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

Proposed National Sediment and Water-Quality Monitoring Program Piloted in the Mississippi River Basin – A Synopsis

Dave Rus (USGS), representing an interagency group that also includes:

Dale W. Blevins (USGS), Charlie Demas (USGS), John Gray (USGS), Dave Heimann (USGS), Art Horowitz (USGS), Chuck E. Shadie (COE), Jim

Stefanov (USGS), Rick Wilson (USGS), Andy Ziegler (USGS), and many other USGS/COE colleagues

2010 Missouri River Natural Resources Committee Conference

Nebraska City, Nebraska, March 19, 2010

Presentation Outline

Need for monitoring program The proposed program The program’s approach Next steps

Sediment can be costly

Sediment damages in North America (mostly in US) total $20-$50 BILLION annually (ARS-USGS)

COE dredging programs in MRB alone total ~$1billion annually

EPA, NOAA, USDA, others have major investments in MRB

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsProgram need

Sediment (or lack thereof) can be detrimental As much as 25 mi2 Louisiana coast lost

annually Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia Endangered species management Reservoir lifespans Flood impacts

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsProgram need

Proposal workgroup

A COE/USGS group met to address Consistency issues Monitoring shortcomings

The result? (besides lots of meetings/conference calls)

A COE/USGS proposal for a National Sediment & WQ Monitoring Program

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsProgram need

Vision: A National Sediment & WQ Monitoring ProgramUSGS/COE Proposal that will…

Establish a long-term, base-funded, network-designed national monitoring program to generate sediment, nutrient, and sediment-associated chemical concentrations, loads, budgets and temporal trends that are integrated within existing networks.

Mississippi Basin will be the pilot program that grows into a national network

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsProgram need

Program Objectives

Establish a monitoring program capable of: Accurate sediment/chemical budgets Budgets at critical spatial/temporal scales Constraining/quantifying uncertainty

Determine trends/loads relevant to the various economic/ecologic/restoration activities of a river

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsProgram need

National Program Cost/Benefits

400-450 stations at $75-$90M annually Pilot program in Mississippi River

Basin proposed at $17.6M in FY2012

National program cost is <1% of estimated sediment costs/damages

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsProgram need

Ergo, if the program facilitates a 1% reduction in sediment damages, it will pay for itself

MRB Pilot Program - Scope

68 stations Max use of USGS gages &

programs

Constituents Suspended sediment (full

gradation) Nutrients, ions, trace

metals, pesticides Bed material (2 samples

per year) Bedload (Evaluated at 6

sites – 2 on the Missouri)

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsProgram need

Monitoring approach

An emphasis on using surrogates Surrogates are related to

sediment/chemicals in the water and are measured continuously

Need to calibrate a surrogate model with traditional sampling data

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsBackground

Surrogates Streamflow, Turbidity, acoustic backscatter,

ultraviolet nitrate, laser-based sensors

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsBackground

UV Nitrate

Acoustic Backscatter Laser-Based

Turbidity

Sampling

Traditional sampling 12-20 samples/year Using Federal

Interagency Sedimentation Project (FISP) samplers

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsBackground

FISPFISPFISPTMTM

US BMHUS BMH--6060

US BLUS BL--8484

FISPFISPFISPTMTM

FISPFISPFISPTMTM

US DUS D--9696

Synthesis of monitoring data

All data online in near-real time and publicly available

ID principal sources/sinks of sediment, nutrients, other QW constituents

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsBackground

Identify phase of transport of sediments as a function of location, flow, other variables

waterwatch.usgs.gov

MRB Pilot Prelude? Interest in initiating Louisiana MRB

monitoring in 2010 (Science and Technology Program – COE and Louisiana).

Proof-of-concept / demonstration for surrogate monitoring, and shake-out for methodologies/protocols.

Will enable us to “hit the ground running” in 2012

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsBackground

What’s next? Proposal being considered by senior

leadership within the USGS and COE for inclusion as a 2012 budget initiative

In the meantime, sharing the concept to potential partners and stakeholders

Proposed program Program approach Next stepsBackground

16

Dave Rus (402) 328-4127dlrus@usgs.gov Nebraska Water Science Center

Proposal team leader:John Gray (703) 648-5318jrgray@usgs.gov USGS Office of Surface Water

Thanks for listening

Remnant dunes at the Nebraska City marina following high water of June 2008