 through 16, 2003
14 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

Simulation of Conservative-Constituent 

Transport

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 the flow and transport of total dissolved solids, sulfate, and chloride during steady-state conditions. Those constituents are considered to be conservative constituents for this application. Sulfate also was simulated as a conservative constituent in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003) HEC-5Q water-quality model.

Model Implementation

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2003) HEC-5Q waterquality 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.

Computational Grid

The physical domain of the Red River water-quality model 

i

l

d

h

R

d Ri

f

h

fl

f 

h

B

i

d

Si

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 incremental flow between control points so that the total tributary streamflow 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 streamflow boundary conditions for the May 2004 sampling period (table 6) were computed by using a moving average of meas

red dail

mean streamflo

s for 7 da

s (Ma

9 thro

gh 23
Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport 15

Table 5. Streamflow boundary conditions for September 2003 sampling period.[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, no data; shading indicates control point location]

Location

Streamflow

measured

at control

point

(ft3/s)

Streamflow

measured

for tributary

(ft3/s)

Difference

between

accumulated

upstream

streamflows and

downstream

streamflow

(ft3/s)

Incremental flow

(ft3/s)

Percent of

streamflow

measured

at control

point

Sheyenne River

Sheyenne River above Harvey, North Dakota 2.5 -- -- -- --Sheyenne River at North Dakota Highway 30 near

Maddock, North Dakota1

210.8 -- 8.3 8.3 77

Sheyenne River at Peterson Coulee, North Dakota1 211.6 -- 0.8 0.8 7Sheyenne River near Warwick, North Dakota 15 -- 3.4 3.4 23Sheyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota 20 -- 5 5 25Into Lake Ashtabula1 220.7 -- 0.7 0.7 3Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota 37 -- -- -- --Sh

i

ll

Ci

h 

k

238 

1 1 3
16 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

Red River of the North and tributaries, Continued

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

Red River of the North at confluence with Sheyenne River,

North Dakota

2223 -- 15.7 39 17

Buffalo River near Dilworth, Minnesota -- 22 -- -- --Wild Rice River at Hendrum, Minnesota -- 46 -- -- --

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

Goose River at Hillsboro, North Dakota -- 19 -- -- --Marsh River near Shelly, Minnesota -- 0.1 -- -- --S

d 

ill 

i

Cli

i

22 

Table 5. Streamflow boundary conditions for September 2003 sampling period.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, no data; shading indicates control point location]

Location

Streamflow

measured

at control

point

(ft3/s)

Streamflow

measured

for tributary

(ft3/s)

Difference

between

accumulated

upstream

streamflows and

downstream

streamflow

(ft3/s)

Incremental flow

(ft3/s)

Percent of

streamflow

measured

at control

point
Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport 17

Table 6. Streamflow boundary conditions for May 2004 sampling period.[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, no data; shading indicates control point location]

Location

Streamflow

measured

at control

point

(ft3/s)

Streamflow

measured

for tributary

(ft3/s)

Difference

between

accumulated

upstream

streamflows and

downstream

streamflow

(ft3/s)

Incremental flow

(ft3/s)

Percent of

streamflow

measured

at control

point

Sheyenne River

Sheyenne River above Harvey, North Dakota 18 -- -- -- --Sheyenne River at North Dakota Highway 30 near

Maddock, North Dakota1

266.2 -- 48.2 48.2 73

Sheyenne River at Peterson Coulee, North Dakota1 270.8 -- 4.6 4.6 7Sheyenne River near Warwick, North Dakota 92 -- 21.2 21.2 23Sheyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota 234 -- 142 142 61Into Lake Ashtabula1 2241 -- 7 7 3Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota 423 -- -- -- --Sh

i

ll

Ci

h 

k

2435 

12 12 3
18 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

Red River of the North and tributaries

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

Red River of the North at confluence with Sheyenne River,

North Dakota

21,400 -- 35 57 4

Buffalo River near Dilworth, Minnesota -- 266 -- -- --Wild Rice River at Hendrum, Minnesota -- 813 -- -- --

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

Goose River at Hillsboro, North Dakota -- 242 -- -- --Marsh River near Shelly, Minnesota -- 557 -- -- --Sand Hill River at Climax, Minnesota -- 445 -- -- --

d 

i

f 

h

h 

h

h 

k

5

320 

1

446 2

690 51

Table 6. Streamflow boundary conditions for May 2004 sampling period.—Continued[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, no data; shading indicates control point location]

Location

Streamflow

measured

at control

point

(ft3/s)

Streamflow

measured

for tributary

(ft3/s)

Difference

between

accumulated

upstream

streamflows and

downstream

streamflow

(ft3/s)

Incremental flow

(ft3/s)

Percent of

streamflow

measured

at control

point
Table 7. Water-quality boundary conditions for September 2003 and May 2004 sampling pe

[mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Location

di

Sheyenne R

Sheyenne River above Harvey, North Dakota 

Incremental flow from Harvey, North Dakota, to Warwick, North Dakota 

Incremental flow from Cooperstown, North Dakota, to Lake Ashtabula,

North Dakota

Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota 

Incremental flow from Baldhill Dam, North Dakota, to Lisbon, North Dakota 

Incremental flow from Lisbon, North Dakota, to Kindred, North Dakota 

Incremental flow from Kindred, North Dakota, to Horace, North Dakota 

Incremental flow from Horace, North Dakota, to Brooktree Park, North Dakota 

Incremental flow from Brooktree Park, North Dakota, to confluence with

Red River of the North, North Dakota

Red River of the North 

Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minnesota 

Bois de Sioux River near Doran, Minnesota 

Incremental flow from Wahpeton, North Dakota, to Hickson, North Dakota 

Wild Rice River near Abercrombie, North Dakota 

Incremental flow from Fargo, North Dakota, to confluence with Sheyenne

River, North Dakota
Red River of the North and t

Buffalo River near Dilworth, Minnesota 

Wild Rice River at Hendrum, Minnesota 

Goose River at Hillsboro, North Dakota 

Marsh River near Shelly, Minnesota 

Sand Hill River at Climax, Minnesota 

Red Lake River at Fisher, Minnesota 

Turtle River above Manvel, North Dakota 

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

Snake River near Big Woods, Minnesota 

Park River near Oakwood, North Dakota 

Two Rivers at Hallock, Minnesota 

Pembina River above Pembina, North Dakota 

Additional incremental flow from Drayton, North Dakota, to Emerson, Manitoba 

Table 7. Water-quality boundary conditions for September 2003 and May 2004 sampling pe

[mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Location

di
Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport 21

Corps of Engineers, 2005) indicate conservative-constituent concentrations within the lake were within 3 percent of the concentrations measured for the Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam during this study. This indicates conservative-constituent concentrations in the Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam are representative of conservative-constituent concentrations in Lake Ashtabula.

Water-quality boundary conditions were based on waterquality data for the tributaries and on calculated incremental 

flows (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 

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 during 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 concentrations. 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 streamflows were the same as the measured streamflows for all sites in 
22 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

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

Model calibration point U.S. Geological Survey site number

Sheyenne River above Harvey, North Dakota 05054500Sheyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota 05057000Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota 05058000Sheyenne River at Lisbon, North Dakota 05058700Sheyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota 05059000Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace, North Dakota 05059300Red River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota 05051500Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota 05054000Red River of the North near Thompson, North Dakota 05070000Red River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota 05082500Red River of the North at Emerson, Manitoba 05102500
Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport 23

kinetic or transport parameters to adjust. Therefore, model calibration was accomplished by making small adjustments to estimated loads from unmeasured sources. Generally, the differences between the measured and simulated total dissolvedsolids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations were less than 5percent of the measured concentrations.

To determine the mean calibration error for the model 

domain, the absolute difference between the measured and simulated concentrations was calculated for the 11 model calibration points. The absolute difference was averaged and the average difference was considered to be the mean calibration error. 

The mean calibration error, which is shown in table 9 along with 

Table 9. Mean calibration errors and maximum and minimum absolute differences between measured (September 2003) and simulated 

total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride concentrations.

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

Constituent Mean calibration error (milligrams per liter) Maximum absolute difference (milligrams per liter) Minimum absolute difference (milligrams per liter)

Total dissolved 

solids

13 27

(Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River

diversion near Horace, North Dakota)

8

(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)

Sulfate 4.4 20

(Red River of the North at

Grand Forks, North Dakota)

0

(Sheyenne River at Lisbon,

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

only to conditions such as those that occurred during the rainfall event that preceded the runoff.Model Applications

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 identified by the Bureau of Reclamation (table 10). For the first set of 

eight simulations, September 2003 streamflows were used with projected 2050 return flows and withdrawals. Because the calibrated model does not directly include return flows and withdrawals, the model was modified to accept projected return flows and withdrawals for the alternatives (table 11). Also, because the calibrated model does not directly include return flows and withdrawals, the projected return flows were represented as the difference between the average August 2050 return flows modeled by the Bureau of Reclamation for 1931-40 streamflows and the average August 2005 return flows modeled by the Bureau of Reclamation for 1990-99 streamflows (G. Hiemenz, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2005). The projected withdrawals were represented as the difference between the average August 2050 withdrawals modeled by the Bureau of Reclamation for 1931-40 streamflows and the average August 2005 withdrawals modeled by the Bureau of Reclamation for 1990-99 streamflows for Fargo, N. Dak., West 

k

G

d 

k

k

d 

h

d

i

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- 
Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport 25

Table 10. Description of water-supply alternatives for Red River Valley Water Supply Project.[Modified from U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2005]

Alternative

number 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.
26 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

Table 11. Projected return flows, imported flows, and withdrawals and estimated total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chlorideconcentrations for water-supply alternatives.[From G. Hiemenz, Bureau of Reclamation, written commun., 2005; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; --, no data; negative withdrawals indicate less water is being withdrawn in 2050 than what was withdrawn in the 1990s; GDU, Garrison Diversion Unit]

Location

Projected return

flows and

imported flows

(ft3/s)

Projected

withdrawals

(ft3/s)

Estimated concentration

Total

dissolved

solids

(mg/L)

Sulfate

(mg/L)

Chloride

(mg/L)

Alternative 1

Red River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota 23 -- 1,009 110 60Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota -- 7 -- -- --Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion

near Horace, North Dakota

-- 12 -- -- --

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

Alternative 2

Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam

North Dakota

130 

339 70 9
Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport 27

Alternative 4

Red River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota 49 -- 1,001 95 90Red River of the North at Grand Forks, North Dakota 1 -- 1,001 95 90Red River of the North at Drayton, North Dakota 4 -- 1,001 95 90Red River of the North at Fargo, North Dakota -- 17 -- -- --Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion near

Horace, North Dakota

-- -3 -- -- --

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

Alternative 5

Table 11. Projected return flows, imported flows, and withdrawals and estimated total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride

concentrations for water-supply alternatives.—Continued

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

Location

Projected return

flows and

imported flows

(ft3/s)

Projected

withdrawals

(ft3/s)

Estimated concentration

Total

dissolved

solids

(mg/L)

Sulfate

(mg/L)

Chloride

(mg/L)
28 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

Alternative 6, Continued

Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion near

Horace, North Dakota

-- -32 -- -- --

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

Alternative 7

Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota

(imported flow from Missouri River)

160 -- 436 172 9.5

Red River of the North at Halstad, Minnesota 49 -- 1,024 94 91

Table 11. Projected return flows, imported flows, and withdrawals and estimated total dissolved-solids, sulfate, and chloride

concentrations for water-supply alternatives.—Continued

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

Location

Projected return

flows and

imported flows

(ft3/s)

Projected

withdrawals

(ft3/s)

Estimated concentration

Total

dissolved

solids

(mg/L)

Sulfate

(mg/L)

Chloride

(mg/L)
Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport 29

solved solids in the Sheyenne River at Lisbon, N. Dak. (figure 18a at back of report). The concentrations for alternative 7 for that site decreased from 792 mg/L to 581 mg/L as a result of an imported flow of 60 ft3/s from the Missouri River to the Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, N. Dak. (table 11). The water 

from the Missouri River had a fairly low total dissolved-solids concentration. Alternative 2 had the largest effect on total dissolved solids in the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba. The concentrations for alternative 2 increased in relation to those for 

alternative 1. The concentrations increased from 709 to 798 mg/L as a result of low streamflow in the reach between Grand Forks, N. Dak., and Emerson and high total dissolved-solids concentrations in tributary flows to that reach (figure 18c at back of report).Sulfate

Simulated sulfate concentrations for alternatives 2 through 

8 (the action alternatives) for the Sheyenne River were equal to or less than those for alternative 1 (the no-action alternative) 

except for alternative 5 (figures 19a and 19b at back of report). Simulated concentrations for alternatives 2 through 8 for the Red River varied in relation to those for alternative 1 (figures 19c and 19d at back of report). Alternative 2 had the largest effect on sulfate in the Sheyenne River at Lisbon, N. Dak. (figure 19a at back of report). The concentrations for alternative 2 

for that site decreased from 306 to 207 mg/L as a result of an 

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 calibration error for a particular constituent, the proposed alternative may have some effect on water quality. If, however, the difference 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 concent

ti

f

h 

f th

lt

ti

l

l

t

d f
30 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

Table 12. Mean simulated concentrations for water-supply alternatives and difference between concentration for alternative andconcentration for alternative 1 (the no-action alternative).[--, no data]

Alternative

number

Mean simulated concentration

(milligrams per liter)

Difference between

concentration for alternative

and concentration for

alternative 1

(milligrams per liter)

Mean calibration error

(milligrams per liter)

Total dissolved solids

1 635 -- --2 615 -20 133 644 9 134 642 7 135 636 1 136 634 -1 137 600 -35 138 632 -3 13
Model Limitations 31

The effects of reduced streamflow on simulated total dissolved-solids concentrations were greatest for alternative 2 

(table 14). Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 7 each had an absolute mean difference that was larger than the mean calibration error of 13 

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-constituent transport during low-flow conditions. However, the 

Chloride, Continued

6 32.0 -1.1 1.37 29.4 -3.7 1.38 31.6 -1.5 1.3

Table 12. Mean simulated concentrations for water-supply alternatives and difference between concentration for alternative andconcentration for alternative 1 (the no-action alternative).—Continued[--, no data]

Alternative

number

Mean simulated concentration

(milligrams per liter)

Difference between

concentration for alternative

and concentration for

alternative 1

(milligrams per liter)

Mean calibration error

(milligrams per liter)
32 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

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

Location Reduced streamflow (cubic feet per second)

Sheyenne River above Harvey, North Dakota 1.9Sheyenne River near Warwick, North Dakota 11.3Sheyenne River near Cooperstown, North Dakota 15.8Sheyenne River below Baldhill Dam, North Dakota 27.8Sheyenne River at Valley City, North Dakota 28.5Sheyenne River at Lisbon, North Dakota 30.8Sheyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota 51.8Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace, North Dakota 53.2Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park, North Dakota 60Bois de Sioux River near Doran, Minnesota 0Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minnesota 85.5Red River of the North at Wahpeton, North Dakota 82.5R

d Ri

f th

N

th 

t Hi

k

N

th D

k

t

83

3
Summary 33

Table 14. Absolute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences between total dissolved-solids concentrations 

simulated with September 2003 streamflows and those simulated with reduced streamflows.

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

Alternative

number

Absolute mean

difference

(milligrams per liter)

Maximum absolute

difference

(milligrams per liter)

Minimum absolute

difference

(milligrams per liter)

1 12 38

(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)

0

(Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River

diversion near Horace, North Dakota)

2 38 88

(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)

6

(Red River of the North at

Fargo, North Dakota)

3 14 33

(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)

1

(Sheyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota,

and Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River

diversion near Horace, North Dakota)

4 13 31

(Red River of the North near

1

(Sheyenne River near Kindred

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

Table 15. Absolute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences between sulfate concentrations simulated with 

September 2003 streamflows and those simulated with reduced streamflows.

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

Alternative

number

Absolute mean

difference

(milligrams per liter)

Maximum absolute

difference

(milligrams per liter)

Minimum absolute

difference

(milligrams per liter)

1 1.6 7.2

(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)

0

(Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River

diversion near Horace, North Dakota)

2 9.1 16.5

(Sheyenne River at Lisbon,

North Dakota)

0.8

(Red River of the North at

Fargo, North Dakota)

3 0.7 2.4

(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)

0

(Red River of the North at

Grand Forks, North Dakota)

4 0.5 1.1

(Red River of the North at

Fargo

North Dakota)

0.3

(Red River of the North at

Emerson

Manitoba)
Summary 35

Table 16. Absolute mean differences and maximum and minimum absolute differences between chloride concentrations simulated 

with September 2003 streamflows and those simulated with reduced streamflows.

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

Alternative

number

Absolute mean

difference

(milligrams per liter)

Maximum absolute

difference

(milligrams per liter)

Minimum absolute

difference

(milligrams per liter)

1 0.9 3.5

(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)

0

(Sheyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota,

and Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River

diversion near Horace, North Dakota)

2 2.9 8.0

(Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba)

0.6

(Red River of the North at

Fargo, North Dakota)

3 1.0 2.6

(Red River of the North near

Thompson, North Dakota)

0

(Sheyenne River near Kindred, North Dakota,

and Sheyenne River above Sheyenne River

diversion near Horace, North Dakota)

4 1

1 3

2

0
36 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

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

13, 2004. During the September 2003 sampling period, waterquality samples were collected from the Red River immediately upstream and immediately downstream from the Fargo, N. Dak., and Moorhead, Minn., wastewater-treatment facilities. 

Loads and concentrations then were determined by mass balance, and the differences between the upstream and downstream concentrations were attributed to the wastewater discharges. Only withdrawals and return flows that were large in 

relation to flow in the river were included in the water-quality model.

Streamflows during the September 2003 sampling period 

were low. For example, streamflows for the Red Lake River at the mouth and the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba, are historically lower than streamflows measured on September 15, 

2003, for the Red Lake River at Fisher, Minn., and the Red River at Emerson, Manitoba, respectively, about 16 percent of the time. 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 the Otter Tail River at 11th Street in Breckenridge, Minn., and the Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park, N. Dak., respectively, about 30 percent of the time. Streamflows were generally steady during the 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 Protection Agency secondary water-quality standard of 500 milligrams 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 Engineers 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 
References 37

than the streamflow measured for the next downstream location.

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 identified by the Bureau of Reclamation. For the first set of eight simulations, 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. Projected return flows, imported flows, and withdrawals were not adjusted from previous simulations. The effects of the alternatives on constituent concentrations probably would be greatest during low-flow conditions.

Simulation results indicate total dissolved-solids concentrations may decrease for alternatives 2 and 7, sulfate concentrations may decrease for alternatives 2 and 7 and increase for 

alternative 5, and chloride concentrations may decrease for alternatives 5, 7, and 8. Other than for sulfate for alternative 5, the concentrations for alternatives 2, 5, and 7 generally were lower than for alternative 1 (the no-action alternative). For alternatives 3, 4, 6 and 8, the differences between the mean simulated concentrations were less than calibration errors, indicating the effects of those alternatives on water quality in the rivers is uncertain.

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 streamflow 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 manual, Simulation of flood control and conservation systems, 

Appendix on water quality analysis: Suisun City, California, 
38 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

Strobel, M.L., and Haffield, N.D., 1995, Salinity in surface 

water in the Red River of the North Basin, northeastern North Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4082, 14 p.

Tornes, L.H., 2005, Water quality of streams in the Red River 

of the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, 1970-2001: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5095, 81 p.

Tornes, L.H., Brigham, M.E., and Lorenz, D.L., 1997, Nutrients, suspended sediment, and pesticides in streams in the 

Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, 1993-95: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 97-4053, 70 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998, HEC-5, Simulation of 

flood control and conservation systems user’s manual, version 8.0: Davis, California, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Report CPD-5, various pagination.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003, Final Devils Lake, North 

Dakota, integrated planning report and environmental impact statement: St. Paul, Minnesota, various pagination.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2005, Water quality data,

Baldhill Reservoir above Valley City, ND: accessed June 27, 

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

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2005, 

Reclamation, Managing water in the west--Executive summary, 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://waterdata.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 document 24, various pagination.
References 39

Red

River

of

the

North

M A N I T O B A

99 ̊ 97 ̊

95 ̊

95 ̊

49 ̊

47 ̊ 47 ̊

49 ̊

99 ̊

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

1:2,000,000, 1972

9

11

12

13

14

16

15

4

7

8

6

5

1

20

19 21

18

22

24 23

25

26

17

27

28

Baldhill

Dam

EXPLANATIONRed River of the NorthBasin boundarySubbasin boundariesSite and number 2

30

29

31

32

33

34

10

Grand

Forks

Oslo

Warren

Hallock

Manvel

Drayton

Oakwood

Pembina

Emerson

FARGO

Harwood MOORHEAD

Dilworth

Hendrum

Halstad

Shelly

Perley

Climax

Fisher

Thompson

Lisbon

Valley City

Harvey

Maddock

Cooperstown

Hillsboro

Abercrombie

Kindred

Hickson

Horace

East Grand

Forks

Warwick

SHEYENNE

RIVER

BASIN

DEVILS

 LAKE

 BASIN Big Woods

Brooktree

Park

Upper

Red

Lake

Devils

 Lake

Sheyenne

River

River

River

River

River

Pelican

Tail

River

River

R.

R.

R.

R.

Tongue

Pembina

R.

River

R.

S. Br.

N. Br. Roseau

R.

Two

River

R.

R.

Middle

Tamarac

Thief

Red

Lake

Snake

Forest

Turtle

Park

Rice

Marsh River

R.

Sand

Hill

Wild

Buffalo

R.

R.

R.

Elm

Goose

Maple

Rush

Stump

 Lake

Lake

Ashtabula

Beaver

Baldhill

Cr.

Cr.

Lower

Red

Lake

Peterson Coulee
40 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
References 41

September 2003sampling period

100,000

10,000

1,000

LOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

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

(A)
42 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

100,000

10,000

1,000

LOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

(B)
References 43

0

600900300700800400500200100

1,2001,3001,4001,1001,0001,500

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

th at 

34) 

h at 

te 3) 

th at 

te 4) 

th at 

bove 

7) 

6) 

th on 

ow 

th at 

19) 

th at 

7) 

th at 

e 31) 

near 

e 23) 

at 

e 25)

Red River sitesSeptember 2003 sampling periodMay 2004 sampling period

U.S. Environmental Protection Agencysecondary water-quality standard

(A)
44 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

bove 

a 

near 

ota 

elow 

kota 

near

kota 

near 

ta 

er at 

ta 

ove 

near 

at 

kota 

0

600900300700800400500200100

1,2001,3001,4001,1001,0001,500

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Sheyenne River sitesSeptember 2003 sampling periodMay 2004 sampling period

U.S. Environmental Protection Agencysecondary water-quality standard

(B)
References 45

0

600900300700800400500200100

1,2001,3001,4001,1001,0001,500

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

ran, 

bina, 

her, 

nvel, 

nce 

1th 

bie, 

ood, 

oro, 

elly, 

max, 

rum, 

ods, 

orth, 

ock, 

NO DATA

NO DATA

14,400

2,550 3,240 Remaining tributary sites

September 2003 sampling periodMay 2004 sampling period

U.S. Environmental Protection Agencysecondary water-quality standard

(C)
46 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

 and chloride concentrations for selected sites for September 2003 and May 2004

enne River near Kindred,

North Dakota (site 14)

t Lisbon,

a (site 13)

e River above Sheyenne River diversion

near Horace, North Dakota (site 15)

Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park,

North Dakota (site 16)

Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba (site 34)

Red River of the North at

Halstad, Minnesota (site 19)

Red River of the North at

Oslo, Minnesota (site 27)

Red River of the North at

Drayton, North Dakota (site 31)

Red River of the North near

Thompson, North Dakota (site 23)

Red River of the North at

Grand Forks, North Dakota (site 25)
References 47

 and chloride concentrations for selected sites for September 2003 and May 2004

enne River near Kindred,

North Dakota (site 14)

t Lisbon,

a (site 13)

e River above Sheyenne River diversion

near Horace, North Dakota (site 15)

Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park,

North Dakota (site 16)

Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba (site 34)

Red River of the North at

Halstad, Minnesota (site 19)

Red River of the North at

Oslo, Minnesota (site 27)

Red River of the North at

Drayton, North Dakota (site 31)

Red River of the North near

Thompson, North Dakota (site 23)

Red River of the North at

Grand Forks, North Dakota (site 25)
48 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

nic nitrogen concentrations for selected sites for September 2003 and May 2004

Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen

Ammonia as nitrogen

Organic nitrogen

enne River near Kindred,

North Dakota (site 14)

t Lisbon,

a (site 13)

e River above Sheyenne River diversion

near Horace, North Dakota (site 15)

Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park,

North Dakota (site 16)

Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba (site 34)

Red River of the North at

Halstad, Minnesota (site 19)

Red River of the North at

Oslo, Minnesota (site 27)

Red River of the North at

Drayton, North Dakota (site 31)

Red River of the North near

Thompson, North Dakota (site 23)

Red River of the North at

Grand Forks, North Dakota (site 25)
References 49

nic nitrogen concentrations for selected sites for September 2003 and May 2004

Nitrite plus nitrate as nitrogen

Ammonia as nitrogen

Organic nitrogen

enne River near Kindred,

North Dakota (site 14)

t Lisbon,

a (site 13)

e River above Sheyenne River diversion

near Horace, North Dakota (site 15)

Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park,

North Dakota (site 16)

Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba (site 34)

Red River of the North at

Halstad, Minnesota (site 19)

Red River of the North at

Oslo, Minnesota (site 27)

Red River of the North at

Drayton, North Dakota (site 31)

Red River of the North near

Thompson, North Dakota (site 23)

Red River of the North at

Grand Forks, North Dakota (site 25)
50 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

ber 2003 and May 2004 sampling periods.

September 2003 sampling period

May 2004 sampling period

enne River near Kindred,

North Dakota (site 14)

t Lisbon,

a (site 13)

e River above Sheyenne River diversion

near Horace, North Dakota (site 15)

Sheyenne River at Brooktree Park,

North Dakota (site 16)

Red River of the North at

Emerson, Manitoba (site 34)

Red River of the North at

Halstad, Minnesota (site 19)

Red River of the North at

Oslo, Minnesota (site 27)

Red River of the North at

Drayton, North Dakota (site 31)

Red River of the North near

Thompson, North Dakota (site 23)

Red River of the North at

Grand Forks, North Dakota (site 25)
References 51

Above Harvey Near Warwick

At Emerson

At Drayton

MANITOBA

CANADA

UNITED STATES

NORTH DAKOTA MINNESOTA

At Oslo

At Grand Forks

Near Thompson

At North DakotaHighway 30near Maddock

Sand Hill River

Marsh River

Turtle River

Forest River

Park River

Pembina River

Two Rivers

Snake River

Red Lake River

At PetersonCoulee

SHEYENNE

OF THE NORTH 

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

475400450425300325350375225250275

AMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

(A)
References 53

475400450425300325350375250225275

AMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Near Thompson

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

At confluence with Sheyenne River

At Halstad

At Oslo

At Drayton

(B)
54 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

0

800600400200

1,2001,000

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

MeasuredSimulated

Below Baldhill Dam

At Lisbon

Near Kindred

Above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace

Near Cooperstown

Above Harvey

(A)
References 55

0

800600400200

1,2001,000

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

MeasuredSimulated

At Wahpeton

At Fargo

Near Thompson

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

(B)
56 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

0

400300200100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Below Baldhill Dam

At Lisbon

Near Kindred

Above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace

Near Cooperstown

Above Harvey

MeasuredSimulated

(A)
References 57

0

400300200100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

MeasuredSimulated

At Wahpeton

At Fargo

Near Thompson

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

(B)
58 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

0

80604020

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Below Baldhill Dam

At Lisbon

Near Kindred

Above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace

Near Cooperstown

Above Harvey

MeasuredSimulated

(A)
References 59

0

80604020

100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

MeasuredSimulated

At Wahpeton

At Fargo

Near Thompson

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

(B)
60 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

18,00014,00013,00012,00010,00011,000

9,000

17,00016,00015,000

 IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

(A)
References 61

18,00014,00013,00012,00010,00011,000

9,000

17,00016,00015,000

 IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

At Oslo

At Drayton

(B)
62 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

0

800600400200

1,4001,2001,000

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Below Baldhill Dam

MeasuredSimulated

At Lisbon

Near Kindred

Above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace

Near Cooperstown

Above Harvey

(A)
References 63

0

800600400200

1,4001,2001,000

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

MeasuredSimulated

At Wahpeton

At Fargo

Near Thompson

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

(B)
64 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

0

400500600300200100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Below Baldhill Dam

MeasuredSimulated

At Lisbon

Near Kindred

Above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace

Near Cooperstown

Above Harvey(A)
References 65

0

400500600300200100

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

MeasuredSimulated

At Wahpeton

At Fargo

Near Thompson

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

(B)
66 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

0

100

80604020

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

DISTANCE FROM MOUTH OF SHEYENNE RIVER, IN MILES

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

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

Below Baldhill Dam

MeasuredSimulated

At Lisbon

Near Kindred

Above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace

Near Cooperstown

Above Harvey

(A)
References 67

0

100

20406080

600 500 400 300 200 0 100

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

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

MeasuredSimulated

At Wahpeton

At Fargo

Near Thompson

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

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

(B)
68 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

600650500550400450300350

REAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Water-supply alternative(given in table 10)Alternative 1Alternative 2Alternative 3Alternative 4Alternative 5Alternative 6Alternative 7Alternative 8

r Kindred

 diversion near Horace

y

(A)
References 69

600650500550400450300350

REAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

mpson

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

At Halstad

(B)
70 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

800900

1,2001,1001,000

700600500400

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Below Baldhill Dam

At Lisbon

Near Kindred

Above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace

Near Cooperstown

Above Harvey

At Brooktree Park

(A)
References 71

800900

1,2001,1001,000

700600500400

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Below Baldhill Dam

At Lisbon

Near Kindred

Above Sheyenne River diversion near Horace

Near Cooperstown

Above Harvey

At Brooktree Park

(B)
72 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

800900

1,2001,1001,000

700600500400

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Water-supply alternative(given in table 10)Alternative 1Alternative 2Alternative 3Alternative 4

on

Near Thompson

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

At Halstad

(C)
References 73

800900

1,2001,1001,000

700600500400

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Water-supply alternative(given in table 10)Alternative 1Alternative 5Alternative 6Alternative 7Alternative 8

Near Thompson

At Emerson

At Grand Forks

At Halstad

(D)
74 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

400350300250200

ON, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Below Baldhill Dam

At Lisbon

stown

Above Harvey

At Brooktree Park

(A)
References 75

400350300250200

ON, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Below Baldhill Dam

At Lisbon

Near Kindred

Horace

stown

Above Harvey

At Brooktree Park

(B)
76 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

400350300250200

ON, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Water-supply alternative(given table 10)Alternative 1Alternative 2Alternative 3Alternative 4

son

(C)
References 77

400350300250200

ON, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Water-supply alternative(given in table 10)Alternative 1Alternative 5Alternative 6Alternative 7Alternative 8

Near Thompson

At Emerson

At Halstad

(D)
78 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

405060708090

120110100

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Water-supply alternative(given in table 10)Alternative 1Alternative 2Alternative 3Alternative 4

At Lisbon

indred

Sheyenne River diversion near Horace

n

Brooktree Park

(A)
References 79

405060708090

120110100

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Water-supply alternative(given in table 10)Alternative 1Alternative 5Alternative 6Alternative 7Alternative 8

At Lisbon

Sheyenne River diversion near Horace

wn

Brooktree Park

(B)
80 Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, 2003-04

405060708090

120110100

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Water-supply alternative(given in table 10)Alternative 1Alternative 2Alternative 3Alternative 4

rgo

Near Thompson

At Emerson

(C)
References 81

405060708090

120110100

CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Water-supply alternative(given in table 10)Alternative 1Alternative 5Alternative 6Alternative 7Alternative 8

rgo

Near Thompson

At Emerson

lstad

(D)
Nustad and Bales–Simulation of Conservative-Constituent Transport in the Red River of the North Basin, North Dakota and

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

Printed on recycled paper