Groundwater-flow model and analysis of groundwater and surface-water interactions for the Big Sioux aquifer, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Kyle W. Davis; William G. Eldridge; Joshua F. Valder; Kristen J. Valseth

doi:10.3133/sir20195117

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20195117

Groundwater-flow model and analysis of groundwater and surface-water interactions for the Big Sioux aquifer, Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Kyle W. Davis·William G. Eldridge·Joshua F. Valder·Kristen J. Valseth

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The city of Sioux Falls, in southeastern South Dakota, is the largest city in South Dakota. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Sioux Falls, completed a groundwater-flow model to use for improving the understanding of groundwater-flow processes, estimating hydrogeologic properties, and analyzing groundwater and surface-water interactions for the Big Sioux aquifer in the model area. The model area includes the Big Sioux aquifer and the underlying hydrogeologic units from Dell Rapids, South Dakota, to the confluence of the Big Sioux River and the outlet of the Sioux Falls Diversion Channel in eastern Sioux Falls, S. Dak. The Big Sioux aquifer is the primary aquifer in the model area and the focus of the groundwater-flow model. The Big Sioux River is the largest stream in the model area and is in hydraulic connection with the Big Sioux aquifer. A conceptual model for the area was constructed and includes a characterization of the hydrogeologic framework, analysis and construction of potentiometric surfaces, and summary of estimated water budget components in the model area. The primary hydrogeologic units in the model area consist of (1) the Big Sioux aquifer, (2) a glacial till confining unit, and (3) bedrock aquifers (Split Rock Creek and Sioux Quartzite aquifers). Sources of groundwater recharge included infiltration of precipitation, stream seepage, and groundwater exchanges among the hydraulically connected Big Sioux aquifer, glacial till confining unit, and bedrock aquifers. Groundwater losses included evapotranspiration, groundwater discharge to streams, and groundwater withdrawal to supply water-use needs. A numerical groundwater-flow model (numerical model) was constructed and was used to simulate all aspects of the conceptual model for predevelopment (steady-state) and time-varying (transient) monthly conditions for 1950–2017. The numerical model was constructed using the USGS modular hydrologic simulation program, MODFLOW–6, and was calibrated using the Parameter ESTimation software, PEST++. The transient numerical model was calibrated for steady-state and transient monthly conditions for 1950–2017. Calibration targets were observations of hydraulic head, changes in hydraulic head, monthly mean streamflow (as a rate), and cumulative monthly stream discharge (as a volume). Parameters adjusted during model calibration were horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, specific storage, specific yield, recharge and evapotranspiration multipliers, and streambed hydraulic conductivity. Horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity were estimated at pilot points distributed within the model area; specific storage and specific yield were assigned to uniform values in each layer in the model area; recharge and evapotranspiration multipliers were assigned uniformly for every stress period in the numerical model; and streambed hydraulic conductivity values were assigned uniformly between stream confluences. The final calibrated parameter values of horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, specific yield, specific storage, streambed hydraulic conductivity, recharge, and evapotranspiration were considered reasonable for the hydrogeologic materials and conditions in the model area for 1950–2017. Overall, simulated hydraulic head altitudes had a linear regression coefficient of determination (R 2 ) of 0.48. Hydraulic head altitude residuals for the glacial till confining unit and bedrock aquifers were typically greater in magnitude when compared to residuals in the Big Sioux aquifer, but simulated hydraulic head altitudes in the Big Sioux aquifer compared favorably with mean observed hydraulic head altitudes and had a linear regression R 2 of 0.93. Simulated streamflow hydrographs matched the general trends of observed increases and decreases in streamflow for USGS streamgages 06482000 (Big Sioux River at Sioux Falls, S. Dak.) and 06482020 (Big Sioux River at North Cliff Avenue at Sioux Falls, S. Dak.), but larger streamflows were overestimated at the first streamgage and underestimated at the second streamgage. The numerical model reasonably estimated cumulative monthly stream discharge for the first 10–15 years of available streamflow records at both USGS streamgages. After the first 10–15 years of available streamflow record, cumulative monthly stream discharge was closely estimated for USGS streamgage 06482000 and underestimated at USGS streamgage 06482020. Composite sensitivities without regularization were calculated by PEST++ for the calibrated numerical model parameters and were averaged by parameter group. The parameter group with the highest mean composite sensitivity was the recharge multiplier parameter group. Model simplifications, assumptions, and limitations were necessary for construction of the conceptual and numerical models and for calibration efficiency. Spatial simplification of hydraulic properties could cause the numerical model to misrepresent reactions to changes in localized stresses, such as additional demands for groundwater withdrawal. The numerical model was temporally discretized into monthly periods and required scaling daily rates into representative monthly rates for model input and calibration targets. Based on the comparison between the observed and simulated groundwater levels, monthly mean streamflow and cumulative monthly stream discharge, and general groundwater distribution and flow, the numerical model favorably simulated the flow in the Big Sioux aquifer. Eventual capture was calculated in the model area using a steady-state numerical groundwater-flow model. The eventual capture map shows areas of higher streamflow capture adjacent to the Big Sioux River north of the city of Sioux Falls and along the lower part of the Sioux Falls Diversion Channel, and areas of lower streamflow capture along aquifer boundaries and near the southern Sioux Quartzite barrier. The timing of capture was determined using a transient numerical groundwater-flow model to determine the likely captured water sources for 30 years of groundwater withdrawal at three hypothetical wells using three continuous withdrawal rates (112.5, 450.0, and 900.0 gallons per minute). Supply for all three hypothetical wells became capture-dominated after only a short period of continuous withdrawal. Capture stabilized after about 10–15 years for well A, and after 20–25 years for well B, and after about 10–15 years for well C. The groundwater-flow model is a suitable tool to use for improving the understanding of groundwater-flow processes, estimating hydrogeologic properties, and analyzing groundwater and surface-water interactions for the Big Sioux aquifer near Sioux Falls, S. Dak. The numerical model can be used to simulate hydrologic scenarios, advance understanding of groundwater budgets, compute system response to stress, and determine likely sources of water supplied to wells.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 43.29919735147067° to 43.757208878849376° latitude; -97.06146240234375° to -96.42425537109375° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Kyle W. Davis, William G. Eldridge, Joshua F. Valder, Kristen J. Valseth. 2019-11-27. Groundwater-flow model and analysis of groundwater and surface-water interactions for the Big Sioux aquifer, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20195117

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

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

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

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

USGS2026

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

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

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗

USGS2026

Streamflow assessment of Birch Creek, southern boundary of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, Pondera County, northwestern Montana—Synoptic and continuous streamflow measurements through 2022

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Blackfeet Water Department, performed this study to assist water-resource managers in understanding and quantifying irrigation diversions, instream flows, and the spatial and temporal streamflow dynamics of Birch Creek in northwestern Montana. Birch Creek forms the southernmost boundary of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and is highly valued culturally as an aquatic life and wildlife resource and as a principal source of water for irrigation. The study area included Birch Creek from Swift Dam to 53.3 miles downstream just above its confluence with the Two Medicine River. The study period was calendar year 2022, but selected historical information was also included in the study. Birch Creek streamflow originates through releases from Swift Reservoir, with the largest releases typically occurring during the irrigation season (May–October) to primarily meet the needs of downstream irrigators. This study included the compilation and collection of (1) continuous streamflow measured at streamgages installed for this study, (2) instantaneous streamflow measurements made during four synoptic events, and (3) reported daily values of Swift Reservoir outflow and irrigation diversions. Continuous streamflow data were available from two U.S. Geological Survey streamgages: Birch Creek below Heart Butte Road, near Heart Butte, Montana (upper streamgage; station 06094900), at river mile 12.9 and Birch Creek at Bullhead Bridge near Valier, Mont. (lower streamgage; station 06098120), at river mile 53.3. The upper streamgage (station 06094900) was primarily affected by the regulated releases from Swift Dam with daily mean streamflow typically slightly higher than the reported Swift Reservoir outflows. Daily mean streamflow ranged from 9.87 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /s) (November 18, 2022) to 640 ft 3 /s (June 22, 2022) during September 16, 2021–December 31, 2022. The mean annual streamflow was 122 ft 3 /s in water year 2022 (a water year is the 12-month period from October 1 to September 30 and is designated by the year in which it ends), about 13 percent greater than the mean annual reported Swift Reservoir outflows. The lower streamgage (station 06098120) was downstream from all major tributaries and diversions within the Birch Creek drainage basin. Daily mean streamflow ranged from 6.02 ft 3 /s (September 8, 2022) to 95.0 ft 3 /s (June 5, 2021) during August 26, 2020–December 31, 2022. Mean annual streamflow was 27.8 ft 3 /s for water year 2022. Flows at the lower streamgage (station 06098120) were typically lower than at the upper streamgage (station 06094900) from late April to early October, whereas flows from early October to late spring were similar to or greater than those at the upper streamgage. The upper streamgage had a total streamflow volume of 87,960 acre-feet (acre-ft) for water year 2022, whereas the lower streamgage had a total streamflow of 20,357 acre-ft. A net volume of about 67,603 acre-ft was removed from Birch Creek through diversions, losses to groundwater, and evapotranspiration along that reach during water year 2022. Most of the changes in main-stem streamflow could be accounted for by the tributary inflows or diversion outflows. The most dynamic streamflow gains and losses occurred along the upper few miles of Birch Creek. Streamflow was consistently lost to the groundwater system immediately below Swift Dam and then returned to levels that slightly exceeded the outflow at the dam near river mile 11.0. The overall net gains for the entire 53.3-mile study reach ranged from 15.5 to 42.6 ft 3 /s among the synoptic events. On several occasions, streamflow fell below minimum instream flow conditions specified in the Blackfeet Compact (water rights compact among the Blackfeet Tribe, State of Montana, and United States), which are subject to a 15-year deferral period (until June 12, 2033). Notably, a section of Birch Creek immediately downstream from Swift Dam was completely dry during the October 18, 2022, synoptic event.

Montana↗