State of the Red River of the North

Assessment of the 2003 and 2004 Water Quality Data for the Red River and its Major Minnesota Tributaries

April 2006

2

3

Cover photo: Tamarac River By Wayne Goeken

State of the Red River of the North

Assessment of the 2003/2004 Water Quality Data for the Red River and its Major Minnesota Tributaries

Bruce Paakh, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Wayne Goeken, Red River Watershed Management Board Danni Halvorson, Red River Watershed Management Board

April 2006

This document, State of the Red River of the North – Assessment of the 2003/2004 Water Quality Data for the Red River and its Major Minnesota Tributaries, is also available on the MPCA Web site: www.pca.state.mn.us in the water quality and Red River Basin sections. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Detroit Lakes Regional Office 714 Lake Avenue Plaza, Suite 220 Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 (218) 847-1519 Printed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency using no less than 20 percent recycled paper.

4

Acknowledgements This report is the result of the work of many individuals from a large array of water management agencies. The authors express a deep appreciation to those who contributed to the study. Principle technical contributors in all aspects of the project were Mark Evenson and Pat Baskfield (MPCA). Their advice and support in the areas of program design, data assessment, modeling, and report review and comment were invaluable. Their expertise and experience in this arena and their willingness to assist when overloaded with other responsibilities is greatly appreciated. Those contributing during program development and design include: Steve Heiskary, Louise Hotka, Greg Johnson, Jim Klang, Sylvia McCollar, Molly MacGregor, Joe Magner, Bill Thompson, Bruce Wilson and Jim Ziegler (MPCA), and Mike Ell (ND Department of Health). Assistance in data collection was provided by Corey Hanson and Jim Blix (Red Lake River Watershed District); Janine Lovold, Roseau SWCD; Darrell Schindler (Red Lake Band of Chippewa); and Tim Olson (MPCA). Assistance with data analysis and modeling was provided by Dave Christopherson and Bruce Wilson, (MPCA); and Corey Hanson. Program funding was provided by the RRWMB, MPCA and the Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Work Group. Thanks to Dan Wilkens (Red River Watershed Management Board) and Jim Ziegler (MPCA) for handling budget matters. Report review and comment provided by: Pat Baskfield, Tim James, Molly MacGregor (MPCA); Dan Money (Two River Watershed District); Chuck Fritz (International Water Institute); Corey Hanson; and Bethany Bolles (University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center). Final editing and report processing: Dan Olson, MPCA. This water quality study has been steered by the Red River Basin Monitoring Advisory Committee: Dan Wilkens, Co Chair Red River Watershed Management Board Jim Ziegler, Co Chair Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Bruce Paakh, Monitoring Program Lead Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Wayne Goeken, Monitoring Coordinator Red River Watershed Management Board Danni Halvorson, Monitoring Technician Red River Watershed Management Board Lisa Botnen and Bethany Bolles UND Energy & Environmental Research Center Brian Dwight MN Board of Soil and Water Resources Mike Ell and Mike Hargiss North Dakota Department of Health Charles Fritz, Joe Courneya and Derek Crompton International Water Institute Tom Groshens and Don Buckhout MN Department of Natural Resources Corey Hanson Red Lake River Watershed District Tanya Hanson Red Lake Soil & Water Conservation Dist. Linda Kingery Northwest Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnership Ruth Lewis Red River Basin Commission Daniel Money Two River Watershed District Darrell Schindler Red Lake Band of Chippewa

5

State of the Red River of the North Table of Contents Page I. Acknowledgements 4 II. Abstract 8 III. Introduction 10 A. Purpose and Scope 12 B. Red River Basin Background 13 IV. Methods 18 A. Monitoring Sites 18 B. Sample Collection and Analysis 21 C. QAQC 22 D. Data Analysis 23 V. Results and Discussion 25 A. Climate Data 25 B. Hydrology Summary 27 C. Concentration Data 30 D. Constituent Correlations 37 E. Effect of Hydrograph Dynamics on Pollutant Concentrations 40 F. Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TP, TSS and Turbidity 41 G. Impairment Assessment for Turbidity and Dissolved Oxygen 43 H. Load Estimates for TP and TSS 45 1. FWMC 50 2. Yield 53 VI. Conclusions 56 References 59

Appendix A Parameter Explanation Water Quality Indicators 63 Appendix B Statistics Summary Tables 66 Appendix C QA/QC Results & Assessment 77 Appendix D Field Data Figures 85 Appendix E Red River Basin Monitoring Network and River Watch 93 Appendix F Coefficient of Variance for Load Calculations 99 Appendix G Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TP, TSS, Turbidity 104

6

List of Figures Page Figure 1 Minnesota Ecoregions and Basins Map 13 Figure 2 Land Use in Minnesota Portion of Red River Basin 14 Figure 3 Red River Basin Minnesota Portion Hydrologic Features 15 Figure 4 TP, TN, Water Contributions to Lake Winnipeg by Source 17 Figure 5 Map of Red River Basin and Minnesota Primary Monitoring Sites 19 Figure 6 2003 Precipitation Totals for Minnesota 26 Figure 7 2003 Precipitation – Departure from Average Annual 26 Figure 8 2004 Precipitation Totals for Minnesota 26 Figure 9 2004 Precipitation – Departure from Average Annual 26 Figure 10 2003 Hydrograph for Red River at Emerson 28 Figure 11 2004 Hydrograph for Red River at Emerson 28 Figure 12 2003 Red River Sites Stacked Hydrographs 29 Figure 13 2004 Red River Sites Stacked Hydrographs 30 Figure 14 TSS Concentration at Tributary Sites for 2003 & 2004 31 Figure 15 TSS Concentration at Red River Sites for 2003 & 2004 32 Figure 16 TP Concentration at Tributary Sites for 2003 & 2004 33 Figure 17 TP Concentration at Red River Sites for 2003 & 2004 34 Figure 18 Turbidity vs. Transparency Correlation 37 Figure 19 TSS vs. Transparency Correlation 38 Figure 20 TSS vs. Turbidity Correlation 38 Figure 21 Constituent Correlation Analysis for Red River and Minnesota Tributaries 39 Figure 22 2003 RR3 Hydrograph with TP Concentration 40 Figure 23 2003 RR3 Hydrograph with TSS Concentration 40 Figure 24 2003 RR3 Hydrograph with Turbidity Levels 41 Figure 25 Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TP 42 Figure 26 Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TSS 42 Figure 27 Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for Turbidity 43

Figure 28 TSS Load for Red River 47 Figure 29 TSS Load for Minnesota Tributaries 48 Figure 30 TP Load for Red River 49 Figure 31 TP Load for Minnesota Tributaries 49

Figure 32 TSS FWMC for Red River 50 Figure 33 TSS FWMC for Minnesota Tributaries 51 Figure 34 TP FWMC for Red River 52 Figure 35 TP FWMC for Minnesota Tributaries 52 Figure 36 TSS Yields for Red River 53 Figure 37 TSS Yields for Minnesota Tributaries 54 Figure 38 TP Yields for Red River 54 Figure 39 TP Yields for Minnesota Tributaries 55

Figure 40 NO3NO2 Concentration for Tributary Sites for 2003 & 2004 86 Figure 41 NO3NO2 Concentration for Red River Sites for 2003 & 2004 86 Figure 42 OP Concentration for Tributary Sites for 2003 & 2004 87 Figure 43 OP Concentration for Red River Sites for 2003 & 2004 87

Figure 44 Temperature for Minnesota Tributaries 88 Figure 45 Temperature for Red River 88 Figure 46 pH for Minnesota Tributaries 89

Figure 47 pH for Red River 89 Figure 48 Dissolved Oxygen for Minnesota Tributaries 90

7

List of Figures (continued) Page Figure 49 Dissolved Oxygen for Red River 90 Figure 50 Conductivity for Minnesota Tributaries 91 Figure 51 Conductivity for Red River 91 Figure 52 Turbidity for Minnesota Tributaries 92 Figure 53 Turbidity for Red River 92 Figure 54 River Watch Monitoring Site Locations 97 Figure 55 Sand Hill River Turbidity IQ Ranges at River Watch Sites 98 Figure 56 Sand Hill River Turbidity IQ Ranges for Impairment Assessment 98 Figure 57 Red River 2003 TSS Load and CV Load Range 99 Figure 58 Red River 2004 TSS Load and CV Load Range 100 Figure 59 Tributary 2003 TSS Load and CV Load Range 100 Figure 60 Tributary 2004 TSS Load and CV Load Range 101 Figure 61 Red River 2003 TP Load and CV Load Range 101 Figure 62 Red River 2004 TP Load and CV Load Range 102 Figure 63 Tributary 2003 TP Load and CV Load Range 102 Figure 64 Tributary 2004 TP Load and CV Load Range 103 List of Tables Page Table 1 R2 Values for Constituent Correlations 39 Table 2 Impairment Assessment for Turbidity and Dissolved Oxygen 44 Table 3 TP and TSS 2003 and 2004 Load Estimates 46 Table 4 TSS Summary for 2003 & 2004 66 Table 5 TP Summary for 2003 & 2004 67 Table 6 OP Summary for 2003 & 2004 68 Table 7 NO3NO2 Summary for 2003 & 2004 69 Table 8 Turbidity Summary for 2003 & 2004 70 Table 9 Temperature Summary for 2003 & 2004 71 Table 10 pH Summary for 2003 & 2004 72 Table 11 Dissolved Oxygen Summary for 2003 & 2004 73 Table 12 Conductivity Summary for 2003 & 2004 74 Table 13 Transparency Summary for 2003 & 2004 75 Table 14 Summary Statistics for Lab Results 76 Table 15 Summary Statistics for Field Results 76 Table 16 2003 TP Performance Evaluation Results 77 Table 17 2004 TP Performance Evaluation Results 78 Table 18 Field Duplicate - TP & OP Assessment 79 Table 19 Field Duplicate - NO3NO2 &TSS Assessment 80

Table 20 Field Blank Assessment 82 Table 21 Laboratory Split Sample Study 84 Table 22 RRBMN Primary and Secondary Site List 96

Table 23 Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TP, TSS and Turbidity 104

8

Abstract The Red River Flood Damage Reduction/Natural Resource Enhancement Work Group established the Red River Basin Monitoring Advisory Committee to develop a condition monitoring program for the Minnesota portion of the Red River basin. This report presents results and analysis of the first two years of this program. Concentration data as well as total loads of sediment and selected nutrients are reported for the 2003 and 2004 sampling season. This program is primarily designed for estimating pollutant loads, thus it is biased toward periods of high flow. Up to 20 samples were collected per year at six sites along the Red River and at 11 major Minnesota tributaries throughout 2003 and 2004. Field measurements were taken (pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, turbidity, transparency, and stage level) and water samples collected at each site for certified lab analysis of total phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, and total suspended solids. In reviewing concentration results, the Grand Marais was the only major tributary that had a median total phosphorus concentration above .3 mg/l. All Red River sites except the upstream site near Brushvale (RR1) were above this threshold. In terms of total suspended solids, six of 11 tributary sites had median concentrations above 100 mg/l, with the Snake and Grand Marais being the highest with 185 and 144 mg/l, respectively. All Red River sites except the upstream site at Brushvale had median TSS values above 100 mg/l, with the four downstream sites all being over 200 mg/l. Discharge rates and loading estimates for 2003 and 2004 were the result of two very different water years. The estimated basin (Minnesota side of basin) mean precipitation in 2004 was 40% greater than the 2003 basin mean precipitation. The peak flow at the Canadian border in 2003 was 14,000 cfs versus a 2004 peak discharge of 45,000 cfs with three other storm events in 2004 reaching flows of 20,000 cfs or more. Sediment loading as total suspended solids in the Red River increased nearly three-fold, from nearly 1.1 million tons in 2003 to over 2.9 million tons in 2004 as measured at the Pembina site at the US-Manitoba border. Total phosphorus loads had a similar relationship with the 2003 estimate of 1,359 tons verses 4,062 tons in 2004 at Pembina. The results of this study suggest that the Sand Hill and Wild Rice Rivers delivered the highest yield of phosphorus and sediment to the Red River per acre of watershed. The Grand Marias Creek and Snake River had the highest median total suspended solids and total phosphorus concentrations of the Minnesota tributaries but did not have continuous flow data and hence load and yield estimates. Sources of sediment between Fargo (RR2) and Halstad (RR3) significantly increase the sediment load in the Red River. While the drainage area roughly triples between these two sites, the estimated sediment load (mean of 2003 and 2004) in the Red River is 5.6 times larger at Halstad than at the site north of Fargo. The mean (2003 and 2004) estimated phosphorus load increased by 3.9 times from Fargo to Halstad. Several factors, including significant contributions from the Sheyenne River in North Dakota, channel dynamics, and direct runoff to the Red River are likely causing the increased sediment load. While total sediment loading increases downstream from Halstad to the next Red River sample site at Grand Forks (RR4), the flow weighted mean concentration actually decreases in large part due to the dilution effect of the Red Lake River. The Red Lake River contributes roughly 30% of the Red River flow at Grand Forks but 10% or less of the sediment load during this study period. This dilution effect is also evident when analyzing the influence of the relatively “clean” water contribution from the

9

Ottertail River on the upstream Red River sample site near Brushvale. Both the Ottertail and Red Lake Rivers have a high percentage of their contributing watersheds above the beach ridge areas of the basin. Additional data collection and assessment are required to better establish the range of loading conditions that occur in the basin. Further investigation should focus on establishing annual flow records in the un-gauged watersheds along with continued chemical and physical analysis of the primary sites. Incorporating data from other monitoring partners, especially from established secondary and tertiary sites in contributing sub-watersheds, will yield a more thorough understanding of basin conditions, assist in defining loading hotspots, and lead to the identification of management strategies for pollutant reduction.

10

Introduction Following the historic Red River flood of 1997, a mediation group was formed to provide coordination and conflict resolution concerning water management issues within the Red River basin. This Flood Damage Reduction/Natural Resource Enhancement (FDR/NRE) Work Group signed an agreement (dated December 9, 1998) that identified monitoring and evaluation as essential components of the FDR/NRE project process. In order to facilitate this aspect of the agreement, the FDR/NRE Work Group initiated the formation of the Red River Basin Monitoring Advisory Committee (RRBMAC). Representatives of any entity engaged in water quality monitoring in the Red River Basin are welcome to be involved with the committee. The following organizations are involved with this committee and provide oversight to basin water monitoring. The RRBMAC generally meets at 9:30 a.m. on the fourth Friday of the month at the Sand Hill Watershed District Office in Fertile to discuss and coordinate basin-wide monitoring efforts, equipment procurement and maintenance, training options, data management, quality assurance, and information sharing. • Energy & Environmental Research Center at University of North Dakota (EERC) • International Water Institute • Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) • North Dakota Department of Health • Northwest Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnership • Red Lake Band of Chippewa • Red Lake County SWCD • Red Lake River Watershed District • Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) • Red River Watershed Management Board (RRWMB) • Two Rivers Watershed District • University of Minnesota Crookston

A monitoring plan is developed and implemented for each FDR/NRE project with water quality goals in order to evaluate pre- and post-project conditions for gauging the project’s effectiveness. In addition to individual project monitoring, a better understanding of water quality variability throughout the basin was needed to support basin planning, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) work, and to fulfill International Joint Commission (IJC) treaty obligations. With this consideration in mind the RRBMAC was directed to develop a condition monitoring program for the Minnesota portion of the Red River basin. Although there are many monitoring efforts specific to individual goals throughout the basin, it was recognized that a more comprehensive effort was needed to better understand the relationships between the Red River and its tributaries. By understanding how the larger river system tends to function, local entities can better understand their contribution to the whole. In addition, resource managers from local, state and federal agencies can more effectively focus limited resources to provide the greatest benefit for the whole system. The need for current water quality data for decision making led to the development of the Red River Basin Monitoring Network. This network provides the structure for coordinating water quality

11

monitoring efforts throughout the Basin. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Red River Watershed Management Board coordinated the effort with assistance from the multi-agency RRBMAC. This coordinated network of basin-wide monitoring was developed to provide scientifically sound data to achieve the following goals:

1. Estimate pollutant loads from major Minnesota tributaries and within the Red River. 2. Identify watersheds with high pollutant loading for purposes of targeting resources toward

areas having the greatest impact on water quality. 3. Identify status and trends in water quality. 4. Identify and verify impaired waters. 5. Help direct future monitoring aimed at pollutant source identification. 6. Provide a basis for basin goal setting and the development of water quality standards.

In addition, the Network formed the framework for establishing a more focused, coordinated approach for assessing the condition of individual tributaries and their contributing watersheds that provides the basis for use support assessment throughout the basin. Basin Planning The MPCA uses the basin planning and management approach to organize its water quality work in order to provide: 1. Condition of the resources, as defined by monitoring, assessment and other research; 2. The watershed perspective: which enables resource managers to compare how individual watersheds influence the Red River of the North; this information helps set priorities and goals and provides the means to measure how projects, permits, enforcement or compliance meets the Agency’s strategic vision of achieving clean water; 3. Capacity of local, regional and state jurisdictions in the basin to participate in solving water quality problems, which is critical for scheduling, awarding grants, supporting necessary water quality work, managing successful projects and meeting environmental goals; and 4. Agency participation in meeting basin needs, including environmental and social challenges that influence the capacity of the basin to participate in water quality projects, scheduling, compliance, enforcement and funding. By providing “one-stop knowledge” on environmental goals, current conditions, available resources and pressing needs, basin planning makes implementation of MPCA programs efficient and effective. It enables the Agency to have a common understanding of resources and needs that cuts across all programs and divisions. Effective and comprehensive water quality monitoring is the foundation of basin planning and management.

12

Purpose and Scope The purpose of this report is to present results and analysis of the first two years of the condition/load monitoring portion of the basin-wide monitoring network. Assessment of data in relation to meeting program goals 1, 2, and 3 is the primary emphasis of this report. Specifically, concentration data as well as total loads of sediment and selected nutrients will be reported for the 2003 and 2004 sampling season, watersheds with the highest pollutant loading will be identified with discussion of hydrologic features and other causal factors, and trends in water quality will be identified and discussed. Up to 20 samples were collected at six sites along the Red River and at 11 major Minnesota tributaries during both 2003 and 2004. Field measurements were taken and water samples collected at each site for certified lab analysis of total phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, and total suspended solids. Where possible, sample sites were selected at existing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations. Daily average discharge from these stations was used to estimate pollutant loads. Though this report focuses on monitoring of Minnesota tributaries and the Red River, monitoring is also occurring in the North Dakota and Manitoba portions of the basin. Ultimately, water quality data from all sources needs to be analyzed for a comprehensive understanding of basin conditions.

Source: Living With the Red - A Report to the Governments of Canada and the United States on Reducing Flood Impacts in the Red River Basin, The International Joint Commission 2000.

13

Red River Basin Background The following section is presented to give the reader a basic understanding of the geophysical and hydrologic features within the Minnesota portion of the basin. It is through knowledge of these features that one can begin to appreciate how the system behaves and the factors that generally affect the quality and supply of the water in different regions of the basin. The Red River of the North flows from the confluence of the Bois de Sioux and Otter Tail rivers in Breckenridge, Minnesota, to Lake Winnipeg, Manitoba. The low gradient stream meanders its way through the clay and silt sediments left behind by Glacial Lake Agassiz roughly 10,000 years ago. These fertile, fine grain sediments in the historic lake bed make up some of the most productive agricultural land in the U.S. Land use in the Minnesota portion of the basin varies significantly from east to west as the transition occurs from the Northern Minnesota Wetlands, Northern Lakes and Forests, North Central Hardwood Forest, and Northern Glaciated Plains Ecoregions to the Red River Valley Ecoregion (Figure 1). The combination of these five ecoregions make the Red River Basin the most diverse major river basin in Minnesota. Land use in the Red River basin is dominated by agricultural land at 74% (66 % cropland and 8% pasture and rangeland) followed by 12% forest, 4% water and wetlands, 3% urban and 7% other (Figure 2.). Figure 1. Minnesota Ecoregions and Basins Map (source: MPCA)

14

Figure 2. Land Use in the Minnesota Portion of the Red River Basin

The Minnesota portion of the Red River basin has three distinct geographic landforms that impact the quality and quantity of flow to the mainstem Red River. These landforms, oriented from east to west, include the Glacial Moraines, the Agassiz Beach Ridges and the Lake Plain (see Figure 3). Changes in land use, soil type, and topography (stream gradient) from each zone has a significant impact on the basin hydrology and water quality. Thirteen major Minnesota tributaries flow through these landforms prior to discharging to the Red River. The Glacial Moraines are characterized by forested and mixed forest/ag land use with numerous lakes and wetlands. Elevations range from 1800 feet (above mean sea level) along the eastern fringe of the basin to 1200 feet bordering the western edge of this landform. This region retains much of its pre-settlement hydraulic storage that helps to buffer the remainder of the basin from storm and snow melt runoff. The Agassiz Beach Ridges are relatively narrow zones that run north to south through the basin and are characterized by sand and gravel deposits and significant change in elevation. This section of the tributaries is the area with the greatest gradient, characterized by coarse bottom sediments that are required spawning habitat for some of the basin fishes, most notably walleye and sturgeon. This area of relatively poor fertility and well drained soils is of less importance to agriculture as demonstrated by the large percentage of land that is enrolled in set-aside programs (CRP), restored to grassland, or is used for haying or grazing. Some of the remaining native prairie in Minnesota is found within the Beach Ridge, and this zone is a priority for future native prairie restoration efforts by private, state and federal agencies.

Land Use in MN Portion of Red River Basin

66%

8%

12%

4%

3% 7%

Cropland

Pasture

Forest

Water & Wetlands

Urban

Other

15

Figure 3. Hydrologic Features in the Minnesota Portion of the Red River Basin

Source: A User’s Guide to Natural Resource Efforts in the Red River Basin. Red River Flood Damage Reduction Work Group 2001.

16

The Red River basin provides quality recreational experiences. This 9-year-old caught and released the 40.5 inch northern pike on Red Lake. – Photo Bruce Paakh

The Lake Plain is the remnant floor of Lake Agassiz and is characterized by deep, rich silt and clay sediments that support intensive agriculture. This low gradient landscape (often less than 1 foot per mile) has necessitated an extensive network of drainage to facilitate agricultural production. This zone is vulnerable to flooding as the stream discharge rates and slope from the Beach Ridge are reduced when the streams enter the Lake Plain region. Water quality becomes degraded as the tributaries work through this zone to the Red River. The phosphorus-rich fine sediments tend to be easily suspended and transported in the Red River. The fine soils and their propensity to stay in suspension even at relatively low-flow conditions, combined with the extensive drainage network and stream channel instability, results in the degraded condition of these streams. Previous studies have cited concentrations of several constituents as being related to the physiographic area a stream drains, as well as local land use practices. Tornes et al. (1997) found streams draining the Drift Prairie and Red River Valley Lake Plain had the highest concentrations of both dissolved and suspended phosphorus, which increased substantially during runoff of snowmelt and rainfall. Jones and Armstrong (2001) found that total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) loads to Lake Winnipeg increased by 13% and 10%, respectively, over the three-decade period from 1970 to 2000. Data from 402 water samples were used in the trend analysis of TP in the Red River at Pembina on the Canadian/U.S. border, showing a significant trend of increasing flow-adjusted TP concentration (22.5% increase in median concentration) in the river at Pembina from 1978 to 1999. The Winnipeg River, although the single largest source of water to Lake Winnipeg, accounting for 45% (Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board, 2005), is not the largest contributor of nutrients to the lake (see Figure 4). The Red River, which accounts for only 11% of the flow to Lake Winnipeg contributes and estimated 43% of the phosphorus and 30% of the nitrogen (Bourne, et al. 2002). Annual nutrient loading to Lake Winnipeg from 1994-2001 was estimated to be 63,207 tons of TN and 5,838 tons of TP. The Red River is estimated to contribute 46% of this TN load with 30% of the total from the U.S. portion of the Red River and 16% from the Manitoba portion. In terms of TP, the Red contributes 73% of the total load with 43% attributed to the U.S. portion of the Red River and 30% to the Manitoba portion. Loadings from North Dakota and Minnesota were not differentiated by Bourne, et al. (2001).

17

Figure 4. TP, TN, Water Contributions to Lake Winnipeg by Source

Source: Nutrient loadings from Bourne, et al. 2002 (1994-2001). Water contribution data from Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board, 2005 (1964-2003). TP and TN concentrations in the Red River are more than adequate to support the growth of algae (EMD 1980, Gregor and Chacko 1987, Chacko and Ronmark 1990, Goodman 1997,); however, there have been few instances of excessive algal growth reported in the river. Goodman (1997), and Heiskary and Markus (2003) found that the high turbidity levels in the river restrict light penetration into the water thus limiting algal growth despite a readily available supply of nutrients. “As the river empties into Lake Winnipeg the flow velocity declines and sediment particles settle, resulting in improved water clarity and an increased potential for algal bloom formation and macrophyte growth in the lake.” (Jones and Armstrong, 2001) The discharge of the nutrient-laden Red River, as well as other tributaries, to Lake Winnipeg has become an international concern due to the increase in the frequency and intensity of algal blooms in the lake. “Nutrient loads on the rivers feeding the lake must be decreased to the point where natural balances in the lake can be re-established” (Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board, 2005).

TP, TN, Water Contributions to Lake Winnipeg by Source

43

3030

1612

26

13

27

45

8

1518

115

05

101520253035404550

TP TN Water

Constituents

Mea

n Pe

rcen

t Con

tribu

tion

Red River-US Red River-MBSaskatchewan R Winnipeg ROther

Red River Total

Lake Winnipeg provides significant commercial and recreational benefits to the province of Manitoba. Eutrophication of the lake poses a serious threat to these industries. Pictured is Grand Beach.

18

Methods Monitoring Sites Red River Sites – Monitoring sites were selected on the Red River in an effort to divide the river into relatively equal sections for independent analysis and to track loads as the stream progresses toward the Canadian border (see Figure 4.). The sites were selected in large part to coincide with existing USGS gauging stations. The six Red River sites provide an opportunity to systematically assess water quality throughout the length of the river in the U.S., as well as the effects of Minnesota and North Dakota tributaries on the Red River. Tributary Sites –Those tributaries to the Red River with 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) were selected for monitoring. It was felt that this level of watershed analysis would capture the majority of sediment and nutrient loads to the Red River. This breakout resulted in the selection of 16 stream sites. Of these 16 sites, five are tributaries to tributaries of the Red River. Three of these sites–the Thief River, Clearwater River and the outlet of Lower Red Lake–are major tributaries to the Red Lake River. The two additional sites–the Rabbit and Mustinka rivers–are tributaries to the Bois de Sioux River. Two additional Red River tributaries without 8-digit HUC designations–the Marsh River and Wolverton Creek–were added for sample collection to determine their relative significance in pollutant loading to the Red River. Although these tributaries have relatively small watershed areas, they are located in the intensively drained and cropped Lake Plain region and discharge directly into the Red River. Monitoring of Wolverton Creek was discontinued in 2004 due to frequent low or no flow conditions. The Roseau River discharges to the Red River after it flows into Manitoba, where roughly 40% of the watershed area is located. This stream is monitored at the point just prior to leaving Minnesota and, as such, the load from this site is not part of the cumulative load measured as the Red River enters Manitoba at the Pembina site (RR6). Samples from a total of 18 tributary sites were collected as part of this study. The discussion in this report focuses on the 11 primary sample sites representing streams that discharge directly to the Red River in Minnesota. It is estimated that over 90% of the Red River loading from Minnesota tributaries is captured by monitoring these sites. Sites on each tributary were selected upstream of the confluence with the Red River and co-located with existing USGS gage stations wherever possible. Those stations without existing discharge data have been scheduled for the installation of continuous stage recorders and rating curve development.

Breeding toads on a Whiskey Creek tributary in Wilken County. – Photo Bruce Paakh.

19

Figure 5. Map of Red River Basin with Minnesota Primary Monitoring Sites.

20

The following list of monitoring sites is organized from the headwaters of the Red River to the furthest downstream site at the Canadian Border. Sites in bold type and capitalized are Red River sites or Minnesota tributaries draining directly to the Red River which are defined as the primary sites for analysis in this report. The sites that are indented are tributaries to the stream listed above them. The map presented in Figure 5 shows the location of all the sites. Red River Sites Site ID # RED RIVER @ BRUSHVALE RR1 RED RIVER @ HARWOOD RR2 RED RIVER @ HALSTAD RR3 RED RIVER @ GRAND FORKS RR4 RED RIVER @ DRAYTON RR5 RED RIVER @ PEMBINA RR6 Tributary Sites BOIS DE SIOUX BDS1 Mustinka MUS1 Rabbit River RAB1 OTTER TAIL RIVER OTT1 Wolverton Creek WOL1 BUFFALO RIVER BUF1 WILD RICE WR1 MARSH RIVER MAR1 SAND HILL RIVER SH1 GRAND MARAIS CREEK GM1 RED LAKE RIVER RL1 Clearwater River CLE1 Thief River THI1 Lower Red Lake Outlet LRL SNAKE RIVER SNA1 TAMARAC RIVER TAM1 TWO RIVERS TWO1 Roseau River ROS1 This report focuses on the Red River and loading from the major Minnesota tributaries listed above. In addition to these sites, the RRBMAC has identified secondary and tertiary sites throughout the Minnesota portion of the Red River basin. Water quality data from these sites have been collected by a host of partners including the Watershed Districts, USGS, MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Red Lake Tribe of Chippewa, Universities, High Schools involved in the River Watch Program, Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), Counties and Private Non Profit Groups. Data from these tributaries serve to further our understanding of the system as they characterize the condition of these contributing watersheds as well as the lower order streams that contribute to them. Although this data is not included in this report, this information is especially important in understanding the dynamics of the system as water moves west through the different landforms. In addition, the information plays a critical role in the Impaired Waters Program (TMDL) for assessments of impairment, pollutant source identification and restoration implementation. See Appendix E for more information regarding the Red River Basin Monitoring Network.

21

Sample Collection and Analysis Sample collection was conducted by staff from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Red River Watershed Management Board (RRWMB), Red Lake Watershed District, Roseau SWCD, and Red Lake Tribe of Chippewa. All staff have been trained in the use of the Red River Basin Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the collection of water samples. The complete Red River Basin SOP can be found at the Red Lake Watershed District web site - http://www.redlakewatershed.org/waterquality/Entire%20SOP%20Document.pdf. Sampling Frequency - This monitoring program was primarily designed for estimating pollutant loads, and as a result, is biased toward periods of high flow. Samples are collected weekly from ice out until about mid July. Monitoring frequency is adjusted to twice per month as flows decline during mid summer and then to once per month when base flow conditions occur. Sampling frequency is adjusted to catch the impact of significant storm events. Samples are collected following events with an intensity or duration that will generate a significant rise in the stream hydrograph. The timing of the sampling events is adjusted in order to collect samples during both the rising and falling limbs of the hydrograph. USGS real-time station data is utilized along with experience to determine when to collect samples. The Red River Basin Monitoring Network is working cooperatively with North Dakota and Manitoba toward the goal of generating compatible data for a basin-wide assessment of pollutant concentrations - beginning with total phosphorus and total suspended solids. In an effort to provide data for a basin wide assessment, this program has designed a portion of the future sample collection to occur at regularly scheduled time intervals to collect a subset of unbiased data for status and trends assessment. These samples are collected on the 1st and 3rd Monday of each month from April through September. Sampling Season - The two-year period of sampling ran from 4/1/03 to 11/4/04. The 2003 sampling season ran from 4/1/03 to 8/20/03 and included up to 18 samples per site (range 15 to 18). The sampling in 2003 was suspended after 8/20/03 due to very low stream flows in the tributaries and mainstem Red River. The 2004 sampling season ran from 3/31/04 to 11/4/04 and included up to 21 samples per site (range 16 to 21). The differences in the number of samples collected per site are related to four factors: (1) the differences in the start of ice-free conditions from the southern part of the basin to the northern portion; (2) the tendency of some sites to dry out during the late part of the season; (3) inaccessibility and safety issues associated with flooded sites; and (4) increased sampling frequency associated with localized storm events. Water Sample Collection - Samples were collected using a horizontal bottle sampler (Water Mark Horizontal Polycarbonate or other similar device). Depth of sample was determined by the equation [(depth at site – surface stage) x .6]. In other words, the sample is collected at a point that is six-tenths of the total depth below the surface of the water. Samples were collected at marked reference points above the deepest part of the river channel on the upstream side of the bridge or culvert at each site. Samples were drawn from the sampler and placed in bottles provided by the laboratory. Samples were then preserved according to protocol and driven or shipped using next day services to the laboratory for analysis. Samples were analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), ortho-phosphorus (OP), and nitrate plus nitrite (NO3+NO2). A portion of the sample was also placed in a transparency tube and, in some cases, a turbidity meter (Hach 2100P) for field measurement of water clarity and/or turbidity.

22

Field Data - Field measurements were taken using YSI -multi-probe sondes (6820 and 600QS) equipped with temp, D.O., pH, and specific conductance. The YSI 6820 is equipped with the YSI turbidity sensor. This unit was used to generate turbidity data for the southern 1/3 of the basin during 2003 and 2004. Field observations were recorded for each site. Stage Measurement - Stage measurement was accomplished by use of a weighted tape from a reference point (RP) on the bridge rail. The reference point is located on the upstream bridge rail and can be found above or near an orange or red spray painted 3-inch spot on the rail. Stage is calculated by subtracting the RP to the water surface measurement from the elevation of the RP. In addition, the depth of the site was established by measuring to the stream bottom during low flow conditions. Stream depth was calculated by subtracting the RP to water surface measurement from the RP to river bottom measurement. Following is a summary of field and lab parameters that are collected and measured at each site. Field data: Stage, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, turbidity, transparency, photographs, and observations. Lab analysis: Total suspended solids, total phosphorus, ortho-phosphorus, and nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen. Laboratories – Two laboratories were used for sample analysis during this program: The Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Laboratory, Minneapolis, (EPA Lab # MN006) and RMB Environmental Laboratory, Detroit Lakes, Minn., (State Certification # 027005336).

QAQC There are several means implemented by this program to help assure sample/data quality. Following is a brief summary of these measures. Sample Collection – To best meet data quality objectives, all sampling has followed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Water Quality Sampling in the Red River Watershed, Revision 6, 10/24/03 as created by the Red Lake Watershed District (Hanson, 2003) and approved by members of the Red River Basin Water Quality Monitoring Network. This SOP may be found at: http://www.redlakewatershed.org/waterquality/Entire%20SOP%20Document.pdf. Training - The RRBMAC produces an annual training session in March for all basin monitoring partners. This training covers such items as use of the SOP, field sampling methods, sample preservation and handling, field safety, and use of standardized field data forms. In addition, the second half of the day is dedicated to maintenance, calibration, and use of Sondes. YSI representatives are generally present to provide this training since YSI equipment is utilized to collect data for this study. The MPCA hosts an annual Field Analyst Training Refresher that is offered to and attended by partners in this program. Equipment - A document was developed that is titled “Long-Term Sonde Storage.” It is distributed and utilized by those collecting data to assure that the integrity and reliability of the sonde is maintained for as long as possible. All Sondes utilized in this program are given a checkout in January and those needing parts or services are shipped to YSI for maintenance and repairs. Laboratory – In addition to the routine QAQC that is part of every day lab practices, this program provides a set of phosphorus performance standards that cover the range of phosphorus typically

23

encountered in the Red River Basin. This performance evaluation is conducted annually with any labs that are utilized by the program. See Appendix C for the results of the phosphorus performance evaluation. In 2004, before a change in laboratory was made (for budget reasons) a lab comparability split study was implemented to assess the degree of lab variability present in the data. This data is also available in Appendix C. Field Duplicate – A field duplicate assesses the precision of the field sample collection effort and the laboratory’s analytical precision. A field duplicate is a second sample taken immediately after an analytical sample from the same location using the same procedure and equipment. Field duplicate samples comprised 10% of samples taken for laboratory analysis. See Appendix C for the results of the field duplicate analyses. Field Blank - Field bias was determined by taking a field blank, which was collected by filling a sample bottle on-site with distilled or de-ionized water. Field blank samples help determines if there are any sources of contamination during field sample collection. In addition to occurring in the field, bias can also occur in the laboratory. Field blank samples comprised 10% of samples taken for laboratory analysis. See Appendix C for the results of the field blank analyses. Data Management – Standardized forms are used for recording field data by all sampling personnel. Field data along with lab results are entered and maintained on Excel spreadsheets, which are easily transferable from one agency or person to another. All sampling sites are established as STORET sites. The Red River Watershed Management Board Data Manager serves as the central collection point and repository for all water quality data and metadata collected through this project. Quality control review is performed on all data before the data is submitted to the MPCA for entry into STORET. Quality control data associated with duplicates, blanks, and lab performance controls are also analyzed to determine adherence to limits set out in the Project’s Quality Assurance Project Plan. Data Analysis After quality control review, all field and laboratory data are analyzed to discern spatial variations of water quality throughout the basin. Descriptive statistics such as median values along with interquartile ranges are developed for field measurements and concentration data for each site. Results are compared to EPA/MPCA water quality standards, ecoregion comparative values, and previous study results. Correlations between selected constituents will also be reviewed. Load estimates are used to determine the mass of a substance being carried by a river or stream past a particular point over a particular time period. Because it is not feasible to monitor water quality daily, modeling software is used to estimate loads based upon available water quality data and daily average flow data. The model used to estimate loads for this report was the FLUX modeling program (Walker, 1996). FLUX was developed by Dr. William W. Walker for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This software uses six different methods of statistical analysis to determine loads using flow and concentration data. The model also calculates flow-weighted-mean concentrations using total flow volumes and load rates. Walker (1996) in reference to using FLUX states, “The reliability of loading estimates strongly reflects monitoring program designs. Water quality samples should be taken over the ranges of flow regime and season which are represented in the complete flow record. For a given number of concentration

24

samples, loading estimates will usually be of greater precision if the sampling schedule is weighted toward high-flow seasons and storm events, which usually account for a high percentage of the annual or seasonal loading.” The amount of inaccuracy is calculated within the model for each method and is expressed as the coefficient of variance (CV). A lower CV means that the results have a higher level of accuracy. According to the model literature, loading estimates with CV values ≤ .2 give a good estimate of actual loading conditions. To obtain the best CV value the model allows the user to stratify the flow data, separating high flows from low flows. The load estimates in this report are a result of optimal flow stratification schemes producing the lowest possible CV value. Yield (mass per unit area) normalizes the load on the basis of area and provides for a more relative comparison between watersheds. Yield was calculated by dividing the load by the number of acres within the watershed of the stream. The yield calculation does not account for differences in runoff or channel dynamics (scouring and deposition), but rather extrapolates the load over the entire watershed and gives an estimate of the amount (in pounds) of a pollutant coming from each acre in the watershed. Flow Weighted Mean Concentration (FWMC) is similar to normalized yield, but normalizes pollutant load for the flow of a given stream. It is calculated by dividing the total load of a pollutant by the total flow for a given period of time. Essentially, FWMC would be equivalent to collecting all the flow that passes a given monitoring site into a large pool, mixing it well, and taking a representative sample to provide the mean concentration of a given constituent.

25

Results and Discussion Climate Data The average annual precipitation increases from west to east across the Red River Basin. Precipitation ranges from about 17 inches in the far western portion of the basin (North Dakota) to about 26 inches per year in the eastern portion (Stoner, et al., 1993). This range of precipitation across the basin has a significant impact on the annual runoff, stream flow, and pollutant loads from the various basin tributaries. 2003 represented the first year with below normal precipitation in the basin since a prolonged wet cycle began in 1993. Precipitation totals in 2003 for the Minnesota portion of the basin were affected by an unusually dry winter with little snow accumulation and spring runoff. Precipitation totals for 2003 ranged from 16 to 24 inches across the Minnesota portion of the basin (see Figure 6). Figure 7 illustrates the departure from average annual precipitation in 2003. The departure ranges from a low of about 6 to 10 inches less than the average annual precipitation in the portion of the basin east of Detroit Lakes to a surplus of up to 2 inches in the far northeastern corner of the basin in Minnesota west of the City of Warroad.

Spring flooding is relatively common in some parts of the basin. A flood damage reduction process has been in place since 1998 to reduce the impacts. – Photo courtesy the Fargo Forum newspaper.

26

Figures 6 and 7: Precipitation Totals and Departures from Average for Minnesota in 2003

Precipitation totals for 2004 were at or above normal for the Minnesota portion of the basin (see Figure 8). Precipitation ranged from a low of over 20 inches in the area north of East Grand Forks, Minn., to a high of up to 36 inches in Eastern Roseau County and in a band from Traverse County to south central Becker County. The regions that experienced the higher precipitation totals for 2004 received over 10 inches of precipitation above the average annual (see Figure 9). The remainder of the basin exceeded the historical average annual precipitation from 2 to 10 inches. Figures 8 and 9: Precipitation Totals and Departures from Average for Minnesota in 2004

27

Hydrology Summary The 2003 spring runoff was limited due to a minimal snow pack and lack of any significant spring rains. The snow on the ground melted earlier than normal (early to mid-March) and resulted in a peak spring discharge of 8,000 cfs at the Red River site at Pembina (RR6). The 30-year median discharge rate is 17,000 cfs, more than twice the 2003 rate (Figure 10). Flow at RR6 fell below 4,000 cfs in mid-April and remained there until May rain events bounced the stream back to a rate of 8,000 cfs. Summer storm events in June brought the stream to the 2003 peak rate at 14,000 cfs. Discharge rates diminished in July through August to below 1,000 cfs where they remained until the following spring. Flow conditions during late August were low enough (below 200 cfs) for the USGS to conduct a low-flow study on the Red River in Fargo/Moorhead. During this low flow condition the Red River experienced two fish kills in the Fargo-Moorhead area due to the combination of low flows, warm stream temperatures, and a minor storm water runoff event from the urban impervious surfaces in the two cities. The decline in dissolved oxygen was documented by three continuous data recorders that had been submerged in the Red River as part of a TMDL study. The discharge rates and timing during the 2004 sampling season contrast to the summer storm event-driven discharge of 2003. Spring runoff resulted in the 2004 peak discharge rate of 45,200 cfs at RR6 on April 7 (Figure 11). This rate exceeds the upper decile for early April by roughly 10,000 cfs. Summer storm events during mid and late May brought the river at RR6 to 20,000 and 27,000 cfs, respectively. The remainder of the summer saw several small storm events that pushed discharge rates up to 8,000 cfs followed by lows near 2,000 cfs. Finally, late fall rains across the basin caused a mid-November peak discharge at RR6 of 20,000 cfs.

Spring flooding damages a road in northwestern Minnesota – Photo Danni Halvorson.

28

Figure 10. 2003 Red River Hydrograph at Emerson

Figure 11. 2004 Red River Hydrograph at Emerson

Year Sampling Season Volume (ac/ft) Annual Volume (ac/ft) % of discharge captured 2003 1,519,676 1,976,908 77% 2004 4,593,852 5,664,862 81%

Sampling Season

Sampling Season

Source: Water Survey of Canada

Percentage of Annual Discharge Volume Sampled at Emerson

29

Figures 12 and 13 below show the hydrographs for all Red River sites for 2003 and 2004, respectively. These hydrographs depict two important behaviors of the Red River. First, these figures show the increase in stream discharge from site RR1 at the headwaters to site RR6 at the Manitoba border at Pembina. The increase in flow from one site to another provides insight into the behavior of the system. In addition, an assessment of the hydrograph peaks and duration demonstrates how the tributaries contribute to peak discharge on the mainstem as well as the relative storage available between the six river segments between mainstem sampling points. It is important to note the difference in the flow scale on each graph as 2003 was a much drier year. Early 2003 flow rates at the Red River sites peaked during mid April and fluctuated slightly until rainfall in June bounced stage levels up and eventually to the annual peak flows experienced in late June and early July. The 2004 stacked hydrographs (Figure 12) show a much different pattern with peak flows occurring in late March and early April. Subsequent peaks occurred in May and June with both events having flow rates (20,000 and 27,000 cfs, respectively) that exceeded the 2003 peak rate of 16,000 cfs. A brief assessment of the data set for the timing of the peak discharge at the Red River sites during specific events gives an indication of the cumulative time of travel. These observations are not estimates of actual time of travel. This refers to the time of travel of the peak down the Red River from RR1 to RR6 as well as the timing of the contributions from each tributary watershed. The peak discharge during the spring runoff events for 2003 and 2004 took 14 and 15 days, respectively, to travel from RR1 to RR6. An assessment of the major summer storm event for each year (July 2003 and June 2004) found that the duration from the peak at RR1 to RR6 was 8 days in each case.

Figure 12. Red River Sites Stacked 2003 Hydrographs

Red River Mainstem 2003 Hydrographs

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,000

03/01

/03

04/01

/03

05/01

/03

06/01

/03

07/01

/03

08/01

/03

09/01

/03

10/01

/03

11/01

/03

Date

Flow

(cfs

)

RR 1RR 2RR 3RR 4RR 5RR 6

30

Figure 13. Red River Sites Stacked 2004 Hydrographs

Red River Mainstem 2004 Hydrographs

05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,000

03/01

/04

04/01

/04

05/01

/04

06/01

/04

07/01

/04

08/01

/04

09/01

/04

10/01

/04

11/01

/04

Date

Flow

(cfs

)

RR 1RR 2RR 3RR 4RR 5RR 6

Concentration Data Water samples were collected on the Red River and major Minnesota tributaries during 2003 and 2004 from spring ice-off until stream flows were significantly diminished in late summer/fall. The constituent concentrations of this work are presented in this section. This program was designed primarily for load estimations so the data set is flow-weighted or biased toward periods of high stream flows during which the majority of pollutant loading occurs. The primary emphasis of this section will be to present the total suspended solids and total phosphorus results. The results of other constituents are briefly discussed and a Summary Table of each is available in Appendix B with lab and field data figures available in Appendix D. This section presents the data from the 6 Red River Sites and the 11 Minnesota Tributaries that discharge to the Red River in Minnesota. Data in the Summary Tables is available for seven additional sites that were collected. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) The Red River is known for its high concentration of suspended solids. The fine clay and silt lake plain sediments are easily suspended, and tend to stay in suspension even during relatively low-flow conditions. The combined (2003 and 2004) median TSS concentrations in the tributaries ranged from a low of 42 mg/l in the Marsh River to the high of 185 mg/l in the Snake River (see Figure 14). Minimum TSS results ranged from a low of 5 mg/l at the Marsh River (MAR1) to a high of 38 mg/l at the Wild Rice River (WR1). The Red Lake River (RL1) had the maximum TSS concentration with 2100 mg/l followed closely by the Wild Rice River (WR1) at 1900 mg/l. A sample from the Red River

“clearly” shows its sediment. – Photo Wayne Goeken

31

Figure 14. TSS Concentration at Tributary Sites for 2003 & 2004 (n = 31 to 38)

TSS Concentrtion at Tributary Sites 2003-2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

BDS 1 OTT 1 BUF 1 WR 1 MAR 1 SH 1 RL 1 GM 1 SNA 1 TAM 1 TWO 1

Tributary Sites

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

g/l)

P75

P25

Maximum

Minimum

Medianx

Factors influencing sediment levels include stream bed/bank erosion, riparian land use, agricultural runoff, channelization, wind erosion and hydrologic modification (increases in stream flow). Analysis of the correlation between drainage intensity and pollutant concentration in the basin is needed as it may yield some useful information for meeting Flood Damage Reduction and Natural Resource Enhancement goals. The Red River sites can be broken into two groups based on the TSS data (see Figure 15). The first two sites (RR1 and RR2) exhibit median concentrations (58 and 150 mg/l respectively) that are less than half the median values for the other four sites. The two Minnesota tributaries that drain to these sites (the Bois de Sioux and Ottertail) have lower median and maximum TSS concentrations than the other Minnesota tributaries, exclusive of the Marsh River (Figure 14). The remaining downstream Red River sites have median TSS concentrations that range from 240 mg/l (RR5) to 342 mg/l RR3. The RR3 site also had the highest maximum TSS concentration (2640 mg/l) of the six Red River sites studied.

32

Figure 15. TSS Concentration at Red River Sites for 2003 & 2004 (n =32 to 36)

TSS Concentration at Red River Sites 2003-2004

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

RR 1 RR 2 RR 3 RR 4 RR 5 RR 6

Red River Sites

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s (m

g/l)

P75

P25

Maximum

Minimum

Medianx

Total Phosphorus (TP) The combined 2003 and 2004 median total phosphorus (TP) concentrations of the Minnesota tributaries ranged from a low of .107 mg/l in the Ottertail River to a high of .578 mg/l in the Grand Marais Creek (see Figure 16). The combined average median concentration for the 11 tributaries that discharge to the Red River in Minnesota was .234 mg/l. The combined 2003 and 2004 minimum TP results for the 11 tributaries range from a low of .017 mg/l in the Buffalo River to a high of .112 mg/l in the Bois de Sioux River. Nine of the eleven tributaries have minimum TP levels that fall below .1 mg/l TP. The two tributaries that have minimum TP in excess of .1 mg/l are the Tamarac (.105 mg/l) and Bois de Sioux (.112 mg/l). Maximum TP results for this data set range from a low of .244 mg/l in the Ottertail River to a high of 1.820 mg/l in the Red Lake River. Seven of these eleven tributaries have a TP maximum in excess of 1.0 mg/l. They are the Marsh River with 1.260 mg/l followed by the Sand Hill (1.260 mg/l), Grand Marais (1.360 mg/l), Snake (1.370 mg/l), Wild Rice (1.570 mg/l), Tamarac (1.770 mg/l), and Red Lake River at 1.820 mg/l.

33

TP Concentration at Tributary Sites 2003-2004

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

BDS 1 OTT 1 BUF 1 WR 1 MAR 1 SH 1 RL 1 GM 1 SNA 1 TAM 1 TWO 1

Tributary Sites

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

l)

P75

P25

Maximum

Minimum

Medianx

Figure 16. TP Concentration at Minnesota Tributary sites

The median TP concentration of the 6 Red River sites during the 2003 and 2004 sampling seasons ranged from .231 at RR1 to .510 mg/l at RR3 (Figure 17). The average median for the six Red River sites during this study was .409 mg/l. RR1, located near the river’s headwaters, has the lowest mean, median, minimum, maximum, and range of the Red River sites. This site is located near Brushvale (northwest of the City of Breckenridge) and downstream of the confluence of the Bois de Sioux and Ottertail rivers. The Ottertail River has the lowest median TP of the tributaries on the Minnesota side of the Red River. The Bois de Sioux River (median TP of .291 mg/l) mixes with the Ottertail River (median TP of .107 mg/l) for a median 2003 and 2004 TP at RR1 of .231 mg/l. The impact of the significant flow and relatively low TP concentration from the Ottertail River has a positive influence on the water quality at this headwaters sampling site on the Red River.

34

Figure 17. TP Concentration at Red River Sites for 2003 & 2004 (n = 31 to 35)

TP Concentration at Red River Sites 2003-2004

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

0.800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

RR 1 RR 2 RR 3 RR 4 RR 5 RR 6

Red River Sites

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

l)

P75

P25

Maximum

Minimum

Medianx

The five Red River sites north of Fargo Moorhead have a 2003/2004 combined median TP concentration of (.444 mg/l) that is nearly twice the concentration found at the headwater site RR1 (.231 mg/l). Ortho Phosphorus (OP) Ortho Phosphorus is a measure of the soluble reactive (dissolved) phosphorus in the sample. Particulate matter (sediment and organic material) is filtered from the sample, in the lab, prior to analyzing for OP. This process removes “attached” phosphorus from the sample. Median OP concentrations in the tributaries ranged from a low of .015 mg/l at the Ottertail River to a high of .21 mg/l at the Grand Marias Creek. The average median OP for the 11 tributaries that discharge to the Red River in Minnesota was .086 mg/l. The minimum OP concentration of .004 mg/l was found in the Ottertail and Red Lake Rivers while the maximum concentration was .562 mg/l at the Grand Marias Creek. See Table 6 in Appendix B for the Ortho Phosphorus Summary Table. Red River sites had a fairly consistent median concentration that ranged from .102 mg/l at Brushvale (RR1) to .196 mg/l at the Harwood site (RR2). It is interesting that the Brushvale site had both the minimum OP result of .005 mg/l and also had the maximum reading of .599 mg/l. The remainder of the sites had minimum OP results that ranged from .041mg/l (RR4) to .077mg/l (RR6) with an average of .058 mg/l. These same five sites (RR2 to RR6) had a similarly consistent maximum OP that ranged from .241 mg/l (RR5) to .368 mg/l (RR2) with a mean of .332 mg/l.

35

Nitrate Nitrite Nitrogen (NO3 NO2 ) Median nitrate plus nitrite concentrations were below 0.5 mg/l for all tributary sites, but above 0.5 mg/l for all Red River sites except the upstream site at Brushvale (RR1) (see Table 7 in Appendix B for the NO3NO2 Summary Table). Levels were above the Minnesota state drinking water standard for nitrates (10 mg/l) on two occasions - at the Bois de Sioux and Marsh Rivers with concentrations of 19.0 and 13.0 mg/l, respectively. As with TP, OP, and TSS, these peak readings generally are associated with storm events. Maximum NO3NO2 results at the other 9 contributing tributaries ranged from 1.4 (Tamarac River) to 3.8 mg/l (Sand Hill River). Median concentrations ranged from .01 mg/l at the Grand Marias Creek to .39 mg/l at the Buffalo River. Turbidity Turbidity patterns mirror TSS concentrations on the Red River and the tributary sites, as expected (see Table 8 in the Appendix B). The six Red River sites and the 11 tributaries had median turbidity values that exceeded the 25 NTU Minnesota state standard. In addition, only one Red River site (RR1) and three tributaries (Bois de Sioux, Ottertail and Marsh rivers) had more than 25 percent of the samples below 25 NTUs. Maximum turbidity values exceeded 1000 NTUs with the exception of the Brushvale and Harwood sites on the Red River and the Bois de Sioux, Ottertail, Buffalo and Two Rivers tributary sites. Transparency Transparency is a measure of light transmittance or light penetration through a water sample. The field measurement is taken with the use of a transparency tube, also known as “T-Tube.” The measurement is affected by material suspended in the water and by water color. Transparency is similar to turbidity and a strong correlation for the two has been developed that will be discussed in the section titled, “Constituent Correlations in the Red River and Minnesota Tributaries”. Temperature The Red River sites show a median temperature range from 18.45 ْC at the Grand Forks location to 14.81 ْC at Pembina. The tributary sites had a similar range of median temperatures. The 11 major tributaries had median temperatures that ranged from 13.97 to 16.98 ْC. pH The Red River showed a decreasing pattern of pH levels from the upstream location at Brushvale (RR1), where the median value was 8.31, to the downstream location at Pembina on the Canadian border (RR6) where the median value was 8.15. The Brushvale site had both the minimum and maximum pH values for all Red River sites at 7.42 and 8.79 pH units respectively for a range of 1.37 pH units. The tributary sites had a wider minimum and maximum pH range but all fell within a 6.50 – 9.00 range with the Bois de Sioux (BDS1) at 6.77 pH units and the Grand Marias (GM1) at 8.97 pH units. Median pH levels in the tributaries ranged from a low of 8.08 pH units in the Marsh River (MAR1) to a high of 8.33 in the Ottertail River (OTT1).

36

Dissolved Oxygen Median dissolved oxygen readings were above 5 mg/l for all sites. Minimum values bottomed out at 5.23 mg/l on the Red River at Grand Forks (RR4) and 3.41 mg/l on the Bois de Sioux (BDS1). Several of the tributaries had minimum values below 5 mg/l while all Red River sites had minimum values that exceeded the 5 mg/l, which is the Minnesota state standard. (See Impairment Assessment section for detailed DO discussion). Conductivity Red River site median conductivity values ranged from 610 µs/cm at Brushvale (RR1) to 825 µs/cm at Drayton (RR5). The most interesting issue with the conductivity is the sharp decline at Grand Forks (RR4) and then the sharp increase at Drayton. The decline in conductivity at Grand Forks can be explained in part by the inflow of the Red Lake River with its large volume and relatively low median conductivity of 461µs/cm. On the contrary, the increased conductivity at Drayton can not be explained solely or in part by looking at the Minnesota tributary data used in this report. Conductivity values tend to be higher in the streams that have the highest proportion of their watershed drainage area in the lake plain portion of the basin. This is primarily due to geology, soil characteristics, and groundwater influences. The Bois de Sioux River has the highest median tributary conductivity of 1297µs/cm followed by the Grand Marais at 873 µs/cm. The Ottertail River with its large contributing watershed above the lake plain has the lowest median conductivity of 433 µs/cm.

Collecting field data for a watershed study with the YSI 6820 Sonde, the primary sonde used for field data collection in this program. – Photo Tim Olson

37

Constituent Correlations Assessment of the relationships between the various water quality constituents reveals some very strong correlations. Perhaps the most notable is the relationship between turbidity and transparency (figure 18). This relationship is strong for the Red River and the major Minnesota tributary sites combined as indicated by an R2 value of 0.9528. The MPCA has approved the use of the transparency tube (T–tube) as a surrogate for turbidity due to the strong statewide relationship (R2 value of 0.801) between these measures. Figure 18. Turbidity vs. Transparency Correlation

Turbidity vs Transparency CorrelationAll Sites

y = 2277.4x-1.4533

R2 = 0.9528

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

1000.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Transparency cm

Turb

idity

NTU

s

This relationship has special value to the MPCA in regards to turbidity impairment and the data collection necessary to study the issue. Not only does the T-tube offer a simple procedure and equipment, but it helps to avoid the controversial nature of the various turbidity methodologies by serving as a universal assessment tool that can be used with confidence by citizen monitors with a minimum of instruction. The relationship between total suspended solids and transparency is also fairly strong with an R2 value of .8633, as shown in Figure 19. The fine clay particles that make up much of the suspended matter in streams in the lake plain portion of the Red River Basin are relatively consistent in size over a range of discharge conditions. It is believed that this situation allows for this relationship to occur. More scatter or variance is observed in the relationship at transparency readings below 15 cm than is observed in the overall curve, and hence the lower R2 value.

38

Figure 19. Total Suspended Solids vs. Transparency Correlation

Total Suspended Solids vs Transparency CorrelationAll Sites

y = 1551.8x-1.2539

R2 = 0.8633

-100

100

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Transparency cm

TSS

mg/

l

Figure 20 shows the correlation between total suspended solids and turbidity (R2 value of 0.8581). As with the other relationships, the finer sediment size in these lake plain sites appears to be a factor that provides for relatively strong correlations. Figure 20. Total Suspended Solids vs. Turbidity Correlation

Total Suspended Solids vs Turbidity CorrelationAll Sites

y = 0.6925x + 37.749R2 = 0.8581

0100

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

12001300

14001500

0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 900.0 1000.0

Turbidity NTUs

TSS

mg/

l

39

0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000

Constituent Correlations

Red River Tributaries All Sites

Tra

nspa

renc

y -

Tur

bidi

ty

Tra

nspa

renc

y -

TSS

Tur

bidi

ty -

T

SS

Tur

bidi

ty -

Tot

al

Phos

phor

us

TSS

– T

otal

Ph

osph

orus

Tra

nspa

renc

y –

Tot

al

Phos

phor

us

Red River and Minn. Tributary Correlations

R2 V

alue

s for

Cor

rela

tion

Ana

lysi

s

Figure 21 and Table 1 below illustrate the correlation analysis discussed above for the 2003-2004 data set with comparisons of mainstem and tributary relationships. Also included are several TP correlations. The relationships again are fairly strong with the following exceptions. The relationships between TP and each of turbidity, TSS, and transparency are weaker for the tributary sites – especially the transparency/TP relationship. The transparency/TP relationship was also weak for the mainstem sites. Figure 21. Constituent Correlation Analysis for Red River and Minn. Tributaries

Table 1.

Constituents Red

River TributariesAll

Sites Transparency/Turbidity 0.9469 0.9512 0.9528

Transparency /TSS 0.8325 0.8213 0.8633Turbidity/TSS 0.9347 0.8395 0.8581Turbidity/TP 0.8033 0.7567 0.7136

TSS/TP 0.8174 0.7077 0.6885Transparency /TP 0.6924 0.566 0.6333

Table 1. R2 Values for Correlation Analysis

40

Effect of Hydrograph Dynamics on Pollutant Concentrations The concentration of constituents in the Red River is strongly related to flow. Figures 22, 23, and 24 show this relationship for TP, TSS, and Turbidity respectively at Halstad (Site RR 3) during 2003. In each case, as the stream flow increases during the late June 2003 storm event, the constituent increases in concentration. Constituent concentrations increase to the event high concentration on the rising limb of the hydrograph. Once the flow peaks, the concentrations drop off considerably. This pattern reflects the sediment carrying capacity that is governed by stream velocities and force. As flow rates and velocities increase, the erosive energy on the stream banks and bed increases, as does the stream sediment carrying capacity. As the flow peaks and begins to decline, the erosive forces subside and the sediment transport capacity of the stream declines as does constituent concentrations. This relationship has ramifications for future management of the Red River Basin’s water resources. Basin leaders are addressing the need to reduce damage due to periodic flooding, and have identified upstream storage as a part of the solution for reducing the severity and duration of flood events. The storage solution can have beneficial water quality outcomes if peak discharges are reduced and site locations are selected to minimize stream degradation as a result of these efforts. Figure 22. RR3 2003 Hydrograph with TP Concentration

Figure 23. RR3 2003 Hydrograph with TSS Concentration

TSS

41

Figure 24. RR3 2003 Hydrograph with Turbidity Levels

Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TP, TSS and Turbidity Comparison of the data set to minimally impacted ecoregion streams provides perspective for the water quality condition of the stream sites under study. McCollor and Heiskary (1993) presented an “Addendum to: Descriptive Characteristics of the Seven Ecoregions of Minnesota” (Fandrei et al., 1998). The Addendum expanded the original data set (1970 to 1985) to include data from 1986 to 1992. This paper provides the ecoregion benchmark against which Minnesota streams are compared. The ecoregion data used for comparison was the summer 1970 to 1992 data set (June – September). We selected the June - September data from 2003 and 2004 and chose TP, TSS, and turbidity for comparison against the baseline from the above referenced work. Comparisons of interquartile ranges of each of the study’s sampling sites relative to their respective ecoregion IQ range are illustrated in Figures 25, 26 and 27 (see Appendix G for data tables).

The interquartile range (IQR) includes the middle 50 percent of the values in a data set and provides a descriptive measure of the spread of the data around the median. Looking at the IQR helps control the influence of data points at the extremes of the data distribution. Larger IQRs tend to indicate less stable stream conditions that tend to be more impacted by runoff events. The June - September data set eliminates the oftentimes significant influence of spring runoff events.

For total phosphorus (Figure 25) at the Red River sites, the IQ range of RR1 falls within the upper half of the RRV ecoregion IQR. Two other sites, RR4 and RR5 have the lower portion of their IQ range extending into the upper end of the ecoregion IQR. The IQ range for the remaining RR sites, RR2, RR3 and RR6 exceeds the Ecoregion range for TP. Regarding tributaries, the Otter Tail River stands out as being below the Red River Valley IQR. This is most likely due to the majority of the watershed being located in the North Central Hardwood Forest ecoregion that is characterized by higher water quality conditions. The Wild Rice, Marsh, Sand Hill, Red Lake, Tamarac and Two Rivers exhibit IQ ranges that are within and/or extend below the RRV ecoregion IQR for TP. The Bois de Sioux, Buffalo, and Snake River IQR fall within and extend above the Red River Valley Ecoregion IQ range. The Grand Marais, Wolverton, Rabbit and Mustinka Rivers have IQRs that extend above the ecoregion IQR. Wolverton Creek stands out with the highest IQR of any of the sites sampled. The Clearwater and Thief Rivers fall within the lower end of the IQR likely due to their location above the beach ridge zone in the basin. The Roseau and Lower Red Lake sites are very close to the IQR for the Minnesota Wetlands Ecoregion IQR.

42

Figure 25. Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TP

A review of the total suspended solids IQRs in Figure 26 finds that all six Red River sites exceed the Red River Valley Ecoregion IQR. Site RR3 has an IQR well in excess of the remaining Red River sites. The tributary sites generally have the upper portion of their IQR exceed the Ecoregion IQR with a few exceptions. The Marsh and Rabbit River IQR fall within the Ecoregion IQR, while the Clearwater and Thief Rivers are at or below the Ecoregion IQR. Wolverton Creek has the greatest and highest IQR of all the sites monitored. The turbidity IQRs (Figure 27) essentially reveal much the same pattern as the TSS results with all the sites exceeded the Ecoregion IQR except for the Clearwater and Thief Rivers. The Roseau and Lower Red Lake sites have turbidity IQRs that fall very close to their respective Ecoregions IQR. Figure 26. Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TSS

43

Figure 27. Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for Turbidity

Impairment Assessment for Turbidity and Dissolved Oxygen The assessment of the 2003–2004 data in terms of meeting the Minnesota Water Quality Standards for dissolved oxygen and turbidity is important in regards to Aquatic Life Use Support. Minnesota streams have a maximum turbidity standard of 25 NTU and a minimum dissolved oxygen standard of 5 mg/l. The Red River typically carries high levels of suspended material. Many reaches of the Red River and of its tributaries do not meet the state’s turbidity water quality standard of 25 NTU, as evidenced by Minnesota’s Impaired Water List (CWA Section 303D) and Table 2 below. This program was designed to determine pollutant loads throughout the Red River Basin in Minnesota. The sampling schedule has been designed to collect most of the stream data during periods of high loading. Therefore, the collected data set is biased toward periods with the greatest discharge and higher constituent concentrations. Although an unbiased data set based on a routine sampling frequency can be extracted and analyzed from this data, the entire data set is used in this assessment for turbidity and dissolved oxygen (D.O.) impairment.

44

Table 2. Impairment Assessment for Turbidity and Dissolved Oxygen

Sample Site

Dissolved Oxygen

NS

Dissolved Oxygen NS < 5 mg/l

Dissolved Oxygen % < 5 mg/l

Turbidity NS

Turbidity NS >25 NTU

Turbidity % > 25 NTU

RR1 35 0 0% 35 21 60% RR2 37 0 0% 37 36 97% RR3 37 0 0% 37 37 100% RR4 37 0 0% 37 37 100% RR5 33 0 0% 33 33 100% RR6 36 0 0% 35 35 100%

BDS1 33 4 12% 33 24 73% OTT1 35 0 0% 35 19 54% BUF1 39 1 3% 39 38 97% WR1 37 0 0% 37 37 100%

MAR1 36 0 0% 36 25 69% SH1 37 0 0% 37 37 100% RL1 37 0 0% 37 34 92% GM1 35 1 3% 35 30 86% SNA1 32 0 0% 32 30 94% TAM1 34 0 0% 34 34 100% TWO1 34 0 0% 34 31 91% ROS1 26 0 0% 26 10 38% MUS1 31 5 16% 31 29 94% RAB1 23 7 30% 23 16 70% WOL1 9 1 11% 9 2 22% CLE1 37 0 0% 36 9 25% THI1 37 3 8% 34 14 41% LRL 12 0 0% 7 0 0%

Fully Supporting (< or = 10% of sample events exceeding) Partially Supporting (10-25% of sample events exceeding) Not Supporting (> 25% of sample events exceeding) NS = Number of Samples

The assessment presented in Table 2 provides three levels of use support. Sites considered fully-supporting the designated use exceed the standard less than 10 percent of the time. Sites partially supporting the designated use are shaded aqua and meet the standard between 10 and 25 percent of the time. Non-supporting sites exceed the standard at least 25 percent of the time and are shaded yellow. As shown in Table 2, all mainstem and primary tributary sites exceeded the turbidity standard, exceeding 25 NTU for over 50 percent of samples; six sites exceeded the standard 100 percent of the time. In contrast, only three primary tributary sites had any dissolved oxygen readings below the 5 mg/l standard. Site BDS1 had 4 of 33 DO samples less than 5mg/l. Three of the tributaries at the bottom of the table have greater than 10% of the samples less than the 5.0 mg/l standard.

45

Load Estimates for TP and TSS Load estimates are used to determine the mass of a substance being carried by a river or stream past a specific point and over a specified time period. Because it is not feasible to monitor water quality daily, modeling software is used to estimate loads based upon available water quality data and daily average flow data (Hanson, 2004). This report presents the Red River and tributary load estimates and discusses some of the causative factors related to the estimates. Load estimates were developed for total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) for the 2003 and 2004 sampling seasons at the sites where continuous flow data was available. Concentration data collected by the Red River Basin Monitoring Network was used along with flow data from the USGS and Water Survey of Canada to develop the estimates. The FLUX model, developed by William Walker was the model chosen for developing the load estimates for this study. All the load estimates and corresponding calculations in this report are based upon the monitoring season loads and are not annual load estimates. The 2003 and 2004 load estimates for TSS and TP are shown for the Red River and tributary sites in Table 3. The table provides the estimated load in tons and the corresponding CV error. The table is formatted from upstream to downstream sites and shows how the two different water years affect the loading estimates. Figures 57 thru 64 in Appendix F illustrate the variability in estimated loads that may occur based on the corresponding CV errors from Table 3. Review of the loading results finds that the TSS and TP loading characteristics within the basin remain fairly consistent. Each constituent follows a similar pattern both from site to site and from year to year. This is understandable because of the major factors affecting loading, most stay relatively consistent with the exception of precipitation that can vary significantly from year to year. The average basin precipitation total for 2003 was about 20 inches whereas the 2004 average total was about 28 inches. This represents a 40% increase in precipitation from 2003 to 2004 and should be kept in mind when reviewing any loading related data and information.

Field erosion into this ditch in western Ottertail County is a visible reminder of the nutrient and sediment loading into Red River basin streams. - Photo Bruce Paakh.

46

TABLE 3. Total Phosphorus and Total Suspended Solids 2003 and 2004 Load Estimates. Total Phosphorus

Stream Name

Site ID

Watershed size

(acres) 2003 CV

2003 FWMC (ppb)

2003 Load (tons)

2003 Yield

(lbs/acre)2004 CV

2004 FWMC (ppb)

2004 Load (tons)

2004 Yield

(lbs/acre)Bois de Sioux BDS1 1,203,200 0.058 460 52 0.09 0.056 351 47 0.08Ottertail OTT1 1,228,800 0.076 110 34 0.05 Buffalo BUF1 624,000 0.160 277 38 0.12 0.060 276 51 0.16Wild Rice WR1 998,400 0.237 316 84 0.17 0.109 364 109 0.22Marsh MAR1 140,800 0.155 404 9 0.12 0.190 757 27 0.38Sand Hill SH1 268,800 0.063 251 14 0.11 0.220 618 55 0.41Red Lake RL1 3,833,600 0.182 245 118 0.06 0.239 331 340 0.18Red RR1 2,566,400 0.104 249 127 0.10 0.081 256 111 0.09Red RR2 4,352,000 0.069 367 250 0.11 0.124 529 329 0.15Red RR3 13,952,000 0.077 425 643 0.09 0.102 867 1,681 0.24Red RR4 19,264,000 0.116 434 954 0.10 0.126 647 2,284 0.24Red RR5 22,272,000 0.075 398 976 0.09 0.156 598 2,652 0.24Red RR6 25,728,000 0.072 510 1,359 0.11 0.090 532 4,062 0.32 Total Suspended Solids

Stream Name

Site ID

Watershed size

(acres) CV

2003

2003 FWMC (ppb)

2003 Load (tons)

2003 Yield

(lbs/acre)CV

2004

2004 FWMC (ppb)

2004 Load (tons)

2004 Yield

(lbs/acre)Bois de Sioux BDS1 1,203,200 0.294 121,095 14,449 24 0.219 68,663 9,164 15Ottertail OTT1 1,228,800 0.142 58,747 17,847 29 Buffalo BUF1 624,000 0.220 144,359 19,689 63 0.107 182,246 33,545 108Wild Rice WR1 998,400 0.296 316,983 84,203 169 0.140 264,647 79,495 159Marsh MAR1 140,800 0.207 206,729 4,426 63 0.258 401,059 14,304 203Sand Hill SH1 268,800 0.083 207,600 11,746 87 0.396 411,794 36,578 272Red Lake RL1 3,833,600 0.213 186,812 89,753 47 0.395 208,739 214,538 112Red RR1 2,566,400 0.089 65,794 33,574 26 0.090 74,229 32,131 25Red RR2 4,352,000 0.188 271,312 184,849 85 0.194 294,692 183,060 84Red RR3 13,952,000 0.167 397,908 601,516 86 0.187 737,983 1,430,813 205Red RR4 19,264,000 0.124 391,877 862,671 90 0.141 404,931 1,429,907 148Red RR5 22,272,000 0.092 311,650 763,665 69 0.248 399,964 1,774,562 159Red RR6 25,728,000 0.106 406,886 1,083,911 84 0.151 386,118 2,946,017 229Loads are "monitoring season" loads. 2003 season is April 1 thru August 20 CV: Coefficient of variance (amount of inaccuracy). 2004 season is March 31 thru November 4.

(Sources of watershed size data – USGS website, except for Otter Tail River and Red Lake River from 1997 MPCA Basin Information Document) The upstream Red River site near Brushvale had a TSS load of approximately 33,000 tons in both 2003 and 2004. The Red River site north of the Fargo/Moorhead area (RR2) carries a much larger load at 184,000 tons which was consistent between 2003 and 2004. The buffering capacity, both in terms of water storage and nutrient and sediment reduction of Lake Traverse and the Ottertail River lake system is one possible reason these loads remained stable during the two different water years.

47

Figure 28. TSS Load for Red River

Red River TSS Load 2003 - 2004

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

Tons 2003 Load

2004 Load

The Red River Halstad site (RR3) had a TSS load of 601,516 tons in 2003 and 1,430,813 tons in 2004. TP loads were 643 and 1681 tons for 2003 and 2004 respectively. The largest increase in TSS and TP loading on the Red River occurs between sites RR2 and RR3. The TP load increased by 2.6 times in 2003 and by 5.1 times during the wetter 2004 between the two sites (see Figure 30). The same relationship held true for the TSS loads as it increased by 3.2 times in 2003 and by 7.8 times in 2004 between RR2 and RR3. These significant increases in load at RR3 are in part due to four major tributaries entering the Red River between Fargo and Halstad. The Minnesota tributaries (Buffalo and Wild Rice Rivers) contributed 25 percent of the flow at Halstad during 2004. The North Dakota tributaries, the Sheyenne and Elm Rivers provided (by subtraction) approximately 43 percent of the 2004 flow at Halstad. These rivers play an important role in the nutrient and sediment loads at RR3 and downstream to the Canadian border (RR6). The 2003 TSS loads for RR4 and RR5 were 862,671 and 763,665 tons respectively. The decrease in load from RR4 to RR5 is likely due to several factors. The backwater effects of the low-head dam at Drayton may serve to reduce velocities and pollutant concentrations during low flow conditions. The slope decreases and sinuosity increases between the sites south of Oslo, MN. These conditions will cause a reduction in stream velocity that will lead to a reduction of TSS in the water column. In addition, the variance in the FLUX modeling results (even though the CV values for these results fall below .2) could play a roll in this matter. The Red River sites RR4 and RR5 have a similar pattern in TSS and TP loads. The 2004 TSS loads at RR4 and RR5 are 1,429,907 and 1,774,562 tons respectively. This represents a 24% increase in TSS load at RR5. The TP loads for these sites for 2003 are 954 (RR4) and 976 tons (RR5). In 2004 the TP loads were 2,284 (RR4) and 2,652 tons (RR5) representing a 16% TP load increase at RR5. The TSS load results at Pembina (RR6) were 1,084,000 (2003) and 2,946,000 tons (2004). The RR6 TP load estimates are 1,359 (2003 and 4,062 (2004). These TP load estimates fit relatively well with

48

the load estimates presented by Bourne, Armstrong and Jones, 2002. These authors used Red River data collected at Emerson from 1994 through 2001and calculated annual loads for this period of study. The average TP load at Emerson for this period of record was 2,537 tons. The TP loads estimated for this period ranged from a low of 1,708 tons in 1994 to the high of 3,666 tons in 1997. Figure 29. TSS Load for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River MN Tributary TSS Load 2003 - 2004

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

BDS1 OTT1 BUF1 WR1 MAR1 SH1 RL1

Trib Site

Tons 2003 Load

2004 Load

The TSS load estimates for the tributary sites are presented in Figure 29. The 2003 tributary TSS loads ranged between 4,426 tons at the Marsh (MAR1) and 19,689 tons at the Buffalo Rivers (BUF1) with the exception of two standout tributaries, the Wild Rice (WR1) and the Red Lake Rivers (RL1). The WR1 and RL1 sites had TSS loads of 84,203 and 89,753 tons respectively in 2003. The 2004 tributary TSS loads were generally in excess of the 2003 loads with the exceptions at BDS1 and WR1 with loads of 9,164 and 79,495 tons respectively. The remainder of the tributaries experienced an increase in TSS load of 2 to 3 times over the 2003 load.

49

Figure 30. TP Load for Red River

Red River TP Loads 2003 - 2004

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

Tons 2003 Load

2004 Load

The tributary TP loads (Figure 31) follow a similar pattern as seen in the tributary TSS loads. The Wild Rice and Red Lake sites have the high TP loads for both 2003 and 2004. The WR1 site had TP loads of 84 and 109 tons in 2003 and 2004 respectively while the RL1 site had 118 and 340 tons of TP in 2003 and 2004. The nearly three fold increase in load from 2003 to 2004 was present at Mar1, SH1 and RL1. Figure 31. TP Load for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River MN Tributary TP Loads 2003 - 2004

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

BDS1 OTT1 BUF1 WR1 MAR1 SH1 RL1

Trib Site

Tons 2003 Load

2004 Load

50

Flow-Weighted-Mean Concentration (FWMC) The FWMC is total mass normalized for flow. Flow-weighted mean concentrations (FWMC) are calculated by dividing the total mass or load for a given time period by the total flow volume from the sampling season. Conceptually, a FWMC represents the average seasonal concentration at a site. For example, if all flow from a season at a monitoring site were collected in a big, well-mixed pool, and a sample from that pool were collected and analyzed, it would represent the FWMC. 2003 and 2004 FWMC for TSS and TP are shown in Table 3. The 2003 and 2004 estimated TSS FWMCs for the Red River sites are plotted in Figure 32. As shown, the concentrations remained relatively consistent at most sites between the two flow years with site RR3 (Halstad) being the exception for reasons previously outlined in the load discussion. The TSS FWMCs in 2004 were slightly higher than 2003 at most of the sites. This is most likely due to the higher flow volumes and velocities (greater sediment carrying capacity) experienced in 2004 versus 2003 (see Hydrology Summary). Site RR3 (Halstad) had an estimated 2004 TSS FWMC almost double the 2003 value. Several factors may have contributed to the larger 2004 FWMC at RR3 versus the downstream sites at RR4 (Grand Forks), RR5 (Drayton), and RR6 (Pembina). Precipitation patterns of the 2004 summer events and the resulting contributions from North Dakota tributaries (Sheyenne and Elm Rivers) and the Wild Rice River likely played a role. The 2004 precipitation maps (Figure 8 and 9) show that the Wild Rice River watershed received higher precipitation totals in an area greater in size than areas further north. The dilution effect of the Red Lake River on RR4 (discussed below) also likely plays a role in this issue. Figure 32. TSS FWMC for Red River

Red River TSS Flow Weighted Mean Concentrations

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s m

g/l

2003 FWMC2004 FWMC

Figure 33 shows the estimated TSS FWMC for the Minnesota tributaries. Several Minnesota tributaries enter the Red River between sites RR3 (Halstad) and RR4 (Grand Forks): the Marsh ( MAR1), Sand Hill (SH1), and the Red Lake (RL1) Rivers. The Sand Hill and the Marsh Rivers had the highest TSS FWMC for 2004 with the Red Lake River exhibiting a concentration roughly half of the Sand Hill and

51

Marsh Rivers concentrations. The Sand Hill and Marsh Rivers supply only 4 percent of the flow in the Red River in 2004 at Grand Forks (site RR4). The Red Lake River in contrast has the largest flow volume of the Minnesota tributaries providing approximately 30 percent of all the flow in the Red River at Grand Forks (site RR4). The Red Lake River appears to have a dilution effect on the Red River at Grand Forks (site RR4). The inflow of relatively low sediment concentrations from the Red Lake River appears to have significantly lowered the TSS FWMC at RR4 (Grand Forks) to 405 mg/l when compared to the FWMC of 738 mg/l at RR3 (Halstad) in 2004. This dilution effect appears to offset the high FWMC contributions from the Sand Hill and Marsh Rivers which contribute significantly less flow. Figure 33. Total Suspended Solids FWMC for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River MN Tribs TSS Flow Weighted Mean Concentrations

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

BDS1 OTT1 BUF1 WR1 MAR1 SH1 RL1

Trib Site

Tota

l Sus

pend

ed S

olid

s m

g/l

2003 FWMC 2004 FWMC

Total Phosphorus (TP) concentrations for 2003 and 2004 exhibited similar patterns to the TSS concentrations discussed above and in Table 5 (Appendix). The estimated TP FWMCs plotted in Figure 34 show the sites on the Red River for 2003 and 2004. The figure shows that the FWMCs in 2004 were significantly higher than in 2003 at sites RR2 (Fargo), RR3 (Halstad), RR4 (Grand Forks), and RR5 (Drayton) with sites RR1 (Brushvale) and RR6 (Pembina) having only slightly higher TP FWMCs in 2004. Sites RR2, RR4, and RR5 had increases of roughly .2 mg/l TP in 2004 as compared to 2003. Site RR3 had the largest increase in TP, from a FWMC of .425 mg/l in 2003 to .867 mg/l in 2004—an increase of 104 percent. The increase in FWMCs at Red River sites is attributed to the higher flow volumes of 2004 and the increased pollutant carrying capacity of the River during high flow. The TP FWMCs for the tributaries (Figure 35) increased and decreased in a similar pattern as the TSS concentrations (Figure 33). One anomaly is site WR1 (Wild Rice River) where the TP FWMC increased in 2004 while its corresponding TSS FWMC had a decrease. Coefficient of variance (CV) values obtained with the 2003 TP and TSS load estimations for site WR1 shown in Table 3 on page 46 both have CV values exceeding the suggested model literature value of CV ≤ .2. CV values reflect the sampling error in the FWMCs indicating that the data set obtained in 2003 did not capture the necessary observations to more accurately model the loads.

52

Figure 34. TP FWMC for the Red River

Red River TP Flow Weighted Mean Concentrations

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

mg/

l

2003 FWMC2004 FWMC

Figure 35. TP FWMC for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River MN Tribs TP Flow Weighted Mean Concentrations

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

BDS1 OTT1 BUF1 WR1 MAR1 SH1 RL1

Trib Site

Tota

l Pho

phor

us m

g/l

2003 FWMC 2004 FWMC

53

Yield Yield (mass per unit area) normalizes the load on the basis of area and provides for a more relative comparison between watersheds. Yield was calculated by dividing the load by the number of acres within the watershed of the stream. The yield calculation does not consider channel dynamics (scouring and deposition) but rather extrapolates the load over the entire watershed and gives an estimate of the average amount in pounds of a pollutant coming from each acre in the watershed. In addition, yield does not consider that land near the stream or near tributaries or ditches to the stream tend to contribute higher yield than those areas not as well hydraulically connected to the stream. In other words, yield does not help to tell you where the load is coming from within the watershed, but it does allow a comparison between watersheds based on a common unit of area (acres). Figure 36. TSS Yields for the Red River

Red River TSS Yields

0

50

100

150

200

250

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

Tot

al S

uspe

nded

Sol

ids

lbs/

acre

20032004

Total suspended solids yields for the Red River sites RR1 (25 lbs/acre) and RR2 ((85 lbs/acre) remained about the same for 2003 and 2004 (Figure 36). Yields at the remaining four RR sites increased in 2004 from between 65% (RR4) and 171% (RR6) from the estimated yields in 2003. The 40% increase in basin precipitation (MN side) from 2003 to 2004 can account for much of the increases in yield. Figure 37 shows the 2003 and 2004 estimated TSS yield for the Minnesota tributaries. The total suspended solids yields for sites downstream of Fargo increased from 2003 to 2004. The exception was Wild Rice River (WR1) where there was little change in yields from 2003 to 2004, which may be due to the need to collect more samples to get a better FLUX model CV value. The WR1 and the SH1 sites had the highest TSS yields in 2003 with sites MAR 1 and SH1 showing the highest yields in 2004.

54

Figure 37. TSS Yields for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River MN Tribs TSS Yields

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

BDS1 OTT1 BUF1 WR1 MAR1 SH1 RL1

Trib Site

Tot

al S

uspe

nd S

olid

s lb

s/ac

re

20032004

Estimated Total Phosphorus (TP) yields for the Red River sites are shown in Figure 38. TP yields for 2003 and 2004 at Brushvale (RR1) remained at the .10 lbs/acre level while total phosphorus yield in the Red River at Fargo (RR2) increased slightly in 2004 from a .11 lbs/acre in 2003 to .15 lbs/acre in 2004. Mirroring the TSS yield behavior, the data show a significant increase in TP yields for the Red River sites downstream of Fargo (RR2) in 2004. Of these sites, RR6 (Pembina) had the largest increase in TP yield from 2003 to 2004 -increasing threefold, from .11 lbs/acre in 2003 to .32 lbs/acre in 2004. Figure 38. TP Yield for Red River

Red River TP Yields

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

lbs/

acre

20032004

55

The 2003 and 2004 estimated TP yields for the tributaries is presented in Figure 39. All sites except BDS1 show yield increases in 2004. The Sand Hill River (SH1) had the largest increase in TP yield in 2004 followed by the Marsh River. The Wild Rice River (WR1) experienced a significant localized summer storm event in 2003 that contributed to the 2003 high yield for the tributaries presented. Figure 39. TP Yields for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River MN Tribs TP Yields

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

BDS1 OTT1 BUF1 WR1 MAR1 SH1 RL1

Trib Site

Tot

al P

hosp

horu

s lb

s/ac

re

20032004

Streams, such as the Wild Rice River, that are hydraulically overloaded and unstable tend to deepen and widen to accommodate excess flow. Channel straightening downstream of the reach in this photo is typical of agricultural regions in the state. This in-stream erosion of soil can be a major source of sediment and nutrient loading within the Red River system. Photo - Luther Aadland

56

Conclusions Several patterns become apparent when examining the concentration data for this river system. Those sites that are located above the beach ridge zone tend to have lower constituent concentrations (see Appendix B). These sites include the 2 major tributaries of the Red Lake River, the Clearwater (CLE1) and Thief (THI1) Rivers. The Roseau River site appears to be strongly influenced by an upstream boundary condition that serves to reduce constituent concentrations. The sampling site (ROS1) is situated below the 61,590 acre Roseau River Wildlife Management Area. This natural area tends to buffer and treat the flow and load it receives from the more extensively drained headwater areas. The Otter Tail River water quality appears to be influenced by the disproportionately small percentage of the watershed that is located in the lake plain portion of the basin. The Otter Tail River is the second largest Minnesota contributor of flow to the Red River but it has the smallest lake plain area of the major Minnesota tributaries in the system. In addition, the Otter Tail River watershed contains the majority of the lakes present in the Red River basin with thirteen percent of the watershed land use comprised of water/wetland. The buffering capacity of these water bodies in terms of discharge and pollutant concentration is significant and has a positive impact on the water quality of this stream and the Red River. The Otter Tail River is perhaps the least flashy Minnesota tributary and it exemplifies the effect that upstream storage can have on peak discharge and sediment and nutrient concentrations. The assessment of the Otter Tail River against the ecoregion data (Figures 25, 26 and 27) provided by McCollar and Heiskary 1993, has the Otter Tail listed with the Red River Valley ecoregion streams. This site, even though located in the Red River Valley ecoregion, more typifies North Central Hardwood Forest Ecoregion streams as this ecoregion dominates the Otter Tail River watershed. Four tributaries have mean TP concentrations above .3 mg/l. They include the Grand Marais Creek, Bois de Sioux, Snake, and Tamarac Rivers. The watersheds of these streams appear to represent some of the more intensively drained land in the Minnesota portion of the Red River basin. The Grand Marais Creek and Snake River are similar in that they each flow N-NW nearly paralleling the Red River for roughly 20 miles. During this 20-mile stretch they both collect runoff from many large east/west ditches. The Grand Marais has 15 and the Snake 13 major ditches that contribute flow, nutrients, and sediment to the system. These streams with more intense drainage tend to be flashy and as a result have higher concentration levels of TSS and TP than those less flashy streams (see concentration data - Figures 14 and 16). Although drainage is significant throughout much of the basin, those streams that appear to have less hydrologic modification (Bois de Sioux, Otter Tail and Red Lake Rivers) appear to yield less TP and TSS. This subject needs to be studied to define the statistical relationship between drainage intensity and water quality in the basin. As Flood Damage Reduction/Natural Resource Enhancement projects consider storage options for reducing peak stage/discharge on hydraulically overloaded systems, it is important to consider the water quality and ecological effects of these projects. The options for storage should include a review of traditional storage sites for restoration, as these areas tend to yield greater water quality benefits than some of the larger impoundment designs. The assessment of constituent correlations in the system found strong relationships between transparency and turbidity, transparency and TSS, and turbidity and TSS at all sites with R2 values in excess of 0.82. In addition, the Red River sites exhibited good correlation between turbidity and TP

57

and TSS and TP with R2 values above 0.8. The TSS/TP correlation was evident in the loading patterns when TSS and TP followed similar trends at many of the Red River sites during 2003 and 2004. Loading estimates for this study are the result of two different water years. The estimated basin (Minnesota side of basin) mean precipitation in 2004 was 40% greater than the 2003 basin mean precipitation. The higher discharge rates experienced at most of the sites during 2004 resulted in greater pollutant loads, especially for the sites downstream of Fargo, ND. The seasonal loading estimates at Pembina compare relatively well with the annual load results of the study conducted by Manitoba Conservation (Bourne et al., 2002). The 2003 (dry year) estimate for TP load at Pembina was 350 tons less than the lowest annual load estimated in the Bourne study. The 2004 (wet year) TP estimate was 400 tons higher than the 1997 annual TP load reported by Bourne. Loads have not been calculated for several tributaries due to the lack of rating curves and continuous stage data. These tributaries include the Grand Marais Creek, Snake River, Tamarac River and Two River. With the exception of the Two River, these streams have among the highest concentrations of TSS and TP of the Minnesota Red River tributaries. Even with the un-gauged areas and the limited duration of this study, we can begin to understand the condition and behavior of the tributary watersheds. The loading results of this study suggest that the Sand Hill and Wild Rice River watersheds delivered the highest yield of phosphorus and sediment to the Red River per unit of area with the Marsh River watershed following closely. Based on an assessment of the tributary concentration data it appears that the Grand Marias Creek and Snake and Tamarac Rivers will also have relatively high yields when the discharge data allows for FLUX modeling and load and yield estimates. The Red River site at Halstad had a 2004 TSS yield of 205 lbs/acre, second only to the Red River site at Pembina with 229 lbs/acre. From the perspective of flow weighted mean concentration (normalizing the load for flow) the Halstad site in 2004 clearly has the highest sediment content, with a FWMC of 738 mg/l, nearly double (1.8 times) the next highest site at Grand Forks. The results of this study point toward loading sources between Fargo (RR2) and Halstad (RR3) that contribute to a significant increase in the sediment and phosphorus load in the Red River. The estimated sediment load in the Red River is roughly six times larger at Halstad and the phosphorus load increased by over 4 times during the 2004 season from Fargo to Halstad. In contrast, the drainage area roughly triples from Fargo to Halstad. Sether, Berkas, and Vecchia (1997-99) collected data at 11 water quality sites located in the upper Red River basin from May 1997 through September 1999. They found that the Sheyenne River (at Harwood, N. Dakota) had the largest estimated FWA concentration (FWMC) for total phosphorus (about 0.5 milligram per liter). This finding helps to explain, in part, the increase in load we have observed at the Red River site at Halstad. The discharge from the Sheyenne and Elm Rivers in North Dakota is estimated to make up 43% of the Red River’s flow at Halstad. The Wild Rice and Buffalo Rivers in Minnesota contribute to this same section of the Red River. More work is needed to understand the loading sources contributing to this stretch of Red River. It appears that the Red Lake River (RL1) has a dilution effect on the Red River at Grand Forks (RR4) as indicated by the 2004 results. The Red Lake River contributes roughly 30% of Red River flows at Grand Forks and 2004 estimates show that there was a dilution effect with a reduction in TSS concentration in the Red River at Grand Forks (site RR4) as compared to the Red River at Halstad (site RR3). This phenomenon was not evident in the dryer weather 2003 results.

58

Additional work is required to augment the two years of data presented here in order to establish the range of loading conditions that occur within this system. Bourne et al., (2002) provides important historical TP load estimates at Emerson, Manitoba that contribute to this end. These estimates from 1994 to 2001 compare well with our loading results and help to put the relatively dry year (2003) and wet year (2004) estimates in perspective. Efforts to establish annual flow records in the un-gauged watersheds along with continued chemical and physical analysis is ongoing. In addition, work through the Aquatic Ecosystem Health Committee is needed to establish a coordinated monitoring approach with North Dakota and Manitoba to allow for basin wide assessments that are necessary to furthering our capacity to develop and implement effective phosphorus reduction strategies for the restoration of Lake Winnipeg.

59

References Baratono, N., Skuta, G. 1997. Red River Basin Information Document. MPCA Barlow, et al. 2005. Our Collective Responsibility – Reducing Nutrient Loading to Lake Winnipeg. An Interim Report to the Minister of Manitoba Water Stewardship. Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board. Bourne, A., Armstrong, N., Jones, G. November 2002. A Preliminary Estimate of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loading to Streams in Manitoba, Canada. Water Quality Management Section, Water Branch. Manitoba Conservation Report No. 2002-04. 49 pp. Chacko, V. T. and T. H. Ronmark. 1990. Water quality summary: Red, Assiniboine, and Roseau Rivers. Water Quality Branch, Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada. Winnipeg, MB. Christiansen, C, A. Ziegler, and X. Jian. 2003. Continuous Turbidity Monitoring and Regression Analysis to Estimate Total Suspended Solids and Fecal Coliform Bacteria Loads in Real Time. USGS. EMD (Environmental Management Division). 1980. Proposed classification of Manitoba's surface water: Red River principal watershed division. Environmental Management Division, Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Environment. Winnipeg, MB. 89 pp. Fandrei, G., S. Heiskary, and S. McCollor. 1988. Descriptive Characteristics of Seven Ecoregions in Minnesota. MPCA FDR Work Group Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee, 2003. Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Project Monitoring Program. Technical Paper No. 9. Goodman, L. G. 1997. Phytoplankton activity in the Red and Assiniboine Rivers as the flow through the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba. M.Sc. Thesis. Department of Botany, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB. 275 pp. Gregor, D. and V. Chacko. 1987. An Overview of Phosphorus, Nitrogen, and Organic Carbon of Manitoba Interjurisdictional River Sites, 1970-1979. Water Quality Branch, Western and Northern Region, Environment Canada. Winnipeg, MB. 51 pp. Hanson, C. 2004. Red Lake Watershed District Water Quality Report. Red Lake Watershed District Heiskary, S and Markus H. 2003. Establishing Relationships Among In-stream Nutrient Concentrations, Phytoplankton Abundance and Composition, Fish IBI and Biochemical Oxygen Demand in Minnesota USA Rivers. Final Report to USEPA Region V. MPCA. International Joint Commission. 2000. Living With the Red - A Report to the Governments of Canada and the United States on Reducing Flood Impacts in the Red River Basin. Johnson, B. TSAC. 2002. Basin Strategy – Hydrologic Analysis. Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Work Group.

60

Jones, G. and Armstrong, N., 2001. Long-term Trends in Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Concentrations in Manitoba Streams. Water Quality Management Section, Water Branch, Manitoba Conservation, Winnipeg, MB. Manitoba Conservation Report No. 2001-7. 154 pp. McCollor, S. and S. Heiskary. 1993. Selected Water Quality Characteristics of Minimally Impacted Streams from Minnesota’s Seven Ecoregions - Addendum to: Descriptive Characteristics of the Seven Ecoregions of Minnesota. Water Quality Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Miller, C, et al. 2001. A User’s Guide to Natural Resource Efforts in the Red River Basin. Red River Flood Damage Reduction Work Group. MDNR. Mitchell, M. and Stapp W. 1986. Field Manual for Water Quality Monitoring, (second edition) Dexter, MI: Thomson-Shore Printers. Office of State Climatology, DNR Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Work Group. 1998. Red River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Agreement. Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Colorline, Lakewood, Colorado. Sanders, T. 1998. Water Quality Monitoring Network Design Workshop (Banff, Alberta, Canada). Fort Collins, Colo. Sether, Berkas, and Vecchia. 2004. Constituent Loads and Flow-Weighted Average Concentrations for Major Sub basins of the Upper Red River of the North Basin, 1997-99–Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5200 Sovell, L 2002. 2000 Report on the Water Quality of Minnesota Streams. Environmental Outcomes Division. MPCA Stoner, J, D. Lorenz, D, Wiche, G, and Goldstein, R. 1993. Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. USGS. National Water Quality Assessment Program. American Water Resources Association – Water Resources Bulletin. 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, Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4053, 70 p. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; “Environmental Impact Study of Flood Control Impoundments in Northwestern Minnesota, Federal Tier 1/State Generic Draft Environmental Impact Statement”; October 1995. USGS Real-Time Water Data for Minnesota. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mn/nwis/current? Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Water Resources of Minnesota. USGS Real-Time Water Data for North Dakota. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nd/nwis/current? Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. USGS Water Resources of North Dakota

61

Walker, W. W. 1996. Simplified Procedures for Eutrophication Assessment and Prediction: User Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Instruction report; W-96-2 Ward, R. 1989. Water Quality Monitoring – A Systems Approach to Design. Presented at the International Symposium on the Design of Water Quality Information Systems. CO State University. Waters Section. 1968. An Inventory of Minnesota Lakes. Division of Waters, Soils, and Minerals, Minnesota Conservation Department. Bulletin No. 25. Water Survey of Canada. http://www.wsc.ec.gc.ca

62

Appendices Appendix A Summary of Water Quality Indicators 61 Appendix B Statistics Summary Tables 63 Appendix C QA/QC Results and Assessment 74 Appendix D Field Data Figures 76 Appendix E Red River Basin Monitoring Network and River Watch 81 Appendix F Coefficient of Variance for Load Calculations 87 Appendix G Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TP, TSS, Turbidity 92

63

Appendix A Summary of Water Quality Indicators The parameters for measuring stream health are summarized below. This provides information about how the specific water quality indicators describe river health. This information is excerpted from Mark Mitchell and William Stapp’s, “Field Manual for Water Quality Monitoring,” (second edition) Dexter, MI: Thomson-Shore Printers: 1986. Additional water quality indicators and a brief description were added by the authors as necessary. DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO): Dissolved oxygen is an essential element for the maintenance of healthy lakes and rivers. Most aquatic plants and animals need a certain amount of oxygen dissolved in water for survival. Some aquatic organisms such as pike and trout require medium to high levels of dissolved oxygen to live. Waters of consistently high dissolved oxygen are usually considered healthy and stable aquatic ecosystems capable of supporting many different kinds of aquatic organisms. The atmosphere, algae, and vascular aquatic plants are the sources of dissolved oxygen in lakes and rivers; the accumulation of organic wastes depletes dissolved oxygen. pH: The pH value of water, on a scale of 0 to 14, measures the concentration of hydrogen ions. Pure distilled water is considered neutral, with a pH reading of 7. Water is basic if the pH is greater than 7; water with pH of less than 7 is considered acidic. For every one unit change in pH there is approximately a ten-fold change in how acidic or basic the sample is. Most valuable species, such as brook trout, are sensitive to changes in pH; immature stages of aquatic insects and immature fish are extremely sensitive to low pH values. Very acidic lakes and streams cause leaching of heavy metals into the water. TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS (TP) Total phosphorous includes organic phosphorous and inorganic phosphate. Organic phosphorous is a part of living plants and animals. It is attached to particulate organic matter composed of once-living plants and animals. Inorganic phosphates comprise the ions bonded to soil particles and phosphates present in laundry detergents. Phosphorous is an essential element for life; it is a plant nutrient needed for growth and a fundamental element in metabolic reactions of plants and animals. In northern Minnesota, phosphorous functions as a “growth-limiting” factor because it is usually present in very low concentrations. This scarcity of phosphorous is attributed to its relationship with organic matter and soil particles. Any unattached or “free” phosphorous, in the form of inorganic phosphates, is rapidly taken up by algae and larger aquatic plants. Because algae only require small amounts of phosphorous to live, excess phosphorous cause’s extensive algal growth called algal blooms. Algal blooms color the water a pea soup green and are a classic symptom of cultural eutrophication. Sources of phosphorous are human wastes, industrial wastes, and human disturbance of the land and its vegetation. ORTHO PHOSPHOROUS (OP) Ortho phosphorus includes the dissolved portion of phosphorus or the unattached or free phosphorus. Prior to analysis, the sample is filtered to remove the organic matter and sediment from the sample. The filtrate (that portion that went through the filter) is analyzed to determine the portion of phosphorus in the sample that is considered available for use by plants.

64

TEMPERATURE: Many of the physical, biological, and chemical characteristics of surface water are dependent on temperature. Temperature affects the solubility of oxygen in water; the rate of photosynthesis by algae and larger aquatic plants; the metabolic rates of aquatic organisms and the sensitivity of organisms to toxic wastes, parasites and diseases. CONDUCTIVITY: Conductivity measures the electrical conductance in the water. This is an indication of the quantity of dissolved inorganic acids, bases and salts in the water. NITRATES (NO2-NO3, NH3): Nitrate and nitrite are inorganic forms of nitrogen in the aquatic environment. Nitrate along with ammonia (NH3) are the forms of nitrogen used by plants. Nitrates and nitrites are formed through oxidation of ammonia by nitrifying bacteria, a process known as nitrification. In turn they are converted to other nitrogen forms by denitrification and plant uptake. Nitrogen, in its various forms is usually more abundant than phosphorous in the aquatic environment; therefore, nitrogen rarely limits plant growth as does phosphorous. Aquatic plants are not usually as sensitive to increases in ammonia and nitrate levels. Sources of nitrates are the atmosphere, inadequately treated wastewater from sewage treatment plants, agricultural runoff, storm drains, and poorly functioning septic systems. TURBIDITY: Turbidity is the relative clarity of the water. It is the result of suspended solids in the water that reduce the transmission of light. Suspended solids are varied, ranging from clay, silt, and plankton to industrial wastes and sewage. When turbidity is high, water looses its ability to support a diversity of aquatic organisms. Oxygen levels decrease in turbid waters as they become warmer as the result of heat absorption from the sunlight by the suspended particles and with decreased light penetration resulting in decreased photosynthesis. Suspended solids can clog fish gills, reduce growth rates and disease resistance, and prevent egg and larval development. Settled particles can accumulate and smother fish eggs and aquatic insects on the river bottom, suffocate newly-hatched insect larvae and make river bottom microhabitats unsuitable for mayfly nymphs, stonefly nymphs, caddis fly larvae, and other aquatic insects. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS: The volume of particles that float in a sample of water is called total suspended solids or TSS. To remain permanently suspended in water (or suspended for a long period of time), particles have to be light in weight (they must have a relatively low density or specific gravity), be relatively small in size, and/or have a surface area that is large in relation to their weight (a shape like a sheet of paper). Suspended particles usually have a size less than 1/16 of a mm. The particles usually have a specific gravity or apparent specific gravity of less than 1 (1 is the specific gravity of water). At larger sizes, the particles often have dimensions similar to a sheet of paper, but at very small sizes, any shape will remain suspended. In nature, three types of particles fit this picture: small living things (zooplankton, small aquatic animals, and bits of algae), small bits of organic debris (remains of dead animals and plants or animal waste), and small bits of clay or silt. The greater the TSS in water, the higher its turbidity and the lower its transparency (clarity). The volume of TSS can be estimated from measurements of turbidity or transparency but an accurate TSS measurement involves carefully weighing the amount of suspended material from a water sample. To accomplish this, the sample of the water is first run through a filter. The filter and the material trapped on the filter are dried in an oven. The dried material is then weighed and the weight of the TSS is

65

determined by subtracting the weight of the filter. TSS is reported in milligrams per liter (mg/L; weight of the suspended solids per volume of water). FECAL COLIFORM: Fecal indicator bacteria are different types of bacteria that are common in the intestines and feces of both warm- and cold-blooded animals and are an indicator of possible sewage contamination. Although they are generally not harmful themselves, they indicate the presence of pathogenic (disease-causing) bacteria, viruses, and protozoa that also live in human and animal digestive systems. Fecal coliform is reported as the number of colonies that are present per 100 ml sample. Levels greater than 200 fecal colonies per 100 ml sample are considered unsafe for swimming.

66

Appendix B

Statistical Summary Tables Laboratory Data Table 4. Total Suspended Solids (ppm) - Summary of 2003/2004 Data Site Average Min 25th Median 75th Max Range IQ Range NTributary Sites BDS 1 71 12 40 56 88 408 396 48 31OTT 1 58 12 34 53 68 200 188 34 36BUF 1 128 15 60 96 140 660 645 80 38WR 1 244 38 83 116 230 1900 1862 147 37MAR 1 97 5 19 42 92 790 785 73 35SH 1 182 31 71 120 210 1100 1069 139 37RL 1 180 17 41 61 110 2100 2083 69 37GM 1 244 11 38 144 356 870 859 318 34SNA 1 228 10 100 185 320 1100 1090 220 32TAM 1 241 28 69 115 300 1300 1272 231 34TWO 1 128 6 36 104 150 870 864 114 34ROS 1 19 5 10 14 24 63 58 14 26RAB 1 51 10 34 42 52 232 222 18 16MUS 1 95 12 51 74 116 320 308 65 27CLE 1 40 1 4 11 52 340 339 48 38THI 1 25 4 9 15 36 140 136 27 37WOL1 226 4 7 15 21 2070 2066 14 10LRL 8 1 3 5 13 40 39 10 15Red River Sites RR 1 68 8 41 58 84 190 182 43 35RR 2 218 8 110 150 170 1200 1192 60 36RR 3 512 98 230 342 540 2640 2542 310 36RR 4 337 30 110 271 490 1600 1570 380 36RR 5 337 42 140 240 432 1300 1258 292 32RR 6 416 130 240 285 484 1140 1010 244 36

67

Table 5. Total Phosphorus (ppm) – 2003/2004 Summary for Each Site

Site Average Min 25th Median 75th Max Range IQ Range NTributary Sites BDS 1 0.335 0.112 0.235 0.291 0.446 0.760 0.648 0.211 31OTT 1 0.113 0.062 0.089 0.107 0.127 0.244 0.182 0.038 36BUF 1 0.264 0.017 0.149 0.252 0.322 0.878 0.861 0.173 38WR 1 0.267 0.071 0.111 0.146 0.261 1.570 1.499 0.150 37MAR 1 0.306 0.048 0.171 0.261 0.359 1.260 1.212 0.188 35SH 1 0.242 0.065 0.107 0.164 0.287 1.280 1.215 0.180 37RL 1 0.244 0.064 0.098 0.117 0.210 1.820 1.756 0.112 37GM 1 0.578 0.065 0.343 0.574 0.677 1.360 1.295 0.334 34SNA 1 0.349 0.091 0.238 0.266 0.391 1.370 1.279 0.153 32TAM 1 0.313 0.102 0.128 0.231 0.376 1.770 1.668 0.248 34TWO 1 0.207 0.048 0.123 0.169 0.227 0.882 0.834 0.104 34ROS 1 0.115 0.042 0.083 0.108 0.131 0.324 0.282 0.048 40MUS 1 0.364 0.129 0.204 0.337 0.496 0.712 0.583 0.292 27RAB 1 0.401 0.152 0.350 0.424 0.469 0.623 0.471 0.119 16WOL1 0.545 0.119 0.164 0.325 0.637 1.480 1.361 0.473 10CLE 1 0.132 0.031 0.062 0.105 0.164 0.532 0.501 0.102 38THI 1 0.130 0.031 0.051 0.073 0.113 1.500 1.469 0.062 37LRL 0.033 0.012 0.020 0.026 0.040 0.093 0.081 0.020 15Red River Sites RR 1 0.264 0.115 0.201 0.231 0.335 0.674 0.559 0.134 35RR 2 0.466 0.249 0.360 0.403 0.485 1.350 1.101 0.125 36RR 3 0.640 0.283 0.423 0.510 0.753 1.600 1.317 0.330 36RR 4 0.465 0.166 0.281 0.439 0.553 1.600 1.434 0.272 36RR 5 0.479 0.195 0.288 0.401 0.533 1.600 1.405 0.245 32RR 6 0.519 0.198 0.366 0.469 0.642 1.020 0.822 0.276 36

68

Table 6. Ortho Phosphorus (ppm) – 2003/2004 Summary for Each Site Site Average Min 25th Median 75th Max Range IQ Range NTributary Sites BDS 1 0.166 0.006 0.038 0.123 0.314 0.469 0.463 0.276 31OTT 1 0.029 0.004 0.005 0.015 0.05 0.14 0.136 0.045 36BUF 1 0.119 0.019 0.063 0.11 0.165 0.284 0.265 0.102 38WR 1 0.056 0.011 0.023 0.041 0.073 0.148 0.137 0.05 37MAR 1 0.163 0.008 0.09 0.167 0.219 0.408 0.4 0.129 35SH 1 0.068 0.011 0.03 0.037 0.08 0.248 0.237 0.05 37RL 1 0.055 0.004 0.021 0.04 0.082 0.246 0.242 0.061 37GM 1 0.238 0.014 0.104 0.21 0.373 0.562 0.548 0.269 34SNA 1 0.104 0.009 0.054 0.093 0.151 0.315 0.306 0.097 32TAM 1 0.086 0.018 0.036 0.06 0.092 0.432 0.414 0.056 34TWO 1 0.062 0.009 0.034 0.052 0.069 0.216 0.207 0.035 34ROS 1 0.123 0.004 0.027 0.056 0.204 0.61 0.606 0.177 34MUS 1 0.193 0.01 0.064 0.165 0.291 0.521 0.511 0.227 27RAB 1 0.26 0.027 0.142 0.269 0.377 0.443 0.416 0.235 16WOL1 0.331 0.027 0.072 0.274 0.619 0.906 0.879 0.547 10CLE 1 0.056 0.004 0.018 0.044 0.09 0.245 0.241 0.072 38THI 1 0.071 0.004 0.008 0.019 0.038 1.437 1.433 0.03 37LRL 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.012 0.011 0.003 15Red River Sites RR 1 0.14 0.005 0.074 0.102 0.21 0.599 0.594 0.136 35RR 2 0.201 0.058 0.159 0.196 0.238 0.368 0.31 0.079 36RR 3 0.184 0.064 0.146 0.183 0.229 0.331 0.267 0.083 36RR 4 0.144 0.041 0.116 0.137 0.167 0.367 0.326 0.051 36RR 5 0.149 0.05 0.126 0.155 0.173 0.241 0.191 0.047 32RR 6 0.162 0.077 0.125 0.144 0.194 0.351 0.274 0.069 36

69

Table 7. NO3NO2 (ppm) – 2003/2004 Summary for Each Site Tributary Sites Site Average Min 25th Median 75th Max Range IQ Range N BDS 1 0.899 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.5 19 18.99 0.49 31OTT 1 0.173 0.01 0.01 0.055 0.2 2 1.99 0.19 36BUF 1 0.486 0.01 0.19 0.39 0.62 2.51 2.5 0.43 38WR 1 0.325 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.55 1.81 1.8 0.54 37MAR 1 1.09 0.01 0.05 0.23 1.3 13 12.99 1.25 35SH 1 0.56 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.84 3.8 3.79 0.82 37RL 1 0.329 0.01 0.04 0.26 0.59 1.41 1.4 0.55 35GM 1 0.484 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.75 3.2 3.19 0.74 32SNA 1 0.535 0.01 0.08 0.31 0.64 2.7 2.69 0.56 32TAM 1 0.282 0.01 0.01 0.115 0.45 1.4 1.39 0.44 34TWO 1 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.27 2.2 2.19 0.26 34ROS 1 0.133 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.19 0.52 0.51 0.18 40MUS 1 1.134 0.01 0.09 0.22 0.87 8.4 8.39 0.78 27RAB 1 0.279 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.46 1.1 1.09 0.45 16WOL1 1.825 0.01 0.04 0.775 2.2 10 9.99 2.16 10CLE 1 0.458 0.01 0.01 0.33 0.71 2.03 2.02 0.7 36THI 1 0.175 0.01 0.01 0.065 0.14 1.1 1.09 0.13 36LRL 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 11Red River Sites RR 1 0.411 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.34 8 7.99 0.33 35RR 2 0.855 0.02 0.57 0.76 0.9 4.1 4.08 0.33 36RR 3 0.934 0.35 0.54 0.68 0.91 3.4 3.05 0.37 36RR 4 0.836 0.3 0.42 0.585 0.91 3.8 3.5 0.49 34RR 5 0.96 0.29 0.51 0.64 1.3 3.1 2.81 0.79 32RR 6 1.21 0.24 0.58 0.805 1.3 11 10.76 0.72 36

70

Field Data Table 8. Turbidity (NTU) – 2003/2004 Summary for Each Site

Site Min 25th Median 75th Max Range IQ Range NTributary Sites BDS1 10 23 38 60 260 250 37 50OTT1 5 16 26 36 100 95 20 29BUF1 16 44 66 105 700 684 60 109WR1 36 56 84 189 1001 965 133 212MAR1 6 20 48 123 1001 995 103 130SH1 34 70 116 227 1001 967 157 199RL1 18 40 57 91 1001 983 51 153GM1 11 39 122 442 1001 990 403 275SNA1 16 89 197 378 1001 985 290 277TAM1 59 79 107 355 1001 942 276 275TWO1 12 47 103 183 864 852 136 158ROS1 6 13 22 29 76 70 16 23MUS1 11 39 60 83 336 326 44 71RAB1 7 24 41 55 210 203 30 49WOL1 3 5 6 18 760 757 13 100CLE1 1 5 7 24 360 359 20 33THI1 3 10 16 34 125 122 24 28LRL 2 2 3 5 9 7 3 4Red River Sites RR1 4 18 34 51 155 151 34 38RR2 17 81 107 147 819 803 66 165RR3 78 251 400 755 1001 923 504 494RR4 37 108 292 592 1001 964 484 370RR5 49 146 302 535 1001 952 389 384RR6 75 218 347 608 1001 926 391 450

71

Table 9. Temperature (°C) 2003/2004 Summary for Each Site

Site Min 25th Median 75th Max Range IQ Range N Tributary Sites

BDS1 4.10 11.26 15.90 22.93 26.34 22.24 11.67 33OTT1 4.72 11.81 16.31 21.91 26.94 22.22 10.11 35BUF1 3.29 10.95 16.27 20.48 25.89 22.60 9.53 39WR1 1.98 10.43 15.71 20.84 27.40 25.42 10.41 37

MAR1 0.79 9.60 14.30 18.44 24.33 23.54 8.84 36SH1 0.45 10.07 14.37 19.12 26.10 25.65 9.05 37RL1 0.26 10.25 16.98 20.11 27.47 27.21 9.86 37

GM1 1.97 10.63 15.48 20.00 31.70 29.73 9.38 35SNA1 3.01 10.38 15.41 19.62 24.71 21.70 9.25 32TAM1 0.06 9.11 13.97 17.72 23.12 23.06 8.61 34TWO1 0.22 9.14 14.73 19.39 24.47 24.25 10.25 34ROS1 0.06 6.94 12.63 18.91 27.39 27.33 11.97 26MUS1 3.71 11.21 17.20 22.83 26.21 22.50 11.61 30RAB1 3.75 14.38 19.97 23.77 26.64 22.89 9.39 23WOL1 0.40 7.09 8.73 13.03 19.67 19.27 5.94 9CLE1 1.61 9.97 15.09 19.79 26.40 24.79 9.81 30THI1 0.38 8.69 13.91 19.54 26.31 25.93 10.85 28LRL 0.39 0.43 0.45 0.51 0.56 0.17 0.07 11

Red River Sites RR1 6.06 13.64 17.03 22.65 29.16 23.10 9.01 34RR2 0.67 12.57 16.64 20.67 27.82 27.15 8.09 36RR3 2.07 11.61 18.14 20.43 26.87 24.80 8.82 37RR4 1.43 10.81 18.45 20.50 27.14 25.71 9.69 37RR5 0.03 10.07 15.16 19.38 27.66 27.63 9.31 33RR6 0.04 9.14 14.81 18.83 27.62 27.58 9.69 36

72

Table 10. pH - 2003/2004 Summary for Each Site

Site Min 25th Median 75th Max Range IQ Range N Tributary Sites BDS1 6.77 7.80 8.19 8.46 8.90 2.13 0.66 32OTT1 7.28 8.21 8.33 8.46 8.68 1.40 0.25 33BUF1 7.65 8.00 8.20 8.28 8.42 0.77 0.28 39WR1 7.65 8.16 8.28 8.32 8.47 0.82 0.16 37MAR1 7.58 7.95 8.08 8.14 8.46 0.88 0.19 36SH1 7.78 8.16 8.32 8.38 8.49 0.71 0.22 37RL1 7.66 8.00 8.14 8.30 8.49 0.83 0.30 37GM1 7.51 8.03 8.22 8.58 8.97 1.46 0.56 35SNA1 7.34 8.04 8.16 8.38 8.55 1.21 0.33 32TAM1 6.81 8.10 8.25 8.40 8.66 1.85 0.30 34TWO1 7.56 7.99 8.12 8.31 8.58 1.02 0.32 34ROS1 6.93 7.71 7.98 8.10 8.40 1.47 0.39 26MUS1 6.62 7.71 8.00 8.21 8.50 1.88 0.49 30RAB1 7.47 7.77 8.04 8.26 8.67 1.20 0.50 22WOL1 7.34 7.68 8.00 8.20 8.54 1.20 0.52 9CLE1 6.98 8.16 8.41 8.52 8.93 1.95 0.36 37THI1 6.08 7.82 8.14 8.30 8.82 2.74 0.48 37LRL 7.59 8.10 8.24 8.48 8.70 1.11 0.38 12Red River Sites RR1 7.42 8.11 8.31 8.42 8.79 1.37 0.31 34RR2 7.62 7.99 8.19 8.38 8.69 1.07 0.39 36RR3 7.63 8.07 8.17 8.27 8.47 0.84 0.20 37RR4 7.60 8.04 8.17 8.26 8.47 0.87 0.22 37RR5 7.56 8.04 8.17 8.32 8.53 0.97 0.28 33RR6 7.60 8.04 8.15 8.28 8.56 0.96 0.25 36

73

Table 11 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 2003/2004 Summary for Each Site

Site Min 25th Median 75th Max Range IQ Range NTributary Sites

BDS1 3.41 6.76 8.86 10.63 19.77 16.36 3.87 33OTT1 6.84 8.18 9.15 10.67 13.20 6.36 2.49 35BUF1 4.80 6.45 8.05 9.24 12.46 7.66 2.79 39WR1 5.17 7.26 8.50 9.97 12.42 7.25 2.71 37

MAR1 5.10 6.79 8.34 9.77 13.25 8.15 2.98 36SH1 6.56 8.35 9.11 10.54 13.73 7.17 2.19 37RL1 5.18 7.28 8.30 10.05 12.80 7.62 2.77 37

GM1 4.98 8.28 9.52 11.27 15.59 10.61 2.99 35SNA1 5.68 7.41 8.32 10.06 13.83 8.15 2.66 32TAM1 6.32 8.19 8.88 10.57 13.38 7.06 2.38 34TWO1 5.75 7.66 8.69 10.39 13.30 7.55 2.73 34ROS1 5.48 7.41 8.50 10.05 13.38 7.90 2.64 26MUS1 2.03 6.48 8.10 9.30 15.43 13.40 2.82 31RAB1 2.02 4.64 6.55 8.41 18.03 16.01 3.77 23WOL1 2.91 6.05 10.00 11.75 15.83 12.92 5.70 9CLE1 7.36 9.93 11.17 12.48 16.99 9.63 2.55 37THI1 1.30 7.11 9.67 10.92 13.20 11.90 3.81 37LRL 5.86 8.27 11.66 15.01 16.65 10.79 6.74 12

Red River Sites RR1 5.32 7.84 9.41 11.13 16.83 11.51 3.30 35RR2 5.70 7.16 8.71 10.19 13.81 8.11 3.03 37RR3 5.26 6.65 8.01 9.54 13.13 7.87 2.89 37RR4 5.23 7.18 7.83 9.63 13.75 8.52 2.45 37RR5 5.50 7.24 8.34 9.90 14.11 8.61 2.66 33RR6 6.46 7.55 8.36 9.98 12.43 5.97 2.43 36

74

Table 12. Conductivity (µS/cm) 2003/2004 Summary for Each Site

Site Min 25th Median 75th Max Range IQ Range NTributary Sites

BDS1 419 991 1297 1395 1696 1277 404 33OTT1 408 427 433 469 572 164 42 35BUF1 417 634 715 805 957 540 171 39WR1 327 494 519 570 694 367 76 37

MAR1 303 557 656 764 899 596 207 36SH1 257 499 593 645 735 478 146 37RL1 230 435 461 546 633 403 111 37

GM1 368 669 873 1007 1406 1038 339 35SNA1 241 599 694 781 935 694 183 32TAM1 190 421 490 539 612 422 119 34TWO1 253 372 511 642 1738 1485 270 34ROS1 156 256 314 350 416 260 94 26MUS1 347 896 1301 1516 1760 1413 620 31RAB1 365 662 1133 1569 2019 1654 908 23WOL1 397 620 937 1150 1538 1141 530 9CLE1 260 481 549 565 649 389 84 37THI1 163 366 423 499 2535 2372 133 37LRL 195 242 263 289 492 297 47 12

Red River Sites RR1 403 557 610 723 879 476 166 35RR2 271 598 676 749 1110 839 151 37RR3 429 652 759 846 1102 673 194 37RR4 330 605 698 809 1048 718 204 37RR5 433 646 825 925 1171 738 279 33RR6 369 633 764 892 1131 762 259 36

75

Table 13. Transparency (cm) 2003/2004 Summary for Each Site Site Min 25th Median 75th Max Range IQ Range N

Tributary Sites BDS1 3 13 16 22 37 34 9 31OTT1 8 21 28 34 49 41 14 35BUF1 2 8 12 14 27 25 6 39WR1 1 6 10 13 20 19 7 37

MAR1 2 8 13 24 89 88 16 36SH1 2 5 7 11 19 18 6 37RL1 2 9 12 16 38 36 7 37

GM1 1 3 8 14 39 38 11 32SNA1 2 4 6 8 30 28 4 29TAM1 1 4 8 9 12 11 5 30TWO1 3 6 8 13 35 33 7 31ROS1 11 20 29 42 95 85 21 22MUS1 3 8 11 15 39 37 7 27RAB1 3 11 14 18 40 37 7 17WOL1 2 37 52 60 64 63 23 6CLE1 4 24 61 80 100 96 55 28THI1 7 21 30 46 88 81 25 25LRL

Red River Sites RR1 4 14 20 27 46 42 14 34RR2 2 5 8 8 24 22 3 36RR3 1 3 4 5 8 7 2 37RR4 1 3 4 8 17 16 5 37RR5 1 3 4 7 14 12 4 30RR6 1 3 4 5 9 8 3 33

76

Table 14. Summary Statistics - Lab Results

Statistic TP

(mg/l) OP

(mg/l) NO2NO3

mg/l TSS (mg/l)

Mean 0.322 0.122 0.593 180.9Median 0.253 0.092 0.31 82Standard Deviation 0.4 0.1 1.4 270.6Range 1.808 1.436 18.99 2639Minimum 0.012 0.001 0.01 1Maximum 1.82 1.437 19 2640Number of Samples 765 765 752 765

Table 15. Summary Statistics - Field Results

Statistic Temperature

(°C) Transparency

Tube (cm) Turbidity (NTU)

Conductivity (uS/cm)

pH (pH

units) DO

(mg/l)Mean 15.09 14.7 207 675 8.15 8.96Median 15.45 9.75 70.85 608 8.18 8.72Standard Deviation 6.9 15.8 359.8 312.6 0.3 2.3Range 31.67 99 3050.69 2379 2.89 18.47Minimum 0.03 1 1.31 156 6.08 1.3Maximum 31.7 100 3052 2535 8.97 19.77Number of Samples 759 706 770 783 776 783

Tables 14 and 15 summarize data for all sites for 2003 and 2004 combined.

77

Appendix C - QA/QC Results & Assessment

Contents TP Performance Evaluation

Field Duplicates Field Blanks

Lab Splits TP Performance Evaluation 2003 - Following are the results of the blind TP performance evaluation conducted at the Minnesota Department of Health Laboratory (MDH) in Minneapolis and RMB Environmental Laboratories in Detroit Lakes. During the 2003 sampling season, each of these labs conducted analysis for this study. The certified TP standards were produced by Analytical Products Group, Belpre, Ohio and shipped to the labs on October 9, 2003. The samples were analyzed by MDH on 10/15/03 and by RMB on 10/16/03. The APG Acceptance Range is based on regression constants that the EPA supplied to APG. The MPCA typically uses a Percent Recovery rate that is within 10% of the Certified Value when examining these types of results for acceptability – with some additional tolerance for low level TP work. Table 16. 2003 TP Performance Evaluation Results

Sample Code

Certified Value (ppb)

RTC Acceptance Limits (ppb)

MDH results (ppb)

MDH % recovery

RMB results (ppb)

RMB % recovery

A 5.2 3.84 to 5.92 10 192 5 96B 468 346 to 528 443 95 462 99C 77.9 57.6 to 88.0 89 114 78 100

Average Percent Recovery 133.7 98.3 The MDH had 2 of the 3 results outside of APG’s acceptance range, and an average Percent Recovery of 133.7%. RMB’s work fell within the APG ranges of acceptability and had a Percent Recovery of 98.3%. Table 17 provides the results of the TP performance evaluation (PE) conducted in the fall of 2004 for the Minnesota Department of Health Laboratory and RMB Environmental Laboratories. Each lab was shipped 3 blind Total Phosphorus ampoules and were asked to prepare the sample, analyze and report the results. R.T. Corporation, Laramie, Wyo., prepared the ampoules. There were a couple of issues with using this company. The neck size of the ampoules used was too small to use the highest grade pipette. This could result in problems preparing the samples and could ultimately show up in the results. In addition, they shipped the ampoules to RMB Environmental Labs, Detroit Lakes, MN (RMB) without any sample preparation instructions and this caused a delay in getting the results. The Minnesota Department of Health Lab, Minneapolis (MDH) received the samples on 10/6/04 and analyzed them on 10/27/04. RMB received the samples on 10/04/04 and analyzed the standards on 12/04/04.

78

The results (Table 17) show that each of the labs performed within both the TRC Acceptance limits as well as the Percent Recovery rate of 10%. The MDH lab recovered an average of 98.5% of the TP while RMB had an average Percent Recovery rate of 98.6%. Table 17. 2004 TP Performance Evaluation Results Sample Code

Certified Value (ppb)

RTC Acceptance Limits (ppb)

MDH results (ppb)

MDH % recovery

RMB results (ppb)

RMB % recovery

DL-935 10 7.00 to 12.00 10 100 10 100DL-709 49.8 45.0 to 55.0 48.6 97.6 48.3 97DL-882 203 180 to 220 199 98 200.4 98.7

Average Percent Recovery 98.5 98.6 Discussion Percent recovery is a test of the accuracy of lab methods on the day of the analysis. The 2003 results of the PE samples analyzed by the MDH are of concern as two of the three results exceeded the acceptable 10% range in percent recovery. A review of the results finds that the recovery of the low level sample (sample concentration of 5.2 ug/l, reported as 10ug/l) was the primary reason for the calculated average percent recovery of 133.7%. Only 7 of the minimum TP concentrations reported for the 17 sites discussed in this report were below 100 ug/l. The minimum TP result was 17 ug/l at BUF1 with the next lowest minimum at 48 ug/l at TWO1 and MAR1. Due to the nature of the high phosphorus concentrations reported for this study - mean of 322 ug/l and median of 253 (Table 14 in Appendix B) the accuracy of the low level PE result is of little consequence when discussing the accuracy of laboratory methods in this report. The only other result that exceeded the range of 90 to 110 percent recovery was the mid-level sample result in 2003 analyzed by the MDH. The recovery rate of 114% exceeded the acceptable range by 4%. The remainder of the Performance Evaluations resulted in percent recoveries between 95 and 100%. Field Duplicate Assessment Field duplicates were collected at a rate of 10% (i.e. a duplicate was collected for every 10th sample). A relative percent difference (RPD) was calculated for each pair of samples using the following equation: (Result1-Result 2)[(Result 1+Result 2)/2]x100. A rate of less than or equal to 20% RPD is considered acceptable for natural background variability for this study. The yellow colored cells in Tables 18 and 19 represent differences greater than 20%. An assessment of the results finds that the TP duplicates exceeded the 20% RPD 5 out of 74 times for a rate of 6.8%. The OP duplicates exceeded the 20% threshold 8 out of the 74 duplicates for 10.8%. The NO3NO2 duplicates had only 4 of the 74 (5.4%) exceeding the 20% RPD and TSS had a rate of 16.2% (12 of 74) exceeding the 20% threshold. Combining these results finds that 29 of the 294 duplicates analyzed exceeded the 20% RPD for a combined rate of 9.8%. Of the 29 sample sets analyzed, 6 of the samples involved low-level phosphorus analysis (<50 ug/l). These samples are typically not expected to meet a strict 20% RPD as discussed in the section covering the phosphorus performance evaluation. Reviewing the results finds that of the 29 duplicates exceeding the 20% RPD 24 of the samples were analyzed at the Minnesota Department of Health Lab while 5 were analyzed at RMB Environmental.

79

Table 18. Field Duplicate - TP & OP Assessment

Date Site

Code Lab TP

Sample TP

Duplicate TP RPD OP

Sample OP

Duplicate OP RPD 04/08/03 SH 1 DOH 0.137 0.112 18% 0.047 0.046 2% 04/21/03 CLE 1 DOH 0.051 0.073 -43% 0.006 0.011 -83% 04/21/03 SH 1 DOH 0.182 0.184 -1% 0.03 0.03 0% 04/28/03 MUS 1 DOH 0.255 0.251 2% 0.016 0.019 -19% 04/29/03 ROS 1 DOH 0.059 0.061 -3% 0.01 0.01 0% 04/29/03 SH 1 DOH 0.064 0.07 -9% 0.005 0.007 -40% 05/06/03 GM1 DOH 0.656 0.653 0% 0.104 0.107 -3% 05/06/03 TWO 1 DOH 0.171 0.174 -2% 0.075 0.075 0% 05/12/03 BDS 1 DOH 0.236 0.236 0% 0.017 0.018 -6% 05/13/03 CLE 1 DOH 0.052 0.052 0% 0.013 0.015 -15% 05/13/03 SNA 1 DOH 0.132 0.323 -145% 0.03 0.083 -177% 05/27/03 GM 1 DOH 0.556 0.605 -9% 0.134 0.131 2% 05/28/03 BUF 1 DOH 0.155 0.156 -1% 0.063 0.062 2% 06/03/03 RR 1 DOH 0.125 0.133 -6% 0.028 0.026 7% 06/03/03 RR 3 DOH 0.460 0.46 0% 0.146 0.192 -32% 06/03/03 ROS 1 DOH 0.096 0.1 -4% 0.039 0.039 0% 06/03/03 OTT 1 DOH 0.092 0.135 -47% 0.006 0.009 -50% 06/10/03 WR 1 DOH 0.227 0.221 3% 0.047 0.051 -9% 06/10/03 RR 6 DOH 0.495 0.445 10% 0.152 0.153 -1% 06/17/03 RR 6 DOH 0.845 0.534 37% 0.145 0.151 -4% 06/18/03 WR 1 DOH 0.255 0.246 4% 0.062 0.065 -5% 06/24/03 SH 1 DOH 0.564 0.561 1% 0.233 0.245 -5% 06/26/03 BDS 1 DOH 0.458 0.457 0% 0.386 0.382 1% 06/26/03 MAR 1 DOH 0.635 0.655 -3% 0.238 0.242 -2% 06/30/03 BDS 1 DOH 0.427 0.436 -2% 0.327 0.33 -1% 07/01/03 SNA 1 RMB 0.223 0.221 1% 0.175 0.163 7% 07/01/03 RL 1 RMB 0.21 0.189 10% 0.098 0.096 2% 07/03/03 CLE 1 RMB 0.164 0.179 -9% 0.092 0.094 -2% 07/09/03 RR 3 RMB 0.580 0.587 -1% 0.242 0.245 -1% 07/22/03 OTT 1 RMB 0.118 0.107 9% 0.037 0.037 0% 07/22/03 RR 5 RMB 0.439 0.452 -3% 0.241 0.244 -1% 07/22/03 MAR 1 RMB 0.301 0.289 4% 0.188 0.188 0% 08/04/03 OTT 1 RMB 0.099 0.101 -2% 0.04 0.039 3% 08/04/03 RR 5 RMB 0.281 0.261 7% 0.192 0.194 -1% 08/20/03 RL 1 RMB 0.101 0.101 0% 0.044 0.043 2% 08/20/03 RR 1 RMB 0.674 0.626 7% 0.599 0.621 -4% 03/31/04 TAM 1 DOH 0.764 0.764 0% 0.325 0.276 15% 04/05/04 OTT 1 DOH 0.089 0.083 7% 0.005 0.006 -20% 04/06/04 RR 3 DOH 1.17 1.16 1% 0.156 0.156 0% 04/08/04 TAM 1 DOH 0.311 0.307 1% 0.195 0.194 1% 04/13/04 SH 1 DOH 0.162 0.161 1% 0.037 0.046 -24% 04/19/04 SNA 1 DOH 0.256 0.255 0% 0.134 0.132 1% 04/19/04 RL 1 DOH 0.123 0.054 56% 0.021 0.006 71% 04/26/04 TWO 1 DOH 0.28 0.281 0% 0.051 0.044 14% 04/26/04 RR 4 DOH 0.491 0.472 4% 0.147 0.145 1% 05/03/04 THI 1 DOH 0.063 0.067 -6% 0.005 0.006 -20% 05/03/04 CLE 1 DOH 0.031 0.031 0% 0.007 0.007 0% 05/03/04 RR 2 DOH 0.463 0.466 -1% 0.210 0.214 -2% 05/10/04 OTT 1 DOH 0.122 0.106 13% <.005 0.005 0%

80

05/13/04 TAM 1 DOH 1.77 1.95 -10% 0.432 0.446 -3% 05/13/04 BUF 1 DOH 0.497 0.454 9% 0.111 0.108 3% 05/17/04 TAM 1 DOH 0.478 0.469 2% 0.168 0.163 3% 05/17/04 RR 2 DOH 0.411 0.410 0% 0.241 0.240 0% 05/18/04 RL 1 DOH 0.295 0.287 3% 0.082 0.078 5% 05/24/04 TWO 1 DOH 0.17 0.174 -2% 0.052 0.05 4% 05/24/04 SH 1 DOH 0.14 0.138 1% 0.019 0.021 -11% 05/24/04 RR 2 DOH 0.404 0.393 3% 0.159 0.160 -1% 06/01/04 OTT 1 DOH 0.158 0.148 6% 0.031 0.032 -3% 06/07/04 BDS 1 DOH 0.270 0.266 1% 0.117 0.115 2% 06/09/04 BUF 1 DOH 0.318 0.313 2% 0.161 0.176 -9% 06/14/04 TWO 1 DOH 0.123 0.125 -2% 0.049 0.053 -8% 06/14/04 SH 1 DOH 0.107 0.11 -3% 0.029 0.023 21% 06/14/04 RR 1 DOH 0.231 0.233 -1% 0.085 0.084 1% 06/21/04 TWO 1 DOH 0.168 0.156 7% 0.034 0.032 6% 06/21/04 RR 1 DOH 0.278 0.273 2% 0.134 0.134 0% 06/28/04 RL 1 DOH 0.099 0.097 2% 0.028 0.028 0% 06/28/04 BUF 1 DOH 0.154 0.148 4% 0.069 0.069 0% 06/28/04 RR 2 DOH 0.360 0.363 -1% 0.172 0.166 3% 07/12/04 RR 3 RMB 0.890 0.789 11% 0.232 0.216 7% 07/12/04 OTT 1 RMB 0.127 0.132 -4% 0.062 0.073 -18% 09/07/04 GM 1 RMB 0.065 0.066 -2% 0.014 0.014 0% 09/07/04 WR1 RMB 0.493 0.512 -4% 0.046 0.043 7% 09/07/04 RR 1 RMB 0.285 0.307 -8% 0.134 0.138 -3% 09/24/04 RR 1 RMB 0.343 0.342 0% 0.204 0.201 1%

% RPD exceeding 20% RPD 6.8% 10.8%

Table 19. Field Duplicate - NO3NO2 & TSS Assessment

Date Site

Code Lab NO3NO2 Sample

NO3NO2 Duplicate

NO3NO2 RPD

TSS Sample

TSS Duplicate TSS RPD

04/08/03 SH 1 DOH 0.55 0.54 2% 51.0 39.0 24% 04/21/03 CLE 1 DOH 0.05 0.05 0% 8.0 14.0 -75% 04/21/03 SH 1 DOH 0.37 0.37 0% 150.0 140.0 7% 04/28/03 MUS 1 DOH 5.60 5.60 0% 110.0 110.0 0% 04/29/03 ROS 1 DOH 0.05 0.05 0% 12.0 13.0 -8% 04/29/03 SH 1 DOH 0.05 0.05 0% 33.0 33.0 0% 05/06/03 GM1 DOH 0.52 0.53 -2% 760.0 630.0 17% 05/06/03 TWO 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 35.0 37.0 -6% 05/12/03 BDS 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 76.0 74.0 3% 05/13/03 CLE 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 9.2 8.4 9% 05/13/03 SNA 1 DOH <.05 0.05 0% 80.0 200.0 -150% 05/27/03 GM 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 210.0 190.0 10% 05/28/03 BUF 1 DOH 0.19 0.19 0% 64.0 67.0 -5% 06/03/03 RR 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 51.0 55.0 -8% 06/03/03 RR 3 DOH 0.35 0.35 0% 310.0 300.0 3% 06/03/03 ROS 1 DOH 0.06 0.06 0% 21.0 32.0 -52% 06/03/03 OTT 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 48.0 93.0 -94% 06/10/03 WR 1 DOH 0.66 0.66 0% 150.0 160.0 -7% 06/10/03 RR 6 DOH 0.59 0.59 0% 280.0 280.0 0% 06/17/03 RR 6 DOH 0.8 0.8 0% 390.0 430.0 -10% 06/18/03 WR 1 DOH 0.34 0.34 0% 150.0 140.0 7%

81

06/24/03 SH 1 DOH 1.8 1.8 0% 400.0 360.0 10% 06/26/03 BDS 1 DOH 1.1 1.1 0% 53.0 61.0 -15% 06/26/03 MAR 1 DOH 0.77 0.8 -4% 400.0 240.0 40% 06/30/03 BDS 1 DOH 0.5 0.5 0% 52.0 54.0 -4% 07/01/03 SNA 1 RMB 0.23 0.06 74% 10.0 12.0 -20% 07/01/03 RL 1 RMB 0.64 0.64 0% 164.0 160.0 2% 07/03/03 CLE 1 RMB 0.79 0.8 -1% 54.0 54.0 0% 07/09/03 RR 3 RMB 0.52 0.52 0% 408.0 448.0 -10% 07/22/03 OTT 1 RMB 0.06 0.06 0% 56 48.0 14% 07/22/03 RR 5 RMB 0.71 0.71 0% 260.0 316.0 -22% 07/22/03 MAR 1 RMB 0.04 0.04 0% 20.0 20.0 0% 08/04/03 OTT 1 RMB <.02 0.02 0% 60.0 62.0 -3% 08/04/03 RR 5 RMB 0.61 0.61 0% 126.0 130.0 -3% 08/20/03 RL 1 RMB <.02 <.02 0% 52.0 50.0 4% 08/20/03 RR 1 RMB 0.04 0.05 -25% 8 12.0 -50% 03/31/04 TAM 1 DOH 1.4 1.3 7% 480.0 480.0 0% 04/05/04 OTT 1 DOH 0.08 0.09 -13% 33 33 0% 04/06/04 RR 3 DOH 1.90 1.9 0% 1100 1100.0 0% 04/08/04 TAM 1 DOH 0.64 0.64 0% 28.0 46.0 -64% 04/13/04 SH 1 DOH 0.44 0.44 0% 97 100.0 -3% 04/19/04 SNA 1 DOH 0.72 0.72 0% 72.0 62.0 14% 04/19/04 RL 1 DOH 0.21 0.06 71% 66 5.6 92% 04/26/04 TWO 1 DOH 0.07 0.07 0% 190.0 190.0 0% 04/26/04 RR 4 DOH 0.7 0.69 1% 340.0 320.0 6% 05/03/04 THI 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 30.0 32.0 -7% 05/03/04 CLE 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 2.4 3.6 -50% 05/03/04 RR 2 DOH 0.84 0.85 -1% 160 160 0% 05/10/04 OTT 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 79 70 11% 05/13/04 TAM 1 DOH 0.67 0.67 0% 1300.0 1900.0 -46% 05/13/04 BUF 1 DOH 0.38 0.38 0% 290.0 300.0 -3% 05/17/04 TAM 1 DOH 0.16 0.16 0% 300.0 360.0 -20% 05/17/04 RR 2 DOH 0.90 0.90 0% 96 92 4% 05/18/04 RL 1 DOH 0.63 0.63 0% 180.0 170.0 6% 05/24/04 TWO 1 DOH 0.11 0.11 0% 82.0 76.0 7% 05/24/04 SH 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 88 79.0 10% 05/24/04 RR 2 DOH 0.63 0.62 2% 150 150 0% 06/01/04 OTT 1 DOH 0.37 0.36 3% 86 89 -3% 06/07/04 BDS 1 DOH 0.12 0.12 0% 75 70 7% 06/09/04 BUF 1 DOH 0.23 0.24 -4% 120.0 97.0 19% 06/14/04 TWO 1 DOH 0.06 0.08 -33% 34.0 35.0 -3% 06/14/04 SH 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 63 64.0 -2% 06/14/04 RR 1 DOH 0.09 0.09 0% 80 77 4% 06/21/04 TWO 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 100.0 110.0 -10% 06/21/04 RR 1 DOH 0.09 0.09 0% 84 84 0% 06/28/04 RL 1 DOH <.05 <.05 0% 36 36 0% 06/28/04 BUF 1 DOH 0.16 0.16 0% 50.0 46.0 8% 06/28/04 RR 2 DOH 0.59 0.59 0% 110 120 -9% 07/12/04 RR 3 RMB 0.58 0.59 -2% 1000 960.0 4% 07/12/04 OTT 1 RMB 0.20 0.21 -5% 68 64 6% 09/07/04 GM 1 RMB 0.15 0.15 0% 30.0 28.0 7% 09/07/04 WR1 RMB <.02 <.02 0% 772.0 812.0 -5% 09/07/04 RR 1 RMB 0.24 0.24 0% 148 136 8% 09/24/04 RR 1 RMB 0.13 0.13 0% 118 108 8%

% RPD exceeding 20% RPD 5.4% 16.2%

82

Field Blank Assessment Field blanks were collected during most sampling trips at a rate of roughly 10%. Lab bottles were labeled and filled with distilled water while in the field conducting a project sampling run. The samples were preserved, shipped and analyzed at either the Minnesota Department of Health (DOH) or at RMB Environmental Laboratories (RMB) depending on the lab that was under contract at the time of sample collection. The results are listed in Table 20 with those results in excess of the minimum detection limit (MDL) highlighted in red. The results indicate that for TP and OP there were 4 samples each that exceeded the MDL. All but one result was either at or only slightly above the MDL. The one exception was a TP sample (on 3/31/04) analyzed by the DOH lab with a result of .085 mg/l. There are several possible explanations for this. This sample was only 1 of 34 and that rate of contaminated blank for this study is acceptable. It should be noted that the DOH washed and reused sample bottles during the period of this study and on one occasion a bottle was not used due to noticeable sediment on the inside shoulder of the 1 liter bottle. Assessment of the NO3NO2 results finds only 2 of the 34 (5.8%) samples in excess of the MDL and each of these were roughly 10 times the MDL. A rate of exceeding the MDL is acceptable. The TSS blanks had 13 of the 34 results at or above the MDL. Six of the 13 results were at the MDL with the other seven ranging from 1.2 mg/l to 7.6 mg/l TSS. The reuse of sample bottles may be responsible for some of the apparent contamination as may wind blown soil. Nonetheless, when one examines the field blank results in light of the high constituent concentration levels experienced throughout this study, the minor levels of apparent contamination seem relatively insignificant. Work conducted in 2005 and 2006 have been sent to RMB Laboratories eliminating the potential source of bottle contamination experienced with the reuse of bottles at the DOH lab. Table 20. Field Blank Assessment

Site Code Date Lab TP

(mg/l) OP

(mg/l) NO2NO3 (mg/l)

TSS (mg/l)

SH 1 04/08/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 1.0CLE 1 04/21/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 1.0

SH 1 04/21/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 1.0ROS 1 04/29/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 1.0

SH 1 04/29/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 1.0GM1 05/06/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 <1.0

TWO 1 05/06/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 <1.0CLE 1 05/13/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 2.0SNA 1 05/13/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 2.0GM 1 05/27/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 <1.0

BUF 1 05/28/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 <1.0RR 3 06/03/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 <1.0

ROS 1 06/03/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 7.6WR 1 06/10/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 <1.0RR 6 06/10/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 <1.0RR 6 06/17/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 <1.0

WR 1 06/18/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 <1.0SH 1 06/24/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 <1.0

MAR 1 06/26/03 DOH <.010 <.005 <.05 2.0SNA 1 07/01/03 RMB <.005 <.005 <.02 <1.0

RL 1 07/01/03 RMB <.005 <.005 <.02 <1.0CLE 1 07/03/03 RMB <.005 <.005 <.02 1.0

83

RR 3 07/09/03 RMB <.005 <.005 <.02 <1.0RR 5 07/22/03 RMB <.005 <.005 <.02 4.0

MAR 1 07/22/03 RMB <.005 <.005 <.02 <1.0RR 5 08/04/03 RMB <.005 <.005 <.02 <1.0RL 1 08/20/03 RMB <.005 <.005 <.02 <1.0

TAM 1 03/31/04 DOH 0.085 <.005 0.2 <1.0RR 3 04/06/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0

TAM 1 04/08/04 DOH <.003 <.005 0.23 <1.0SH 1 04/13/04 DOH 0.004 <.005 <.05 <1.0

SNA 1 04/19/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0RL 1 04/19/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0

TWO 1 04/26/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0RR 4 04/26/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0

THI 1 05/03/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0CLE 1 05/03/04 DOH <.003 0.007 <.05 <1.0

TAM 1 05/13/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0BUF 1 05/13/04 DOH 0.003 <.005 <.05 1.2

TAM 1 05/17/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0RL 1 05/18/04 DOH 0.007 0.005 <.05 <1.0

TWO 1 05/24/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0SH 1 05/24/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0

BUF 1 06/09/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0TWO 1 06/14/04 RMB <.005 <.005 <.02 <1.0

SH 1 06/14/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 1.2TWO 1 06/21/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0

RL 1 06/28/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0BUF 1 06/28/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0

RR 3 07/12/04 DOH <.003 <.005 <.05 <1.0GM 1 09/07/04 RMB <.005 0.006 <.02 <1.0WR1 09/07/04 RMB <.005 0.007 <.02 <1.0 4 4 2 13

Lab Split Study Samples for this study were collected on June 24, 2004. This work was conducted in preparation for switching from MDH lab to RMB lab on July 1, 2004. The sampling personnel collecting samples at the first four sites collected one sample and split the sample in a churn splitter between the two labs so that each lab received part of the same sample. This is considered a split sample and is used to access lab variability (see Table 21.). The sampling personnel that collected the remainder of the samples collected duplicate samples (one immediately following the other) at each of the sites they sampled. A complete set of bottles were filled and sent to both RMB and MDH lab for analysis. Duplicate samples measure natural variability and precision of the measurement. These results are not considered useful for assessing lab variability but are provided in table 21 for discussion. A relative percent difference (RPD) was calculated between sample results from the two labs using the following equation: (Result1-Result 2)/(Result 1+Result 2)/2) x 100. Shaded cells represent differences greater than 20%. The results indicate that the split samples (20% exceeded the 20% RPD) were more precise than the duplicate samples (41% exceeded the 20% RPD). This is likely due to the natural

84

Table 21. Laboratory Split Sample Study SITE

CODE TP

RMB TP

MDH TP

RPD OP

RMB OP

MDH OP

RPDNO2NO3

RMB NO2NO3

MDH NO2NO3

RPD TSS

RMB TSS

MDH TSS

RPDBDS 1 0.74 0.809 8.9 0.236 0.237 0.4 1.93 1 63.5 408 440 7.5MUS 1 0.651 0.758 15.2 0.291 0.342 16.1 7.8 1.5 135.5 320 380 17.1RAB 1 0.586 0.627 6.8 0.266 0.288 7.9 1.03 1.1 6.6 232 260 11.4RR 1 0.216 0.305 34.2 0.088 0.084 4.7 0.42 0.44 4.7 136 130 4.5RR 2 0.996 0.913 8.7 0.215 0.238 10.2 0.76 0.69 9.7 744 600 21.4RR 5 0.187 0.258 31.9 0.115 0.145 23.1 0.44 0.48 8.7 88 94 6.6SNA 1 0.273 0.436 46 0.175 0.188 7.2 0.5 0.47 6.2 185 220 17.3TAM 1 0.176 0.312 55.7 0.069 0.097 33.7 0.2 0.23 14 160 210 27MAR 1 0.362 0.367 1.4 0.29 0.297 2.4 0.2 0.23 14 36 33 8.7RL 1 1.01 1.21 18 0.061 0.115 61.4 0.43 0.41 4.8 1420 1300 8.8RR 4 0.349 0.574 48.8 0.084 0.103 20.3 0.29 0.31 6.7 490 450 8.5SH 1 0.4 0.564 34 0.212 0.233 9.4 1.84 1.8 2.2 284 400 33.9WR 1 1.06 1.57 38.8 0.045 0.133 98.9 0.79 0.71 10.7 1960 1900 3.1 variability in the stream that will express itself through the duplicate samples. MDH results tended to be higher than RMB for TP and OP. MDH results were used in reporting and analysis for the date of this study.

85

Appendix D

Lab Data Figures (NO3NO2 and OP) Field Data Figures

86

NO3NO2 Data Summaries Figure 40. NO3NO2 Concentration for Tributary Sites for 2003 and 2004

Red River MN Tributaries - NO3NO2 Summary 2003-04

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

BDS 1OTT 1

BUF 1WR 1

MAR 1SH 1

RL 1GM 1

SNA 1TAM 1

TWO 1

ROS 1

RAB 1

MUS 1CLE

1THI 1

WOL1 LRL

Site

NO

3NO

2 (m

g/l)

Figure 41. NO3NO2 Concentration for Red River Sites for 2003 and 2004

Red River - NO3NO2 Summary 2003-04

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

RR 1 RR 2 RR 3 RR 4 RR 5 RR 6

Site

Nitr

ite N

itrat

e (m

g/l)

87

OP Data Summaries Figure 42. OP Concentration for Tributary Sites for 2003 and 2004

Red River MN Tributaries - OP Summary 2003-04

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

BDS 1OTT 1

BUF 1WR 1

MAR 1SH 1

RL 1GM 1

SNA 1TAM 1

TWO 1ROS 1

RAB 1MUS 1

CLE 1

THI 1WOL1 LRL

Site

Orth

o-Ph

osph

orus

(mg/

l)

Figure 43. OP Concentration for Red River Sites for 2003 and 2004

Red River - OP Summary 2003-04

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

RR 1 RR 2 RR 3 RR 4 RR 5 RR 6

Site

Orth

o-Ph

osph

orus

(mg/

l)

88

Temperature (°C) Data Summaries Figure 44. Temperature for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River Tributaries Temperature-Summary 2003-04

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

BDS1OTT1

BUF1WR1

MAR1SH1

RL1GM1

SNA1TAM1

TWO1ROS1

MUS1RAB1

WOL1CLE1

THI1LR

L

Tributary Site

Tem

pera

ture

Deg

. C

Figure 45. Temperature for Red River

Red River Temperature-Summary 2003-04

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

Tem

pera

ture

Deg

. C

89

pH (pH units) Data Summaries Figure 46. pH for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River Tributaries pH - Summary 2003-04

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

9.50

BDS1OTT1

BUF1WR1

MAR1SH1

RL1GM1

SNA1TAM1

TWO1ROS1

MUS1RAB1

WOL1CLE1

THI1LR

L

Tributary Site

pH

Figure 47. pH for Red River

Red River pH - Summary 2003-04

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

9.00

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

pH

90

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Data Summaries Figure 48. Dissolved Oxygen for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River Tributaries Dissoved Oxygen-Summary 2003-04

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

BDS1OTT1

BUF1WR1

MAR1SH1

RL1GM1

SNA1TAM1

TWO1ROS1

MUS1RAB1

WOL1CLE1

THI1LR

L

Tributary Site

Diss

olve

d O

xyge

n m

g/l

Figure 49. Dissolved Oxygen for Red River

Red River Dissolved Oxygen-Summary 2003-04

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

Diss

olve

d O

xyge

n m

g/l

91

Conductivity (us/cm) Data Summaries Figure 50. Conductivity for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River Tributaries Conductivity-Summary 2003-04

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

BDS1OTT1

BUF1WR1

MAR1SH1

RL1GM1

SNA1TAM1

TWO1ROS1

MUS1RAB1

WOL1CLE1

THI1LR

L

Tributary Site

Cond

uctiv

ity u

S/c

m

Figure 51. Conductivity for Red River

Red River Conductivity-Summary 2003-04

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

Cond

uctiv

ity u

S/cm

92

Turbidity Data Summaries Figure 52. Turbidity for Minnesota Tributaries

Red River Tributaries Turbidity - Summary 2003-04

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

BDS1OTT1

BUF1WR1

MAR1SH1

RL1GM1

SNA1TAM1

TWO1ROS1

MUS1RAB1

WOL1CLE1

THI1LR

L

Tributary Site

Turb

idity

NTU

Figure 53. Turbidity for Red River

Red River Turbidity-Summary 2003-04

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red River Site

Tur

bidi

ty N

TU

93

Appendix E

The Red River Basin Monitoring Network consists of a number of ongoing monitoring efforts. The study of the stream systems within the Red River watershed resulted in the selection of primary, secondary and tertiary sites for sample collection (see Appendix Table 18 for primary and secondary sites). The primary sites are located near the confluence of the 11 major Minnesota tributaries and the Red River, and at 6 strategic locations on the Red River main stem (Figure 46). In addition, the Red Lake River has an additional 3 tributary sites due to the significance of this stream in terms of flow to the Red River. Most of the primary sites are co-located with USGS sites where flow data is collected. The secondary and tertiary sites were selected to break down the tributary watersheds into smaller sub watersheds for assessment using the pour point design. They provide the framework for River Watch data collection efforts as well as Watershed District and County monitoring programs. A report for each major tributary will be drafted that provides information concerning the water quality dynamics within each HUC level tributary. River Watch is an award winning program that teaches High School students about the water quality in their immediate area. Student teams from 29 high schools throughout the basin participate and collect meaningful data at over 150 sites. This program is supported by the International Water Institute, RRWMB, individual Watershed Districts and the MPCA. The Red River Basin River Watch program is the recipient of the 1st Annual (2005) Citizen Monitoring Award from the Rivers Council of Minnesota. The information gained through these efforts is used to understand local stream conditions (status and trends), identify impaired reaches, direct and design monitoring to help identify problem reaches and pollutant sources, and to nurture and educate our students – the future basin water managers. In addition, this information is beginning to play an important role in assisting resource managers with directing future watershed management activities in the basin.

94

Monitoring Site Locations Following is a detailed description of the location of the primary monitoring sites used in this study. Red River Mainstem Sites – There are six Red River mainstem sites that have been selected for sample collection. These sites have established USGS flow stations and are located to segment the river in sections such that each receive significant tributary contributions from both North Dakota and Minnesota. These sites are located at the following towns and crossings. Brushvale – Wilken County Road #6 crossing, USGS gage site Harwood – Clay Co # 26 crossing. USGS gage site in Moorhead Halstad – State Hwy 200 crossing, USGS gage site Grand Forks – Demers Street crossing, USGS gage site Drayton – State Hwy 11 crossing, USGS gage site Pembina – State Hwy 171 crossing, USGS gage site Primary Tributary Sites - To characterize water quality by watershed, monitoring sites are established near the mouth of every significant Minnesota tributary to the Red River of the North. These sites coincide with 8 digit HUC units and generally discharge at least an annual average of 100 cubic feet per second and drain more than 300 square miles. Sites will be selected to coincide with existing flow stations (often USGS), or flow measurements will be made and stations established. Following is the location of these primary monitoring sites in the Minnesota portion of the Red River Basin, Roseau River – Kittson Co. 53 near Caribou. MPCA TMDL site, Roseau SWCD WQ site. USGS gage site. Two Rivers – Kittson Co. 16 west of Hallock. River Watch T01 and SWCD site. Tamarac River – MN Hwy 220 WNW of Stephen. Stephen RW site. Snake River – Big Woods site WSW of Stephen-Jct. of MN 220 & 317. RRV Ecoregion site; MPCA Milestone site; Marshall Co. WP site. Upper and Lower Red Lakes – Outlet of Lower Red Lake to Red Lake River. Red Lake DNR monitors. USGS site. Thief River – Golf Course N end of Thief River Falls. RLWD and SWCD site. USGS gage site. Clearwater River – Klondike Bridge in Red Lake Falls. RLF RW, SWCD and WD monitoring site. USGS gage site. Red Lake River – MN Hwy220 east of EGF. EGF “Mallory” RW site. Fisher is closest USGS site—approximately 25 river miles upstream of sample site. Grand Marais Creek – Polk County Road 64. RW site upstream at Polk Co. 19 crossing. Sand Hill River – U.S. 75 crossing in Climax. RW site CL15. USGS gage site. Marsh River – Norman CR 113 crossing in SE of Shelly. No current monitoring, but some historic data. USGS gage site downstream approximately 2 miles. Wild Rice – Norman Co.25 crossing east of Hendrum. Historic and current monitoring site. USGS gage site. Buffalo River – Clay Co. 108 crossing SE of Georgetown. USGS station gage site upstream at Clay County Road 94. Wolverton Creek – Clay Co. 57 crossing just east of Highway 75. Otter Tail River – 11th Street Bridge in Breckenridge. Temporary USGS gauging station through June 2003-TMDL. Bois de Sioux – Wilkin Co. 6 crossing S. of Breckenridge-below the confluence with the Rabbit. “Tyler” RW site. USGS gage site.

95

Rabbit River – On Hwy 75, 5 miles south of Doran. USGS gage site. Mustinka – US 75 crossing just north of Wheaton. USGS gage site (stage only). Beyond this network of primary monitoring sites, secondary monitoring sites are monitored through Watershed District, County and River Watch schools. Secondary sites have been selected upstream of the confluence of the tributaries to the Minnesota tributaries listed above. These sites are necessary to further characterize conditions of sub-watersheds and meet specific program needs (FDR, TMDL, etc.). Selection factors include: drainage area of over 100 square miles; upstream of major confluences and how well they represent distinct geophysical sub-watersheds.

The Hawley River Watch team has adopted a stretch of the Buffalo River as part of the Adopt-A-River program. – Photo Joe Courneya.

96

Table 22. Red River Basin Monitoring Network Primary and Secondary Tributary Sites Watersheds-8 digit HUC Water Body Monitoring Site ID Primary Secondary Roseau Roseau R. mainstem ROS1 1 Hay Creek Hay 1 1 Roseau R. S. Fork RosSFk 1 Roseau R. mainstem Malung 1 Sprague Cr. Sprague 1 Two Rivers Two R. mainstem TWO1 1 Two R. North Br. TRNB58 1 Two R. Middle Br. TRMB 1 Two R. South Br. TRSB 1 Tamarac River Tamarac R. TAM1 1 State Ditch 90 SD90 1 Middle River Snake Snake R. SNA1 1 Middle R. MR17 1 Snake R. SR17 1 Red Lake River Red Lake R. RL1 1 Red Lake R. RLRTRF 1 Black R. BR18 1 Burnham Cr. BC216 1 Upper/Lower Red Lakes Lower Red Lake LRL1 1 Thief River Thief R. THI1 1 Grand Marais River Grand Marais R. GM1 1 Clearwater River Clearwater R. CLE1 1 Lost R. PL30 1 Hill R. PL40 1 Poplar R. Pop118 1 Sand Hill River Sand Hill R. SH1 1 Maple Cr. MapleCr 1 Polk Co. Ditch 6 PCD6 1 Marsh River Marsh R. MAR1 1 Wild Rice River Wild Rice R.mainstem WR1 1 Wild Rice R. S. Br. WRSB 1 Felton Ditch FD 1 Coon Creek CC 1 Mashaug Cr. Mash 1 White Earth R. WER 1 Marsh Cr. Mar 1 Buffalo River Buffalo R. mainstem BUF1 1 Buffalo R. mainstem BRMS58 1 Buffalo R. S. Br. BRSB80 1 Whisky Cr Whisky 1 Stoney Cr. Stoney 1 Deer Horn Cr. DeerH 1 Whiskey Cr. Wkey 1 Wolverton Creek Wolverton Cr. WOL1 1 Otter Tail River Otter Tail R. OTT1 1 Pelican R. Pelican 1 Bois de Sioux River Bois de Sioux R. BDS1 1 Rabbit R. RAB1 1 Mustinka River Mustinka R. MUS1 1 18 Mile Cr. 18MC 1 12 Mile Cr. BdS5 1 5 Mile Cr. 5MC 1 Subtotals 17 35

97

Figure 54. River Watch Monitoring Site Locations (2/05 version)

98

Sand Hill River Example of River Watch Data Use The following figures (55 and 56) show the utility of the River Watch Program in collecting stream field data. This data can be invaluable when assessing a stream for local impacts. In the example below the sites are organized left to right from headwaters to tail waters. The stream originates in the Glacial Moraine passes through the Beach Ridge and onto the Lake Plain. The Beltrami 10 site is at the Beach Ridge/Lake Plain interface and is also impacted from channelization. Figure 56 uses the data for turbidity impairment assessment. The level of detail provided by this River Watch data is invaluable for identifying the upstream limit of impairment. Figure 55. Sand Hill River Turbidity IQ Ranges at River Watch Sites

Sand Hill River Turbidity, 1994-2005

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Fos5

Fos1

0

Fos2

0

WEM

10

WEM

20

Rindal

Lewis

FB10

FB15

FB20

Belt10

CL1A

CL10

SH1

CL20

RR10

Sampling Sites

Turb

idity

(NTU

s)

River Watch Data w/ Field Meters (n = 25 to 65 / site)

Figure 56. Sand Hill River Turbidity IQ Ranges at RW Sites for Impairment Assessment

Sand Hill River Turbidity, 1994-2005

0

25

50

Fos5

Fos10

Fos20

WEM10

WEM20

Rindal

Lewis

FB10FB15

FB20

Belt10

CL1ACL10 SH1

CL20RR10

Sampling Sites

Turb

idity

(NTU

s)

Off Chart373

99

Appendix F

Coefficient of Variance for Load Calculations Red River and Primary Tributary Sites - 2003/2004

The model used to estimate loads for this report was the FLUX modeling program (Walker, 1996). FLUX was developed by Dr. William W. Walker for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This software uses six different methods of statistical analysis to determine loads using flow and concentration data. The model also calculates flow-weighted-mean concentrations using total flow volumes and load rates. The amount of inaccuracy is calculated within the model for each method and is expressed as the Coefficient of Variance (CV). A lower CV means that the results have a higher level of accuracy. According to the model literature, loading estimates with CV values ≤ .2 give a good estimate of actual loading conditions. To obtain the best CV value the model allows the user to stratify the flow data, separating high flows from low flows. The load estimates in this report are a result of optimal flow stratification schemes producing the lowest possible CV value. Charts 1 thru 8 below further illustrate the loads and corresponding CV values from Table 3 in the report. The spread shown by the bars in the charts represent a range of loads that might be expected at each site based on its calculated CV value. Sites with large CV values are not as accurate and show up in the following charts with wider ranges of possible loadings based on the 2003-2004 period of study for this report. Figure 57. Red River 2003 TSS Load and CV Load Range

2003 Red River Estimated TSS Monitoring Season LoadApril 8 thru August 20

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red Site

Tons

100

Figure 58. Red River 2004 TSS Load and CV Load Range

2004 Red River Estimated TSS Monitoring Season LoadMarch 31 thru November 3

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red Site

Tons

Figure 59. Tributary 2003 TSS Load and CV Load Range

2003 Red River MN Tribs TSS Monitoring Season LoadApril 8 thru August 20

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

BDS1 OTT1 BUF1 WR1 MAR1 SH1 RL1

Trib Site

Tons

101

Figure 60. Tributary 2004 TSS Load and CV Load Range

2004 Red River MN Tribs TSS Monitoring Season LoadMarch 31 thru November 3

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

BDS1 BUF1 WR1 MAR1 SH1 RL1

Trib Site

Tons

Figure 61. Red River 2003 TP Load and CV Load Range

2003 Red River Estimated TP Monitoring Season LoadApril 8 thru August 20

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red Site

Tons

102

Figure 62. Red River 2004 TP Load and CV Load Range

2004 Red River Estimated TP Monitoring Season LoadMarch 31 thru November 3

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

RR1 RR2 RR3 RR4 RR5 RR6

Red Site

Tons

Figure 63. Tributary 2003 TP Load and CV Load Range

2003 Red River MN Tribs TP Monitoring Season LoadApril 8 thru August 20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

BDS1 OTT1 BUF1 WR1 MAR1 SH1 RL1

Trib Site

Tons

103

Figure 64. Tributary 2004 TP Load and CV Load Range

2004 Red River MN Tribs TP Monitoring Season LoadMarch 31 thru November 3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

BDS1 BUF1 WR1 MAR1 SH1 RL1

Trib Site

Tons

104

Appendix G

Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TP, TSS and Turbidity

Table 23. Ecoregion IQ Range Comparison for TP, TSS and Turbidity

Total Phosphorus (ug/l) T. Suspended Solids (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU)

Site

Ecoregion 2003 - 04 IQ Range

Ecoregion IQ Range

2003 - 04 IQ Range

Ecoregion IQ Range

2003 - 04 IQ Range

Ecoregion IQ Range

RR1 RRV 239 - 347 140 - 330 78 - 117 28 - 74 38 - 59 13 - 28 RR2 RRV 370 - 592 140 - 330 133 - 352 28 - 74 110 - 304 13 - 28 RR3 RRV 432 - 839 140 - 330 280 - 792 28 - 74 297 - 833 13 - 28 RR4 RRV 283 - 543 140 - 330 107 - 433 28 - 74 106 - 429 13 - 28 RR5 RRV 273 - 513 140 - 330 133 - 295 28 - 74 136 - 358 13 - 28 RR6 RRV 358 - 548 140 - 330 230 - 484 28 - 74 213 - 566 13 - 28

BDS1 RRV 281 - 446 140 - 330 52 - 88 28 - 74 34 - 61 13 - 28 OTT1 RRV 107 - 140 140 - 330 53 - 82 28 - 74 30 - 44 13 - 28 BUF1 RRV 206 - 354 140 - 330 73 - 181 28 - 74 57 - 119 13 - 28 WR1 RRV 116 - 258 140 - 330 88 - 292 28 - 74 68 - 191 13 - 28

MAR1 RRV 197 - 311 140 - 330 19 - 72 28 - 74 23 - 81 13 - 28 SH1 RRV 104 - 290 140 - 330 74 - 225 28 - 74 73 - 247 13 - 28 RL1 RRV 107 - 170 140 - 330 45 - 110 28 - 74 48 - 84 13 - 28 GM1 RRV 422 - 716 140 - 330 36 - 180 28 - 74 36 - 136 13 - 28 SNA1 RRV 234 - 376 140 - 330 86 - 308 28 - 74 85 - 383 13 - 28 TAM1 RRV 126 - 291 140 - 330 69 - 210 28 - 74 65 - 263 13 - 28 TWO1 RRV 102 - 208 140 - 330 32 - 124 28 - 74 46 - 128 13 - 28 ROS1 NMW 98 - 119 5 - 9 12 - 28 7 - 20 25 - 34 5 - 12 MUS1 RRV 324 - 536 140 - 330 51 - 155 28 - 74 46 - 93 13 - 28 RAB1 RRV 404 - 510 140 - 330 34 - 52 28 - 74 37 - 63 13 - 28 WOL1 RRV 1,014 – 1,435 140 - 330 56 - 1083 28 - 74 49 - 421 13 - 28 CLE1 RRV 106 - 166 140 - 330 4 - 44 28 - 74 6- 28 13 - 28 THI1 RRV 56 - 87 140 - 330 12 - 29 28 - 74 14 - 39 13 - 28 LRL NMW 26 - 32 5 - 9 5 - 6 7 - 20 3 - 3 5 - 12

Source: Ecoregion IQ Ranges from McCollor and Heiskary (1993). 1970 - 1992 summer (June – September) data set used.

Note: For 2003 – 04 IQ Range, only June - September data used for comparison.