Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5267

Prepared in cooperation with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of

the Little White River and Selected Tributaries,

Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003
Front cover photograph shows the Little White River near the Todd/Mellette County line.
Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics 

of the Little White River and Selected

Tributaries, Todd County,

South Dakota, 2002–2003

By Joyce E. Williamson

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared in cooperation with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5267
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

P. Patrick Leahy, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2005

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Williamson, J.E., 2005, Water-quality and biological characteristics of the Little White River and selected tributaries, 

Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5267, 76 p.
 iii

Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Description of the Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Physiography, Land Use, and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Data Collection and Water-Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Sampling Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Sampling and Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Water-Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Streamflow Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Water-Quality Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Reconnaissance Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Bacteria and Suspended Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Fecal Coliform Bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Suspended Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Duration Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Simulated Flow and Sediment Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Biological Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Supplemental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Figures

1. Map showing location of the Little White River Basin, South Dakota and Nebraska . . . . 3

2. Map showing land use/land cover in and near the Little White River Basin 

in Todd County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3. Generalized geologic map showing surficial geology of the Little White 

River Basin in Todd County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. Map showing water-quality sampling sites on or near the Little White 

River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5. Hydrograph for continuous streamflow monitoring sites, September 1, 2002,

through November 30, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6. Graphs showing annual mean flow for selected sites on the Little White River . . . . . . . 13

7. Graphs showing distribution of monthly mean flows for selected sites on the

Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

8. Duration hydrographs of daily mean flow for selected sites on the 

Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

9. Duration curve of daily mean flow for selected sites on the Little White River . . . . . . . . 16

10. Graph showing relation between historical suspended-sediment concentrations 

and streamflow for selected sites on the Little White River, 1957–1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
iv 

11. Daily mean suspended-sediment concentration for selected sites on the 

Little White River for October 1, 1990, through September 30,1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

12. Boxplots of suspended-sediment concentration for the Little White River 

and tributaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

13. Photographs of riparian areas along the Little White River, Todd County . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

14. Graph showing suspended-sediment size for selected sites on the 

Little White River, Todd County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

15. Photographs representing examples of high-sand areas or where sand movement

has taken place along the Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

16–19. Graphs showing:

16. Suspended-sediment load duration curves for selected sites on the 

Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

17. Possible higher suspended-sediment standard examples for selected 

sites on the Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

18. Measured and simulated streamflow for selected sites on the 

Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

19. Simulated storm-event sediment load on the Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Tables

1. Site information for selected streamflow-gaging stations and water-quality 

sampling sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. South Dakota surface-water-quality standards for selected physical properties 

and constituents by beneficial use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Streamflow data and summary statistics for selected gaging stations on the 

Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. Summary statistics of streamflow measurements during 2002–2003 at selected 

tributaries to the Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5. Fecal-coliform bacteria concentration from selected sites in the Little White 

River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

6. Summary of 2002–2003 suspended-sediment concentrations compared to 

the South Dakota standard of 158 milligrams per liter for warmwater 

semi-permanent fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7. Regression analysis of suspended-sediment concentration and streamflow 

for selected sites on the Little White River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

8. Decrease in elevation between selected sites on the Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

9. Summary of values assigned to the CONCEPTS model for the Little White River . . . . . . 30

10. Results of bed and bank sediment analysis for selected sites on the 

Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

11. Simulated sediment load compared to regression-based sediment load for 

selected storms and sites on the Little White River, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

12. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling in 1996 by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

and selected metric calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

13. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling in 2003 and selected metric 

calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

14. Results from reconnaissance sampling during September and November 2002 

for selected sites on or tributaries to the Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 v

15. Results from 2003 suspended-sediment and bacteria sampling of selected 

sites on the Little White River and tributaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Standard Method Codes and 

equipment used for water-quality analysis by the Bureau of Reclamation 

Laboratory, Bismark, N.Dak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

17. Summary statistics comparing historical physical properties and constituent 

concentrations to results from reconnaissance sampling on 

the Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

18. Results from 2003 pesticide sampling of selected tributaries to the 

Little White River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Conversion Factors and Datum

Multiply By To obtain

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer

inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer

ton per day (ton/d) 0.9072 metric ton per day

ton per day (ton/d) 0.9072 megagram per day

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F = (1.8 x °C) + 32

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C = (°F - 32) / 1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1927 (NAVD 27).

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 

micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of

the Little White River and Selected Tributaries,

Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

By Joyce E. Williamson

Abstract

The Little White River originates in Shannon County in 

southwestern South Dakota and flows through Bennett County 

before entering Todd County. The Little White River drains 

approximately one-half of Todd County before entering 

Mellette County where it flows into the White River. The 

portion of the Little White River downstream from Rosebud 

Creek is listed as impaired in the 2004 South Dakota Integrated 

Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment for suspended 

solids.

This report presents the results of water-quality and biological sampling during 2002 and 2003 as well as analysis of 

streamflow and suspended-sediment data. Water-quality concentrations collected during 2002 correspond closely with historical values, indicating that the water quality within the Little 

White River has not changed substantially over time. Fecal 

coliform concentrations tend to be high during and immediately 

after storm runoff events, especially for some tributaries to the 

Little White River including Sawmill Canyon, South Fork Ironwood Creek, and Soldier Creek. 

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe currently does not have 

approved beneficial uses and water-quality standards; however, 

the suspended-sediment concentrations in the Little White 

River within Todd County were greater than the current (2005) 

South Dakota standard for total suspended solids during most 

of the sampling period. Suspended-sediment concentrations 

increased from the sampling site at the Bennett/Todd County 

line, Little White River near Vetal, to the sampling site just 

upstream from Rosebud Creek, Little White River above Rosebud. Downstream from the Little White River above Rosebud, 

concentrations tended to be similar. Suspended-sediment concentrations exceed the current South Dakota standard for total 

suspended solids approximately 45 percent of the time near the 

Bennett/Todd County line to 82 percent of the time at the Todd/

Mellette County line. This change in sediment concentrations 

corresponds with changes in the natural geology of the area as 

the stream flows through windblown sand deposits and outcrops of the Ogallala Formation.

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling results were used to 

calculate a variety of metrics used as indicators of stream 

health. Metric results generally followed a pattern indicating 

decreases in stream health from the site near Vetal to the site 

above Rosebud and then increased stream health downstream 

near the Todd/Mellette County line.

Introduction

In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, which was amended as the Clean Water Act in 

1977 (Public Law 92-500). Section 303(d) of the Clean Water 

Act mandates the development of total maximum daily loads 

(TMDLs) for all streams in the Nation. The portion of the Little 

White River downstream from Rosebud Creek to the mouth in 

Mellette County is listed as impaired in the 2004 South Dakota 

Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment (South 

Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 

2004) for suspended solids. To address this concern, the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) conducted an assessment in cooperation with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (RST) during 2002–2003 of 

the water-quality and biological characteristics of the Little 

White River and selected tributaries in Todd County. The investigation was conceptualized by the RST and was needed to 

provide detailed information and to expand on existing Tribal 

data for surface-water quality of the Little White River Basin in 

Todd County. The RST currently does not have approved 

water-quality standards for the Little White River, but the 

hydrologic, water-quality, and biological data collected as part 

of this study will assist the RST in developing water-quality 

standards for the Little White River in Todd County. This information also is needed for assessment of the water quality of the 

Little White River upstream and downstream from Todd 

County by local, State, and Tribal officials. Other stakeholders 

involved in the assessment of the Little White River include the 

Bureau of Reclamation, the National Resource Conservation 

Service (NRCS), the Todd County Conservation District, and 

the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (DENR).
2 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

The primary constituents of concern in this study were 

suspended sediment and fecal coliform bacteria. Samples were 

analyzed for additional water-quality constituents to determine 

current conditions and for comparison with historical sampling. 

Macroinvertebrate data were collected at three sites along the 

Little White River within Todd County. 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the water-quality 

and biological characteristics of the Little White River and 

selected tributaries in Todd County. Data collected during this 

study (2002–2003) as well as historical streamflow (1957–

2001) and water-quality (1973–2001) data were used for comparisons and analysis. Data presented in this report include 

water-quality results for physical properties, major ions, nutrients, trace elements, suspended sediment, bacteria, and pesticides and biological results for macroinvertebrates. Streamflow 

characteristics for the Little White River and selected tributaries 

also are described. Suspended-sediment transport is analyzed 

using duration analysis and simulation of sediment load using a 

one-dimensional flow and sediment transport model.

Description of the Study Area

The study area is the Little White River Basin within Todd 

County (fig. 1). The Little White River Basin is approximately 

1,580 mi2, of which approximately 560 mi2

 are within Todd 

County, and is the largest tributary to the White River. The 

Little White River originates in Shannon County in southwestern South Dakota and flows through Bennett County before 

entering Todd County. The river flows northeasterly across 

western Todd County and south-central Mellette County to the 

White River. 

Physiography, Land Use, and Climate

The northern portion of the study area is in the Southern 

Plateaus physiographic province, and the southern portion of 

the study area is in the Sand Hills physiographic province 

(fig. 1). Land use within Todd County is predominately grasslands with some pasture, hay, and row crops (fig. 2). Cropland 

occurs primarily in areas with low topographic relief and 

includes both dry-land farming and irrigated areas. Most irrigation utilizes center-pivot systems that obtain water from highproduction wells completed in the Ogallala aquifer and predominately occur in the southern part of the Little White River 

Basin. The most extensively irrigated areas are within the Rosebud Creek and Soldier Creek Basins, which are tributaries to the 

Little White River (fig. 2). 

The normal annual precipitation (1971 to 2000) for Todd 

County is 18 to 21 in. (South Dakota State University, 2004). 

The majority of the precipitation falls between April and 

October; however, annual and seasonal precipitation vary with 

climatic conditions. Monthly mean temperatures range from 3.5 

to 80°F (South Dakota State University, 2004).

Hydrogeology

The southernmost extent of the Little White River Basin is 

within Quaternary-age deposits of windblown sand (eolian 

deposits) and alluvium that extend into southwestern Todd 

County (fig. 3) and Nebraska. The windblown sand and alluvial 

deposits overlie the Ogallala Formation, which overlies the 

Arikaree Formation (Ellis and others, 1971), both of which are 

of Tertiary age and contain aquifers that are used extensively 

within Todd County. The windblown sands, Ogallala Formation, and Arikaree Formation comprise the predominant outcrops within the Little White River Basin in Todd County. 

The downstream part of the Little White River flows 

across outcrops of the Cretaceous-age Pierre Shale. Most of the 

Pierre Shale is relatively impermeable although it can yield 

small amounts of water if fractures or sandy zones are present 

(Carter, 1998). Outcrops of the Tertiary-age White River 

Group, which is composed primarily of poorly consolidated 

siltstone and claystone, occur within northern Todd County and 

southern Mellette County. The Arikaree Formation consists of 

poorly consolidated, tuffaceous sandstone, siltstone, shale, and 

silty clay; the basal unit is composed mostly of silts and sands. 

The upper part of the Arikaree Formation generally is impermeable although it can yield small amounts of water from fractures, joints, and silty layers, whereas the basal unit is moderately permeable (Carter, 1998). The Ogallala Formation, which 

contains the Ogallala aquifer, is composed of fine- to mediumgrained sandstone and some silty clay. The Ogallala Formation 

also is very permeable. The windblown sand deposits are very 

fine- to medium-grained, uniform, quartz sand and generally 

are very permeable (Carter, 1998). The alluvial deposits vary 

from clays and silts to sand and gravel. Alluvial deposits are 

moderately permeable along the Little White River.

Examination of streamflow characteristics summarized by 

Niehus (1999) indicates that flow of the Little White River near 

the Bennett/Todd County line is dominated by base flow originating as ground-water discharge from the Ogallala aquifer and 

from the windblown sand deposits. Streamflow characteristics 

for Spring Creek indicate that flow contributions from direct 

runoff are very minor because of the high infiltration capacity 

of the windblown sand deposits that are predominant within the 

drainage area (Ellis and others, 1971). Streamflow characteristics for Rosebud Creek, which is dominated by outcrops of the 

Ogallala Formation, indicate a large base-flow component; 

however, somewhat larger contributions from direct runoff are 

apparent, presumably resulting from influence of outcrops of 

the Arikaree Formation. A large base-flow component also is 

apparent along the main stem of the Little White River within 

Todd and Mellette Counties. The largest influence from direct 

runoff becomes more apparent farther downstream where large 

outcrop areas of the White River Group and Pierre Shale occur 

within the contributing drainage area.
SOUTH DA

NEBRAS

BENNETT COUNTY

JACKSON COUNTY

SHANNON COUNTY

CHERRY COUNTY

SHERIDAN SHERIDAN COUNTY SHERIDAN COUNTY

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

StudyArea

43o00’

43o15'

43o30'

43o45'

102o00’

101o30' 101o15'

101o00’

100o45'

101o45'

Little WhiteRiver Basin

Little White

River

WHITE

Mission

Rosebud Rosebud

WhiteRiver

Batesland Batesland

Rosebud

St. Francis

WhiteRiver

W

Cedarbutte

Allen

Swett Martin

Vetal

Tuthill

Harrington

Parmelee

Norris

Olsonville

Batesland

Southern Plateaus

Pierre Hills

Sand Hills

EXPLANATION

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1982, 1983, 1995, 1:100,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13

0 5 10 

0 5 10 15 

Little White River Basin boundary—Approximate location based on 1:100,000 digital coverages of Hydrologic Unit number 10140203

Physiographic division (modified from Fenneman, 1946; Flint, 1955)U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station—Little White River below White River, site number 06450500

Figure 1. Location of the Little White River Basin, South Dakota and Nebraska. 
Crazy

Horse

Canyon

White

Little

River

Little

White

River

Unnamed Trib

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Cr

Beads

South Fork

Canyon

Soldier

Wigwam

Cut

Meat

Creek

Coffee

Spring

Creek

Creek

Sawmill

Rosebud

Omaha

Creek Ironwood

Soldier

Creek

Spring

Creek

Rosebud

Mission

Parmelee

St. Francis

TODD COUNTY

MELLETTE COUNTY

BENNETT COUNTY

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

Little White River Basin boundary

National land cover classification, 1992

0 45 1 MILES 2 3 6

0 45 1 KILOMETERS 2 3 6

101o15' 101o07'30" 101o00’ 100o52'30" 100o45' 100o37'30"

43o

22'

30"

43o

15'

43o

07'

30"

43o

EXPLANATION

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data 1:100,000, Martin, 1983, and Mission, 1982, 1:24,000

Land cover from U.S. Geological Survey, EROS Data Center raster digital data, 1992

LANDSAT Thematic Mapper, 10/11/2000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13

Open water

Commercial/industrial/transportation

Low intensity residential

Bare rock/sand/clay

Quaries/strip mines/gravel pits

Deciduous forest

Evergreen forest

Mixed forest

Grasslands

Row crops

Pasture/hay

Small grains

Fallow

Recreational grasses

Woody wetlands

Emergent herbaceous wetlands

4 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

Figure 2. Land use/land cover in and near the Little White River Basin in Todd County.
Crazy

Horse

Canyon

White

Little

River

Little

White

River

Unnamed Trib

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Cr

Beads

Fork

South

Canyon

Soldier

Wigwam

Cut

Meat

Creek

Coffee

Spring

Creek

Creek

Sawmill

Rosebud

Omaha

Creek Ironwood

Soldier

Creek

Spring

Creek

Rosebud

Mission

Parmelee

St. Francis

TODD COUNTY

MELLETTE COUNTY

BENNETT COUNTY

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

Little White River Basin boundary

Quaternary-age unconsolidated deposits

Tertiary-age sedimentary deposits

Cretaceous-age sedimentary deposits

0 45 1 MILES 2 3 6

0 45 1 KILOMETERS 2 3 6

101o15' 101o07'30" 101o00’ 100o52'30" 100o45' 100o37'30"

43o

22'

30"

43o

15'

43o

07'

30"

43o

EXPLANATION

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data 1:100,000

Martin, 1983, and Mission, 1982, 1:24,000

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13

Alluvium

Terrace deposits

Eolian deposits (includes Sand Hills Formation)

Ogallala Formation

Arikaree Formation

White River Group

Pierre Shale

Introduction 5

Figure 3. Generalized geologic map showing surficial geology of the Little White River Basin in Todd County (modified from 

Martin and others, 2004).
6 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

Discharge from these aquifers in the form of springs and 

seeps contribute to the base flow of the Little White River. 

Springflow varies with generally higher discharge during the 

spring when aquifer recharge and higher precipitation occurs 

and lower during the fall and winter (Long and others, 2003). 

The higher contribution during spring may be the result of a 

combination of shallow interflow that occurs after periods of 

precipitation, direct runoff, and response to rising ground-water 

levels. Long and others (2003) found that the flow from some 

springs did not vary substantially from spring to fall, whereas 

flow varied substantially for other springs.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the efforts of the Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe with the development and implementation of the study; in 

particular, Syed Huq, John Whiting, and Paul Leader Charge of 

the Office of Water Resources. Appreciation is expressed to the 

Bureau of Reclamation for assistance in implementation of the 

study and for analysis of water-quality samples. The South 

Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

provided technical assistance to the study.

Data Collection and Water-Quality 

Standards

Water-quality samples for this study were collected for 

two purposes. The first purpose was to conduct reconnaissance 

sampling for a wide range of constituents including physical 

properties, major ions, nutrients, trace elements, and pesticides. 

This sample set provides some indication of current conditions 

and provides a base from which future monitoring can be compared. The second purpose of water-quality sampling was to 

closely examine suspended-sediment and bacteria concentrations, which are the constituents exceeding the 2004 South 

Dakota stream standards for the reach below Rosebud Creek. 

Water-quality concentrations and/or macroinvertebrate indices 

may be used by the RST when setting standards and criteria for 

the Little White River. RST staff were involved in site selection 

and assisted with data collection and review throughout the 

study.

Sampling Sites

The reconnaissance samples were collected at 4 sites on 

the Little White River and 12 tributary sites during the fall of 

2002 and analyzed for physical properties, major ions, nutrients, and trace elements (fig. 4, table 1). Reconnaissance pesticide samples were collected from 4 tributary sites during 2003 

(fig. 4, table 1). The pesticide sampling sites were located on 

tributaries to the Little White River with active irrigation systems in place, with 3 sites on Rosebud Creek and 1 on Soldier 

Creek.

Suspended-sediment and bacteria samples were collected 

during 2003. For the 2003 sampling, 5 sites on the Little White 

River and 8 tributaries were sampled monthly from April 

through November (fig. 4, table 1). Streambed and streambank 

samples were collected at the five main stem sites in September 

2003.

During the fall of 2003, macroinvertebrate samples were 

collected at three sites along the Little White River (fig. 4, 

table 1). These sites corresponded to historical sampling for 

macroinvertebrates by the RST (Kvame and others, 1997). 

Sampling and Analysis Methods

Prior to sampling, all water-sampling equipment was presoaked in Liquinox solution, thoroughly scrubbed, rinsed with 

tap water, and then rinsed with deionized water. At the sampling 

site, samples were collected and processed using methods 

described in Ward and Harr (1990). Field measurements of 

streamflow, air and water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, 

and specific conductance were taken. When more than one site 

was sampled during a given day, equipment was cleaned 

between sites with a deionized water rinse and a thorough rinse 

with stream water at the new sites. After samples were collected, processed through a 0.45-μm (micrometer) filter if applicable, and preserved, they were shipped to the appropriate 

laboratory. 

Suspended-sediment samples were collected with a handheld depth-integrated sampler. For samples on the Little White 

River and when tributaries had high flows, the equal-width integrated (EWI) method was used (Edwards and Glysson, 1998); 

tributary flows typically were collected as a single point, depthintegrated sample. Streambed and streambank sediment samples were collected to a depth of 6 to 8 in. using a hand-held 

core sampler (Edwards and Glysson, 1998) at the five main 

stem sites. A single core was collected from the right bank, the 

left bank, and main channel bed. Macroinvertebrate sampling 

was conducted following the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) Western Pilot Environmental Monitoring 

and Assessment Program (EMAP) protocols (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005).

Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples were 

collected for water-quality samples. QA/QC samples included 

replicates (samples collected immediately following the scheduled sample), splits (larger volume of water collected and then 

split during processing of the sample), and blanks (deionized 

water processed through sampling equipment or bottles and 

preserved). Results of 2002 QA/QC water-quality samples are 

provided in table 14 in the Supplemental Data section at the end 

of the report. Replicate and split sample results generally differed by less than 10 percent or had concentration differences of 

less than 0.08 mg/L (milligrams per liter). Blanks analyzed for 

fecal coliform bacteria all reported non-detectable concentrations. Suspended-sediment sample replicate results are presented in table 15 in the Supplemental Data section and had 

concentration differences ranging from 1 to 40 percent. Much 

of this difference can be attributed to the constant change in sediment load in the Little White River, and differences generally 

increased as streamflow and sediment concentration increased.
White

Little

River

Little

White

River

Unnamed Trib

Creek

Swift

Bear

Creek

Lake

Creek

Creek

Cr

Beads

Fork South

Canyon

Wigwam

Soldier

Cut

Meat

Creek

Coffee

Spring

Creek

Creek

Sawmill

Rosebud

Omaha

Creek Ironwood

Crazy

Horse

Canyon

Soldier Soldier

Creek

Rosebud Rosebud

St. Francis St. Francis

Soldier

Creek

Spring

Creek

Rosebud

Mission

Parmelee

St. Francis

TODD COUNTY TODD COUNTY

MELLETTE COUNTY MELLETTE COUNTY

BENNETT COUNTY BENNETT COUNTY

TODD COUNTY

MELLETTE COUNTY

BENNETT COUNTY

SOUTH DAKOTA

NEBRASKA

Little White River Basin

Sampling site—Number is site

 identification (see table 1)

0 45 1 MILES 2 3 6

0 45 1 KILOMETERS 2 3 6

101o15' 07'30" 101o00’ 100o52'30" 100o45' 100o37'30"

43o

22'

30"

43o

15'

43o

07'

30"

43o

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data 1:100,000

Martin, 1983; Mission, 1982

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, zone 13

EXPLANATION

1

1

6

7

8

2

9

10

11

12

3 15

14

13

17

16

18

4

5

19

Data Collection and Water-Quality Standards 7

Figure 4. Water-quality sampling sites on or near the Little White River.
Table 1. Site information for selected streamflow-gaging stations and water-quality sampling sites.

[Site type: C, continuous-record streamflow; M, miscellaneous-record streamflow; R, reconnaissance; S, suspended sediment and bacteria; P, pesticides;

B, biological/macroinvertebrate]

Map number

(fig. 4) Site number Site name Site type Latitude Longitude

Main stem sites

1 06449100 Little White River near Vetal C, R, S, B 43 06 03 101 13 49

2 430939101003500 Little White River, Valandra Bridge, near Spring Creek M, R, S, B 43 09 39 101 00 35

3 06449300 Little White River above Rosebud C, S 43 15 47 100 55 02

4 06449500 Little White River near Rosebud C, R, S 43 19 32 100 53 00

5 432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line M, R, S, B 43 21 36 100 52 07

Tributaries

6 430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek M, R 43 06 47 101 06 21

7 430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis M, R, S 43 06 10 101 04 43

8 430724101010200 Sawmill Canyon near Spring Creek C, R, S 43 07 24 101 01 02

9 431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud M, R, S 43 11 46 100 57 49

10 431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud M, R 43 12 05 100 58 02

11 431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near Rosebud M, R 43 13 12 100 57 36

12 431343100571700 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud M, R, S 43 13 43 100 57 17

13 431310100501600 East tributary Rosebud Creek near Rosebud M, P 43 13 10 100 50 16

14 06449400 Rosebud Creek at Rosebud C, R, S, P 43 14 14 100 51 26

15 431600100533600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below 

Rosebud

M, R, S, P 43 16 00 100 53 36

16 431823100523400 Wigwam Creek near Soldier Creek M, R 43 18 23 100 52 34

17 431552100473600 Soldier Creek above Swift Bear Lake, near Rosebud M, P 43 15 52 100 47 36

18 431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud M, R, S 43 19 11 100 52 52

19 432358100502600 Cut Meat Creek near confluence Little White River, below 

Soldier Creek

C, R, S 43 23 58 100 50 26

8 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

The majority of the samples were sent to the Bureau of 

Reclamation Laboratory in Bismarck, N. Dak. Sample analyses 

included major ions, nutrients, trace elements, and suspended 

sediment. USEPA standard methods were used for all analyses 

and are presented in table 16 in the Supplemental Data section. 

For suspended sediment, a modification to the USEPA standard 

method was used to correspond with the USGS method. 

Because it is difficult to keep a sample with high sediment concentrations well mixed, analyzing the entire sample ensures 

more consistent sample results (Gray and others, 2000). QA/QC 

suspended-sediment samples were analyzed at the USGS Sediment Laboratory in Iowa City, Iowa (Knott and others, 1993). 

QA/QC replicate samples include laboratory methods differences (residue at 180o

C at USGS Sediment Laboratory and 

residue at 105o

C at Bureau of Reclamation Laboratory) as well 

as actual variability within the stream. Streambed and streambank sediment samples were analyzed for grain-size distribution at the USGS Sediment Laboratory in Iowa City, Iowa. 

Bacteria samples were sent to the South Dakota State Health 

Laboratory in Pierre, S. Dak., and were analyzed using method 

9222D outlined in the 19th edition of Standard Methods for the 

Examination of Water and Wastewater (Eaton and others, 

1995). Pesticide and macroinvertebrate samples were sent to the 

USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, Colo., for 

analyses. References for analytical procedures used by NWQL 

can be found at URL http://nwql.usgs.gov/Public/ref_list.html 

(accessed May 10, 2005).
Data Collection and Water-Quality Standards 9

Water-Quality Standards

In an effort to control water pollution, Congress passed the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500) in 

1972. Congress amended the law in 1977, changing the name to 

the Clean Water Act, which requires the classification of surface waters with regard to beneficial use and to establish waterquality standards to meet those uses (South Dakota Department 

of Water and Natural Resources, 1987). The Clean Water Act 

also requires that these standards be reviewed and revised every 

3 years.

The State of South Dakota has beneficial uses and waterquality standards for streams in South Dakota. The RST has the 

authority to designate beneficial uses and the corresponding 

water-quality standards for the streams within the legal boundaries of the Rosebud Indian Reservation. The Tribe currently 

(2005) does not have approved beneficial uses and standards. 

As part of the South Dakota 3-year review and ambient monitoring of streams, the section of the Little White River from the 

Todd/Mellette County line to the confluence with the White 

River has been listed in the South Dakota 305-B report because 

it is not meeting current standards for total suspended solids 

(TSS). Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations also have been 

exceeding standards for this section of the stream.

Because the RST currently does not have approved beneficial uses and standards, the beneficial uses and standards 

currently in place for the State of South Dakota are used as a 

reference (table 2). It is important to note that because of antidegradation rules, the State and the Tribe must be able to meet 

the standards established by one another for stream reaches on 

the Little White River as well as other streams that cross State 

and reservation boundaries.

All streams in South Dakota have the designated uses of 

wildlife propagation and stock watering and irrigation waters. 

The Little White River has additional beneficial uses of a warmwater semi-permanent fishery and limited contact water. Spring 

Creek, Rosebud Creek, and Soldier Creek have beneficial uses 

of coldwater marginal fisheries and limited contact waters. Cut 

Meat Creek and Ironwood Creek have beneficial uses of warmwater marginal fisheries and limited contact waters.

The South Dakota standard for TSS is a concentration 

determined by standard methods where 100 mL (milliliters) of 

a sample is analyzed for the suspended materials. Sediment 

samples in this study were analyzed for suspended-sediment 

concentration (SSC), where the entire sample is analyzed for 

suspended material. The biggest difference between TSS and 

SSC methods is that SSC values tend to be larger than TSS 

values. This is because it is very difficult to keep heavier sediment well mixed within the sample so that a representative subsample can be obtained. By analyzing the entire sample, the 

concentration typically is more representative of concentrations 

within the stream (Gray and others, 2000). However, the State 

criterion and listing of the Little White River is based on TSS 

concentrations so results from this sampling may be higher than 

historical data collected by the State. 

Table 2. South Dakota surface-water-quality standards for selected physical properties and constituents by beneficial use.

[Standards from South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (2004b). All constituents in milligrams per liter unless otherwise noted. μS/cm, 

microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; mL, milliliter; °F, degrees Fahrenheit; °C, degrees Celsius; >, greater than or equal to; <, less than; --, no data 

available]

Property or constituent

Coldwater

marginal 

fisheries

Warmwater

semi-permanent 

fisheries

Warmwater

marginal 

fisheries

Limited 

contact 

waters

Wildlife 

propagation and 

stock-watering 

waters

Irrigation

waters

Specific conductance (μS/cm) -- -- -- -- 14,000/7,000 12,500/4,375

pH (standard units) 6.5–8.8 6.5–9 6.5–9 -- 6–9.5 --

Temperature (°F) 

(maximum)

75 (24°C) 90 (32°C) 90 (32°C) -- -- --

Dissolved oxygen >5.0 >5.0 >4.0 >5.0 -- --

Total suspended solids 190/158 190/158 1150/263 -- -- --

Total dissolved solids -- -- -- -- 12,500/4,375 --

Sodium adsorption ratio -- -- -- -- -- 10

Nitrate (as N) -- -- -- -- 150/88 --

Fecal coliform (colonies per 

100 mL (May 1 - September 30)

-- -- -- <2,000 -- --

1

30-day average/daily maximum.
10 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

Streamflow Characteristics

Numerous springs occur along the Little White River in 

the southwestern portion of Todd County. Ground-water discharge from the Ogallala and the Arikaree aquifers as springflow provides as much as 50 percent of the base flow to the 

Little White River, especially during the winter months (Carter, 

1998). A summary of streamflow statistics in the Little White 

River is given in table 3. High-flow events typically occur 

during late-winter, spring, or early summer when snowmelt and 

more frequent rainfall occur. Severe thunderstorms in the summer and fall also can result in high-flow events.

Summary statistics of 2002–2003 flow measurements at 

selected tributaries to the Little White River are presented in 

table 4. Measured streamflow from the various tributaries 

ranged from 0 to 25 ft3

/s. Many of the tributaries upstream from 

and including Rosebud Creek provide very constant sources of 

flow to the Little White River (fig. 5). Tributaries along the 

lower reach, such as Wigwam Creek, Soldier Creek, and Cut 

Meat Creek, tend to decrease in flow over the summer and often 

go dry. 

Table 3. Streamflow data and summary statistics for selected gaging stations on the Little White River.

[Water year, October 1 through September 30; mi2, square miles; ft3/s, cubic feet per second]

Station

number

Station name

Period 

of record

(water year)

Drainage

area

(mi2)

Contributing

drainage

area

(mi2)

Minimum 

daily flow

(ft3/s)

Median

daily

flow

(ft3/s)

Maximum

instantaneous 

flow

(ft3/s)

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 1960–2003 590 415 9 45 3,540

06449300 Little White River above Rosebud 1982–2000 890 630 20 101 2,190

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 1944–2003 1020 760 10 95 4,640

106450500 Little White River below White River 1950–2003 1,570 1,310 7 97 13,700

1This site is located outside of Todd County in Mellette County near the town of White River but is used for additional information and comparison.

Table 4. Summary statistics of streamflow measurements during 2002–2003 at selected tributaries to the Little White River.

Site number Site name

Number of 

measurements

Discharge, in cubic feet per second

Minimum Median Maximum

430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek 2 4.4 4.7 4.9

430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis 11 3.6 4.1 25

430724101010200 Sawmill Canyon near Spring Creek 12 .93 1.3 1.7

431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud 11 .54 1.1 1.3

431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud 2 1.3 1.7 2.1

431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near Rosebud 2 .1 .25 .36

431343100571700 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud 11 1.0 1.9 2.2

06449400 Rosebud Creek at Rosebud 10 5.9 9.7 11

431600100533600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below 

Rosebud

10 6.0 9.8 11

431823100523400 Wigwam Creek near Soldier Creek 1 .2 .2 .2

431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud 11 .0 1.7 7.1

432358100502600 Cut Meat Creek near confluence Little White River, below 

Soldier Creek

9 .0 .0 7.7
0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100

Little White River above Rosebud, 06449300

Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500

Little White River below White River, 06450500

Sawmill Canyon near Spring Creek, 430724101010200

Rosebud Creek at Rosebud, 06449400

Cut Meat Creek below Soldier Creek, 432358100502600

SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV

2002 2003

EXPLANATION

Streamflow Characteristics 11

Figure 5. Hydrograph for continuous streamflow monitoring sites, September 1, 2002, through November 30, 2003.
12 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

Annual mean flow for four selected gaging stations on the 

Little White River is presented in figure 6. The highest annual 

mean flow at all four sites occurred during 1997 when much of 

South Dakota received above-normal precipitation. The lowest 

mean flows typically occurred during the 1970s or early 1980s. 

The three upstream sites have less variability in annual mean 

flow than the downstream site (fig. 1), primarily as a result of 

the perennial tributary inflows that occur along outcrops of the 

Ogallala and Arikaree Formations. Variability in annual mean 

flow is evident at Little White River below White River, which 

is indicative of the larger drainage basin being influenced by 

intermittent tributary inflows. 

Figure 7 presents the monthly mean flow for the period of 

record for the four selected sites on the Little White River. Flow 

typically is low during the fall and winter months with higher 

flows occurring as a result of snowmelt and spring runoff, generally during late February through June. Flows decrease again 

during July and through the summer and fall. The highest 

monthly mean flows typically are in March and April.

Daily-duration hydrographs present the percentage of time 

that daily mean streamflow is exceeded for a specific day 

(fig. 8). The duration hydrographs show the maximum and minimum daily flows and the 25-, 50-, and 75-percent non-exceedance values for the period of record for the four sites presented 

in table 3. For example, based on historical data, there is a 50-

percent chance that the flow at the Little White River near Vetal 

(06449100) will be less than 60 ft3

/s and a 75-percent chance 

that the flow will be less than 105 ft3

/s on June 1 of any year. 

On the same day, there is a 50-percent chance that flow at 

Little White River near Rosebud (06449500) will be less than 

69 ft3

/s and 75-percent chance it will be less than 82 ft3/s. The 

longer the period of record for a site, the more reliable the duration hydrograph is at representing flows because a wider range 

of conditions has been monitored. The daily duration hydrographs display the strong influence of the base flows along the 

Little White River with relatively consistent flows in the 25- to 

75-percent ranges and minimums that typically are greater than 

10 ft3/s. Daily mean flows less than 10 ft3/s occurred only 4 

times at the site near Vetal (06449100) in 44 years of record and 

only 6 times at the site below White River (06450500) in 

54 years of record.

Duration curves of daily mean flow are presented in 

figure 9. These curves present the percentage of time that a 

daily mean flow was equaled or exceeded. For example, daily 

mean flows exceed 200 ft3/s only 2 percent of the time at the 

site near Vetal (06449100), 11 percent of the time above Rosebud (06449300), 11 percent of the time near Rosebud 

(06449500), and 14 percent of the time below White River 

(06450500). There is less than a 1-percent chance that flows 

will exceed 1,000 ft3/s at any of the sites (0.01–0.8 percent) and 

more than a 92-percent chance that flows will be greater than 

20 ft3/s (93–99.9 percent). Generally, high-flow conditions 

typically occur less than 10 percent of the time, and low-flow 

conditions are exceeded more than 90 percent of the time 

(fig. 9).

Water-Quality Characteristics

Water-quality samples were collected for two purposes:

(1) to conduct reconnaissance sampling for a variety of constituents including physical properties, major ions, nutrients, trace 

elements, and pesticides; and (2) to closely examine suspendedsediment concentrations and bacteria densities, the two constituents with concentrations exceeding the current (2004) South 

Dakota stream standards in the reach below Rosebud Creek. 

Reconnaissance samples provide information on current conditions and provide a base which results from future monitoring 

can be compared. The suspended-sediment and bacteria sampling address current concerns and the need for more detailed 

information.

Reconnaissance Sampling

During the fall of 2002, samples were collected at 4 main 

stem sites and 12 tributary sites (table 1, fig. 4). This sampling 

was done to provide base-line data for future comparisons, to 

compare 2002 concentrations with historical concentrations 

(1973–2001) where possible, and to ensure that fecal coliform 

bacteria and suspended sediment are the only constituents with 

concentrations that approach or exceed water-quality standards. 

Results from this sampling are provided in table 14; summary 

tables with comparisons are provided in table 16. Pesticide data 

were collected in 2003 as part of the reconnaissance sampling, 

and results are provided in the table 17 in the Supplemental 

Data section.

Three sites along the Little White River have historical 

water-quality data, with the exception of pesticide data, for 

comparisons—Little White River near Vetal, Little White River 

above Rosebud, and Little White River near Rosebud. From the 

reconnaissance sampling, all concentrations were within ranges 

previously reported for samples from the Little White River. 

Concentrations from the sampled tributaries also were within 

ranges found for the Little White River. None of the concentrations were at levels of concern (table 2) with the exception of 

suspended sediment and fecal coliform bacteria, which are discussed in more detail later in this report. Nutrient concentrations 

from reconnaissance sampling at Little White River near Vetal 

and Little White River above Rosebud generally were greater 

than historical medians, and dissolved ammonia, nitrate, and 

nitrite concentrations were near the maximum historical values. 

Arsenic concentrations in ground water in Todd County and the 

surrounding area occasionally are greater than the current 

(2004) USEPA drinking-water standard of 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter) (Carter 1998; Carter and others, 1998). Some 

historical concentrations for dissolved arsenic in the Little 

White River also were greater than the 10-μg/L standard, but 

concentrations from the reconnaissance sample for the Little 

White River and tributaries were less than 9 μg/L.
0

255075

100125150175200225250275300325

FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

0

255075

100125150175200225250275300325

FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100 Little White River above Rosebud, 0644930Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500 Little White River below White River, 0645

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

YEAR

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

YEAR

0

255075

100125150175200225250275300325

0

255075

100125150175200225250275300325

Figure 6. Annual mean flow for selected sites on the Little White River. 
0

50

100150200250300350400450500550600

FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

0

50

100150200250300350400450500550600

FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY MEAN FLOW

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

0

50

100150200250300350400450500550600

0

100200300400500

1,000

600700800900

DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY MEAN FLOW

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100 Little White River above Rosebud, 06449300Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500 Little White River below White River, 06450500

(water years 1960-2003) (water years 1982-2000)(water years 1944-2003) (water years 1950-2003)

x

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2061 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55

x

x x

x

x

x

xxxx

x

xxx x

x

x

x

x

x

x x

x

x

xx

xx

x x

xxxx

x

xx

xx

x

xx

xx

xx

x

x

xxx

x x

x

xx

xx

xx

45

Figure 7. Distribution of monthly mean flows for selected sites on the Little White River.
1

10

100

1,000

10,000

FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

2002 2003

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR M

2002 2

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Maximum75 percent50 percent25 percentMinimum

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100 Little White River above Rosebud, 064493Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500 Little White River below White River, 0645

(water years 1960-2003) (water years 1944-2003) 

Figure 8. Duration hydrographs of daily mean flow for selected sites on the Little White River.
FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND FLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100 Little White River above Rosebud, 0644930Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500 Little White River below White River, 06450

10

100

1,000

10,000

PERCENT OF TIME INDICATED VALUE WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

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

10

100

1,000

10,000

10

100

1,000

10,000

Percent

of time

Flow, in

cubic feet

per second

95908060402010

5

18.921.827.037.855.084.5

116.9150.0

10

100

1,000

10,000

PERCENT OF TIME INDICATED VALUE WAS EQ

0.1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 

1

Percent

of time

Flow, in

cubic feet

per second

95908060402010

5

52.458.668.185.4

109.7154.6206.7257.2

(water years 1960-2003) (water years 1982-2000)(water years 1944-2003) (water years 1950-2003)

Figure 9. Duration curve of daily mean flow for selected sites on the Little White River.
Water-Quality Characteristics 17

Pesticide samples were collected during the fall of 2003 at 

four tributary sites to the Little White River (table 1, fig. 4). 

Tributaries were selected for sampling from drainages close to 

the intense farming and irrigation lands in the south-central 

portion of Todd County. All pesticide concentrations were less 

than laboratory reporting levels with the exception of two 

constituents from the sample from Soldier Creek above Swift 

Bear Lake (table 17). A concentration of 0.01 μg/L for atrazine 

and an estimated concentration of 0.005 μg/L for 2-chloro-4-

isopropylamino-6-amino-s triazine (a transformation product of 

deethyl-atrazine) were reported. Atrazine was not detected in 

any of the historical samples along the Little White River. Additional sampling for pesticides in tributaries draining this area 

may provide better indications of seasonal or climatic effects in 

pesticide concentrations in surface waters in the basin. 

Bacteria and Suspended Sediment

Intensive sampling for fecal coliform bacteria and suspended sediment occurred between April and November 2003. 

Samples were collected monthly with an additional sample 

collected in September. Bacteria and suspended-sediment concentrations from the reconnaissance sampling and historical 

USGS streamflow and suspended-sediment data (1957–2001) 

were included in comparisons and analyses.

Fecal Coliform Bacteria

Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations often are highest 

during and immediately after storm events. Streamflow during 

April and May generally was high because of snowmelt and 

spring rainfall with a storm event in late May. Storm events also 

occurred in late June and early July. The July samples were 

collected immediately after the storm events and prior to 

streamflow declines that occurred during July and August. 

Additional rainfall resulted in high flows in September and 

October. Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations were less than 

the State’s limited contact standard of 2,000 col/100 mL (colonies per 100 milliliters) on the Little White River with the 

exception of June and July when storm events occurred. A fecal 

coliform bacteria concentration of 9,500 col/100 mL was 

reported at the Little White River near Vetal in June (table 5). 

Concentrations of 4,200 col/100 mL and 3,200 col/100 mL 

were reported for the Little White River near Rosebud and near 

the Todd/Mellette County line, respectively, in July (table 5). 

Samples from several tributaries had concentrations greater 

than 2,000 col/100 mL during the sampling period including 

Sawmill Canyon, South Fork Ironwood Creek, and Soldier 

Creek. The large concentrations in Sawmill Canyon continued 

past August into September. Soldier Creek had a large concentration (5,500 col/100 mL) during the reconnaissance sampling 

in September 2002 (table 5).

Possible sources of fecal coliform bacteria include wildlife, livestock, and septic systems. More detailed sampling is 

needed to determine where the fecal coliform concentrations 

increase within the tributary reach. More storm-event sampling 

is needed to determine the full concentration range and the timeframe necessary for concentrations to return to safe levels.

Suspended Sediment

Streams that originate in or flow through southwestern 

South Dakota, including the White River and Little White 

River, often carry large suspended-sediment loads. Sediment 

transport within these basins is driven largely by the geology of 

the area where fine-grained sands and clays are readily available. The surficial deposits within the Little White River Basin 

within Todd County are dominated by windblown sand deposits 

(eolian), the Ogallala Formation, and the Arikaree Formation 

(fig. 3), which provide a substantial supply of fine sands and 

clay for transport. 

For a stream to be determined as not meeting the beneficial 

uses assigned to a specific reach, several criteria need to be met 

(South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, 2004a). Generally, only data collected during the 

past 5 years are examined. This ensures that current conditions 

are evaluated. In addition, a minimum number of observations 

or samples are required. For streams, 20 samples for any one 

constituent usually are necessary unless more than 25 percent of 

the samples exceed the water-quality standard, and then the 

requirement is decreased to 10 samples. A sampling site for 

which concentrations in more than 10 percent of the 20 or more 

samples exceed a water-quality standard is considered a stream 

segment that is water-quality limited or nonsupporting. This 

percentage increases to 25 percent if fewer than 20 samples are 

available. Data collected for this study fall in this latter category. Table 6 presents a summary of suspended-sediment concentrations for the Little White River between September 2002 

and November 2003 and percentage of samples that did not 

meet current water-quality standards based on the State’s 

criteria. Complete results from the 2003 suspended-sediment 

sampling are presented in table 15.
Table 5. Fecal-coliform bacteria concentration from selected sites in the Little White River Basin.

[Data in colonies per 100 milliliters. <, less than; --, no data]

Site Number Site Name Sept. 23–25, 2002 Nov. 4–7, 2002 Apr. 21–22, 2003 May 6–8, 2003 June 17–19, 2003 July 8–9, 2003 Aug. 11–12, 2003 Sept. 2–4, 2003 Sep

Main stem sites

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 400 70 60 100 9,500 310 40 30 430939101003500 Little White River, Valandra Bridge, near Spring 

Creek

60 10 10 50 590 460 10 100 

06449300 Little White River above Rosebud -- 30 40 30 700 -- 50 70 06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 290 <10 <10 20 100 4,200 20 70 432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line 130 20 10 20 390 3,200 40 50 

Tributaries

430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek 380 50 -- -- -- -- -- -- 430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis 170 120 <10 <10 180 580 730 160 430724101010200 Sawmill Canyon near Spring Creek 930 170 70 20 1,000 -- 2,400 3,700 1431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud 50 30 <10 90 60 130 50 120 431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud 50 20 -- -- -- -- -- -- 431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near 

Rosebud

380 10 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

431343100571700 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud 440 150 10 20 2,200 6,300 420 1,400 106449400 Rosebud Creek at Rosebud -- <10 <10 10 110 -- 30 10 431600100433600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, 

below Rosebud

60 40 <10 20 150 -- 90 70 

431823100523400 Wigwam Creek near Soldier Creek -- 80 -- -- -- -- -- -- 431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud 5,500 170 330 <10 2,500 6,700 no flow no flow n432358100502600 Cut Meat Creek near confluence Little White 

River, below Soldier Creek

-- -- 30 10 90 420 no flow no flow n
Table 6. Summary of 2002–2003 suspended-sediment concentrations compared to the South Dakota standard of 158 milligrams per liter 

for warmwater semi-permanent fisheries.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Site Number Site Name Number of 

samples

Range of 

concentrations

(mg/L)

Number

exceeding 

criterion

Percentage

of

exceedances

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 11 17–427 5 45

430939101003500 Little White River, Valandra Bridge, near Spring Creek 11 87–1,185 7 64

06449300 Little White River above Rosebud 10 118–856 7 70

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 11 87–1,530 7 64

432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line 11 112–2,660 9 82

Water-Quality Characteristics 19

Based on the samples collected during 2002–2003, the 

Little White River within Todd County exceeds the State standard for suspended sediment 45 to 82 percent of the time. 

Because sampling occurred during a relatively dry year and 

because the suspended-sediment concentration increases with 

increased streamflow, these percentages of exceedance are 

conservative. The relation between historical (1957–2001) 

suspended-sediment concentration and streamflow provides a 

broader indication of exceedances (fig. 10). Using historical 

data and comparing those concentrations to the current State 

standard, 50 percent of the samples from the Little White River 

near Vetal exceeded the State standard, 88 percent of the samples from the Little White River above Rosebud exceeded the 

State standard, 89 percent of the samples from the Little White 

River near Rosebud exceeded the State standard, and 

100 percent of the samples from the Little White River below 

White River exceeded the State standard.

To further examine the percentage of time the stream is 

exceeding standards, an estimate of suspended sediment can be 

generated based on regression analysis of measured streamflow 

and suspended-sediment concentrations (1957–2003). Table 7 

provides the regression equations for selected sites on the 

Little White River, and the R2 value is the amount of variation 

described by the regression equation. The R2 value for the 

site with the most data, Little White River above Rosebud 

(06449300), indicates that streamflow (the independent variable) describes 86 percent of the variation in suspendedsediment concentration. The other 14 percent may be related to 

factors such as the intensity of the storm, location of the storm 

(widespread or localized), time between storms, and snowmelt/

spring storm combination. Using the regression equations in 

table 7 and applying them to historical daily mean discharge 

data (1944–2002), suspended-sediment concentrations in the 

Little White River near Vetal (06449100) would exceed current 

State suspended-solids criterion 46 percent of the time. Suspended-sediment concentrations in the Little White River above 

Rosebud (06449300) and the Little White River near Rosebud 

(06449500) always would exceed the criterion. Data collected 

during 2002–2003 at the Little White River near Vetal show a 

similar percentage of exceedance, whereas data from Little 

White River above Rosebud and Little White River near Rosebud show lower percentages of exceedance.

Historical daily suspended-sediment data are available for 

the Little White River near Vetal and the Little White River 

near Rosebud for the 1991 water year (Oct. 1, 1990, to Sept. 30, 

1991). Streamflow during this water year was near normal with 

the exception of one high-flow event on May 16, 1991. This 

high flow is the record peak flow for the Little White River near 

Vetal. Monthly mean streamflow values are near normal for the 

site near Vetal and only slightly above normal for the site near 

Rosebud. Figure 11 presents a graph of the daily suspendedsediment concentrations in water year 1991 in relation to the 

current State standard for TSS. Suspended-sediment concentrations exceeded the standard 170 days during the year 

(46 percent of the time) for the Little White River near Vetal, 

and 320 days of the year (88 percent of the time) for the Little 

White River near Rosebud. These percentages are higher than 

those for the 2002–2003 data; however, all of the various methods to estimate exceedances indicate that the Little White River 

near Vetal exceeds the current State standard 45 to 50 percent 

of the time, whereas the two downstream sites generally exceed 

the standard 70 to 100 percent of the time.
1 10 100 1,000 10,000

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100

Little White River above Rosebud, 06449300

Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500

Little White River below White River, 06450500

South Dakota warm-water semi-permanent fisheries standard for total

 suspended solids (South Dakota Department of Environment and

 Natural Resources, 2004b)

EXPLANATION

20 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

Figure 10. Relation between historical suspended-sediment concentrations and streamflow for selected sites on the Little White River, 

1957–1995.

Table 7. Regression analysis of suspended-sediment concentration and streamflow for selected sites on the Little White River.

[SSC, suspended-sediment concentration; Q, streamflow]

Station number Station name

Number of 

samples Regression equation R2

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 38 SSC = 110 + 0.995*Q 0.68

06449300 Little White River above Rosebud 57 SSC = 329 + 2.62*Q .86

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 19 SSC = -121 + 4.96*Q .92
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

1990 1991

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100

Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500

South Dakota warm-water semi-permanent

 fisheries standard for total suspended solids

 (South Dakota Department of Environment

 and Natural Resources, 2004b)

Water-Quality Characteristics 21

Figure 11. Daily mean suspended-sediment concentration for selected sites on the Little White River for October 1, 1990, 

through September 30, 1991.

One observation that remains consistent through the analysis is that the suspended-sediment concentrations tend to 

increase between the site near Vetal and the site above Rosebud, 

and then remain fairly constant from the site above Rosebud to 

the site near Rosebud (fig. 12). Land-use patterns do not change 

substantially between the site near Vetal and the site above 

Rosebud (fig. 2), and the riparian health along the Little White 

River is very good with grassy banks and large shrubs and trees 

providing bank stabilization and canopy cover (fig. 13). However, the geology does change within this reach, specifically 

from windblown sand deposits to outcrops of the Ogallala Formation (fig. 3). The slight change in sediment concentration 

from the site above Rosebud to the site near Rosebud indicates 

that the Arikaree Formation does not contribute as much sediment as the Ogallala Formation. Tributary concentrations follow a similar pattern (fig. 12) with higher sediment concentrations from tributaries upstream from the site above Rosebud.

Sediment transport and the ability of the stream to carry a 

load are driven not only by the discharge/velocity but also the 

size of the sediment being transported. Generally, as the sediment size increases, a greater velocity is needed to transport the 

sediment downstream. One measure of sediment size is the percent of fines (sediment diameter less than 0.062 μm). Figure 14 

presents the percentage of fines for selected sites on the Little 

White River. The pattern inversely follows the general trend in 

suspended-sediment concentrations with the percentage of fines 

decreasing from the site near Vetal to the Valandra Bridge site 

and percentages staying somewhat constant from the Valandra 

Bridge site to the site near the Todd/Mellette County line 

(fig. 14). The decrease in fines corresponds with an increase in 

sand particle size within the sediment. The increase in sediment 

size also corresponds with the presence of outcrops of the 

Ogallala Formation. Availability of sediment for transport 

throughout the basin (fig. 15) is evident by suspended-sediment 

concentrations exceeding the current State TSS standard 45 to 

50 percent of the time at the site near Vetal. The outcrop of the 

Ogallala Formation appears to be a major factor in sediment 

concentration and size for the Little White River.
Little White River

near Vetal,

06449100

Little White River

above Rosebud,

06449300

Little White River

near Rosebud,

06449500

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

x

x

38 57 19

Spring

Creek

near

St. Francis

Sawmill

Canyon

near

Spring

Creek

Omaha

Creek

near

Rosebud

South Fork

Ironwood

Creek

near

Rosebud

Rosebud

Creek

at

Rosebud

Rosebud Creek

at Little White

River

confluence,

below

Rosebud

Soldier

Creek

near

Rosebud

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

x

x

o

11 11 11 11 10 10 8

11

75th percentile

Number of samples

Data value less than or equal to 1.5 times the interquartile range outside the quartile

Median

25th percentile

Outlier data value less than or equal to 3 and more than 1.5 times the interquartile

 range outside the quartile

Outlier data value greater than 3 times the interquartile range outside the quartile

EXPLANATION

Interquartile

range

Little White River (1957–2003)

Tributaries (2002–2003)

22 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

Figure 12. Boxplots of suspended-sediment concentration for the Little White River and tributaries.
Little White River near Vetal, 06449100

Little White River above Rosebud, 06449300

Little White River, Valandra Bridge, near Spring Creek,

430939101003500

Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500

Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line,

432136100520700

Water-Quality Characteristics 23

Figure 13. Photographs of riparian areas along the Little White River, Todd County.
Little White

River near

Vetal,

06449100

Little White River,

Valandra Bridge,

near Spring Creek,

430939101003500

Little White

River above

Rosebud,

06449300

Little White

River near

Rosebud,

06449500

Little White River

near Todd/Mellette

County line,

432136100520700

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SUSPENDED SEDIMENT, PERCENT LESS THAN 0.062 MICROMETERS

24 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

Figure 14. Suspended-sediment size for selected sites on the Little White River, Todd County.

Slope within a basin is another variable that can influence 

sediment transport and is a driver of the stream velocities. 

Table 8 presents a summary of elevation changes between sites 

on the Little White River. The site Little White River near 

Martin, 06447500, is outside the study area in Jackson County, 

and provides information for comparison. The river slope in the 

Little White River changes from 6.9 ft/mi (near Martin to near 

Vetal) to 9.4 ft/mi (near Vetal to above Rosebud), and the mean 

suspended-sediment concentration (based on period of record) 

increased from 199 to 867 mg/L. The reach from near Vetal to 

above Rosebud flows through the part of the basin where outcrops of the Ogallala Formation are present (fig. 3). The reach 

from above Rosebud to near Rosebud also has a substantial 

increase in slope (9.4 to 13 ft/mi), but the suspended-sediment 

concentration did not increase (867 to 769 mg/L). This section 

of the river flows through the part of the basin where outcrops 

of the Arikaree Formation are present (fig. 3). Typically, when 

river slope increases, stream velocities increase, and sediment 

transport capabilities increase. Because mean suspendedsediment concentrations did not increase in the reach from 

above Rosebud to near Rosebud when river slope increased, this 

indicates that the Arikaree Formation is not contributing substantially to the total sediment load in the Little White River.
Sand road near Little White River, approximately

30 feet from river.

Streambank available for collapse and movement

downstream during higher flows.

Sand transport after a storm from bank near bridge

crossing where roadway construction disturbed

existing grasses.

Water-Quality Characteristics 25

Figure 15. Photographs representing examples of high-sand areas or where sand movement has taken place along the Little White 

River.
Table 8. Decrease in elevation between selected sites on the Little White River.

[mi, mile; ft, feet; mg/L, milligrams per liter; NA, not available]

Little White River site

Distance

between

sites

(mi)

Decrease in

elevation

between

sites

(ft)

Slope

(ft/mi)

Mean

suspendedsediment 

concentration

at downstream 

site

(mg/L)

Upstream site Downstream site

06447500 Little White River near 

Martin

06449100 Little White River near 

Vetal

38 264 6.9 199

06449100 Little White River near 

Vetal

06449300 Little White River above 

Rosebud

39 365 9.4 867

06449300 Little White River above 

Rosebud

06449500 Little White River near 

Rosebud

9 121 13 769

06449500 Little White River near 

Rosebud

06450500 Little White River below 

White River

31 382 12 NA

26 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

Duration Analysis

One of the factors for setting a stream’s criteria is to examine natural and anthropogenic influences. Duration graphs of 

concentrations or loads associated with a constituent can be 

used to visually examine when the constituent is exceeding 

current or target criteria (fig. 16). The x-axis for each plot is the 

flow duration determined from the period of record (table 3) at 

each site. The y-axis is the suspended-sediment load calculated 

by multiplying the measured streamflow and suspendedsediment concentration from the samples collected at each site 

(1957–2003) by a conversion factor (0.0027). Each dot in 

figure 16 corresponds to a suspended-sediment load and the 

streamflow when the sample was collected. The solid curve on 

each plot corresponds to the calculated load based on the current 

State standard for warmwater semi-permanent fisheries of 

158 mg/L for total suspended solids multiplied by historical 

daily mean flow values. Samples plotting above the curve that 

were collected during low-flow or dry conditions (flow exceedances greater than 60 percent) indicate point-source influences; 

samples plotting above the curve that were collected during 

average-flow or moist conditions (flow exceedances between 

60 and 10 percent) indicate poor riparian health; and samples 

plotting above the curve that were collected during high-flow or 

wet conditions (flow exceedances less than 10 percent) indicate 

streambank erosion (Bruce Cleland, America’s Clean Water 

Foundation, written commun., 2004).

During high-flow conditions, measured suspendedsediment loads are greater than this curve at all three sites; 

during average-flow conditions, measured suspended-sediment 

loads are near the curve at the site near Vetal and greater than 

the curve at the other two sites; and during low-flow conditions, 

the measured suspended-sediment load is less than the curve at 

the site near Vetal and near the curve at the other two sites 

(fig. 16). Based on Bruce Cleland’s discussions (America’s 

Clean Water Foundation, written commun., 2004), improving 

land-use practices such as contour strips and conservation tillage, improving riparian health, and increasing buffer zones 

along the streams may reduce the suspended-sediment load 

measured during the average-flow periods; however, many of 

these practices are already in place within Todd County.

Both the Little White River above Rosebud and near Rosebud have concentration exceedances throughout the range of 

flows. This indicates that with no known point sources of sediment other than the natural geology and with existing good 

riparian health, a decrease in the sediment load to meet the 

current standards likely is unattainable.

With a goal of less than 10 percent exceedance of a standard, the RST may need to establish a standard with a higher 

concentration than the current State standard for the Little 

White River. This is one option that the State currently (2005) 

is investigating for the reach of the Little White River within 

Mellette County (Robert Smith, South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources, oral commun., 2005). One 

option would be to have a standard similar to the current standard, which is constant throughout the flow regime. Another 

option would be to have a standard that varies with flow such as 

a stepped standard. The advantage of the latter option is that it 

may restrict future degradation at low flows. This type of standard would be more restrictive for all flows and would require 

measured discharge with all suspended-sediment sampling. 

Examples of possible scenarios for higher or different standards 
0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT LOAD, TONS PER DAY SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT LOAD, TONS PER DAY SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT LOAD, TONS PER DAY

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Little White River above Rosebud, 06449300

0.099 40 60 20 80 99.9

PERCENT OF TIME STREAMFLOW WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500

High Flow Wet Conditions Mid- Dry Conditions Low Flow

Range

Flow

High Flow Wet Conditions Mid- Dry Conditions Low Flow

Range

Flow

High Flow Wet Conditions Mid- Dry Conditions Low Flow

Range

Flow

South Dakota warm-water semi-permanent fisheries standard for total

 suspended solids (South Dakota Environment and Natural Resources,

 2004b)

Measured suspended-sediment load

EXPLANATION

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Water-Quality Characteristics 27

Figure 16. Suspended-sediment load duration curves for selected sites on the Little White River.
28 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

are provided in figure 17. The Little White River sites above 

Rosebud and near Rosebud have similar ranges of flow and suspended-sediment concentrations; however, more data are available for the site above Rosebud and this may be a better site 

from which to make decisions. For example, if the site near 

Rosebud was used to establish a stepped standard for the reach 

of the Little White River within Todd County, then more than 

10 percent exceedance would likely take place in all flow 

regimes. A stepped standard established on the basis of the site 

above Rosebud likely would be attainable for all sites within 

Todd County. Data collected by the State downstream from the 

Todd/Mellette County line may have lower concentrations 

because of the differences in laboratory methods as previously 

described in the Sampling and Analysis Methods section. It 

would be beneficial for RST and State staff to work together to 

establish a new standard. A lower standard likely would be 

more appropriate for the Little White River upstream from the 

outcrop of the Ogallala Formation than downstream from this 

outcrop.

Simulated Flow and Sediment Transport

To further examine sediment transport within the Little 

White River within Todd County, this portion of the Little 

White River was simulated using the one-dimensional flow and 

sediment transport model CONCEPTS (Conservational Channel Evolution and Pollutant Transport System). CONCEPTS 

was developed by the National Sedimentation Laboratory, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, to simulate open-channel hydraulics, sediment transport, and channel morphology (Langendoen, 

2000). CONCEPTS predicts response of flow and sediment 

transport to instream hydraulic structures and computes channel 

evolution including elevation changes, channel widening, basal 

scour, and mass wasting. Flow is computed as a function of time 

and sediment transport rates account for sediment size fractions. 

Sediment transport is further defined with adjustments for 

fluvial erosion or entrainment of bank material and bank mass 

failure due to gravity.

Simulation of sediment transport can assist with determination of the maximum load a stream can receive without 

exceeding allowable limits, identification and assessment of 

point and nonpoint sources of sediment, and development and 

evaluation of load reduction scenarios. For the Little White 

River in Todd County, where sediment concentrations already 

exceed the current (2004) State standard on a regular basis, the 

model can be used to help evaluate appropriate sediment concentration for development of a standard and could be used in 

the evaluation of load reduction scenarios. 

For CONCEPTS, flow is assumed to be one dimensional 

along the centerline of the channel and neglects cross-stream 

variations that are common in a stream reach including debris 

or rocks, constrictions or expansions, riffles, and point bars. 

CONCEPTS can model hydraulic changes that take place at 

structures including bridges, culverts, drop structures, and 

generic structures for which a rating curve can be developed. 

The stream corridor is represented as a straight channel with 

reaches that connect cross sections. A reach is a stream segment 

that connects two cross sections. The cross sections provide 

detail to characterize the channel and flow-carrying capacity. 

Cross sections represent locations throughout the stream corridor where substantial changes occur. For accurate results, cross 

sections should occur whenever the stream changes in bed 

slope, shape, and flow-resistance characteristics.

Channel elevations were surveyed for three sites along the 

Little White River where USGS gaging stations were located 

(06449100, Little White River near Vetal; 06449300, Little 

White River above Rosebud; 06449500, Little White River near 

Rosebud). Other channel cross sections were estimated using 

digital-elevation data for the area. Cross-section estimates 

based on digital-elevation data also were determined for the 

three surveyed sites to check how closely they represent actual 

field conditions, and differences generally were less than 2 ft. 

Bridges and culverts were not modeled. To be able to add these 

structures to the model, surveying of the cross sections above 

and below each structure would be necessary as would exact 

measurements of the structures themselves. Cross sections near 

bridges and culverts were estimated using digital-elevation 

data.

Because of the limitations of the data collected as part of 

this study, some general assumptions and estimated model 

inputs were used. Table 9 presents a summary of the values 

assigned to the CONCEPTS model for the Little White River. 

All values assigned to parameters were calculated from data 

collected along the Little White River, were based on author’s 

best judgment from knowledge of the basin, or were from 

examples and documents provided by Eddy J. Langendoen 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, 

National Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, Mississippi, written commun., March 26, 2004). Many of the parameters that 

affect sediment transport were estimated because collection of 

these data was beyond the scope of this study. For parameters 

such as friction angles, changes in shear strength, porosity, and 

hiding coefficients, values associated with sand channels, provided within the manual and training for CONCEPTS (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 2005), were used. CONCEPTS 

model example input files are provided at the end of the Supplemental Data section for the main input run file and the crosssection file for cross-section 001 (Little White River near 

Vetal).

The sediment load fraction sizes at the upstream end of the 

channel were based on two historical analyses of sediment-size 

distribution for suspended and bed sediment. Bed and bank 

sediment-size analysis collected as part of this study at the five 

main stem sites and used for simulation of sediment transport 

are provided in table 10. An average water temperature of 14°C 

was selected because temperature ranged from around 6°C to 

23°C during the simulated period (April through October 2003).
10

100

1,000

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100

430 mg/L

30 mg/L

190 mg/L 215 mg/L

400 mg/L

825 mg/L

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Little White River above Rosebud, 06449300

325 mg/L

1,600 mg/L

1,665 mg/L 1,325 mg/L 

6,400 mg/L

425 mg/L

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

SUSPENDED-SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500

210 mg/L

1,600 mg/L

340 mg/L 

900 mg/L

4,325 mg/L

High Flow Wet Conditions Mid- Dry Conditions Low Flow

Range

Flow

High Flow Wet Conditions Mid- Dry Conditions Low Flow

Range

Flow

High Flow Wet Conditions Dry Conditions Low Flow

MidRange

Flow

Stepped standard based on different flow regimes

Single-value standard based on current data not exceeding 10 percent of the time

Measured suspended-sediment concentration

EXPLANATION

0.099 40 60 20 80 99.9

PERCENT OF TIME STREAMFLOW WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

Water-Quality Characteristics 29

Figure 17. Possible higher suspended-sediment standard examples for selected sites on the Little White River.
Table 9. Summary of values assigned to the CONCEPTS model for the Little White River.[m, meters; km, kilometers; m3/s, cubic meters per second; kPa, kiloPascals; Pa, Pascals; m/sPa, meters per second Pascals; N, newton; GIS, geographic information system]

Parameter Model values assigned Description Detail/so

Main run file

Discharge file Discharge.txt Streamflow time-series data at the upstream boundary of the 

modeled reach (m3/s).

Daily mean discharge from gagin

near Vetal, 06449100.

Upstream sediment 

discharge option and rates

0 1 3 700.65 0.092 11.36 700.93 1.0154 4.312701.61 2.989 2.775

Rate of lateral inflow (m3/s), downstream boundary flag (0 or 1), 

number of rating curve segments (integer).

Rating curve variables for h (stage, in m), α (coefficient), and 

β (exponent) for the downstream boundary site.

Lateral inflow was set to 0, inflow

descriptions. Downstream bound(loop-rating curve) or 1 (user-decurve parameters were set based through actual measured stage/dWhite River near Rosebud, 0644

Fraction of fines in a 

cohesive bed

0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 0

Flag indicating how sediment load is imposed at the upstream 

boundary (0 or 1); fraction of load carried in each of 13 grain-size classes (real from 0 to 1.0)

Fractions set based on sediment-s

gaging station Little White Rive

Bed control at 

downstream boundary

1 Indication of when the bed can be assumed cohesive or 

cohesionless (0 or 1). 

A value of 1 assumes that the bed 

Bank-failure analysis 

options

7 5 10 Level of complexity of the stability analysis (integer, 1-7), number 

of possible elevations at which the slip surface may intersect the bank profile (mass wasting) (integer), the frequency of application of the bank-stability analysis algorithm (integer).

All processes were used: positive 

confining pressures, and matric sintersections and algorithm coun

Type of bed resistance 

formulation

1 Flag to use friction-factor relations or to use user-defined Manning 

n values (0 or 1).

Used user-defined Manning n val

Water temperature 14 Water temperature (degrees Celsius). Average water temperature over tSediment and streambank 

mechanics options

1 1 1 Flags for sediment routing and bed adjustment (0 or 1), streambank 

fluvial erosion (0 or 1), and streambank mass-wasting (0 or 1).

Simulated all three processes.

Simulation times 04/01/2003 12:00 to 

11/30/2003 12:00 with a time step of 86400 seconds (1 day)

Start and end time for the simulation and the time step (seconds). Simulated time period of samplin

Number of links 1 The number of links simulated (integer). The stream was simulated as one 

sections.
Cross-section files

River kilometer Varies by cross section Location of the cross section; distance from upstream boundary 

(km).

Based on GIS data to get stream r

Friction factor Varies by cross section Manning n for the total cross section (real). Author’s judgment and knowledgTributary inflow 0 or 1 followed by 

tributary file name (varies by cross section)

Value set to 0 for those stream segments/cross sections without any 

tributary inflow, otherwise set to 1 followed by the tributary inflow file name. Tributary inflow in m3/s.

Most cross sections had tributary 

actual measured streamflow, all 

Floodplain variables (left and right)

Friction factor Varies by cross section Manning n value for the left floodplain (real). Authors judgment and knowledge Streambank coordinates Varies by cross section Number of points, station (x) and elevation (y) coordinates in 

meters.

Cross section 1, 9, and 11 were su

sections were calculated based o

Bank variables (left and right)

Number of soil layers 1 Number of soil layers in the stream bank (integer). Assumed that soil layer is consist

and that core samples are represematerial.

Elevation of layer top Varies by cross section The elevation of the top of the soil layer (meters). Generally given as the top elevatic’ 0 Effective cohesion (kPa). Typical values for rounded sand.φ 27 Friction angle/angle of internal friction (degrees). Typical values for rounded sand.φb 15 Angle indicating increase in shear strength for an increase in matric 

suction (degrees).

Typical values for rounded sand.

γs 18,000 Specific weight of sediment (N/m3). Typical values for rounded sand.Bank erodibility 10 Critical shear stress (Pa). Used values from example input f

and bank sediment fractions data

Sediment composition Varies by cross section Sediment composition based on 13 size fractions. Sediment fractions based on sedim

from streambank sediment core measured locations were set to mmatch site with closest geologica

Table 9. Summary of values assigned to the CONCEPTS model for the Little White River.—Continued[m, meters; km, kilometers; m3/s, cubic meters per second; kPa, kiloPascals; Pa, Pascals; m/sPa, meters per second Pascals; N, newton; GIS, geographic information system]

Parameter Model values assigned Description Detail/so
Bank variables (left and right)—Continued

Ground-water table Varies by cross section Elevation of ground-water table (m). Used values that were approxima

bank.

Friction factor Varies by cross section Manning n value for the left streambank (real). Author’s judgment and knowledg

Channel bed

Bed coordinates Varies by cross section Number of points, station (x) and elevation (y) coordinates (m). Cross section 1, 9, and 11 were su

sections were calculated based o

Bedrock elevation 0 Elevation of bedrock below the streambed (m). Used a value of 0 which allowed 

movement.

λ 0.40 Porosity (real). Average of typical values for fine

sediments.

Hiding factors 0.25 0.95 0.70 Hiding factors for silt, sand, and gravel (real). Used values from example input f

and bank sediment fractions data

Number bed layers 1 Number of soil/sediment layers in the streambed (integer). Assumed that soil layer is consist

and that core samples are represematerial.

Bed composition Varies by cross section Sediment composition based on 13 size fractions. Sediment fractions based on sedim

from bed sediment core samplesmeasured locations were set to mmatch site with closest geologica

τd 0.10 Critical shear stress to deposit sediment particles (Pa). Used values from example input f

and bank sediment fractions data

τe 7.05 Critical shear stress to entrain sediment particles (Pa). Used values from example input f

and bank sediment fractions data

Erodibility Coefficient 3.40E-07 Erodibility coefficient (m/sPa). Used values from example input f

and bank sediment fractions data

Channel friction factor Varies by cross section Manning n value for the channel. Author’s judgment and knowledg

Table 9. Summary of values assigned to the CONCEPTS model for the Little White River.—Continued[m, meters; km, kilometers; m3/s, cubic meters per second; kPa, kiloPascals; Pa, Pascals; m/sPa, meters per second Pascals; N, newton; GIS, geographic information system]

Parameter Model values assigned Description Detail/so
Water-Quality Characteristics 33

Table 10. Results of bed and bank sediment analysis for selected sites on the Little White River.

Site 06449100 Little White River near Vetal 430939101003500 Little White River, Valandra Bridge,

near Spring Creek

Sieve size

(micrometers)

Left bank

(percent

less than)

Bed

(percent

less than)

Right bank

(percent

less than)

Left bank

(percent

less than)

Bed

(percent

less than)

Right bank

(percent

less than)

0.002 2 0 1 2 0 2

0.004 2 0 1 2 0 2

0.008 2 0 1 3 0 3

0.016 3 0 1 4 0 3

0.031 7 0 3 7 0 6

0.063 21 0 11 17 0 18

0.125 37 2 29 44 3 38

0.25 84 29 55 84 43 72

0.5 99 88 87 97 85 96

1 100 97 99 100 94 100

2 100 98 100 100 95 100

4 100 99 100 100 97 100

8 100 100 100 100 97 100

Site 06449300 Little White River above Rosebud 06449500 Little White River near Rosebud

Sieve size

(micrometers)

Left bank

(percent

less than)

Bed

(percent

less than)

Right bank

(percent

less than)

Left bank

(percent

less than)

Bed

(percent

less than)

Right bank

(percent

less than)

0.002 8 0 8 9 0 4

0.004 8 0 9 11 0 4

0.008 10 0 11 13 0 5

0.016 12 0 13 19 0 6

0.031 25 0 27 26 0 12

0.063 66 1 67 47 1 28

0.125 89 5 93 66 6 63

0.25 92 41 99 88 38 94

0.5 99 91 100 97 83 100

1 100 99 100 98 97 100

2 100 99 100 100 98 100

4 100 100 100 100 98 100

8 100 100 100 100 99 100
34 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

Site 432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette 

County line

Sieve size

(micrometers)

Left bank

(percent

less than)

Bed

(percent

less than)

Right bank

(percent

less than)

0.002 5 0 4

0.004 6 6 4

0.008 6 0 4

0.016 8 0 5

0.031 16 0 10

0.063 46 0 34

0.125 80 1 77

0.25 92 23 97

0.5 98 76 100

1 98 94 100

2 100 97 100

4 100 99 100

8 100 100 100

Table 10. Results of bed and bank sediment analysis for selected sites on the Little White River.—Continued

Continuous streamflow at Sawmill Canyon, Rosebud 

Creek, and Soldier Creek was used to estimate daily tributary 

inflows from other sites along the Little White River. Regression relations were used to estimate flow, which was then 

checked and adjusted on the basis of measured streamflow. This 

method allowed changes to reflect localized storms within 

selected basins. Some of the variation within the model output 

is attributed to lack of continuous streamflow at additional tributaries. Storms can be localized within the basin and can produce a high enough volume to change model results. Sediment 

loading from the tributaries is relatively minor in comparison to 

the transport within the Little White River; however, it should 

be acknowledged that intense storms within a tributary basin 

can produce large sediment loads.

The model was calibrated by first simulating streamflow, 

with all variables for sediment transport turned off. Initially the 

simulation was run as one stream reach with a cross section at 

the upstream boundary (Little White River near Vetal, 

06449100) and a cross section at the most-downstream gaging 

station (Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500). Next, the 

additional cross sections and tributary inflows were added. The 

stage-discharge relation necessary for the downstream boundary was based on measured values from the Little White River 

near Rosebud, 06449500. Simulated and measured streamflow 

through the Little White River Basin are presented in figure 18. 

The lack of fit for the May 25, 2003, event for Little White 

River near Rosebud is attributed to sparse tributary inflow 

information. A site visit at the South Fork of Ironwood Creek in 

June 2003 provided evidence of a large, localized storm, with 

high flows and high sediment transport. Gaps between the 

measured and simulated streamflow also are attributed to sparse 

tributary inflow information. The lack of detailed information 

on hydraulic structures also may account for differences 

between simulated and measured streamflow.

Once streamflow calibration was complete, sediment 

transport variables were included, based on best knowledge, 

actual data collected, and estimates. In an effort to model the 

sediment transport within the system, estimated values were 

varied within ranges often reported for sand-dominated stream 

channels. Five storms were simulated using the 2003 

data—April 29 to May 19, May 21 to June 2, June 16 to 

July 10, September 16–25, and October 16–24. The May 21 

event was the largest single event during 2003. The April period 

represents snowmelt and early spring rainfall, the May and June 

periods are a sequence of storm events over a 3-week period, 

and the September and October periods are relatively small 

storm events. Sediment load results for selected locations on the 

river are presented in table 11 and figure 19. Regression-based 

load results were calculated from continuous streamflow values 

for the storm event period and regression equations presented in 

table 7.
4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 11/30

YEAR 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

STREAMFLOW, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Measured Little White River near Vetal, model input

Measured Little White River above Rosebud

Measured Little White River near Rosebud

Measured Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line

Simulated Little White River above Rosebud

Simulated Little White River near Rosebud

Simulated Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line

Water-Quality Characteristics 35

Figure 18. Measured and simulated streamflow for selected sites on the Little White River.
Table 11. Simulated sediment load compared to regression-based sediment load for selected storms and sites on the Little White River, 2003.

[--, no data]

Storm event dates

06449100

Little White River near Vetal

06449300

Little White River above Rosebud

Little White 

Simulated

load

(tons per

event)

Regressionbased load

(tons per

event)

Percent 

difference 

between

simulated 

load and 

regressionbased load 

estimate

Simulated

load

(tons per

event)

Regressionbased load

(tons per

event)

Percent 

difference 

between

simulated 

load and 

regressionbased load 

estimate

Simulated

load

(tons per

event)

Re

ba

(

04-29-2003 to 05-19-2003 120 952 87 341 7,305 95 550 05-21-2003 to 06-02-2003 536 420 28 1,420 2,730 48 2,360 06-16-2003 to 07-10-2003 1,710 507 240 2,360 4,880 52 4,620 09-16-2003 to 09-25-2003 490 70 600 546 797 31 936 10-16-2003 to 10-24-2003 390 141 180 635 1,210 48 897 Average sediment load, 

per day

41 -- -- 68 -- -- 116 
0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 5 10

RIVER MILE

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

7,000

7,500

SEDIMENT LOAD, IN TONS PER EVENT

April

May

June

September

October

Little White River near Vetal

Little White River above Rosebud

Little White River near Rosebud

Little White River near Todd/Mellette County Line

Water-Quality Characteristics 37

Figure 19. Simulated storm-event sediment load on the Little White River.

The CONCEPTS model was calibrated and produced reasonable results with the data available for this effort. The model 

can be used to simulate changes in sediment transport including 

the response of the system to increases or decreases in sediment 

load upstream of the study area and any response to increased 

sediment contributions from a tributary within the study area. 

Additional sampling would be necessary to quantify and correctly adjust the model to reflect those changes. The model 

would provide more accurate simulation results with additional 

details for all hydraulic structures including the various bridges 

and culverts along the stream, more accurate continuous tributary inflow particularly during storm events, and basin-specific 

measurements to address the streambank properties for cohesion, friction angle, and critical shear stress.

The simulated sediment load for the April snowmelt/early 

spring rainfall were considerably less than the regression-based 

load. The season and intensity of a storm are just a couple of the 

factors that affect the sediment transported. A steady runoff, 

which would be typical in the early spring, generally would 

result in less sediment transport than would a summer thunderstorm. Because the regression equations are derived from point 

samples and are not inclusive of an entire storm hydrograph, the 

simulated load results probably are more representative of 

actual sediment load. For this type of event, the model probably 

provides a better estimate of the sediment transport. Results are 

similar for the May storm event, which was more intense than 

the April event. The simulated sediment load generally was 

lower than the regression-based load; however, the simulated 

streamflows also were less than the measured streamflows, and 

that would account for much of this variability. The simulated 

and regression-based loads for the sequence of storms in June 

and July also were most similar at each of the two downstream 

sites, with differences attributed to the simulated streamflow 

varying from measured streamflow. Loads for the September 

and October storms were most similar at each of the two downstream sites.

Figure 19 shows how simulated loads change through the 

river reach from the Bennett/Todd County line to near the Todd/

Mellette County line for each simulated storm event. The simulation results indicate that the largest sediment loads occurred 

between river mile 20 and river mile 27 and between the Little 

White River above Rosebud (river mile 38) and river mile 45 
38 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

for most events. These results could change considerably with 

changes in the model bank parameters that characterize bank 

stability. Based on simulated sediment loads, the Little White 

River near Vetal averages 41 ton/d, the Little White River 

above Rosebud averages 68 ton/d, and the Little White River 

near Rosebud averages 116 ton/d (table 11).

The model also can simulate other results such as change 

in thalweg or lowest point in the channel, streambed and bank 

changes, and peak discharge. For the data collected as part of 

this study, the change in riverbed was minimal (inches); however, the model did predict streambank failures at the Little 

White River near Vetal site during April and May. The accuracy 

of these results would likely increase with more accurate input 

values for the model streambank material parameters.

Biological Characteristics

Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled in August 2003 

at three sites as part of this study. The RST also sampled for 

macroinvertebrates in 1996 at the same three sites. Table 12 

presents the RST data, and table 13 presents the results of the 

2003 sampling efforts. Benthic macroinvertebrates typically are 

abundant in most streams, are reasonably easy to collect, and 

are good indicators of localized conditions. Results can be used 

in comparisons with index or reference sites, for comparing and 

assessing sites within the same stream, and for comparisons 

from one year to another. This report uses the two latter comparisons. Because macroinvertebrates have limited migration 

patterns, they are well suited for assessing site-specific conditions. With complex life cycles of about 1 year, macroinvertebrates integrate the effects of environmental variations and can 

respond quickly to stressors.

Different metrics can be used as indicators of aquatic 

health. Number of individuals, number of taxa found, and number of individuals in specific taxa can provide indications of the 

richness or diversity at a site. Typically, these numbers decrease 

when the site is disturbed or impaired. Actual counts also will 

vary with sampling methods so comparisons from one year to 

another may not be valid if the sampling methods are not similar. Smaller counts are present in the RST 1996 data when compared to the USGS 2003 data. This may be a result of different 

sampling methods within the stream. Methods used by the RST 

followed their Standard Operating Procedures at the time, 

which were developed from USEPA methodology (Kvame and 

others, 1997). The USGS collection methods followed current 

USEPA EMAP protocols (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2005). Although the richness metrics can not be compared between 1996 and 2003 data, comparisons can be made 

between sites.

In 1996, the number of individuals decreased from 

upstream to downstream, but the number of taxa stayed consistent. The number of ephemeroptera, plecoptera, and trichoptera 

(EPT) increased from site 1 (near Vetal) to site 2 (Valandra 

Bridge near Spring Creek) and then decreased from site 2 to 

site 5 (near Todd/Mellette County line) with similar numbers at 

site 1 and site 5. For the 2003 data, total number of individuals 

increased from upstream to downstream and the number of taxa 

stayed constant at all three sites. The number of EPT taxa again 

increased from site 1 to site 2 and then decreased from site 2 to 

site 5. Decreases in the EPT count may be an indication of 

impairment or disturbance between the sites. The dominate 

species in 1996 had functional feeding designations of filter/

collector and gatherer/collector. The dominate species in 2003 

had functional feeding designations of predator for site 1 and 

gatherer/collector for sites 2 and 5.

Other metrics provide an indication of the presence of 

tolerant species. These species typically will remain at a site 

that is impaired when less tolerant species are not present. The 

Family Biotic Index (FBI) is a sum of the number of individuals 

in a family times a tolerance factor, divided by the total number 

of individuals. Tolerance scales range from 10 to 0, with 10 

indicating poor condition and 0 indicating healthy conditions. 

In 1996, site 1 had the highest FBI of 5.19, site 5 was next with 

a FBI of 4.37, and site 2 was the healthiest with a FBI of 3.47. 

In 2003, the same pattern was present and numbers were very 

comparable at 5.26 (site 1), 3.02 (site 2), and 4.51 (site 5). The 

percentage of dominant taxa (total number of the dominant taxa 

divided by the total number of individuals) generally increases 

with impairment or disturbance within a stream. In 1996, the 

percentages decreased from site 1 to site 2 and then increased 

from site 2 to site 5, following the same general trend as the 

FBI. In 2003, the percentages decreased from site 1 through 

site 5 and were less than the percentages calculated for the 1996 

data. The percentage of total organisms that are considered to be 

tolerant followed the same trend as the FBI for both 1996 and 

2003. All of the tolerance metrics indicate that the biological 

health of the stream improves from site 1 to site 2 but decreases 

again from site 2 to site 5, with site 1 and site 5 having similar 

metrics.

Composition metrics generally are percentages of selected 

taxa or groups of taxa compared to the total number of individuals and, depending on the taxa, increase or decrease with 

stream health. Percent Diptera and percent Chironomidae typically increase and percent EPT typically decreases with disturbance. The 1996 and 2003 composition metrics generally follow the same trends of stream health as the tolerance metrics, 

with percentages indicating an increase in stream health from 

site 1 to site 2 and then a decrease in stream health from site 2 

to site 5.

Feeding measures represent the percentage of the macroinvertebrates that feed a particular way. For example, grazers and 

scrapers graze or scrape upon periphyton. Results are variable 

for most feeding measures with the exception of percent shredders, which decrease with perturbation. Percent collectors 

decreased slightly from site 1 to site 2 for the 1996 data and 

increased from upstream to downstream for the 2003 data. The 

percent shredders increased from site 1 to site 2 then decreased 

from site 2 to site 5 for the 1996 data with the exact opposite 

trend in 2003. The 1996 shredder data follow the same general 

trend observed in most of the other biological metrics. 
Table 12. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling in 1996 by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and selected metric calculations.[Functional feeding groups: FC, filter/collector; GC, gatherer/collector; PR, predator; SC, scraper; SH, shredder. EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; FBI, Family 

applicable]

Phylum Class Order Family

Little White River

near Vetal

(site 1)

Little White River

near Valandra 

Bridge

(site 2)

Little White River

near

Todd/Mellette 

County line

(site 5)

to

Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida -- -- -- -- Anthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae 1 -- -- Anthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae 1 1 1 Anthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae 1 -- -- Anthropoda Insecta Diptera Anthericidae -- -- 6 Anthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae 24 12 8 Anthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae 101 7 13 Anthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae 26 21 45 Anthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae 17 8 -- Anthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae 9 13 3 Anthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Oligoneuriidae 4 22 -- Anthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Tricorythidae 13 10 5 Anthropoda Insecta Gastropoda Physidae -- 1 -- Anthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae 1 -- -- Anthropoda Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae -- 1 -- Anthropoda Insecta Odonata Gomphidae 9 8 2 Anthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Chloroperlidae -- -- 2 Anthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae -- 2 -- Anthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Pteronarcyidae -- 3 -- Anthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 4 33 27 Anthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae -- -- 5 Anthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Leptopceridae 3 2 1 
Category Metric

Total number of individuals 215 144 118 Dominant species Simuliidae Hydropsychidae Baetidae 

Richness Number of taxa 15 15 12 Richness Number of EPT taxa 76 114 88 Tolerance FBI 5.19 3.47 4.37 Tolerance Percent dominant taxa 46.98 22.92 38.14 Tolerance Percent tolerant organisms 67.91 19.44 22.88 Composition Percent Diptera 58.14 13.19 22.88 Composition Percent Chironomidae 11.16 8.33 6.78 Composition Percent EPT 35.35 79.17 74.58 Feeding Percent collectors 88.84 79.17 83.90 Feeding Percent filterers 48.84 27.78 33.90 Feeding Percent scrapers 4.19 9.72 2.54 Feeding Percent shredders 0 2.08 0 Feeding Percent predators 5.58 7.64 3.39 

1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005.

Table 12. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling in 1996 by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and selected metric calculations.—Continued[Functional feeding groups: FC, filter/collector; GC, gatherer/collector; PR, predator; SC, scraper; SH, shredder. EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; FBI, Family 

applicable]

Phylum Class Order Family

Little White River

near Vetal

(site 1)

Little White River

near Valandra 

Bridge

(site 2)

Little White River

near

Todd/Mellette 

County line

(site 5)

to
Table 13. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling in 2003 and selected metric calculations.Functional feeding groups: FC, filter/collector; GC, gatherer/collector; PR, predator; SC, scraper; SH, shredder. Life stage: A, adult; L, larvae, P, pupae. EPT, Ephemeroptera, Pl

Family Biotic Index. --, no data or not applicable]

Phylum Class Order Family Revised Taxa

Little White 

River near

Vetal

(site 1)

Little White 

River near

Valandra 

Bridge

(site 2)

Little White 

River near

Todd/Mellette 

County line

(site 5)

Be

tole

Nematoda -- -- -- Nematoda 4 2 -- Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Naididae Naididae 20 4 10 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificidae Tubificidae 8 4 52 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera -- Ephemeroptera -- -- 6 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis sp. 4 10 34 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Cercobrachys sp. 36 12 2 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes sp. 92 46 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetidae 6 40 26 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Centroptilum/Procloeon sp. 4 -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella sp. -- 16 90 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella insignificans 

(McDunnough)

-- 2 6 

Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Camelobaetidius sp. -- 72 22 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Fallceon quilleri (Dodds) 6 60 14 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Paracloeodes minutus (Daggy) 32 6 4 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Plauditus sp. -- -- 12 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Oligoneuriidae Homoeoneuria sp. 80 90 20 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Coenagrionidae 2 2 -- Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Gomphidae Gomphidae 6 72 9 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Gomphidae Ophiogomphus sp. -- 1 -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Corixidae 138 -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Trichocorixa sp. 4 -- -- 
Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptilidae -- 2 -- Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptilidae -- -- 4 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. -- 2 -- Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Mayatrichia sp. -- 2 4 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Mayatrichia sp. -- -- 2 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Mayatrichia ayama Mosely -- -- 2 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae -- 6 -- Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sp. -- 12 2 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Brachycentridae Brachycentrus occidentalis 

Banks

2 -- -- 

Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Leptoceridae -- 2 -- Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Oecetis sp. -- -- 4 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Elmidae -- 6 2 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia sp. 12 -- 4 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Microcylloepus sp. -- -- 2 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Zaitzevia parvula (Horn) 2 -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogonidae 10 -- 4 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Atrichopogon sp. -- 4 -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomidae 2 2 8 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 8 4 10 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomini 2 -- 4 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Axarus sp. -- 2 4 

Table 13. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling in 2003 and selected metric calculations.—ContinuedFunctional feeding groups: FC, filter/collector; GC, gatherer/collector; PR, predator; SC, scraper; SH, shredder. Life stage: A, adult; L, larvae, P, pupae. EPT, Ephemeroptera, Pl

Family Biotic Index. --, no data or not applicable]

Phylum Class Order Family Revised Taxa

Little White 

River near

Vetal

(site 1)

Little White 

River near

Valandra 

Bridge(site 2)

Little White 

River near

Todd/Mellette 

County line

(site 5)

Be

tole
Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chernovskiia sp. 32 2 4 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomus sp. 2 -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cryptochironomus sp. 10 -- 6 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cryptotendipes sp. 2 -- 4 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paracladopelma sp. 10 -- 6 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paralauterborniella 

nigrohalterale (Malloch)

10 -- 4 

Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Polypedilum sp. 10 6 48 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Robackia sp. 14 10 32 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Saetheria sp. -- -- 12 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stictochironomus sp. 4 2 -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Pseudochironomus sp. -- -- 2 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cladotanytarsus sp. 50 10 20 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus sp. 2 -- 2 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella sp. 34 -- 68 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Stempellinella sp. -- -- 4 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsus sp. 14 -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae -- 12 4 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae -- -- 12 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. -- -- 4 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus sp. -- -- 12 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cricotopus bicinctus group -- -- 2 

Table 13. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling in 2003 and selected metric calculations.—ContinuedFunctional feeding groups: FC, filter/collector; GC, gatherer/collector; PR, predator; SC, scraper; SH, shredder. Life stage: A, adult; L, larvae, P, pupae. EPT, Ephemeroptera, Pl

Family Biotic Index. --, no data or not applicable]

Phylum Class Order Family Revised Taxa

Little White 

River near

Vetal

(site 1)

Little White 

River near

Valandra 

Bridge(site 2)

Little White 

River near

Todd/Mellette 

County line

(site 5)

Be

tole
Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Lopescladius sp. 2 -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parakiefferiella sp. -- 2 -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheocricotopus sp. -- 2 -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheosmittia sp. -- 6 -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Rheosmittia sp. 6 -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae -- 2 -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Pentaneura sp. -- 4 2 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Procladius sp. 14 -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simuliidae 8 50 36 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simuliidae -- 6 -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium sp. -- 4 -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Simuliidae Simulium sp. -- 6 -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Brachycera 2 -- -- Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Athericidae Atherix variegata Walker -- 4 2 Category Metric

Total number of individuals 614 657 695 Dominant taxa Corixidae Tricorythodes 

sp.

Acentrella sp. 

Richness Number of taxa 47 47 47 Richness Number of EPT taxa 170 426 300 Tolerance FBI 5.26 3.02 4.51 Tolerance Percent dominant taxa 22.48 14.00 12.95 

Table 13. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling in 2003 and selected metric calculations.—ContinuedFunctional feeding groups: FC, filter/collector; GC, gatherer/collector; PR, predator; SC, scraper; SH, shredder. Life stage: A, adult; L, larvae, P, pupae. EPT, Ephemeroptera, Pl

Family Biotic Index. --, no data or not applicable]

Phylum Class Order Family Revised Taxa

Little White 

River near

Vetal

(site 1)

Little White 

River near

Valandra 

Bridge(site 2)

Little White 

River near

Todd/Mellette 

County line

(site 5)

Be

tole
Tolerance Percent tolerant organisms 60.91 37.14 48.06 Composition Percent Diptera 40.39 21.31 45.47 Composition Percent Chironomidae 37.13 10.05 39.42 Composition Percent EPT 27.69 64.84 43.17 Feeding Percent collectors 46.25 68.49 79.42 Feeding Percent filterers 3.91 10.05 5.47 Feeding Percent scrapers 5.21 1.52 1.73 Feeding Percent shredders 1.63 0.91 8.63 Feeding Percent predators 29.97 14.46 4.17 

1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005.

Table 13. Results of macroinvertebrate sampling in 2003 and selected metric calculations.—ContinuedFunctional feeding groups: FC, filter/collector; GC, gatherer/collector; PR, predator; SC, scraper; SH, shredder. Life stage: A, adult; L, larvae, P, pupae. EPT, Ephemeroptera, Pl

Family Biotic Index. --, no data or not applicable]

Phylum Class Order Family Revised Taxa

Little White 

River near

Vetal

(site 1)

Little White 

River near

Valandra 

Bridge(site 2)

Little White 

River near

Todd/Mellette 

County line

(site 5)

Be

tole
46 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota, 2002–2003

Summary

The Little White River Basin in south-central South 

Dakota is the largest tributary to the White River with a drainage area of approximately 1,590 mi2, and approximately 

560 mi2 within Todd County. The flow of the Little White 

River near the Bennett/Todd County line is dominated by base 

flow originating as ground-water discharge from the Ogallala 

aquifer and from windblown sand deposits. A large base-flow 

component also is apparent along the main stem of the Little 

White River within Todd and Mellette Counties. The State 

currently (2004) lists the section of the Little White River below 

Rosebud to the confluence of the White River as impaired 

because it does not meet the existing State warmwater semipermanent fisheries beneficial-use standards for fecal coliform 

bacteria and total suspended solids.

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, conducted an assessment during 2002–2003 of 

the water-quality and biological characteristics of the Little 

White River and selected tributaries in Todd County. Reconnaissance sampling was conducted in 2002 along the Little 

White River and selected tributaries, and samples were analyzed for physical properties, major ions, nutrients, and trace 

elements. Reconnaissance pesticide samples were collected 

during the summer of 2003. This sample set provides some indication of current conditions and provides a base from which 

future monitoring can be compared. More detailed sampling 

was conducted in 2003 to examine fecal coliform bacteria and 

suspended-sediment concentrations. Macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted in 2003 and indicies examined for indications of stream health.

Results from reconnaissance sampling generally were 

within ranges previously reported for samples from the Little 

White River, with similar concentrations for tributaries to the 

Little White River. Nutrient concentrations were slightly 

higher than historical medians and near the previous maximum concentrations for dissolved ammonia, dissolved nitrite, 

and dissolved nitrate. Arsenic concentrations were less than 

the current (2005) drinking-water standard of 10 μg/L (micrograms per liter). All pesticide concentrations in samples collected from tributary sites were less than laboratory reporting 

levels with the exception of atrazine (0.01 μg/L) and 2-chloro4-isopropylanino-6-amino-s triazine (estimated concentration 

of 0.005 μg/L). Atrazine was not detected in historical (1973–

2001) samples. More extensive pesticide sampling would be 

beneficial to provide better indications of seasonal or climatic 

effects in pesticide concentrations in surface waters in the 

basin.

Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations generally were less 

than the State’s limited contact standard of 2,000 col/100 mL 

(colonies per 100 milliliters) within the Little White River with 

the exception of immediately after storm events. A fecal 

coliform bacteria concentration of 9,500 col/100 mL was 

reported at the Little White River near Vetal in June, and 

4,200 col/100 mL and 3,200 col/100 mL were reported for the 

Little White River near Rosebud and near the Todd/Mellette 

County line, respectively, in July. Several tributaries had higher 

concentrations than the standard during this same time period, 

including Sawmill Canyon, South Fork Ironwood Creek, and 

Soldier Creek. High concentrations in Sawmill Canyon also 

occurred in August and September. More detailed sampling 

during and after storm events would be beneficial to determine 

exactly where high concentrations originate within tributaries 

and how long concentrations of concern might persist.

The Rosebud Sioux Tribe currently (2005) does not have 

approved beneficial uses and corresponding standards for the 

streams on the Reservation. Using the current South Dakota 

standards for comparison purposes for the samples collected 

during 2002–2003, suspended-sediment concentrations exceed 

the State total suspended-solids standard 45 to 82 percent of the 

time. Sampling took place during a relatively dry year, so these 

results may be conservative. Review of historical (1957–2001) 

daily suspended-sediment concentrations indicates that the 

Little White River near Vetal (Bennett/Todd County line) 

exceeded the State standard 50 percent of the time, and the 

Little White River near Rosebud exceeded the standard 

89 percent of the time. Although slightly higher, these numbers 

are similar to the 2002–2003 data. Analysis of suspendedsediment data does show an increase in concentration and consequently exceedances of the standard between the Bennett/

Todd County line and upstream from Rosebud Creek. Land-use 

patterns do not change substantially between these sites, and 

riparian health along the Little White River is very good. However, the geology does change within this reach, specifically 

from windblown sand deposits to outcrops of the Ogallala 

Formation. Suspended sediment in the tributaries to the Little 

White River followed similar trends with higher concentrations 

within the tributary basins with outcrops of the Ogallala Formation. In addition, the percentage of fine sediment decreases in 

this same reach. The slope of the river between these two sites 

is 9.4 ft/mi, and downstream slope is 13 ft/mi. The downstream 

section with the greater slope does not have a corresponding 

increase in sediment concentration, and this may indicate that 

the Arikaree Formation does not contribute as much sediment 

as the Ogallala Formation. With little indication of land use or 

riparian health causing sediment concentrations, the Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe may need to establish a standard with a higher concentration than the current State standard for the Little White 

River.

Sediment transport was simulated using the one-dimensional flow and sediment transport model CONCEPTS 

(Conservational Channel Evolution and Pollutant Transport 

System). Model results were similar to estimates of sediment 

load from sediment concentrations and flows collected during 

the study. This effort was limited to the data already collected 

as part of this study and would benefit from further refinement. 

Based on the simulation of several storms during the spring and 

summer of 2003, the Little White River averages 41 ton/d of 

sediment near the Bennett/Todd County line and 116 ton/d 

downstream from the confluence of Rosebud Creek.
References 47

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling results were used to 

calculate a variety of metrics to be used as indicators of stream 

health. Historical data collected in 1996 by the Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe also were used for comparisons within the stream. 

Benthic macroinvertebrates have limited migration patterns and 

complex life cycles of about 1 year so they can respond quickly 

to stressors in their environment. The Family Biotic Index is a 

sum of the number of individuals in a family times a tolerance 

factor, divided by the total number of individuals. Tolerance 

scales range from 10 to 0, with 10 indicating poor conditions 

and 0 indicating healthy conditions. In the 1996 Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe data, the Family Biotic Index was 5.19 at site 1 (near 

Vetal), 3.47 at site 2 (Valandra Bridge near Spring Creek), and 

4.37 at site 5 (near Todd/Mellette County line). In the 2003 

data, the same pattern was present with an index of 5.26 at 

site 1, 3.02 at site 2, and 4.51 at site 5. Generally, the majority 

of the metrics displayed the same pattern with increases in 

stream health between site 1 near the Bennett/Todd County line 

and site 2 downstream from Sawmill Canyon, followed by an 

decrease in stream health from site 2 to site 5 near the Todd/

Mellette County line. Metrics at the upstream site near the 

Bennett/Todd County line and the downstream site were comparable. 

References

Carter, J.M., 1998, Water resources of Mellette and Todd Counties, South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 98–4146, 68 p.

Carter, J.M., Sando, S.K., and Hayes, T.S., 1998, Source, occurrence, and extent of arsenic in the Grass Mountain area of the 

Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97–4286, 

90 p.

Eaton, A.D., Clesceri, L.S., and Greenberg, A.E., eds., 1995, 

Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater (19th ed.): Washington, D.C., American Public Health 

Association [variously paged].

Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D., 1998, Field methods for 

measurement of fluvial sediment: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, 

chap. C2, 89 p.

Ellis, M.J., Ficken, J.H., and Adolphson, D.G., 1971, Hydrology of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA–335, 

2 sheets, scale 1:100,000.

Fenneman, N.M., 1946, Physical divisions of the United States:

U.S. Geological Survey map prepared in cooperation with 

the Physiographic Commission, U.S. Geological Survey, 

scale 1:700,000 (reprinted 1964).

Flint, R.F., 1955, Pleistocene geology of eastern South Dakota:

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 262, 173 p.

Gray, J.R., Glysson, G.D., Turcious, L.M., and Schwarz, G.E., 

2000, Comparability of suspended-sediment concentration 

and total suspended solids data: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4191, 14 p.

Knott, J.M., Glysson, G.D., Malo, B.A., and Schroeder, L.J., 

1993, Quality assurance plan for the collection and processing of sediment data by the U.S. Geolgocial Survey, Water 

Resources Division: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 92–499, 18 p.

Kvame, Kevin, Huq, Syed, and Brooks, Larry, 1997, Benthic 

macroinvertebrate rapid bioassessment and riparian habitat 

quality data for the Little White River, Rosebud Sioux 

Reservation, South Dakota: Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 21 p.

Langendoen, E.J., 2000, CONCEPTS—Conservational channel evolution and pollutant transport system: Stream corridor 

version 1.0., Research Report No. 16, Oxford, Miss., U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 

National Sedimentation Laboratory, 160 p.

Long, A.J., Putnam, L.D., and Carter, J.M., 2003, Simulated 

ground-water flow in the Ogallala and Arikaree aquifers, 

Rosebud Indian Reservation area, South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

03–4043, 69 p.

Martin, J.E., Sawyer, J.F., Fahrenbach, M.D., Tomhave, D.W., 

and Schulz, L.D, 2004, Geologic map of South Dakota:

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, General Map 10, 1 sheet, scale 1:500,000.

Niehus, C.A.,1999, Summary of water-resources data within 

the Little White River Basin, South Dakota and Nebraska:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99–222, 306 p.

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, 2004a, The 2004 South Dakota integrated report 

for surface water quality assessment: accessed September 28, 

2004, at http://www.state.sd.us/denr/Documents/

04IRFinal.pdf

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, 2004b, Surface water quality: Administrative 

Rules of South Dakota 74:56, accessed November 1, 2004, at 

http://legis.state.sd.us/rules/DisplayRule.aspx?Rule=74:51

South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources, 

1987, Surface water quality standards: Administrative Rules 

of South Dakota, 74:03:02.

South Dakota State University, 2004, South Dakota climate and 

weather: accessed September 28, 2004, at http://climate.

sdstate.edu/climate_site/climate_page.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2005, CONCEPTS—Overview: Agricultural Research Service, Channel and Watershed 

Processes Research, accessed June 1, 2005, at http://

www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=5453

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Environmental 

Monitoring and Assessment Program, Field operations 

manual for streams: assessed August 30, 2005, at http://

www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/

field/ewwsm01.html

Ward, J.R., and Harr, C.A., eds., 1990, Methods for collection 

and processing of surface-water and bed-material samples for 

physical and chemical analyses: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 90–140, 71 p.

Supplemental Data
Table 14. Results from reconnaissance sampling during September and November 2002 for selected sites on or tributaries to the Little 

White River.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; col/100 mL, colonies per 

100 milliliters; μg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; <, less than]

Station number Station name Date Time Discharge

(ft3/s)

Air temperature

(°C)

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 09-23-2002 1055 88 11.0

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 11-04-2002 1015 40 8.0

064491001 Little White River near Vetal 11-04-2002 1015 40 8.0

430939101003500 Little White River, Valandara Bridge, near Spring Creek 09-23-2002 1450 115 22.0

430939101003500 Little White River, Valandara Bridge, near Spring Creek 11-07-2002 1040 75 11.0

06449300 Little White River above Rosebud 11-07-2002 0935 96 10.0

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 09-25-2002 1230 122 13.0

064495001 Little White River near Rosebud 09-25-2002 1230 122 13.0

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 11-04-2002 1230 100 9.0

064495001 Little White River near Rosebud 11-04-2002 1230 100 9.0

432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line 09-25-2002 1345 128 13.0

432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line 11-07-2002 1200 108 2.0

430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek 09-23-2002 1340 4.4 15.5

430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek 11-06-2002 0800 4.9 12.0

430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis 09-24-2002 1045 4.1 13.0

430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis 11-06-2002 0915 4.2 5.0

430724101010200 Sawmill Creek near Spring Creek 09-25-2002 0820 1.2 9.0

430724101010200 Sawmill Creek near Spring Creek 11-06-2002 1020 1.3 12.0

431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud 09-24-2002 1220 .82 20.0

431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 1105 1.2 12.0

431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud 09-25-2002 0900 1.3 12.0

431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 1145 2.1 16.0

431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near Rosebud 09-24-2002 1300 .13 22.0

431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near Rosebud 11-06-2002 1215 .36 11.0

431343100573100 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud 09-24-2002 1330 1.8 20.0

431343100573100 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 1250 1.9 13.0

06449400 Rosebud Creek at Rosebud 11-07-2002 1240 11 18.0

431600100533600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below Rosebud 09-24-2002 1350 7.9 23.0

431600100533600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below Rosebud 11-07-2002 0800 11 7.0

431823100523400 Wigwam Creek near Soldier Creek 11-04-2002 1415 .18 8.0

431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud 09-25-2002 1015 1.1 13.0

431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud 11-04-2002 1230 3.9 8.0

Field equipment2 Field equipment 09-23-2002 1050 -- --

50 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota
Water

temperature

(°C)

Dissolved 

oxygen

(mg/L)

Conductivity 

(μS/cm)

pH

(standard 

units)

Dissolved 

calcium

(mg/L)

Dissolved 

magnesium

(mg/L)

Dissolved 

potassium

(mg/L)

Dissolved 

sodium

(mg/L)

Alkalinity 

(mg/L as 

CaCO3)

Dissolved 

chloride

(mg/L)

11 7.6 334 7.6 36 5 9.6 19 145 3.6

1 15.7 287 7.1 33 5 7 18 120 3

1.4 15.7 287 7.1 33 5 7.3 18 120 3.1

15 9.1 309 7.6 33 5 8.6 16 133 2.9

5.0 11.4 261 7.8 31 4 6.1 15 113 2.1

3.5 11.7 271 8.3 33 5 6.8 16 122 2.1

13.0 10.3 307 7.8 35 5 8.8 17 143 2.4

13.4 10.3 307 7.8 36 5 8.4 17 136 2.5

2.0 14.2 284 7.7 36 5 6.7 16 131 2.6

2.4 14.2 284 7.7 35 5 6.6 15 132 2.5

14.0 9.1 310 7.8 35 5 8.7 17 146 2.6

6.0 12.4 286 8.4 36 5 6.4 16 135 2.4

13.5 9.9 276 7.9 37 6 4.6 5 132 .8

6.0 11.8 270 7.5 39 7 5.2 6 130 1.3

10.0 9.0 208 7.1 26 5 6.1 7 93 1.6

6.0 11.9 202 7.4 28 3 6.6 8 94 1.2

9.5 11.0 304 7.5 44 5 5.8 9 149 .8

5.5 13.0 302 7.7 45 5 6.1 10 144 1.5

11 9.5 403 7.6 54 7 7.3 15 196 2.9

3.5 13.9 396 8.0 58 8 7.1 15 191 4.1

12 10.2 312 7.3 35 6 10.6 18 150 1.5

5.0 12.5 308 7.7 36 7 7.3 18 146 1.9

11.5 9.2 424 8.1 55 5 8.1 25 208 1.6

1.8 16.2 405 7.7 56 5 7.2 25 195 2.1

12.5 9.2 308 7.9 44 5 5.8 8 144 1.7

5.8 13.4 301 7.9 48 5 5.2 9 149 1.8

6.2 13 336 8.7 53 6 5.8 9 169 2.2

15.8 8.9 334 7.9 46 5 6.3 10 164 2.4

3.2 12.2 353 8.1 54 6 6.3 11 176 2.8

4.2 15.4 532 7.4 70 8 10.2 34 264 5.9

10.6 11 348 7.7 45 7 9.3 14 171 2.4

0.0 15.2 380 7.6 54 7 8.9 14 188 3.9

-- -- -- -- <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 .7

Supplemental Data 51
Table 14. Results from reconnaissance sampling during September and November 2002 for selected sites on or tributaries to the Little 

White River.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; col/100 mL, colonies per 

100 milliliters; μg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; <, less than]

Station Number Station Name Date

Dissolved 

sulfate

(mg/L)

Dissolved 

ammonia

(mg/L 

as N)

Dissolved 

nitrate

(mg/L 

as N)

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 09-23-2002 19.3 0.02 0.35

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 11-04-2002 25.4 .05 1.09

064491001 Little White River near Vetal 11-04-2002 27.7 .05 1.03

430939101003500 Little White River, Valandara Bridge, near Spring Creek 09-23-2002 13 <.02 .55

430939101003500 Little White River, Valandara Bridge, near Spring Creek 11-07-2002 15 .06 1.03

06449300 Little White River above Rosebud 11-07-2002 14.4 .06 .88

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 09-25-2002 15 .03 .55

064495001 Little White River near Rosebud 09-25-2002 14.3 .08 .45

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 11-04-2002 14.4 .06 .94

064495001 Little White River near Rosebud 11-04-2002 13.7 .04 .90

432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line 09-25-2002 14.7 .05 .52

432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line 11-07-2002 14.2 .06 .82

430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek 09-23-2002 5.9 .03 .64

430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek 11-06-2002 5.2 .08 .91

430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis 09-24-2002 6.2 <.02 .58

430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis 11-06-2002 6.2 .04 .74

430724101010200 Sawmill Creek near Spring Creek 09-25-2002 7.7 .04 .87

430724101010200 Sawmill Creek near Spring Creek 11-06-2002 9.3 .08 .95

431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud 09-24-2002 10 .03 .23

431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 11.3 .09 .49

431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud 09-25-2002 10.3 .06 .75

431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 12.3 .08 .24

431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near Rosebud 09-24-2002 11.6 .04 .12

431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near Rosebud 11-06-2002 16.9 .08 .13

431343100573100 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud 09-24-2002 6.5 .02 .63

431343100573100 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 8 .08 .69

06449400 Rosebud Creek at Rosebud 11-07-2002 8.2 .08 .70

431600100533600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below Rosebud 09-24-2002 7.6 <.02 .38

431600100533600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below Rosebud 11-07-2002 8.8 .07 .58

431823100523400 Wigwam Creek near Soldier Creek 11-04-2002 18.6 .08 <.10

431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud 09-25-2002 6.7 .05 .16

431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud 11-04-2002 9.6 .09 .14

Field equipment2 Field equipment 09-23-2002 <5 <.02 <.10

52 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota
Dissolved 

nitrite

(mg/L 

as N)

Dissolved 

orthophosphate

(mg/L as P)

Total 

phosphate

(mg/L as P)

Total 

ammonia 

plus organic

nitrogen

(mg/L as N)

Suspended 

solids

(mg/L at 

105°C)

Suspended 

solids

(mg/L at 

550°C)

Dissolved 

solids

(mg/L)

Sodium 

adsorption

ratio

Hardness

(mg/L as 

CaCO3)

<0.02 0.15 0.29 1.3 274 255 180 0.78 111.2

<.02 .17 .19 <1 56 50 164 .78 100.9

<.02 .17 .12 <1 -- -- 166 .77 100.9

<.02 .14 .22 <1 432 415 160 .7 103.7

<.02 .12 .1 <1 204 198 143 .68 94.9

<.02 .11 .09 <1 333 324 150 .68 100.4

<.02 .11 .26 1.6 396 380 170 .72 109.7

<.02 .1 .28 1 396 380 166 .72 110.7

<.02 .08 .1 <1 151 144 159 .65 108.5

<.02 .15 .08 <1 -- -- 158 .64 107.5

<.02 .11 .19 <1 442 424 171 .69 108.2

<.02 .09 .11 <1 306 296 161 .66 108.7

<.02 .09 .14 <1 31 26 140 .22 118.1

<.02 .09 .05 <1 10 8 142 .22 124

<.02 .1 .14 <1 12 10 107 .36 76.9

<.02 .1 .09 <1 21 20 110 .37 81.8

<.02 .07 .16 <1 401 388 163 .36 128.1

<.02 .08 .13 <1 103 99 164 .37 132

<.02 .07 .12 <1 40 38 214 .49 164.4

<.02 .05 .06 <1 9 7 218 .48 177.2

.07 <.01 .13 <1 19 16 172 .073 112.2

<.02 .04 .08 <1 24 22 170 .71 116.7

<.02 .11 .12 <1 2 1 230 .86 156.4

<.02 .08 .04 <1 5 4 229 .86 160.7

<.02 .14 .15 <1 214 200 158 .32 127.8

<.02 .09 .1 <1 296 287 167 .35 140.4

<.02 .02 .04 <1 13 12 186 .31 157.4

<.02 <.01 .09 <1 73 69 176 .37 137.1

<.02 <.01 <.01 <1 69 65 196 .38 161

<.02 .1 .05 <1 30 27 305 1.01 207

<.02 <.01 .14 1.1 50 44 187 .51 139.6

<.02 .01 .05 <1 118 110 211 .47 165.2

<.02 <.01 .12 <1 -- -- 5 -- <10

Supplemental Data 53
Table 14. Results from reconnaissance sampling during September and November 2002 for selected sites on or tributaries to the Little 

White River.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; col/100 mL, colonies per 

100 milliliters; μg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; <, less than]

Station Number Station Name Date

Fecal 

coliform

(col/

100 mL)

Dissolved 

silver

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

aluminum

(μg/L)

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 09-23-2002 400 <25 <25

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 11-04-2002 70 <25 <25

064491001 Little White River near Vetal 11-04-2002 -- -- --

430939101003500 Little White River, Valandara Bridge, near Spring Creek 09-23-2002 60 <25 <25

430939101003500 Little White River, Valandara Bridge, near Spring Creek 11-07-2002 10 <25 <25

06449300 Little White River above Rosebud 11-07-2002 30 <25 <25

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 09-25-2002 290 <25 <25

064495001 Little White River near Rosebud 09-25-2002 250 <25 <25

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 11-04-2002 <10 <25 <25

064495001 Little White River near Rosebud 11-04-2002 -- <25 <25

432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line 09-25-2002 130 <25 <25

432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line 11-07-2002 20 <25 <25

430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek 09-23-2002 380 <25 <25

430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek 11-06-2002 50 <25 <25

430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis 09-24-2002 170 <25 30

430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis 11-06-2002 120 <25 <25

430724101010200 Sawmill Creek near Spring Creek 09-25-2002 930 <25 28

430724101010200 Sawmill Creek near Spring Creek 11-06-2002 170 <25 <25

431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud 09-24-2002 50 <25 <25

431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 30 <25 <25

431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud 09-25-2002 50 <25 <25

431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 20 <25 <25

431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near Rosebud 09-24-2002 380 <25 <25

431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near Rosebud 11-06-2002 10 <25 <25

431343100573100 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud 09-24-2002 440 <25 <25

431343100573100 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 40 <25 <25

06449400 Rosebud Creek at Rosebud 11-07-2002 <10 <25 <25

431600100533600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below Rosebud 09-24-2002 60 <25 <25

431600100533600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below Rosebud 11-07-2002 150 <25 <25

431823100523400 Wigwam Creek near Soldier Creek 11-04-2002 80 <25 <25

431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud 09-25-2002 5,500 <25 <25

431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud 11-04-2002 170 <25 <25

Field equipment2 Field equipment 09-23-2002 -- <25 <25

54 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota
Dissolved 

arsenic

(μg/L)

Dissolved

boron

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

barium

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

beryllium

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

cadmium

(μg/L)

Dissolved

cobalt

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

chromium

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

copper

(μg/L)

8.4 43.7 123 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

6.0 36.4 107 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

8.8 37.0 116 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

6.0 28.4 102 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

5.5 23.8 107 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

7.4 36.1 122 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

7.9 43.7 123 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

5.6 32.9 118 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

4.9 29.5 116 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

6.8 36.1 120 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

6.0 28.4 119 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

2.4 <25 97.0 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

3.3 <25 102 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

3.2 <25 59 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

3.6 <25 63 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

4.1 <25 113 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

4.2 <25 114 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

3.5 29.3 167 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

4.1 27.2 176 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

3.2 37.0 133 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

2.9 31.8 129 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

<2 46.3 188 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

4.8 36.3 185 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

2.4 <25 134 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

2.4 <25 141 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

3.5 <25 167 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

3.6 <25 168 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

3.4 <25 182 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

8.3 48.8 238 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

3.1 39.5 220 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

3.7 23.8 222 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

<2 <25 <25 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10

Supplemental Data 55
Table 14. Results from reconnaissance sampling during September and November 2002 for selected sites on or tributaries to the Little 

White River.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; col/100 mL, colonies per 

100 milliliters; μg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; <, less than]

Station Number Station Name Date

Dissolved 

iron

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

lithium

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

manganese

(μg/L)

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 09-23-2002 <25 <25 <25

06449100 Little White River near Vetal 11-04-2002 <25 <25 <25

064491001 Little White River near Vetal 11-04-2002 -- -- --

430939101003500 Little White River, Valandara Bridge, near Spring Creek 09-23-2002 <25 <25 <25

430939101003500 Little White River, Valandara Bridge, near Spring Creek 11-07-2002 <25 <25 <25

06449300 Little White River above Rosebud 11-07-2002 <25 <25 <25

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 09-25-2002 <25 <25 <25

064495001 Little White River near Rosebud 09-25-2002 <25 <25 <25

06449500 Little White River near Rosebud 11-04-2002 <25 <25 <25

064495001 Little White River near Rosebud 11-04-2002 <25 <25 <25

432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line 09-25-2002 <25 <25 <25

432136100520700 Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line 11-07-2002 <25 <25 <25

430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek 09-23-2002 <25 <25 <25

430647101062100 Coffee Creek above Spring Creek 11-06-2002 <25 <25 <25

430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis 09-24-2002 <25 <25 <25

430610101044300 Spring Creek near St. Francis 11-06-2002 <25 <25 <25

430724101010200 Sawmill Creek near Spring Creek 09-25-2002 <25 <25 <25

430724101010200 Sawmill Creek near Spring Creek 11-06-2002 <25 <25 <25

431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud 09-24-2002 <25 <25 <25

431146100574900 Omaha Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 <25 <25 <25

431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud 09-25-2002 <25 <25 <25

431205100580200 Beads Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 <25 <25 <25

431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near Rosebud 09-24-2002 <25 <25 <25

431312100573600 Unnamed tributary Crazy Horse Canyon near Rosebud 11-06-2002 <25 <25 <25

431343100573100 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud 09-24-2002 <25 <25 <25

431343100573100 South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud 11-06-2002 <25 <25 <25

06449400 Rosebud Creek at Rosebud 11-07-2002 <25 <25 <25

431600100533600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below Rosebud 09-24-2002 <25 <25 <25

431600100533600 Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below Rosebud 11-07-2002 <25 <25 <25

431823100523400 Wigwam Creek near Soldier Creek 11-04-2002 <25 <25 <25

431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud 09-25-2002 <25 <25 <25

431911100525200 Soldier Creek near Rosebud 11-04-2002 <25 <25 <25

Field equipment2 Field equipment 09-23-2002 <25 <25 <25

1Quality-assurance/quality-control split sample.

2

Quality-assurance/quality-control laboratory field blank.

56 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota
Dissolved 

molybdenum

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

nickel

(μg/L)

Dissolved

lead

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

antimony

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

selenium

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

thallium

(μg/L)

Dissolved 

vanadium

(μg/L)

Dissolved

zinc

(μg/L)

<10 <25 3.8 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 25 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 30 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 3.8 <25 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 2.7 <25 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 2.5 <25 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 28 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 33 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 5.6 28 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 3.1 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 5.5 30 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 4.7 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 31 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 31 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 31 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 33 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 31 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 4.2 37 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 7.8 <25 <2.6 <25 <25 <25

<10 <25 <2 <25 <1 <25 <25 <25

Supplemental Data 57
58 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota

Table 15. Results from 2003 suspended-sediment and bacteria sampling of selected sites on the Little White River and 

tributaries.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; QA/QC, quality assurance/quality control; 

mg/L, milligrams per liter; μm, micrometers; mL, milliliters; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; --, no data; <, less than; >, greater than]

Date Discharge

(ft3/s)

Specific 

conductance

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen

(mg/L)

pH

Suspended 

sediment

(mg/L at 

105°C)

Suspended 

sediment

(mg/L at 

550°C)

Suspended 

sediment

QA/QC

(mg/L at 

180°C)

Fine

(percent 

<0.062 μm)

Fecal coliform 

bacteria

(col/100 mL)

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100

04-22-2003 88 298 12.5 7.0 196 179 -- -- 60

05-06-2003 90 319 10.7 7.8 251 229 -- 59 100

06-17-2003 54 280 9.2 6.6 427 301 -- -- 9,500

07-08-2003 37 362 7.8 7.9 196 174 -- -- 310

08-11-2003 24 281 8.5 7.8 45 40 -- -- 40

09-02-2003 20 301 8.5 8.2 17 15 15 -- 30

09-22-2003 21 315 11.9 7.6 19 18 -- -- 130

10-20-2003 26 340 14.8 7.7 21 18 -- -- 130

11-17-2003 54 308 10.6 6.9 157 141 153 72 180

Little White River, Valandra Bridge, near Spring Creek, 430939101003500

04-22-2003 136 279 12.6 8.2 387 368 -- -- 10

05-07-2003 143 301 10.3 8.6 444 425 -- 29 50

06-17-2003 107 307 9.5 7.6 1,185 1,127 -- -- 590

07-09-2003 72 318 7.8 8.0 311 291 -- -- 460

08-11-2003 53 250 7.4 8.2 130 120 -- -- 10

09-03-2003 51 271 7.8 8.2 88 85 89 32 100

09-23-2003 57 277 11.5 8.1 87 83 -- -- 130

10-21-2003 61 280 12.5 8.2 138 134 -- -- 110

11-18-2003 92 284 13.0 7.3 267 252 295 30 180

Little White River above Rosebud, 06449300

04-21-2003 150 286 13.1 6.9 467 449 -- -- 40

05-06-2003 180 309 10.4 8.3 641 618 -- 23 30

06-18-2003 96 314 10.6 8.2 792 741 -- -- 700

07-08-2003 93 318 6.2 8.2 856 792 -- -- late sample

08-11-2003 55 256 7.9 8.5 152 143 153 -- 50

09-04-2003 53 270 9.3 8.0 206 199 -- 27 70

09-23-2003 60 287 10.7 8.2 150 146 -- -- 1<10

10-21-2003 72 294 12.7 8.4 118 115 -- -- 40

11-18-2003 102 294 14.1 8.0 301 289 361 26 30
Supplemental Data 59

Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500

04-21-2003 178 296 12.6 6.9 419 400 -- -- <10

05-06-2003 180 315 9.8 8.7 351 334 -- 36 20

06-18-2003 109 326 13.3 8.1 721 676 -- -- 100

07-08-2003 114 256 7.7 7.8 1,530 1,380 -- -- 4,200

08-12-2003 60 301 8.9 8.4 212 203 -- -- 20

09-02-2003 56 277 6.1 8.3 87 84 122 26 70

09-22-2003 67 294 11.5 8.3 123 120 -- -- 60

10-20-2003 81 303 14.2 8.2 155 150 -- -- <10

11-17-2003 121 307 10.8 6.8 322 308 368 34 420

Little White River near Todd/Mellette County line, 432136100520700

04-21-2003 187 293 11.6 6.7 534 512 -- -- 10

05-06-2003 196 313 9.8 8.8 524 504 -- 28 20

06-19-2003 97 286 11.3 8.1 831 784 -- -- 390

07-08-2003 123 265 7.6 7.7 2,660 2,440 -- -- 3,200

08-12-2003 61 308 8.0 8.4 166 156 -- -- 40

09-04-2003 59 282 9.5 7.1 155 148 149 31 50

09-22-2003 69 296 11.1 8.0 112 107 -- -- 60

10-22-2003 78 309 10.7 8.3 187 181 -- -- 70

11-19-2003 109 305 13.8 7.2 304 286 424 25 80

Spring Creek near St. Francis, 430610101044300

04-22-2003 16 302 11.7 7.3 97 93 -- -- <10

05-07-2003 25 318 10.1 8.3 313 306 -- -- <10

06-17-2003 6.0 255 9.3 7.8 48 41 -- -- 180

07-09-2003 7.6 262 8.3 7.2 137 128 -- -- 580

08-11-2003 3.9 182 7.9 8.0 58 55 -- -- 730

09-03-2003 3.8 209 8.8 7.7 37 35 -- -- 160

09-23-2003 3.7 214 11.1 7.7 50 47 -- -- 1230

10-21-2003 3.8 180 12.0 6.8 15 14 -- -- 40

11-18-2003 3.8 187 11.5 6.3 71 68 -- -- 60

Table 15. Results from 2003 suspended-sediment and bacteria sampling of selected sites on the Little White River and 

tributaries.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; QA/QC, quality assurance/quality control; 

mg/L, milligrams per liter; μm, micrometers; mL, milliliters; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; --, no data; <, less than; >, greater than]

Date Discharge

(ft3

/s)

Specific 

conductance

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen

(mg/L)

pH

Suspended 

sediment

(mg/L at 

105°C)

Suspended 

sediment

(mg/L at 

550°C)

Suspended 

sediment

QA/QC

(mg/L at 

180°C)

Fine

(percent 

<0.062 μm)

Fecal coliform 

bacteria

(col/100 mL)
60 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota

Sawmill Canyon near Spring Creek, 430724101010200

04-22-2003 1.3 310 10.4 8.1 627 610 -- -- 70

05-07-2003 1.4 292 11.2 7.4 1,070 1,060 -- -- 20

06-17-2003 1.1 315 9.5 6.8 2,300 2,230 -- -- 1,000

07-09-2003 1.4 318 8.6 7.1 3,380 3,270 -- -- lab error

08-11-2003 1 243 7.8 8.0 740 709 -- -- 2,400

09-03-2003 .9 211 8.5 7.6 672 649 -- -- 3,700

09-23-2003 1.1 291 12.2 8.1 877 855 -- -- 11,600

10-21-2003 1.4 288 12.4 7.8 367 355 -- -- 70

11-18-2003 1.7 308 12.5 7.2 690 679 -- -- 80

Omaha Creek near Rosebud, 431146100574900

04-22-2003 1.1 399 13.7 7.7 39 36 -- -- <10

05-07-2003 1.2 391 11.6 8.1 25 21 -- -- 90

06-17-2003 .92 400 10.3 7.2 107 97 -- -- 60

07-09-2003 1.3 415 7.7 7.3 15 12 -- -- 130

08-11-2003 .54 339 8.0 8.0 8 6 -- -- 50

09-03-2003 .59 388 8.2 8.0 6 4 -- -- 120

09-23-2003 .87 403 11.6 8.2 6 4 -- -- 120

10-21-2003 1.1 399 12.0 8.0 10 8 -- -- 80

11-18-2003 1.3 399 13.6 7.6 5 4 -- -- <10

South Fork Ironwood Creek near Rosebud, 431343100571700

04-22-2003 2.2 309 14.2 7.5 131 125 -- -- 10

05-07-2003 2.1 312 10.6 8.4 116 109 -- -- 20

06-18-2003 1.7 302 11.4 7.1 6,712 6,579 -- -- 2,200

07-09-2003 1.9 296 7.6 7.3 677 641 -- -- 6,300

08-11-2003 1.3 276 7.1 8.2 518 499 -- -- 420

09-03-2003 1.0 314 7.6 8.1 420 404 -- -- 1,400

09-23-2003 1.7 309 10.4 8.2 394 378 -- -- 11,000

10-21-2003 1.9 325 11.1 8.0 277 265 -- -- 280

11-18-2003 20 319 13.6 7.7 667 657 -- -- 100

Table 15. Results from 2003 suspended-sediment and bacteria sampling of selected sites on the Little White River and 

tributaries.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; QA/QC, quality assurance/quality control; 

mg/L, milligrams per liter; μm, micrometers; mL, milliliters; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; --, no data; <, less than; >, greater than]

Date Discharge

(ft3

/s)

Specific 

conductance

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen

(mg/L)

pH

Suspended 

sediment

(mg/L at 

105°C)

Suspended 

sediment

(mg/L at 

550°C)

Suspended 

sediment

QA/QC

(mg/L at 

180°C)

Fine

(percent 

<0.062 μm)

Fecal coliform 

bacteria

(col/100 mL)
Supplemental Data 61

Rosebud Creek at Rosebud, 06449400

04-21-2003 10 338 14.0 7.1 14 12 -- -- <10

05-06-2003 11 345 12.4 7.9 12 10 -- -- 10

06-18-2003 10 350 10.3 7.8 30 27 -- -- 110

07-08-2003 10 337 6.4 7.8 25 17 -- -- late sample

08-12-2003 5.9 330 7.2 8.0 11 9 -- -- 30

09-03-2003 7.3 328 7.9 7.9 7 5 -- -- 10

09-22-2003 7.7 340 11.2 8.2 5 4 -- -- 50

10-21-2003 10 342 13.0 8.5 16 14 -- -- <10

11-18-2003 10 343 15.4 7.8 8 7 -- -- 10

Rosebud Creek at Little White River confluence, below Rosebud, 431600100533600

04-22-2003 11 339 12.6 8.6 136 126 -- -- <10

05-08-2003 10 365 10.0 8.6 102 94 -- -- 20

06-18-2003 10 350 16.2 7.9 39 33 -- -- 150

07-08-2003 11 338 6.9 8.2 131 120 -- -- late sample

08-12-2003 6.0 332 8.5 8.2 14 12 -- -- 90

09-04-2003 6.2 306 9.1 8.2 19 17 -- -- 70

09-23-2003 no access -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10-22-2003 10 358 10.5 7.9 9 8 -- -- 90

11-19-2003 10 361 13.9 7.6 94 87 -- -- <10

Soldier Creek near Rosebud, 431911100525200

04-21-2003 7.1 381 12 7.2 674 612 -- -- 330

05-06-2003 4.7 394 9.7 8.0 173 155 -- -- <10

06-18-2003 1.8 352 15.7 7.4 74 64 -- -- 2,500

07-08-2003 3.1 305 7.5 7.3 274 239 -- -- 6,700

08-12-2003 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

09-04-2003 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

09-23-2003 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10-22-2003 1.2 387 10.3 8.1 32 29 -- -- 60

11-17-2003 1.7 395 10.0 7.8 17 15 -- -- 130

Table 15. Results from 2003 suspended-sediment and bacteria sampling of selected sites on the Little White River and 

tributaries.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; QA/QC, quality assurance/quality control; 

mg/L, milligrams per liter; μm, micrometers; mL, milliliters; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; --, no data; <, less than; >, greater than]

Date Discharge

(ft3

/s)

Specific 

conductance

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen

(mg/L)

pH

Suspended 

sediment

(mg/L at 

105°C)

Suspended 

sediment

(mg/L at 

550°C)

Suspended 

sediment

QA/QC

(mg/L at 

180°C)

Fine

(percent 

<0.062 μm)

Fecal coliform 

bacteria

(col/100 mL)
62 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota

Cut Meat Creek near confluence Little White River, below Soldier Creek, 432358100502600

04-21-2003 6.9 498 11.0 6.8 92 80 -- -- 30

05-07-2003 7.7 524 10.3 8.3 -- -- -- -- 10

06-19-2003 .55 326 13.3 8.2 41 33 -- -- 90

07-08-2003 .83 542 7.9 8.0 122 107 -- -- 420

08-12-2003 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

09-04-2003 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

09-23-2003 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

10-22-2003 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

11-19-2003 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1Fecal coliform bacteria samples collected on September 23, 2003, were not received at the laboratory within the required 24-hour period. Values determined 

may not reflect actual concentrations on the date of the sample.

Table 15. Results from 2003 suspended-sediment and bacteria sampling of selected sites on the Little White River and 

tributaries.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; QA/QC, quality assurance/quality control; 

mg/L, milligrams per liter; μm, micrometers; mL, milliliters; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; --, no data; <, less than; >, greater than]

Date Discharge

(ft3

/s)

Specific 

conductance

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen

(mg/L)

pH

Suspended 

sediment

(mg/L at 

105°C)

Suspended 

sediment

(mg/L at 

550°C)

Suspended 

sediment

QA/QC

(mg/L at 

180°C)

Fine

(percent 

<0.062 μm)

Fecal coliform 

bacteria

(col/100 mL)
Table 16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Standard Method Codes and equipment used for water-quality analysis by the Bureau 

of Reclamation Laboratory, Bismark, N.Dak.

[ICP, inductively coupled plasma; FIA, fluid injection analysis; AA, atomic absorption]

Constituent Equipment U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Standard Method Code

Dissolved calcium ICP Emission 200.7

Dissolved magnesium ICP Emission 200.8

Dissolved potassium ICP Emission 200.9

Dissolved sodium ICP Emission 200.10

Alkalinity Titrator 310.1

Dissolved chloride FIA 325.2

Dissolved sulfate FIA 375.4

Dissolved ammonia FIA 350.1

Dissolved nitrate FIA 353.2

Dissolved nitrite FIA 353.2

Dissolved orthophosphate FIA 365.1

Total phosphate FIA 365.4

Total ammonia plus organic nitrogen FIA 350.1

Dissolved silver ICP Emission 200.7

Dissolved aluminum ICP Emission 200.7

Dissolved arsenic Graphite Furnace AA 206.2

Dissolved boron ICP Emission 200.7

Dissolved barium ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved beryllium ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved cadmium ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved cobalt ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved chromium ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved copper ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved iron ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved lithium ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved manganese ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved molybdenum ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved nickel ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved lead Graphite Furnace AA 239.2

Dissolved antimony ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved selenium Graphite Furnace AA 270.2

Dissolved thallium ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved vanadium ICP Emmission 200.7

Dissolved zinc ICP Emmission 200.7

Supplemental Data 63
64 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota

Table 17. Summary statistics comparing historical physical properties and constituent concentrations to results from reconnaissance 

sampling on the Little White River.

[Constituents are dissolved fraction unless otherwise noted; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; μg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; <, less than]

Property/constituent

Historical samples (1973–2001) Reconnaissance samples

Number

of

samples

Number

less than

laboratory 

reporting level

Minimum

value or

concentration

Median

value or

concentration

Maximum

value or

concentration

September

2002

November

2002

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100

Discharge, ft3/s 322 0 12 46 992 88 40

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 31 0 7.1 9.4 18.1 7.7 15.7

pH, standard units 33 0 7.8 8.2 8.6 7.6 7.1

Specific conductance, μS/cm 311 0 117 340 670 334 287

Air temperature, °C 288 0 -22.0 15.0 38.5 11.0 8.0

Water temperature, °C 319 0 0.0 10 30.5 11.0 1.4

Hardness, mg/L 31 0 96.0 120 140 111 101

Calcium, mg/L 31 0 29 36 41 36 33

Magnesium, mg/L 32 0 4.5 6.3 8.3 5 5

Potassium, mg/L 32 0 7.0 11 16 9.6 7.0

Sodium adsorption ratio 31 0 0.8 1 1 0.8 0.8

Sodium, mg/L 32 0 19 26.5 36 19 18

Alkalinity, mg/L 30 0 128 159 187 145 120

Chloride, mg/L 32 0 2.2 3.2 4.4 3.6 3.0

Fluoride, mg/L 11 0 0.4 0.5 0.6 -- --

Silica, mg/L 32 0 34 46.5 57 -- --

Sulfate, mg/L 32 0 11 21 37 19.3 25.4

Dissolved solids, sum of 

constituents, mg/L

31 0 207 249 286 180 164

Dissolved solids, mg/L 20 0 218 268 296 -- --

Ammonia, mg/L 11 0 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.05

Nitrate, mg/L 10 0 0.3 0.62 1.19 0.35 1.09

Nitrite, mg/L 32 22 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.02 <0.02

Ortho phosphate, mg/L 29 0 0.22 0.61 1.38 0.15 0.17

Total phosphate, mg/L 4 0 0.89 0.98 1.2 0.29 0.19

Aluminum, μg/L 0 0 -- -- -- <25 <25

Antimony, μg/L 18 3 <1 2 21 <25 25.2

Arsenic, μg/L 19 0 7 9 13 8.4 6

Barium, μg/L 18 0 94 108 150 123 107

Beryllium, μg/L 19 17 <0.5 <0.5 <10 <5 <5
Supplemental Data 65

Little White River near Vetal, 06449100—Continued

Boron, μg/L 20 0 30 50 60 43.7 36.4

Cadmium, μg/L 19 15 <1 <1 <10 <10 <10

Chromium, μg/L 18 17 <1 <1 1 <10 <10

Cobalt, μg/L 16 16 <3 <3 <50 <10 <10

Copper, μg/L 21 4 <1 4 22 <10 <10

Iron, μg/L 20 1 <3 29.5 100 <25 <25

Lead, μg/L 20 16 <1 <5 5 3.8 <2

Lithium, μg/L 0 0 -- -- -- <25 <25

Manganese, μg/L 21 2 <1 7 69 <25 <25

Molybdenum, μg/L 0 0 -- -- -- <10 <10

Nickel, μg/L 18 5 <1 1.5 7 <25 <25

Selenium, μg/L 31 27 <1 <1 <1 <1 <2.6

Thallium, μg/L 16 16 <1 <1 <1 <25 <25

Vanadium, μg/L 0 0 -- -- -- <25 <25

Zinc, μg/L 31 2 <3 8 100 <25 <25

Little White River above Rosebud, 06449300

Discharge, ft3/s 207 0 7.50 101 1,550 -- 95

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 97 0 6.7 9.6 14.2 -- 11.7

pH, standard units 111 0 7.1 8.1 9.4 -- 8.3

Specific conductance, μS/cm 202 0 219 310 580 -- 271

Air temperature, °C 193 0 -18.0 14.0 38.0 -- 10.0

Water temperature, °C 209 0 -1.0 11.4 31.0 -- 3.5

Hardness, mg/L 60 0 66 110 130 -- 100

Calcium, mg/L 60 0 21 36.5 43 -- 33

Magnesium, mg/L 62 0 3.4 5.7 7.5 -- 5

Potassium, mg/L 62 0 5.8 9.4 14 -- 6.8

Sodium adsorption ratio 60 0 0.5 0.9 1 -- 0.7

Sodium, mg/L 62 0 10 21 31 -- 16

Alkalinity, mg/L 105 0 65 147 195 -- 122

Chloride, mg/L 62 0 0.8 3.2 17 -- 2.1

Table 17. Summary statistics comparing historical physical properties and constituent concentrations to results from reconnaissance 

sampling on the Little White River.—Continued

[Constituents are dissolved fraction unless otherwise noted; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; μg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; <, less than]

Property/constituent

Historical samples (1973–2001) Reconnaissance samples

Number

of

samples

Number

less than

laboratory 

reporting level

Minimum

value or

concentration

Median

value or

concentration

Maximum

value or

concentration

September

2002

November

2002
66 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota

Little White River above Rosebud, 06449300—Continued

Fluoride, mg/L 27 0 0.3 0.5 0.7 -- --

Silica, mg/L 23 0 38 49 56 -- --

Sulfate, mg/L 61 0 6.4 15 30 -- 14.4

Dissolved solids, sum of 

constituents, mg/L

58 0 114 194 269 -- 150

Dissolved solids, mg/L 61 0 151 232 292 -- --

Ammonia, mg/L 41 1 <0.01 0.02 0.11 -- 0.06

Nitrate, mg/L 22 0 0.11 0.47 1.59 -- 0.88

Nitrite, mg/L 62 39 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 -- <0.02

Ortho phosphate, mg/L 59 0 0.049 0.54 1.44 -- 0.11

Total phosphate, mg/L 12 0 0.009 0.54 1.56 -- 0.09

Aluminum, μg/L 33 0 20 90 1,500 -- <25

Antimony, μg/L 19 3 <1 2 20 -- 29.6

Arsenic, μg/L 60 0 2.9 8 13 -- 5.5

Barium, μg/L 51 1 <2 100 180 -- 107

Beryllium, μg/L 19 17 <0.5 <0.5 <10 -- <5

Boron, μg/L 57 0 30 40 80 -- 23.8

Cadmium, μg/L 60 55 <1 <10 <10 -- <10

Chromium, μg/L 19 18 <1 <1 1 -- <10

Cobalt, μg/L 16 16 <3 <3 <50 -- <10

Copper, μg/L 62 11 <1 3 29 -- <10

Iron, μg/L 62 2 5 32 1,100 -- <25

Lead, μg/L 59 46 <1 <1 20 -- <2

Lithium, μg/L 33 1 <4 20 50 -- <25

Manganese, μg/L 62 2 1 4 48 -- <25

Molybdenum, μg/L 1 0 1.8 -- 1.8 -- <10

Nickel, μg/L 18 10 <1 <1 5 -- <25

Selenium, μg/L 96 84 <1 <1 <3 -- <2.6

Thallium, μg/L 16 16 <1 <1 <1 -- <25

Vanadium, μg/L 1 1 9 -- 9 -- <25

Zinc, μg/L 82 16 <3 <10 150 -- <25

Table 17. Summary statistics comparing historical physical properties and constituent concentrations to results from reconnaissance 

sampling on the Little White River.—Continued

[Constituents are dissolved fraction unless otherwise noted; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; μg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; <, less than]

Property/constituent

Historical samples (1973–2001) Reconnaissance samples

Number

of

samples

Number

less than

laboratory 

reporting level

Minimum

value or

concentration

Median

value or

concentration

Maximum

value or

concentration

September

2002

November

2002
Supplemental Data 67

Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500

Discharge, ft3/s 289 0 43 106 1,060.0 122 100

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 0 0 -- -- -- 10.3 14.2

pH, standard units 0 0 -- -- -- 7.8 7.7

Specific conductance, μS/cm 248 0 180.0 325 580.0 307 284

Air temperature, °C 285 0 -30.0 16.0 39.5 13.0 9.0

Water temperature, °C 285 0 0.0 11.5 31.5 13.4 2.4

Hardness, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- 110 108

Calcium, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Magnesium, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Potassium, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Sodium adsorption ratio -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Sodium, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Alkalinity, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chloride, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Fluoride, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Silica, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Sulfate, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Dissolved solids, sum of 

constituents, mg/L

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

Dissolved solids, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Ammonia, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Nitrate, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Nitrite, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Ortho phosphate, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Total phosphate, mg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Aluminum, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Antimony, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Arsenic, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Barium, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Beryllium, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Boron, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Table 17. Summary statistics comparing historical physical properties and constituent concentrations to results from reconnaissance 

sampling on the Little White River.—Continued

[Constituents are dissolved fraction unless otherwise noted; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; μg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; <, less than]

Property/constituent

Historical samples (1973–2001) Reconnaissance samples

Number

of

samples

Number

less than

laboratory 

reporting level

Minimum

value or

concentration

Median

value or

concentration

Maximum

value or

concentration

September

2002

November

2002
68 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota

Little White River near Rosebud, 06449500—Continued

Cadmium, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Chromium, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Cobalt, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Copper, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Iron, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Lead, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Lithium, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Manganese, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Molybdenum, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Nickel, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Selenium, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Thallium, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Vanadium, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Zinc, μg/L -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Table 17. Summary statistics comparing historical physical properties and constituent concentrations to results from reconnaissance 

sampling on the Little White River.—Continued

[Constituents are dissolved fraction unless otherwise noted; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 

25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; μg/L, micrograms per liter; --, no data; <, less than]

Property/constituent

Historical samples (1973–2001) Reconnaissance samples

Number

of

samples

Number

less than

laboratory 

reporting level

Minimum

value or

concentration

Median

value or

concentration

Maximum

value or

concentration

September

2002

November

2002
Supplemental Data 69

Table 18. Results from 2003 pesticide sampling of selected tributaries to the Little White River.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; E, estimated; <, less than]

Soldier Creek above Swift 

Bear Lake, near Rosebud,

431552100473600

East tributary Rosebud 

Creek near Rosebud,

431310100501600

Rosebud Creek

at Rosebud,

06449400

Rosebud Creek at Little 

White River confluence, 

below Rosebud,

431600100533600

Date 08-12-2003 08-12-2003 08-12-2003 08-12-2003

Time 1030 0650 1400 0930

Discharge, ft3/s 0.37 3.0 5.9 6.0

Dissolved oxygen, mg/L 6.2 8.4 7.2 8.5

pH, standard units 7.8 7.7 8.0 8.2

Specific conductance, μS/cm 325 335 330 332

Temperature, air, °C 26.0 21.5 19.5 24.0

Temperature, water, °C 22.6 15.0 21.0 19.8

2,6-Diethylaniline, mg/L <.006 <.006 <.006 <.006

2-Chloro-4-isopropylamino-6-

amino-s-triazine, mg/L

E.005 <.006 <.006 <.006

Acetochlor, mg/L <.006 <.006 <.006 <.006

Alachlor, mg/L <.004 <.004 <.004 <.004

alpha-HCH, mg/L <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

alpha-HCH-d6, surrogate, 

percent recovery

78.9 88.4 77.9 84.8

Atrazine, mg/L 0.01 <.007 <.007 <.007

Azinphos-methyl, mg/L <.050 <.050 <.050 <.050

Benfluralin, mg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010

Butylate, mg/L <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002

Carbaryl, mg/L <.041 <.041 <.041 <.041

Carbofuran, mg/L <.020 <.020 <.020 <.020

Chlorpyrifos, mg/L <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

cis-Permethrin, mg/L <.006 <.006 <.006 <.006

Cyanazine, mg/L <.018 <.018 <.018 <.018

DCPA, mg/L <.003 <.003 <.003 <.003

Desulfinyl fipronil, mg/L <.004 <.004 <.004 <.004

Diazinon, mg/L <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Diazinon-d10, surrogate, 

percent recovery

101 101 94.7 103

Dieldrin, mg/L <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Disulfoton, mg/L <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

EPTC, mg/L <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002

Ethalfluralin, mg/L <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009

Ethoprop, mg/L <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
70 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota

Desulfinylfipronil amide, mg/L <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009

Fipronil sulfide, mg/L <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Fipronil sulfone, mg/L <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Fipronil, mg/L <.007 <.007 <.007 <.007

Fonofos, mg/L <.003 <.003 <.003 <.003

Lindane, mg/L <.004 <.004 <.004 <.004

Linuron, mg/L <.035 <.035 <.035 <.035

Malathion, mg/L <.027 <.027 <.027 <.027

Methyl parathion, mg/L <.006 <.006 <.006 <.006

Metolachlor, mg/L <.013 <.013 <.013 <.013

Metribuzin, mg/L <.006 <.006 <.006 <.006

Molinate, mg/L <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002

Napropamide, mg/L <.007 <.007 <.007 <.007

p,p'-DDE, mg/L <.003 <.003 <.003 <.003

Parathion, mg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010

Pebulate, mg/L <.004 <.004 <.004 <.004

Pendimethalin, mg/L <.022 <.022 <.022 <.022

Phorate, mg/L <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011

Prometon, mg/L <.01 <.01 <.01 <.01

Pronamide, mg/L <.004 <.004 <.004 <.004

Propachlor, mg/L <.010 <.010 <.010 <.010

Propanil, mg/L <.011 <.011 <.011 <.011

Propargite, mg/L <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Simazine, mg/L <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Tebuthiuron, mg/L <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Terbacil, mg/L <.034 <.034 <.034 <.034

Terbufos, mg/L <.02 <.02 <.02 <.02

Thiobencarb, mg/L <.005 <.005 <.005 <.005

Triallate, mg/L <.002 <.002 <.002 <.002

Trifluralin, mg/L <.009 <.009 <.009 <.009

Table 18. Results from 2003 pesticide sampling of selected tributaries to the Little White River.—Continued

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degrees Celsius; E, estimated; <, less than]

Soldier Creek above Swift 

Bear Lake, near Rosebud,

431552100473600

East tributary Rosebud 

Creek near Rosebud,

431310100501600

Rosebud Creek

at Rosebud,

06449400

Rosebud Creek at Little 

White River confluence, 

below Rosebud,

431600100533600
Supplemental Data 71

CONCEPTS (Conservational Channel Evolution and Pollutant Transport System) 

Model Example Input Files

Main Input File

!

! Main Input File

!

! case name lw with tributary input, gw inflow, and various N values

lws

! project title

Little White River

!------------------------ Run Control Data -------------------------

! upstream flow discharge file

discharge.txt

! lateral inflow and downstream boundary condition

 0.0 1 3 700.65 .092 11.3636 700.93 1.0154 4.3120 701.61 2.989 2.7746

! sediment discharge at upstream end of the channel 

 0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

! silt fraction and downstream bed control

 1.0 1.0 1.0

! bank failure analysis

 7 5 10

! type of flow resistance formulation

 1

! water temperature

 14.0

! sediment and streambank mechanics options

 1 1 1

!------------------------ Simulation Times -------------------------

! start end time step

 04/01/2003 12:00:00 11/30/2003 12:00:00 86400

!--------------------- Makeup of Modeling Reach --------------------

! number of links

1

! linktypes for the above number of links

1

!----------------------------- Link 1 ------------------------------

! REACH: number of cross sections and their data filename

12

xs01.txt

xs02.txt

xs03.txt

xs04.txt

xs05.txt

xs06.txt

xs07.txt

xs08.txt

xs09.txt

xs10.txt

xs11.txt

xs12.txt

!----------------------------- Output -------------------------------

! single point and time
72 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota

 12

 50183

 1 1

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 2

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 3

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 4

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 5

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 6

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 7

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 8

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00
Supplemental Data 73

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 9

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 10

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 11

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 50183

 1 12

 4

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

! single point, continuosly in time

 3

 725517

 1 9

 1

 04/02/2003 12:00:00 11/30/2003 12:00:00

 725517

 1 11

 1

 04/02/2003 12:00:00 11/30/2003 12:00:00

 725517

 1 12

 1

 04/02/2003 12:00:00 11/30/2003 12:00:00

! profile at specific time points

 1

 255

 1 1 1 12

6

 05/19/2003 12:00:00

 06/02/2003 12:00:00

 07/10/2003 12:00:00

 09/25/2003 12:00:00

 10/28/2003 12:00:00

 11/13/2003 12:00:00
74 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota

Input File of Cross Section 001

!

! Input file of cross section 001

!

! Name of cross section and model kilometer (km)

Cross Section 1: Little White Near Vetal 

 0.000

! Friction factor

 0.060

!Tributary inflow info

 0

!--------------------- Left FloodPlain -----------------------

! number of points

 4

! station and elevation for above number of coordinates in (m)

 0.000 850.93

 5.49 850.31

 6.71 850.00

 9.14 849.53

! Friction factor

 0.065

!------------------------ Left Bank --------------------------

! number of points

 3

! station and elevation for above number of coordinates in (m)

 9.14 849.53

 11.58 849.10

 11.89 849.01

! Soil layer data

! number of soil layers in the bank

 1

! layer 1: elevation of layer top

 851

! layer 1: strength parameters (c,phi,phib,gamma_s)

 0.0 27.0 15.0 18000.0

! layer 1: erodibility, i.e. critical shear stress (Pa)

 10.00

! layer 1: sediment composition

 2.50

 4.90

 13.40

 63.60

 14.30

 1.30

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

! groundwatertable

 849

! Friction factor
Supplemental Data 75

 0.050

!----------------------- Channel Bed --------------------------

! number of points

 8

! station and elevation for above number of coordinates in (m)

 11.890 849.010

 13.410 848.210

 14.630 848.050

 16.150 848.050

 17.070 848.010

 18.290 848.250

 19.510 848.570

 20.42 848.000

! Elevation of bedrock (m)

 0.00

! Porosity

 0.40

! Hiding factors

 0.25 0.95 0.70

! Surface layer and substratum data

! Number of sediment layers composing the bed

 1

! Layer 1: layer depth below bed surface

 0.00

! Layer 1: composition

 0.00

 0.00

 0.40

 29.00

 58.90

 10.00

 0.80

 0.70

 0.20

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

! Critical shear stresses for deposition on and erosion of cohesive beds,

! and erodibility coefficient

 0.100 7.050 3.40E-07

! Friction factor

 0.025

!------------------------ Right Bank --------------------------

! number of points

 2

! station and elevation for above number of coordinates in (m)

 20.420 849.000

 21.340 849.530

! Soil layer data

! number of soil layers in the bank

 1

! layer 1: elevation of layer top

 850.00

! layer 1: strength parameters (c,phi,phib,gamma_s)
76 Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River, Todd County, South Dakota

 0.0 27.0 15.0 18000.0

! layer 1: erodibility, i.e. critical shear stress (Pa)

 10.00

! layer 1: sediment composition

 1.10

 2.10

 8.10

 40.10

 35.60

 13.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

 0.00

! groundwatertable

 849

! Friction factor

 0.05

!--------------------- Right FloodPlain -----------------------

! number of points

 3

! station and elevation for above number of coordinates in (m)

 21.340 849.530

 34.380 850.080

 54.860 850.110

! Friction factor

 0.065
Edited by Ella M. Decker.

Graphics by Connie J. Ross.

Prepared by the USGS South Dakota Water Science Center:

This publication is available online at 

 http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/sir20055267

U.S. Geological Survey

1608 Mt. View Road

Rapid City, SD 57702

Information regarding the water resources in South Dakota is

 available at http://sd.water.usgs.gov/
Williamson—Water-Quality and Biological Characteristics of the Little White River and Selected Tributaries, Todd County, SD, 2002–2003—SIR 2005–5267

Printed on recycled paper