Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · sir20075137

Analysis of ground-water flow in the Madison aquifer using fluorescent dyes injected in Spring Creek and Rapid Creek near Rapid City, South Dakota, 2003-04

Abstract

The Madison aquifer, which contains fractures and solution openings in the Madison Limestone, is used extensively for water supplies for the city of Rapid City and other suburban communities in the Rapid City, S. Dak., area. The 48 square-mile study area includes the west-central and southwest parts of Rapid City and the outcrops of the Madison Limestone extending from south of Spring Creek to north of Rapid Creek. Recharge to the Madison Limestone occurs when streams lose flow as they cross the outcrop. The maximum net loss rate for Spring and Rapid Creek loss zones are 21 and 10 cubic feet per second (ft3/s), respectively. During 2003 and 2004, fluorescent dyes were injected in the Spring and Rapid Creek loss zones to estimate approximate locations of preferential flow paths in the Madison aquifer and to measure the response and transit times at wells and springs. Four injections of about 2 kilograms of fluorescein dye were made in the Spring Creek loss zone during 2003 (sites S1, S2, and S3) and 2004 (site S4). Injection at site S1 was made in streamflow just upstream from the loss zone over a 12-hour period when streamflow was about equal to the maximum loss rate. Injections at sites S2, S3, and S4 were made in specific swallow holes located in the Spring Creek loss zone. Injection at site R1 in 2004 of 3.5 kilograms of Rhodamine WT dye was made in streamflow just upstream from the Rapid Creek loss zone over about a 28-hour period. Selected combinations of 27 wells, 6 springs, and 3 stream sites were monitored with discrete samples following the injections. For injections at sites S1-S3, when Spring Creek streamflow was greater than or equal to 20 ft3/s, fluorescein was detected in samples from five wells that were located as much as about 2 miles from the loss zone. Time to first arrival (injection at site S1) ranged from less than 1 to less than 10 days. The maximum fluorescein concentration (injection at site S1) of 120 micrograms per liter (ug/L) at well CO, which is located adjacent to the loss zone, was similar to the concentration in the stream. Fluorescein arrived at well NON (injection at site S1), which is located about 2 miles northeast of the loss zone, within about 1.6 days, and the maximum concentration was 44 ug/L. For injection at site S4, when streamflow was about 12 ft3/s, fluorescein was detected in samples from six wells and time to first arrival ranged from 0.2 to 16 days. Following injection at site S4 in 2004, the length of time that dye remained in the capture zone of well NON, which is located approximately 2 miles from the loss zone, was almost an order of magnitude greater than in 2003. For injection at site R1, Rhodamine WT was detected at well DRU and spring TI-SP with time to first arrival of about 0.5 and 1.1 days and maximum concentrations of 6.2 and 0.91 ug/L, respectively. Well DRU and spring TI-SP are located near the center of the Rapid Creek loss zone where the creek has a large meander. Measurable concentrations were observed for spring TI-SP as many as 109 days after the dye injection. The direction of a conduit flow path in the Spring Creek area was to the northeast with ground-water velocities that ranged from 770 to 6,500 feet per day. In the Rapid Creek loss zone, a conduit flow path east of the loss zone was not evident from the dye injection.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 43.96666666666667° to 44.1° latitude; -103.36666666666666° to -103.21666666666667° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Larry D. Putnam, Andrew J. Long. 2007. Analysis of ground-water flow in the Madison aquifer using fluorescent dyes injected in Spring Creek and Rapid Creek near Rapid City, South Dakota, 2003-04. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20075137

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗