Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental

The Response of Suspended Sediment, Turbidity, and Velocity to Historical Alterations of the Missouri River

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

Circular 1301




By Dale W. Blevins

Circular 1301

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey


U.S. Department of the InteriorDIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological SurveyMark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2006

For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS–the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:Blevins, D.W., 2006, The response of suspended sediment, turbidity, and velocity to historical alterations of the Mis-souri River: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1301, 8 p.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Blevins, Dale W. The response of suspended sediment, turbidity, and velocity to historical alterations of the Missouri River / by Dale W. Blevins. p. cm. -- (Circular ; 1301) “Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” Includes bibliographical references. 1. Sediment transport--Missouri River. 2. River engineering--Environmental aspects--Missouri River Watershed. I. Title. TC425.M7B583 2007 627’.1220978--dc22 2007001224 ISBN 1-411-31256-2

iii

Contents

Historical Measurements .............................................................................................................................1Suspended Sediment ...........................................................................................................................2Turbidity ..................................................................................................................................................5

Comparison with Modern Measurements .................................................................................................5River Velocities ...............................................................................................................................................7Conclusions and Implications ......................................................................................................................7References ......................................................................................................................................................8

Figures 1. Map showing Missouri River Basin with location of historic and modern suspended-

sediment, turbidity, and velocity sites on the Missouri River ................................................2 2–4. Boxplots showing: 2. Summary of suspended-sediment concentrations before dams, large-scale

bank stabilization, and watershed development ..............................................................3 3. Summary of monthly suspended-sediment concentrations in the Missouri River ....4 4. Turbidity in 10-day composite of grab samples collected in the 1907 water year

and turbidity in depth-integrated samples collected from 1973 through 2001 ............5 5–8. Graphs showing: 5. Turbidity with suspended-sediment concentration at Kansas City, Kansas, in

the 1907 water year ...............................................................................................................6 6. Average annual turbidity at the Kansas City, Kansas, Water Plant, 1918 through

1954 with best-fit fourth-order polynomial trend line ......................................................6 7. Relation between mean water velocity and discharge in the Missouri River at

Waverly, Missouri, as recorded in U.S. Geological Survey discharge measurement notes ..............................................................................................................................8

8. Relation between maximum water velocity and discharge in the Missouri River at Waverly, Missouri, as recorded in U.S. Geological Survey discharge measurement notes ..............................................................................................................................8

iv

Conversion Factors and Datum

Water year: The 12-month period October 1 through September 30. The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends.

For suspended-sediment samples with concentrations less than 10,000 milligrams per liter, the density correction to convert to parts per million is less than 1 percent, which is less than the errors of sample collection and laboratory analysis. Therefore, analytical results in both units are comparable and no conversions of historical analyses from parts per million to milligrams per liter are necessary except for three large concentrations reported by William Clark, Meriwether Lewis, and Edward Harris, which are computed in milligrams per liter for comparison with modern measurements.

Multiply By To obtain

Lengthfoot(ft) 0.3048 meter(m)

mile(mi) 1.609 kilometer(km)

Volumeounce,fluid(fl.oz) 0.02957 liter(L)

pint(pt) 0.4732 liter(L)

Flow ratefootpersecond(ft/s) 0.3048 meterpersecond(m/s)

cubicfootpersecond(ft3/s) 0.02832 cubicmeterpersecond(m3/s)

Theheavysedimentloadandlargeamountsoffloat-ingdebrisgeneratedbytheconstantlycavingbanksoftheMissouriRiverwasdocumentedinthefirstwrittendescrip-tionoftheriverbyFatherJacquesMarquettein1673asheapproachedthemouthoftheMissouriRiverfromtheupperMississippiRiver:

“[We]” heard the noise of a rapid, into which we were about to run. I have seen nothing more dreadful. An accumulation of large and entire trees, branches, and floating islands, was issuing from the mouth of the river Pekitanoui (Missouri River), with such impetuosity that we could not without great danger risk passing through it. So great was its agi-tation that the water was so very muddy, and could not become clear.”

However,largechangesinsuspendedsedimentandturbidityinthelowerMissouriRiverbelowGavinsPointDam(fig.1)haveoccurredinresponsetoextensivestructuralchangesthathavebeenimposedontheMissouriRiveranditswatershedduringthelasttwocenturies.Effortstoshapethechannel,removesnagsandsawyers,dredgeshallows,andstabilizebanksfornavigationbeganasearlyas1838(http://www.lewis-clark.org/ri_mo-snagboats.htm,Chittenden,1903).However,bankstabilizationeffortsweresporadicandscat-teredincomparisontolargescalechangesthatoccurredafter1929.Intheearly1930sthenumeroussmallchannelswerecombinedintoasingle-fixedchannelwith4,745stoneandwood-piledikes,3,371dikeextensions,streambankprotectionworksonconcavebanks,man-madecutoffs,theclosingofchuteswithdikes,theremovalofsnags,anddredging(Keownandothers,1981).Theresultingnavigationchannelwas6-ft(feet)deepby200-ftwideandwasexpandedto9by300ftinthe1950sandearly1960s.Constructionofsixdamswasstartedin1933andtheirreservoirswerefilledby1967.ThreeofthesereservoirsareamongthefivelargestintheUnitedStates.Nearlyone-thirdoftheMissouriRiverisnowsub-mergedbelowthesemassivereservoirs.Since1967,hydro-logicchangeshavebeenrelativelyminor.

Intheearly1970s,theU.S.GeologicalSurvey(USGS)beganthelong-term,systematiccollectionofsuspended-sedimentandwater-qualitydatathatcontinuestothepresent(2006).Becausechangesinthechannelconfigurationand

hydrologiccharacteroftheriverhavebeensmallcomparedtothechangesbefore1973,allsamplescollectedafterthattimearereferredtointhisreportasmodernsamples.Thesemodernsamplescomposealargedatasetthatarecomparedtosamplescollectedbeforethepervasivehydrologicandchannel-stabiliz-ingchangesthatbeganintheearly1930sandtothequalitativeandsemiquantitativeobservationsoftheexplorersintheearlynineteenthcentury.

Historical Measurements

ThelargestchangeinthewaterqualityofthelowerMis-souriRiverlikelyisthedecreaseofsuspendedsedimentandturbidity,whichareofimportancetoecologicalcommunities,drinking-waterutilities,andmanyotherusersofthemodernriver.Characterizationofpredevelopmentsuspended-sedi-mentandturbidityconcentrationsisimportanttoquantifythechangesthathaveoccurred.Unfortunately,therareobserva-tionsofsuspendedsedimentandturbidityintheMissouriRiverbefore1879aresemiquantitativetodescriptiveoranecdotal.


By Dale W. Blevins

Ceremonies in Kansas City, Missouri, commemorating the opening of the 6-foot channel between Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri, 1932. (Photograph used with permission from the Missouri Valley Special Collections, Kansas City Public Library, Kansas City, Missouri.)

http://www.lewis-clark.org/ri_mo-snagboats.htm

http://www.lewis-clark.org/ri_mo-snagboats.htm

Suspended Sediment

MeriwetherLewisandWilliamClarkmadethefirstsemiquantitativemeasurementsofsuspendedsedimentin1804intwoways:

“The water we Drink, or the Common water of the missourie [sic] at this time, contains half a Comn [sic] Wine Glass of ooze or mud to every pint”(Moulton,1986)(ObservedJune21,1804,byWil-liamClarkatahigh,butwithin-bank,stagenearpresent-dayWaverly,Missouri)

“Precipitate of one pint of Missouri water weight 80:65 grs (grains) [principally common Clay.]”[ReportedbyMeriwetherLewis(Moulton,1986)].(Collectedin1804somewherebetweenpresent-dayBismarck,NorthDakota,andthemouthoftheMis-souriRiver.)

EdwardHarrisinanexpeditionwithJohnJ.Audubonmadethefollowingobservation(McDermott,1951):

“No otters, beaver, muskrats, or even minks are found in about the turbid waters of this all-mighty stream, the water of which looks more like a hog

puddle than anything else I can compare it to. About one-tenth of its bulk forms a despite (deposit) in half an hour.”(ObservedMay24,1843,atahigh,butwithin-bank,stagenearpresent-dayGavinsPointDam)

Assumingtheporosityofsettledsedimentwas40percent,thespecificgravityofsuspendedsedimentwas2.6(ChiefofEngineers,1935),andthesizeofWilliamClark’s“wineglass”was2fl.oz(fluidounces;Husted,1957)thecom-putedsedimentconcentrationsfortheseobservationsare:

98,000mg/L(milligramsperliter;settleablesediment)(92,000partspermillion)[1fl. oz

pint x30fl. ozcm3 x(1–0.40

porosity)x2,600cm3

mg x2.1pintsliter ],

11,000mg/L[Totalsolids.Toestimatesuspended-sedi-mentconcentration,approximately400mg/Ldissolvedsolidsissubtracted(Dole,1909),whichresultsin10,600mg/L(10,500partspermillion),(865grains/pintx68

grainmg x2.1pints

liter)],and

160,000mg/L(Settleablesediment)(150,000partspermillion)[(100cm3sediment/liter)x(1–0.40porosity)x2,600

cm3

mg].

1.

2.

3.

45°

100°

105°110°

95°

40°

0 100 200 MILES

0 100 200 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Suspended-sediment and turbidity sampling sites

Velocity measuring site

Missouri River BasinCANADA

MONTANA

SOUTHDAKOTA

NORTHDAKOTA

MINNESOTA

COLORADO

IOWA

WYOMING

MISSOURI

NEBRASKA

KANSAS HermannWaverly

KansasCity

St. Charles

Omaha

Bismarck

GavinsPointDam

GarrisonDam

Fort Randall Dam

Oahe DamBig Bend Dam

Fort PeckDam

RIVER

MISSOURI

Figure 1. Missouri River Basin with location of historic and modern suspended-sediment, turbidity, and velocity sites on the Missouri River.

� The Response of Suspended Sediment, Turbidity, and Velocity to Historical Alterations of the Missouri River

WilliamTeichmanncollectedandanalyzeddailygrabsamplesoftotalsolidsfromtheMissouriRiver3to4ftbelowthewatersurfacefromaboatnearSt.Charles,Missouri,fromJanuary24throughOctober10,1900,(Leighton,1907).BecauseTeichmann’sanalyseswereoftotalsolids,thedis-solved-solidsconcentration,whichaveragedapproximately400ppm(partspermillion)beforethereservoirsin1907(Dole,1909),wassubtractedfromtotal-solidsconcentrationstoestimatesuspended-solidsconcentrations.Teichmann’smedianof1,600ppmwasundoubtedlygreaterthantheannualmedianbecauseTeichmanndidnotcollectsamplesfromOcto-ber1,1899,toJanuary23,1900,whentheMissouriRiverwaslowandcorrespondinglylessturbid.Teichmann’slargestsuspended-solidsconcentrationof4,200ppmisonly3to40percentofthethreesemiquantitativemeasurementsrecordedbyLewis,Clark,andAudubon.

GrabsampleswerealsocollecteddailyfromOctober4,1906,throughOctober14,1907,(hereafterreferredtoasthe1907wateryear),compositedevery10days,andanalyzedforsuspendedsediment,totaldissolvedsolids,turbidity,andseveralotherconstituentsatfivesitesontheMissouriRiveraspartofanationwidesurveyofstream-waterqualitycoor-dinatedandpublishedbyRichardDoleoftheUSGS(Dole1909;fig.2).Samplesusuallywerecollectedin4-ounce

bottlesfrombridgesnearthewatersurface.Themediansuspended-sedimentconcentrationofthe10-daycompositesampleswas1,600ppmatSt.Charles,Missouri,and1,550ppmatOmaha,Nebraska.ForthemonthscorrespondingtoTeichmann’ssamplingperiod(JanuarytoOctober),Dole’s1907medianconcentrationwas2,320ppmcomparedtothemedianof10-dayaveragesofTeichmann’sdailydatain1900of1,800ppm.Theannualmaximumconcentrationin1907was6,330ppmatSt.Charles(fig.2)comparedto3,000ppm(againusing10-dayaverages)for9monthsduring1900.Sus-pended-sedimentconcentrationsweregreaterin1907likelybecausethe1907and1900wateryearshadthesecondlargestandfifteenthsmallestannualdischarges,respectively,inthe52-yearperiodbeforesubstantialflowregulationbetween1898and1950(StevensandHardison,1951).Despitethesedifferences,Teichmann’sandDole’sdataaremuchmorecomparablethanthetwoconcentrationscomputedfromthesediment-settlingobservationsofWilliamClarkandEdwardHarris(measurements1and3),whicharemorethan14timesthehighestconcentrationmeasuredbyeitherDoleorTeich-mann.ThislargedifferencecastssomedoubtontheaccuracyofClarkandHarris’ssediment-settlingobservations.However,bothClark’sandHarris’sobservationswerefrominstanta-neoussamplesmadenearbankfullstages,whereasDole’s

Figure �. Summary of suspended-sediment concentrations before dams, large-scale bank stabilization, and watershed development (A) in 10-day composite samples collected at three locations on the lower Missouri River for water year 1907 (Dole, 1909) and (B) near St. Charles, Missouri, from February through October 1879 (median only), and January to October 1900 and 1907 [1907 data from Dole (1909); 1900 data modified from Leighton (1907) by subtracting 400 milligrams per liter dissolved solids from reported total-solids concentrations; 1879 data from Keown and others (1981)].

Historical Measurements �

1,800

2,320

1,600

SUSP

ENDE

D-SE

DIM

ENT

CON

CEN

TRA

TION

,IN

PART

SPE

RM

ILLI

ON

January to October 1900 and 1907near St. Charles, Missouri

Daily samples 1900

10-day averageconcentrations

1900

10-day compositesamples

1907

1,6001,7101,550

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10-day composite samples 1907 water year

Omaha,Nebraska

Kansas City,Missouri

St. Charles,Missouri

A B

(229)

(26)

(25)

(36)

(38)(36)

Mean daily suspended-sediment

concentration February 1 through October 31, 1879 25th percentile

Minimum

MaximumNumber of samples

50th percentile (Median and value)

75th percentile

1,550

(36)

EXPLANATION

largestconcentrationisa10-daycompositesample.Theinstantaneousmaximumduringthat10-dayperiodundoubt-edlywasmuchlargerthan6,330ppm.

TheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineerscollectedthefirstsetofdailysuspended-sedimentsamplesontheMissouriRiveratSt.Charles,Missouri,fromFebruary1toOctober31,1879,(Keownandothers,1981).Sampleswerecollectedatmid-depthand1ftfromthebottomateightpointsequallydistrib-utedacrosstheriver.Aphysicaldescriptionofthesamplingdevicewasnotincludedinthedocumentation.Theaveragedailydischargeduringthisperiodwas83,000ft3/s(cubicfeetpersecond),whichis5percentlessthanthemodernaverageannualdischargeatHermann,Missouri(HauckandNagel,2002),justupstream.Theaveragesuspended-sedimentconcentrationduringthis9-monthperiodwas4,100mg/L.Despitethelessthanaveragedischarge,thismeanconcentra-tionisnearthemaximumconcentrationofdailysamplescol-lectedbyTeichmanfornearlythesameperiodin1900(fig.2),butsubstantiallylessthanconcentrationscomputedfromtheobservationsoftheearlyexplorers.

Anothersetofsuspended-sedimentdatawerecollectedateightMissouriRiversitesbytheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngi-neers(ChiefofEngineers,1935)fromMay8,1929,toJuly22,1932,beforereservoirconstructionandjustprecedingandduringtheinitialconstructionofthefirst6-ftdeepby200-ftwidechannel.Atmostsitessampleconcentrationswereplot-

tedagainstdailydischargetodevelopasediment-dischargecurvethatwasusedtoestimatedailyandmonthlysuspended-sedimentconcentrations.Thismethodwasenhancedatmostsiteswiththecollectionofhundredsofsamplesduring3years.Also,sampleswerecollectedatequal-widthincrementsacrossthestreamandatuptofivedifferentdepthstodevelopmethodsforcollectionofrepresentativesamples.Conse-quently,thesedata,whilenotallprecedingtheinitialconstruc-tionofthe6by200-ftchannel,likelyaremorerepresentativeandreliablethanthegrabsamplescollectedbyTeichmannandDole.Despitethemonthlytimestep(dailymaximumsareusuallygreaterthan10-dayormonthly-averagemaximums)andthelowdischargesbetweenJuly1,1929,andJune30,1930,theannualmaximumofmonthlyconcentrationsnearSt.Charles(6,650ppm)islargerthanthedailymaximumreportedbyTeichmannfor1900(4,200ppm)andDole’s10-daycompositesin1907(6,330ppm;figs.2and3).However,theaveragesuspended-sedimentconcentrationin1879(4,100ppm)wouldfallwellwithintheupperquartileofmonthlycon-centrationsatSt.Charles,Missouri,from1929to1932.Themaximuminstantaneousconcentrationinthe1929to1932datawas12,440ppmmeasuredinasamplecollectedonJune4,1929,atKansasCity,Missouri,atadischargeof224,000ft3/s(ChiefofEngineers,1935)andastageabout2ftoverbankfull.ThishighconcentrationprovidessomecredibilitytoMeriwetherLewis’evaporativemeasurement(measurement2)

2,2801,920

2,330

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

SUSP

ENDE

D-SE

DIM

ENT

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

, IN

PAR

TS P

ER M

ILLI

ON A

378456

B

(36)

(36)

(36)

(234)

(298)

Omaha,Nebraska

Omaha,Nebraska

Kansas City,Missouri

NearSt. Charles,

Missouri

Hermann,Missouri

Monthly samples Individual samples

25th percentile

Minimum



75th percentile

2,330

(36)

EXPLANATION

Figure �. Summary of monthly suspended-sediment concentrations in the Missouri River from (A) July 1, 1929, through June 30, 1932 (Chief of Engineers, 1935) and (B) individual samples collected from 1973 through 2002 (U.S. Geological Survey at http://nwis.waterdata. usgs.gov/mo/nwis/qwdata, accessed on July 1, 2005).

� The Response of Suspended Sediment, Turbidity, and Velocity to Historical Alterations of the Missouri River

1,500 1,5751,300

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

TURB

IDIT

Y,IN

JACK

SON

TURB

IDIT

YUN

ITS

25 540

200

600

800

400

1,000

1,200

TURB

IDIT

Y,IN

NEP

HELO

MET

RIC

TURB

IDIT

YUN

ITS

Omaha,Nebraska

Omaha,Nebraska

Kansas City, Kansas

St. Charles, Missouri

Hermann,Missouri

A B(36)

(38)

(36)

(49)

(298)

Individual depth-integrated samples1973 through 2001

10-day composite of grab samples 1907 water year

25th percentile

Minimum



75th percentile

1,300

(36)

EXPLANATION

Figure �. (A) Turbidity in 10-day composite of grab samples collected in the 1907 water year (Dole, 1909) and (B) Turbidity in depth-integrated samples collected from 1973 through 2001 (U.S. Geological Survey at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/qwdata, accessed July 1, 2005). NOTE: Jackson Turbidity Units and Nephelometric Turbidity Units are not necessarily equivalent at values greater than 40 because of the use of different methods of measurement (American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation, 2005).

of10,600mg/L.Conversely,the1929to1932datacastmoredoubtonthesettleable-sedimentobservationsofClarkandHarris.Themedianofmonthlyconcentrationsinthe1929to1932data,collected9-rivermilesupstreamfromSt.Charles,Missouri,was1,920ppm(fig.3),whichismorethan,butcomparableto,Teichmann’sJanuarytoOctober1900median(1,600ppm)ofdailysamplesandDole’s1907median(also1,600ppm;fig.2)of10-daycompositesamples.ThelowerconcentrationsreportedbyTeichmannandDolemaypartlybecausedbyunderrepresentationofsuspendedsedimentingrabsamplescollectednearthewatersurface.

Turbidity

Thelargesuspended-sedimentconcentrationsintheuncontrolledrivercausedittobesoturbidthatthewaterusu-allywasopaque:

“One of the difficulties, the navigator never ceases to contend with, from the entrance of the Missouri to this place(nearpresent-dayBismarck,NorthDakota)…[is]the turbed [sic] quality of the water, which renders it impracticable to discover any obstruction even to the debth [sic] of a single inch.”(MeriwetherLewis1804,inJackson,1978).

LargeconcentrationsofsedimentinthelowerMissouriRiverbeforemajorrivermodificationsinthe1930salsoarereflectedinthelargevaluesofturbidityreportedbyDole

(1909;fig.4).Thelongitudinalvariabilityofturbiditywassmallin1907asthemedian,25th,and75thpercentileval-uesforKansasCity,Kansas,andSt.Charles,Missouri,arenearlyidentical(fig.4).AtOmaha,Nebraska,locatedabovethePlatteRiverandwithlowervelocities[WilliamClark(inMoulton,1986)],themedianturbiditywasonly13to18percentlessthanattheothertwosites.Turbiditywaswellcor-relatedwithsuspended-sedimentconcentrations(r2=0.91;fig.5)atKansasCity,Kansas,andothersites.

Comparison with Modern Measurements

Historically,suspended-sedimentconcentrationswerereportedinpartspermillion,whereasmilligramsperliterareusedformodernsamples.However,thedifferenceintheseunitsislessthantheprecisionofthelaboratoryanalysesattheconcentrationsreported,exceptforthethreelargeconcen-trationsobservedbyWilliamClark,MeriwetherLewis,andEdwardHarris(measurements1to3),thatrequirecorrectionsforsampledensity.Therefore,exceptforthesethreevalues,comparisonsbetweenhistoricalconcentrationsinpartspermillionandmodernconcentrationsinmilligramsperliterarereasonable.Comparingpost-1972withpre-1932datashowshowseverelysuspended-sedimentconcentrationsandturbidityhavedecreasedinthelowerMissouriRiver.The1973through

Comparison with Modern Measurements �

2002mediansuspended-sedimentconcentrationof234instantaneoussamplescollectedatOmaha,Nebraska,is456mg/L,whichislessthan30percentofthemediansuspended-sedimentconcentrationof10-daycompositesamplescollectedin1907byDole(1909;figs.2and3).Themodernmedianisalsolessthan20percentofthemedianofmonthlysuspended-sedimentconcentrationsatthesamecity,fromJuly1,1929,throughJune30,1932,(fig.3).Themediansuspended-sedi-mentconcentrationatHermann,Missouri,from1973through2002is378 mg/L,whichislessthan10percentoftheaverageconcentrationin1879,lessthan25percentofthemediancon-centrationin1907(fig.2),andislessthan20percentofthe1929to1932medianconcentrationnearSt.Charles,Missouri.

Comparisonsofmoderndatawiththethreenonsys-tematicmeasurementsoftheearlyexplorersareevenmoreremarkable.Clark’ssettleable-sedimentmeasurementnearKansasCity,Missouri,is210to270timesthemodernmedian

concentrationsatOmaha,Nebraska,andHermann,Missouri,andmorethan21timesthemaximumconcentrationmeasuredatthesetwositesfrom1973through2002.Although,Meri-wetherLewis’suspended-sedimentmeasurementof10,600mg/LismuchlessthanClark’sandHarris’sobservations,itisstillmorethan6,000mg/Lgreaterthanthemaximumconcen-trationmeasuredatOmaha,Nebraska,since1973.

Unfortunately,Dole’smeasurementsofturbidityin1907usedadifferentmethodanddifferentunits(Jacksonturbidityunits,JTU)thanmodernmeasurements(nephelometricturbid-ityunits).Consequently,themeasurementsarenotnecessar-ilyequivalentatvaluesgreaterthanabout40JTU(AmericanPublicHealthAssociation,AmericanWaterWorksAssocia-tion,andWaterEnvironmentFederation,2005).Nevertheless,thedifferencebetweenthemediansofthesetwodatasetsisgreaterthananorderofmagnitude(fig.4),whichindicatesanexceptionalincreaseinwaterclarity.

Theeffectsofreservoirsonturbidityalsoareevidentinanalysesofsamples(usingaconsistentmethodofanalysis)collectedattheKansasCity,Kansas,water-treatmentplantfrom1918to1954(U.S.DepartmentofHealth,Education,andWelfare—PublicHealthService,1955;fig.6).FortPeckDamclosedin1937,FortRandallDamin1952,andGar-risonDamin1953.Almostimmediatelyturbiditydecreasedbymorethan50percent.Giventhestrongrelationbetweenturbidityandsuspendedsediment,thereservoirslikelyexactedasimilareffectonsuspendedsediment.Laterdamsandfurtherbankstabilizationlikelydecreasedturbidityevenmore.Thesedataindicatereservoirsandbankstabilizationofthe1950shavedecreasedturbiditymorethanthebankstabilizationoftheearly1930s(fig.4).

Figure �. Turbidity with suspended-sediment concentration at Kansas City, Kansas, in the 1907 water year.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

TURB

IDIT

Y, IN

PAR

TS P

ER M

ILLI

ON A

S SI

LICA

First period of intense

bank stabilization

Second period of intense

bank stabilization

Clos

ure

of G

arris

on D

am

TurbidityTrend

Clos

ure

of F

ort P

eck

Dam

Clos

ure

of F

ort R

anda

ll Da

m

NOTE: Jackson Turbidity Units are equivalent to parts per million silica

Figure 6. Average annual turbidity at the Kansas City, Kansas, Water Plant, 1918 through 1954 (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare—Public Health Service, 1955) with best-fit fourth-order polynomial trend line.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

TURBIDITY, IN JACKSON TURBIDITY UNITS

SUSP

ENDE

D-SE

DIM

ENT

CON

CEN

TRAT

ION

,IN

PART

SPE

R M

ILLI

ON

r2 = 0.91

Dole (1909)

6 The Response of Suspended Sediment, Turbidity, and Velocity to Historical Alterations of the Missouri River

River VelocitiesThelargehistoricaldecreaseinsuspendedsedimentand

turbidityseemsinconsistentwiththecommonassumptionthattheMissouriRiverflowsmuchfasterthanitdidbeforebankstabilization.However,comparisonofmodernvelocitymeasurementswithavailablemeasurementsmadebeforebankstabilizationindicatethatwhilemeanvelocitiesaresimilar,maximumvelocitiesinthelowerMissouriRiverweresubstan-tiallylargerbeforebankstabilizationthanmaximumveloci-tiesmeasuredtoday.Forexample,the25predevelopmentdischargemeasurementsmadeatWaverly,Missouri,(fig.1)betweenOctober1928andMay1930havemeanwaterveloci-tiesthatareonly0.2to0.8ft/s(footpersecond)slowerthanmeanvelocitiesmeasuredatthissamesitebetweenOctober1993throughSeptember2002(fig.7).However,maximumwatervelocitiesbeforebankstabilizationwereactually1.1to1.6ft/sfasterthanmodernmaximumvelocities(fig.8).ThemaximumvelocitymeasuredatthissamesitewithaloglinebyWilliamClarkonJune17,1804,was12.5ft/s(Moulton,1986),whichisclosetothemaximumhigh-watervelocityof11.9ft/smeasuredin1929beforebankstabilization.ThesedatarefutethehypothesisthattheMissouriRiverwassubstan-tiallyslowerbeforebankstabilizationandhelpexplainhowtherivercouldsuspendsuchlargequantitiesofsedimentandsustainsuchhighturbidityvalues(fig.7).Slightlylowermeanvelocitiesandsubstantiallyhighermaximumvelocitiesbeforebankstabilizationindicatetherangeandspatialvariationofwatervelocitywaslikelygreaterbeforebankstabilization.

Conclusions and ImplicationsMediansuspended-sedimentconcentrationsinthelower

MissouriRiverappeartohavedecreasedbyatleast70to80percentfrompredevelopmentconditions,althoughtwosemi-quantitativesediment-settlingobservationsmadebyWilliamClarkandEdwardHarrisindicateevenlargerreductionsinmaximumconcentrations.Regardlessoftheamountofreli-abilitythatmightbeascribedtotheClarkandHarrismeasure-ments,thedecreaseinsuspended-sedimentconcentrationsandincreaseinwaterclarityoftheMissouriRiverisremarkable.Mostofthisdecreaseoccurredaftertheclosureofdamsandmassivebankstabilizationactivitiesthatoccuredinthe1950sand1960s.Theecologicalchangethatmayhaveresultedfromthedecreaseinsuspended-sedimentandturbidityhasnotbeendocumented.However,numerousecologicalchangescanbepostulatedfromfundamentalprinciplesofaquaticecology(HorneandGoldman,1994).Forexample,thegreaterrangeinvelocitieslikelyresultedinagreaterrangeinturbidityandagreatervarietyoffishhabitat.Also,increasedwaterclaritymaypermitalgalphotosynthesisatlowriverstagesprovidinganewenergysourceforthefoodchainandanichefornonna-tiveplanktivorusfish.Increasedwaterclarityshouldbenefitsight-feedingfish,perhapsattheexpenseofnativefishsuchascatfish,drum,andtheendangeredpallidsturgeon,thatneedlittlelighttofindfood.Thus,thetopendofthefoodchainalsomaybealteredwithapotentialtrophiccascadethatcouldsubstantiallyalterthefoodchainandpopulationsofmanyspecies.Conversely,drinking-watersuppliersandotherusers

Computed concentration of a single observation by Edwin James on May 24, 1843, near present-day Gavins Point Dam.

Computed concentration of a single sample collected by William Clark on June 21, 1804, near present-day Kansas City, Missouri.

Computed concentration of a single sample collected by Meriwether Lewis in 1804 between Bismarck, North Dakota, and the mouth of the Missouri River.

Mean concentration of daily samples collected by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at St. Charles, Missouri, from February 1 to October 31, 1879.

Median concentrations of monthly means of daily samples collected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Omaha, Nebraska; Kansas City, Missouri; and St. Charles, Missouri, from July 1, 1929, through June 30, 1932.

Median concentrations of 10-day composite grab samples collected by Richard Dole of the U.S. Geological Survey at Omaha, Nebraska; Kansas City, Kansas; and St. Charles, Missouri, from October 4, 1906, to October 14, 1907.

Median concentration of daily grab samples collected by William Teichmann near St. Charles, Missouri, from January 24 through October 10, 1900.

Median concentration of individual samples collected by the U.S. Geological Survey from October 1, 1972, through September 30, 2002, at Omaha, Nebraska, and Hermann, Missouri.

160,000

98,000

10,600

4,100

1,920 – 2,330

1,550 – 1,710

1,600

456 – 378

Milligramsper liter orparts permillion

Comparison of Suspended-Sediment Concentrations from Sources Cited in this Report

Conclusions and Implications �

whomustremoveriversedimentsbenefitfromthedecreaseinsuspendedmaterial.

References

AmericanPublicHealthAssociation,AmericanWaterWorksAssociation,andWaterEnvironmentFederation,2005,Standardmethodsfortheexaminationofwaterandwaste-water,(21sted.),900p.

ChiefofEngineers,1935,LetterfromSecretaryofWar,73rdCongress,2ndsession,HouseDocumentNo.238:UnitedStatesGovernmentPrintingOffice,Washington,D.C.,1,245p.

Chittenden,H.,1903,HistoryofearlysteamboatnavigationontheMissouriRiver:NewYork,FrancisP.Harper,v.2,420p.

Dole,R.B.,1909,ThequalityofsurfacewatersoftheUnitedStates:U.S.GeologicalSurveyWater-SupplyPaper236,123p.

Hauck,H.S.,andNagel,C.D.,2002,Waterresourcesdata—Missouri,wateryear2002:U.S.GeologicalSurveyWaterDataReportMO–02–1,543p.

Horne,A.J.,andGoldman,C.R.,1994,Limnology,(2nded):McGraw-Hill,576p.

Husted,Mrs.W.,ed.,1957,VirginiaCookeryPastandPres-ent:TheWoman’sAuxiliaryofOlivetEpiscopalChurchFranconia,Virginia,p.431.

Innis,B.,1985,SagasoftheSmoky-Water:Williston,NorthDakota,CentennialPress,432p.

Jackson,D.,1978,LettersoftheLewisandClarkExpeditionwithRelatedDocuments,1783–1854(2nded.):Urbana,UniversityofIllinoisPress,p.222–25.

Keown,M.P.,Dardeau,E.A.,andCausey,E.M.,1981,Charac-terizationofthesuspended-sedimentregimeandbed-mate-rialgradationoftheMississippiRiverBasin:U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineersWaterwaysExperimentStationPota-mologyProgramReport1,v.1,494p.

Leighton,M.O.,1907,PollutionofIllinoisandMississippiRiversbyChicagoSewage:U.S.GeologicalSurveyWater-SupplyandIrrigationPaperNo.194,SeriesL,QualityofWater20,369p.

McDermott,J.F.,1951,UptheWideMissouriwithAudubon:theJournalofEdwardHarris:UniversityofOklahomaPress,222p.

Moulton,G.,ed.,1986,TheJournalsoftheLewis&ClarkExpedition(v.2):UniversityofNebraskaPress,Lincoln,Nebraska,612p.

Stevens,G.C.,andHardison,C.H.,1951,MonthlyandannualdischargeofMissouriRiverbetweenFortBenton,MontanaAndHermann,Missouri,andprincipletributaries:U.S:GeologicalSurveyCircular108,37p.

U.S.DepartmentofHealth,Education,andWelfare—PublicHealthService,1955,CentralMissouriRiverWaterQualityInvestigation,79p.

r2 = 0.85

r2 = 0.89

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

MEA

NW

ATER

VELO

CITY

,IN

FEET

PER

SECO

ND

October 1928 through May 1930

October 1993 through September 2002

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure �. Relation between mean water velocity and discharge in the Missouri River at Waverly, Missouri, as recorded in U.S. Geological Survey discharge measurement notes.

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

October 1928 through May 1930

October 1993 through September 2002

MAX

IMU

MW

ATER

VELO

CITY

,IN

FEET

PER

SECO

ND

r2 = 0.83

r2 = 0.80

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 8. Relation between maximum water velocity and discharge in the Missouri River at Waverly, Missouri, as recorded in U.S. Geological Survey discharge measurement notes.

8 The Response of Suspended Sediment, Turbidity, and Velocity to Historical Alterations of the Missouri River

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental

Documents

Transcript of Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental