surface-water characteristics - usgs · 62 hydrology of the black hills area, south dakota...

62 Hydrology of the Black Hills Area, South Dakota

Surface-Water Characteristics

Within this section, surface-water characteris-tics, including both streamflow and water-quality char-acteristics, are described. Surface-water characteristics can be affected by numerous physical variables such as topography, land cover, soil conditions, mineralogy, and ground-water conditions, all of which may be affected by geologic conditions. In addition, stream-flow is affected by numerous climatic variables including timing, intensity, and amount of precipita-tion, as well as other variables affecting evaporative processes.

Streamflow Characteristics

Streamflow characteristics in the Black Hills area are highly affected by the hydrogeologic settings previously described (fig. 23). Streamflow characteris-tics described in this section include variability of streamflow, the response of streamflow to precipita-tion, and annual yield characteristics. More detailed discussions of these topics were presented by Driscoll and Carter (2001).

Streamflow Variability

A distinctive effect of hydrogeologic setting is on the timing and variability of streamflow, which results primarily from interactions between surface water and ground water. Locations of streamflow-gaging stations for basins representative of the five hydrogeologic settings were presented in figure 23. Site information and selected flow characteristics are summarized (by hydrogeologic setting) in table 5. One of the flow characteristics summarized is the “base flow index” (BFI), which represents the estimated per-centage of average streamflow contributed by base flow, for any given gage. BFI’s were determined with a computer program described by Wahl and Wahl (1995).

Table 5 also includes mean flow values for rep-resentative gages (for the periods of record shown) in cubic feet per second and mean values of annual basin yield, expressed in inches per unit area. Because basin yields are normalized, relative to surface drainage area, values are directly comparable among different gages. For example, the mean flow of 11.73 ft3/s for Castle Creek (station 06409000) is about 2.7 times larger than the mean flow of 4.33 ft3/s for Cold Springs Creek (station 06429500); however, the mean annual basin yield for Castle Creek (2.01 inches) is smaller than for Cold Springs Creek (3.10 inches).

The last flow characteristic summarized in table 5 is the coefficient of variation (standard devia-tion divided by mean) for annual basin yield, which provides a useful measure of annual flow variability. This statistic is directly comparable among different gages because the standard deviations are normalized relative to means. For example, standard deviations for Beaver Creek at Mallo Camp (06392900) and Rhoads Fork (06408700) are very different; however, coeffi-cients of variation are nearly identical. A notable example is provided by two gages representative of artesian spring basins—Cascade Springs (06400497) and Cox Lake (06430540), which have anomalously large values for annual basin yield (orders of magni-tude higher than annual precipitation) because of extremely large artesian springflow that occurs in very small drainages. Standard deviations for these sites are the largest in table 5; however, the coefficients of variation are the smallest, which is consistent with the BFI’s, which are the largest in the table and are indica-tive of extremely large contributions from base flow.

Duration curves showing variability in daily flow are presented in figure 40 for selected basins. Streamflow variability is small for limestone head-water and artesian spring basins because streamflow consists almost entirely of base flow from spring dis-charge. For the individual limestone headwater basins, measured daily flows generally vary by less than an order of magnitude, indicating that direct runoff is very uncommon from outcrops of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation, which are the predominant outcrops for this setting. Streams in the crystalline core setting have large variability in daily flow. Loss zone and exterior settings have large flow variability and low-flow and zero-flow periods are common.

Relative variability of monthly and annual flow also is much smaller for basins representative of lime-stone headwater and artesian spring settings than for the other settings (figs. 41 and 42). Annual flow values are expressed as annual yield (fig. 42) for all hydrogeo-logic settings except the artesian spring setting, for which annual yield values can be unrealistically large (table 5), as previously discussed. Coefficients of vari-ation for these settings are consistently smaller than for the other settings (table 5). BFI’s are consistently larger, indicating large proportions of base flow for these settings. All measures considered indicate much higher flow variability for the other three settings.

Surface-Water Characteristics 63

Tab

le 5

. S

umm

ary

of s

elec

ted

site

info

rmat

ion

and

flow

cha

ract

eris

tics

for

stre

amflo

w-g

agin

g st

atio

ns r

epre

sent

ativ

e of

hyd

roge

olog

ic s

ettin

gs

[Mod

ifie

d fr

om D

risc

oll a

nd C

arte

r (2

001)

. --,

not

det

erm

ined

]

Sta

tio

nn

um

ber

Sta

tio

n n

ame

Dra

inag

ear

ea(s

qu

are

mile

s)

Per

iod

of r

eco

rd

use

d(w

ater

yea

rs)

Bas

efl

ow

ind

ex(p

erce

nt)

Mea

n f

low

(cu

bic

feet

per

seco

nd

)

An

nu

al b

asin

yie

ld

Mea

n(i

nch

es)

Sta

nd

ard

d

evia

tio

n

Co

effi

cien

t o

f va

riat

ion

(sta

nd

ard

dev

i-at

ion

/mea

n)

Lim

esto

ne H

eadw

ater

Bas

ins

0639

2900

Bea

ver

Cre

ek a

t Mal

lo C

amp,

nea

r Fo

ur C

orne

rs,

WY

110

.319

75-8

2,19

92-9

888

.61.

882.

480.

630.

25

0640

8700

Rho

ads

Fork

nea

r R

ochf

ord

7.95

1983

-98

98.7

5.47

9.34

2.48

.27

0640

9000

Cas

tle C

reek

abo

ve D

eerf

ield

Res

ervo

ir,

near

Hill

City

79.2

1949

-98

87.1

11.7

32.

01.7

5.3

7

0642

9500

Col

d Sp

ring

s C

reek

at B

uckh

orn,

WY

119

.019

75-8

2,19

92-9

891

.44.

333.

10.6

8.2

2

0643

0770

Spe

arfi

sh C

reek

nea

r L

ead

63.5

1989

-98

2 91.0

2 25.4

32 5.

442 2.

592 .4

8

0643

0850

Litt

le S

pear

fish

Cre

ek n

ear

Lea

d25

.819

89-9

897

.016

.59

8.74

2.31

.26

Cry

stal

line

Cor

e B

asin

s

0640

2430

Bea

ver

Cre

ek n

ear

Prin

gle

45.8

1991

-98

73.1

2.86

.85

.76

.89

0640

2995

Fre

nch

Cre

ek a

bove

Sto

ckad

e L

ake,

nea

r C

uste

r368

.7--

----

----

--

0640

3300

Fre

nch

Cre

ek a

bove

Fai

rbur

n10

519

83-9

855

.510

.94

1.42

1.19

.84

0640

4000

Bat

tle C

reek

nea

r K

eyst

one

58.0

1962

-98

45.4

9.39

2.20

1.59

.72

0640

4800

Gra

ce C

oolid

ge C

reek

nea

r H

ayw

ard3

7.48

----

----

----

0640

4998

Gra

ce C

oolid

ge C

reek

nea

r G

ame

Lod

ge, n

ear

Cus

ter

25.2

1977

-98

58.9

5.07

2.73

2.36

.86

0640

5800

Bea

r G

ulch

nea

r H

ayw

ard

4.23

1990

-98

41.1

1.48

4.75

2.76

.58

0640

6920

Spr

ing

Cre

ek a

bove

She

rida

n L

ake,

nea

r K

eyst

one3

127

----

----

----

0640

7500

Spr

ing

Cre

ek n

ear

Key

ston

e16

319

87-9

854

.125

.06

2.09

1.73

.83

0642

2500

Box

elde

r C

reek

nea

r N

emo

96.0

1967

-98

64.9

19.5

32.

762.

19.7

9

0642

4000

Elk

Cre

ek n

ear

Rou

baix

21.5

1992

-98

61.1

13.4

28.

484.

08.4

8

0643

0800

Ann

ie C

reek

nea

r L

ead

3.55

1989

-98

51.1

1.72

6.55

4.42

.67

0643

0898

Squ

aw C

reek

nea

r Sp

earf

ish

6.95

1989

-98

52.5

3.76

7.34

4.44

.60

0643

6156

Whi

teta

il C

reek

at L

ead

6.15

1989

-98

63.0

4.79

10.5

76.

01.5

7

0643

7020

Bea

r B

utte

Cre

ek n

ear

Dea

dwoo

d116

.619

89-9

858

.38.

356.

844.

07.6

0


Los

s Z

ones

Bas

ins

0640

8500

Spri

ng C

reek

nea

r H

erm

osa

199

1950

-98

44.1

7.15

.49

.73

1.49

0642

3010

Box

elde

r C

reek

nea

r R

apid

City

128

1979

-98

14.4

5.88

.62

1.23

1.98

Art

esia

n Sp

ring

Bas

ins

0639

2950

Stoc

kade

Bea

ver

Cre

ek n

ear

New

cast

le, W

Y1

107

1975

-82,

1992

-98

93.5

12.1

51.

540.

230.

15

0640

0497

Cas

cade

Spr

ings

nea

r H

ot S

prin

gs.4

719

77-9

599

.219

.53

564

40.3

4.0

7

0640

2000

Fall

Riv

er a

t Hot

Spr

ings

137

1939

-46,

1948

-98

96.0

23.6

12.

34.2

5.1

1

0640

2470

Bea

ver

Cre

ek a

bove

Buf

falo

Gap

111

1991

-97

97.4

10.2

11.

25.2

5.2

0

0641

2810

Cle

ghor

n Sp

ring

s at

Rap

id C

ity3

----

----

----

--

0642

9905

Sand

Cre

ek n

ear

Ran

ch A

, nea

r B

eula

h, W

Y1

267

1977

-83,

1992

-98

95.1

22.5

81.

15.2

2.1

9

0643

0532

Cro

w C

reek

nea

r B

eula

h, W

Y40

.819

93-9

892

.640

.68

13.5

1.13

.08

0643

0540

Cox

Lak

e ou

tlet n

ear

Beu

lah,

WY

.07

1991

-95

99.3

4.22

819

9.16

.01

Ext

erio

r B

asin

s

0639

5000

Che

yenn

e R

iver

at E

dgem

ont3

7,14

3--

----

----

--

0640

0000

Hat

Cre

ek n

ear

Edg

emon

t1,

044

1951

-98

15.5

16.6

1.2

2.2

61.

18

0640

0875

Hor

sehe

ad C

reek

at O

elri

chs1

187

1984

-98

12.6

6.75

.49

.70

1.43

0643

3500

Hay

Cre

ek a

t Bel

le F

ourc

he12

119

54-9

617

.51.

74.2

0.2

31.

15

0643

6700

Indi

an C

reek

nea

r A

rpan

131

519

62-8

16.

619

.98

.86

.92

1.07

0643

6760

Hor

se C

reek

abo

ve V

ale3

464

----

----

----

0643

7500

Bea

r B

utte

Cre

ek n

ear

Stur

gis1

192

1946

-72

32.3

13.9

3.9

91.

041.

05

1Site

use

d on

ly f

or a

naly

sis

of s

trea

mfl

ow c

hara

cter

istic

s.2 Fl

ow c

hara

cter

istic

s af

fect

ed b

y re

lativ

ely

cons

iste

nt d

iver

sion

s of

abo

ut 1

0 cu

bic

feet

per

sec

ond.

3 Site

use

d on

ly f

or a

naly

sis

of w

ater

-qua

lity

cha

ract

eris

tics.

Tab

le 5

. S

umm

ary

of s

elec

ted

site

info

rmat

ion

and

flow

cha

ract

eris

tics

for

stre

amflo

w-g

agin

g st

atio

ns r

epre

sent

ativ

e of

hyd

roge

olog

ic s

ettin

gs–C

ontin

ued

[Mod

ifie

d fr

om D

risc

oll a

nd C

arte

r (2

001)

. --,

not

det

erm

ined

]

Sta

tio

nn

um

ber

Sta

tio

n n

ame

Dra

inag

ear

ea(s

qu

are

mile

s)

Per

iod

of r

eco

rd

use

d(w

ater

yea

rs)

Bas

efl

owin

dex

(per

cen

t)

Mea

n f

low

(cu

bic

feet

per

seco

nd

)

An

nu

al b

asin

yie

ld

Mea

n(i

nch

es)

Sta

nd

ard

d

evia

tio

n

Co

effi

cien

t o

f va

riat

ion

(sta

nd

ard

dev

i-at

ion

/mea

n)


Figure 40. Duration curves of daily mean streamflow for basins representative of hydrogeologic settings (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).

0.01

10,000

0.02

0.050.10.2

0.512

51020

50100

1,000

500

200

2,000

5,000

Stockade Beaver Creek (06392950)Cascade Springs (06400497)Fall River (06402000)Beaver Creek (06402470)Sand Creek (06429905)Crow Creek (06430532)Cox Lake (06430540)

Artesian spring basins

0.1 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.9

PERCENT OF TIME INDICATED VALUEWAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

0.01

10,000

0.02

0.050.10.2

0.512

51020

50100

1,000

500

200

2,000

5,000

0.01

10,000

0.02

0.050.10.2

0.512

51020

50100

1,000

500

200

2,000

5,000

0.01

10,000

0.02

0.050.10.2

0.512

51020

50100

1,000

500

200

2,000

5,000

0.01

10,000

0.02

0.050.10.2

0.512

51020

50100

1,000

500

200

2,000

5,000

0.01

10,000

0.02

0.050.10.2

0.512

51020

50100

1,000

500

200

2,000

5,000

DA

ILY

ME

AN

ST

RE

AM

FLO

W, I

N C

UB

IC F

EE

T P

ER

SE

CO

ND

Rhoads Fork (06408700)

Little Spearfish Creek (06430850)

Castle Creek (06409000)

Spearfish Creek (06430770)

Beaver Creek (06392900)

Cold Springs Creek (06429500)

Limestone headwater basins

Beaver Creek (06402430)French Creek (06403300)Battle Creek (06404000)Grace Coolidge (06404998)Bear Gulch (06405800)Spring Creek (06407500)

Crystalline core basins

Crystalline core basins--Continued

Boxelder Creek (06422500)Elk Creek (06424000)Annie Creek (06430800)Squaw Creek (06430898)Whitetail Creek (06436156)Bear Butte Creek (06437020)

0.1 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.9

0.1 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.9 0.1 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.9

0.1 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.9 0.1 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.9

PERCENT OF TIME INDICATED VALUEWAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

Spring Creek (06408500)Boxelder Creek (06423010)

Loss zone basins

Hat Creek (06400000)Horsehead Creek (06400875)Hay Creek (06433500)Indian Creek (06436700)Bear Butte Creek (06437500)

Exterior basins


Figure 41. Mean monthly streamflow for basins representative of hydrogeologic settings (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).

Beaver Creek (06402430)French Creek (06403300)Battle Creek (06404000)Grace Coolidge Creek (06404998)

Bear Gulch (06405800)Spring Creek (06407500)Boxelder Creek (06422500)

Spring Creek (06408500)

Boxelder Creek (06423010)

Elk Creek (06424000)

Annie Creek (06430800)Squaw Creek (06430898)

Whitetail Creek (06436156)Bear Butte Creek (06437020)

1

100

2

5

10

20

50Rhoads Fork (06408700)Castle Creek (06409000)Cold Springs Creek (06429500)Spearfish Creek (06430770)Little Spearfish Creek (06430850)


Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

MONTH

0.01

100

0.02

0.05

0.1

0.2

0.5

1

2

5

10

20

50

ME

AN

MO

NT

HLY

ST

RE

AM

FLO

W, I

N C

UB

IC F

EE

T P

ER

SE

CO

ND


0.1

100

0.2

0.5

1

2

5

10

20

50

Loss zone basins



Figure 41. Mean monthly streamflow for basins representative of hydrogeologic settings (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).—Continued

1

100

2

5

10

20

50


Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

MONTH

ME

AN

MO

NT

HLY

ST

RE

AM

FLO

W, I

N C

UB

IC F

EE

T P

ER

SE

CO

ND

Exterior basins


Stockade Beaver Creek (06392950)Cascade Springs (06400497)Fall River (06402000)

Sand Creek (06429905)Crow Creek (06430532)Cox Lake (06430540)

0.001

100

0.002

0.005

0.01

0.02

0.05

0.1

0.2

0.5

1

2

5

10

20

50



Figure 42. Distribution of annual yield for basins representative of hydrogeologic settings (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).

10th percentile

25th percentile

Median

75th percentile

90th percentile

8 Number of observations

Single value

50 151615 10 10

Beaver Creek atMallo Camp, WY

(06392900)

Rhoads Forknear Rochford

(06408700)

Castle Creek aboveDeerfield Reservoir

(06409000)

Cold Springs Creekat Buckhorn, WY

(06429500)

Spearfish Creeknear Lead

(06430770)

Little SpearfishCreek near Lead

(06430850)

STREAM

0

16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

AN

NU

AL

YIE

LD, I

N IN

CH

ES

AN

NU

AL

YIE

LD, I

N IN

CH

ES

9 7 1012 1022 108 32 103716

BeaverCreek near

Pringle(06402430)

FrenchCreekabove

Fairburn(06403300)

BattleCreek nearKeystone

(06404000)

GraceCoolidge

Creek nearGameLodge

(06404998)

Bear Gulchnear

Hayward(06405800)

SpringCreeknear

Keystone(06407500)

BoxelderCreek

near Nemo(06422500)

ElkCreeknear

Roubaix(06424000)

AnnieCreek

near Lead(06430800)

SquawCreeknear

Spearfish(06430898)

WhitetailCreek

at Lead(06436156)

Bear ButteCreeknear

Deadwood(06437020)

0

20

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Minimum

Maximum

10th percentile

25th percentile

Median

75th percentile

90th percentile


Minimum

Maximum




Figure 42. Distribution of annual yield for basins representative of hydrogeologic settings (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).—Continued

NOTE: Y-axis is plotted as flow, rather than yield

10th percentile

25th percentile

Median

75th percentile

90th percentile


STREAM

AN

NU

AL

ST

RE

AM

FLO

W, I

N C

UB

IC F

EE

T P

ER

SE

CO

ND

AN

NU

AL

YIE

LD, I

N IN

CH

ES

Minimum

Maximum

10th percentile

25th percentile

Median

75th percentile

90th percentile

Single value

Minimum

Maximum


15 19 1459 57 6

Stockade BeaverCreek near

Newcastle, WY(06392950)

Cascade Springsnear

Hot Springs(06400497)

Fall River atHot Springs(06402000)

Beaver Creek aboveBuffalo Gap(06402470)

Sand Creeknear Ranch A,

near Beulah, WY(06429905)

Crow Creeknear Beulah, WY

(06430532)

Cox Lake outletnear Beulah, WY

(06430540)

0

50

10

20

30

40

15 2049 274820 43

Spring Creeknear Hermosa

(06408500)

BoxelderCreek nearRapid City(06423010)

Hat Creeknear

Edgemont(06400000)

HorseheadCreek atOelrichs

(06400875)

Hay Creek atBelle Fourche(06433500)

Indian Creeknear Arpan(06436700)

Bear ButteCreek near

Sturgis(06437500)

0

5

0

1

2

3

4

Loss zone basins


Exterior basins


BFI’s for the crystalline core basins generally approach or slightly exceed 50 percent (table 5). Monthly flow characteristics (fig. 41), however, indi-cate a short-term response to precipitation patterns (fig. 8), which probably indicates a relatively large component of interflow contributing to base flow. This interpretation is supported by the general physical characteristics of the crystalline core basins, where large relief and steep planar surfaces provide condi-tions amenable to non-vertical flow components in the unsaturated zone. Ground-water discharge also con-tributes to streamflow; however, ground-water storage available for contribution to streamflow apparently is quickly depleted, as evidenced by the lower end of the range of annual yield values for the crystalline core basins (fig. 42). Daily flow values span two or more orders of magnitude for all crystalline core basins (fig. 40).

Few gages representative of the loss zone setting exist because sustained flow is uncommon downstream from outcrop areas where large streamflow losses pro-vide recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers (Hortness and Driscoll, 1998). The only two represen-tative loss zone gages (fig. 23) are located on Spring Creek (06408500) and Boxelder Creek (06423010). Annual basin yields for these gages are much smaller than for gages located upstream (stations 06407500 on Spring Creek and 06422500 on Boxelder Creek) and relative variability in flow is larger (table 5, figs. 40-42). Spring Creek does have relatively consis-tent base flow (table 5, BFI = 44 percent) from alluvial springs that occur a short distance upstream from the gage.

Seven representative gages for the artesian spring setting are considered (fig. 23), of which two (Cascade Springs and Cox Lake) are located in extremely small drainages with no influence from streamflow losses. Four of the gages are located in larger drainages downstream from loss zones, and one basin (Fall River, 06402000) heads predominantly within the loss zone setting (fig. 23). Monthly means (fig. 41) for Fall River show no apparent influence of flows through loss zones, in spite of storm flows that occasionally increase daily flows (fig. 40). Minor influence of flows through loss zones is apparent in both monthly and daily flow characteristics for the other four gages (figs. 40 and 41). The influence of minor irrigation diversions along Stockade Beaver Creek (06392950) during late spring and summer months also is apparent.

For the exterior setting, daily flows for represen-tative gages vary by more than four orders of magni-tude (fig. 40) and zero-flow conditions are common, which is consistent with BFI’s that typically are small (table 5). Large variability in monthly and annual flows also is characteristic for the exterior setting (figs. 41 and 42). Annual basin yields also are smaller than for most other settings, which is consistent with smaller precipitation and larger evaporation rates at lower altitudes. Many of these sites also are affected by minor irrigation withdrawals.

Response to Precipitation

Streams representative of the various hydrogeo-logic settings generally have distinctive characteristics relative to responsiveness to precipitation, as described within this section. Methods used for determination of precipitation over drainage areas were described by Driscoll and Carter (2001), who provided detailed dis-cussions regarding relations between streamflow and precipitation.

The limestone headwater basins generally have weak correlations between annual streamflow and pre-cipitation, as summarized in table 6. The r2 values are low and p-values indicate that the correlations are not statistically significant (>0.05) for most of the repre-sentative basins, which is consistent with minimal vari-ability in daily (fig. 40) and monthly (fig. 41) flow. Correlations with annual streamflow improve when “moving-average” precipitation (annual precipitation averaged over multiple years) is considered as the explanatory variable. Regression information is sum-marized in table 6 for the number of years of moving-average precipitation for which r2 values are maxi-mized for each basin.

The regression equation (table 6) for Castle Creek (station 06409000) probably is the most reliable, in spite of an associated r2 value that is relatively low, primarily because the length of record is the longest (table 5). High r2 values for several basins probably result primarily from relatively short periods of record; thus, associated regression equations for these stations may not be representative of long-term conditions. The p-values generally indicate strong statistical signifi-cance, however, which provides confidence that long-term precipitation patterns are much more important than short-term patterns for explaining streamflow variability in the limestone headwater setting. This concept is consistent with the hydrogeologic setting, where streamflow is dominated by headwater spring-flow.


Table 6. Summary of regression information for limestone headwater basins

[Regression information (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001) is provided for streamflow as a function of annual precipitation and as a function of moving aver-age precipitation over a specified number of years. Int, intercept; <, less than]

Station number

Station name

Annual precipitation Moving average precipitation

r2 p-valueNumberof years

r2 p-value Slope Int

06392900 Beaver Creek at Mallo Camp 0.01 0.668 11 0.24 0.063 0.211 -2.78

06408700 Rhoads Fork .16 .123 9 .93 <.010 .658 -9.12

06409000 Castle Creek .31 <.010 3 .58 <.010 1.043 -10.70

06429500 Cold Springs Creek .01 .800 11 .70 <.010 .722 11.65

06430770 Spearfish Creek near Lead .72 <.010 7 .99 <.010 3.858 -68.63

06430850 Little Spearfish Creek .53 .017 7 .93 <.010 1.450 -19.32

Graphs showing relations between annual streamflow and precipitation for crystalline core basins are presented in figure 43. Each graph includes a linear regression line, along with the corresponding equation and r2 value. All of the slopes are highly significant; thus, p-values are not shown. The r2 values range from 0.52 for Beaver Creek (06402430) to 0.87 for Bear Gulch (06405800), and are much higher as a group than for the limestone headwater basins (table 6), which is consistent with larger variability in flow characteristics (figs. 40-42).

An exponential regression curve, along with the corresponding equation and r2 value, also is shown on each graph in figure 43. All of the exponential equa-tions would predict small, positive streamflow for zero precipitation (which is not realistic), but avoid predic-tion of negative streamflow in the lower range of typ-ical annual precipitation, which is indicated for many of the linear regression equations.

Each graph in figure 43 also includes a curve labeled “runoff efficiency prediction,” which is derived from linear regression equations of runoff efficiency as a function of precipitation. Runoff efficiency (the ratio of annual basin yield to precipitation) represents the percentage of annual precipitation returned as stream-flow. Runoff efficiency regression lines for the 12 representative crystalline core basins are shown in figure 44; regression equations were presented by Driscoll and Carter (2001). Figure 44 indicates that within each basin, runoff efficiency increases with

increasing annual precipitation, and that basins with higher precipitation generally have higher efficiencies.

The runoff efficiency predictions (fig. 43) are derived by substituting values for annual precipitation into the runoff efficiency regression equations. Runoff efficiency predictions are unrealistic (slightly negative) for very low precipitation values, but are consistently positive for the measured ranges of precipitation and also closely resemble the linear regression equations (streamflow versus precipitation) through this range.

Relations between streamflow and precipitation for the two loss-zone basins are presented in figure 45. It is apparent that low-flow and zero-flow years are common, with substantial flows occurring only when upstream flows are sufficiently large to sustain flow through loss zones. A power equation and associated r2 value are shown for each basin, which provide reason-able fits for the nonlinear data.

Regression statistics (annual streamflow versus precipitation) for artesian spring basins are summa-rized in table 7. Regression equations, which are not meaningful because of low r2 values and p-values greater than 0.05, are not provided. Weak correlations are consistent with small variability in flow character-istics (figs. 40-42) associated with ground-water dis-charge and with long ground-water residence times. Naus and others (2001) concluded that large propor-tions of springflow for several of the representative artesian springs have residence times exceeding 50 years.


Figure 43. Relations between annual streamflow and precipitation for crystalline core basins (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

ST

RE

AM

FLO

W, I

N C

UB

IC F

EE

T P

ER

SE

CO

ND

Linear regressiony = 0.346x - 5.51r2 = 0.52Exponential regressiony = 0.052e0.142x

r2 = 0.34

Runoff efficiency prediction


r2 = 0.73



r2 = 0.53


Grace Coolidge Creek near Game Lodge, nearCuster (06404998)


r2 = 0.72


Battle Creek near Keystone (06404000)


r2 = 0.91



r2 = 0.62


Bear Gulch near Hayward (06405800)

Beaver Creek near Pringle (06402430)

French Creek above Fairburn (06403300)

Spring Creek near Keystone (06407500)

0 355 10 15 20 25 30

8

-2

0

2

4

6

0 355 10 15 20 25 30

40

-10

0

10

20

30

0 355 10 15 20 25 30

40

-10

0

10

20

30

0 350 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 350 5 10 15 20 25 30

25

-5

0

5

10

15

20

-1

4

0

1

2

3

0 300 5 10 15 20 25-20

80

0

20

40

60


Figure 43. Relations between annual streamflow and precipitation for crystalline core basins (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).—Continued

0 4010 20 30

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

0 4010 20 30


ST

RE

AM

FLO

W, I

N C

UB

IC F

EE

T P

ER

SE

CO

ND


r2 = 0.62



r2 = 0.71



r2 = 0.81



r2 = 0.61


-1

5

0

1

2

3

4


r2 = 0.75


Annie Creek near Lead (06430800)


r2 = 0.72


Bear Butte Creek near Deadwood (06437020)

Boxelder Creek near Nemo (06422500)

Elk Creek near Roubaix (06424000)

Squaw Creek near Spearfish (06430898)

0 355 10 15 20 25 30

80

-20

0

20

40

60

-5

25

0

5

10

15

20

0 455 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-2

10

0

2

4

6

8

Whitetail Creek at Lead (06436156)

0 455 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 455 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

-2

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

-5

25

0

5

10

15

20


Figure 44. Relations between annual runoff efficiency and precipitation for crystalline core basins (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).

5 4510 15 20 25 30 35 40


0

60

10

20

30

40

50R

UN

OF

F E

FF

ICIE

NC

Y, IN

PE

RC

EN

T

Beaver Creek (06402430)French Creek (06403300)Battle Creek (06404000)Grace Coolidge Creek (06404998)Bear Gulch (06405800)

Spring Creek (06407500)Boxelder Creek (06422500)Elk Creek (06424000)Annie Creek (06430800)Squaw Creek (06430898)Whitetail Creek (06436156)Bear Butte Creek (06437020)

Figure 45. Relations between annual streamflow and precipitation for loss zone basins (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).


ST

RE

AM

FLO

W, I

N C

UB

IC F

EE

T P

ER

SE

CO

ND


Spring Creek near Hermosa (06408500)

y = 1.013E-7*x5.892

r2 = 0.68y = 9.782E-15*x10.469

r2 = 0.84

0 305 10 15 20 250

50

10

20

30

40

0 355 10 15 20 25 300

50

10

20

30

40

Boxelder Creek near Rapid City (06423010)


Table 7. Summary of regression information for artesian spring basins

[Regression information (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001) is provided for streamflow as a function of annual precipitation]

Station number Station nameAnnual precipitation

r2 p-value

06392950 Stockade Beaver Creek 0.16 0.135

06400497 Cascade Springs .07 .289

06402000 Fall River .003 .660

06402470 Beaver Creek above Buffalo Gap .49 .079

06429905 Sand Creek .04 .481

06430532 Crow Creek .39 .185

06430540 Cox Lake .55 .152

Driscoll and Carter (2001) identified a distinc-tive temporal trend in streamflow for the Fall River, which is composed almost entirely of artesian spring-flow. Peterlin (1990) investigated possible causes for declining streamflow that occurred during about 1940-70 (fig. 46), but did not conclusively determine causes. Wet climatic conditions during the 1990’s have resulted in increased streamflow.

Relations between annual flow and precipitation for representative exterior basins are presented in figure 47. The p-values indicate that all correlations are statistically significant; however, the r2 values gener-ally are weak, relative to r2 values for linear regressions for the crystalline core basins (fig. 43). A probable

explanation is that crystalline core basins generally have larger base-flow components than exterior basins (table 5), which apparently are strongly influenced by annual precipitation amounts. In contrast, exterior basins are dominated by direct runoff, which is more responsive to event-oriented factors such as precipita-tion intensity.

Relations between annual runoff efficiency and precipitation for exterior basins are shown in figure 48. Runoff efficiencies generally increase with increasing precipitation, but efficiencies generally are lower than for the crystalline core basins (fig. 44) because of gen-erally lower precipitation, increased evaporation potential, and minor irrigation withdrawals.

Figure 46. Long-term trends in annual streamflow for station 06402000 (Fall River near Hot Springs), relative to annual precipitation.

20001920 19601940 1950 1970 19901930 1980

WATER YEAR

40

0

10

20

30

ST

RE

AM

FLO

W,

IN C

UB

IC F

EE

T P

ER

SE

CO

ND

40

30

0

10

20

PR

EC

IPIT

ATIO

N, I

N IN

CH

ES

StreamflowPrecipitation


Figure 47. Relations between annual streamflow and precipitation for exterior basins (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).



ST

RE

AM

FLO

W, I

N C

UB

IC F

EE

T P

ER

SE

CO

ND

Hat Creek near Edgemont (06400000)

y = 2.657x - 25.89r2 = 0.21p-value = 0.001

y = 0.306x - 3.85r2 = 0.49p-value = 1.51E-7

y = 1.649x - 21.80r2 = 0.49p-value = 0.004

y = 3.923x - 39.65r2 = 0.30p-value = 0.012

y = 2.324x - 41.09r2 = 0.69p-value = 9.16E-8

0 255 10 15 200

120

20

40

60

80

100

Horsehead Creek at Oelrichs (06400875)

0 255 10 15 200

30

5

10

15

20

25

Hay Creek at Belle Fourche (06433500)

0 305 10 15 20 250

10

2

4

6

8

Indian Creek near Arpan (06436700)

0 255 10 15 200

100

20

40

60

80

Bear Butte Creek near Sturgis (06437500)

0 4010 20 300

80

20

40

60


Annual Yield

Annual yield characteristics are highly variable throughout the study area, primarily because of oro-graphic effects, which influence both precipitation and evapotranspiration. Selected information for gages used for analysis of basin yield is presented in table 8. With the exception of site 2 (station 06395000, Cheyenne River), all of the sites considered are repre-sentative gages for either the limestone headwater, crystalline core, or exterior hydrogeologic settings (table 5). Two of the representative gages from these settings (stations 06405800, Bear Gulch and 06436700, Indian Creek) are excluded because annual yields may not be representative of areal conditions (Driscoll and Carter, 2001). All of the loss zone and artesian spring gages also are excluded.

Mean annual basin yields that are based on sur-face drainage areas for periods of measured record for

selected gages are shown in figure 49. The largest yields occur in high-altitude areas of the northern Black Hills that receive large annual precipitation (fig. 4).

Large differences in annual yields are apparent for several of the limestone headwater basins, which results from incongruences between contributing ground- and surface-water areas. Mean annual yields for the four limestone headwater basins in South Dakota (sites 10, 11, 15, and 17; fig. 49) were esti-mated by Carter, Driscoll, Hamade, and Jarrell (2001) based on contributing ground-water areas. The contrib-uting ground-water areas (fig. 50) were delineated by Jarrell (2000), based primarily on the structural orien-tation of the underlying Ordovician and Cambrian rocks. For the two limestone headwater basins in Wyoming (sites 1 and 14), relatively low yields indi-cate that contributing ground-water areas probably are smaller than the associated surface-water areas; how-ever, estimates of contributing areas are not available.

Figure 48. Relations between annual runoff efficiency and precipitation for exterior basins (from Driscoll and Carter, 2001).

0 405 10 15 20 25 30 35


0

12

2

4

6

8

10

RU

NO

FF

EF

FIC

IEN

CY,

IN P

ER

CE

NT



Tab

le 8

. S

umm

ary

of in

form

atio

n us

ed in

ana

lysi

s of

yie

ld c

hara

cter

istic

s

[Fro

m D

risc

oll a

nd C

arte

r (2

001)

. --,

not

app

lica

ble]

Sit

en

um

ber

(fig

. 49)

Sta

tio

nn

um

ber

Sta

tio

n n

ame

Per

iod

of

reco

rd(w

ater

yea

rs)

Co

ntr

ibu

tin

g a

rea

(sq

uar

e m

iles)

Mea

n a

nn

ual

yie

ld fo

r p

erio

d o

f re

cord

(in

ches

)

Mea

n a

nn

ual

yie

ldef

fici

ency

3

1950

-98

(per

cen

t)

Su

rfac

ew

ater

Gro

un

dw

ater

1S

urf

ace

wat

erG

rou

nd

wat

er2

Su

rfac

ew

ater

Gro

un

dw

ater

2

106

3929

00B

eave

r C

reek

at M

allo

Cam

p19

75-8

2,19

92-9

810

.3(4 )

2.48

--5 10

.6--

206

3950

00C

heye

nne

Riv

er19

47-9

87,

143

--.1

5--

6 .9--

306

4000

00H

at C

reek

1951

-98

1,04

4--

.22

--1.

3--

406

4008

75H

orse

head

Cre

ek19

84-9

818

7--

.49

--2.

1--

506

4024

30B

eave

r C

reek

nea

r Pr

ingl

e19

91-9

845

.8--

.85

--1.

8--

606

4033

00Fr

ench

Cre

ek19

83-9

810

5--

1.42

--5.

4--

706

4040

00B

attle

Cre

ek19

62-9

858

.0--

2.20

--8.

3--

806

4049

98G

race

Coo

lidge

1977

-98

25.2

--2.

73--

9.9

--

906

4075

00Sp

ring

Cre

ek19

87-9

816

3--

2.09

--6.

7--

1006

4087

00R

hoad

s Fo

rk19

83-9

87.

9513

.19.

345.

675 41

.85 25

.4

1106

4090

00C

astle

Cre

ek19

48-9

879

.241

.72.

013.

826 9.

36 17

.7

1206

4225

00B

oxel

der

Cre

ek19

67-9

896

.0--

2.76

--10

.8--

1306

4240

00E

lk C

reek

1992

-98

21.5

--8.

48--

21.5

--

1406

4295

00C

old

Spri

ngs

Cre

ek19

75-8

2,19

92-9

819

.0(4 )

3.10

--5 13

.1--

1506

4307

70Sp

earf

ish

Cre

ek19

89-9

863

.550

.87 7.

589.

485,

7 25.1

5,7 31

.4

1606

4308

00A

nnie

Cre

ek19

89-9

83.

55--

6.55

--16

.4--

1706

4308

50L

ittle

Spe

arfi

sh C

reek

1989

-98

25.8

25.4

8.74

8.88

5 31.8

5 32.3

1806

4308

98Sq

uaw

Cre

ek19

89-9

86.

95--

7.34

--21

.5--

1906

4335

00H

ay C

reek

1954

-96

121

--.2

0--

1.0

--

2006

4361

56W

hite

tail

Cre

ek19

89-9

86.

15--

10.5

7--

27.2

--

2106

4370

20B

ear

But

te C

reek

nea

r D

eadw

ood

1989

-98

16.6

--6.

84--

18.7

--

2206

4375

00B

ear

But

te C

reek

nea

r St

urgi

s19

46-7

28 12

0--

1.58

--6.

0--

1 Est

imat

e of

con

trib

utin

g gr

ound

-wat

er a

rea

from

Car

ter,

Dri

scol

l, H

amad

e, a

nd J

arre

ll (2

001)

.2 Y

ield

est

imat

es, w

here

app

lica

ble,

adj

uste

d ba

sed

on c

ontr

ibut

ing

grou

nd-w

ater

are

a.3 E

stim

ated

usi

ng r

elat

ions

bet

wee

n ru

noff

eff

icie

ncy

and

prec

ipit

atio

n fr

om C

arte

r, D

risc

oll,

and

Ham

ade

(200

1), u

nles

s ot

herw

ise

note

d.4 C

ontr

ibut

ing

area

s fo

r su

rfac

e w

ater

and

gro

und

wat

er p

roba

bly

not c

ongr

uent

; how

ever

, no

estim

ates

ava

ilabl

e.5 E

stim

ated

usi

ng a

vera

ge r

unof

f ef

fici

ency

for

the

avai

labl

e pe

riod

of

reco

rd.

6 Peri

od o

f re

cord

suf

fici

ent f

or c

ompu

tatio

n of

yie

ld e

ffic

ienc

y.7 A

flo

w o

f 10

cub

ic f

eet p

er s

econ

d ha

s be

en a

dded

to th

e m

easu

red

stre

amfl

ow to

acc

ount

for

div

erte

d fl

ow.

8 App

roxi

mat

e dr

aina

ge a

rea

belo

w lo

ss z

one.

Act

ual d

rain

age

area

is 1

92 s

quar

e m

iles.


Figure 49. Basin yields for selected streamflow-gaging stations. For some stations, basin yields that are based on contributing ground-water areas estimated by Jarrell (2000) also are shown. Basin yields are for periods of record, which are not the same for all stations.

Creek

CreekCr

Bea

ver

Cre

ek

Creek

Cold

Springs

Sand

Beaver

Stoc

kade W

hoo

pup

N. F

orkR

apidC

r

Belle FourcheReservoir

FOURCHE

VictoriaSpring

Rhoa

dsFork

Coolidge

Highland

AngosturaReservoir

Castl eC

r

N. Fork Castle Cr

Hel

l

Canyo

n Can

yon

Red

Bea

rG

ulch

Creek

Crow

SheridanLake

Hot Brook Canyon

CoxLake

DeerfieldReservoir

PactolaReservoir

IndianCr

Horse

Creek

OwlCreek

BELLE

RIVER

REDWATER R I VE

R

Cre

ek

Cr

Lit

tle

Spea

rfis

h

Spea

rfish

Cre

ekSp

earf

ish

Whi

tewoo

d

Cre

ek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

CreekCreek

Spri

ng

Creek

French

Creek

Creek

CreekG

race

Creek

Creek

Cre

ek

S. Fork

Red

bird

Gillette

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

FallR

Hat

Cre

ek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cot

tonw

ood

CreekHay

Bot

tom

False

Creek

Spokane

Lame

Johnny

Hig

gins

Bea

ver

Cr

Whi

teta

il

Cr

Cr

Cr

Cr

Gulch

Annie

Squaw

Dea

dwood

Creek

AlkaliIron Cr

Elk

Little

Creek

Castle

Cas

tleCreek

C reek

Bear Gulch

CrStrawberry

Bol

esC

anyo

n

Can

yon

Canyon

Beaver

Creek

Whitewood

Spearfish

SaintOnge

DEADWOOD

Lead

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Minnekahta

Tinton CentralCity

Roubaix

Nemo

Vale

Nisland

Hayward

Keystone

Rochford

Pringle

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Dewey

CascadeSprings

IglooProvo

Oral

Rockerville

RAPID CITY

LIM

ES

TO

NE

PL

AT

EA

U

Wind CaveNational Park

Jewel CaveNational

Monument

Mt. RushmoreNationalMemorial

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

WindCave

HarneyPeak

x

EllsworthAir ForceBase

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WY

OM

ING

SO

UT

H

DA

KO

TA

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 12

11

1315

14

1

1617

18

19

20 21

22

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 12

11

1315

14

1

1617

18

19

20 21

22

11

2.013.82

1.58

0.20

7.34

8.748.88

6.55

7.589.48

10.576.84

8.48

3.10

2.48

9.345.67

2.013.82

2.76

2.09

2.20

2.73

1.42

0.85

0.15

0.22

0.49

1.58

0.20

7.34

8.748.88

6.55

7.589.48

10.576.84

8.48

3.10

2.48

9.345.67

2.013.82

2.76

2.09

2.20

2.73

1.42

0.85

0.15

0.22

0.49

OUTCROP OF MADISON LIME- STONE (from Strobel and others, 1999)

OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA FORMATION (from Strobel and others, 1999)

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION--Number indicates site number from table 8. Red number indicates mean annual basin yield, in inches, based on surface-water drainage area. Green number (where applicable) indicates mean annual basin yield, in inches, based on estimated contributing ground- water area

EXPLANATION104o 45' 103o30'

15' 103o

30'

44o45'

15'

44o

45'

30'

43o15'

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,1:100,000, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985Rapid City, Office of City Engineer map, 1:18,000, 1996Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13


Figure 50. Comparison between surface-drainage areas and contributing ground-water areas for streamflow-gaging stations in Limestone Plateau area (modified from Jarrell, 2000). Streamflow in the basins shown generally is dominated by ground-water discharge of headwater springs. Recharge occurring in areas west of the ground-water divide does not contribute to headwater springflow east of the divide.

Lit

tle

Spea

rfis

h

Spea

rfis

h

Creek

Creek

CreekCastle

Castle

Cas

tle

Castle

Creek

CreekSp

ring

French

Creek

Creek

N. F

ork

S. Fork

N. Fork

S. Fork

Rapid

Rapid

Rapid

Rhoad

s Fork

Cre

ek

Cr

Squaw

Annie

Creek

Cr

Creek

Cre

ek

DeerfieldReservoir

PactolaReservoir

SheridanLake

StockadeLakeRed Canyon

Bole

s

Gillette

Can

yon

Canyon

Red

bird

Can

yon

Cold SpringsCreek

Creek

Beaver

Lead

Hill City

CUSTER

CheyenneCrossing

Rochford

LAWRENCE COUNTY

PENNINGTON COUNTY

CUSTER COUNTY

LIM

ES

TO

NE

P

LA

TE

AU

06430850

06430770

06408700

06409000

06430850

06430770

06408700

06409000

06408700

EXPLANATION

51 2 3 4 MILES

51 2 3 4 KILOMETERS0

0

44o15'

44o

43o45'

103o45'

104o

103o30'

CONTRIBUTING GROUND- WATER AREAS

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION—Number is station number

Rhoads Fork near Rochford (06408700)Castle Creek above Deerfield Reservoir (06409000)Spearfish Creek near Lead (06430770)

Little Spearfish Creek near Lead (06430850)

SOUTH DAKOTA

Studyarea

Areashown

SURFACE-AREA DRAINAGE AREA

OUTCROP OF DEADWOOD FORMATION, ENGLEWOOD FORMATION, MADISON LIMESTONE, AND MINNELUSA FORMATION (modified from Strobel and others, 1999)

ESTIMATED GROUND-WATER DIVIDE FOR THE MADISON AQUIFER (modified from Jarrell, 2000)



The approximate location of a ground-water divide that was identified by Jarrell (2000) also is shown in figure 50. This divide coincides with the western extent of the contributing ground-water areas for the four gaging stations that are shown. West of the ground-water divide, infiltration of precipitation results in ground-water recharge that is assumed to flow to the west, contributing to regional flowpaths in the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers that wrap around the northern or southern flanks of the uplift (fig. 17). East of the divide, recharge is assumed to contribute to headwater springflow along the eastern flank of the Limestone Plateau.

The ground-water divide extends about 10 mi south of the Castle Creek Basin and approximately coincides with the western extent of the Spring and French Creek drainage areas in this vicinity. The ground-water divide is not defined south of this point because the surface drainages contribute to Red Canyon, which flows to the south and provides stream-flow recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers along the western flank of the uplift. Westerly ground-water flow directions are not possible immediately north of the ground-water divide because the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers are absent in the vicinity of Tertiary intrusive units (fig. 14).

After adjusting for contributing ground-water areas, annual yields for the limestone headwater basins (table 8; fig. 49) generally are consistent with a pattern of increasing yields corresponding with increasing annual precipitation (fig. 4). Adjusted yields for lime-stone headwater basins, which are dominated by ground-water discharge, also are generally similar to yields for nearby streams that are dominated by surface influences. These similarities were used by Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade (2001) in developing a method for estimating precipitation recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. An important initial assump-tion was that in areas of comparable precipitation, evapotranspiration in outcrops of the Madison and Minnelusa Formations is similar to evapotranspiration for crystalline core settings, where recharge to regional flow systems is considered negligible. A further assumption was made that direct runoff is negligible for Madison and Minnelusa outcrops, which is sup-ported by the daily flow characteristics for the lime-stone headwater setting. These assumptions resulted in a concept that streamflow yield in the crystalline core setting can be used as a surrogate for the efficiency of precipitation recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. This concept is schematically illustrated in figure 51.

Figure 51. Schematic diagram illustrating recharge and streamflow characteristics for selected outcrop types (from Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade, 2001).

PRECIPITATION

MADISONAND

MINNELUSAOUTCROPS

CRYSTALLINECORE

STREAMFLOW = 0

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

PRECIPITATION

RECHARGETO REGIONAL FLOW SYSTEM

RECHARGETO REGIONAL FLOW SYSTEM = 0

STREAMFLOW


Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade (2001) used esti-mates of average runoff efficiencies for 1950-98 to develop a map of generalized yield efficiency for the study area (fig. 52). Where applicable, estimated yield efficiencies shown in figure 52 are representative of estimated yield efficiencies for the contributing ground-water areas. For basins where contributing surface- and ground-water areas are assumed to be con-gruent, yield efficiency is considered equivalent to runoff efficiency. For areas where direct runoff is neg-ligible, yield efficiency is considered equivalent to the efficiency of precipitation recharge. For many gages, estimation of average yield efficiencies for this period required extrapolation of incomplete streamflow records (table 5) using precipitation records. Records were extrapolated to compensate for bias resulting from short-term records for many gages that are skewed towards wet climatic conditions during the 1990’s. Yield efficiencies for most of the limestone headwater gages are simply averages for the available periods of record, because relations between stream-flow and precipitation for this setting generally are very weak or unrealistic.

Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade (2001) also consid-ered precipitation patterns and topography in con-touring yield efficiencies, which provide a reasonable fit with calculated efficiencies (fig. 52). Estimates of contributing areas are not available for the two lime-stone headwater gages in Wyoming (sites 1 and 14); thus, yield efficiencies could not be adjusted. For Annie Creek (site 16), the calculated yield efficiency (16.4 percent) is lower than for other nearby streams, which may result from extensive mining operations that utilize substantial quantities of water through evaporation for heap-leach processes. For Hay Creek (site 19), the calculated yield efficiency (1.0 percent) is notably lower than the mapped contours, which prob-ably results from precipitation recharge to outcrops of the Inyan Kara Group (fig. 14).

Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade (2001) used rela-tions between yield efficiency and precipitation in developing a GIS algorithm for systematically esti-mating annual recharge from infiltration of precipita-tion, based on annual precipitation on outcrop areas. Linear regression and best-fit exponential equations were determined for 11 basins, which include all of the representative crystalline basins (table 5) except Bear Gulch. Exponential equations were in the form of:

(1)

whereYEannual = annual yield efficiency, in percent;

Pannual = annual precipitation, in inches;Paverage = average annual precipitation for

1950-98, in inches;YEaverage = average annual yield efficiency for

1950-98, in percent; andn = exponent.

Best-fit exponents ranged from 1.1 for Elk Creek to 2.5 for Spring Creek. An exponent of 1.6 was chosen as best representing the range of best-fit exponents (Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade, 2001), which allowed a systematic approach to estimation of annual recharge. Scatter plots with the linear regression lines, best-fit exponential curves, and exponential curves using an exponent of 1.6 are shown in figure 53. The three methods provide very similar results through the mid-range of measured precipitation values, with the largest differences occurring for the upper part of the range.

The spatial distribution of average annual yield potential for the Black Hills area is shown in figure 54. Average annual recharge from infiltration of precipita-tion on outcrops of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation is shown as an example. Esti-mates were derived by Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade (2001) using a GIS algorithm that compared digital grids (1,000-by-1,000 meters, including outcrop areas in Wyoming) for annual precipitation, average annual precipitation (fig. 4), and average annual yield effi-ciency (fig. 53). Annual recharge rates for individual grid cells ranged from 0.4 inch at the southern extremity of the outcrops to 8.7 inches in the northern Black Hills. Although this “yield-efficiency algorithm” was developed initially for estimating precipitation recharge for the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers, applications for estimating streamflow yield and recharge for other aquifers also are appropriate and are used later in this report.

Water Quality

This section summarizes water-quality charac-teristics for surface water within the study area. More detailed discussions are presented by Williamson and Carter (2001). Standards and criteria that apply to sur-face waters are presented in the following section, after which common-ion characteristics, anthropogenic effects on water quality, and additional factors relative to in-stream standards are discussed.

YEannualPannualPaverage-------------------

nYEaverage×=


Figure 52. Generalized average annual yield efficiency (in percent of annual precipitation), water years 1950-98 (from Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade, 2001).

N. F

orkR

apidC

r


FOURCHE

VictoriaSpring

Rhoa

dsFork

Coolidge

Highland

AngosturaReservoir

Castl eC

r

N. Fork Castle Cr

Hel

l

Canyo

n Can

yon

Red

Bea

rG

ulch

Creek

Crow

SheridanLake

Hot Brook Canyon

CoxLake

DeerfieldReservoir

PactolaReservoir

IndianCr

Horse

Creek

OwlCreek

BELLE

RIVER

REDWATER R I VE

R

Cre

ek

Cr

Lit

tle

Spea

rfis

h

Spea

rfish

Cre

ekSp

earf

ish

Whi

tewoo

d

Cre

ek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

CreekCreek

Spri

ng

Creek

French

Creek

Creek

CreekG

race

Creek

Creek

Cre

ek

S. Fork

Red

bird

Gillette

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

FallR

Hat

Cre

ek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cot

tonw

ood

CreekHay

Bot

tom

False

Creek

Spokane

Lame

Johnny

Hig

gins

Bea

ver

Cr

Whi

teta

il

Cr

Cr

Cr

Cr

Gulch

Annie

Squaw

Dea

dwood

Creek

AlkaliIron Cr

Elk

Little

Creek

Castle

Cas

tleCreek

Creek

Bear Gulch

CrStrawberry

Bol

esC

anyo

n

Can

yon

Canyon

Beaver

Creek

Creek

CreekCr

Bea

ver

Cre

ek

Creek

Cold

Springs

Sand

Beaver

Stoc

kade W

hoo

pup

Whitewood

Spearfish

SaintOnge

DEADWOOD

Lead

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Minnekahta

Tinton CentralCity

Roubaix

Nemo

Vale

Nisland

Hayward

Keystone

Rochford

Pringle

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Dewey

CascadeSprings

IglooProvo

Oral

Rockerville

RAPID CITY

LIM

ES

TO

NE

PL

AT

EA

U


Jewel CaveNational

Monument


CUSTER

STATE

PARK

WindCave

HarneyPeak

x

EllsworthAir ForceBase

BUTTE CO


PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WY

OM

ING

SO

UT

H

DA

KO

TA

4

6

30 25

20

8

15 10

108

6

6

44

2

2

1

20.9 3

1.34

2.1

51.8

65.4

78.3

89.9

96.7

1025.4

1210.8

1117.7

1321.5

1413.1

110.6

1616.4 15

31.4

1732.3

1821.5

191.0

2027.2

2118.7

226.0

20.9 3

1.34

2.1

51.8

65.4

78.3

89.9

96.7

1025.4

1210.8

1117.7

1321.5

1413.1

110.6

1616.4 15

31.4

1732.3

1821.5

191.0

2027.2

2118.7

226.0

104o 45' 103o30'

15' 103o

30'

44o45'

15'

44o

45'

30'

43o15'

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

LINE OF EQUAL AVERAGE ANNUAL YIELD EFFICIENCY-- Interval 1, 2, or 5 percent

15

OUTCROP OF MADISON LIME- STONE (from Strobel and others, 1999)

OUTCROP OF MINNELUSA FORMATION (from Strobel and others, 1999)

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION--Numbers indicate site number from table 6 and estimated yield efficiency, in percent, for water years 1950-98. (Yield efficiencies for contributing ground-water areas shown where applicable)

31.3



Figure 53. Relations between yield efficiency and precipitation for selected streamflow-gaging stations (modified from Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade, 2001).

YIE

LD E

FF

ICIE

NC

Y, I

N P

ER

CE

NT

YIE

LD E

FF

ICIE

NC

Y, I

N P

ER

CE

NT

YIE

LD E

FF

ICIE

NC

Y, I

N P

ER

CE

NT

ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

0

8

2

4

6

Beaver Creek near Pringle (06402430)

0

20

5

10

15

French Creek above Fairburn (06403300)

0 355 10 15 20 25 30

0 355 10 15 20 25 30

0 355 10 15 20 25 30


0

25

05

10

15

20

Battle Creek near Keystone (06404000)

Best-fit exponent = 1.9



0 355 10 15 20 25 300

40

10

20

30

Grace Coolidge Creek near Game Lodge, near Custer(06404998)

0 305 10 15 20 250

20

05

10

15

Spring Creek near Keystone (06407500)



0 355 10 15 20 25 300

30

10

20

Boxelder Creek near Nemo (06422500)



Figure 53. Relations between yield efficiency and precipitation for selected streamflow-gaging stations (modified from Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade, 2001).—Continued

YIE

LD E

FF

ICIE

NC

Y, I

N P

ER

CE

NT

YIE

LD E

FF

ICIE

NC

Y, I

N P

ER

CE

NT

YIE

LD E

FF

ICIE

NC

Y, I

N P

ER

CE

NT


0

0 405 10 15 20 25 30 350

40

10

20

30

Elk Creek near Roubaix (06424000)

405 10 15 20 25 30 350

50

10

20

30

40

Annie Creek near Lead (06430800)



0 455 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

50

10

20

30

40

Squaw Creek near Spearfish (06430898)


ANNUAL PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES0 455 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 455 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

60

20

10

40

30

50

Whitetail Creek at Lead (06436156)

0

50

10

20

30

40

Bear Butte Creek near Deadwood (06437020)



LINEAR REGRESSION

EXPONENTIAL REGRESSION USING AN EXPONENT OF 1.6

BEST FIT EXPONENTIAL REGRESSION

EXPLANATION


Figure 54. Estimated annual yield potential for the Black Hills area, water years 1950-98 (from Carter, Driscoll, and Hamade, 2001). Average annual recharge from precipitation on outcrops of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation is shown as an example.

Redwater

Creek

Inyan

Kara Creek

Creek

Beaver

CHEYENNE

RI

VER

Creek

Lance

N. F

orkR

apidC

r


FOURCHE

VictoriaSpring

Rhoa

dsFork

Coolidge

Highland

AngosturaReservoir

Castl eC

rN. Fork Castle Cr

Hel

l

Canyo

n Can

yon

Red

Bea

rG

ulch

Creek

Crow

SheridanLake

H ot Brook Canyon

CoxLake

DeerfieldReservoir

PactolaReservoir

IndianCr

Horse

Creek

OwlCreek

BELLE

RIVER

REDWATER R I VE

R

Cre

ek

Cr

Lit

tle

Spea

rfis

h

Spea

rfish

Cre

ekSp

earf

ish

Whi

tewoo

d

Cre

ek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

CreekCreek

Spri

ng

Creek

French

Creek

Creek

CreekG

race

Creek

Creek

Cre

ek

S. Fork

Red

bird

Gillette

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

FallR

Hat

Cre

ek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cot

tonw

ood

CreekHay

Bot

tom

False

Creek

Spokane

Lame

Johnny

Hig

gins

Bea

ver

Cr

Whi

teta

il

Cr

Cr

Cr

Cr

Gulch

Annie

Squaw

Dea

dwood

Creek

AlkaliIron Cr

Elk

Little

Creek

Castle

Cas

tleCreek

C reek

Bear Gulch

CrStrawberry

Bol

esC

anyo

n

Ca

nyo

n

Canyon

Sundance

Beulah

Newcastle

Whitewood

Spearfish

SaintOnge

DEADWOOD

Lead

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Minnekahta

Tinton CentralCity

Roubaix

Nemo

Vale

Nisland

Hayward

Keystone

Rochford

Pringle

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Dewey

CascadeSprings

IglooProvo

Oral

Rockerville

RAPID CITY

LIM

ES

TO

NE

PL

AT

EA

U


Jewel CaveNational

Monument


CUSTER

STATE

PARK

WindCave

HarneyPeak

x

EllsworthAir ForceBaseCROOK CO

WESTON CO

NIOBRARA CO

104o104o30' 103o30'

103o

44o30'

44o

43o30'

BUTTE CO


PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WY

OM

ING

SO

UT

H

DA

KO

TA

87

7

6

6

5

5

2

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

EXPLANATIONCONNECTED OUTCROP OF MADISON LIMESTONE FOR WHICH PRECIPITATION RECHARGE IS PRESCRIBED (modified from Strobel and others, 1999; DeWitt and others, 1989)

AVERAGE ANNUAL RECHARGE, IN INCHES

Less than 1

1 to 2

2 to 3

3 to 4

4 to 5

5 to 6

6 to 7

7 to 8

8 to 9

CONNECTED OUTCROP OF MINNELUSA FORMATION FOR WHICHPRECIPITATION RECHARGE IS PRESCRIBED (modified from Strobel and others, 1999; DeWitt and others, 1989)

LINE OF EQUAL YIELD POTENTIAL--Number indicates average annual yield potential. Interval 1 inch

2

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985Rapid City, Office of City Engineer map, 1:18,000, 1996; Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13

DAKOTASOUTH

WYOMING

AreashownBlack

Hills

Creek

Cr

Bea

ver

Cre

ek

Creek

Cold

Springs

Sand

Stoc

kade W

hoo

pup

surface-water characteristics - usgs · 62 hydrology of the black hills area, south dakota...

Documents