U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa 

Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota

and Wyoming, Water Years 1931-98

Prepared in cooperation with the South Dakota Department

of Environment and Natural Resources and the

West Dakota Water Development District

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4278

By Janet M. Carter and Daniel G. Driscoll, U.S. Geological Survey, and Ghaith R. Hamade, 

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology 
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and 

does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Rapid City, South Dakota: 2001

For additional information write to:

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

1608 Mt. View Road

Rapid City, SD 57702

Copies of this report can be purchased from:

U.S. Geological Survey

Branch of Information Services

Building 810

Box 25286, Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225-0286
Contents III

CONTENTS

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

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2

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

Description of Study Area ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Physiography, Land Use, and Climate............................................................................................................... 3

Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................................................ 5

Hydrologic Setting............................................................................................................................................. 9

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Recharge Processes and General Methods for Quantifying Recharge .................................................................................. 11

Previous Investigations................................................................................................................................................ 11

Recharge Processes...................................................................................................................................................... 11

General Methods for Quantifying Recharge................................................................................................................ 13

Considerations Regarding Recharge Areas ....................................................................................................... 13

Methods for Quantifying Streamflow Recharge................................................................................................ 15

Methods for Quantifying Precipitation Recharge.............................................................................................. 16

Uncertainties Associated with Recharge Estimates........................................................................................... 17

Streamflow Recharge............................................................................................................................................................. 18

Recharge from Gaged Streams .................................................................................................................................... 23

Continuous-Record Gaging Stations ................................................................................................................. 23

Calculated Streamflow Recharge ............................................................................................................ 23

Extrapolation of Streamflow Recharge Estimates................................................................................... 29

Miscellaneous-Record Measurement Sites........................................................................................................ 32

Recharge from Ungaged Streams ................................................................................................................................ 34

Summary of Streamflow Recharge, 1950-98 .............................................................................................................. 36

Precipitation Recharge........................................................................................................................................................... 37

Yield Efficiency........................................................................................................................................................... 37

Recharge Estimates...................................................................................................................................................... 50

Combined Recharge, 1931-98 ............................................................................................................................................... 53

Summary................................................................................................................................................................................ 57

References ............................................................................................................................................................................. 59

Supplemental Information ..................................................................................................................................................... 61

FIGURES

1. Map showing area of investigation for the Black Hills Hydrology Study.................................................................. 4

2. Stratigraphic section for the Black Hills..................................................................................................................... 6

3. Map showing distribution of hydrogeologic units in the Black Hills area ................................................................. 7

4. Geologic section A-A’ ................................................................................................................................................ 8

5. Schematic showing simplified hydrogeologic setting of the Black Hills area ........................................................... 10

6. Daily-duration hydrographs for selected gaging stations ........................................................................................... 12

7. Map showing connected and isolated outcrop areas of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa

Formation for recharge considerations ....................................................................................................................... 14

8. Schematic diagram illustrating recharge and streamflow characteristics for selected outcrop types......................... 17

9. Map showing location of gaging stations used to estimate streamflow recharge....................................................... 19

10. Map showing drainage basins for which streamflow recharge was estimated ........................................................... 22

11. Map showing assignment of representative streamflow-gaging stations for ungaged streams.................................. 35

12. Isohyetal map showing distribution of average annual precipitation for Black Hills area, water years 1950-98 ...... 40
IV Contents

FIGURES—Continued

13. Map showing measured average annual basin yields, based on surface drainage areas, for selected

streamflow-gaging stations ........................................................................................................................................ 41

14. Regression plots of yield efficiency with precipitation for selected streamflow-gaging stations.............................. 45

15. Map showing estimated yield efficiencies for water years 1950-98, based on surface drainage

areas, for selected gaging stations .............................................................................................................................. 48

16. Map showing generalized average annual yield efficiency, water years 1950-98 ..................................................... 49

17. Map showing estimated annual yield potential and average annual recharge from precipitation

on outcrops of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation, water years 1950-98 ......................................... 54

18. Graph showing average annual streamflow, precipitation, and combined recharge .................................................. 57

TABLES

1. Summary of selected site information for gaging stations used in determining streamflow recharge................... 20

2. Summary of loss thresholds and associated drainage areas of selected streams .................................................... 24

3. Annual recharge for basins with continuous-record stations, water years 1950-98 ............................................... 27

4. Calculated percentages of annual streamflow recharge for nine streams with minimal

regulation, water years 1992-98 ............................................................................................................................. 29

5. Annual recharge, by aquifer, for streams with continuous-record stations, water years 1967-98.......................... 30

6. Regression equations used to estimate average annual streamflow recharge for nine streams with

continuous-record stations...................................................................................................................................... 31

7. Summary of selected information used to estimate recharge from streams with miscellaneousrecord measurement sites........................................................................................................................................ 32

8. Annual recharge for streams with miscellaneous-record measurement sites, water years 1992-98....................... 33

9. Annual recharge, by aquifer, for streams with miscellaneous-record measurement sites, water years 1992-98 ... 34

10. Annual streamflow recharge from ungaged basins, water years 1992-98.............................................................. 34

11. Estimated streamflow recharge for selected continuous-record, miscellaneous-record, and

ungaged basins, water years 1992-98 ..................................................................................................................... 36

12. Estimated total streamflow recharge, in cubic feet per second, from all sources, water years 1950-98 ................ 38

13. Summary of selected site information for streamflow-gaging stations used in determining annual yield............. 42

14. Summary of selected precipitation information, equations, and runoff estimates for streamflow-gaging

stations used in estimating precipitation recharge .................................................................................................. 44

15. Estimated precipitation recharge, water years 1931-98.......................................................................................... 51

16. Summary of streamflow, precipitation, and combined recharge, water years 1931-98.......................................... 55

17. Estimated average annual recharge for streams with continuous-record stations using two methods,

water years 1950-98................................................................................................................................................ 63
Contents V

CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM

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

°C = (°F - 32) / 1.8

Sea level: In this report, "sea level" refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD

of 1929)—a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both

the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.

Water year: Water year is the 12-month period, October 1 through September 30, and is designated

by the calendar year in which it ends. Thus, the water year ending September 30, 1998, is called the

“1998 water year.”

Multiply By To obtain

Metric

acre 4,047 square meter

acre 0.4047 hectare

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second 

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

gallon per minute (gal/min) 0.06309 liter per second

inch 2.54 centimeter

inch 25.4 millimeter

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

square mile (mi2

) 259.0 hectare

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer 

Other

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 1.9835 acre-foot per day
Abstract 1

Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa 

Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota

and Wyoming, Water Years 1931-98

By Janet M. Carter, Daniel G. Driscoll, and Ghaith R. Hamade

ABSTRACT

The Madison and Minnelusa aquifers are 

two of the most important aquifers in the Black 

Hills area. Long-term estimates of recharge to the 

Madison and Minnelusa aquifers are important for 

managing the water resources in the Black Hills 

area. Thus, annual recharge from streamflow 

losses and infiltration of precipitation on outcrop 

areas is estimated for water years 1931-98. All 

estimates are for recharge that contributes to 

regional ground-water flow patterns and that 

occurs in outcrop areas connected to the regional 

flow system. Estimates exclude recharge to outcrop areas that are isolated from the regional flow 

system, which generally results in ground-water 

discharge to area streams.

Streamflow recharge is calculated directly 

for 11 streams in the Black Hills area that have 

continuous-record gaging stations located 

upstream from loss zones, using available records 

of daily streamflow, against which estimated loss 

thresholds (from previous investigations) are 

applied. Daily streamflow records are extrapolated, when necessary, using correlations with 

long-term gages, to develop annual estimates of 

streamflow recharge for 1950-98.

Streamflow recharge is estimated for a 

number of smaller basins using loss thresholds for 

miscellaneous-record sites. Annual recharge estimates are derived from synthetic records of daily 

streamflow for 1992-98, which are based on 

drainage-area ratios applied to continuous-record 

gaging stations. Recharge estimates are further 

extrapolated for 1950-91, based on the average 

percentage of streamflow recharge contributed by 

these basins during 1992-98, relative to overall 

streamflow recharge.

Streamflow recharge also is estimated for 

small drainage areas with undetermined loss 

thresholds that are situated between larger basins 

with known thresholds. Estimates for 1992-98 are 

based on estimates of annual streamflow derived 

using drainage-area ratios, with assumed losses 

equal to 90 percent of annual streamflow. 

Recharge estimates also are extrapolated for 

1950-91, based on the average percentage of 

streamflow recharge contributed by these basins.

Precipitation recharge for 1931-98 is estimated using relations between precipitation and 

streamflow (or basin yield) for representative 

gaging stations. Basin yields are first normalized, 

relative to drainage area, by expressing in inches 

per unit of drainage area. Yields are further 

converted to yield efficiencies, by dividing by precipitation on contributing drainage areas. Relations between yield efficiency and precipitation 

are identified, which are developed for use in 

generically estimating annual yield for given 

areas, based on average yield efficiency and 

annual precipitation. The resulting annual yield is 

used as a surrogate for estimating annual recharge 

from infiltration of precipitation on outcrop areas 

of the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. Annual 

yield (or recharge) efficiencies are estimated to 
2 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

range from about 2 percent to in excess of 

30 percent, with corresponding average annual 

recharge estimates ranging from 0.4 inch in the 

southern Black Hills to about 8.7 inches in the 

northwestern Black Hills.

Estimates of precipitation recharge for 

1931-49 are used to estimate streamflow recharge 

for the same period, based on correlations between 

the two variables for 1989-98. Combined streamflow and precipitation recharge to both aquifers 

averaged about 344 ft3/s for 1931-98. Streamflow 

recharge averaged about 93 ft3/s, or 27 percent of 

combined recharge, and precipitation recharge 

averaged about 251 ft3/s, or 73 percent of combined recharge. Combined recharge ranged from 

62 ft3

/s in 1936 to 847 ft3/s in 1995. The lowest 

recharge amounts generally occurred during the 

1930’s; however, a more prolonged period of low 

recharge occurred during 1947-61.

For 1931-98, average precipitation recharge 

to the Madison aquifer is about 3.6 inches, compared with 2.6 inches for the Minnelusa aquifer. 

However, recharge volumes to these aquifers are 

nearly identical because the outcrop area of the 

Minnelusa Formation is larger than the outcrop 

area of the Madison Limestone. Streamflow 

recharge to the Madison aquifer is presumed 

slightly larger than for the Minnelusa aquifer, primarily because of preferential recharge resulting 

from an upgradient location. Considering both 

precipitation and streamflow recharge, the 

Madison aquifer receives about 55 percent of 

combined recharge, relative to about 45 percent 

for the Minnelusa aquifer.

 The western flank of the Black Hills is 

almost entirely dominated by precipitation 

recharge, because of the large outcrop areas of 

Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation and 

absence of perennial streams. Recharge along the 

southeastern flank of the Black Hills generally is 

dominated by streamflow recharge. The relative 

contribution from streamflow and precipitation 

recharge is highly variable along the northern and 

northeastern flanks of the Black Hills. 

INTRODUCTION

The Black Hills area is an important resource 

center that provides an economic base for western 

South Dakota through tourism, agriculture, the timber 

industry, and mineral resources. In addition, water 

originating from the area is used for municipal, industrial, agricultural, and recreational purposes throughout 

much of western South Dakota. The Black Hills area 

also is an important recharge area for aquifers in the 

northern Great Plains.

Population growth, resource development, and 

periodic droughts have the potential to affect the quantity, quality, and availability of water within the Black 

Hills area. Because of this concern, the Black Hills 

Hydrology Study was initiated in 1990 to assess the 

quantity, quality, and distribution of surface water and 

ground water in the Black Hills area of South Dakota 

(Driscoll, 1992). This long-term study is a cooperative 

effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, and the West Dakota Water Development 

District, which represents various local and county 

cooperators.

The Madison and Minnelusa aquifers are two of 

the most important aquifers in the Black Hills area and 

are a major emphasis of the Black Hills Hydrology 

Study. These aquifers are utilized for domestic, 

municipal, agricultural, and industrial uses. Recharge 

to these aquifers occurs primarily from infiltration of 

streamflow losses and infiltration of precipitation on 

outcrop areas. Long-term estimates of recharge to the 

Madison and Minnelusa aquifers are important for 

managing the water resources in the Black Hills area.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe methods 

for quantifying recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa 

aquifers in the Black Hills area of South Dakota and 

Wyoming and to estimate combined recharge to these 

aquifers. Annual estimates for water years 1931-98 are 

presented for recharge from (1) infiltration of streamflow losses (streamflow recharge), and (2) infiltration 

of precipitation (precipitation recharge). Recharge 

estimates for the two aquifers are combined because 

streamflow recharge cannot be quantified separately 

for most streams. Individual estimates of precipitation 

recharge are provided because calculations can be 

based on individual outcrop areas. Recharge estimates 
Introduction 3

are for “regional recharge,” which consists of recharge 

to outcrops of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa 

Formation that are connected to the regional flow 

system, as discussed in a subsequent section. This 

excludes recharge to outcrops that are isolated from the 

regional flow system (erosional remnants).

Based on water-level data for paired wells 

(Driscoll, Bradford, and Moran, 2000), there is the 

potential for leakage to the Madison aquifer from the 

underlying Deadwood aquifer in some areas and from 

the Madison aquifer to the Deadwood aquifer in other 

areas. There also is potential for upward leakage from 

the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers to overlying 

aquifers such as the Inyan Kara aquifer. No attempt is 

made to quantify leakage to or from the Madison and 

Minnelusa aquifers because of insufficient information; the scope of this report is limited to streamflow 

recharge and precipitation recharge.

Description of Study Area

The study area for the Black Hills Hydrology 

Study consists of the topographically defined Black 

Hills and adjacent areas located in western South 

Dakota (fig. 1). Outcrops of the Madison Limestone 

and Minnelusa Formation, as well as the generalized 

outer extent of the Inyan Kara Group, which approximates the outer extent of the Black Hills area, also are 

shown in figure 1. Outcrop areas of the Madison 

Limestone and Minnelusa Formation in the Black Hills 

of Wyoming (just west of the study area) also are considered in this report as described in a following section. The study area for the Black Hills Hydrology 

Study includes most of the larger communities in 

western South Dakota and contains about one-third of 

the State’s population.

Physiography, Land Use, and Climate

The Black Hills uplift formed as an elongated 

dome about 60 to 65 million years ago during the 

Laramide orogeny (DeWitt and others, 1986). The 

dome trends north-northwest and is about 120 mi long 

and 60 mi wide. Elevations range from 7,242 ft above 

sea level at Harney Peak to about 3,000 ft in the adjacent plains. Most of the higher elevations are heavily 

forested with ponderosa pine, which is the primary 

product of an active timber industry. White spruce, 

quaking aspen, paper birch, and other native trees and 

shrubs are found in cooler, wetter areas (Orr, 1959). 

The lower elevations surrounding the Black Hills 

primarily are urban, suburban, and agricultural. 

Numerous deciduous species such as cottonwood, ash, 

elm, oak, and willow are common along stream bottoms in the lower elevations. Rangeland, hayland, and 

winter wheat farming are the principal agricultural uses 

for dryland areas. Alfalfa, corn, and vegetables are produced in bottom lands and in irrigated areas. Various 

other crops, primarily for cattle fodder, are produced in 

both dryland areas and in bottom lands.

Beginning in the 1870’s, the Black Hills have 

been explored and mined for many mineral resources 

including gold, silver, tin, tungsten, mica, feldspar, 

bentonite, beryl, lead, zinc, uranium, lithium, sand, 

gravel, and oil (U.S. Department of Interior, 1967). 

Mining methods have included placer mining, small 

surface pits, large open pits, and underground mines.

The overall climate of the study area is continental, with generally low precipitation amounts, hot 

summers, cold winters, and extreme variations in both 

precipitation and temperatures (Johnson, 1933). 

Climatic conditions are affected by regional patterns, 

with the northern Black Hills influenced primarily by 

moist air currents out of the northwest, and the southern 

Black Hills influenced more by dry, continental air 

currents out of the south-southeast. Local climatic 

conditions are affected by topography, with generally 

lower temperatures and higher precipitation at the 

higher elevations. 

The average annual precipitation for the study 

area (1931-98) is 18.61 inches and has ranged from 

10.22 inches for water year 1936 to 27.39 inches for 

water year 1995 (Driscoll, Hamade, and Kenner, 2000). 

The largest precipitation amounts typically occur in the 

northern Black Hills near Lead, where average annual 

precipitation exceeds 29 inches. Annual averages 

(1931-98) for counties within the study area range from 

16.35 inches for Fall River County to 23.11 inches for 

Lawrence County (Driscoll, Hamade, and Kenner, 

2000). The average annual temperature is 43.9°F (U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 1999) and ranges from 

48.7°F at Hot Springs to approximately 37°F near 

Deerfield Reservoir. Average annual evaporation 

generally exceeds average annual precipitation 

throughout the study area. Average pan evaporation for 

April through October is about 30 inches at Pactola 

Reservoir and about 50 inches at Oral.
4 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

N. Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche

Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Rhoads Fork

Coolidge

Angostura

Reservoir

Castl e Cr

N. Fork Castle Cr

Canyon

Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Stockade

Lake

Cox

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

Creek

Crow Creek

BELLE

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek

Cr

Little Spearfish

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Spring

Creek

Creek

Creek

Grace

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Bottom

False

Creek

Spokane

North

South

Reaves

Lame

Gulch

Fork

Fork

Flynn

Cr

Johnny

Higgins

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Squaw

Whitetail

Cr

Cr Cr

Gulch

Gulch

Annie

Iron

Cr

Iron Cr

Meadow Cr

Elk

Little

Creek

Castle

Castle

Creek

Creek

Bear Gulch

Sylvan

Lake

Morris

Creek

Whitewood

Spearfish

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Galena

Trojan

Tinton Central

City

Maurice

Savoy

Roubaix

Nemo

Vale

Hayward

Keystone

Pringle

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Rockerville

Oral

Wind Cave

National Park

Jewel Cave

National Monument

Mt. Rushmore National

Memorial

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak x

Ellsworth

Air Force

Base

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYOMING

SOUTH DAKOTA

104o 45' 103o

30'

15' 103o

30'

44o

45'

15'

44o

45'

30'

 43o

15'

LIMESTONE

PLATEAU

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF

 THE BLACK HILLS AREA,

 REPRESENTED BY

 GENERALIZED OUTER

 EXTENT OF INYAN KARA

 GROUP (modified from

 Strobel and others, 1999)

OUTCROP OF MADISON LIME-

 STONE (from Strobel and

 others, 1999)

OUTCROP OF MINNELUSA

 FORMATION (from Strobel

 and others, 1999)

SOUTH DAKOTA

Area

Shown

Black

Hills

06425500

Figure 1. Area of investigation for the Black Hills Hydrology Study. Streamflow-gaging station located outside of

study area that was used in developing recharge estimates is shown on index map.

EXPLANATION
Introduction 5

Geologic Setting

The oldest geologic units in the study area are the 

Precambrian crystalline (metamorphic and igneous) 

rocks (fig. 2), which form a basement under the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic rocks and sediments. 

The Precambrian rocks range in age from 1.7 to about 

2.5 billion years, and were eroded to a gentle undulating plain at the beginning of the Paleozoic era (Gries, 

1996). The Precambrian rocks are highly variable, but 

are composed mostly of igneous rocks or metasedimentary rocks, such as schists and graywackes. The 

Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks were deposited as nearly 

horizontal beds. Subsequent uplift during the Laramide orogeny and related erosion exposed the Precambrian rocks in the crystalline core of the Black Hills, 

with the Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks 

exposed in roughly concentric rings around the core. 

Deformation during the Laramide orogeny contributed 

to the numerous fractures, folds, and other features 

present throughout the Black Hills. Tertiary intrusive 

activity also contributed to rock fracturing in the 

northern Black Hills where numerous intrusions exist.

Surrounding the crystalline core is a layered 

series of sedimentary rocks (fig. 3) including outcrops 

of the Madison Limestone (also locally known as the 

Pahasapa Limestone) and the Minnelusa Formation. 

The bedrock sedimentary formations typically dip 

away from the uplifted Black Hills at angles that can 

approach or exceed 15 to 20 degrees near the outcrops, 

and decrease with distance from the uplift to less than 

1 degree (Carter and Redden, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 

1999d, 1999e) (fig. 4). Following are descriptions for 

Paleozoic bedrock formations in the Black Hills, which 

includes the Madison Limestone, Minnelusa 

Formation, and stratigraphically adjacent units.

The oldest sedimentary formation in the study 

area is the Cambrian- and Ordovician-age Deadwood 

Formation, which is composed primarily of brown to 

light-gray glauconitic sandstone, shale, limestone, and 

local basal conglomerate (Strobel and others, 1999). 

These sediments were deposited on the generally 

horizontal plain of Precambrian rocks in a coastal- to 

near-shore environment (Gries, 1975). The thickness 

of the Deadwood Formation increases from south to 

north in the study area and ranges from 0 to 500 ft 

(Carter and Redden, 1999e). In the northern and 

central Black Hills, the Deadwood Formation is disconformably overlain by Ordovician rocks, which 

include the Whitewood and Winnipeg Formations. The 

Winnipeg Formation is absent in the southern Black 

Hills, and the Whitewood Formation has eroded to the 

south and is not present south of the approximate 

latitude of Nemo (DeWitt and others, 1986). In the 

southern Black Hills, the Deadwood Formation is 

unconformably overlain by the Devonian- and Mississippian-age Englewood Formation because of the 

absence of the Ordovician sequence. The Englewood 

Formation is overlain by the Madison Limestone.

The Mississippian-age Madison Limestone is a 

massive, gray to buff limestone that is locally dolomitic 

(Strobel and others, 1999). The Madison Limestone, 

which was deposited as a marine carbonate, was 

exposed above land surface for approximately 50 

million years. During this period, significant erosion, 

soil development, and karstification occurred (Gries, 

1996). There are numerous caves and fractures within 

the upper part of the formation (Peter, 1985). The 

thickness of the Madison Limestone increases from 

south to north in the study area and ranges from almost 

zero in the southeast corner of the study area (Rahn, 

1985) to 1,000 ft east of Belle Fourche (Carter and 

Redden, 1999d). Local variations in thickness are due 

largely to the karst topography that developed before 

the deposition of the overlying formations (DeWitt and 

others, 1986). Because the Madison Limestone was 

exposed to erosion and karstification for millions of 

years, the formation is unconformably overlain by the 

Minnelusa Formation.

The Pennsylvanian- and Permian-age Minnelusa 

Formation consists mostly of yellow to red crossstratified sandstone, limestone, dolomite, and shale 

(Strobel and others, 1999). In addition to sandstone 

and dolomite, the lower part of the formation consists 

of shale and anhydrite (DeWitt and others, 1986). The 

upper part of the Minnelusa Formation also may contain anhydrite, which generally has been removed by 

dissolution near the outcrop areas, forming collapse 

features filled with breccia (Braddock, 1963). The 

thickness of the Minnelusa Formation in the study area 

increases from north to south and ranges from 375 ft 

near Belle Fourche to 1,175 ft near Edgemont (Carter 

and Redden, 1999c). Along the northeastern part of the 

central Black Hills, there is little anhydrite in the subsurface due to a change in the depositional environment. On the south and southwest side of the study 

area, there is a considerable increase in thickness of 

clastic units as well as a thick section of anhydrite. In 

the southern Black Hills, the upper part of the 

Minnelusa Formation thins due to leaching of anhydrite. The Minnelusa Formation is disconformably 

overlain by the Permian-age Opeche Shale, which is 

overlain by the Minnekahta Limestone. 
6 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

Figure 2. Stratigraphic section for the Black Hills.

GEOLOGIC UNIT DESCRIPTION THICKNESS IN FEET

ABBREVIATION

FOR

STRATIGRAPHIC

INTERVAL

SYSTEM ERATHEM

QUATERNARY

& TERTIARY (?)

UNDIFFERENTIATED SANDS AND GRAVELS 0-50 Sand, gravel, and boulders

1,200-2,700

Light colored clays with sandstone channel fillings and local limestone lenses. WHITE RIVER GROUP Tw

TERTIARY1

QTu

Principal horizon of limestone lenses giving teepee buttes. Dark-gray shale containing scattered concretions. Widely scattered limestone masses, giving small teepee buttes. Black fissile shale with concretions. 

PIERRE SHALENIOBRARA FORMATION 280-300 Impure chalk and calcareous shale.CARLILE SHALE Turner Sandy Member

Wall Creek Member

2350-750 Light-gray shale with numerous large concretions and sandy layers.

Dark-gray shale

GRANEROS GROUP

GREENHORN FORMATION

Kps

(25-30)

(200-350)

Impure slabby limestone. Weathers buff.Dark-gray calcareous shale, with thin Orman Lake limestone at base.

BELLE FOURCHE SHALE

MOWRY SHALE

MUDDY

SANDSTONE NEWCASTLE

SKULL CREEK SHALE

150-850

Gray shale with scattered limestone concretions.Clay spur bentonite at base.

125-230

20-150

Light-gray siliceous shale. Fish scales and thin layers of bentonite.Brown to light yellow and white sandstone.

150-270 Dark gray to black siliceous shale.

CRETACEOUS

FALL RIVER FORMATION

LAKOTA

FM

INYAN KARA

GROUPFuson Shale Minnewaste Limestone Chilson Member

10-200 Massive to slabby sandstone.

Coarse gray to buff cross-bedded conglomeratic sandstone, interbedded with buff, red, and gray clay, especially toward top. Local fine-grained limestone.

10-190

0-25

25-485

0-2200-225

Green to maroon shale. Thin sandstone.Massive fine-grained sandstone.

250-450

0-45

Greenish-gray shale, thin limestone lenses.Glauconltic sandstone; red sandstone near middle.Red siltstone, gypsum, and limestone.

MORRISON FORMATION

UNKPAPA SS Redwater Member

Lak MemberHulett MemberStockade Beaver Mem.Canyon Spr Member

SUNDANCEFORMATIONGYPSUM SPRING FORMATION

Kik

Ju JURASSIC

Goose Egg Equivalent

SPEARFISH FORMATION RT Ps TRIASSIC

MINNEKAHTA LIMESTONEOPECHE SHALE Po

Pmk

250-800

225-65

Red sandy shale, soft red sandstone and siltstone with gypsum and thin limestone layers.Gypsum locally near the base.Thin to medium-bedded fine-grained, purplish gray laminated limestone.Red shale and sandstone. 225-150

2375-1,1752250-1,000

30-60

20-23520-15020-500

Yellow to red cross-bedded sandstone, limestone, and anhydrite locally at top.Red shale with interbedded limestone and sandstone at base.Massive light-colored limestone. Dolomite in part. Cavernous in upper part.Pink to buff limestone. Shale locally at base.Buff dolomite and limestone.Green shale with siltstone.Massive to thin-bedded buff to purple sandstone. Greenish glauconitic shale flaggy dolomite and flat-pebble limestone conglomerate. Sandstone, with conglomerate locally at the base.Schist, slate, quartzite, and arkosic grit. Intruded by diorite, metamorphosed to amphibolite, and by granite and pegmatite.

PERMIAN

PENNSYLVANIAN

MISSISSIPPIAN

P Pm MINNELUSA FORMATION

MADISON (PAHASAPA) LIMESTONEENGLEWOOD FORMATION

MDm

Ou

DEVONIAN

WHITEWOOD (RED RIVER) FORMATIONWINNIPEG FORMATIONDEADWOOD FORMATIONUNDIFFERENTIATED METAMORPHICAND IGNEOUS ROCKS

OCd

pCu

ORDOVICIAN

CAMBRIAN

PALEOZOIC MESOZOIC CENOZOIC

PRECAMBRIAN

Modified from information furnished by the Department of Geology and Geological Engineering,

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology (written commun., January 1994)

0-300

Includes rhyolite, latite, trachyte, and phonolite. INTRUSIVE IGNEOUS ROCKS Tui --

1 Also may include intrusive igneous rocks2 Modified based on drill-hole data

Interbedded sandstone, limestone, dolomite, shale, and anhydrite.
Introduction 7

Whitewood

Spearfish

Maurice

Savoy

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

Nemo

Central

City

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Roubaix

Keystone

Hayward

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Pringle

Creek

N Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche

Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Grace Cooli d ge

Angostura

Reservoir

Iron

Castl e Cr

N Fork Castle Cr

Canyon Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

BELLE

Creek

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Spokane

Lame Johnny

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Gulch

Gulch

Castle

Castle

Bear

Little

Creek

Gulch

H gi gins

Creek

Creek

Cr

Bottom False

Creek

Wind Cave

National Park

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak

x

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYOMING

SOUTH DAKOTA

104o 45' 103o

30'

15' 103o

30'

44o

45'

15'

44o

45'

30'

43o

15'

QTac

Tw

Tui

Kps

Ju

TRPs

MDm

Kik

Pmk

Po

Ou

PPm

OCd

pCu

A

A'

Figure 3. Distribution of hydrogeologic units in the Black Hills area (modified from Strobel and others, 1999).

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

EXPLANATION

Alluvium and colluvium,

 undifferentiaed

Unconsolidated

units

White River aquifer

Minnekahta aquifer

Minnelusa aquifer

Madison aquifer

Deadwood aquifer

Inyan Kara aquifer

Tertiary intrusive

units

Spearfish confining

unit

Opeche confining

unit

Cretaceoussequence

confining unit

Jurassic-sequence

semiconfining unit

Ordovician-sequence

semiconfining unit

Precambrian igneous and

metamorphic units

White River Group

Undifferentiated intrusive

 igneous rocks

Pierre Shale to Skull Creek Shale,

 undifferentiated

Inyan Kara Group

Morrison Formation to Sundance

 Formation, undifferentiated

Spearfish Formation

Minnekahta Limestone

Opeche Shale

Minnelusa Formation

Madison (Pahasapa) Limestone

 and Englewood Formation

Whitewood Formation and

 Winnipeg Formation

Deadwood Formation

Undifferentiated metamorphic

 and igneous rocks

Stratigraphic

Units Map Units HydrogeologicUnits

A A' LINE OF GEOLOGIC SECTION

FAULT--Dashed where approximated.

 Bar and ball on downthrown side

ANTICLINE--Showing trace of axial

 plane and direction of plunge.

 Dashed where approximated

SYNCLINE--Showing trace of axial plane

 and direction of plunge. Dashed

 where approximated

MONOCLINE--Showing trace of axial

 plane. Dashed where approximated

DOME--Symbol size approximately pro-

 portional to size of dome. Dome

 asymmetry indicated by arrow length
8 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming SEA 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 LEVEL SEA LEVEL FEET 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000

A A'

FEET

7,000

MDme

MDme

Kps

Ju

Kik

PPm

PPm

OCd

OCd Pmk

Po QTac QTac

Rapid Creek Rapid Creek

South Fork Castle Creek

Highway 385

Rapid Creek

Highway 44

Rapid Creek

Rapid City

Rapid Creek

210

210 4 2

2 4 6 8 10 MILES

8 6 10 KILOMETERS

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X5

T Ps R

Figure 4. Geologic section A-A' (Location of section is shown in figure 3. Abbreviations for stratigraphic intervals are explained in figure 2.).

Modified from Strobel and others, 1999

SOUTH DAKOTA

WYOMING

pCu pCu
Introduction 9

The Permian-age Minnekahta Limestone is a 

fine-grained, purple to gray laminated limestone, with 

thicknesses ranging from about 25 to 65 ft in the study 

area (Strobel and others, 1999). The Minnekahta 

Limestone is overlain by the Triassic- and Permian-age 

Spearfish Formation.

Hydrologic Setting

The Precambrian basement rocks generally have 

low permeability and form the lower confining unit for 

the series of sedimentary aquifers in the Black Hills 

area. Localized aquifers occur in Precambrian rocks in 

many locations in the central core of the Black Hills, 

where enhanced secondary permeability results from 

weathering and fracturing. In these aquifers, watertable (unconfined) conditions generally prevail and 

land-surface topography can strongly control groundwater flow directions. Many wells completed in the 

Precambrian rocks are located along stream channels.

Many of the sedimentary formations contain 

aquifers, both within and beyond the study area. 

Within the Paleozoic rock interval, aquifers in the 

Deadwood Formation, Madison Limestone, Minnelusa 

Formation, and Minnekahta Limestone are used extensively. These aquifers are collectively confined by the 

underlying Precambrian rocks and the overlying 

Spearfish Formation. Individually, these aquifers are 

separated by minor confining units or by relatively 

impermeable layers within the individual formations. 

Extremely variable leakage can occur between these 

aquifers (Peter, 1985; Greene, 1993).

The Deadwood Formation contains the Deadwood aquifer, which overlies the Precambrian rocks. 

The Deadwood aquifer, which is used mainly by 

domestic and municipal users near the outcrop area, 

receives recharge primarily from precipitation on the 

outcrop. There may be some hydraulic connection 

between the Deadwood aquifer and the underlying 

weathered Precambrian rocks, but regionally the 

Precambrian rocks act as a lower confining unit to the 

Deadwood aquifer. Where present, the Whitewood and 

Winnipeg Formations act as a semi-confining unit 

overlying the Deadwood aquifer (Strobel and others, 

1999). These units locally may transmit water and 

exchange water with the Deadwood aquifer, but 

regionally are not considered aquifers. Where the 

Whitewood and Winnipeg Formations are absent, the 

Deadwood aquifer is in contact with the overlying 

Englewood Formation, which Strobel and others 

(1999) included as part of the Madison aquifer.

The Madison aquifer generally occurs within the 

karstic upper part of the Madison Limestone; however, 

Strobel and others (1999) included the entire Madison 

Limestone and the Englewood Formation in their 

delineation of the aquifer. Numerous fractures and 

solution openings in the Madison Limestone provide 

extensive secondary porosity in the aquifer. The 

Madison aquifer receives significant recharge from 

streamflow losses and precipitation on the outcrop. 

The Madison aquifer is confined by low permeability 

layers in the overlying Minnelusa Formation.

The Minnelusa aquifer occurs within the thin 

layers of sandstone, dolomite, and anhydrite in the 

lower portion of the Minnelusa Formation and sandstone and gypsum in the upper portion. The Minnelusa 

aquifer has primary porosity in the sandstone units and 

secondary porosity from fracturing and collapse 

breccia associated with dissolution of interbedded 

evaporites. The Minnelusa aquifer receives significant 

recharge from streamflow losses and precipitation on 

the outcrop. Streamflow recharge to the Minnelusa 

aquifer generally is less than to the Madison aquifer, 

which is preferentially recharged because of its upgradient location. The Minnelusa aquifer is confined by 

the overlying Opeche Shale.

The Minnekahta aquifer, which overlies the 

Opeche Shale, typically is very permeable, but is 

limited in amount of yield by the aquifer thickness. 

The Minnekahta aquifer receives significant recharge 

from precipitation and limited recharge from streamflow losses on the outcrop. The overlying Spearfish 

Formation acts as a confining unit to the aquifer. 

Within the Mesozoic rock interval, the Inyan 

Kara aquifer is used extensively. Aquifers in various 

other formations are used locally to lesser degrees. The 

Inyan Kara aquifer receives recharge primarily from 

precipitation on the outcrop. The Inyan Kara aquifer 

also may receive recharge from leakage from the 

underlying aquifers (Swenson, 1968; Gott and others, 

1974). As much as 4,000 ft of Cretaceous shales act as 

the upper confining layer to aquifers in the Mesozoic 

rock interval.

Artesian (confined) conditions generally exist 

within the aforementioned aquifers, where an upper 

confining layer is present. Under artesian conditions, 

water in a well will rise above the top of the aquifer in 

which it is completed. Flowing wells will result when 

drilled in areas where the potentiometric surface is 

above the land surface. Flowing wells and artesian 

springs that originate from confined aquifers are 
10 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

common around the periphery of the Black Hills. The 

hydrogeologic setting of the Black Hills area is 

schematically illustrated in figure 5.

Streamflow within the study area is affected by 

both topography and geology. The base flow of most 

streams in the Black Hills originates in the higher 

elevations, where relatively large precipitation and 

small evapotranspiration result in more water being 

available for springflow and streamflow. Numerous 

streams have significant headwater springs originating 

from the Paleozoic carbonate rocks along the “Limestone Plateau” (fig. 1) on the western side of the study 

area. This area is a large discharge zone for aquifers in 

the Paleozoic rock interval, especially for the Madison 

aquifer. The headwater springs provide significant 

base flow for several streams that flow across the crystalline core.

Most streams generally lose all or part of their 

flow as they cross the outcrop of the Madison Limestone (Rahn and Gries, 1973; Hortness and Driscoll, 

1998). Karst features of the Madison Limestone, 

including sinkholes, collapse features, solution 

cavities, and caves, are responsible for the Madison 

aquifer’s capacity to accept recharge from streamflow. 

Large streamflow losses also occur in many locations 

within the outcrop of the Minnelusa Formation, and 

limited losses probably also occur within the outcrop of 

the Minnekahta Limestone (Hortness and Driscoll, 

1998). Large artesian springs occur in many locations 

downgradient from loss zones, most commonly within 

or near the outcrop of the Spearfish Formation. These 

springs provide an important source of base flow in 

many streams beyond the periphery of the Black Hills 

(Rahn and Gries, 1973; Miller and Driscoll, 1998).

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the efforts of the West 

Dakota Water Development District for helping to 

develop and support the Black Hills Hydrology Study. 

West Dakota’s coordination of various local and county 

cooperators has been a key element in making this 

study possible. The authors also recognize the 

numerous local and county cooperators represented by 

West Dakota, as well as the numerous private citizens 

who have helped provide guidance and support for the 

Black Hills Hydrology Study. The South Dakota 

Figure 5. Schematic showing simplified hydrogeologic setting of the Black Hills area.

Potentiometric surface

in Madison aquifer

Flowing well Spring

 conduit

Alluvial

aquifer

Dip of sedimentary rocks exaggerated

Precambrian metamorphic

and igneous rocks

Deadwood

Inyan Kara Group

Thicknesses not to scale

Madison Limestone

Minnelusa

Minnekahta

Limestone

Cave

OTHER AQUIFER

CONFINING UNIT

EXPLANATION

Formation

Formation

Water

table

MADISON AND MINNELUSA

 AQUIFERS
Recharge Processes and General Methods for Quantifying Recharge 11

Department of Environment and Natural Resources has 

provided support and extensive technical assistance to 

the study. In addition, the authors acknowledge the 

technical assistance from many faculty and students at 

the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.

RECHARGE PROCESSES AND GENERAL 

METHODS FOR QUANTIFYING 

RECHARGE

This section describes processes affecting 

recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers and 

provides an overview of the general methods used to 

quantify recharge. An overview of previous investigations regarding recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa 

aquifers also is provided.

Previous Investigations

Numerous previous investigators have studied 

recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. Most 

of the previous investigations have focused on streamflow losses. Losses from local Black Hills streams to 

outcrops of various sedimentary formations were first 

noted by Dodge (1876), although it was then believed 

that most losses occurred to the Minnelusa Formation 

and overlying sandstone units (Newton and Jenney, 

1880). Streamflow losses for various Black Hills 

streams were estimated by Brown (1944), Crooks 

(1968), Rahn and Gries (1973), Peter (1985), and 

Greene (1997). The most comprehensive study of 

streamflow losses in the Black Hills area was by 

Hortness and Driscoll (1998), who documented losses 

for 24 streams based on extensive measurements and 

analyses of streamflow records.

Cox (1962) estimated recharge for the Minnelusa 

aquifer in the northern Black Hills as 2 inches from 

infiltration of precipitation. Minimum precipitation 

recharge for the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers was 

estimated by Rahn and Gries (1973) to range from 

0.6 in/yr in the southern Black Hills to 6.8 in/yr in the 

northern Black Hills. Peter (1985) estimated that 

between 1 and 2 inches of the annual precipitation 

becomes recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa 

aquifers in the Rapid City area. Annual recharge to the 

Madison aquifer on the western flanks of the Black 

Hills in the Limestone Plateau area was estimated to be 

6.8 inches (Downey, 1986).

Recharge Processes

As discussed, many previous investigations have 

addressed quantification of streamflow loss rates. 

These investigations have provided various insights 

regarding the processes affecting recharge to the 

Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. One very important 

factor is the potential for extremely large secondary 

porosity within these aquifers, which is evidenced by 

the large infiltration rates that are associated with dramatic streamflow losses that can be as large as tens of 

cubic feet per second for some stream reaches (Hortness and Driscoll, 1998). Large secondary porosity and 

associated infiltration rates also are consistent with the 

physical nature of both formations, which commonly 

have fractures and solution features in outcrop sections. 

The Madison Limestone is especially prone to solution 

openings, as exemplified by large caves such as Wind 

Cave and Jewel Cave, which are two of the largest 

caves in the world.

The fact that both the Madison and Minnelusa 

aquifers have large secondary porosity in some locations does not necessarily imply that infiltration rates 

will be uniformly large in all outcrop sections. Both 

aquifers are prone to large heterogeneity, or variability 

in aquifer characteristics (Cox, 1962; Greene, 1993; 

Greene and Rahn, 1995), as evidenced by the extremely 

large range in well yields that can occur. This is 

visually apparent in many locations in caves within the 

Madison Limestone, where rates of cave drip can be 

very small in the ceilings of man-size passageways 

(Wiles, 1992).

Rates of recharge resulting from infiltration of 

precipitation on outcrops can be highly affected by 

conditions in the soil horizon. Much of the precipitation that occurs is eventually returned to the atmosphere though evaporation and transpiration 

(evapotranspiration). Recharge can occur only when 

water infiltrates to sufficient depth to escape the root 

zone. Thus, recharge rates can be affected by infiltration rates, along with thicknesses and associated 

storage capacities of overlying soils, which can be 

highly variable.

A perspective on the infiltration capacity of the 

Madison and Minnelusa aquifers on a watershed scale 

can be obtained by examination of streamflow information for selected gaging stations. Duration hydrographs 

are presented in figure 6 for four streamflow-gaging 

stations (graphs B through E) that are located in or near 

the Limestone Plateau area, which is dominated by 

large outcrop areas of the Madison Limestone and 
12 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

Figure 6. Daily-duration hydrographs for selected gaging stations.

0.01

10,000

0.02

0.05

0.1

0.2

0.5

1

2

5

10

20

50

100

200

500

1,000

2,000

5,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

O N D J F M A M J J A S

MAXIMUM

75th PERCENTILE

MEDIAN

25th PERCENTILE

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

75th PERCENTILE

MEDIAN

25th PERCENTILE

MINIMUM

NOTE: Values plotted as 0.01 may include zero flow

A - Battle Creek near Keystone (06404000)

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

B - Rhoads Fork near Rochford (06408700)

WATER YEARS 1962-98

O N D J F M A M J J A S

WATER YEARS 1983-98

1

100

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

O N D J F M A M J J A S

MAXIMUM

75th PERCENTILE

MEDIAN

25th PERCENTILE

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

75th PERCENTILE

MEDIAN

25th PERCENTILE

MINIMUM

C - Castle Creek above Deerfield Reservoir, near Hill City

 (06409000)

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

D - Spearfish Creek near Lead (06430770)

WATER YEARS 1948-98

O N D J F M A M J J A S

WATER YEARS 1989-98

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

O N D J F M A M J J A S

MAXIMUM

75th PERCENTILE

MEDIAN

25th PERCENTILE

MINIMUM

E - Little Spearfish Creek near Lead (06430850)

WATER YEARS 1989-98

1

1,000

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

1

1,000

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

1

100

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70
Recharge Processes and General Methods for Quantifying Recharge 13

Minnelusa Formation (fig. 1). Locations of gaging 

stations are shown in figure 7. Flow at these sites is 

dominated by base flow originating from ground-water 

discharge from the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. 

For comparison, a duration hydrograph also is presented for a gaging station on Battle Creek (graph A in 

fig. 6), the drainage area of which is dominated by 

Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks. Flow in 

Battle Creek is highly variable and responsive to shortterm climatic conditions, indicating dominance from 

surface-water flow components relative to groundwater flow components. Additional discussions of 

differences in flow characteristics for different hydrogeologic settings were presented by Miller and Driscoll 

(1998).

An important observation from examination of 

the duration hydrographs is that direct surface runoff 

from outcrops of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation is very unusual. Surface runoff is 

virtually nonexistent for Rhoads Fork (graph B), for 

which the surface drainage area is comprised almost 

entirely of Madison Limestone outcrops. The entire 

range in variability in daily flow for this site falls easily 

within one order of magnitude, compared with a range 

spanning in excess of five orders of magnitude for 

Battle Creek. Increasingly larger components of 

surface runoff are apparent for graphs E, D, and C, 

respectively, which can be attributed to increasingly 

larger percentages of outcrops other than the Madison 

Limestone and Minnelusa Formation within these 

drainage basins (figs. 3 and 7).

The preceding discussions are used as the basis 

of an assumption that direct surface runoff from the 

Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation is 

almost nonexistent and can be neglected for many 

purposes associated with calculation of recharge to 

these aquifers. This assumption is very important in 

developing methods for quantification of recharge from 

direct precipitation, as discussed in the following 

section.

General Methods for Quantifying 

Recharge

Quantifying recharge to the Madison and 

Minnelusa aquifers requires methods for quantification 

of both streamflow recharge and precipitation recharge, 

as discussed in this section. Various considerations 

regarding areas and uncertainties associated with 

recharge estimates also are discussed.

Annual recharge estimates are made for water 

years 1931-98, which corresponds with a period for 

which precipitation records have been compiled for the 

Black Hills area (Driscoll, Hamade, and Kenner, 2000). 

All recharge estimates provided in this report are by 

water year, which represents the period from October 1 

through September 30, and all discussions of timeframes refer to water years, rather than calender years, 

unless noted otherwise.

Considerations Regarding Recharge Areas

Because outcrops of the Madison Limestone and 

Minnelusa Formation are not entirely continuous 

throughout the study area, quantifying precipitation 

recharge requires identification of outcrop areas where 

effective recharge occurs. Outcrops that are considered 

“isolated” from the regional ground-water flow system 

(erosional remnants) are identified in figure 7. 

Recharge that occurs in isolated outcrops does not 

directly join the regional ground-water flow system 

because these outcrops are not hydraulically connected 

to a regional aquifer. Thus, for subsequent calculations, precipitation recharge is prescribed only for the 

“connected” outcrops of the Madison Limestone and 

Minnelusa Formation. 

Subsequent calculations of streamflow recharge 

require determination of drainage areas contributing to 

streamflow loss zones that occur within outcrop areas 

of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation. 

For these calculations, isolated outcrops of the 

Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation are 

included as drainage areas contributing to loss zones. 

Direct runoff from the isolated outcrops probably is 

uncommon; however, these areas generally contribute 

base flow to streams upstream from loss zones. Several 

small basins upstream from loss zones contain minor 

connected outcrops that are subtracted from the 

drainage areas contributing to streamflow loss zones.

Isolated outcrop areas were determined from 

hydrogeologic and structure-contour maps of the study 

area (DeWitt and others, 1989; Carter and Redden, 

1999c, 1999d; Strobel and others, 1999) and are identified in figure 7. Outcrop areas generally are considered 

isolated where surrounded by outcrops of an older formation or by Tertiary intrusives because recharge 

would not be able to move laterally without eventually 

being discharged at the contact with the older formation or intrusive. An exception to this criterion is

that outcrops of the Minnelusa Formation that are 

surrounded by outcrops of the Madison Limestone are 

considered connected, rather than isolated.
14 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

Sundance

Newcastle

Pringle

Whitewood

Spearfish

Maurice

Savoy

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

Nemo

Central

City

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Roubaix

Keystone

Hayward

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Oral

Redwater

CreekSand

Creek

Cold

Springs

Inyan Kara

Creek

Creek

Creek

Stockade

Beaver

Beaver

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Creek

Lance

Creek

Creek

N Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche

Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Grace Cooli d ge

Angostura

Reservoir

Iron

Castl e Cr

N Fork Castle Cr

Canyon Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

BELLE

Creek

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Spokane

Lame Johnny

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Gulch

Gulch

Castle

Castle

Bear

Little

Creek

Gulch

H gi gins

Creek

Creek

Cr

Bottom False

Creek

Wind Cave

National Park

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak

x

CROOK CO

WESTON CO

NIOBRARA CO

104o 104o

30' 103o

30'

103o

44o30'

44o

43o30'

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYO

MING

SOUTH DAKOTA LIMESTONE

PLATEAU

06430850

06430770

06404000

06409000

06408700

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

SOUTH DAKOTA

WYOMING

Area

Shown

CONNECTED OUTCROP OF THE MADISON LIMESTONE--

 Area is considered in estimates of precipitation recharge

CONNECTED OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA FORMATION--

 Area is considered in estimates of precipitation recharge

ISOLATED OUTCROP OF THE MADISON LIMESTONE--

 Area is considered in estimates of streamflow recharge

ISOLATED OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA

 FORMATION--Area is considered in estimates

 of streamflow recharge

Figure 7. Connected and isolated outcrop areas of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation for recharge

considerations (geology modified from Strobel and others, 1999; DeWitt and others, 1989). Location of streamflowgaging stations for which duration hydrographs also are presented.

STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION--Number indicates

 station identification number
Recharge Processes and General Methods for Quantifying Recharge 15

Recharge estimates presented in this report 

consists of “regional recharge,” which refers to 

recharge to outcrops connected to the regional flow 

system. Precipitation recharge to isolated outcrops of 

the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation is 

excluded because most of this recharge is ultimately 

discharged as base flow to streams, which may be subsequently recharged in loss zones located farther downstream. The term “regional recharge” is used primarily 

because of considerations regarding large headwater 

springs located mainly along Rapid Creek and 

Spearfish Creek and recharged in the Limestone 

Plateau area (fig. 1). Some of this water from headwater springs also contributes to subsequent streamflow recharge farther downstream; however, two 

important distinctions exist between infiltration of 

precipitation on the Limestone Plateau area and on 

isolated outcrops. First, the water in the Limestone 

Plateau area is part of the regional flow system 

recharged in the continuous part of the formation outcrops prior to discharge at headwater springs; hence the 

term regional recharge. Second, much of the discharge 

from the headwater springs in Rapid Creek and 

Spearfish Creek does not necessarily contribute to subsequent streamflow recharge. Streamflow losses in 

these streams are small, relative to the drainage areas, 

and streamflow generated from other areas generally is 

sufficient to satisfy the loss thresholds.

Methods for Quantifying Streamflow Recharge

The Madison and Minnelusa aquifers receive 

relatively consistent recharge from area streams, which 

generally lose flow crossing the formation outcrops. 

During periods of base flow, most streams generally 

lose their entire flow as they cross these outcrops (loss 

zones), up to “threshold” rates that are unique for each 

stream. Hortness and Driscoll (1998) concluded that 

loss thresholds for individual streams generally are 

relatively constant, without measurable effects from 

flow rate or duration of flow through loss zones. Minor 

variability in apparent loss rates was attributed to 

localized springflow within loss reaches.

Estimates of streamflow recharge are based, 

when possible, on loss thresholds that were determined 

by Hortness and Driscoll (1998) for 24 area streams. 

This constitutes the majority of drainage areas that 

provide streamflow recharge to the Madison and 

Minnelusa aquifers. Some of the loss thresholds determined by Hortness and Driscoll (1998) were based on 

measurement sites that do not include the entire 

drainage area above the outcrops. Therefore, some of 

the thresholds are adjusted to account for additional, 

unmeasured flow from the additional minor drainage 

areas. Estimates of streamflow recharge exclude alluvial ground-water flow upstream from loss zones 

because alluvial flow could not be determined.

Some of the stream reaches measured by 

Hortness and Driscoll (1998) included outcrops of the 

Deadwood Formation or Minnekahta Limestone, primarily because of access considerations. Thus, some 

of the calculated loss thresholds may apply to these 

outcrops. Examination of additional information led to 

a conclusion by Hortness and Driscoll (1998) that 

losses to the Deadwood Formation generally are minimal. Losses to the Minnekahta Limestone were difficult to isolate from potential losses to extensive alluvial 

deposits that commonly occur near outcrops of the 

Minnekahta Limestone. For this report, all streamflow 

losses are assumed to recharge the Madison and 

Minnelusa aquifers, except those specifically identified 

by Hortness and Driscoll (1998) for other aquifers.

Estimates of streamflow recharge are developed 

for three types of drainage basins: (1) those with continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, (2) those 

with only miscellaneous-record measurement sites; 

and (3) those with no available measurements 

(ungaged). Loss thresholds have not been determined 

for the ungaged basins, but were available from 

Hortness and Driscoll (1998) for the other two types of 

basins.

For the basins with continuous-record gaging 

stations, daily mean flows are available, and loss 

threshold values can be used along with daily flow 

records to calculate recharge rates. The general method 

for calculating recharge rates follows: (1) if the daily 

mean flow measured at the gaging station was less than 

the loss threshold rate, daily recharge to the Madison 

and/or Minnelusa aquifers was equal to the measured 

flow; or (2) if the measured flow was greater than or 

equal to the loss threshold rate, daily recharge to the 

aquifers was equal to the threshold rate. Calculated 

daily losses were aggregated to provide estimates of 

annual recharge.

For some streams, Hortness and Driscoll (1998) 

were able to quantify individual loss thresholds to the 

Madison and Minnelusa aquifers; thus, individual and 

combined recharge to the aquifers can be determined. 

For stations for which individual loss thresholds had 

been determined, the loss threshold for the Madison 

aquifer is applied first to daily mean flows, and any 
16 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

flow greater than this threshold then is applied to the 

loss threshold for the Minnelusa aquifer. Combined 

recharge rates are equal to the sum of the individual 

recharge rates of the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers.

Flows from selected continuous-record gaging 

stations are used to estimate daily flows for streams 

with miscellaneous-record measurement sites. The 

daily flow estimates are based strictly on the ratio of the 

drainage area for each basin, relative to the drainage 

area for a representative continuous-record gage. Daily 

losses are calculated in the same fashion as those for 

the continuous-record gaging stations, and annual 

recharge again is computed by aggregating daily 

losses. 

The ungaged basins generally consist of small 

drainage areas with undetermined loss thresholds that 

are situated between larger basins for which loss 

thresholds have been determined. Hortness and 

Driscoll (1998) did not attempt to quantify loss thresholds for these small basins; however, field observations 

indicated that flow seldom occurs below the loss zone. 

Therefore, a simplifying assumption that 90 percent of 

runoff generated within these basins becomes recharge 

to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers is made for estimating recharge from ungaged streams. Annual flows 

for ungaged basins are estimated strictly from annual 

flows for representative continuous-record gages, again 

using drainage-area ratios. Because the ungaged basins 

contain outcrops of the Deadwood Formation, which 

would receive precipitation recharge to the Deadwood 

aquifer, streamflow recharge to the Madison and 

Minnelusa aquifers is overestimated slightly. However, 

this slight overestimation is assumed to be equal to the 

alluvial ground-water flow upstream from loss zones 

that could not be determined.

All of the continuous-record gages used for 

direct calculation of daily losses have daily records at 

least for water years 1992-98, with the oldest records 

dating to 1962. A variety of regression methods are 

used to estimate streamflow back to 1950 for calculation of streamflow recharge, which requires utilization 

of gages with longer records. Estimates of streamflow 

recharge are further extended to 1931 using correlations with estimates of precipitation recharge. Additional details are provided in subsequent sections. An 

evaluation of uncertainties associated with recharge 

estimates also is provided.

Methods for Quantifying Precipitation Recharge 

Recharge resulting from infiltration of direct precipitation can be a very difficult variable to quantify. 

Pan evaporation, which can be measured directly, 

might be useful in computing precipitation recharge. 

However, evaporation data are sparse and evaporation 

rates are quite variable in the study area, primarily 

because of differences in energy input resulting from 

differences in elevation and aspect (Wrage, 1994). 

Furthermore, pan evaporation exceeds precipitation for 

most parts of the Black Hills during all but the wettest 

years. Thus, evapotranspiration generally is limited by 

precipitation amounts and availability of soil moisture. 

Measured evapotranspiration rates of the Black Hills 

pine forest do not exist, and estimation of evapotranspiration generally involves extensive modeling efforts 

that require input of hourly climatic data (Fluke, 1996).

Development of the assumption that surface 

runoff from outcrops of the Madison Limestone and 

Minnelusa Formation is negligible (as discussed in a 

previous section) provides a simplified approach to 

quantifying precipitation recharge. By neglecting 

surface runoff, it can be assumed that all precipitation 

on outcrops of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa 

Formation that is not evapotranspired becomes 

recharge, as schematically illustrated in figure 8.

Streamflow in drainage basins within the crystalline core of the Black Hills area can be used as an indirect measure of evapotranspiration. This concept also 

is schematically illustrated in figure 8. A similar 

approach was used by Anderson (1980) in three watersheds in the Sturgis area. Recharge does occur to 

numerous localized aquifers in fractured crystalline 

rocks, especially where extensive weathering has 

occurred in outcrop areas. However, these aquifers are 

not regional, as indicated by the fact that wells constructed in Precambrian rocks in western South Dakota 

outside of the Black Hills have not encountered 

measurable amounts of ground water (Rahn, 1985). 

Therefore, regional ground-water flow in the crystalline rocks can reasonably be considered negligible.

Streamflow records are available for numerous 

drainage basins within the crystalline core area, which 

are appropriate for use in estimating basin yield. In the 

absence of a regional ground-water flow component, 

basin yield can be considered as the residual between 

precipitation and evapotranspiration, for periods sufficiently long to neglect change in storage. As discussed, 

localized aquifers are common in the fractured crystalline rocks, and streams draining these rocks generally 
Recharge Processes and General Methods for Quantifying Recharge 17

have at least some component of base flow that can be 

attributed to ground-water discharge. However, the 

relatively minor ground-water components in these 

areas primarily reflect changes in storage in the crystalline rocks. Thus, streamflow (or basin yield) effectively represents the entire quantity of water not lost 

through evapotranspiration, which for the crystalline 

areas consists predominantly of runoff with a minor 

ground-water component.

In this report, basin yields are first normalized, 

relative to drainage area, by expressing in inches per 

unit of drainage area. Yields are further converted to 

yield efficiencies, by dividing by precipitation on 

contributing drainage areas. Relations between yield 

efficiency and precipitation are identified, which are 

developed for use in generically estimating annual 

yield for given areas, based on average yield efficiency 

and annual precipitation. The resulting annual yield is 

used as a surrogate for estimating annual recharge from 

infiltration of precipitation on outcrop areas of the 

Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. Additional details 

are provided in subsequent sections.

Uncertainties Associated with Recharge Estimates

There are a large number of uncertainties associated with the recharge estimates provided in this report. 

Most of the uncertainties cannot be accurately evaluated because of unknowns associated with the variables 

involved and the broad assumptions necessary in estimating recharge. It is possible, however, to provide a 

sense of the relative level of uncertainty associated 

with most of the methods used. Following are preliminary discussions of uncertainties associated with some 

of these methods. Additional discussions are provided 

in subsequent sections, where additional details 

regarding methods or results are available.

Uncertainties for estimates of streamflow 

recharge for the continuous-record gages probably are 

small, relative to other uncertainties, because uncertainties associated with measured flow records and the 

determination of loss thresholds are relatively small. 

Estimates of streamflow recharge for 1992-98 are 

better than estimates for earlier periods because more 

continuous-record gaging stations were in operation. 

Additional uncertainties are introduced when flow estimates are based on flow records for other gages, which 

is done for continuous-record gages outside of the 

period of record, miscellaneous-record measurement 

sites, and ungaged basins. Estimates for ungaged 

basins have additional uncertainty associated with the 

assumption that 90 percent of streamflow in these 

ungaged areas becomes recharge. This additional 

uncertainty is not particularly critical, however, 

because the ungaged basins constitute less than 

10 percent of the drainage area contributing streamflow recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers, 

Figure 8. Schematic diagram illustrating recharge and streamflow characteristics for selected outcrop types.

PRECIPITATION

MADISON

AND

MINNELUSA

OUTCROPS

CRYSTALLINE

CORE

STREAMFLOW = 0

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

PRECIPITATION

RECHARGE

TO REGIONAL FLOW SYSTEM

RECHARGE

TO REGIONAL FLOW SYSTEM = 0

STREAMFLOW
18 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

compared with about 80 percent for basins with continuous flow records. The largest uncertainties for 

streamflow recharge estimates are for 1931-50, when 

estimates are based on correlations with estimates of 

precipitation recharge.

Uncertainties associated with estimates of precipitation recharge result from: (1) the methods used 

and associated assumptions, which may be large and 

cannot be quantified (additional discussions of these 

uncertainties will be provided later in the report); and 

(2) measurement of precipitation. Uncertainties 

become progressively larger for earlier periods due to 

sparser precipitation data.

The methods that are used for estimating precipitation recharge provide a consistent, systematic 

approach that is based on precipitation measurements 

that have a relatively small level of uncertainty. Minor 

uncertainty is associated with the spatial distribution of 

measured precipitation; however, the method used 

(Driscoll, Hamade, and Kenner, 2000) is consistent and 

systematic, and probably introduces little bias. Thus, 

errors associated with the spatial distribution of precipitation probably are random and tend to cancel out over 

time.

Large uncertainties are associated with the 

approach that is used for generically estimating annual 

basin yield and yield efficiency, along with the assumption that yield efficiency is a reasonable surrogate for 

estimating recharge rates for the Madison and 

Minnelusa aquifers. There also is considerable potential for systematic bias associated with this assumption. 

A likely source of bias is that precipitation recharge to 

the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers may be consistently underestimated. An inherent assumption associated with the approach is that the amount of water 

escaping the root zone in the outcrops of the Madison 

Limestone and Minnelusa Formation is similar to that 

escaping the root zone in lower permeability settings 

such as the Precambrian rocks, where the ground-water 

component of streamflow is relatively small. Because 

of the large secondary porosities associated with outcrops of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa 

Formation, it is likely that the amount of water 

escaping the root zone in these outcrops is larger than 

in other settings. Therefore, the recharge estimates 

presented in this report probably are conservative.

In general, the best recharge estimates are 

streamflow recharge values for 1992-98 that are calculated from measured loss thresholds and daily streamflow records for continuous-record gages. Estimates of 

streamflow recharge become progressively more 

uncertain for previous periods, as availability of 

streamflow records becomes sparser. The uncertainty 

associated with estimates of precipitation recharge 

generally is larger than for streamflow recharge. This 

does not necessarily imply that errors are large, but 

does recognize that potential for error is large. The 

uncertainty associated with estimates of precipitation 

recharge changes little over time and is influenced only 

by availability of precipitation measurement sites. 

Thus, uncertainties for combined recharge from 

streamflow and precipitation are subject to less change 

over time than estimates of streamflow recharge alone. 

Although recharge estimates are somewhat poorer for 

earlier periods, estimates for the 1930’s and 1950’s are 

especially important, because this is the driest period 

for which adequate precipitation data are available for 

hydrologic analysis.

As discussed, uncertainties associated with 

recharge estimates cannot be evaluated precisely at this 

time. Results of an initial water-budget analysis, which 

utilized the same general methods for estimation of 

recharge, were presented by Hamade (2000). These 

initial results indicate that recharge estimates are in a 

range that is compatible with other components of the 

water budget.

STREAMFLOW RECHARGE

Streamflow losses from area streams provide a 

consistent source of recharge to the Madison and 

Minnelusa aquifers. Streamflow records for 39 measurement sites (table 1 fig. 9) are considered in calculating streamflow recharge. One gage (06425500; 

site 22 in table 1) used in quantifying streamflow 

recharge is outside the study area and is shown in 

figure 1. Most of the gages are used for direct calculations of streamflow recharge. Several gages (sites 9, 

15, 19, 22, 27, 28, 31, and 35) are used only in statistical correlations for extending streamflow records.

The streamflow measurement sites are used to 

delineate 13 drainage basins with continuous-record 

gages and 19 basins with miscellaneous measurement 

sites (fig. 10). In addition, 23 ungaged basins are delineated. Basins with continuous-record gages account 

for 78 percent of the study area, and basins with 

miscellaneous-record measurement sites account for 

13 percent. The ungaged basins account for only 

9 percent of the study area.
Streamflow Recharge 19

N. Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche

Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Rhoads Fork

Coolidge

Angostura

Reservoir

Castl e Cr

N. Fork Castle Cr

Canyon

Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Stockade

Lake

Cox

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

Creek

Crow Creek

BELLE

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek

Cr

Little Spearfish

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Spring

Creek

Creek

Creek

Grace

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Bottom

False

Creek

Spokane

North

South

Reaves

Lame

Gulch

Fork

Fork

Flynn

Cr

Johnny

Higgins

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Squaw

Whitetail

Cr

Cr Cr

Gulch

Gulch

Annie

Iron

Cr

Iron Cr

Meadow Cr

Elk

Little

Creek

Castle

Castle

Creek

Creek

Bear Gulch

Sylvan

Lake

Morris

Creek

Whitewood

Spearfish

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Galena

Trojan

Tinton Central

City

Maurice

Savoy

Roubaix

Nemo

Vale

Hayward

Keystone

Pringle

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Rockerville

Oral

Wind Cave

National Park

Jewel Cave

National Monument

Mt. Rushmore National

Memorial

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak x

Ellsworth

Air Force

Base

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYOMING

SOUTH DAKOTA

104o 45' 103o

30'

15' 103o

30'

44o

45'

15'

44o

45'

30'

43o

15'

LIMESTONE

PLATEAU

32

24

30

33

23

25 26

34

21

38

39

17

12

13

4

3 5

6

2

37

16

14

7

8

10 11

1

18

20

36

29

9

15

35

27

28

19

31

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

OUTCROP OF THE MADISON

 LIMESTONE (from Strobel and

 others, 1999)

OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA

 FORMATION (from Strobel

 and others, 1999)

CONTINUOUS-RECORD

 STREAMFLOW-GAGING

 STATION--Number indicates

 site number on table 1

Figure 9. Location of gaging stations used to estimate streamflow recharge.

EXPLANATION

MISCELLANEOUS-RECORD

 MEASUREMENT SITE--

 Number indicates site number

 on table 1
20 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

 Table 1. Summary of selected site information for gaging stations used in determining streamflow recharge

[Type of station: C, continuous-record; M, miscellaneous-record. --, none used]

Site

number

Station

identification 

number

Station name

Latitude Longitude

Type of

station

Drainage 

area 

(square 

miles)

Period of 

record 

used 

(water 

years)

(degrees, minutes, 

seconds)

1 06402430 Beaver Creek near Pringle 43 34 53 103 28 34 C 45.8 1991-98

2 433532103284800 Reaves Gulch above Madison

outcrop, near Pringle

43 35 32 103 28 48 M 6.86 --

3 433745103261900 Highland Creek above Madison 

outcrop, near Pringle

43 37 45 103 26 19 M 8.69 --

4 433930103250000 South Fork Lame Johnny Creek above 

Madison outcrop, near Fairburn

43 39 30 103 25 00 M 4.34 --

5 433910103251000 Flynn Creek above Madison outcrop, 

near Fairburn

43 39 10 103 25 10 M 10.3 --

6 434105103240200 North Fork Lame Johnny Creek above 

Madison outcrop, near Fairburn

43 41 05 103 24 02 M 2.80 --

7 06403300 French Creek above Fairburn 43 43 02 103 22 03 C 105 1983-98

8 06404000 Battle Creek near Keystone 43 52 21 103 20 10 C 58.0 1962-98

9 06406000 Battle Creek at Hermosa 43 49 41 103 11 44 C1 178 1950-98

10 06404998 Grace Coolidge Creek near Game 

Lodge, near Custer

43 45 40 103 21 49 C 25.2 1977-98

11 06405800 Bear Gulch near Hayward 43 47 31 103 20 49 C 4.23 1990-98

12 434929103215700 Spokane Creek above Madison

outcrop, near Hayward

43 49 29 103 21 57 M 4.92 --

13 434800103174400 Spokane Creek below Madison

outcrop, near Hayward

43 48 00 103 17 44 M 3.76 --

14 06407500 Spring Creek near Keystone 43 58 45 103 20 25 C 163 1987-98

15 06408500 Spring Creek near Hermosa 43 56 31 103 09 32 C1 199 1950-98

16 06411500 Rapid Creek below Pactola Dam 44 04 36 103 28 54 C 320 1946-98

17 440105103230700 Victoria Creek below Victoria Dam, 

near Rapid City

44 01 05 103 23 07 M 6.82 --

18 06422500 Boxelder Creek near Nemo 44 08 38 103 27 16 C 96.0 1967-98

19 06423010 Boxelder Creek near Rapid City 44 07 54 103 17 54 C 128 1978-98

20 06424000 Elk Creek near Roubaix 44 17 41 103 35 47 C 21.5 1992-98

21 441614103253300 Elk Creek at Minnekahta outcrop,

near Tilford

44 16 14 103 25 33 M 23.8 --

22 06425500 Elk Creek near Elm Springs 44 14 54 102 30 10 C1 540 1950-98

23 441412103275600 Little Elk Creek below Dalton Lake, 

near Piedmont

44 14 12 103 27 56 M 11.39 --
Streamflow Recharge 21

24 06429920 Bear Gulch near Maurice 44 25 14 104 02 26 M 6.17 --

25 06430520 Beaver Creek near Maurice 44 22 57 104 00 13 M 6.86 --

26 442242103565400 Iron Creek below Sawmill Gulch,

near Savoy

44 22 42 103 56 54 M 8.16 --

27 06430800 Annie Creek near Lead 44 19 37 103 53 38 C1 3.55 1989-98

28 06430898 Squaw Creek near Spearfish 44 24 04 103 53 35 C1 6.95 1989-98

29 06430900 Spearfish Creek above Spearfish 44 24 06 103 53 40 C 139 1989-97

30 06430950 Spearfish Creek below Robison

Gulch, near Spearfish

44 26 14 103 52 32 M 8.44 --

31 06431500 Spearfish Creek at Spearfish 44 28 57 103 51 40 C 168 1947-98

32 442754103565000 Higgins Gulch below East Fork,

near Spearfish

44 27 54 103 56 50 M 12.55 --

33 442405103485100 False Bottom Creek above Madison 

outcrop, near Central City

44 24 05 103 48 51 M 5.55 --

34 06432180 False Bottom Creek (below Minnelusa 

outcrop) near Spearfish

44 27 09 103 48 22 M 8.91 --

35 06433000 Redwater River above Belle Fourche 44 40 02 103 50 20 C1 920 1946-98

36 06436170 Whitewood Creek at Deadwood 44 22 48 103 43 25 C 40.6 1981-95

37 06437020 Bear Butte Creek near Deadwood 44 20 08 103 38 06 C 16.6 1989-98

38 442337103350600 Bear Butte Creek at Boulder Park,

near Sturgis

44 23 37 103 35 06 M 32.23 --

39 442447103332800 Bear Butte Creek above Sturgis 44 24 47 103 33 28 M 5.59 --

1Continuous-record station used only for extension of streamflow records.

Table 1. Summary of selected site information for gaging stations used in determining streamflow recharge–Continued

[Type of station: C, continuous-record; M, miscellaneous-record. --, none used]

Site

number

Station

identification 

number

Station name

Latitude Longitude

Type of

station

Drainage 

area 

(square 

miles)

Period of 

record 

used 

(water 

years)

(degrees, minutes, 

seconds)
22 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

N. Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche

Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Rhoads Fork

Coolidge

Angostura

Reservoir

Castl e Cr

N. Fork Castle Cr

Canyon

Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Stockade

Lake

Cox

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

Creek

Crow

Creek

BELLE

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek Cr

Little Spearfish

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Spring

Creek

Creek

Creek

Grace

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Bottom

False

Creek

Spokane

North

South

Reaves

Lame

Gulch

Fork

Fork

Flynn

Cr

Johnny

Higgins

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Squaw

Whitetail

Cr

Cr Cr

Gulch

Gulch

Annie

Iron

Cr

Iron Cr

Meadow Cr

Elk

Little

Creek

Castle

Castle

Creek

Creek

Bear Gulch

Sylvan

Lake

Morris

Creek

Whitewood

Spearfish

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Galena

Trojan

Tinton Central

City

Maurice

Savoy

Roubaix

Nemo

Vale

Hayward

Keystone

Pringle

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Rockerville

Oral

Wind Cave

National Park

Jewel Cave

National Monument

Mt. Rushmore National

Memorial

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak x

Ellsworth

Air Force

Base

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYOMING

SOUTH DAKOTA

104o 45' 103o

30'

15' 103o

30'

44o

45'

15'

44o

45'

30'

 43o

15'

LIMESTONE

PLATEAU

29

36 37

20

16

14

8

7 10 11

1

18

16A

36A

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

25A

18A

17A

8A

30 34 24

33

26 25

21

23

17

13

6

5 4

2 3

39

38

12

32

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

OUTCROP OF THE MADISON

 LIMESTONE (from Strobel and

 others, 1999)

OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA

 FORMATION (from Strobel

 and others, 1999)

CONTINUOUS-RECORD

 STREAMFLOW-GAGING

 STATION

DRAINAGE BASIN WITH CON-

 TINUOUS-RECORD STREAM-

 FLOW-GAGING STATION--

 Number is basin number in

 table 2

DRAINAGE BASIN WITH MIS-

 CELLANEOUS-RECORD

 MEASUREMENT SITE--

 Number is basin number in

 table 2

DRAINAGE BASIN WITH NO

 AVAILABLE STREAMFLOW

 MEASUREMENTS (UNGAGED)

 --Number is basin number

Figure 10. Drainage basins for which streamflow recharge was estimated.

EXPLANATION

MISCELLANEOUS-RECORD

 MEASUREMENT SITE
Streamflow Recharge 23

Recharge from Gaged Streams

Gaged streams include basins with either continuous- or miscellaneous-record measurement sites. A 

summary of loss thresholds and drainage areas for 

gaged streams is provided in table 2. Loss threshold 

values for the gaged streams are from Hortness and 

Driscoll (1998), with the exception of six streams for 

which loss thresholds were adjusted (table 2), as previously described. Additional details regarding adjustment of loss thresholds are provided in subsequent 

discussions for individual streams. Loss threshold 

values denoted in table 2 with less than (<) or greater 

than (>) are not clearly defined, but are used in subsequent calculations without adjustment. Drainage areas 

are adjusted where applicable by subtracting any 

“connected” outcrop areas of the Madison Limestone 

and Minnelusa Formation, as previously described.

Continuous-Record Gaging Stations

Annual streamflow recharge is determined for 11 

of the 13 basins with continuous streamflow records 

(fig. 10). Basins 16 and 16A are considered together 

for recharge calculations. Losses are not calculated for 

Whitewood Creek (basin 36) because the loss 

threshold is considered negligible (Hortness and 

Driscoll, 1998). Recharge calculations for five of the 

continuous-record basins (Battle, Boxelder, Elk, 

Spearfish, and Bear Butte Creeks) involve consideration of four miscellaneous-record basins (numbers 21, 

30, 38, and 39) and two ungaged basins (numbers 8A 

and 18A). Thus, these six basins will not be included 

in subsequent sections addressing miscellaneousrecord sites and ungaged streams.

Calculated Streamflow Recharge

Daily recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa 

aquifers is calculated using available records of daily 

flow for 11 continuous-record gages along with 

measured loss thresholds for these streams, using the 

general methods previously described. The daily 

recharge rates are aggregated to yield annual rates for 

each year of record. Details of recharge calculations 

follow, with results for all 11 streams summarized later 

in this section.

Beaver Creek (basin 1) and French Creek 

(basin 7) require no adjustments to drainage areas or 

loss thresholds (table 2). Individual losses to the 

Madison and Minnelusa are calculated for French 

Creek because individual loss thresholds have been 

determined. For Beaver Creek, an estimated average 

flow of 0.2 ft3

/s is used for the entire month of October 

1992 because a complete record was not available.

The loss threshold for Battle Creek (basin 8) is 

adjusted (table 2) to include runoff generated in an 

ungaged tributary (basin 8A) using a drainage-area 

ratio of 1.1. This ratio is used to adjust measured flows 

reported by Hortness and Driscoll (1998) for site 8, 

which is used to adjust the loss threshold. The ratio 

also is used to generate a synthetic record of daily mean 

flows for site 8 that accounts for the increased drainage 

area. 

No adjustments are needed for Grace Coolidge 

Creek (basin 10). Individual recharge rates are calculated for the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers for this 

basin.

The gaging station for Bear Gulch (basin 11) is 

located downstream of the loss zone and any flow 

measured at this gaging station must be flow that 

exceeded the loss threshold value of 0.4 ft3/s. For days 

of zero flow, it is not known how much flow, if any, is 

recharge to the Madison aquifer. Thus, for calculation 

purposes, recharge is assumed equal to one-half the 

loss threshold, or 0.2 ft3/s. For days with measured 

flow (greater than 0), the calculated recharge to the 

Madison aquifer is 0.4 ft3

/s.

Hortness and Driscoll (1998) concluded that 

sealing efforts along Spring Creek (basin 14) probably 

succeeded in reducing losses, based on reports by 

Powell (1940). Information regarding possible 

changes in loss rates is extremely sparse; thus, individual loss rates reported by Hortness and Driscoll 

(1998) for the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers are 

used for all calculations. This may result in overestimation of actual recharge for some years.

The Rapid Creek drainage is divided into two 

basins (fig. 10). Basin 16A is located downstream 

from site 16 (fig. 9), which measures releases from 

Pactola Dam. Releases generally are larger than the 

loss threshold of 10 ft3/s; therefore, tributary inflows 

generally are inconsequential. From 1947 through 

1998, the flow below Pactola Dam was less than the 

loss threshold only about 7 percent of the time (1,278 

days out of 18,993 days). During periods of low flow, 

minimal tributary inflows would be expected; thus, 

inflows from basin 16A are neglected in calculating 

recharge from Rapid Creek.
24 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

Table 2. Summary of loss thresholds and associated drainage areas of selected streams

[Associated station type: C, continuous-record; M, miscellaneous-record; UG, ungaged. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; >, greater than;

<, less than; e, estimated; --, none used; ND, not determined; NA, not applicable]

Basin 

number Stream name Associated station type

Drainage 

area

(mi2)

Adjusted 

drainage 

area1

(mi2)

Loss 

threshold2

(ft3/s)

Adjusted 

loss 

threshold 

(ft3/s)

Aquifers potentially receiving 

recharge

1 Beaver Creek C 45.8 -- 5 -- Madison, Minnelusa, Minnekahta

2 Reaves Gulch M 6.86 -- >0.2 -- Madison

3 Highland Creek M 8.69 -- e10 -- Madison, Minnelusa, Minnekahta

4 South Fork Lame 

Johnny Creek

M 4.34 -- 1.4 -- Madison, Minnelusa

5 Flynn Creek M 10.3 -- (3)

6 North Fork Lame 

Johnny Creek

M 2.80 -- 2.3 -- Deadwood, Madison

7 French Creek C 105 -- 11

4

-- Madison

Minnelusa

8 Battle Creek C 58 -- 12 14 Madison

8A Battle Creek 

tributary

UG 6.59 5.33 (

3)

10 Grace Coolidge 

Creek

C 25.2 -- 18

3

-- Madison

Minnelusa

11 Bear Gulch C 4.23 -- .4 -- Deadwood, Madison, 

White River Group

12 Spokane Creek M 4.92 -- 2.2 3.7 Deadwood, Madison,

Minnelusa, Minnekahta 13 Spokane Creek M 3.76 2.52 (

3

)

14 Spring Creek C 163 -- 21

3.5

-- Madison

Minnelusa

16 Rapid Creek C 320 -- 10 -- Deadwood, Madison, Minnelusa

16A Rapid Creek C 33.33 -- (

3)

17 Victoria Creek M 6.82 -- 1 2.1 Deadwood, Madison

17A Victoria Creek UG 5.33 4.27 (

3

)

18 Boxelder Creek C 96 90 >25

<20

-- Madison

Minnelusa

18A Boxelder Creek 

tributary

UG 13.3 -- (

3)

20 Elk Creek C 21.5 -- 11

8

-- Madison

Minnelusa

21 Elk Creek M 23.8 12.1 (

3)

23 Little Elk Creek M 12.56 -- 0.7

2.6

-- Madison

Minnelusa

24 Bear Gulch M 6.17 -- 4 -- Deadwood, Madison, Minnelusa 

25 Beaver Creek M 6.86 -- 9 13 Deadwood, Madison, Minnelusa, 

Minnekahta 25A Beaver Creek UG 2.90 2.15 ND

26 Iron Creek M 8.16 -- 0 -- NA
Streamflow Recharge 25

29 Spearfish Creek C 139 -- 42 -- Madison, Minnelusa

30 Spearfish Creek M 8.44 -- 521 -- Madison, Minnelusa

32 Higgins Gulch M 12.55 -- 0 -- NA

33 False Bottom Creek M 5.55 -- 1.4

7.3

2.9

15.1

Madison

Minnelusa

34 False Bottom Creek M 8.91 4.92 ND

36 Whitewood Creek C 40.6 -- 0 -- NA

36A Whitewood Creek UG 5.15 --

37 Bear Butte Creek C 16.6 -- 3.8

4.1

-- Madison

Minnelusa

38 Bear Butte Creek M 32.23 19.2

39 Bear Butte Creek M 5.59 3.33 4.2 Minnelusa

1

Outcrop areas of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation that are considered to contribute to the regional basin were subtracted. 2

From Hortness and Driscoll, 1998.

3Basin has common loss zone with preceding basin; same loss thresholds and aquifers apply.

4Loss within diversion aqueduct.

5

Threshold loss when flow in Spearfish Creek exceeds the estimated capacity of the diversion aqueduct (115 to 135 ft3/s).

Table 2. Summary of loss thresholds and associated drainage areas of selected streams–Continued

[Associated station type: C, continuous-record; M, miscellaneous-record; UG, ungaged. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles; >, greater than;

<, less than; e, estimated; --, none used; ND, not determined; NA, not applicable]

Basin 

number Stream name Associated station type

Drainage 

area

(mi2)

Adjusted 

drainage 

area1

(mi2)

Loss 

threshold2

(ft3/s)

Adjusted 

loss 

threshold 

(ft3/s)

Aquifers potentially receiving 

recharge

Recharge calculations from Boxelder Creek 

(basin 18) are complicated by tributary inflows from 

basin 18A, springflow that occurs within the loss zone, 

and an isolated outcrop of the Madison Limestone that 

occurs within the reach largely underlain by the 

Minnelusa Formation. Hortness and Driscoll (1998) 

estimated the loss threshold to be greater than 25 ft3/s 

for the Madison aquifer and probably less than 20 ft3

/s 

for the Minnelusa aquifer because recharge that may 

occur to the isolated outcrop of the Madison Limestone 

cannot be quantified. Calculations of the combined 

recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers 

probably are more accurate than the individual 

recharge estimates. 

Daily mean flows for site 18 (Boxelder Creek 

near Nemo) are used to generate a synthetic record of 

daily mean flows that accounts for runoff generated in 

the ungaged area that is tributary to Boxelder Creek 

(basin 18A), using a drainage-area ratio of 1.1. This 

synthetic record is used to estimate individual and combined recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers.

Inflows to Elk Creek from tributaries in basin 21, 

which are located downstream from site 20, are not 

included in the measured flow at site 20; however, 

these tributaries were considered by Hortness and 

Driscoll (1998) in determining the loss threshold. The 

contribution of the tributaries is estimated using a 

drainage-area ratio of 1.56, which is the sum of the 

adjusted drainage areas for sites 20 and 21, divided by 

the drainage area for site 20. Individual losses to the 

Madison and Minnelusa aquifers are calculated.

Calculation of recharge from Spearfish Creek is 

complicated by a hydroelectric diversion installed by 

Homestake Mining Company in 1910 (Blackstone, 

1914). An aqueduct diverts flow from a diversion dam 

located just downstream from site 29 (fig. 9). Flow is 

returned to Spearfish Creek at a hydroelectric plant 

located just upstream from site 31. The aqueduct 

bypasses the loss zone along Spearfish Creek, which is 

located between sites 30 and 31. The maximum 

capacity of the aqueduct diversion was estimated by 

Hortness and Driscoll (1998) to be between 115 to 

135 ft3/s. Above this threshold, excess flows are 
26 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

carried to the loss zone along the natural channel of 

Spearfish Creek, which has a loss threshold of 21 ft3/s 

(table 2). A transmission loss of approximately 2 ft3

/s, 

which is assumed to recharge the Madison and 

Minnelusa aquifers, occurs in the aqueduct (Hortness 

and Driscoll, 1998).

In calculating recharge from Spearfish Creek, a 

constant transmission loss of 2 ft3/s in the aqueduct is 

assumed. Routine losses also occur in the natural 

channel from tributary inflows and springflow in the 

reach between sites 29 and 30 (basin 30). Numerous 

miscellaneous flow measurements are available for 

site 30, which are used to develop a synthetic daily 

record, based on correlations with daily flow records 

for site 29. A linear regression analysis using 

measured values for site 30 for 1988-97 yielded a poor 

R2 (coefficient of determination) value (R2=0.35), but 

performed well for predicting low to moderate flows. 

A second regression was performed using only the 

period 1988-93, which was dominated by low to 

moderate flows. The second regression equation was 

similar to the first, but the resulting R2 value was much 

higher (R2=0.84). Because the flows at site 30 only are 

important during low to moderate flows, the second 

equation [Flow (site 30) = 0.0916*Flow(site 29) - 

0.79] is used to generate a synthetic record from 

1950-98 using daily mean flows at site 29.

Additional recharge occurs in the natural channel 

when the flow of Spearfish Creek exceeds the estimated maximum diversion of 115 to 135 ft3

/s. Daily 

flow values for site 31 are adjusted for the transmission 

loss (2 ft3/s) and natural-channel loss (21 ft3/s), as 

necessary, for computing daily losses. When the flow 

at site 31 is less than 113 ft3/s, it is assumed that the 

flow upstream of the aqueduct diversion is less than 

115 ft3

/s, with no flow bypassing the diversion. When 

flow exceeds 133 ft3/s, it is assumed that flow upstream 

of the aqueduct diversion is greater than 156 ft3

/s and 

has exceeded the capacity of the aqueduct and the loss 

threshold of the natural channel; thus, calculated 

recharge is 21 ft3

/s in the natural channel. When the 

flow is between 113 and 133 ft3/s, it is assumed that the 

flow upstream has exceeded the capacity of the aqueduct but has not exceeded the loss threshold. For these 

cases, it is estimated that one-half the loss threshold, or 

10.5 ft3/s, is recharged in the natural channel. 

Inflows to Bear Butte Creek from major tributaries in basins 38 and 39, which are located downstream from site 37, are not included in the measured 

flow at site 37. Tributaries were considered, however, 

by Hortness and Driscoll (1998) in determining loss 

thresholds to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. 

Thus, no adjustments are made to the loss thresholds 

(table 2); however, contributions of tributaries within 

basins 38 and 39 are accounted for in estimating 

streamflow recharge within the Bear Butte Creek 

Basin. Basin 38 consists of outcrops of the Madison 

Limestone and Minnelusa Formation, intermixed with 

various other outcrops. Thus, it is assumed that 

90 percent of flow generated within this basin would be 

streamflow recharge, which is assumed to be equally 

divided between the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. 

The contribution for basin 39 is attributed entirely to 

the Minnelusa aquifer. The contributions of the tributaries within basins 38 and 39 are estimated using 

drainage-area ratios. Adjusted drainage areas for both 

basins are divided by the drainage area of basin 37, 

which yields 1.16 for basin 38 and 0.20 for basin 39. 

These values then are multiplied by the daily mean 

flow for site 37 to generate a synthetic record of daily 

mean flows for the entire period of record for both 

basin 38 and basin 39.

Annual recharge rates for the 11 streams with 

continuous-record gaging stations are summarized in 

table 3, which is ordered by length of available streamflow record for subsequent analyses. The shaded cells 

in table 3 indicate years for which recharge can be 

calculated directly from daily flow records, which 

includes at least 1992-98 for all 11 streams. Estimates 

for periods without daily records also are presented in 

table 3 (unshaded cells); methods used for deriving the 

estimates are described in a subsequent section 

(Extrapolation of Streamflow Recharge Estimates). 

Table 3 also provides a subtotal of annual recharge 

from 9 of the streams that have minimal effects from 

regulation, along with the total for all 11 streams. 

Annual recharge for the streams with 

continuous-record gaging stations is highly variable. 

For example, calculated recharge in 1997 is over three 

times greater than in 1992 (table 3). The proportions of 

annual streamflow recharge contributed by each of the 

nine individual streams with minimal regulation, relative to the subtotal for these nine streams, is fairly 

uniform, however, as shown in table 4. Rapid Creek 

and Spearfish Creek, which are subject to substantial 

regulation, are excluded from that analysis. Annual 

recharge rates for Rapid Creek and Spearfish Creek are 

quite consistent relative to other basins (table 3),

which would indicate large variability in percentage 

contribution for these two streams.
Streamflow Recharge 27

Table 3. Annual recharge for basins with continuous-record stations, water years 1950-98[Shaded cells show calculated values for period of daily flow record. Unshaded cells show values derived from extrapolation of streamflow recharge estimates. --, not determined]

Water

year

Annual recharge (cubic feet per second)

Rapid Creek

(basins 16 

and 16A)

Spearfish 

Creek

(basins 29 

and 30)

Battle Creek

(basins 8 

and 8A)

Boxelder 

Creek

(basins 18 

and 18A)

Grace 

Coolidge 

Creek 

(basin 10)

French 

Creek 

(basin 7)

Spring 

Creek 

(basin 14)

Bear Butte 

Creek

(basins 37, 

38, 39)

Bear 

Gulch 

(basin 11)

Beaver 

Creek

(basin 1)

Elk Creek 

(basins 20 

and 21)

Subtotal1 Total2

1950 10.00 5.14 3.50 9.89 2.22 4.22 6.33 8.62 0.36 1.74 7.62 44.50 59.64

1951 9.96 4.65 3.36 8.14 2.34 3.87 5.91 7.72 .35 1.22 7.06 39.96 54.571952 9.98 5.58 5.01 12.70 3.97 5.05 18.95 9.61 .33 .81 7.26 63.67 79.231953 10.00 5.83 3.84 11.46 2.27 4.33 11.93 8.79 .36 1.81 7.72 52.51 68.341954 10.00 4.84 3.01 7.19 1.80 3.31 2.22 7.47 .35 1.17 6.79 33.32 48.161955 10.00 5.48 2.87 7.28 1.71 3.53 0.00 7.80 .36 1.51 7.15 32.21 47.691956 9.97 4.71 3.06 6.60 1.98 3.21 3.74 7.00 .34 .86 6.51 33.29 47.971957 9.02 4.95 5.50 12.90 4.98 5.64 19.99 10.15 .31 .39 7.19 67.05 81.021958 8.65 4.81 3.44 7.60 2.48 3.63 6.41 7.48 .33 .81 6.65 38.83 52.291959 9.45 4.38 3.01 5.39 1.93 2.64 4.74 6.21 .32 .29 5.82 30.35 44.181960 8.71 4.08 2.97 5.55 1.82 2.63 4.58 6.25 .33 .40 5.90 30.41 43.201961 9.67 3.70 2.87 4.39 1.72 2.14 4.70 5.56 .31 .00 5.34 27.04 40.411962 7.82 4.78 4.43 16.39 4.54 6.36 16.78 12.49 .35 1.64 8.47 71.45 84.051963 7.78 6.45 6.61 13.56 4.10 6.07 4.94 12.21 .35 1.80 8.47 58.12 72.351964 10.00 6.64 5.61 11.78 2.59 5.17 4.68 10.11 .38 2.39 8.53 51.24 67.881965 10.00 8.19 5.79 21.06 5.53 8.58 7.59 17.16 .38 3.07 10.53 79.70 97.89

1966 10.00 6.56 3.94 12.22 2.31 4.85 9.11 9.59 .38 2.34 8.35 53.08 69.64

1967 10.00 6.44 5.18 18.13 4.33 7.05 11.54 11.91 .35 1.72 7.75 67.97 84.411968 10.00 5.84 3.84 9.57 2.97 4.22 7.28 9.04 .32 .27 6.05 43.57 59.411969 9.99 6.15 3.11 9.18 2.33 3.81 6.21 7.47 .32 .20 5.12 37.76 53.901970 10.00 8.26 3.89 16.76 3.18 6.14 9.45 9.14 .35 1.49 6.11 56.50 74.761971 10.00 8.02 5.01 19.21 4.21 7.27 11.64 11.55 .35 1.90 7.54 68.68 86.701972 9.86 8.01 5.59 18.18 4.68 7.24 12.08 12.78 .35 1.73 8.26 70.89 88.761973 10.00 8.72 5.56 16.79 4.63 6.86 11.64 12.73 .35 1.49 8.23 68.29 87.011974 10.00 6.63 1.81 6.58 1.15 2.57 3.76 4.69 .31 .00 3.48 24.35 40.98
28 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming 1975 9.99 6.55 3.67 14.89 2.95 5.55 8.62 8.67 0.34 1.17 5.83 51.69 68.23 1976 10.00 6.59 5.16 15.18 4.25 6.27 10.65 11.87 .34 1.22 7.73 62.67 79.26 1977 10.00 6.72 2.93 14.73 1.27 5.20 7.60 7.08 .34 1.14 4.89 45.18 61.90 1978 9.99 7.67 4.46 15.84 3.90 6.14 9.93 10.37 .34 1.33 6.83 59.14 76.80 1979 10.00 6.28 4.13 8.79 3.66 4.14 7.42 9.65 .32 .13 6.41 44.64 60.92 1980 10.00 5.59 2.72 5.94 1.17 2.79 4.76 6.65 .31 .00 4.63 28.98 44.57 1981 10.00 5.03 3.01 4.55 2.45 2.54 4.71 7.25 .31 .00 4.99 29.80 44.83 1982 9.90 6.30 4.14 10.14 3.89 4.50 7.84 9.69 .32 .36 6.43 47.32 63.52 1983 10.00 7.82 3.81 21.64 2.48 7.05 10.78 8.97 .36 2.31 6.01 63.42 81.24 1984 10.00 8.03 4.89 19.63 3.97 6.86 11.60 11.28 .36 1.97 7.37 67.92 85.95 1985 10.00 5.48 1.22 7.17 .82 3.53 3.16 3.42 .31 .00 2.73 22.36 37.84 1986 10.00 5.65 4.32 13.10 2.03 3.63 8.94 10.07 .33 .87 6.66 49.97 65.62 1987 10.00 4.83 6.22 10.92 3.49 5.50 10.64 14.15 .33 .50 9.07 60.82 75.65 1988 10.00 4.92 .76 5.07 .61 2.11 1.80 2.44 .31 .00 2.15 15.25 30.17 1989 10.00 5.03 .89 4.19 1.20 1.02 .98 5.56 .30 .00 2.31 16.46 31.49 1990 10.00 5.04 5.09 6.18 3.40 3.65 6.76 6.76 .33 .00 7.63 39.80 54.84 1991 9.99 4.94 5.15 11.21 4.92 5.63 10.92 11.25 .29 .23 7.71 57.32 72.25 1992 10.00 4.78 3.72 7.57 2.98 4.48 7.46 5.03 .32 .33 4.67 36.55 51.33 1993 10.00 5.26 6.66 18.05 7.12 7.26 13.35 12.76 .34 .76 8.36 74.66 89.92 1994 10.00 6.78 5.21 17.53 3.27 6.02 11.63 14.24 .35 1.35 9.15 68.75 85.53 1995 10.00 8.56 6.17 21.09 7.20 8.91 13.64 21.52 .36 2.77 10.04 91.70 110.26 1996 10.00 9.20 8.10 25.55 6.45 10.92 18.02 18.12 .39 3.98 11.52 103.07 122.27 1997 10.00 10.92 10.50 34.08 9.31 13.07 22.15 25.60 .39 3.89 13.91 132.89 153.81

1998 10.00 9.59 8.26 28.30 7.57 12.12 18.89 15.27 .39 3.56 12.25 106.61 126.20

1Subtotal for nine basins with minimal regulation (excludes Rapid and Spearfish Creeks). Individual values may not sum to subtotal due to independent rounding. 2Total for all basins. Individual values may not sum to total due to independent rounding.

Table 3. Annual recharge for basins with continuous-record stations, water years 1950-98

–Continued

[Shaded cells show calculated values for period of daily flow record. Unshaded cells show values derived from extrapolation of streamflow recharge estimates. --, not determined]

Water

year

Annual recharge (cubic feet per second)

Rapid Creek

(basins 16 

and 16A)

Spearfish 

Creek

(basins 29 

and 30)

Battle Creek

(basins 8 

and 8A)

Boxelder 

Creek

(basins 18 

and 18A)

Grace 

Coolidge 

Creek 

(basin 10)

French 

Creek 

(basin 7)

Spring 

Creek 

(basin 14)

Bear Butte 

Creek

(basins 37, 

38, 39)

Bear 

Gulch 

(basin 11)

Beaver 

Creek

(basin 1)

Elk Creek 

(basins 20 

and 21)

Subtotal1 Total2
Streamflow Recharge 29

Table 4. Calculated percentages of annual streamflow recharge for nine streams with minimal regulation,

water years 1992-98

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; --, not determined]

Water

year

Percent of subtotal of annual recharge1

Subtotal of 

annual 

recharge2

(ft3/s)

Battle 

Creek

(basins 8 

and 8A)

Boxelder 

Creek

(basins 18 

and 18A)

Grace 

Coolidge 

Creek 

(basin 10)

French 

Creek 

(basin 7)

Spring 

Creek 

(basin 14)

Bear Butte 

Creek

(basins 37, 

38, 39)

Bear 

Gulch 

(basin 11)

Beaver 

Creek

(basin 1)

Elk Creek 

(basins 20 

and 21)

1992 10.17 20.71 8.15 12.27 20.40 13.77 0.88 0.89 12.77 36.55

1993 8.92 24.17 9.54 9.73 17.87 17.10 .46 1.02 11.19 74.66

1994 7.58 25.51 4.75 8.75 16.92 20.72 .51 1.96 13.31 68.75

1995 6.73 23.00 7.86 9.72 14.88 23.47 .39 3.02 10.94 91.70

1996 7.86 24.79 6.26 10.60 17.49 17.58 .38 3.86 11.18 103.07

1997 7.90 25.64 7.01 9.83 16.66 19.26 .29 2.93 10.47 132.89

1998 7.75 26.54 7.10 11.37 17.72 14.32 .37 3.34 11.49 106.61

Average 8.13 24.34 7.24 10.32 17.42 18.03 0.47 2.43 11.62 --

1Individual values may not sum to 100 percent because of independent rounding.

2

Subtotals taken from table 3.

Individual threshold values available for the 

Madison and Minnelusa aquifers were available for six 

streams (French, Grace Coolidge, Spring, Boxelder, 

Elk, and Bear Butte Creeks). Annual recharge rates, by 

aquifer, are summarized for these streams in table 5.

Extrapolation of Streamflow Recharge Estimates

Calculated streamflow recharge for 1992-98 is 

not representative of the long-term average because of 

above-average precipitation during this period 

(Driscoll, Hamade, and Kenner, 2000). To determine 

an unbiased average, estimates of recharge over an 

extended period that includes both above- and belowaverage precipitation conditions are needed. A record 

extending back to the 1950’s would include these conditions. However, only the records from Rapid Creek 

and Spearfish Creek extend back to 1950, and the 

majority of the records do not extend prior to the late 

1980’s (table 1). This section describes methods used 

to extrapolate recharge estimates back to 1950 for 

streams with continuous-record gaging stations.

Of the unregulated streams with continuousrecord gages (excluding Rapid Creek and Spearfish 

Creek), Battle Creek and Boxelder Creek have the 

longest periods of record. Single and multiple linear 

regression analyses were performed, using annual 

recharge from Battle Creek and Boxelder Creek as 

possible explanatory variables for annual recharge 

from the other seven streams (data presented in 

table 3). The best regression equation with either one 

or both explanatory variables was selected based on the 

R2 values and statistical significance of the explanatory 

variables. Results of the multiple/single regression 

analyses are summarized in table 6, with resulting R2

values ranging from 0.69 to 0.99. The equations determined by the multiple/single regression (table 6) were 

used to extrapolate recharge for the streams with 

continuous-record gages for years without streamflow 

records for 1967-91.

The preceding regressions provided satisfactory 

estimates for missing values during 1967-91. Another 

method was needed, however, to estimate recharge for 

1950-66. Several gaging stations in the Black Hills 

area that are located downstream of loss zones have 

continuous records of flow dating back to at least 1950 

(Miller and Driscoll, 1998). Four gaging stations 

(table 1) were selected as possible representative indicators of flow for the nine gages with no records for 

1950-67. Locations of Battle Creek at Hermosa 

(site 9), Spring Creek near Hermosa (site 15), and 

Redwater River above Belle Fourche (site 35) are 

shown in figure 9. The location of Elk Creek near Elm 

Springs (site 22; 06425500) is shown in figure 1. 
30 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming Table 5. Annual recharge, by aquifer, for streams with continuous-record stations, water years 1967-98 [--, not determined] Water year Annual recharge1 (cubic feet per second) French Creek (basin 7) Grace Coolidge Creek (basin 10) Spring Creek (basin 14) Boxelder Creek2 (basins 18 and 18A) Elk Creek (basins 20 and 21) Bear Butte Creek (basins 37, 38, and 39) Madison Minnelusa Madison Minnelusa Madison Minnelusa Madison Minnelusa Madison Minnelusa Madison Minnelusa 1967 -- -- -- -- -- -- 13.96 4.17 -- -- -- -- 1968 -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.50 .07 -- -- -- -- 1969 -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.60 .59 -- -- -- -- 1970 -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.40 4.36 -- -- -- -- 1971 -- -- -- -- -- -- 14.21 4.99 -- -- -- -- 1972 -- -- -- -- -- -- 14.48 3.70 -- -- -- -- 1973 -- -- -- -- -- -- 13.82 2.97 -- -- -- -- 1974 -- -- -- -- -- -- 6.58 .00 -- -- -- -- 1975 -- -- -- -- -- -- 11.05 3.84 -- -- -- -- 1976 -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.95 2.23 -- -- -- -- 1977 -- -- 1.27 0.00 -- -- 12.09 2.65 -- -- -- -- 1978 -- -- 3.66 .24 -- -- 12.89 2.95 -- -- -- -- 1979 -- -- 3.52 .14 -- -- 8.74 .05 -- -- -- -- 1980 -- -- 1.17 .00 -- -- 5.93 .01 -- -- -- -- 1981 -- -- 2.36 .08 -- -- 4.55 .00 -- -- -- -- 1982 -- -- 3.76 .13 -- -- 8.66 1.48 -- -- -- -- 1983 6.47 0.59 2.49 .00 -- -- 17.18 4.45 -- -- -- -- 1984 5.82 1.05 3.85 .11 -- -- 14.94 4.69 -- -- -- -- 1985 3.50 .03 .82 .00 -- -- 6.97 .20 -- -- -- -- 1986 3.44 .19 2.03 .00 -- -- 11.38 1.72 -- -- -- -- 1987 5.01 .50 3.49 .00 9.94 0.71 10.10 .82 -- -- -- -- 1988 1.95 .16 .60 .01 1.80 .00 5.05 .02 -- -- -- -- 1989 1.02 .00 1.18 .02 .98 .01 4.18 .00 -- -- 3.19 2.37 1990 3.21 .44 3.31 .09 6.28 .48 6.18 .00 -- -- 3.64 3.12 1991 4.85 .79 4.60 .32 9.97 .96 9.05 2.17 -- -- 5.65 5.60 1992 4.34 .14 2.98 .00 7.45 .01 7.57 .00 4.61 .06 3.07 1.96 1993 6.02 1.24 6.82 .30 11.99 1.36 13.41 4.64 5.97 2.38 6.22 6.54 1994 5.36 .65 3.27 .00 11.07 .56 13.75 3.78 6.95 2.20 7.23 7.01 1995 7.28 1.63 6.76 .44 12.56 1.08 15.72 5.37 7.91 2.13 10.87 10.65 1996 9.25 1.67 6.27 .19 16.72 1.31 19.00 6.55 8.87 2.65 9.09 9.03

1997 10.39 2.68 8.99 .32 19.72 2.43 22.60 11.48 9.96 3.95 12.60 13.01

1998 9.98 2.14 7.42 .15 16.67 2.22 21.07 7.23 8.97 3.28 7.66 7.61 1Individual recharge estimates may not sum exactly to combined estimates in table 3 due to independent rounding.

2Individual recharge estimates probably are not as accurate as combined recharge estimates.
Streamflow Recharge 31

Table 6. Regression equations used to estimate average annual streamflow recharge for nine streams with continuous-record stations[--, not used; all regressions performed using units of cubic feet per second]

Stream

Recharge regression1 (1967-91) Streamflow regression2 (1950-66)

Intercept

BattleCreek

coefficient

 Boxelder 

Creek

coefficient

R2 for

equation Intercept

Battle Creek 

at Hermosa 

coefficient

Spring Creek 

near

Hermosa 

coefficient

Elk Creek 

near Elm 

Springs

coefficient

Redwater 

River above 

Belle 

Fourche 

coefficient

R2 for

equation

Battle Creek -- -- -- -- 2.4377 0.1027 -- 0.0149 -- 0.6376Boxelder Creek -- -- -- -- .6269 .1744 -- .0661 0.0629 .7812Grace Coolidge Creek -0.5681 0.8617 0.0239 0.8600 1.5650 .1498 -- -- -- .8300French Creek .0618 .4255 .2640 .9504 .2904 .0952 -- -- .0307 .8050Spring Creek -.5360 1.3025 .2938 .9859 9.8398 1.2121 -1.2064 .2807 -.1120 .8931Bear Butte Creek .8113 2.1422 -- .6932 3.4155 -- .2080 -- .0487 .9121Bear Gulch .2911 -- .0033 .7581 .2635 -.0020 -- -- .0009 .8484Beaver Creek -1.3553 -- .1696 .8457 -1.9310 -.0531 -- -- .0341 .9053Elk Creek 1.1810 1.2676 -- .8768 2.4484 -- -- -- .0396 .7175

1Regression performed using calculated annual recharge for selected streams (dependent variable) with average annual recharge for Battle Creek and/or Boxelder Creek (explanatory variable).2Stepwise regression performed using calculated annual recharge for selected streams (dependent variable) with annual flow at selected streams (explanatory variable).
32 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

A stepwise regression analysis was performed 

using the average annual mean flow of these four representative streams as possible explanatory variables 

for annual streamflow recharge for selected streams. 

The explanatory variables were considered significant 

only if the p-values (attained level of significance) were 

less than 0.15. Results of stepwise regression analyses 

are provided in table 6. The best regression for some of 

the streams included only one of the four representative 

gaging stations, whereas the best regression for Spring 

Creek included all four representative gaging stations. 

The results of the stepwise regression generally were 

good with R2

 values ranging from 0.64 to 0.91. The 

equations determined by the stepwise regression 

(table 6) were used to estimate recharge for selected 

streams beginning with 1950.

The recharge estimates based on both the 

recharge regressions (1967-91) and the stepwise 

regressions (1950-98) are presented in table 17 in the 

Supplemental Information section. The calculated 

recharge rates also are included in table 17 for comparison purposes, along with a summary of mean values 

for calculated values and estimates for the periods 

1950-98, 1967-98, and 1992-98. Comparisons of 

calculated values and means to estimated values and 

means for 1992-98 are particularly informative. 

Differences between calculated and estimated values 

generally are small and exhibit no apparent bias (consistently lower or higher). It is recognized that large 

uncertainties exist for estimates for any site for any 

year. However, these favorable comparisons provide 

confidence that the methods used provide credible, 

unbiased estimates. The recharge estimates used in the 

final streamflow recharge total are presented in table 3.

Miscellaneous-Record Measurement Sites

This section presents estimates of streamflow 

recharge for 11 basins with miscellaneous-record 

measurement sites. Daily flow records are not available for these basins; however, loss thresholds (table 2) 

were determined by Hortness and Driscoll (1998). 

Four basins with miscellaneous-record measurement 

sites (basins 21, 30, 38, and 39) were considered earlier 

with continuous-record gaging stations. Hortness and 

Driscoll (1998) determined that Iron Creek (basin 26) 

and Higgins Gulch (basin 32) are gaining streams 

across the outcrops of the Madison Limestone and 

Minnelusa Formation; therefore, no recharge is calculated for these two sites. 

Loss thresholds are adjusted for Spokane Creek, 

Victoria Creek, Beaver Creek, and False Bottom Creek 

(table 2) using the methods previously described. The 

loss thresholds for Victoria Creek and Beaver Creek 

include losses from ungaged areas (basins 17A and 

25A). Therefore, these ungaged areas are included 

with the following analyses and will not be included in 

a subsequent section addressing ungaged streams.

Annual recharge was calculated by applying 

previously determined loss thresholds against synthetic 

records of daily flow. A representative continuousrecord gaging station was selected for each miscellaneous-record basin based on proximity, streamflow 

characteristics, and elevation. Daily flow records were 

synthesized by applying drainage-area ratios to daily 

flows for the representative continuous-record gages. 

Representative gaging stations and drainage-area 

ratios, which are based on adjusted drainage areas, are 

listed in table 7. In several cases, two basins associated 

with the same stream are combined for calculation of 

recharge. Individual recharge to the Madison and 

Minnelusa aquifers is determined for two basins.

Annual recharge from the miscellaneous-record 

basins is summarized in table 8 for 1992-98. The 

miscellaneous-record basins in the northern Black Hills 

(Little Elk, Bear Gulch, Beaver, and False Bottom) 

generally provide more recharge than those in the 

central or southern Black Hills. Estimates of recharge 

from these basins for 1950-91 are presented in a subsequent section (Summary of Streamflow Recharge, 

1950-98).

Table 7. Summary of selected information used to 

estimate recharge from streams with miscellaneous-record 

measurement sites

Stream name and

basin number

Representative

continuous-record

gaging station

Drainagearea

ratio

Reaves Gulch (2) French Creek (site 7) 0.065

Highland Creek (3) French Creek (site 7) .083

South Fork Lame Johnny 

Creek and Flynn Creek

(4 and 5)

French Creek (site 7) .139

North Fork Lame Johnny 

Creek (6)

French Creek (site 7) .027

Spokane Creek (12 and 13) Battle Creek (site 8) .128

Victoria Creek (17 and 17A) Battle Creek (site 8) .191

Little Elk Creek (23) Boxelder Creek

(site 18)

.131

Bear Gulch (24) Annie Creek (site 27) 1.74

Beaver Creek (25 and 25A) Squaw Creek (site 28) 1.30

False Bottom Creek

(33 and 34)

Squaw Creek (site 28) 1.50
Streamflow Recharge 33

Table 8. Annual recharge for streams with miscellaneous-record measurement sites, water years 1992-98

Water

year

Annual recharge (cubic feet per second)

Reaves

Gulch

(basin 2)

Highland 

Creek

(basin 3)

South Fork 

Lame Johnny 

Creek and 

Flynn Creek 

(basins 4

and 5)

North Fork 

Lame Johnny 

Creek

(basin 6)

Spokane 

Creek

(basins 12 

and 13)

Victoria 

Creek

(basins 17 

and 17A)

Little Elk 

Creek

(basin 23)

Bear Gulch 

(basin 24)

Beaver Creek 

(basins 25

and 25A)

False

Bottom Creek

(basins 33

and 34)

Total1

1992 0.17 0.37 0.60 0.12 0.45 0.64 0.90 0.56 1.23 1.46 6.501993 .15 .96 .79 .30 1.14 1.06 1.69 1.36 3.16 3.88 14.491994 .17 .59 .72 .19 .65 .88 1.72 1.50 2.97 3.66 13.051995 .19 2.27 .95 .63 1.24 1.13 1.96 2.27 5.07 6.27 21.981996 .20 1.45 1.22 .46 1.17 1.33 2.39 1.79 5.08 6.36 21.451997 .20 2.01 1.34 .64 1.79 1.67 2.89 2.13 4.75 5.92 23.361998 .20 1.59 1.30 .51 1.25 1.33 2.67 2.25 3.33 4.01 18.45

1Individual estimates may not sum to total due to independent rounding.
34 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

Annual recharge rates, by aquifer, are presented 

in table 9 for the two miscellaneous-record measurement sites for which individual loss thresholds had 

been determined by Hortness and Driscoll (1998). For 

both Little Elk Creek and False Bottom Creek, annual 

recharge estimates for the Madison aquifer were relatively consistent for 1992-98; whereas, recharge for the 

Minnelusa aquifer in 1992 was much smaller than in 

the other years. This is because most of the flow in 

1992 was lost to the Madison aquifer before reaching 

the outcrop of the Minnelusa Formation.

Recharge from Ungaged Streams

Ungaged basins generally consist of small 

drainage areas with undetermined loss thresholds that 

are situated between larger basins for which loss 

thresholds have been determined (fig. 10). Recharge 

for five ungaged basins were considered earlier with 

either continuous-record gaging stations (basins 8A, 

18A, and 36A) or miscellaneous-record measurement 

sites (basins 17A and 25A). Flow seldom occurs downstream from the loss zones in these small basins; thus, 

a simplifying assumption is made that 90 percent of 

streamflow generated within these basins becomes 

recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. 

Annual streamflow for selected representative continuous-record gages is used to estimate annual streamflow in the ungaged streams based on the ratio of 

drainage areas.

Four continuous-record gages were selected to 

represent streamflow in 18 ungaged basins (fig. 11), 

with each ungaged basin assigned to one of the representative gages. The drainage areas for all ungaged 

basins associated with each gage were summed, and 

common drainage-area ratios were computed. Annual 

streamflow for 1992-98 for each of the representative 

gages was then multiplied by the applicable ratio to 

yield annual streamflow for each group of ungaged 

basins. Annual recharge for the ungaged basins 

(computed as 90 percent of streamflow) is summarized 

by group in table 10. Estimates of recharge from 

ungaged basins for 1950-91 are addressed in the 

following section.

Table 9. Annual recharge, by aquifer, for streams

with miscellaneous-record measurement sites, water

years 1992-98

Water

year

Annual recharge1 (cubic feet per second)

Little Elk Creek

(basin 23)

False Bottom Creek

(basins 33 and 34)

Madison Minnelusa Madison Minnelusa

1992 0.66 0.24 1.17 0.29

1993 .59 1.11 1.63 2.25

1994 .70 1.03 1.69 1.98

1995 .70 1.27 2.43 3.84

1996 .70 1.70 2.49 3.87

1997 .70 2.19 2.59 3.33

1998 .70 1.99 1.97 2.04

1

Individual recharge estimates may not sum exactly to combined 

estimates in table 8 due to independent rounding.

 Table 10. Annual streamflow recharge from ungaged basins, water years 1992-98

[--, not determined]

Water

year

Annual recharge (cubic feet per second)

Ungaged basins and representative continuous-record stations

Total1 Basins 40-50

(French Creek)

Basins 51-55

(Battle Creek)

Basin 56

(Bear Butte Creek)

Basin 57

(Squaw Creek)

Wyoming

basins

1992 2.02 0.67 1.31 0.89 3.58 8.47

1993 5.29 2.91 4.36 2.83 9.04 24.42

1994 3.11 .97 5.03 3.52 8.94 21.58

1995 15.30 5.33 8.41 7.60 14.68 51.33

1996 7.76 2.77 6.53 4.96 13.74 35.76

1997 10.89 4.56 9.79 5.38 13.76 44.38

1998 8.60 2.48 4.86 3.02 11.16 30.12

Combined area 

(square miles)

51.47 12.41 10.55 6.96 -- --

1Individual recharge estimates may not sum to total due to independent rounding.
Streamflow Recharge 35

N. Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche

Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Rhoads Fork

Coolidge

Angostura

Reservoir

Castl e Cr

N. Fork Castle Cr

Canyon

Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Stockade

Lake

Cox

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

Creek

Crow Creek

BELLE

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek

Cr

Little Spearfish

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Spring

Creek

Creek

Creek

Grace

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Bottom

False

Creek

Spokane

North

South

Reaves

Lame

Gulch

Fork

Fork

Flynn

Cr

Johnny

Higgins

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Squaw

Whitetail

Cr

Cr Cr

Gulch

Gulch

Annie

Iron

Cr

Iron Cr

Meadow Cr

Elk

Little

Creek

Castle

Castle

Creek

Creek

Bear Gulch

Sylvan

Lake

Morris

Creek

Whitewood

Spearfish

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Galena

Trojan

Tinton Central

City

Maurice

Savoy

Roubaix

Nemo

Vale

Hayward

Keystone

Pringle

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Rockerville

Oral

Wind Cave

National Park

Jewel Cave

National Monument

Mt. Rushmore National

Memorial

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak x

Ellsworth

Air Force

Base

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYOMING

SOUTH DAKOTA

104o 45' 103o

30'

15' 103o

30'

44o

45'

15'

44o

45'

30'

 43o

15'

LIMESTONE

PLATEAU

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

36A

25A

18A

17A

8A

37

7

8

28

7

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

OUTCROP OF THE MADISON

 LIMESTONE (from Strobel and

 others, 1999)

OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA

 FORMATION (from Strobel

 and others, 1999)

UNGAGED BASINS--Number is

 basin number. Color is repre-

 sentative streamflow-gaging

 station

French Creek above Fairburn

 (06403300; site number 7 on

 table 1))

Battle Creek near Keystone

 (06404000; site number 8 on

 table 1)

Squaw Creek near Spearfish

 (06430898; site number 28 on

 table 1)

Bear Butte Creek near Dead-

 wood (06437020; site number

 37 on table 1)

No representative streamflow-

 gaging station--Basin consid-

 ered with loss calculations for

 gaged streams

Figure 11. Assignment of representative streamflow-gaging stations for ungaged streams.

EXPLANATION

REPRESENTATIVE CONTINUOUS-

 RECORD STREAMFLOW-

 GAGING STATION--Number

 indicates site number on table 1
36 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

In addition to the 18 ungaged basins in South 

Dakota, there are several small areas in Wyoming 

where the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers probably 

receive recharge from streams originating on outcrops 

of Tertiary intrusives. No information regarding the 

streamflow characteristics, loss thresholds, or basin 

delineation for recharge purposes is available regarding 

these areas. The small outcrop areas are approximately 

twice as large as combined drainage areas for the 

miscellaneous-record measurement sites of Bear Gulch 

(basin 24) and Beaver Creek (basins 25 and 25A), with 

similar elevations. Thus, it is assumed that streamflow 

recharge in Wyoming is equal to twice the sum of 

estimated recharge in Bear Gulch and Beaver Creek 

(table 8) basins. The recharge estimated for the 

Wyoming basins also is presented in table 10.

Summary of Streamflow Recharge,

1950-98

Estimates of annual streamflow recharge from 

streams with continuous-record gaging stations are 

complete from 1950-98. Estimates for basins with 

miscellaneous-record measurement sites and ungaged 

streams are complete only for 1992-98; thus, recharge 

estimates need to be extrapolated to calculate 

combined streamflow recharge from all sources for 

1950-98.

 Combined streamflow recharge for all sources 

(excluding Rapid and Spearfish Creeks) for 1992-98 is 

provided in table 11, along with the annual percentages 

of combined recharge for each of the three types of 

basins. The annual percentages for each basin type are 

relatively uniform in comparison to combined 

recharge, which varies considerably. Streams with 

continuous-record gages (excluding Rapid and 

Spearfish Creeks) account for about 65 percent of 

combined recharge, the miscellaneous-record streams 

account for about 13 percent, and ungaged streams 

account for about 22 percent (table 11). These average 

percentages are used in estimating recharge for the 

period 1950-91 for the miscellaneous-record and 

ungaged streams. First, the subtotal of annual recharge 

for the nine continuous-record streams with minimal 

regulation (table 3) was divided by 0.65 (representing 

65 percent) to estimate combined streamflow recharge 

from all sources (excluding Rapid and Spearfish 

Creeks). This figure was multiplied by 13 percent to 

estimate annual recharge for the miscellaneous-record 

streams, and by 22 percent for the ungaged streams to 

complete estimates for 1950-91. 

Estimates of total streamflow recharge for 

1950-98, including recharge attributed to Rapid Creek 

and Spearfish Creek, are presented in table 12. Streamflow recharge for 1950-98 averages about 98 ft3

/s and

Table 11. Estimated streamflow recharge for selected continuous-record, miscellaneous-record, and ungaged basins, water 

years 1992-98

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second]

Water year

Continuous record1 Miscellaneous record Ungaged

Combined

recharge

(ft3/s)

Annual 

recharge

(ft3/s)

Percent

of combined 

recharge2

Annual 

recharge

(ft3/s)

Percent

of combined 

recharge2

Annual 

recharge

(ft3/s)

Percent

of combined 

recharge2

1992 36.55 70.95 6.50 12.62 8.47 16.44 51.52

1993 74.66 65.74 14.49 12.76 24.42 21.50 113.57

1994 68.75 66.50 13.05 12.62 21.58 20.88 103.38

1995 91.70 55.57 21.98 13.32 51.33 31.11 165.01

1996 103.07 64.31 21.45 13.38 35.76 22.31 160.28

1997 132.89 66.24 23.36 11.64 44.38 22.12 200.63

1998 106.61 68.70 18.45 11.89 30.12 19.41 155.18

Average 87.75 65.43 17.04 12.60 30.87 21.97 135.66

1Excluding recharge from Rapid Creek and Spearfish Creek.

2Individual values may not sum to 100 percent due to independent rounding.
Precipitation Recharge 37

has ranged from about 38 ft3/s in 1988 to about

222 ft3/s in 1997. Of these amounts, the combined 

contributions from Rapid and Spearfish Creeks average 

about 16 percent and have ranged from 9 to 39 percent. 

The highest annual recharge rates generally occurred 

during the late 1990’s; thus, the earlier presumption 

(based on above-average precipitation) that using 

recharge estimates for 1992-98 would overestimate 

long-term streamflow recharge is substantiated.

Moving averages for 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods 

also are shown in table 12. These moving averages are 

useful for identifying multi-year trends in streamflow 

recharge. Some of the lowest recharge rates occurred 

during the early 1960’s, early 1980’s, and late 1980’s 

based on the 3-year averages (table 12). 

PRECIPITATION RECHARGE

Infiltration of precipitation on outcrops of the 

Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation provides recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. 

Precipitation in the study area increases from south to 

north and with increasing elevation as shown in the 

isohyetal map for water years 1950-98 (fig. 12). This 

map was derived from 1,000-by-1,000-meter grids 

based on precipitation data presented by Driscoll, 

Hamade, and Kenner (2000), who used a geographic 

information system (GIS) to generate spatial precipitation distributions from point precipitation data for 

94 gages in the Black Hills area.

An overview of processes involved and assumptions made in estimating precipitation recharge was 

presented in a previous section discussing methods for 

quantifying precipitation recharge. In general, yield 

efficiencies (the ratio of basin yield to precipitation) are 

computed for selected drainage basins and are used to 

generate a map of generalized average yield efficiency 

for the Black Hills area. A simplifying assumption is 

made that yield efficiency is a reasonable surrogate for 

the efficiency of precipitation recharge to the Madison 

and Minnelusa aquifers. Relations between annual 

yield efficiency and annual precipitation are used to 

develop an algorithm for computing annual yield, as a 

surrogate for recharge, based on annual precipitation 

for 1,000-by-1,000-meter grids. The method is used to 

estimate annual precipitation recharge for 1931-98.

Yield Efficiency

Annual yields, which are calculated by dividing 

annual streamflow by drainage area and converting to 

inches, have been determined for 20 selected gaging 

stations (fig. 13) for the periods of record shown in 

table 13. Effects from various forms of regulation such 

as withdrawals or diversions generally are relatively 

minor for these stations; thus, streamflow records are 

reasonably representative of basin yield. Annual yields 

generally increase from south to north, with the largest 

yields occurring in streams draining the higher elevations of the northern Black Hills. These variations in 

annual yield are consistent with climatic patterns for 

the Black Hills area, including: (1) increasing precipitation from south to north; (2) increasing precipitation 

with increasing elevation; and (3) decreasing evapotranspiration rates with increasing elevation (Miller 

and Driscoll, 1998).

The annual yields listed in table 13 and shown in 

figure 13 cannot be directly compared because of large 

differences in periods of record. Measured yields for 

many of the stations with short periods of record are 

representative of extremely wet climatic conditions 

that have prevailed since about 1990. In addition, basin 

yields are calculated from surface drainage areas, 

which are not necessarily congruent with contributing 

ground-water areas. Drainage basins where streamflow is known to be dominated by ground-water 

discharge (fig. 6) include Rhoads Fork, Castle Creek, 

Spearfish Creek, and Little Spearfish Creek (sites 9, 

10, 13, and 15 in table 13). Jarrell (2000) documented 

incongruences in contributing surface- and groundwater areas for these basins based on structure contours 

of the top of the Deadwood Formation. The most 

notable differences in annual yield (fig. 13) are for 

Rhoads Fork and Castle Creek, which are located in 

close proximity (fig. 13) and have similar precipitation 

patterns (fig. 12).

Yields in the Spearfish Creek basins generally 

resemble yields of other nearby basins. The yield of 

Annie Creek (site 14) is somewhat lower than adjacent 

basins, which could result from extensive mining 

activities within the basin, which utilize substantial 

quantities of water through evaporation for heap-leach 

processes.
38 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

Table 12. Estimated total streamflow recharge, in cubic feet per second, from all sources, water years 1950-98

[--, not computed]

Water

year

Annual recharge Moving averages for total

streamflow recharge

Continuous-record streams Miscellaneousrecord

streams

Ungaged 

streams Total2 3-year 

average

5-year 

average

10-year 

average Rapid Creek Spearfish 

Creek Others1

1950 10.00 5.14 44.50 9.59 10.27 79.50 -- -- --

1951 9.96 4.65 39.96 7.99 13.53 76.09 -- -- --

1952 9.98 5.58 63.67 12.73 21.55 113.52 89.70 -- --

1953 10.00 5.83 52.51 10.50 17.77 96.62 95.41 -- --

1954 10.00 4.84 33.32 6.66 11.28 66.10 92.08 86.37 --

1955 10.00 5.48 32.21 6.44 10.90 65.04 75.92 83.47 --

1956 9.97 4.71 33.29 6.66 11.27 65.90 65.68 81.43 --

1957 9.02 4.95 67.05 13.41 22.69 117.12 82.68 82.15 --

1958 8.65 4.81 38.83 7.77 13.14 73.20 85.41 77.47 --

1959 9.45 4.38 30.35 6.07 10.27 60.53 83.61 76.36 81.36

1960 8.71 4.08 30.41 6.08 10.29 59.57 64.43 75.26 79.37

1961 9.67 3.70 27.04 5.41 9.15 54.97 58.36 73.08 77.26

1962 7.82 4.78 71.45 14.29 24.18 122.52 79.02 74.16 78.16

1963 7.78 6.45 58.12 11.62 19.67 103.64 93.71 80.25 78.86

1964 10.00 6.64 51.24 10.25 17.34 95.48 107.21 87.24 81.80

1965 10.00 8.19 79.70 15.94 26.97 140.80 113.31 103.48 89.37

1966 10.00 6.56 53.08 10.62 17.97 98.23 111.50 112.13 92.61

1967 10.00 6.44 67.97 13.59 23.00 121.00 120.01 111.83 92.99

1968 10.00 5.84 43.57 8.71 14.75 82.87 100.70 107.68 93.96

1969 9.99 6.15 37.76 7.55 12.78 74.24 92.70 103.43 95.33

1970 10.00 8.26 56.50 11.30 19.12 105.19 87.43 96.31 99.89

1971 10.00 8.02 68.68 13.74 23.24 123.68 101.03 101.40 106.76

1972 9.86 8.01 70.89 14.18 23.99 126.93 118.60 102.58 107.20

1973 10.00 8.72 68.29 13.66 23.11 123.78 124.79 110.76 109.22

1974 10.00 6.63 24.35 4.87 8.24 54.09 101.60 106.73 105.08

1975 9.99 6.55 51.69 10.34 17.50 96.06 91.31 104.91 100.61

1976 10.00 6.59 62.67 12.53 21.21 113.01 87.72 102.77 102.08

1977 10.00 6.72 45.18 9.04 15.29 86.23 98.43 94.63 98.61

1978 9.99 7.67 59.14 11.83 20.02 108.65 102.63 91.61 101.19
Precipitation Recharge 39

 

1979 10.00 6.28 44.64 8.93 15.11 84.96 93.28 97.78 102.26

1980 10.00 5.59 28.98 5.80 9.81 60.17 84.59 90.60 97.76

1981 10.00 5.03 29.80 5.96 10.09 60.88 68.67 80.18 91.48

1982 9.90 6.30 47.32 9.46 16.02 89.00 70.02 80.73 87.68

1983 10.00 7.82 63.42 12.68 21.46 115.39 88.42 82.08 86.84

1984 10.00 8.03 67.92 13.58 22.99 122.53 108.97 89.59 93.69

1985 10.00 5.48 22.36 4.47 7.57 49.88 95.93 87.54 89.07

1986 10.00 5.65 49.97 9.99 16.91 92.52 88.31 93.86 87.02

1987 10.00 4.83 60.82 12.16 20.59 108.41 83.60 97.74 89.24

1988 10.00 4.92 15.25 3.05 5.16 38.38 79.77 82.34 82.21

1989 10.00 5.03 16.46 3.29 5.57 40.36 62.38 65.91 77.75

1990 10.00 5.04 39.80 7.96 13.47 76.27 51.67 71.19 79.36

1991 9.99 4.94 57.32 11.46 19.40 103.11 73.25 73.30 83.58

1992 10.00 4.78 36.55 6.50 8.47 66.30 81.89 64.88 81.31

1993 10.00 5.26 74.66 14.49 24.42 128.83 99.42 82.97 82.66

1994 10.00 6.78 68.75 13.05 21.58 120.16 105.10 98.93 82.42

1995 10.00 8.56 91.70 21.98 51.33 183.57 144.18 120.39 95.79

1996 10.00 9.20 103.07 21.45 35.76 179.48 161.07 135.67 104.49

1997 10.00 10.92 132.89 23.36 44.38 221.55 194.87 166.72 115.80

1998 10.00 9.59 106.61 18.45 30.12 174.77 191.93 175.90 129.44

Average 9.81 6.25 53.50 10.64 18.18 98.39 -- -- --

1

Other streams with minimal regulation, including Battle Creek, Boxelder Creek, Grace Coolidge Creek, French Creek, Spring Creek, Bear Butte 

Creek, Bear Gulch, Beaver Creek, and Elk Creek. 2

Values may not exactly sum to total due to independent rounding.

Table 12. Estimated total streamflow recharge, in cubic feet per second, from all sources, water years 1950-98–Continued

[--, not computed]

Water

year

Annual recharge Moving averages for total

streamflow recharge

Continuous-record streams Miscellaneousrecord

streams

Ungaged 

streams Total2 3-year 

average

5-year 

average

10-year 

average Rapid Creek Spearfish 

Creek Others1
40 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

Sundance

Newcastle

Whitewood

Spearfish

Maurice

Savoy

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

Nemo

Central

City

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Roubaix

Keystone

Hayward

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Pringle

Oral

Redwater

CreekSand

Creek

Cold

Springs

Inyan Kara

Creek

Creek

Creek

Stockade

Beaver

Beaver

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Creek

Lance

Creek

Creek

N Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche

Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Grace Cooli d ge

Angostura

Reservoir

Iron

Castl e Cr

N Fork Castle C

Canyon Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

BE

Creek

LLE

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Spokane

Lame Johnny

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Gulch

Gulch

Castle

Castle

Bear

Little

Creek

Gulch

H gi gins

Creek

Creek

Cr

Bottom False

Creek

Wind Cave

National Park

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak

x

CROOK CO

WESTON CO

NIOBRARA CO

104o 104o

30' 103o

30'

103o

44o30'

44o

43o30'

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYO

MING

SOUTH DAKOTA

18

15

16

18

28

26

20

18

19

20

17

17

19

19

20

20

21

21

22

22

23

23

24

24

27

25

25

20

20

18

18

19

19

17

17

16

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

SOUTH DAKOTA

WYOMING

Area

Shown

CONNECTED OUTCROP OF THE MADISON

 LIMESTONE (from Strobel and others, 1999;

 DeWitt and others, 1989)

CONNECTED OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA

 FORMATION (from Strobel and others, 1999;

 DeWitt and others, 1989)

LINE OF EQUAL AVERAGE ANNUAL

 PRECIPITATION--Interval 1 inch

Figure 12. Isohyetal map showing distribution of average annual precipitation for Black Hills area, water years

1950-98.

20
Precipitation Recharge 41

N. Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Rhoads Fork

Coolidge

Angostura

Reservoir

Castl e Cr

N. Fork Castle Cr

Canyon

Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Stockade

Lake

Cox

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

Creek

Crow Creek

BELLE

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek

Cr

Little Spearfish

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Spring

Creek

Creek

Creek

Grace

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Bottom

False

Creek

Spokane

North

South

Reaves

Lame

Gulch

Fork

Fork

Flynn

Cr

Johnny

Higgins

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Squaw

Whitetail

Cr

Cr Cr

Gulch

Gulch

Annie

Iron

Cr

Iron Cr

Meadow Cr

Elk

Little

Creek

Castle

Castle

Creek

Creek

Bear Gulch

Sylvan

Lake

Morris

Creek

Whitewood

Spearfish

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Galena

Trojan

Tinton Central

City

Maurice

Savoy

Roubaix

Nemo

Vale

Hayward

Keystone

Pringle

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Rockerville

Oral

Wind Cave

National Park

Jewel Cave

National Monument

Mt. Rushmore National

Memorial

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak x

Ellsworth

Air Force

Base

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYOMING

SOUTH DAKOTA

104o 45' 103o

30'

15' 103o

30'

44o45'

15'

44o

45'

30'

 43o

15'

LIMESTONE

PLATEAU

1

(0.15) 2

(0.22)

3

(0.49)

4

(0.85)

5

(1.42)

6

(2.20)

7

(2.73)

8

(2.09)

9

(9.34)

11

(2.76)

10

(2.01)

12

(8.48) 13

(7.58)

14

(6.55)

15

(8.74)

16

(7.34)

17

(0.20)

18

(10.57)

19

(6.84)

20

(1.58)

20

(1.58)

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

OUTCROP OF THE MADISON

 LIMESTONE (from Strobel and

 others, 1999)

OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA

 FORMATION (from Strobel

 and others, 1999)

CONTINUOUS-RECORD

 STREAMFLOW-GAGING

 STATION--Number indicates

 site number in table 13.

 Number in parentheses

 indicates average annual basin

 yield, in inches, for period of

 record indicated in table 13

Figure 13. Measured average annual basin yields, based on surface drainage areas, for selected streamflow-gaging

stations (periods of record for measured yield are not consistent).

EXPLANATION
42 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming Table 13. Summary of selected site information for streamflow-gaging stations used in determining annual yield Site number Station number Station name Latitude Longitude Elevation of gage Drainage area (square miles) Period of record used (water years) Measured annual yield for period of record (inches) Used in determining best-fit runoff efficiency (degrees, minutes, seconds) 1 06395000 Cheyenne River at Edgemont 43 18 20 103 49 14 3,415 7,143 1947-98 0.15 No 2 06400000 Hat Creek near Edgemont 43 14 24 103 35 16 3,296 1,044 1951-98 .22 No 3 06400875 Horsehead Creek at Oelrichs 43 11 17 103 13 34 3,320 187 1984-98 .49 No 4 06402430 Beaver Creek near Pringle 43 34 53 103 28 34 4,180 45.8 1991-98 .85 Yes 5 06403300 French Creek above Fairburn 43 43 02 103 22 03 3,850 105 1983-98 1.42 Yes 6 06404000 Battle Creek near Keystone 43 52 21 103 20 10 3,800 58.0 1962-98 2.20 Yes 7 06404998 Grace Coolidge Creek near Game Lodge, near Custer 43 45 40 103 21 49 4,100 25.2 1977-98 2.73 Yes 8 06407500 Spring Creek near Keystone 43 58 45 103 20 25 3,885 163 1987-98 2.09 Yes 9 06408700 Rhoads Fork near Rochford 44 08 12 103 51 29 5,965 17.95 1983-98 9.34 No 10 06409000 Castle Creek above Deerfield Reservoir, near Hill City 44 00 49 103 49 48 5,920 179.2 1948-98 2.01 No 11 06422500 Boxelder Creek near Nemo 44 08 38 103 27 16 4,320 96.0 1967-98 2.76 Yes 12 06424000 Elk Creek near Roubaix 44 17 41 103 35 47 4,881 21.5 1992-98 8.48 Yes 13 06430770 Spearfish Creek near Lead 44 17 56 103 52 02 5,310 163.5 1989-98 27.58 No 14 06430800 Annie Creek near Lead 44 19 37 103 53 38 5,125 3.55 1989-98 6.55 Yes 15 06430850 Little Spearfish Creek near Lead 44 20 58 103 56 08 5,020 125.8 1989-98 8.74 No 16 06430898 Squaw Creek near Spearfish 44 24 04 103 53 35 4,480 6.95 1989-98 7.34 Yes 17 06433500 Hay Creek at Belle Fourche 44 40 01 103 50 46 3,005 121 1954-96 .20 No 18 06436156 Whitetail Creek at Lead 44 20 36 103 45 57 5,080 6.15 1989-98 10.57 Yes 19 06437020 Bear Butte Creek near Deadwood 44 20 08 103 38 06 4,750 16.6 1989-98 6.84 Yes 20 06437500 Bear Butte Creek near Sturgis 44 28 35 103 15 50 2,780 3120 1946-72 1.58 No

1Contributing areas for surface water and ground water are not necessarily congruent.2A flow of 10 cubic feet per second was added to the measured streamflow to account for diverted flow.3Approximate drainage area below loss zone. Actual drainage area is 192 square miles.
Precipitation Recharge 43

Because of differences in apparent yield characteristics resulting from various factors, a method was 

developed to estimate long-term basin yield in relation 

to annual precipitation. A digital grid (with cell sizes 

of 1,000-by-1,000 meters) showing average annual 

precipitation distribution for 1950-98 (Paverage grid), 

which corresponds with figure 12, was generated using 

data from Driscoll, Hamade, and Kenner (2000). 

Similar grids of annual precipitation for each year 

during 1931-98 also were generated to extend recharge 

estimates back as far as possible. Annual and average 

precipitation were determined for 1950-98 for drainage 

areas for stations listed in table 13, using the digital 

precipitation grids. The average precipitation for the 

period of record and for 1950-98 for each station are 

presented in table 14.

Although precipitation records are available for 

1950-98, few streamflow records available are for that 

entire period. The majority of the gaging stations have 

streamflow records that begin in the late 1980’s to early 

1990’s. Thus, a method was developed for estimating 

long-term annual yields for the gaging stations with 

incomplete record, based on precipitation. The first 

step was to examine relations between precipitation 

and yield efficiency, which is computed as:

(1)

where

YEannual = annual yield efficiency, in percent;

Qannual = annual yield, in inches; and

Pannual = annual precipitation, in inches.

Regression analyses of yield efficiency as a function of annual precipitation were performed for all 

gaging stations, with resulting equations and R2 values 

shown in table 14. The equations were then used with 

annual precipitation data to predict average yield efficiency for 1950-98. Equations for three gages are not 

realistic and are not included in table 14 (Rhoads Fork, 

Castle Creek, and Little Spearfish Creek). For these 

gages, average yield efficiencies for the available 

period of record are used to represent efficiencies for 

1950-98. The linear relations between yield efficiency 

and precipitation for 15 of the gages with the best relations (R2

 values) are shown in figure 14, along with 

exponential curves for selected gages that are described 

in subsequent discussions. 

Average yield efficiency values for 1950-98 

(from table 14), which are based on surface areas, are 

shown in figure 15. A map of generalized average 

annual yield efficiency (the percentage of precipitation 

that is available either for runoff or recharge) for the 

study area is presented in figure 16. Contouring was 

done to reflect conditions upstream from representative 

gages, including influences of contributing groundwater areas in the Limestone Plateau area (Jarrell, 

2000). Additional yield efficiency values estimated for 

gages located outside the study area (including 

Wyoming) also were used. Topography and precipitation also were considered when contouring in areas 

with sparse yield efficiency data. A digital grid (1,000-

by-1,000 meters) of the yield efficiency distribution 

shown in figure 16 was generated for subsequent 

analyses.

A systematic approach was developed for predicting annual yield efficiency, by adjusting average 

efficiency on the basis of relations between annual and 

average precipitation. The following exponential 

equation provided good results:

(2)

where

YEannual = annual yield efficiency, in percent;

Pannual = annual precipitation, in inches;

Paverage = average precipitation for 1950-98, in 

inches;

YEaverage = average yield efficiency for 1950-98, in 

percent; and

n = exponent.

Best-fit exponential curves and curves for an 

exponent of 1.6 (ultimately selected for the systematic 

approach) are shown in figure 14. Gages dominated by 

ground-water discharge (sites 9, 10, 13, 15) and those 

not located on or near the Precambrian core (sites 1, 2, 

3, and 17) were not used for curve fitting. In addition, 

site 20 was not used because of its non-recent period of 

record. The best-fit exponents range from 1.1 to 2.5 

(table 14), and R2 values generally are similar or better 

than for the linear regression equations. For most 

gages, both of the exponential curves closely resemble 

results from the linear regressions through most of the 

range of measured precipitation.

YEannual

Qannual

Pannual

= ----------------- 100 ×

YEannual

Pannual

Paverage

------------------- n

YEaverage = ×
44 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming Table 14. Summary of selected precipitation information, equations, and runoff estimates for streamflow-gaging stations used in estimating precipitation recharge [--, not computed] Site number Station name Average precipita- tion over drainage basin (inches) Yield efficiency Annual yield Linear regression equation Exponential regres- sion equation Period of record Linear regression equation Com- puter algo- rithm2 annual yield 1950-98 (inches) Period of record (stream- flow) 1950-98 Intercept Precip- itation coeffi- cient

R2

Average 

yield

efficiency1

1950-98 

(percent)

Best-fit 

exponent R2

Measured 

(inches)

Computer 

algorithm1

(inches)

Intercept

Precipitation 

coefficient

R2

Estimated

average 

annual 

yield 

1950-98 

(inches)

1 Cheyenne River 17.21 17.22 -0.0019 0.0006 0.0941 30.9 -- -- 0.15 -- -- -- -- -- --

2 Hat Creek 16.00 15.95 -.0076 .0013 .1049 1.3 -- -- .22 -- -- -- -- -- --3 Horsehead Creek 17.31 16.59 -.0604 .0049 .4220 2.1 -- -- .49 -- -- -- -- -- --4 Beaver Creek 24.16 18.88 -.0310 .0026 .3208 1.8 2.2 0.3813 .85 1.34 -1.6328 0.1027 0.5223 0.36 0.745 French Creek 20.95 19.45 -.0476 .0052 .4902 5.4 1.9 .5654 1.42 1.67 -2.4960 .1867 .6480 1.15 1.366 Battle Creek 21.56 20.27 -.0628 .0072 .6067 8.3 1.6 .5920 2.20 2.32 -3.3050 .2552 .7636 1.89 2.017 Grace Coolidge Creek 21.37 19.95 -.1087 .0104 .6433 9.9 1.9 .6809 2.73 1.94 -5.2603 .3740 .7344 2.29 1.628 Spring Creek 21.77 19.90 -.1222 .0095 .6967 6.7 2.5 .7463 2.09 2.15 -4.4738 .3013 .8045 1.58 1.699 Rhoads Fork 22.63 23.23 -- -- -- 441.8 -- -- 9.34 5.87 7.2214 .0772 .0399 9.01 5.72

10 Castle Creek 21.65 21.76 -- -- -- 39.3 -- -- 2.01 3.58 0.0985 -.0002 .3146 2.02 3.63

11 Boxelder Creek 22.98 22.79 -.0995 .0091 .4463 10.8 2.1 .5210 2.76 2.77 -5.0893 .3417 .5981 2.71 2.68

12 Elk Creek 31.06 26.05 -.0352 .0096 .3424 21.5 1.1 .3421 8.48 9.36 -8.7673 .5552 .7026 5.70 6.0813 Spearfish Creek 27.63 24.67 .1009 .0061 .2975 25.1 -- -- 57.58 10.49 -4.8582 .4501 .7192 6.24 7.86

14 Annie Creek 29.46 26.57 -.2342 .0150 .6753 16.4 2.1 .6858 6.55 9.85 -13.8630 .6929 .8187 4.66 7.6115 Little Spearfish Creek 27.44 25.26 -- -- -- 431.8 -- -- 8.74 9.95 -.4435 .3346 .5229 8.01 7.97

16 Squaw Creek 29.02 26.89 -.0751 .0108 .5195 21.5 1.3 .5224 7.34 7.30 -10.0420 .5990 .7963 6.07 5.8117 Hay Creek 18.28 18.16 -.0137 .0013 .4052 1.0 -- -- .20 -- -- -- -- -- --18 Whitetail Creek 31.19 28.08 -.1464 .0149 .6216 27.2 1.4 .5968 10.57 10.59 -14.421 .8013 .8152 8.10 8.1319 Bear Butte Creek 

(Deadwood)

29.62 26.86 -.0975 .0106 .5032 18.7 1.4 .4860 6.84 8.02 -9.5062 .5519 .7850 5.34 6.25

20 Bear Butte Creek 

(Sturgis)

23.68 23.85 -.1144 .0075 .5614 6.0 -- -- 1.58 -- -- -- -- -- --

1Unless noted otherwise, estimated using regression equation for runoff efficiency versus precipitation.2Estimated using exponent of 1.6.3Period of record sufficient for computation of yield efficiency.4Estimated using average runoff efficiency for the available period of record.5A flow of 10 cubic feet per second was added to the measured streamflow to account for diverted flow. 
Precipitation Recharge 45

Figure 14. Regression plots of yield efficiency with precipitation for selected streamflow-gaging stations. YIELD EFFICIENCY, IN PERCENT YIELD EFFICIENCY, IN PERCENT YIELD EFFICIENCY, IN PERCENT

0 25 5 10 15 20

0

10

2

4

6

8

Horsehead Creek at Oelrichs

 (06400875)

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

0

8

2

4

6

Beaver Creek near Pringle (06402430)

0

20

5

10

15

French Creek above Fairburn (06403300)

0 3 5 10 15 20 25 30 5

0 35 5 10 15 20 25 30

0 35 5 10 15 20 25 30

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

0

25

05

10

15

20

Battle Creek near Keystone (06404000)

Best-fit exponent = 1.9

Best-fit exponent = 1.6

Best-fit exponent = 2.2

0 3 5 10 15 20 25 30 5

0

40

10

20

30

Grace Coolidge Creek near Game Lodge,

near Custer (06404998)

0 3 5 10 15 20 25 0

0

20

05

10

15

Spring Creek near Keystone (06407500)

Best-fit exponent = 2.5

Best-fit exponent = 1.9
46 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

 

Figure 14. Regression plots of yield efficiency with precipitation for selected streamflow-gaging stations.--Continued YIELD EFFICIENCY, IN PERCENT YIELD EFFICIENCY, IN PERCENT YIELD EFFICIENCY, IN PERCENT

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

0

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

0 35 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

30

10

20

Boxelder Creek near Nemo

(06422500)

0 40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0

40

10

20

30

Elk Creek near Roubaix (06424000)

0 35 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

40

10

20

30

Spearfish Creek near Lead (06430770)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0

50

10

20

30

40

Annie Creek near Lead (06430800)

Best-fit exponent = 2.1

Best-fit exponent = 2.1

Best-fit exponent = 1.1

0 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 5

0

50

10

20

30

40

Squaw Creek near Spearfish (06430898)

0 3 5 10 15 20 25 0

0

5

1

2

3

4

Hay Creek at Belle Fourche (06433500)

Best-fit exponent = 1.3
Precipitation Recharge 47

Figure 14. Regression plots of yield efficiency with precipitation for selected streamflow-gaging stations.--Continued YIELD EFFICIENCY, IN PERCENT YIELD EFFICIENCY, IN PERCENT

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

LINEAR REGRESSION

EXPONENTIAL REGRESSION USING AN

 EXPONENT OF 1.6

BEST FIT EXPONENTIAL REGRESSION

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

EXPLANATION

0 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0 45 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0

60

20

10

40

30

50

Whitetail Creek at Lead (06436156)

0

50

10

20

30

40

Bear Butte Creek near Deadwood

(06437020)

0 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0

0

25

5

10

15

20

Bear Butte Creek near Sturgis (06437500)

Best-fit exponent = 1.4

Best-fit exponent = 1.4
48 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

N. Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche

Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Rhoads Fork

Coolidge

Angostura

Reservoir

Castl e Cr

N. Fork Castle Cr

Canyon

Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Stockade

Lake

Cox

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

Creek

Crow Creek

BELLE

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek

Cr

Little Spearfish

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Spring

Creek

Creek

Creek

Grace

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Bottom

False

Creek

Spokane

North

South

Reaves

Lame

Gulch

Fork

Fork

Flynn

Cr

Johnny

Higgins

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Squaw

Whitetail

Cr

Cr Cr

Gulch

Gulch

Annie

Iron

Cr

Iron Cr

Meadow Cr

Elk

Little

Creek

Castle

Castle

Creek

Creek

Bear Gulch

Sylvan

Lake

Morris

Creek

Whitewood

Spearfish

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Galena

Trojan

Tinton Central

City

Maurice

Savoy

Roubaix

Nemo

Vale

Hayward

Keystone

Pringle

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Rockerville

Oral

Wind Cave National Park

Jewel Cave

National Monument

Mt. Rushmore National

Memorial

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak x

Ellsworth

Air Force

Base

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYOMING

SOUTH DAKOTA

104o 45' 103o

30'

15' 103o

30'

44o

45'

15'

44o

45'

30'

 43o

15'

LIMESTONE

PLATEAU

1

(0.9) 2

(1.3)

3

(2.1)

4

(1.8)

5

(5.4)

6

(8.3)

7

(9.9)

8

(6.7)

9

(41.8)

11

(10.8)

10

(9.3)

12

(21.5) 13

(25.1)

14

(16.4)

15

(31.8)

16

(21.5)

17

(1.0)

18

(27.2)

19

(18.7)

20

(6.0)

20

(6.0)

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

OUTCROP OF THE MADISON

 LIMESTONE (from Strobel and

 others, 1999)

OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA

 FORMATION (from Strobel

 and others, 1999)

CONTINUOUS-RECORD

 STREAMFLOW-GAGING

 STATION--Number indicates

 site number from table 14.

 Number in parentheses

 indicates average yield

 efficiency, in percent

Figure 15. Estimated yield efficiencies for water years 1950-98, based on surface drainage areas, for selected gaging

stations.

EXPLANATION
Precipitation Recharge 49

Sundance

Newcastle

Whitewood

Spearfish

Maurice

Savoy

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

Nemo

Central

City

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Roubaix

Keystone

Hayward

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Pringle

Oral

Redwater

CreekSand

Creek

Cold

Springs

Inyan Kara

Creek

Creek

Creek

Stockade

Beaver

Beaver

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Creek

Lance

Creek

Creek

N Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche

Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Grace Cooli d ge

Angostura

Reservoir

Iron

Castl e Cr

N Fork Castle C

Canyon Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

BEL

Creek

LE

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Spokane

Lame Johnny

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Gulch

Gulch

Castle

Castle

Bear

Little

Creek

Gulch

H gi gins

Creek

Creek

Cr

Bottom False

Creek

Wind Cave

National Park

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak

x

CROOK CO

WESTON CO

NIOBRARA CO

104o 104o

30' 103o

30'

103o

44o30'

44o

43o30'

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYO

MING

SOUTH DAKOTA LIMESTONE

PLATEAU

4

6

30

30

25

20

8

15

10

10

8

6

6

6

4

4

2

2

1

10

15

20

25

8

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

SOUTH DAKOTA

WYOMING

Area

Shown

LINE OF EQUAL AVERAGE ANNUAL

 YIELD EFFICIENCY-- Interval 1, 2, or

 5 percent

Figure 16. Generalized average annual yield efficiency (in percent of annual precipitation), water years 1950-98.

CONNECTED OUTCROP OF THE MADISON LIMESTONE 15

 FOR WHICH PRECIPITATION RECHARGE IS PRE-

 SCRIBED (from Strobel and others, 1999; DeWitt and

 others, 1989)

CONNECTED OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA FORMATION

 FOR WHICH PRECIPITATION RECHARGE IS PRE-

 SCRIBED (from Strobel and others, 1999; DeWitt and

 others, 1989)
50 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

Annual yield for a given year can be calculated 

using a selected value for n, by rearranging equation 1 

to solve for Qannual and by substituting equation 2 in 

place of YEannual to produce the following equation:

(3)

A computer algorithm, which utilizes the set of 

three digital grids (Paverage, Pannual, and YEaverage) with 

equation 3, was developed to generate digital grids of 

annual yield (Qannual) for each year during 1950-98 

using exponents of 1.4, 1.6, and 2.0. A value of 1.6 was 

selected and is used for calculation of precipitation 

recharge based on comparisons for selected gaging 

stations between measured annual yield and the computer algorithm annual yield (results using an exponent 

of 1.6 are presented in table 14).

Because the period of record is relatively short 

for many of the gaging stations, a method for comparing long-term annual yields to the computer algorithm was desired. For this, linear regression analyses 

were performed between annual yield and precipitation 

for the selected gaging stations for the period of record, 

with resulting equations (table 14) used to estimate the 

average annual yields for 1950-98 for each of the 15 

gaging stations located on or near the Precambrian 

core. Estimates also were generated using the computer algorithm (table 14), which generally compare 

quite favorably with the regression estimates, with no 

apparent tendency of consistent overestimation or 

underestimation. An exception is Annie Creek, for 

which annual yields are notably lower than in adjacent 

basins (fig. 13). Estimates derived using the computer 

algorithm for Rhoads Fork and Castle Creek also are 

notably different than the regression estimates, but 

probably are much more representative of groundwater recharge that occurs within the surface drainage 

areas for these basins.

Recharge Estimates

As previously stated, the major assumptions in 

determining recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa 

aquifers from precipitation are that (1) all precipitation 

on outcrops of the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa 

Formation that is not evapotranspirated becomes 

recharge, and (2) yield efficiency is a reasonable 

surrogate for the efficiency of precipitation recharge. 

Therefore, recharge is assumed equal to annual yield. 

The computer algorithm using equation 3 was used to 

estimate annual recharge from infiltration of precipitation on outcrops of the Madison Limestone and 

Minnelusa Formation (table 15). A digital grid for the 

distribution of annual yield over the study area was 

generated for each year during 1931-98. Annual yield 

was then applied to the outcrop areas, from which 

annual recharge volumes were computed. Estimates of 

annual recharge, in inches, were obtained by dividing 

by the connected outcrop areas (fig. 7) of the Madison 

Limestone and Minnelusa Formation, which are about 

301,160 acres and 427,160 acres, respectively.

The long-term (1931-98) average for precipitation recharge to both the Madison and Minnelusa 

aquifers is about 182,000 acre-ft per year, or an average 

of about 251 ft3/s (table 15). The average for 1950-98 

is about 10 percent higher, because the dry conditions 

of the 1930’s are excluded. The minimum recharge rate 

(about 31 ft3/s) occurred in 1936. This extreme value 

is important because it provides an indication of just 

how low the recharge rate could be during a severe 

drought. Also, the 10-year average for 1931-40 (about 

130 ft3

/s) is much smaller than all other 10-year 

averages. The maximum 3-year average of about 

577 ft3/s for 1995-97 includes the annual maximum of 

about 664 ft3/s for 1995. 

The average (1931-98) recharge depth to the 

Madison aquifer (3.59 inches) is about 1 inch larger 

than for the Minnelusa aquifer because of the orographic effects. Average recharge volumes are nearly 

identical, however, because the outcrop area for the 

Minnelusa Formation is almost 50 percent larger than 

for the Madison Limestone. For 1950-98, precipitation 

recharge averages about 135 ft3/s to each aquifer, 

compared with combined streamflow recharge of about 

98 ft3/s for both aquifers (table 12). Although streamflow recharge is presumed larger for the Madison 

aquifer, substantial streamflow recharge to the 

Minnelusa aquifer is apparent for many streams 

(tables 5 and 9). If the Madison aquifer is assumed to 

receive either 65 or 75 percent of combined streamflow 

recharge to both aquifers, the resulting proportion of 

total recharge (about 370 ft3/s) is about 54 or 

57 percent, respectively. Considering the margin of 

error associated with recharge estimates, it reasonably 

can be concluded that on average, the Madison aquifer 

receives about 55 percent of total recharge to both 

aquifers, relative to about 45 percent for the Minnelusa 

aquifer. 

Qannual

Pannual

Paverage

------------------- n YEaverage

100 × ----------------------- Pannual = ×
Precipitation Recharge 51

Table 15. Estimated precipitation recharge, water years 1931-98

[--, not applicable]

Water

year

Average annual recharge

Moving averages for total 

precipitation recharge

(cubic feet per second)

Madison aquifer Minnelusa aquifer Total1

3-year 

average

5-year 

average

10-year 

Acre-feet Inches average

Cubic feet

per

second

Acre-feet Inches

Cubic feet

per

second

Acre-feet

Cubic feet

per

second

1931 18,893 0.75 26.03 22,689 0.64 31.34 41,582 57.37 -- -- --

1932 104,910 4.18 144.51 108,389 3.04 149.31 213,299 293.82 -- -- --

1933 93,592 3.73 128.92 96,909 2.72 133.86 190,501 262.78 204.66 -- --

1934 19,633 .78 27.05 20,020 .56 27.65 396,53 54.70 203.77 -- --

1935 49,792 1.98 68.59 49,917 1.40 68.95 99,710 137.54 151.67 161.24 --

1936 10,330 .41 14.23 12,235 .34 16.85 22,565 31.08 74.44 155.98 --

1937 36,772 1.47 50.65 42,780 1.20 59.09 79,552 109.75 92.79 119.17 --

1938 43,661 1.74 60.14 47,180 1.33 65.17 90,841 125.31 88.71 91.68 --

1939 45,769 1.82 63.05 46,685 1.31 64.49 92,455 127.53 120.86 106.24 --

1940 31,424 1.25 43.29 38,398 1.08 52.89 69,822 96.18 116.34 97.97 129.61

1941 123,352 4.92 169.92 141,690 3.98 195.71 265,041 365.63 196.45 164.88 160.43

1942 90,236 3.60 124.30 105,367 2.96 145.54 195,603 269.84 243.88 196.90 158.03

1943 73,755 2.94 101.60 70,489 1.98 97.36 144,244 198.96 278.14 211.63 151.65

1944 57,153 2.28 78.73 66,466 1.87 91.56 123,620 170.29 213.03 220.18 163.21

1945 126,361 5.03 174.06 131,968 3.71 182.28 258,329 356.35 241.87 272.21 185.09

1946 201,948 8.05 278.18 213,204 5.99 294.49 415,152 572.68 366.44 313.62 239.25

1947 83,367 3.32 114.84 85,390 2.40 117.95 168,757 232.79 387.27 306.21 251.56

1948 73,557 2.93 101.32 69,360 1.95 95.54 142,917 196.87 334.11 305.79 258.71

1949 42,660 1.70 58.76 44,713 1.26 61.76 87,373 120.53 183.39 295.84 258.01

1950 65,960 2.63 90.86 63,715 1.79 88.01 129,675 178.87 165.42 260.35 266.28

1951 54,942 2.19 75.68 61,586 1.73 85.07 116,528 160.75 153.38 177.96 245.79

1952 68,076 2.71 93.77 62,618 1.76 86.26 130,694 180.03 173.22 167.41 236.81

1953 69,612 2.77 95.89 64,021 1.80 88.43 133,632 184.32 175.03 164.90 235.35

1954 35,972 1.43 49.55 33,344 .94 46.06 69,315 95.61 153.32 159.92 227.88

1955 98,14 3.93 135.84 95,720 2.69 132.22 194,334 268.06 182.66 177.75 219.05

1956 48,578 1.94 66.92 48,743 1.37 67.14 97,320 134.06 165.91 172.42 175.19

1957 101,919 4.06 140.39 99,660 2.80 137.66 201,579 278.05 226.72 192.02 179.71

1958 67,458 2.69 92.92 66,854 1.88 92.34 134,313 185.27 199.13 192.21 178.55

1959 53,660 2.14 73.92 48,106 1.35 66.45 101,765 140.36 201.23 201.16 180.54

1960 45,077 1.80 62.09 40,288 1.13 55.50 85,365 117.59 147.74 171.07 174.41

1961 25,240 1.01 34.77 24,697 .69 34.11 49,937 68.88 108.95 158.03 165.22

1962 181,288 7.22 249.73 190,767 5.36 263.50 372,055 513.23 233.23 205.07 198.54

1963 160,252 6.39 220.75 148,987 4.19 205.79 309,239 426.54 336.22 253.32 222.76

1964 177,805 7.08 244.93 165,465 4.65 227.93 343,269 472.86 470.87 319.82 260.49

1965 189,703 7.56 261.32 191,479 5.38 264.49 381,182 525.80 475.07 401.46 286.26

1966 47,142 1.88 64.94 51,523 1.45 71.17 98,665 136.11 378.25 414.91 286.47

1967 112,610 4.49 155.12 118,968 3.34 164.33 231,578 319.45 327.12 376.15 290.61
52 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

1968 89,044 3.55 122.66 90,202 2.53 124.25 179,247 246.91 234.16 340.23 296.77

1969 81,287 3.24 111.97 75,237 2.11 103.92 156,524 215.90 260.75 288.83 304.33

1970 103,859 4.14 143.07 108,969 3.06 150.52 212,828 293.58 252.13 242.39 321.93

1971 131,686 5.25 181.40 133,218 3.74 184.01 264,904 365.41 291.63 288.25 351.58

1972 144,955 5.78 199.68 158,830 4.46 218.79 303,785 418.46 359.15 308.05 342.10

1973 101,269 4.04 139.50 104,185 2.93 143.91 205,454 283.41 355.76 315.35 327.79

1974 45,817 1.83 63.11 46,849 1.32 64.71 92,666 127.82 276.57 297.74 293.29

1975 64,831 2.58 89.30 64,523 1.81 89.12 129,353 178.43 196.55 274.71 258.55

1976 129,177 5.15 177.94 136,841 3.84 188.50 266,018 366.44 224.23 274.91 281.58

1977 101,136 4.03 139.32 94,250 2.65 130.19 195,386 269.50 271.46 245.12 276.59

1978 120,579 4.80 166.10 121,332 3.41 167.59 241,910 333.69 323.21 255.18 285.26

1979 87,646 3.49 120.73 81,463 2.29 112.52 169,110 233.26 278.82 276.26 287.00

1980 41,282 1.64 56.87 40,068 1.13 55.19 81,350 112.06 226.34 262.99 268.85

1981 60,203 2.40 82.93 63,398 1.78 87.57 123,601 170.50 171.94 223.80 249.36

1982 185,043 7.37 254.90 187,727 5.27 259.30 372,770 514.20 265.59 272.74 258.93

1983 62,625 2.50 86.27 58,874 1.65 81.32 121,498 167.59 284.10 239.52 247.35

1984 90,023 3.59 124.01 100,315 2.82 138.18 190,338 262.19 314.66 245.31 260.79

1985 25,120 1.00 34.60 24,839 .70 34.31 49,959 68.91 166.23 236.68 249.83

1986 117,823 4.69 162.30 140,696 3.95 194.34 258,519 356.64 229.25 273.91 248.85

1987 41,588 1.66 57.29 49,982 1.40 69.04 91,570 126.33 183.96 196.33 234.54

1988 35,186 1.40 48.47 39,128 1.10 53.90 74,314 102.37 195.11 183.29 211.40

1989 51,750 2.06 71.29 54,566 1.53 75.37 106,316 146.66 125.12 160.18 202.74

1990 66,118 2.63 91.08 72,304 2.03 99.87 138,422 190.95 146.66 184.59 210.63

1991 106,135 4.23 146.20 116,167 3.26 160.46 222,302 306.66 214.76 174.59 224.25

1992 73,065 2.91 100.65 71,624 2.01 98.66 144,689 199.31 232.31 189.19 192.76

1993 153,727 6.13 211.76 168,387 4.73 232.59 322,114 444.35 316.77 257.59 220.44

1994 71,800 2.86 98.90 75,722 2.13 104.59 147,522 203.50 282.39 268.95 214.57

1995 225,419 8.98 310.52 255,774 7.19 353.30 481,193 663.81 437.22 363.53 274.06

1996 185,600 7.40 255.66 193,579 5.44 266.66 379,179 522.32 463.21 406.66 290.62

1997 216,306 8.62 297.96 179,447 5.04 247.87 395,753 545.83 577.32 475.96 332.58

1998 178,568 7.12 245.98 153,771 4.32 212.40 332,339 458.38 508.84 478.77 368.18

Average

1950-98

97,808 3.90 134.73 98,751 2.77 136.31 196,559 271.04 -- -- --

Average

1931-98

89,996 3.59 123.97 91,951 2.58 126.93 181,947 250.90 -- -- --

1Individual recharge estimates may not sum to total due to independent rounding.

Table 15. Estimated precipitation recharge, water years 1931-98–Continued

[--, not applicable]

Water

year

Average annual recharge

Moving averages for total 

precipitation recharge

(cubic feet per second)

Madison aquifer Minnelusa aquifer Total1

3-year 

average

5-year 

average

10-year 

Acre-feet Inches average

Cubic feet

per

second

Acre-feet Inches

Cubic feet

per

second

Acre-feet

Cubic feet

per

second
Combined Recharge, 1931-98 53

To illustrate recharge patterns throughout the 

study area, annual digital grids were averaged over 

49 years to yield a distribution of average annual 

recharge for 1950-98 (fig. 17). The average annual 

recharge from precipitation ranges from 0.4 inch in the 

southern Black Hills to 8.7 inches in the northwestern 

Black Hills. This corresponds with average yield 

efficiencies in the outcrop areas that range from just 

over 2 percent in the south to almost 35 percent in the 

north (fig. 16) and annual precipitation ranging from 

about 17 to 26 inches (fig. 12).

COMBINED RECHARGE, 1931-98

Annual streamflow recharge (table 12) and precipitation recharge (table 15) were summed (table 16) 

to yield total combined recharge rates to the Madison 

and Minnelusa aquifers. Table 16 includes estimates of 

streamflow recharge for 1931-49 that were not 

included in table 12. Methods for deriving these 

estimates are described in the following discussion. 

Because precipitation recharge was very low during the 

1930’s, it was important to have estimates of combined 

recharge for this period. However, for all recharge 

estimates presented in this report, the earlier estimates 

have larger uncertainties due to sparser data.

Various regression methods were examined for 

estimating streamflow recharge for the period 

1931-49, based on precipitation recharge rates and precipitation over the study area. The best regression (R2=

0.8119) was based on recharge for the period 1989 

through 1998, which is a period with abundant streamflow records and a wide range of recharge rates. This 

regression yielded the following equation to estimate 

streamflow recharge based on precipitation recharge: 

Streamflow Recharge = (0.294 x Precipitation 

Recharge) + 21.319.

Annual ranks for streamflow recharge, precipitation recharge, and combined recharge are provided in 

table 16. Of recent years, the driest year for combined 

recharge is 1985, with a rank of 65. In comparison, 

3 years during the 1930’s (1931, 1934, and 1936) are 

much drier, with combined recharge rates that are considerably smaller. The 10-year moving average for 

1931-40 is much smaller than any of the subsequent 

10-year averages. This period also includes many 

minimal values for the 3- and 5-year averages, which 

again are much smaller than subsequent averages. This 

clearly illustrates the importance of estimating streamflow recharge for 1931-49.

Ranks for the different recharge categories 

generally are quite similar (table 16); however, because 

combined recharge generally is dominated by precipitation recharge, these categories have the most similarity. Trends in streamflow recharge occasionally lag 

precipitation recharge because of effects of antecedent 

conditions. A good example is 1997, which is the 

maximum year for streamflow recharge (table 16).

Combined streamflow and precipitation recharge 

averaged about 344 ft3/s for 1931-98 and ranged from 

about 62 ft3

/s in 1936 to about 847 ft3/s in 1995 

(table 16). Streamflow recharge averaged about

93 ft3/s, or 27 percent of combined recharge, and 

precipitation recharge averaged about 251 ft3/s, or 

73 percent of combined recharge.

Plots of annual streamflow recharge, precipitation recharge, and combined recharge are provided in 

figure 18. It is apparent that combined recharge for the 

period 1962-98 is much larger than for 1931-61, which 

was identified by Driscoll, Hamade, and Kenner (2000) 

as a period of generally deficit precipitation departures, 

relative to the 1931-98 average. Combined recharge 

during 1962-98 exceeds the 1931-98 average for 21 of 

37 years; however, the 1931-98 average is exceeded for 

only 7 of 31 years during 1931-61 (table 16). The most 

prolonged low-recharge period is 1947-61, with only 

one year above average for combined recharge; however, recharge amounts generally were lower during the 

1930’s. The 1990’s are distinct as the period of highest 

recharge.

The relative proportion of recharge contributed 

by streamflow losses and infiltration of precipitation is 

highly variable (fig. 18). The minimum value for 

combined recharge (about 62 ft3

/s for 1936) consists of 

49.5 and 50.5 percent, respectively, from streamflow 

and precipitation recharge (table 16). This compares 

with 21.7 and 78.3 percent, respectively, for the 

maximum recharge value of about 847 ft3

/s in 1995. 

Thus, it is apparent that the relative proportion contributed by streamflow recharge increases as combined 

recharge decreases.
54 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

Sundance

Newcastle

Whitewood

Spearfish

Maurice

Savoy

Saint

Onge

DEADWOOD

Lead

Nemo

Central

City

BELLE FOURCHE

Newell

STURGIS

Blackhawk

Piedmont

Tilford

Box Elder 

RAPID CITY

Hill City

Hermosa

CUSTER

HOT SPRINGS

Edgemont

Roubaix

Keystone

Hayward

Fairburn

Buffalo Gap

Pringle

Oral

Redwater

CreekSand

Creek

Cold

Springs

Inyan Kara

Creek

Creek

Creek

Stockade

Beaver

Beaver

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Creek

Lance

Creek

Creek

N Fork Rapid Cr

Belle Fourche

Reservoir

FOURCHE

Victoria

Spring

Grace Cooli d ge

Angostura

Reservoir

Iron

Castl e Cr

N Fork Castle C

Canyon Red

Bear

Gulch

Creek

Crow

Sheridan

Lake

Deerfield

Reservoir

Pactola

Reservoir

Indian Cr

Horse

Creek

Owl

BE

Creek

LLE

RIVER

REDWATER

R I VER

Creek

Spearfish

Whitewood

Creek

Creek

Bear

Butte

Elk

Elk

Creek

Creek

Boxelder

Rapid

Rapid

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

Creek

S. Fork

S. Fork Rapid Cr

Battle

French

Beaver

Creek

Creek

Creek

Fall R

Hat

Creek

Creek

Horsehead

CHEYENNE

RIVER

Cottonwood

Hay Creek

Spokane

Lame Johnny

Beaver

Creek

Robison

Gulch

Gulch

Castle

Castle

Bear

Little

Creek

Gulch

H gi gins

Creek

Creek

Cr

Bottom False

Creek

Wind Cave

National Park

CUSTER

STATE

PARK

Wind

Cave

Harney

Peak

x

CROOK CO

WESTON CO

NIOBRARA CO

104o 104o

30' 103o

30'

103o

44o30'

44o

43o30'

BUTTE CO

LAWRENCE CO MEADE CO

PENNINGTON CO

CUSTER CO

FALL RIVER CO

WYO

MING

SOUTH DAKOTA LIMESTONE

PLATEAU

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

2

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data,

1:100,000 and City Engineer's map, Rapid City, 1991

0 10 20

0 10 20 MILES

KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

SOUTH DAKOTA

WYOMING

Area

Shown

OUTCROP OF THE MADISON LIMESTONE FOR

 WHICH PRECIPITATION RECHARGE IS PRESCRIBED

AVERAGE ANNUAL RECHARGE, IN INCHES

Less than 1

Between 1 and 2

Between 2 and 3

Between 3 and 4

Between 4 and 5

Between 5 and 6

Between 6 and 7

Between 7 and 8

Between 8 and 9

OUTCROP OF THE MINNELUSA FORMATION FOR

 WHICH PRECIPITATION RECHARGE IS PRESCRIBED

LINE OF EQUAL YIELD POTENTIAL--Number indicates

 average annual yield potential. Interval 1 inch

Figure 17. Estimated annual yield potential and average annual recharge from precipitation on outcrops of the

Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation, water years 1950-98.

2
Combined Recharge, 1931-98 55

Table 16. Summary of streamflow, precipitation, and combined recharge, water years 1931-98

[--, not applicable]

Water 

year

Streamflow recharge Precipitation recharge Combined recharge

Moving averages for

combined recharge

(cubic feet per second)

Total

(cubic feet 

per second)

Rank

Total

(cubic feet 

per second)

Rank Total

(acre-feet)

Total1

(cubic feet 

per second)

Rank 3-year

average

5-year

average

10-year

average

1931 38.17 66 57.37 66 69,161 95.53 66 -- -- --

1932 107.61 23 293.82 21 291,426 401.44 22 -- -- --

1933 98.50 28 262.78 28 261,555 361.28 27 286.08 -- --

1934 37.38 67 54.70 67 66,663 92.08 67 284.93 -- --

1935 61.71 51 137.54 50 144,250 199.25 52 217.54 229.92 --

1936 30.45 68 31.08 68 44,668 61.53 68 117.62 223.12 --

1937 53.55 61 109.75 60 118,224 163.30 60 141.36 175.49 --

1938 58.12 57 125.31 56 132,804 183.44 55 136.09 139.92 --

1939 58.78 56 127.53 54 134,882 186.31 54 177.68 158.77 --

1940 49.57 63 96.18 62 105,807 145.75 62 171.83 148.07 188.99

1941 128.70 8 365.63 14 357,886 494.34 13 275.47 234.63 228.87

1942 100.57 27 269.84 25 268,165 370.41 26 336.83 276.05 225.77

1943 79.75 39 198.96 36 201,784 278.72 38 381.16 295.11 217.51

1944 71.33 46 170.29 45 175,404 241.62 45 296.92 306.17 232.47

1945 125.98 10 356.35 17 349,191 482.33 15 334.22 373.48 260.78

1946 189.51 2 572.68 2 551,800 762.19 3 495.38 427.05 330.84

1947 89.69 34 232.79 32 233,458 322.47 32 522.33 417.47 346.76

1948 79.14 41 196.87 37 200,370 276.01 39 453.56 416.92 356.02

1949 56.72 58 120.53 57 128,316 177.24 57 258.57 404.05 355.11

1950 79.50 40 178.87 42 187,044 258.36 44 237.20 359.25 366.37

1951 76.09 43 160.75 47 171,464 236.84 46 224.15 254.18 340.62

1952 113.52 19 180.03 41 213,103 293.55 34 262.92 248.40 332.93

1953 96.62 30 184.32 40 203,391 280.94 37 270.44 249.39 333.16

1954 66.10 48 95.61 63 117,073 161.71 61 245.40 246.28 325.16

1955 65.04 50 268.06 27 241,146 333.09 29 258.58 261.23 310.24

1956 65.90 49 134.06 52 145,161 199.96 51 231.59 253.85 254.02

1957 117.12 17 278.05 24 286,090 395.17 24 309.41 274.17 261.29

1958 73.20 45 185.27 39 187,124 258.47 43 284.53 269.68 259.53

1959 60.53 53 140.36 49 145,438 200.89 50 284.84 277.52 261.90

1960 59.57 55 117.59 58 128,609 177.16 58 212.17 246.33 253.78

1961 54.97 59 68.88 65 89,663 123.85 64 167.30 231.11 242.48

1962 122.52 14 513.23 7 460,262 635.75 6 312.25 279.22 276.70

1963 103.64 25 426.54 11 383,833 530.18 12 429.93 333.57 301.62

1964 95.48 32 472.86 8 412,579 568.33 10 578.09 407.05 342.29

1965 140.80 6 525.80 4 482,596 666.60 5 588.37 504.94 375.64

1966 98.23 29 136.11 51 169,647 234.33 48 489.75 527.04 379.07

1967 121.00 15 319.45 19 318,871 440.45 19 447.13 487.98 383.60
56 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

1968 82.87 38 246.91 30 239,404 329.78 30 334.85 447.90 390.73

1969 74.24 44 215.90 33 210,052 290.14 35 353.46 392.26 399.66

1970 105.19 24 293.58 22 288,696 398.77 23 339.56 338.69 421.82

1971 123.68 12 365.41 15 354,085 489.09 14 392.67 389.65 458.34

1972 126.93 9 418.46 12 395,933 545.40 11 477.75 410.64 449.31

1973 123.78 11 283.41 23 294,785 407.18 21 480.56 426.12 437.01

1974 54.09 60 127.82 53 131,704 181.92 56 378.17 404.47 398.37

1975 96.06 31 178.43 43 198,722 274.49 40 287.86 379.62 359.16

1976 113.01 20 366.44 13 348,057 479.45 16 311.95 377.69 383.67

1977 86.23 36 269.50 26 257,537 355.73 28 369.89 339.75 375.20

1978 108.65 21 333.69 18 320,240 442.34 18 425.84 346.79 386.45

1979 84.96 37 233.26 31 230,381 318.22 33 372.10 374.05 389.26

1980 60.17 54 112.06 59 125,030 172.23 59 310.93 353.59 366.61

1981 60.88 52 170.50 44 167,511 231.38 49 240.61 303.98 340.83

1982 89.00 35 514.20 6 436,697 603.20 8 335.60 353.47 346.61

1983 115.39 18 167.59 46 204,861 282.97 36 372.52 321.60 334.19

1984 122.53 13 262.19 29 279,288 384.72 25 423.63 334.90 354.47

1985 49.88 62 68.91 64 86,000 118.79 65 262.16 324.21 338.90

1986 92.52 33 356.64 16 325,184 449.17 17 317.56 367.77 335.88

1987 108.41 22 126.33 55 169,937 234.73 47 267.56 294.08 323.78

1988 38.38 65 102.37 61 102,170 140.74 63 274.88 265.63 293.62

1989 40.36 64 146.66 48 135,389 187.01 53 187.49 226.09 280.49

1990 76.27 42 190.95 38 193,458 267.22 41 198.32 255.77 289.99

1991 103.11 26 306.66 20 296,660 409.77 20 288.00 247.89 307.83

1992 66.30 47 199.31 35 192,820 265.61 42 314.20 254.07 274.07

1993 128.83 7 444.35 10 414,963 573.18 9 416.19 340.56 303.09

1994 120.16 16 203.50 34 234,312 323.65 31 387.48 367.89 296.99

1995 183.57 3 663.81 1 613,475 847.38 1 581.40 483.92 369.85

1996 179.48 4 522.32 5 509,472 701.80 4 624.28 542.32 395.11

1997 221.55 1 545.83 3 555,558 767.38 2 772.19 642.68 448.37

1998 174.77 5 458.38 9 458,380 633.15 7 700.78 654.67 497.62

Number 68 68 68

Minimum 30.45 31.08 44,668 61.53 -- -- --

Maximum 221.55 663.81 613,475 847.38 -- -- --

Average 93.18 250.90 249,260 344.08 -- -- --

1

Individual recharge estimates may not sum to total due to independent rounding.

Table 16. Summary of streamflow, precipitation, and combined recharge, water years 1931-98–Continued

[--, not applicable]

Water 

year

Streamflow recharge Precipitation recharge Combined recharge

Moving averages for

combined recharge

(cubic feet per second)

Total

(cubic feet 

per second)

Rank

Total

(cubic feet 

per second)

Rank Total

(acre-feet)

Total1

(cubic feet 

per second)

Rank 3-year

average

5-year

average

10-year

average
Summary 57

Recharge along the southeastern flank of the 

Black Hills probably is dominated by streamflow 

recharge. Distinctions between streamflow and precipitation recharge have not been computed for specific 

areas; however, the southeastern flank has small outcrops of Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation 

located in an area with minimal yield efficiency 

(fig. 16). A number of relatively large streams from 

Rapid Creek south to Beaver Creek provide a relatively 

consistent source of streamflow recharge. The western 

flank of the Black Hills is almost entirely dominated by 

precipitation recharge because of the large outcrop 

areas of Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation 

and absence of perennial streams that provide recharge.

The relative contribution from streamflow and 

precipitation recharge is highly variable along the 

northern and northeastern flanks of the Black Hills. 

Yield efficiencies generally are higher than along the 

southeastern flank; however, the width of outcrops 

varies considerably. Furthermore, many of the contributing areas for streamflow are small, relative to outcrop 

areas. In addition, streamflow recharge for Spearfish 

and Whitewood Creeks has been limited by anthropogenic effects.

Additional insights regarding the relative uncertainties of recharge estimates also are available from 

examination of table 16. It can be concluded that 

uncertainties regarding estimates of streamflow 

recharge for miscellaneous-record and ungaged basins 

are relatively small compared to overall uncertainty. 

These areas contribute only about 29 percent of 

average streamflow recharge (table 12), which constitutes only about 26 percent of total combined recharge 

(table 16). Thus, these areas generally contribute less 

than 10 percent of overall recharge. It is further 

apparent that the largest uncertainty regarding 

estimated recharge is associated with precipitation 

recharge, which dominates combined recharge for 

average conditions. Although the possibility of bias 

exists for estimates of precipitation recharge, the 

method used provides a consistent, systematic 

approach that could be adjusted in various ways, if a 

consistent bias is later identified and quantified. 

Results of initial water-budget analyses by Hamade 

(2000) showed no indication of large biases in 

estimates of precipitation recharge.

Minimum and maximum average annual precipitation amounts for the Black Hills area between 1931 

and 1998 were estimated by Driscoll, Hamade, and 

Kenner (2000) as 10.22 inches for 1936 and 

27.39 inches for 1995. These also are the years for 

which minimum and maximum recharge are estimated 

(table 16). Although the absolute level of accuracy for 

recharge estimates is unknown, there is confidence that 

on a relative scale the estimates presented herein are 

consistently realistic.

SUMMARY

The Madison and Minnelusa aquifers are two of 

the most important aquifers in the Black Hills area. 

Long-term estimates of recharge to the Madison and 

Minnelusa aquifers are important for managing the 

water resources in the Black Hills area of South Dakota 

and Wyoming. Recharge occurs primarily from 

Figure 18. Average annual streamflow, precipitation, and combined recharge.

1930 2000 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

WATER YEAR

0

1,000

200

400

600

800

RECHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET

PER SECOND

EXPLANATION

STREAMFLOW RECHARGE

PRECIPITATION RECHARGE

COMBINED RECHARGE

AVERAGE STREAMFLOW RECHARGE

 (1931-98)

AVERAGE PRECIPITATION RECHARGE

 (1931-98)

AVERAGE COMBINED RECHARGE

 (1931-98)
58 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

streamflow losses and infiltration of precipitation on 

outcrop areas. Annual recharge from these combined 

sources is estimated for water years 1931-98. All 

estimates are for recharge that contributes to regional 

ground-water flow patterns and that occurs in outcrop 

areas connected to the regional flow system. Estimates 

exclude recharge to outcrops areas that are isolated 

from the regional flow system (erosional remnants), 

which generally results in ground-water discharge to 

area streams.

Streamflow losses provide a consistent source of 

recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. Most 

streams generally lose their entire flow in crossing 

these outcrops (loss zones), up to “threshold” rates that 

are unique for each stream. Streamflow recharge is 

calculated directly for 11 streams by applying estimated loss thresholds (from previous investigations) to 

available records of daily streamflow obtained from 

continuous-record gaging stations located upstream 

from loss zones. Availability of daily records ranges 

from 1992-98 for one station to 1950-98 for two 

stations. Daily streamflow records are extrapolated, 

when necessary, using correlations with long-term 

gages, to develop annual estimates of streamflow 

recharge for 1950-98.

Streamflow recharge is estimated for a number 

of smaller basins, using previously determined loss 

thresholds for miscellaneous-record sites. Synthetic 

records of daily streamflow for 1992-98 are developed 

for these basins, using drainage-area ratios applied to 

records for nearby continuous-record gaging stations, 

with recharge calculated directly by applying the loss 

thresholds. Recharge estimates are further extrapolated 

for 1950-91, based on the average percentage of 

streamflow recharge contributed by these basins during 

1992-98, relative to overall streamflow recharge.

Streamflow recharge also is estimated for 

drainage areas with undetermined loss thresholds 

(ungaged basins) that are situated between larger basins 

with known thresholds. Recharge estimates for 

1992-98 are based on estimates of annual streamflow 

derived using drainage-area ratios, relative to representative gaged streams. Recharge is assumed equal to 

90 percent of annual streamflow, and estimates are 

again extrapolated for 1950-91, based on the average 

percentage of streamflow recharge contributed by these 

basins.

Precipitation recharge is estimated using relations between precipitation and basin yield for the 

Black Hills area. Streamflow records are available for 

numerous basins dominated by crystalline outcrops, 

where regional ground-water flow is considered negligible and basin yield represents the residual between 

precipitation and evapotranspiration. Streamflow 

records also are available for several streams, which are 

dominated by ground-water discharge from the 

Madison and/or Minnelusa aquifers. Basin yields for 

some of these streams are quite similar to yields in 

crystalline basins; however, presumed incongruences 

in contributing surface- and ground-water areas result 

in dissimilar yields for several streams.

Because of apparent differences in yield characteristics, positive correlations between annual yield 

efficiency (ratio of basin yield to precipitation) and precipitation are used in developing a systematic approach 

for estimating recharge efficiency. These relations are 

used to compute yield efficiencies for missing years of 

record between 1950 and 1998. Average yield efficiencies for this period are used to generate a map of generalized average yield efficiency for the Black Hills 

area. A simplifying assumption is made that yield 

efficiency can be used as a surrogate for recharge 

efficiency to the Madison and Minnelusa aquifers. An 

exponential equation for adjusting average yield efficiency, based on the ratio of annual to average precipitation, is used to predict annual yield (or recharge) 

efficiency. A geographic information system (GIS) 

algorithm is used to compute annual recharge, based on 

comparison of 1,000-by-1,000-meter grids for average 

precipitation, annual precipitation, and average yield 

efficiency. This method is used to estimate annual precipitation recharge for 1931-98, based on precipitation 

records for this period. Estimates of precipitation 

recharge for 1931-49 are used to estimate streamflow 

recharge for the same period, based on correlations 

between the two variables for 1989-98.

Yield efficiency, which is used as a surrogate for 

the efficiency of precipitation recharge, is highly variable in the Black Hills area and ranges from an average 

of just over 2 percent in the south to in excess of 

30 percent in the north. Accordingly, average precipitation recharge ranges from about 0.4 inch in the 

southern Black Hills to 8.7 inches in the northwestern 

Black Hills.

Combined streamflow and precipitation recharge 

averaged about 344 ft3

/s for 1931-98. Streamflow 

recharge averaged about 93 ft3

/s, or 27 percent of combined recharge, and precipitation recharge averaged 

about 251 ft3

/s, or 73 percent of combined recharge. 

Combined recharge ranged from about 62 ft3/s in 1936 
References 59

to 847 ft3/s in 1995. The lowest recharge amounts 

generally occurred during the 1930’s; however, a more 

prolonged period of low recharge occurred during 

1947-61. Recharge during 1931-61 is below average 

for most years, and recharge during 1962-98 is above 

average for many years. Recharge during the 1990’s is 

higher than for any other period.

Precipitation recharge is consistently larger than 

streamflow recharge; however, the relative proportion 

of streamflow recharge increases as combined recharge 

decreases. The minimum value for combined recharge 

(about 62 ft3/s for 1936) consists of 49.5 and 

50.5 percent, respectively, from streamflow and precipitation recharge. This compares with 21.7 and 

78.3 percent, respectively, for the maximum recharge 

value of about 847 ft3

/s in 1995.

For 1931-98, average precipitation recharge to 

the Madison aquifer is about 3.6 inches, compared with 

2.6 inches for the Minnelusa aquifer. Because the outcrop area of the Minnelusa Formation is larger, however, recharge volumes are nearly identical. 

Streamflow recharge to the Madison aquifer is presumed slightly larger than for the Minnelusa aquifer, 

primarily because of preferential recharge resulting 

from an upgradient location. Considering both precipitation and streamflow recharge, the Madison aquifer 

receives about 55 percent of combined recharge, relative to about 45 percent for the Minnelusa aquifer. Relative recharge proportions, however, have considerable 

temporal variability and very large spatial variability, 

depending on outcrop patterns.

The western flank of the Black Hills is almost 

entirely dominated by precipitation recharge, because 

of the large outcrop areas of Madison Limestone and 

Minnelusa Formation and absence of perennial 

streams. Recharge along the southeastern flank of the 

Black Hills generally is dominated by streamflow 

recharge. The relative contribution from streamflow 

and precipitation recharge is highly variable along the 

northern and northeastern flanks of the Black Hills. 

REFERENCES

Anderson, M.T., 1980, Water quantity and quality of three 

adjacent Black Hills watersheds: Rapid City, South 

Dakota School of Mines and Technology, unpublished 

M.S. thesis, 158 p.

Blackstone, Richard, 1914, The hydro-electric power plant 

of the Homestake Mining Co.: Mining World and 

Engineering, July 4, 1914, v. 12, no. 1, p. 12-20.

Braddock, W.A., 1963, Geology of the Jewel Cave SW quadrangle, Custer County, South Dakota: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 1063-G, p. 217-268.

Brown, C.B., 1944, Report on an investigation of water 

losses in streams flowing east out of the Black Hills, 

South Dakota: U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Special 

Report 8, 45 p.

Carter, J.M., and Redden, J.A., 1999a, Altitude of the top of 

the Inyan Kara Group in the Black Hills area, South 

Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-744-A, 2 sheets, scale 1:100,000.

———1999b, Altitude of the top of the Minnekahta Limestone in the Black Hills area, South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

HA-744-B, 2 sheets, scale 1:100,000.

———1999c, Altitude of the top of the Minnelusa Formation in the Black Hills area, South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

HA-744-C, 2 sheets, scale 1:100,000.

———1999d, Altitude of the top of the Madison Limestone 

in the Black Hills area, South Dakota: U.S. Geological 

Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-744-D, 

2 sheets, scale 1:100,000.

———1999e, Altitude of the top of the Deadwood Formation in the Black Hills area, South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

HA-744-E, 2 sheets, scale 1:100,000.

Cox, E.J., 1962, Artesian water, Minnelusa and Pahasapa 

Formations, Spearfish - Belle Fourche area: South 

Dakota Geological Survey Special Report 19, 17 p.

Crooks, T.J., 1968, Water losses and gains across the 

Pahasapa Limestone, Box Elder Creek, Black Hills, 

South Dakota: Rapid City, South Dakota School of 

Mines and Technology, unpublished M.S. thesis, 22 p.

DeWitt, Ed, Redden, J.A., Buscher, David, and Wilson, 

A.B., 1989, Geologic map of the Black Hills area, 

South Dakota and Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey 

Map I-1910, scale 1:250,000.

DeWitt, Ed, Redden, J.A., Wilson, A.B., and Buscher, 

David, 1986, Mineral resource potential and geology of 

the Black Hills Nations Forest, South Dakota and 

Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1580, 

135 p.

Dodge, Lt. Col. R. Irving, 1876, The Black Hills: New York, 

J. Miller, 151 p.

Downey, J.S., 1986, Geohydrology of bedrock aquifers in 

the Northern Great Plains in parts of Montana, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1402-E, 87 p.

Driscoll, D.G., 1992, Plan of study for the Black Hills 

Hydrology Study, South Dakota: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 92-84, 10 p.
60 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming

Driscoll, D.G., Bradford, W.L., and Moran, M.J., 2000, 

Selected hydrologic data, through water year 1998, 

Black Hills Hydrology Study, South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-70, 284 p.

Driscoll, D.G., Hamade, G.R., and Kenner, S.J., 2000, 

Summary of precipitation data compiled for the Black 

Hills Hydrology Study, western South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-329, 151 p.

Fluke, G.L., 1996, Forestation models for streamflow in the 

Black Hills, South Dakota: Rapid City, South Dakota 

School of Mines and Technology, unpublished Ph.D. 

dissertation [variously paginated].

Gott, G.B., Wolcott, D.E., and Bowles, C.G., 1974, Stratigraphy of the Inyan Kara Group and localization of uranium deposits, southern Black Hills, South Dakota and 

Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

763, 57 p.

Greene, E.A., 1993, Hydraulic properties of the Madison 

aquifer system in the western Rapid City area, South 

Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 93-4008, 56 p.

———1997, Tracing recharge from sinking streams over 

spatial dimensions of kilometers in a karst aquifer: 

Ground Water, v. 35, no. 5, p. 898-904.

Greene, E.A., and Rahn, P.H., 1995, Localized anisotropic 

transmissivity in a karst aquifer: Ground Water, v. 33, 

no. 5, p. 806-816.

Gries, J.P., 1969, Investigations of water losses to sinkholes 

in the Pahasapa Limestone and their relation to resurgent springs, Black Hills, South Dakota: Project 

Completion Report A-0100-South Dakota FY 1969, 

15 p.

———1975, Mineral and water resources of South Dakota: 

U.S. Congress, 94th, 1st Session, Interior and Insular 

Affairs Committee Print, 313 p.

———1996, Roadside geology of South Dakota: Missoula, 

Mont., Mountain Press Publishing Co., 358 p.

Hamade, G.R., 2000, Hydrologic budget of the MadisonMinnelusa aquifer system in the Black Hills area, for 

the period of record from 1987 to 1998: Rapid City, 

South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 173 p.

Hortness, J.E., and Driscoll, D.G., 1998, Streamflow losses 

in the Black Hills of western South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98-4116, 99 p.

Jarrell, G.J., 2000, Delineation of ground-water basins on the 

Limestone Plateau, Black Hills, South Dakota: Rapid 

City, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 

unpublished M.S. thesis, 68 p.

Johnson, B.N., 1933, A climatological review of the Black 

Hills: Rapid City, South Dakota School of Mines and 

Technology, The Black Hills Engineer, 71 p.

Miller, L.D., and Driscoll, D.G., 1998, Streamflow characteristics for the Black Hills of South Dakota, through 

water year 1993: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 97-4288, 322 p.

Newton, Henry, and Jenney, W.P., 1880, Report of the 

geology and resources of the Black Hills of Dakota: 

Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 566 p.

Orr, H.K., 1959, Precipitation and streamflow in the Black 

Hills: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 

Paper No. 44, 25 p.

Peter, K.D., 1985, Availability and quality of water from the 

bedrock aquifers in the Rapid City area, South Dakota: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4022, 34 p.

Powell, B.F., 1940, Construction history and technical 

details of the Sheridan Dam: Rapid City, South Dakota 

School of Mines and Technology, The Black Hills 

Engineer, 261 p.

Rahn, P.H., 1985, Ground water stored in the rocks of western South Dakota, in Rich, F.J., ed., Geology of the 

Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming (2d ed.): 

Geological Society of America, Field Trip Guidebook, 

American Geological Institute, p. 154-174.

Rahn, P.H., and Gries, J.P., 1973, Large springs in the Black 

Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming: South Dakota 

Geological Survey Report of Investigations 107, 46 p.

Strobel, M.L., Jarrell, G.J., Sawyer, J.F., Schleicher, J.R., and 

Fahrenbach, M.D., 1999, Distribution of hydrogeologic 

units in the Black Hills area, South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 

HA-743, 3 sheets, scale 1:100,000.

Swenson, F.A., 1968, New theory of recharge to the artesian 

basin of the Dakotas: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin 1081-B, p. 163-182. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1999, Climatological data 

for South Dakota, annual summary: Asheville, North 

Carolina (issued annually).

U.S. Department of Interior, 1967, Black Hills area resources 

study: Washington, D.C., February 1967, 225 p.

Whitesides, D.H., 1989, Geomorphologic effect of the 

Galena forest fire in Custer State Park, South Dakota: 

Rapid City, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, unpublished M.S. thesis, 96 p.

Wiles, M.E., 1992, Infiltration at Wind and Jewel Caves, 

Black Hills, South Dakota: Rapid City, South Dakota 

School of Mines and Technology, unpublished M.S. 

thesis, 70 p.

Wrage, K.J., 1994, The effects of Ponderosa pine on soil 

moisture, precipitation and understory vegetation in the 

Black Hills of South Dakota: Vermillion, University of 

South Dakota, unpublished M.A. thesis, 158 p.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Supplemental Information - Table 17 63

Table 17. Estimated average annual recharge for streams with continuous-record stations using two methods, water years 1950-98[Shaded cells are used in final total; --, not determined]

Water

year

Average annual recharge (cubic feet per second)

Battle Creek

(basins 8 and 8A)

Boxelder Creek

(basins 18 and 18A)

Grace Coolidge Creek

(basin 10)

French Creek

(basin 7)

Spring Creek

(basin 14)

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

1950 -- -- 3.50 -- -- 9.89 -- -- 2.22 -- -- 4.22 -- -- 6.33

1951 -- -- 3.36 -- -- 8.14 -- -- 2.34 -- -- 3.87 -- -- 5.911952 -- -- 5.01 -- -- 12.70 -- -- 3.97 -- -- 5.05 -- -- 18.95

1953 -- -- 3.84 -- -- 11.46 -- -- 2.27 -- -- 4.33 -- -- 11.93

1954 -- -- 3.01 -- -- 7.19 -- -- 1.80 -- -- 3.31 -- -- 2.22

1955 -- -- 2.87 -- -- 7.28 -- -- 1.71 -- -- 3.53 -- -- .00

1956 -- -- 3.06 -- -- 6.60 -- -- 1.98 -- -- 3.21 -- -- 3.74

1957 -- -- 5.50 -- -- 12.90 -- -- 4.98 -- -- 5.64 -- -- 19.99

1958 -- -- 3.44 -- -- 7.60 -- -- 2.48 -- -- 3.63 -- -- 6.41

1959 -- -- 3.01 -- -- 5.39 -- -- 1.93 -- -- 2.64 -- -- 4.741960 -- -- 2.97 -- -- 5.55 -- -- 1.82 -- -- 2.63 -- -- 4.581961 -- -- 2.87 -- -- 4.39 -- -- 1.72 -- -- 2.14 -- -- 4.701962 4.43 -- 5.65 -- -- 16.39 -- -- 4.54 -- -- 6.36 -- -- 16.78

1963 6.61 -- 4.82 -- -- 13.56 -- -- 4.10 -- -- 6.07 -- -- 4.94

1964 5.61 -- 3.76 -- -- 11.78 -- -- 2.59 -- -- 5.17 -- -- 4.681965 5.79 -- 6.38 -- -- 21.06 -- -- 5.53 -- -- 8.58 -- -- 7.591966 3.94 -- 3.80 -- -- 12.22 -- -- 2.31 -- -- 4.85 -- -- 9.111967 5.18 -- 6.07 18.13 -- 18.85 -- 4.33 4.30 -- 7.05 6.26 -- 11.54 29.01

1968 3.84 -- 3.57 9.57 -- 9.95 -- 2.97 2.53 -- 4.22 4.60 -- 7.28 4.62

1969 3.11 -- 3.59 9.18 -- 10.83 -- 2.33 2.49 -- 3.81 4.93 -- 6.21 3.051970 3.89 -- 3.76 16.76 -- 14.73 -- 3.18 2.32 -- 6.14 6.19 -- 9.45 4.891971 5.01 -- 5.53 19.21 -- 18.82 -- 4.21 4.22 -- 7.27 7.30 -- 11.64 8.66

1972 5.59 -- 5.27 18.18 -- 18.45 -- 4.68 4.56 -- 7.24 8.20 -- 12.08 .00

1973 5.56 -- 4.27 16.79 -- 17.08 -- 4.63 3.33 -- 6.86 7.80 -- 11.64 1.98

1974 1.81 -- 3.32 6.58 -- 11.12 -- 1.15 2.28 -- 2.57 5.32 -- 3.76 .00

1975 3.67 -- 3.51 14.89 -- 11.58 -- 2.95 2.27 -- 5.55 5.10 -- 8.62 4.341976 5.16 -- 4.73 15.18 -- 16.38 -- 4.25 4.12 -- 6.27 7.68 -- 10.65 5.04
64 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming 1977 2.93 -- 3.56 14.73 -- 11.46 1.27 2.31 2.31 -- 5.20 5.00 -- 7.60 4.03 1978 4.46 -- 4.81 15.84 -- 16.59 3.90 3.65 3.72 -- 6.14 6.99 -- 9.93 7.54 1979 4.13 -- 3.57 8.79 -- 10.31 3.66 3.20 2.68 -- 4.14 5.00 -- 7.42 4.01 1980 2.72 -- 3.29 5.94 -- 7.74 1.17 1.92 2.32 -- 2.79 3.80 -- 4.76 4.36 1981 3.01 -- 3.35 4.55 -- 7.34 2.45 2.13 2.42 -- 2.54 3.63 -- 4.71 6.53 1982 4.14 -- 4.14 10.14 -- 16.85 3.89 3.24 2.57 -- 4.50 6.79 -- 7.84 8.79 1983 3.81 -- 3.90 21.64 -- 15.27 2.48 3.23 2.59 7.05 7.39 6.57 -- 10.78 3.45 1984 4.89 -- 4.41 19.63 -- 15.52 3.97 4.11 3.42 6.86 7.32 6.86 -- 11.60 5.03 1985 1.22 -- 3.39 7.17 -- 7.93 .82 .65 2.38 3.53 2.47 3.75 -- 3.16 5.07 1986 4.32 -- 4.28 13.10 -- 13.55 2.03 3.47 2.33 3.63 5.36 4.52 -- 8.94 20.21 1987 6.22 -- 3.87 10.92 -- 11.06 3.49 5.06 2.73 5.50 5.59 4.80 10.64 10.78 10.76 1988 .76 -- 3.07 5.07 -- 7.16 .61 .21 1.97 2.11 1.72 3.43 1.80 1.95 2.84 1989 .89 -- 2.93 4.19 -- 6.90 1.20 .30 1.80 1.02 1.55 3.36 .98 1.86 1.15 1990 5.09 -- 3.47 6.18 -- 7.71 3.40 3.96 2.60 3.65 3.86 3.81 6.76 7.91 7.80 1991 5.15 -- 5.19 11.21 -- 10.71 4.92 4.14 5.01 5.63 5.21 5.30 10.92 9.47 10.27 1992 3.72 -- 3.30 7.57 -- 6.52 2.98 2.82 2.34 4.48 3.64 3.21 7.46 6.53 6.02 1993 6.66 -- 5.84 18.05 -- 14.95 7.12 5.60 5.48 7.26 7.66 6.68 13.35 13.44 14.30 1994 5.21 -- 4.28 17.53 -- 11.87 3.27 4.34 3.32 6.02 6.91 5.22 11.63 11.41 13.14 1995 6.17 -- 9.09 21.09 -- 29.00 7.20 5.25 9.45 8.91 8.25 12.68 13.64 13.70 17.34 1996 8.10 -- 7.48 25.55 -- 26.42 6.45 7.02 6.39 10.92 10.26 10.16 18.02 17.52 17.36 1997 10.50 -- 9.61 34.08 -- 32.89 9.31 9.29 8.64 13.07 13.53 12.18 22.15 23.15 21.60 1998 8.26 -- 6.71 28.30 -- 20.18 7.57 7.22 6.69 12.12 11.05 9.25 18.89 18.53 13.67 Mean 1950-98 -- -- 4.37 -- -- 12.85 -- -- 3.34 -- -- 5.54 -- -- 8.15 Mean 

1967-98

4.54 -- 4.60 14.24 -- 14.24 -- 3.68 3.61 -- 5.75 6.14 -- 9.56 8.34

Mean 

1992-98

6.95 -- 6.62 21.74 -- 20.26 6.27 5.94 6.04 8.97 8.76 8.48 15.02 14.90 14.78

Table 17. Estimated average annual recharge for streams with continuous-record stations using two methods, water years 1950-98

–Continued

[Shaded cells are used in final total; --, not determined]

Water

year

Average annual recharge (cubic feet per second)

Battle Creek

(basins 8 and 8A)

Boxelder Creek

(basins 18 and 18A)

Grace Coolidge Creek

(basin 10)

French Creek

(basin 7)

Spring Creek

(basin 14)

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression
Supplemental Information - Table 17 65

Table 17. Estimated average annual recharge for streams with continuous-record stations using two methods—Continued[Shaded cells are used in final total; --, not determined]

Water

year

Average annual recharge (cubic feet per second)

Bear Butte Creek

(basins 37, 38, and 39)

Bear Gulch 

(basin 11)

Beaver Creek

(basin 1)

Elk Creek

(basins 20 and 21) Total

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

1950 -- -- 8.62 -- -- 0.36 -- -- 1.74 -- -- 7.62 -- -- 44.50

1951 -- -- 7.72 -- -- .35 -- -- 1.22 -- -- 7.06 -- -- 39.961952 -- -- 9.61 -- -- .33 -- -- .81 -- -- 7.26 -- -- 63.671953 -- -- 8.79 -- -- .36 -- -- 1.81 -- -- 7.72 -- -- 52.511954 -- -- 7.47 -- -- .35 -- -- 1.17 -- -- 6.79 -- -- 33.321955 -- -- 7.80 -- -- .36 -- -- 1.51 -- -- 7.15 -- -- 32.211956 -- -- 7.00 -- -- .34 -- -- .86 -- -- 6.51 -- -- 33.291957 -- -- 10.15 -- -- .31 -- -- .39 -- -- 7.19 -- -- 67.051958 -- -- 7.48 -- -- .33 -- -- .81 -- -- 6.65 -- -- 38.831959 -- -- 6.21 -- -- .32 -- -- .29 -- -- 5.82 -- -- 30.351960 -- -- 6.25 -- -- .33 -- -- .40 -- -- 5.90 -- -- 30.411961 -- -- 5.56 -- -- .31 -- -- .00 -- -- 5.34 -- -- 27.041962 -- -- 12.49 -- -- .35 -- -- 1.64 -- -- 8.47 -- -- 72.671963 -- -- 12.21 -- -- .35 -- -- 1.80 -- -- 8.47 -- -- 56.321964 -- -- 10.11 -- -- .38 -- -- 2.39 -- -- 8.53 -- -- 49.391965 -- -- 17.16 -- -- .38 -- -- 3.07 -- -- 10.53 -- -- 80.28

1966 -- -- 9.59 -- -- .38 -- -- 2.34 -- -- 8.35 -- -- 52.95

1967 -- 11.91 12.02 -- .35 .35 -- 1.72 1.79 -- 7.75 8.54 -- 67.97 87.20

1968 -- 9.04 9.04 -- .32 .36 -- .27 1.83 -- 6.05 7.85 -- 43.57 44.361969 -- 7.47 9.74 -- 0.32 0.37 -- 0.20 2.23 -- 5.12 8.31 -- 37.76 45.531970 -- 9.14 11.44 -- .35 .41 -- 1.49 3.81 -- 6.11 10.07 -- 56.50 57.631971 -- 11.55 14.87 -- .35 .39 -- 1.90 3.04 -- 7.54 9.96 -- 68.68 72.791972 -- 12.78 18.02 -- .35 .40 -- 1.73 3.67 -- 8.26 10.83 -- 70.89 69.401973 -- 12.73 13.69 -- .35 .43 -- 1.49 4.53 -- 8.23 11.33 -- 68.29 64.451974 -- 4.69 10.28 -- .31 .39 -- .00 2.89 -- 3.48 8.98 -- 24.35 44.571975 -- 8.67 9.77 -- .34 .38 -- 1.17 2.66 -- 5.83 8.71 -- 51.69 48.341976 -- 11.87 13.41 -- .34 .40 -- 1.22 3.57 -- 7.73 10.53 -- 62.67 65.85
66 Estimated Recharge to the Madison and Minnelusa Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota and Wyoming 1977 -- 7.08 9.83 -- .34 .38 -- 1.14 2.51 -- 4.89 8.55 -- 46.22 47.64 1978 -- 10.37 13.15 -- .34 .39 -- 1.33 3.22 -- 6.83 9.96 -- 58.90 66.37 1979 -- 9.65 9.31 -- .32 .37 -- .13 2.11 -- 6.41 8.25 -- 44.18 45.61 1980 -- 6.65 7.71 -- .31 .34 -- .00 1.16 -- 4.63 6.99 -- 29.73 37.71 1981 -- 7.25 7.22 -- .31 .34 -- .00 .86 -- 4.99 6.69 -- 29.49 38.37 1982 -- 9.69 12.22 -- .32 .42 -- .36 4.22 -- 6.43 10.65 -- 46.67 66.65 1983 -- 8.97 12.12 -- .36 .42 -- 2.31 3.95 -- 6.01 10.34 -- 64.50 58.61 1984 -- 11.28 12.60 -- .36 .40 -- 1.97 3.40 -- 7.37 10.04 -- 68.53 61.69 1985 -- 3.42 7.80 -- .31 .34 -- .00 1.05 -- 2.73 6.88 -- 21.14 38.60 1986 -- 10.07 8.85 -- .33 .36 -- .87 1.94 -- 6.66 7.90 -- 53.14 63.96 1987 -- 14.15 8.86 -- .33 .36 -- .50 1.83 -- 9.07 7.94 -- 62.61 52.21 1988 -- 2.44 7.43 -- .31 .34 -- .00 1.13 -- 2.15 6.81 -- 14.61 34.19 1989 5.56 2.72 7.42 -- 0.30 0.35 -- 0.00 1.23 -- 2.31 6.85 -- 14.13 31.99 1990 6.76 11.71 7.33 0.33 .31 .34 -- .00 .88 -- 7.63 6.78 -- 46.65 40.70 1991 11.25 11.85 10.43 .29 .33 .30 .23 .55 .00 -- 7.71 6.72 -- 55.63 53.92 1992 5.03 8.78 6.86 .32 .32 .33 .33 .00 .49 4.67 5.89 6.22 35.87 39.27 35.30 1993 12.76 15.07 12.51 .34 .35 .33 .76 1.71 1.02 8.36 9.62 8.13 73.73 78.15 69.24 1994 14.24 11.98 9.34 .35 .35 .35 1.35 1.62 1.68 9.15 7.79 8.01 67.60 67.14 57.21 1995 21.52 14.03 22.56 .36 .36 .38 2.77 2.22 3.46 10.04 9.00 12.60 90.73 80.07 116.55 1996 18.12 18.17 19.31 .39 .37 .40 3.98 2.98 3.91 11.52 11.45 11.87 101.85 101.43 103.29 1997 25.60 23.30 24.22 .39 .40 .39 3.89 4.42 3.77 13.91 14.49 12.63 131.72 133.17 125.94 1998 15.27 18.50 16.14 .39 .38 .36 3.56 3.44 2.58 12.25 11.65 10.44 105.05 107.33 86.02 Mean 1950-98 -- -- 10.81 -- -- 0.36 -- -- 2.01 -- -- 8.40 -- -- 55.85

Mean 

1967-98

-- 10.53 11.73 -- 0.34 0.37 -- 1.15 2.39 -- 6.93 8.95 -- 56.72 60.37

Mean 

1992-98

16.08 15.69 15.85 0.36 0.36 0.36 2.38 2.34 2.42 9.99 9.98 9.99 86.65 86.65 84.79

Table 17. Estimated average annual recharge for streams with continuous-record stations using two methods

—Continued

[Shaded cells are used in final total; --, not determined]

Water

year

Average annual recharge (cubic feet per second)

Bear Butte Creek

(basins 37, 38, and 39)

Bear Gulch 

(basin 11)

Beaver Creek

(basin 1)

Elk Creek

(basins 20 and 21) Total

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression

Calculated

Estimated 

recharge 

regression

Estimated 

stepwise 

regression