Availability of ground water from the surficial aquifers in the Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota by Thomas H.C. Reppe U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Center of Minnesota Prepared in cooperation with the Minnesota Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
Red River Basin and Study Area MANITOBA STUDY AREA NORTH DAKOTA Drift Prairie Red River Valley Lake Plain Lake-Washed Till Plain Moraine 0 50 100 miles MINNESOTA 0 50 100 kilometers SOUTH DAKOTA
Physiographic Areas Red River Valley Lake Plain
Lake-Washed Till Plain
Moraine
OBJECTIVES Estimate the availability of ground water in nine selected surficial aquifers located within and adjacent to the Minnesota portion of the Basin Compile water-quality data for the aquifers Evaluate potential effects of ground-water development on surface waters connected to the aquifers
What factors affect the availability of ground water? Aquifer Location, Thickness, and Extent Ground-Water Storage Water Sources and Discharges Withdrawal Rates Historic (and Planned) Water Use Water Quality
What defines availability of ground-water? Location where is it (in relation to need)? Volume how much is present (max. vs. actual)? Removal Rate recharge rates and sources? Interactions other unaccounted for discharges? Intended Use for whom / what purpose? Quality how good is it what is the use? Cost consequences and other water sources?
METHODS OF STUDY Compiled and reviewed information from published studies, hydrologic atlases, and regional hydrogeologic assessments Generated aquifer maps (including GW flow and saturated thickness contours) Compared and contrasted aquifers hydraulic characteristics and properties, ground-water quality, and recent (2003) ground-water use
METHODS OF STUDY - continued Described ground water - surface water interactions, including simulated scenarios and actual ground-water pumping Estimated ground water storage in each aquifer using saturated thickness data (when available) Determined which aquifers have the greatest potential for additional ground-water development (i.e. availability of ground-water )
What factors influence ground-water availability? Water budget (recharge vs. discharge) Ability (or inability) to withdraw ground water (theoretical well yields and hydraulic properties) Volume of stored ground water relative to aquifer recharge (flux)
What factors influence ground-water availability? Intended uses of water and necessary quality Hydraulic connection between the aquifers and surface waters (streams, lakes, wetlands) Acceptance of adverse impacts on the system from increased ground-water pumping
Assumptions and (or) Complications with Study Methods Data reported as originally published With few modifications and (or) interpretations Data compiled from different sources, with varying levels of details and scales Reported most recent and comprehensive data, with acceptance of minor mapping discrepancies Much of the original data were in paper format, with little to no GIS-based data Conversion of data into digital-format was a tedious and piecemeal process
Factors Affecting Ground-Water Availability Aquifer Location, Thickness, and Extent relative to current uses and future needs
Surficial Aquifers of the Study Area Red River Basin boundary Major rivers and streams Beach Ridge Aquifers Buffalo Aquifer Middle River Surficial 0 0 50 miles 50 kilometers Two Rivers Surficial Pelican River Sand-Plain Otter Tail Surficial Wadena Surficial Pineland Sands Surficial Bemidji-Bagley Surficial
Buffalo Aquifer (saturated thickness data not available) Saturated Thickness >0 to <25 ft 25 to <50 ft Fargo Moorhead 50 to <100 ft 100 to <150 ft of the North 900 150 to <200 ft Regional water-table contour (MDNR, 2000) Red River CLAY Direction of ground-water flow 0 0 10 miles 10 kilometers NORTH DAKOTA WILKIN
Otter Tail Surficial (unsaturated portions or saturated thickness data not available) Saturated Thickness >0 to <20 ft 20 to <40 ft Detroit Lakes BECKER 40 to <60 ft Perham 60 to <80 ft 80 to <100 ft 100 to <120 ft OTTER TAIL Pelican River Sand-Plain Wadena Surficial 1300 Regional water-table contour (MDNR, 2002) Direction of ground-water flow 0 10 miles 0 10 kilometers GRANT DOUGLAS
Pineland Sands Surficial (saturated thickness data not available) Saturated Thickness >0 to <20 ft CLEARWATER HUBBARD Walker 20 to <40 ft 40 to <60 ft Park Rapids 60 to <80 ft 80 to <100 ft 100 to <120 ft BECKER 120 to <140 ft Otter Tail Surficial Wadena Surficial OTTER TAIL WADENA CASS 1300 Water-table contour Wadena Direction of ground-water flow 0 0 10 miles 10 kilometers TODD
Factors Affecting Ground-Water Availability Aquifer Location, Thickness, and Extent relative to current uses and future needs Maximum volume of ground water capable of being stored in each aquifer
Estimating Maximum Volumes of Ground-Water Storage Compiled from aquifer studies, or calculated using aquifer areas (A), and published saturated thickness and porosity (n) data Storage = ( A * median sat. thick. * n ) Storage represents a maximum volume of water the aquifer is capable of holding
Maximum Ground-Water Storage (~2,900 bgal total) 250 bgal 270 bgal 5 bgal Buffalo Aquifer 1,000 bgal 400 bgal 500 bgal 300 bgal Middle River Surficial Two Rivers Surficial Pelican River Sand-Plain Otter Tail Surficial Wadena Surficial Pineland Sands Surficial Bemidji-Bagley Surficial 150 bgal
Factors Affecting Ground-Water Availability Aquifer Location, Thickness, and Extent relative to current uses and future needs Maximum volume of ground water capable of being stored in each aquifer Water sources and discharges determined from water budget estimations
Water Budget Estimation Methods Steady-state simulations from published aquifer studies Published estimations of recharge and discharge components based on precipitation data and hydrograph analysis
Evaluating Ground-Water Availability Using Water Budget Estimates Water budgets varied based on methods and provided a range of values for the components Water budgets were influenced most by recharge components and aquifer storage Availability was evaluated by comparing and contrasting recharge sources and total
Comparison of Recharge to Evaluate Ground-Water Availability Recharge was greatest in Otter Tail, Pineland Sands, Wadena Surficial Aquifers, and Pelican River Sand-Plain Aquifer - due to greater mean areal recharge (5-8 in./yr) and large aquifer areas Smallest recharge in Middle River and Two Rivers Surficial Aquifers mean areal recharge of only 3 in./yr; small aquifer areas
Factors Affecting Ground-Water Availability cont. Rate that ground water can be withdrawn from the aquifer (comparison of theoretical well yields and actual pumping data)
Maximum Theoretical Well Yields 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Gallons per Minute 0 WEST EAST Beach Ridge Aquifers Buffalo Aquifer Middle River Surficial Two Rivers Surficial Pelican River Sand-Plain Otter Tail Surficial Wadena Surficial Pineland Sands Surficial Bemidji-Bagley Surficial
Factors Affecting Ground-Water Availability cont. Rate that ground water can be withdrawn from the aquifer (comparison of theoretical well yields and actual pumping data) Historic (and planned) use of the ground water
Ground-Water Withdrawals in 2003* 0.4 bgal <0.1 bgal 1 bgal (~28 bgal total) 0.4 bgal 1.9 bgal Buffalo Aquifer (1.5 %) Middle River Surficial (<0.1%) 8.2 bgal 6.8 bgal 9.2 bgal Two Rivers Surficial (1.5 %) Pelican River Sand-Plain (7%) Otter Tail Surficial (33%) Wadena Surficial (24%) Pineland Sands Surficial (29%) Bemidji-Bagley Surficial (4%) * 2003 ground-water pumping data provided by Minnesota DNR
Uses of Ground Water in 2003* (~28 bgal total) Agricultural Irrigation (85.6%) 2.7 bgal Public Supply (9.6%) Industrial (2.2%) Golf Irrigation (1.4%) Commercial (0.4%) 24 bgal Mining (0.4%) Thermal Energy (0.3%) Aquaculture (0.05%) Livestock (0.02%) * 2003 ground-water use data provided by Minnesota DNR
Factors Affecting Ground-Water Availability cont. Rate that ground water can be withdrawn from the aquifer (comparison of theoretical well yields and actual pumping data) Historic (and planned) use of the ground water Quality of the water (relative to the use)
Concentration of Nitrate (as Nitrogen) from Surficial Aquifers 1,000 100 USEPA MCL = 10 mg/l 10 1 0.1 Concentration, mg/l 0.01 (26) NA (20) (25) (1) (14) (6) (20) (25) (29) (36) (50) WEST EAST Lake Plain (1991-95) Buffalo (1957) Buffalo (1978) Moraine (1991-95) Pelican R. (1965-73) Otter Tail (1964-68) Otter Tail (1965-68) Wadena (1964-67) Wadena (1979-80) Pineland Sands (1975-76) Straight R. - Pineland (1988-89) Bemidji-Bagley (1987-88)
Concentration of Sulfate from Surficial Aquifers 10,000 1,000 USEPA SMCL = 250 mg/l 100 10 1 Concentration, mg/l 0.1 (27) (46) (20) (24) (7) (14) (6) (20) (25) (25) (17) (55) WEST EAST Lake Plain (1991-95) Buffalo (1957) Buffalo (1978) Moraine (1991-95) Pelican R. (1965-73) Otter Tail (1964-68) Otter Tail (1965-68) Wadena (1964-67) Wadena (1979-80) Pineland Sands (1975-76) Straight R. - Pineland (1988-89) Bemidji-Bagley (1987-88)
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ( less quantifiable factors of ground-water availability ) Hydraulic connection between the surficial aquifers and adjacent ground waters and surface waters, and the effects of increased ground-water pumping Implications to sustainable use and the acceptance of potential adverse results due to increased ground-water development
CONCLUSIONS Otter Tail and Pineland Sands Surficial, and Pelican River Sand-Plain Aquifers have the greatest potential for development among the surficial aquifers studied Water levels and storage in Middle River Surficial Aquifer and Buffalo Aquifer are the most sensitive to increased pumping and the most susceptible to decline
Secondary Study Findings Surficial aquifers vary in hydraulic properties, water quality, and sources and rates of recharge and discharge Actual and simulated ground-water pumping indicate that aquifers can be hydraulically connected to surface waters Water-budget estimates may indicate aquifers that can be susceptible to ground-water losses due to increased withdrawals
Questions? treppe@usgs.gov