Proceedings of the Federal Interagency 

Sediment Monitoring Instrument and 

Analysis Research Workshop, 

September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona

Edited by John R. Gray

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Sponsored by the Subcommittee on Sedimentation of the

Advisory Committee on Water Information

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1276
U.S. Department of the Interior

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

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

Available from U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

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

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

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

ISBN 0-607-96322-1

Suggested citation: Gray, J.R., ed., 2005, Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and 

Analysis Research Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1276, 46 pages 

plus extended abstracts available only online at:

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/sediment/sedsurrogate2003workshop/listofpapers.html
 iii

Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction to the Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring 

Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, September 9-11, 2003,

Flagstaff, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 

Breakout Session I, Suspended-Sediment Measurement: Data Needs, Uncertainty, and 

New Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Breakout Session II, Bedload-Transport Measurement: Data Needs, Uncertainty, and 

New Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Breakout Session III, Bed-Material and Bed-Topography Measurement: Data Needs, Uncertainty, 

and New Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Breakout Session IV, Sediment Data: Management, Sediment-Flux Computations, and Estimates 

from New Technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendix 1: Matrix of selected information gleaned from the four breakout sessions

as compiled in the second plenary session of the Federal Interagency 

Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Appendix 2: List of registrants and respective affiliation for the Federal Interagency 

Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, 

September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix 3: Breakout session attendees as recorded by respective breakout session 

leaders, Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, 

September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Appendix 4: Extended abstracts submitted as part of the Federal Interagency Sediment 

Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, 

Flagstaff, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Tables

1. Range of acceptable uncertainties for individual suspended-sediment samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2. Some strengths and weaknesses of Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project (FISP)

suspended-sediment isokinetic samplers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. New-technology information matrix for suspended sediment

a. Single-frequency acoustics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

b. Multi-frequency acoustics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

c. Laser diffraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

d. Optical-sediment flux. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

e. Digital-image analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

f. Pressure differential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

g. Bulk optics (optical backscatter, nephelometer, transmission) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

4. Comparison of characteristics of different bedload-sampling technologies

with selected references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5. Bed-topography measurement technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
iv 

Extended Abstracts (in alphabetical order), available only online at:

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/sediment/sedsurrogate2003workshop/listofpapers.html

Abraham, David, Quantification of bed-load transport using multi-beam survey data: the ISSDOT Method 

(Integrated-Section Surface Difference over Time).

Agrawal, Y.C., and Pottsmith, H.C., Laser diffraction method: two new sediment sensors.

Barton, J.S., Slingerland, R.L., Gabrielson, T.B., and Johnson, P.A., Listening to bedload: a flume study 

relating acoustic response to bedload motion.

Braatz, D.A., and Tucker, R.L., A new series of sediment collectors for monitoring true bedload.

Bunte, Kristin, Potyondy, J.P., and Abt, S.R., Development of an improved bedload trap for sampling gravel 

and cobble bedload in coarse mountain streams.

Davis, J.E., and Rosati, J.D., Regional Sediment Management.

Dinehart, R.L., Spatial analysis of ADCP data in streams.

Gartner, J.W., and Gray, J.R., Summary of suspended-sediment technologies considered at the Interagency 

workshop on turbidity and other sediment surrogates.

Gray, J.R. and Glysson, G.D., Attributes for a sediment monitoring instrument and analysis research 

program.

Gray, J.R., Melis T.S., Eduardo Patiño, Gooding, D.J, Topping, D.J., Larsen, M.C., and Rasmussen, P.P., U.S. 

Geological Survey suspended-sediment surrogate research on optic, acoustic, and pressuredifference technologies.

Jackson, W.L., Regulated river restoration monitoring: The Elwah River dam removal and restoration project.

Kuhnle, R.A., and Wren, D.G., Cross-stream variations in suspended sediment transport over dunes, 

implications for sampling.

Laronne, J.B., and Gray, J.R., Formation of a Bedload Research International Cooperative.

Martini, Marinna, USGS capabilities for studying sediment transport in the ocean.

Nichols, M.H., and Renard, K.G., Sediment research and monitoring at the USDA-ARS Walnut Gulch 

experimental watershed.

Northby, J.A., New optical instruments for sediment re-suspension measurements.

Pratt, Thad, and Parchure, Trimbak, OBS calibration and field measurements.

Parchure, T.M., Sobecki, T.M., and Pratt, T.C., Fine sediment parameter measurement for sedimentation 

studies.

Roberts, J.D., James, S.C., and Jepsen, R.A., Measuring bedload fraction with the ASSET flume.

Ryan, S.E., The use of pressure-difference samplers in measuring bedload transport in small, coarse-grained 

alluvial channels.

Wren, Daniel, Kuhnle, R.A., and Chambers, James, Measurement of suspended-sediment concentration and 

particle size in laboratory flumes.

Wright, Scott, Comparison of direct and indirect measurements of cohesive sediment concentration and 

size.
Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment 

Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, 

September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona 

John R. Gray, Editor

Executive Summary

The Advisory Committee on Water Information’s 

Subcommittee on Sedimentation sponsored the Federal 

Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis 

Research Workshop on September 9-11, 2003, at the U.S. 

Geological Survey Flagstaff Field Center, Arizona. The 

workshop brought together a diverse group representing most 

Federal agencies whose mission includes fluvial-sediment 

issues; academia; the private sector; and others with interests 

and expertise in fluvial-sediment monitoring – suspended 

sediment, bedload, bed material, and bed topography – and 

associated data-analysis techniques. The workshop emphasized 

technological and theoretical advances related to measurements 

of suspended sediment, bedload, bed material and bed 

topography, and data analyses. This workshop followed and 

expanded upon part of the 2002 Federal Interagency Workshop 

on Turbidity and Other Sediment Surrogates, which initiated a 

process to provide national standards for measurement and use 

of turbidity and other sediment-surrogate data.

This executive summary provides a description of the 

salient attributes of the workshop and related information, 

major deliberations and findings, and principal 

recommendations. This information is available for evaluation 

by the Subcommittee on Sedimentation, which may opt to 

develop an action plan based on the recommendations that it 

endorses for consideration by the Advisory Committee on 

Water Information. 

Background

The need for reliable, cost-effective, spatially and 

temporally consistent data on sediment content and clarity of 

our Nation’s waters has never been greater. Ironically, the 

amount of daily-value sediment data being collected by the U.S. 

Geological Survey – which has the national mandate for 

collecting and archiving Federal water data, including fluvial 

sediment – has declined by two-thirds over the last two decades. 

Production of these data by standard techniques originating in 

the 1940s tends to be manually intensive and time consuming, 

and hence, costly, and safety risks may be associated with 

manual data-collection techniques. Although the data produced 

are widely considered to be the best such data available that 

describe the sedimentary character of our Nation’s waters, their 

accuracy is largely unquantifiable. 

Over the last decade, there has been a marked increase in 

the availability, measurement capabilities, and research and 

testing of instruments that purportedly produce continuous and 

(or) quantifiably accurate sediment-surrogate data that are safer 

and (or) less expensive to obtain, and (or) more robust than 

those obtained by traditional techniques. At the same time, 

data-analysis capabilities have improved or are being developed 

for converting surrogate measurements and selected ancillary 

information into estimates of suspended-sediment 

concentration, bedload transport rates, bed topography, or 

particle-size distribution statistics. 

This convergence of advanced instrument technologies 

and analytical capabilities represents an unprecedented 

opportunity to evaluate the capacity to cost-effectively measure 

and (or) monitor selected characteristics of one or more phases 

of fluvial sediment with a heretofore unprecedented continuity, 

temporal density, and (or) known accuracy. If sedimentsurrogate data can be shown to meet codified accuracy criteria 

and appropriate sediment-record computation techniques are 

applied, then these technologies have the potential to 

revolutionize the way fluvial-sediment data are collected, 

analyzed, and made available in the United States. Such was 

the impetus for holding the workshop.

Workshop

The workshop theme was, “What are the Nation’s fluvialsediment-data needs, and how can those needs be met with:

• substantially increased temporal and (or) spatial 

resolution, 

• a better and quantifiable accuracy, 

• an expanded suite of measurement characteristics, 
2 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

• reduced costs, and (or)

• a greater margin of safety

compared with traditional, manually intensive data-collection 

techniques?”

The overarching goals of the workshop were to exchange 

information and provide a forum in which to develop a vision 

on how to attain the critical fluvial-sediment-data needs of the 

Nation. Based on these results, the workshop groups were to 

make recommendations to the Subcommittee on Sedimentation 

on steps needed to make this vision become a reality. The scope 

of the workshop focused on the means for measuring, storing, 

analyzing, and disseminating data for the following 

sedimentary phases: suspended sediment, bedload, bed 

material, and bed topography. The degree of uncertainty in the 

production of fluvial-sediment data was considered with respect 

to each of the sedimentary phases, including their storage and 

computational treatment.

Most of the workshop’s outcomes emanated from the 

closing plenary session and from the four breakout sessions, 

entitled:

• Suspended-Sediment Measurement: Data Needs, 

Uncertainty, and New Technologies

• Bedload-Transport Measurement: Data Needs, 

Uncertainty, and New Technologies

• Bed-Material and Bed-Topography Measurement: 

Data Needs, Uncertainty, and New Technologies

• Sediment Data: Management, Sediment-Flux 

Computations, and Estimates from New Technologies

An opening session served to introduce the theme, scope, 

and general goals of the workshop, and to outline workshop 

expectations. A field trip to sites of fluvial-sediment interest in 

northern Arizona took place on September 10, 2003.

Overarching Findings and 

Recommendations

The following information reflects the broad-scoped 

deliberations, findings, and recommendations from the 

workshop. They were culled from the more notable findings 

and recommendations that were largely or fully shared across 

the sediment and data management categories. Additional 

detailed information can be found in the breakout sessions 

summaries, and in appendix 1, a matrix summarizing selected 

information gleaned from the breakout and plenary sessions. 

Summary of Findings: 

I. Data Issues: 

A. All breakout sessions expressed the need for timeseries data—in greater quantities and increased 

temporal density—for all sedimentary phases and 

for computational purposes. Ancillary data on 

similar timescales are need, as are calibration data 

obtained concurrently by traditional techniques.

B. Protocols for data collection, analysis, computation, 

and storage, which for the most part are available for 

traditional technologies, must be developed for 

sediment-surrogate technologies. A clearinghouse 

for procedures and data standards is needed for 

bedload data and for data management.

C. Although some criteria for data accuracy on 

suspended sediment are available, there is a need for 

this information to be developed and codified for all 

sedimentary phases. 

D. Information regarding uncertainty associated with 

measurements is needed for all sedimentary phases 

and for data storage and computations, with the 

potential exception of bed material. The need for 

elucidating the uncertainty associated with bedload 

data was considered paramount.

E. The accuracy (uncertainty) of data produced by all 

technologies needs to be quantified, with emphasis 

on the quality of bedload data, and on the quality of 

data being stored and used for computational 

purposes.

II. Traditional Data-Collection and Data-Computation 

Techniques: 

A. Protocols for traditional data-collection and 

computational techniques exist across the categories 

with deficiencies noted for some bedload conditions 

and for bed material in unwadeable coarse-bedded 

conditions. 

B. The accuracy of bedload data was considered largely 

uncertain. The accuracy of computational results, 

considered the best information available, may be 

inferred in some cases but is rarely quantified.

III. Surrogate Techniques: 

A. Several relatively mature and commercially available 

surrogate techniques are in use for monitoring 

suspended-sediment concentration. Some surrogate 

technologies are available for bed-material and bed 

topography characterization. The few that are 

available for bedload are either in the research phase 

or their use is limited to a research setting and none 

are widely operationally deployed. The 

performance of techniques for measuring bedload 

transport remains largely unverified and few are 

routinely used for monitoring by the Federal 

government.

B. All techniques have applications in fluvial systems. 

Selected applications are suitable for other 

freshwater, marine, coastal zone, and estuarine
Executive Summary 3

settings. Computational procedures may be limited 

to fluvial systems, at least in the short term.

C. For suspended-sediment and bedload measurements, 

emphasis should be placed on the development of 

robust technologies that provide measurements 

representing a substantial proportion of the material 

in transport streamwide, as opposed to 

measurements at a single point in a cross section.

IV. Models: 

A. Although the workshop focused on data collection, 

applications for improved modeling accuracy were 

recognized, particularly for models describing 

bedload transport. The potential for accurate timesseries data to increase the usefulness and range of 

model application in transport computations was 

highlighted.

V. Research and Oversight: 

A. Unanimity was expressed regarding the need for 

basic research in all of the sedimentary categories, 

but particularly with bedload transport. Each 

breakout session indicated that formation of a formal 

Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis 

Research Program, as described in “Attributes of a 

Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis 

Research (SMIAR) Program,” by Gray and Glysson 

(listed in appendix 4), was needed to oversee and 

coordinate the evaluation of both surrogate and 

traditional technologies.

B. Unanimity also was expressed regarding the need for 

organizational oversight and coordination associated 

with all categories of sediment-surrogate 

technologies, data storage, and computational 

procedures. The Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Project (FISP) represents an organization with the 

necessary background for managing a SMIAR 

Program.

Summary of Recommendations:

1. Research: Coordinated research in all sedimentary 

phases, but particularly on bedload transport and for 

storage and computational techniques, is recommended. 

This includes basic process-based research, along with 

research on collection, analysis, and computational 

procedures. 

2. Fluvial-Sediment Time-Series Data: Emphasis, effort, 

and funding should be directed toward collection of timeseries data in each of the fluvial-sediment categories for 

computation of flux and other sedimentation 

characteristics. The data need to be supported by 

protocols for their collection, analysis, and storage and 

by comparative accuracy criteria, including quantitative 

uncertainty values. The data should be evaluated against 

traditional technologies, where feasible. These data 

should be used to improve estimates of fluxes, particlesize distributions, and other sediment characteristics 

derived from models. Clearinghouses for data, tools, 

methods, and models are needed.

3. Sediment-Surrogate Technologies: Several of the 

technologies presented at the workshop were considered 

sufficiently compelling and potentially tractable to 

warrant additional research, testing, and calibration. 

These technologies should be prioritized and those 

ranking high in priority should be further evaluated. 

Evaluations should be made against absolute standards 

where possible, but also against traditional datacollection techniques, where feasible. These efforts 

should be done as part of a formal program such as that 

described by Gray and Glysson, “Attributes for a 

Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Program,” 

as listed in appendix 4 of this report.

4. Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis 

Research (SMIAR) Program: Formation of a SMIAR 

Program (Gray and Glysson, listed in appendix 4), or a 

program that contains its major elements, should be 

formalized. The Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Project, or another sufficiently capable organization, 

should oversee and coordinate the SMIAR Program.
Introduction to the Proceeding of the Federal Interagency 

Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research 

Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona

by John R. Gray, Theodore S. Melis, Gardner C. Bent, and Gary P. Johnson

The need for reliable, cost-effective, spatially and 

temporally consistent data on sediment content and clarity of 

our Nation’s waters has never been greater. Traditional uses of 

fluvial-sediment data in the United States (U.S.) have focused 

on engineering considerations relevant to the design and 

management of reservoirs and in-stream hydraulic structures, 

and dredging. Over the last two decades, information needs 

have expanded to include those related to contaminated 

sediment management, dam decommissioning and removal, 

environmental quality, stream restoration, geomorphic 

classification and assessments, physical-biotic interactions, the 

global carbon budget, and regulatory requirements of the Clean 

Water Act, including the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (USEPA’s) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

Program. The USEPA identifies sediment, including siltation 

and suspended solids, as the single most prevalent impairment 

of U.S. rivers and streams (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2004). 

Ironically, the substantial increase in the need for fluvialsediment data has coincided with a general decline in nationallevel sediment-data collection as inferred by a two-decade 

decrease in the number of sites at which the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) collects daily records of suspended-sediment 

discharge. The number of these sites increased rapidly in the 

years following World War II, and peaked at 360 in 1982 

(Glysson, 1989; Osterkamp and Parker, 1991). By 2003, only 

116 daily-record sediment sites were being operated in the 50 

States, although suspended-sediment and bedload data were 

being collected periodically at 767 and 69 sites, respectively 

(U.S. Geological Survey, 2004). Any decrease in sediment 

monitoring should be of particular concern to the Nation in that 

the physical, chemical, and biological sediment damages in 

North America were estimated to total about $20 billion in 2004 

(Osterkamp and others, 2004).

The traditional techniques used to collect and analyze 

those data, based on standard protocols (Edwards and Glysson, 

1999; Porterfield, 1972), result in production of the most 

nationally consistent and reliable fluvial-sediment data 

available in the U.S. (Turcios and Gray, 2001). Production of 

sediment data by traditional techniques, however, can be 

manually intensive and time consuming; produce data with an 

accuracy that may be inferred but that is rarely unequivocally 

known; and require manual field deployment that may entail 

safety risks. Use of traditional techniques can also be relatively 

expensive. For example, an informal poll of selected USGS 

District offices in 2001 yielded estimates ranging from $20,000 

to $65,000 to collect and publish a year’s worth of daily 

suspended-sediment discharge values (Gray, 2002). 

Over the last decade, there has been a substantial increase 

in the availability, measurement capabilities, and research and 

testing of instruments that purportedly produce continuous and 

(or) quantifiably accurate sediment-surrogate data that are 

safer, and (or) less expensive to obtain than by traditional 

techniques. Optical properties of water such as turbidity 

(nephelometry) and optical backscatter are the most commonly 

used surrogates for suspended-sediment concentration, but use 

of other techniques such as acoustic backscatter, laser 

diffraction, digital photo-optic, and pressure-difference 

technologies is increasing for concentration and, in some cases, 

particle-size distribution determinations in the field and 

laboratory (Gray and Gartner, 2004). Bedload and bed-material 

characteristics, and bed topography, also are being inferred 

from surrogate field measurements. At the same time, dataanalysis capabilities have improved or are being developed to 

convert surrogate measurements into concentration and 

particle-size distribution statistics, suspended-sediment or 

bedload transport rates, or bed topography (see appendix 1). 

This convergence of advanced instrument technologies 

and analytical capabilities represents an unprecedented 

opportunity to evaluate the capability to measure and (or) 

monitor one or more phases of fluvial sediment with a 

heretofore unprecedented continuity, temporal density, and 

known accuracy. If sediment-surrogate data can be shown to 

meet codified accuracy criteria and appropriate sedimentrecord computation techniques are applied, these technologies 

have the potential to revolutionize the way in which fluvialsediment data are collected, analyzed, stored, and made 

available in the U.S.

In the U.S., the private sector and universities are in the 

forefront of developing the instruments for collecting the 

surrogate data, and for some of the analytical techniques. Not 

surprisingly, however, there are gaps in applicability due in part 
Introduction 5

to a lack of coordination of developmental activities. 

Additionally, assertions regarding instrument performance by 

manufacturers may fail to be substantiated through 

independent, unbiased evaluations; hence they are not, unto 

themselves, solely acceptable as proof of performance to the 

Technical Committee, Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Project (Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project, 2004, 

Home Page). Hence, there is an important Federal role for 

coordination and performance testing of sediment-surrogate 

technologies that may enable development of new national 

guidelines on sediment-data production, storage, dissemination, 

and use.

The Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring and 

Research Analysis Research Workshop (“workshop”) was held 

in recognition of these factors, and also on four 

recommendations from the Federal Interagency Workshop on 

Turbidity and Other Sediment Surrogates (Gray and Glysson, 

2003) which are summarized below:

• Technology Transfer and Communication: Increase 

technology transfer between groups and individuals 

with interests in turbidity and other sediment-surrogate 

technologies. A steering committee should be formed 

that includes a coordinator and topical expert advisers 

on turbidity and other sediment-surrogate technologies. 

Resources or activities associated with the steering 

committee may include publishing a newsletter, 

creating and maintaining a web-based compilation of 

information, supporting user groups and on-line help, 

transferring industrial technology to the environmental 

field, enhancing communication among producers and 

users of new technologies, and providing guidance to 

the Advisory Committee on Water Information and its 

Subcommittee on Sedimentation.

• Stakeholder and Peer Review: Keep the public and 

users of turbidity and other sediment-surrogate data 

informed of the issues involved in producing these 

data, including assumptions, limitations, methods, and 

applicability. 

• Testing and Development Program for Instruments and 

Methods: Develop a program to foster research, testing, 

evaluation, and documentation of instruments and 

methods for measuring, monitoring, and analyzing 

water clarity and selected characteristics of fluvial 

sediment by using cost-effective, safe, and quantifiably 

accurate means. Technically supportable and widely 

available standard guidelines for sensor deployment, 

calibration, and data processing, including real-time 

data are needed. Acceptance criteria for data on 

selected parameters, such as suspended-sediment 

concentration, should be developed, endorsed by the 

Subcommittee on Sedimentation, and widely 

advertised to encourage methods and instrumentation 

development. 

• Collection and Computation of Sediment-Surrogate 

Records: Develop standardized procedures for the 

collection of sediment-surrogate data. This should 

include protocols for instrument calibration and 

accuracy criteria for the derivative sediment data. A 

standard procedure for computation of sedimentdischarge records should be developed for all 

sediment-surrogate records utilizing the fullest set of 

data.

The workshop was sponsored by the Advisory Committee 

on Water Information’s Subcommittee on Sedimentation and 

held at the USGS Flagstaff Field Center, Arizona, September 9-

11, 2003. The names, professional affiliations, and locations of 

the 70 participants representing several Federal agencies, 

universities, and the private sector registered for the workshop 

are provided in appendix 2. 

The theme of the workshop was, “What are the Nation’s 

fluvial-sediment-data needs, and how can those needs be met 

with:

• substantially increased temporal and (or) spatial 

resolution, 

• a better and quantifiable accuracy, 

• an expanded suite of measurement characteristics, 

• reduced costs, and (or)

• a greater margin of safety

compared with traditional, manually intensive data-collection 

techniques?”

The scope of the workshop focused on the means for 

measuring, storing, analyzing, and disseminating data for the 

following sedimentary phases: suspended-sediment, bedload, 

bed-material, and bed-topography data. The degree of 

uncertainty in the production of fluvial-sediment data was 

considered with respect to each of the sedimentary phases. 

Improved understanding of constituents sorbed to 

sediments is in part dependent on a better understanding of the 

mobility and fate of fluvial sediment. Although considerations 

related to solid-phase chemistry, and sediment-biotic 

interactions were beyond the scope of the workshop, it is 

expected that implementation of selected workshop 

recommendations will ultimately improve the ability to 

quantify these characteristics.

The overarching workshop goals were to: 

• Exchange Information on research into new and 

improved methods and technologies for monitoring 

fluvial sediment, including suspended sediment, 

bedload, bed material, or bed topography and related 

properties; propose new research directions; and 

provide an opportunity to view field and laboratory 

techniques for characterizing selected properties of 

suspended sediment that currently are being used or 

tested.
6 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

• Provide Forum to consider the ways and means to 

achieve an agreed-upon vision for acquiring, analyzing, 

storing, and accessing the reliable, quantifiably 

accurate fluvial-sediment data needed by the Nation.

• Make Clear and Tractable Recommendations to the 

Advisory Committee on Water Information’s 

Subcommittee on Sedimentation regarding research on 

sediment-monitoring instruments and analytical 

procedures.

The workshop comprised opening and closing plenary 

sessions, concurrent breakout sessions, and a field trip to the 

Colorado River at Glen Canyon Dam, and to USGS Arizona 

streamgaging stations on the Colorado River at Lees Ferry; the 

Paria River near Lees Ferry; and Moenkopi Wash during a flash 

flood. 

The opening session served to introduce the theme, scope, 

and general goals of the workshop, and to outline workshop 

expectations. This was followed by four concurrent breakout 

sessions, the respective participants in which are listed in 

appendix 3. The breakout session titles and their respective 

leaders were:

• Suspended-Sediment Measurement: Data Needs, 

Uncertainty, and New Technologies, led by Roger A. 

Kuhnle and Daniel G. Wren.

• Bedload-Transport Measurement: Data Needs, 

Uncertainty, and New Technologies, led by Sandra E. 

Ryan, Kristin Bunte, and John P. Potyondy.

• Bed-Material and Bed-Topography Measurement: 

Data Needs, Uncertainty, and New Technologies, led 

by Christi A. Young and Vincent C. Tidwell.

• Sediment Data: Management, Sediment-Flux 

Computations, and Estimates from New 

Technologies led by Mark N. Landers and Larry A. 

Freeman. 

The breakout session leaders were charged with providing 

a summary of their full findings and recommendations to a final 

plenary session held on the afternoon of September 11, 2003. 

Summaries of the respective topics included:

• Statements of the background, key elements, and 

relevant considerations,

• Lists of key problems and limitations, and

• Recommendations on how to proceed, if at all.

This report describes the principal deliberations, 

outcomes, and recommendations to the Subcommittee on 

Sedimentation from the Federal Interagency Sediment 

Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop. This 

information is available for evaluation by the Subcommittee on 

Sedimentation which may opt to develop an action plan based 

on the recommendations that it endorses for consideration by 

the Advisory Committee on Water Information.

Extended abstracts supporting most of the presentations at 

the workshop are listed in appendix 4 of this report and are 

available only online at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/

sediment/sedsurrogate2003workshop/listofpapers.html. 

All formal workshop accomplishments were summarized 

through the activities of the four breakout sessions. Owing to 

differences in subject matter, the nature in which information 

was shared and the styles of leaders and participants, products 

from the breakout sessions were addressed and summarized 

separately. In an effort to avoid losing the intent and thrusts of 

each breakout session, these summaries are provided in the 

following sections without consideration to consistency in 

format. Where appropriate and useful to the reader, information 

obtained after the workshop is included in this report.

USGS-authored extended abstracts were reviewed and 

approved for publication by the USGS. Other extended 

abstracts listed in appendix 4 prepared by non-USGS authors 

did not go through the USGS review processes and therefore 

may not adhere to USGS editorial standards. 

Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank the 

Advisory Committee on Water Information’s Subcommittee on 

Sedimentation for its support for the Sediment Monitoring 

Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, and the USGS 

Flagstaff Field Center for hosting the workshop. The astute 

logistical support of the USGS’s Elizabeth Fuller was critical to 

the timely execution of the workshop. The outstanding 

leadership and support of David Topping, Henry Chezar, David 

Rubin, and Nancy Hornewer, resulted in a most relevent and 

informative field trip on September 10, 2003. 

References Cited, Introduction Section:

Edwards, T. K. and Glysson, G. D., 1999, Field methods for 

measurement of fluvial sediment: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations , book 3, 

Applications of Hydraulics, chapter 2, 89 p., accessed 

September 3, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/

Edwards-TWRI.pdf

Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project, 2004, Home page, 

accessed August 31, 2004, at http://fisp.wes.army.mil/

Glysson, G.D., 1989, 100 years of sedimentation study by the 

USGS, in, Proceedings of the International Symposium, 

Sediment Transport Modeling, Sam S.Y. Wang, ed.: 

American Society of Civil Engineers, New Orleans, August 

14-18, 1989, p. 260-265.

Gray, J.R., 2002, The need for sediment surrogate technologies 

to monitor fluvial-sediment transport, in, Proceedings of the 

Turbidity and Other Sediment Surrogates Workshop, April 

30 - May 2, 2002, Reno, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1250, 4 p., accessed September 3, 2004, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/TSS/

listofabstracts.htm
Introduction 7

Gray, J.R., and Gartner, J.W., 2004, Surrogate technologies for 

continuous suspended-sediment monitoring in the United 

States, in, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on 

River Sedimentation, Cheng Liu, ed.: Yichang, China, 

October 18-21, 2004, Tsinghua University Press, v. 4, p. 

2515-2522.

Gray, J.R, and Glysson, G.D., 2003, Proceedings of the Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation Workshop on Turbidity and 

Other Sediment Surrogates, April 30-May 2, 2002, Reno, 

Nevada: U.S. Geological Circular 1250, 56 p. (Appendix 2 

contains 29 extended abstracts which are available on-line 

only at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/TSS/

listofabstracts.htm). 

Osterkamp, W.R., Heilman, Phil, and Gray, J.R., 2004, An 

invitation to participate in a North American SedimentMonitoring Network: American Geophysical Union, EOS, 

v. 84, no. 40, p. 386, 388-389.

Osterkamp, W.R., and Parker, R.S., 1991, Sediment monitoring 

in the United States: Proceedings of the 5th Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation Conference, v. 1, p. 1-15 to 1-23, 

accessed September 3, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/

misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001

Porterfield, George, 1972, Computation of fluvial-sediment 

discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water 

Resources Investigations, book 3, chapter C3, 66 p., accessed 

September 3, 2004, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/twri/

twri03C3

Turcios, L.M., and Gray, J.R., 2001, U.S. Geological Survey 

sediment and ancillary data on the World Wide Web: 

Proceedings of the 7th Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference, Reno, Nevada, March 25-29, v. 1, Poster 31-36, 

accessed September 3, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/

misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, Total maximum 

daily loads, top 100 impairments, accessed May 19, 2004, at 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/waters/

national_rept.control#TOP_IMP

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004, Statistics for hydrologic datacollection stations operated by the USGS in Fiscal Year 

2003, accessed May 20, 2004, at http://1stop.usgs.gov/

StationCounts/sc2003/SW_rpts.cfm
Breakout Session I, Suspended-Sediment Measurement: 

Data Needs, Uncertainty, and New Technologies

By Roger A. Kuhnle and Daniel G. Wren

Introduction

Accurate determinations of suspended-sediment 

concentrations are essential to assess the impact of sediment on 

the watershed. In many stream systems, sediment suspended in 

the water column constitutes the bulk of sediment transported. 

Yet collection of suspended-sediment data using standard 

techniques is labor intensive and expensive, while the amount 

of uncertainty in estimates or predictions of suspendedsediment loads is rarely known. 

Breakout session I was responsible for providing 

information and recommendations on new technologies that 

have potential for meeting the data and uncertainty needs of 

sediment users for in-situ measurement of concentrations, 

particle-size distributions, and (or) other characteristics of 

suspended sediment. Current isokinetic samplers may be used 

to provide an accurate measure of the mean suspendedsediment concentration (excluding the unsampled zone 

adjacent to the stream bottom), but are expensive, timeconsuming to deploy, and may be difficult or hazardous to use 

during periods of storm runoff. The specific goals of this 

session were to define the accuracy and frequency needs of 

sediment-data users, and to identify the most promising new 

technologies that will be available in the near term—3 to 5 

years—to meet those needs. Key questions posed to 

participants in this breakout session were:

1. What are your agency/group informational needs regarding suspended-sediment transport? What type of data are 

required to support these needs?

2. What level of uncertainty are you willing to accept in 

suspended-sediment concentration measurements and 

flux calculations? Would data of the following accuracy 

(zero bias, x variance) be unacceptable to you or to your 

customers? x = 0 percent; 5 percent; 10 percent; 25 

percent; 50 percent; 100 percent; 200 percent; 500 

percent; order-of-magnitude? 

3. What instruments are currently in use to collect these 

data?

4. Are the derivative data adequate in quality and temporal/

spatial density? What spatial and temporal resolution do 

you consider to be reasonable for your application?

5. What are the strengths and limitations of the current 

instruments in use for collecting suspended-sediment 

data?

6. What should be our medium- and long-term goals in the 

collection of suspended-sediment data?

7. What are the new technologies that will be useful for 

measuring suspended-sediment transport in the next 3-5 

years?

• Acoustic Backscatter

• Digital-Image Analysis

• Laser Diffraction

• Optical Velocity, Concentration, and Size

• Pressure Difference

• Other

8. What are the benefits and limitations of these new 

technologies?

9. How will new technologies solve limitations of current 

instruments (e.g. sample the unsampled zone, automatic 

operation, decrease collection and analysis cost, increase 

safety)?

10. What are the time frames for these technologies to make 

an important impact on the collection of suspendedsediment data?

11. Are there any special conditions at sites that you are 

responsible for or aware of that would specifically 

preclude any of the new technologies? Are you aware of 

any sites that might be included in a program such as that 

described by in “Attributes for a Sediment Monitoring 

Instrument and Analysis Research Program,” by J.R. 

Gray and G.D. Glysson (listed in appendix 4 of this 

report)? 

12. What would you consider to be a reasonable cost – 

excluding ancillary data-collection instruments and 

structures from which instruments will be anchored – for 

suspended-sediment monitoring at a field site? 
Breakout Session I 9

13. Would a Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis 

Research Program, such as that proposed by the 

Turbidity and Other Sediment Surrogates Workshop 

(Gray and Glysson, 2003), and expanded upon by J.R. 

Gray and G.D. Glysson, “Attributes for a Sediment 

Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Program,” 

listed in appendix 4, be useful for attaining the fluvialsediment-data needs of the Nation? 

Extended abstracts in the proceedings of this workshop 

(see appendix 4) relating to the measurement of suspended 

sediment included:

• Agrawal, Y.C., and Pottsmith, H.C., Laser diffraction 

method: two new sediment sensors.

• Dinehart, R.L., Spatial analysis of ADCP data in 

streams.

• Gartner, J.W., and Gray, J.R., Summary of suspendedsediment technologies considered at the Interagency 

workshop on turbidity and other sediment surrogates.

• Gray, J.R. and Glysson, G.D., Attributes for a sediment 

monitoring instrument and analysis research program.

• Gray, J.R., Melis T.S., Eduardo Patiño, Gooding, D.J, 

Topping, D.J., Larsen, M.C., and Rasmussen, P.P., 

U.S. Geological Survey suspended-sediment surrogate 

research on optic, acoustic, and pressure-difference 

technologies.

• Kuhnle, R.A., and Wren, D.G., Cross-stream variations 

in suspended sediment transport over dunes, implications for sampling.

• Martini, Marinna, USGS capabilities for studying sediment transport in the ocean.

• Nichols, M.H., and Renard, K.G., Sediment research 

and monitoring at the USDA-ARS Walnut Gulch 

experimental watershed.

• Northby, J.A., New optical instruments for sediment 

re-suspension measurements.

• Pratt, Thad, and Parchure, Trimbak, OBS calibration 

and field measurements.

• Parchure, T.M., Sobecki, T.M., and Pratt, T.C., Fine 

sediment parameter measurement for sedimentation 

studies.

• Wren, Daniel, Kuhnle, R.A., and Chambers, James, 

Measurement of suspended-sediment concentration 

and particle size in laboratory flumes.

• Wright, Scott, Comparison of direct and indirect measurements of cohesive sediment concentration and size.

The discussions of the suspended-sediment breakout 

group consisted of viewpoints from a diverse group of 

individuals. 

Observations

Suspended-sediment informational needs were found to 

vary by agency and intended data use. In some instances, such 

as biological studies, continuous data are required. In other 

cases, only data during storm runoff are required. Some 

projects require the collection of physical sediment samples for 

contaminant or compositional analyses. A continuing need for 

research into suspended-sediment transport processes was also 

identified. This research requires highly detailed data sets of 

sediment concentration and the causative flow field. 

Additionally, more robust measurements that represent a 

substantial quantity of the material in transport are desired, or at 

least measurements that represent more than a point in the cross 

section.

Uncertainty levels for suspended-sediment flux 

calculations depend to a large extent on the poorly known 

temporal and spatial variability (including the unsampled zone) 

in the transport of suspended sediment, and were considered 

beyond the scope of this breakout session (for an example of an 

analysis of estimated sediment flux uncertainty, see Topping 

and others, 2000, p. 539). Acceptable uncertainty levels for 

individual suspended-sediment samples were considered (table 

1). Gray and others (2002) maintained that greater individual 

sample uncertainty levels could be offset by an increased 

frequency and improved spatial coverage of suspendedsediment transport. It was also expressed that constant 

uncertainty levels in the range of 10-20 percent would be more 

acceptable to some data users

Table 1. Range of acceptable uncertainties for individual suspended-sediment samples

[milligram per liter is mg/L; < is less than; > is greater than; ± is plus, minus]

Concentration 

range (mg/L)

Best-Case 

Isokinetic

1Based on a consensus of responses from the breakout session.

1 

(percent)

< 10 ±10 ±50 ±10 to ±20 

percent

 for all 

concentration ranges

10 to 

<100

±10 ±50 to 

±25

(linear 

shift)

100 to 

<1,000

±4 ±25 to 

±15 (linear shift)

> 1,000 -- ±15

100,000 ±3 --

Gray and 

others, 

20022 

(percent)

2

Proposed criteria for LISST-SL profiler testing (Sequoia Scientific, 2004)

Generalized

Approach
10 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

The current standard samplers used for the collection of 

suspended-sediment data are the FISP depth-integrating (US Dseries) and point (US P-series) isokinetic samplers, for which 

carefully designed and tested protocols have been published 

(Edwards and Glysson, 1999; Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Project, 2004, Home page). The main 

weaknesses associated with these samplers are the high cost 

associated with their manual deployment and the difficulty of 

getting adequate coverage in space and time. A summary of 

some strengths and weaknesses of isokinetic samples is 

contained in table 2.

Table 2. Some strengths and weaknesses of Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project (FISP) suspended-sediment isokinetic samplers

Strengths Weaknesses

Standard equipment 

and techniques through 

the FISP

Cost and logistics of manual 

deployment; possible hazardous 

conditions associated with sample 

collection during storm runoff

Large historical 

database covering 

about two-thirds of a 

century

Difficulty of collecting a sufficient 

number of samples to adequately 

characterize temporal and spatial 

variability of suspended sediment

Extensive design, 

testing and calibration 

of samplers

Possible sample contamination if 

bed material is inadvertently 

collected

Used in the U.S. and 

many other nations as 

standard samplers for 

collection of 

suspended-sediment 

data

Inability to sample the water 

column below the intake nozzle 

when the sampler touches the bed

Other samplers in use include non-isokinetic automaticpumping samplers, single-stage samplers (Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Project, 2004), Van Dorn samplers, and various 

types of grab samplers. For fine sediments (< 0.062 millimeters 

in diameter) and for flow velocities less than about 0.3 meters 

per second, the type of sampler used to collect a representative 

sample is much less critical. 

Technologies currently available or emerging in the near 

term—considered to be the next 3 to 5 years—with the potential 

for improving the collection of suspended-sediment data 

include those that operate on the following principles: acoustic 

(single frequency, table 3a and multi-frequency, table 3b), laser 

diffraction (table 3c), optical-sediment flux (table 3d), digitalimage analysis (table 3e), pressure differential (table 3f), and 

bulk optics (table 3g). Currently, the LISST series of laser 

diffraction instruments (Sequoia Scientific, Inc., 2004), 

acoustic backscatter meters (single frequency acoustic Doppler 

current profilers from RD Instruments USA (2004), Sontek/

YSI, Inc. (2004), and Nortek AS (2004)); Aquascat multifrequency manufactured by Aquatec (2004), and several types 

of bulk-optic meters (optical backscatter, nephelometry, and 

transmission devices; see table 3g), are available commercially. 

There are only a few instances, however, where these new 

technologies have been compared directly to the standard FISP 

isokinetic depth-integrating or point samplers. The LISST 

series of instruments have been shown to collect continuous 

point samples of suspended-sediment concentration and size 

distributions in-situ (Melis, Topping, and Rubin, 2003). The 

commercially available acoustic backscatter devices yield 

relative information on suspended-sediment concentration; 

however, algorithms to calculate quantitative sediment 

concentrations and size distributions are not provided with 

these instruments and are still in development. The available 

optical backscatter, nephelometric, and transmission devices 

yield only a relative indication of suspended-sediment 

concentration at a point without extensive site-specific 

calibration. 

Recommendations

1. Collection of Detailed Data: The collection of highly 

detailed (in time and space) suspended-sediment data 

from a variety of locations should be encouraged and supported. These data are needed to evaluate the uncertainty 

of flux calculations using conventional means computing 

suspended-sediment transport. These data also would be 

valuable for improving the algorithms used in sedimenttransport modeling and for the development of more efficient sampling procedures. 

2. Independent Test Development and Evaluations: As 

surrogate instruments employing new technologies are 

developed, an independent agency or group should 

develop a standard series of tests to evaluate the 

performance of these devices. Testing should include 

simultaneous side-by-side testing between new 

instruments and standard samplers by independent 

parties in laboratory and field settings. This information 

will be critical to assure that new devices are producing 

unbiased and representative measurements of the 

sediment in suspension, and demonstrate that the data 

collected by old and new techniques are comparable in 

quality. 

3. Data Formats: Standardized data formats for archiving 

sediment and ancillary data need to be developed. With 

the rapid change in the types of media and formats that is 

occurring, there is a critical need to qualify new data by 

method of collection and to develop protocols that enable 

storage and retrieval of all sediment and ancillary data 

from the same databases.

4. Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis 

Research Program: A Sediment Monitoring Instrument 

and Analysis Research (SMIAR) Program as outlined by 

Gray and Glysson (listed in appendix 4) should be 

implemented. A central entity is needed for the selection 

of sites to concentrate sediment-data collection, to set 
Breakout Session I 11

standards and test new technology samplers, and to 

determine sediment data storage and archival standards. 

An interagency group, such as the FISP, would be a 

logical choice for implementing and administering such a 

program.

Suggestions for sites that may be included in a national 

SMIAR Program include: The Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon, Ariz., representing large rivers; Paria River, 

Ariz. representing hyper-concentrated flows; Goodwin 

Creek, Miss., representing a flashy stream in an 

agricultural watershed; Duck, N.C., representing a lowconcentration marine site; Massachusetts Bay, 

representing a marine site near an urban area; Walnut 

Gulch, Ariz., representing a semi-arid agricultural area; 

and the Elwha River, Wash., representing a largely 

pristine watershed in which two high-head dams are 

slated for removal in 2008. 

Summary

There is pressing need for suspended-sediment data that 

are collected at greater frequencies and that encompass more of 

the cross section at more sites. The level of increase in funds 

and manpower required using conventional sampling 

techniques to fill this need is not feasible. New automated 

technologies that collect continuous data on concentration and 

size distributions of suspended sediments are needed. Several 

new technologies are on the verge of fulfilling some of this 

need; however, standard test procedures and an objective group 

to test these new techniques are required. New standards for the 

storage and archiving of sediment data are needed to keep pace 

with changing technologies and to prevent data loss. An 

interagency group, such as the FISP, should be charged with 

developing and implementing these standards and procedures in 

an organization such as the SMIAR Program.

Table 3. New-technology information matrix for suspended sediment

[o is degree; K is thousand; ± is plus or minus; < is less than; > is greater than; 

m is meter; μ is micron; mg/L is milligrams per liter; SSC is suspendedsediment concentration; OBS is optical backscatterance]

Table 3a: Single-frequency acoustics

Category Information

Measurement type: Particle backscatter

Measurement use: SSC (volumetric)

Instrument(s): Acoustic Doppler current 

profiler (ADCP)

Manufacturer(s): Nortek AS (2004), RD 

Instruments USA (2004), 

Sontek/YSI, Inc. (2004), 

Aanderaa (2004)

Measurement location: Vertical/horizontal profile

Status, Progress, 

trends:

Commercially available, 

primarily used for flow 

velocity

Range of size, 

concentration, flow 

depth:

Insufficient information 

available

Sensor(s): Piezoelectric transducer

Sources of information: Manufacturer’s literature; 

Gartner and Cheng (2001); 

David Topping, USGS, 2003, 

oral commun.; Nancy Powell, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

New Orleans District, 2003, 

oral commun., James 

Chambers, National Center for 

Physical Acoustics, Univ. of 

Mississippi, 2003, oral 

commun.

Strengths: Deployed in many locations, 

profile measurements, nonintrusive

Limitations: Dual dependency on 

concentration and particle 

sizes; assumption of mean 

particle density for mass 

computations; air-bubble 

interference; upper 

concentration limits unknown

Accuracy: Insufficient information 

available

Recommendations/

goals:

Further, careful testing against 

isokinetic samplers, may be 

valuable if used in conjunction 

with additional instrument; 

theoretically based limits for 

size/concentration 

measurement should be 

established

Calibration 

requirements:

Calibrations are essential
Table 3b: Multi-frequency acoustics

Category Information

Measurement type: Particle backscatter

Measurement use: SSC (volumetric), grain size

Instrument(s): Aquascat ($30K)

Manufacturer(s): Aquatec (2004)

Measurement location: Vertical or horizontal profile

Status, progress, trends: Hardware proven and 

available; software/

algorithms under active 

development

Range of size, concentration, 

flow depth:

Hardware specific

Sensor(s): Piezoelectric transducer

Sources of information: Smith, (2004), Thorne and 

Hanes (2002), Thorne and 

Taylor (2000), Crawford and 

Hayes (1993), Thorne and 

others (1991)

Strengths: Profiling, non-intrusive, no 

biofouling, good spatial/

temporal resolution

Limitations: Difficult inversion of data to 

concentration, including 

particle-density assumptions; 

no commercial software 

currently available to make 

this conversion, sensitive to 

air bubbles; upper 

concentration limits 

unknown

Accuracy: ±30 percent concentration--

needs further testing in 

various environments; 

particle-size accuracy 

unknown

Rcommendations/goals: Continued development and 

careful comparison with 

established techniques, 

especially field deployment 

in fluvial systems

Calibration requirements: Calibrations are essential

Table 3c: Laser diffraction

Category Information

Measurement type: Multi-angle scattering of 

diffracted light

Measurement use: SSC (volumetric) and grain 

size 

Instrument(s): LISST series ($5K-$30K)

Manufacturer(s): Sequoia Scientific, Inc. 

(2004)

Measurement location: Point measurement

Status, progress, trends: Mature technology

Range of size, 

concentration, flow depth:

1.25-1,500 μ for three models

Sensor(s): Silicon photo-diode; similar 

in principle to BeckmanCoulter and other such 

laboratory instruments

Sources of information: Agrawal and Pottsmith 

(2001), Gartner and others 

(2001)

Strengths: Particle-size and SSC

Limitations: Requires dilution >3,000 mg/

L (particle-size dependent), 

may bio-foul, air bubbles

Accuracy: ±20 percent

Rcommendations/goals: Complete LISST-SL 

isokinetic profiler 

development for riverine 

applications; test in controlled 

laboratory conditions

Calibration requirement: Not needed according to 

manufacturer, but 

recommended

12 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop
Table 3d: Optical-sediment flux

Category Information

Measurement type: Modulated light

Measurement use: Particle sizing/counting 

velocimeter

Instrument(s): In development

Manufacturer(s): No units commercially 

available

Measurement location: Point (limited profiling 

capability)

Status, progress, trends: Under development, proof of 

concept performed

Range of size, concentration, 

flow depth:

30 μ and larger; unknown 

concentration 

limit—probably better for 

dilute solutions

Sensor(s): Laser diode

Sources of information: Jan Northby, University of 

Rhode Island, oral commun., 

2003

Strengths: Simultaneous velocity/

concentration measurement, 

non-intrusive, potential for 

measuring fluorescent effects; 

low cost 

Limitations: Concentration limited

Accuracy: Undetermined—velocity on 

the order of a few percent

Recommendations/goals: Continued development; use 

in sediment resuspension 

studies

Calibration requirements: Calibrations presumably will 

be necessary

Table 3e: Digital-image analysis

Category Information

Measurement type: Digital photographic analysis

Measurement use: Volumetric SSC and size

Instrument(s): In development

Manufacturer(s): Not yet available off the shelf

Measurement location: Point/depth integrated; also 

laboratory

Status, progress, trends: Prototype planned for 2004, 

proof of concept completed in 

lab

Range of size, concentration, 

flow depth:

2-4,000 μ, 0-10,000 mg/L

Sensor(s): CCD, custom lenses

Sources of information: Dan Gooding, USGS, oral 

commun., 2003 

Strengths: Discrete information on 

particles including 

aggregates, measurements of 

organics, visual confirmation 

using archived images; air 

bubbles not a problem

Limitations: Fouling

Accuracy: ±10 percent in lab, as yet 

unknown in field

Rcommendations/goals: Prototype in 2004

Calibration requirement: Recommended

Breakout Session I 13
Table 3f: Pressure differential

Category Information

Measurement type: Fluid bulk density

Measurement use: SSC

Instrument(s): Double bubbler, wet 

differential 

Manufacturer(s): Design Analysis Associates, 

(2004); Hope Hydrology 

(2004)

Measurement location: Integrated range between 

ports

Status, progress, trends: Lab-verified proof of 

concept; limited field 

verification 

Range of size, concentration, 

flow depth:

All sizes, depths over 

minimum to cover pressure 

ports, concentrations from 10 

mg/L (lab); no upper limit

Sensor(s): Differential transducer, 

pressure ports

Sources of information: Calhoun and Rasmussen 

(2001), Larsen and others, 

(2001), Lewis and Rasmussen 

(1999)

Strengths: For medium to high SSC, 

evidence that signal accuracy 

improves with >SSC; large 

observational window

Limitations: Probably inaccurate at low 

concentrations (< about 1,000 

mg/L); turbulent flow may 

cause problems; minimum 

flow depth limitation (to 

cover pressure ports)

Accuracy: <5 percent in lab; field, 50 

percent; Hope Hydrology 

(2004) claims at least 10-

percent accuracy

Recommendations/goals: May be able to monitor 

bedload continuously with 

more development

Calibration requirements: Advised

Table 3g: Bulk optics (optical backscatter, nephelometry, transmission)

Category Information

Measurement type: Measures backscatter or 

transmission of light in 

sample space

Measurement use: SSC

Instrument(s): OBS-3, DTS-12, other 

commercially available 

meters

Manufacturer(s): D&A Instruments (2004), 

Forest Technology Systems 

(2004), many others.

Measurement location: Some distance from probe, 

variable with sediment 

concentration or color of 

water

Status, Progress, trends: Mature technology; relation 

to suspended-sediment 

concentration not simple 

function

Range of size, concentration, 

flow depth:

Fines dominant, sands 10-40 

percent, SSC range 10-3,000 

mg/l, flow depth 0.15-5 m 

Sensor(s): OBS, 90o, or transmission 

probes

Sources of information: Gray and Glysson (2003) 

Strengths: Ease of use, readily available

Limitations: Must be calibrated in 

environment in which it will 

be used, range up to about 

2,000 nephelometric turbidity 

units, calibrations are site 

specific, subject to biofouling, point measurements

Accuracy: Dependent on extent of 

calibration, degree of change 

of conditions of sediment 

characteristics

Recommendations/goals: Effective technology for 

some cases; well 

documented; technology is 

mature

Calibration requirements: Necessary

14 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop
Breakout Session I 15

References Cited, Breakout Session I:

Aanderaa, 2004, Home page, accessed September 2, 2004, at 

http://www.aanderaa.com/

Agrawal, Y. and Pottsmith, C., 2001, Laser sensors for monitoring sediments: Capabilities and limitations, A survey: Proceedings Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference (III), p. 144-151, accessed September 3, 2004, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Aquatec, 2004, Home page, accessed September 2, 2004, at 

http://www.aquatec.demon.co.uk/

Calhoun, D.L. and Rasmussen, T.C., 2001, Densimetric monitoring of suspended-sediment concentrations, northeastern 

Georgia: Proceedings Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference (III), p. 86-93, accessed September 3, 

2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/

FISC_1947-2001/

Crawford, A.M. and Hay, A.E., 1993, Determining suspended 

sand size and concentration from multifrequency acoustic 

backscatter: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, v. 

94, no. 6, p. 3312-3324.

D&A Instruments, 2004, Home page, accessed September 2, 

2004, at http://www.d-a-instruments.com/

Design Analysis Associates, 2004, Home page, accessed September 2, 2004, at http://www.waterlog.com/

Edwards, T.K. and Glysson, G.D., 1999, Field Methods for 

Measurement of Fluvial Sediment: U. S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, 

chapter 2, 89 p., accessed August 31, 2004, at http://

water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/Edwards-TWRI.pdf

Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project, 2004, Home page, 

accessed August 31, 2004, at http://fisp.wes.army.mil/

Forest Technology Systems, 2004, Home page, accessed September 2, 2004, at http://www.motionnet.com/cgi-bin/

search.exe?a=sc&no=22796

Gartner, J.W. and Cheng, R.T., 2001, The promises and pitfalls 

of estimating total suspended solids based on backscatter 

intensity from acoustic Doppler current profiler: Proceedings 

Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference (III), 

p. 119-126, accessed September 3, 2004, at http://

water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Gartner, J.W., Cheng, R.T.,Wang, P., and Richter, K., 2001, 

Laboratory and field evaluations of the LISST-100 instrument for suspended particle size determinations: Marine 

Geology, v. 175, p. 199-219.

Gray, J.R. and Glysson, G.D., 2003, Proceedings of the Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation Workshop on Turbidity and 

Other Sediment Surrogates, April 30-May 2, 2002, Reno, 

Nev.: U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1250, accessed September 3, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2003/

circ1250/

Gray, J.R., Glysson, G.D., and Mueller, D.S., 2002, Comparability and accuracy of fluvial sediment data—A view from 

the U. S. Geological Survey: Proceedings of the ASCE 

Hydraulic Measurements and Methods Symposium, JulyAug., 2002, Estes Park, Colo., 6 p., accessed September 3, 

2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/asce.pdf

Hope Hydrology, 2004, Home page, accessed September 2, 

2004, at http://www.hopehydrology.com/

Larsen, M.C., Figueroa-Alamo, C., Gray J.R., and Fletcher, W., 

2001, Continuous automated sensing of streamflow density 

as a surrogate for suspended-sediment concentration sampling: Proceedings Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference (III), p. 102-109, accessed September 3, 

2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/

FISC_1947-2001

Lewis, A.J., and Rasmussen, T.C., 1999, Determination of suspended sediment concentrations and particle size distributions using pressure measurements: Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 28, no. 5, p. 1490-1496.

Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2003, Testing 

laser-based sensors for continuous, in-situ monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona, Erosion 

and Sediment Transport Measurement in Rivers: Technological and Methodological Advances, IAHS Publication 283, p. 

21-27.

Nortek, AS., 2004, Home page, accessed September 2, 2004, at 

http://www.nortek-as.com/

RD Instruments USA, 2004, Home page, accessed September 

2, 2004, at http://www.rdinstruments.com/

Sequoia Scientific, Inc., Home page, accessed September 2, 

2004, at http://www.sequoiasci.com/default.aspx?SectionName=home

Smith, C., 2004, Estimation of particle sizes for a range of 

narrow size distributions of natural sands suspended in water 

using multi-frequency acoustic backscatter: M.S. Thesis, 

National Center for Physical Acoustics, University of Mississippi.

Sontek/YSI, Inc., 2004, Home page, accessed September 2, 

2004, at http://www.sontek.com/

Thorne, P.D. and Hanes, D.M., 2002, A review of acoustic measurement of small scale sediment processes: Continental 

Shelf Research, v. 22, no. 4, p. 603-632.

Thorne, P.D. and Taylor, J., 2000, Acoustic measurements of 

boundary layer flow and sediment flux: Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, v. 108, no. 4, p. 1568-1581.

Thorne, P.D., Vincent, C.E., Hardcastle, P.J., Rehman, S., and 

Pearson, N., 1991, Measuring suspended sediment concentrations using acoustic backscatter devices: Marine Geology, 

v. 98, p. 7-16.

Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport 1. Natural sediment supply 

limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water 

Resources Research, v. 36, no. 2, p. 515-542.
Breakout Session II, Bedload-Transport Measurement:

Data Needs, Uncertainty, and New Technologies

By Sandra E. Ryan, Kristin Bunte, and John P. Potyondy

Introduction

Breakout session II was responsible for providing 

information on current methods for monitoring bedload 

transport and for evaluating potential surrogate technologies 

that appear to show some promise in the future. As part of the 

charge to the group, there was to be an assessment of the 

uncertainty associated with measurements obtained from 

current methods, and a consideration of the quality of bedload 

data required by a majority of data users. The guiding 

questions posed to the breakout session follow. 

1. What are the methods currently available for measuring 

bedload movement? What new technologies exist or are 

on the horizon for measuring bedload transport of various 

particle sizes in different environments?

2. Are there categories or specific physical samplers that 

need to be further tested, refined, or approved by the 

Subcommittee on Sedimentation?

3. How do we define the “true” rate of transport against 

which to test new and upcoming technologies? 

4. Is there a need for a national Federal group such as the 

Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project to assure 

validation? 

5. What are the types of bedload data needed by users? 

6. Are there acceptable levels of error and accuracy that can 

be specified for bedload? 

7. What are desirable characteristics of bedload sampling 

technology? 

8. Where and how should Federal agencies invest limited 

resources to maximize the potential to bring technologies 

considered “better” (less costly, certifiably accurate, 

safer) to operational use?

Extended abstracts in the proceedings of this workshop 

(listed in appendix 4) related to bedload included:

• Abraham, D., Quantification of bed-load transport 

using multi-beam survey data: the ISSDOT method 

(Integrated-Section Surface Difference over Time).

• Barton, J.S., Slingerland, R.L., Gabrielson, T.B., 

Johnson, P.A., Listening to bedload: a flume study 

relating acoustic response to bedload motion. 

• Braatz, D.A. and Tucker, R.L., A new series of 

sediment collectors for monitoring true bedload.

• Bunte, K., Potyondy, J.P., and Abt, S.R., Development 

of an improved bedload trap for sampling gravel and 

cobble bedload in coarse mountain streams.

• Nichols, M.H. and Renard, K.G., Sediment research 

and monitoring at the USDA-ARS Walnut Gulch 

experimental watershed. 

• Roberts, J.D., James, S.C., and Jepsen, R.A., 

Measuring bedload fraction with the ASSET flume. 

• Ryan, S.E., The use of pressure-difference samplers in 

measuring bedload transport in small, coarse-grained 

alluvial channels. 

Current Methods and Possible Surrogates

Direct and indirect methods used to measure rates of 

bedload transport and the characteristics of different sampling 

technologies are listed in table 4. Current methods used to 

quantify bedload-transport rates primarily involve physical 

samplers that trap material in motion near the channel surface 

over a known time period. The bedload sample obtained from 

these devices is subsequently analyzed to determine total mass 

and calculate percentages of the total in grain-size classes 

ranging from sand to large cobbles. These data are used with 

information on the size of the sampler and its duration of 

deployment to compute bedload-transport rates, as a bulk 

quantity or in selected particle-size classes. 

Portable measuring devices include pressure-difference 

samplers (such as the US BL-84, Helley-Smith, Toutle River, 

and Elwha River bedload samplers), bedload traps, and 

instream baskets (table 4, part 2). While most of these devices 

have provided useful data in a variety of settings, all have some 

deficiencies that restrict their use and prevent widespread 

acceptance as the standard method for monitoring bedload. The
Table 4. Comparison of characteristics of different bedload-sampling technologies with selected references[N/A is not applicable]

BedloadSampling 

Technology

Stream Type

Requires 

Wading or 

Retrieval 

During High 

Flows

Physical 

Sample 

Obtained for 

Sieving

High 

Percentage of 

Channel Width 

Sampled

Large 

Opening 

Relative to 

Grain Size

Relatively Long 

Sampling 

Duration

Stream 

Excavation 

Required

Relative 

Ease of Use

Disruptive to 

Flow Fields

1. Instream InstallationsBirkbeck sampler1(weighable pit trap)

narrow gravel 

bed channel

no no, 

automatically 

weighs mass 

in stream

typically not; 

depends on slot 

width

depends on 

slot width

continuous yes easy may change 

with fill level

Vortex sampler2

gravel bed 

channel

no yes yes yes continuous yes depends on 

flow 

conditions

depends on 

experimental 

setup

Pit traps, unweighable3

gravel bed 

channel

yes yes typically not possibly possibly yes, small 

scale

depends on 

flow 

conditions

slightly 

Net-frame sampler4

gravel bed 

channel

possibly yes yes yes yes depends on 

experimental 

setup

can be 

difficult

depends on 

experimental 

setup

Sediment detention basins/weir ponds5

sand-gravel 

bed channels

no periodically yes yes yes yes relatively 

easy

no 

2. Portable/physical devicesPressuredifference samplers (small openings)6

sand-gravel 

bed channel

yes yes no no no no depends on 

flow 

conditions

slightly 
Pressure- difference samplers (large openings)7 gravel bed channel yes yes no yes no no depends on flow conditions highly Baskets (suspended or instream)8 gravel bed channel yes yes depends on design depends on design yes no depends on flow conditions depends on experimental setup Bedload traps9 gravel bed channel yes yes depends on number of traps deployed yes yes minor depends on flow conditions slightly Tracer particles (painted, magnetic, signal emitting rocks)10 gravel bed channel possibly no depends on tracer placement N/A yes no easy no Scour chains; scour monitor; scour core11 sand-gravel bed channel possibly no no N/A yes yes easy no Bedload collector (Streamside Systems)12 sand-gravel bed channel no yes depends on number and size of devices deployed depends on design of device yes yes operation is easy once installed unknown 

Table 4. Comparison of characteristics of different bedload-sampling technologies with selected references—Continued [N/A is not applicable] Bedload- Sampling Technology Stream Type Requires Wading or Retrieval During High Flows Physical Sample Obtained for Sieving High Percentage of Channel Width Sampled Large Opening Relative to Grain Size Relatively Long Sampling Duration Stream Excavation Required Relative Ease of Use Disruptive to Flow Fields 
3. Surrogate TechnologiesADCP – acoustic Doppler current profiler13

sand bed 

rivers, 

experimental 

in larger 

gravel bed 

channels

no no yes N/A continuous no logistics and 

data 

reduction are 

complex

no 

Hydrophones (active and passive acoustic sensor)14

gravel bed 

channel

no no depends on 

deployment

N/A continuous possibly easy no 

Gravel impact sensor15

gravel bed 

channel

yes, for 

hand-held 

model

no not as currently 

designed

N/A continuous yes for 

instream 

model

easy under 

many 

conditions

in fast flow 

Magnetic Tracers16

gravel bed 

with naturally 

magnetic 

particles

no no yes N/A continuous yes relatively 

easy

depends on 

experimental 

setup

Magnetic sensors17

gravel bed 

channel

no no yes N/A continuous yes easy under 

many 

conditions

minor; flush 

with stream 

bottom

Topographic differencing18

sand-gravel 

bed channel

no no yes N/A episodically or 

continuous

no easy no 

Sonarmeasured debris basin19

gravel bed 

channel

no no yes N/A continuous with debris 

basin 

installation

easy under 

many 

conditions

N/A 

Table 4. Comparison of characteristics of different bedload-sampling technologies with selected references—Continued[N/A is not applicable]

BedloadSampling 

Technology

Stream Type

Requires 

Wading or 

Retrieval 

During High 

Flows

Physical 

Sample 

Obtained for 

Sieving

High 

Percentage of 

Channel Width 

Sampled

Large 

Opening 

Relative to 

Grain Size

Relatively Long 

Sampling 

Duration

Stream 

Excavation 

Required

Relative 

Ease of Use

Disruptive to 

Flow Fields
Underwater video cameras20 relatively clear flow used from bridges or boats no no N/A continuous no easy under right lighting conditions slightly 

1Birkbeck sampler, Reid and others, 1980, 1985; Reid and Frostick, 1986; Lewis, 1991; Harris and Richards, 1995; Reid and Laronne, 1995; Powell and others, 1998; G

Habersack and others, 2001; Laronne and others, 2003; Sear and others, 2000; Sear, 2003 2Vortex sampler, Milhous, 1973; Hayward and Sutherland, 1974; Hayward, 1980; O'Leary and Beschta, 1981; Tacconi and Billi, 1987; Atkinson, 1994 3Unweighable pit traps, Church and others, 1991; Powell and Ashworth, 1995; Bunte, 1997; Hassan and Church, 2001; Sterling and Church, 2002 4Net-frame sampler, Bunte, 1992, 1996; Whitaker and Potts, 1996; Whitaker, 1997 5Sediment detention basins/weir ponds, Troendle and others, 1996; Ryan and Porth, 1999; Bunte, 2002; Bunte and Swingle, 2003 6Pressure-difference samplers (small openings), Helley and Smith, 1971; Druffle and others, 1976; Johnson and others, 1977; Beschta, 1981; Emmett, 1980, 1981; Pitlick

and others, 1991; Gaudet and others, 1994; Hardardottir and Snorrason, 2003; Ryan and Troendle, 1997; Ryan, 1998; Ryan and Porth, 1999; Ryan and Emmett, 2002; 

Ryan, 2005 (see appendix 4) 7Pressure-difference samplers (large openings), Hubbell and others, 1985, 1987; Gao, 1991; Childers, 1991, 1999; Dinehart, 1992; Xiang and Zhou, 1992; Yang and Ga

2000; Duizendstra, 2001a, b; Habersack and Laronne, 2001, 2002; Ryan, 2001; Hayes and others, 2002 8Baskets (suspended or instream), Hubbell, 1964; Nanson, 1974; Engel and Lau, 1981; Gao, 1991; Xiang and Zhou, 1992; Nankervis, 1994; Wilcock, 2001 9Bedload Traps, Bunte, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002; Bunte and Swingle, 2002, 2003, 2004; Bunte and others, 2001; Bunte and Abt, 2003; Bunte and others, 2004; Bunte and 

Bunte and others, 2005b (see appendix 4) 10Tracer particles (painted, magnetic, signal emitting rocks), Laronne and Carson, 1976; Butler, 1977; Kondolf and Matthews, 1986; Chacho and others, 1989, 1994, 19

and Church, 1992; Hassan and others, 1991, 1992, 1999; Busskamp and Ergenzinger, 1991; Schmidt and Ergenzinger, 1992; Busskamp, 1994a and b; Busskamp and GGintz, 1995; Wathen and others, 1995; Sear, 1996; Emmett and others, 1996; Gintz and others, 1996; Thompson and others, 1996; Ferguson and Wathen, 1998; Fergus

Haschenburger and Church, 1998; Rosenfeld and others, 1996; McNamara and others, 2001; Habersack, 2001, 2003; Hassan and Ergenzinger, 2003; Ergenzinger and D

2003 11Scour chains, scour monitor, scour cores, Laronne and others, 1992; Haschenburger and Church, 1998; DeVries and others, 2001; McBain and Trush, 2004 12Bedload collector (Streamside Systems), Braatz and Tucker, 2005 (see appendix 4) 13ADCP – acoustic Doppler current profiler, Rennie and others, 2002 14Hydrophones (active and passive acoustic sensor), Bänzinger and Burch, 1990, 1991; Taniguchi and others, 1992; Rouse 1994; Rickenmann, 1994, 1997; Rickenmann 

Rickenmann and others, 1997; Bogen and Møen, 2003; Mizuyama and others, 2003; Froehlich, 2003; Barton and others, 2005 (see appendix 4) 15Gravel impact sensor, Downing and others, 2003; Richardson and others, 2003 16Magnetic tracers, Bunte, 1992, 1996; Ergenzinger and others, 1994a, 1994b 17Magnetic sensors, Tunnicliffe and others, 2000; Gottesfeld and Tunnicliffe, 2003 18Topographic differencing, Bransington and others, 2000; Dinehart, 2001; Rubin and others, 2001; Abraham, 2005 (see appendix 4) 19Sonar-measured debris basin, D'Agostino and others, 1994; Lenzi and others, 1990, 1999

20Underwater video cameras, Dixon and Ryan, 2001; Ryan and Dixon, 2002

Table 4. Comparison of characteristics of different bedload-sampling technologies with selected references—Continued[N/A is not applicable]

BedloadSampling 

Technology

Stream Type

Requires 

Wading or 

Retrieval 

During High 

Flows

Physical 

Sample 

Obtained for 

Sieving

High 

Percentage of 

Channel Width 

Sampled

Large 

Opening 

Relative to 

Grain Size

Relatively Long 

Sampling 

Duration

Stream 

Excavation 

Required

Relative 

Ease of Use

Disruptive to 

Flow Fields
Breakout Session II 21

 use of some devices requires wading in streams at high flows 

under potentially hazardous conditions in order to retrieve 

samples. There may be low confidence in the results from some 

portable devices because they collect samples from discrete 

widths of the streambed for short time periods, which can be an 

inferior sampling strategy for monitoring processes associated 

with exceptionally large spatial and temporal variability. Other 

devices more effectively and continuously monitor coarse 

sediment transport (vortex samplers, Birkbeck samplers) but 

require permanent installations in relatively small streams, and 

therefore are restricted to a few locations (table 4, part 1). 

Potential surrogate technologies were presented and 

discussed in breakout session II including acoustic devices 

(Barton and others; listed in appendix 4) and topographic 

differencing using multi-beam bathymetric data for larger sandbed rivers (Abraham; listed in appendix 4). Other surrogate 

technologies discussed included the ADCP (acoustic Doppler 

current profiler), gravel impact sensors, magnetic field sensors, 

underwater video cameras, and debris basins outfitted with 

capabilities for automatically measuring the accumulated 

volume (table 4, part 3). The breakout session participants 

generally agreed that surrogate technologies for monitoring 

bedload are largely in early stages of development and require 

additional development, testing and verification of surrogate 

signals against physical samples. 

Summary of Deliberations and Observations

A summary of observations and associated group 

discussion are presented in the following section. 

1. The breakout group recognized an overarching need for 

more thorough testing of the accuracy of existing devices. 

However, even with the uncertainties regarding the 

accuracy of the current technologies, existing physical 

samplers represent the long-term standard for bedload 

measurement, and so they should be retained for use in 

comparisons to newer (and presumably superior) 

technologies. Related to this observation, there was a 

recognized need for better documentation of existing 

samplers, including information on limitations and 

uncertainty of the data obtained. 

Observation 1: There is a need to further evaluate the 

accuracy of physical bedload samplers, develop new 

physical samplers, and investigate the use of surrogate 

technologies for quantifying bedload transport.

2. The group recognized that there are substantial 

verification issues associated with historical and current 

bedload-sampler testing procedures and that no 

standardized, generally accepted, readily available, 

reliable and robust test procedure exists against which to 

compare current and new technologies. Consequently, it 

is difficult to make progress toward development and 

validation of surrogate technologies until there is a way 

to adequately quantify the true rates of bedload transport. 

Ways to determine true transport will depend largely on 

the stream types and classes of bed materials to be 

studied and will likely include permanent instream 

installations that collect all materials moved as bedload, 

such as weir ponds (e.g., Ryan and Porth, 1999; Troendle 

and others, 1996), slot-conveyor belt samplers (e.g., 

Emmett, 1980), vortex samplers (e.g., Milhous, 1973), or 

Birkbeck samplers (e.g., Reid and others, 1980; Lewis, 

1991). Several technologies may be utilized at each of 

the installations, recognizing that not all methods may be 

capable of monitoring the full range of materials 

transported or addressing the questions of concern. For 

example, collection baskets may be used in conjunction 

with a weir pond so that information on the timing and 

amount of gravel movement is obtained in addition to the 

total volume of sediment accumulated in the pond. 

Finally, the group recognized that some testing would 

require more controlled conditions, such as calibration in 

indoor flumes, in order to obtain measurements from a 

wider range of conditions than might be observed in a 

given field season. 

Observation 2: There is a need for nationally recognized 

calibration field sites in streams representing a variety of 

bed materials (e.g., gravel bed, sand bed, mixed bed) and 

hydrologic regimes (e.g., snowmelt and rainfall 

dominated) for collection of sufficiently detailed bedload 

and ancillary data to facilitate validation of bedload 

technologies.

3. While development of new technologies by non-Federal 

entities was encouraged, the group felt that there should 

be one such oversight organization responsible for the 

testing and validation of bedload sampling technologies. 

This responsibility should rest primarily with a Federal 

organization (the FISP or another similar organization). 

This group, however, should request outside peer review 

and seek the advice of academic and external researchers 

in developing the testing program. In addition, this 

group needs to share information among users and 

developers through forums such as symposia, 

informational websites, and newsgroup discussions. 

Observation 3: There is a need for a federally based 

group to oversee testing, validation, standardization, and 

documentation of bedload sampling technologies and 

protocols, and for standardized data storage.

4. Information published from bedload transport studies, and 

particularly data gathered at nationally recognized field 

sites, should include a high level of comprehensiveness 

and detail because users of bedload data require a variety 

of types of information depending on the users’ 

objectives. As a minimum, published bedload data 

should consist of transported mass measured over a 
22 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

specified time frame in individual size classes (e.g., 1⁄2 to 

one phi). Bedload mass averaged over short time frames 

(e.g. hours) would be reported as a mean instantaneous 

value for that period of time. Total bedload volume may 

be expressed by event, season, year, or other specified 

time frame, depending on the nature of bedloadentraining flows. Ancillary data, such as the type of 

sampler used and flow conditions during the sampling 

period, are a necessary component of any bedload 

dataset. Data on the characteristics of the bed material at 

the sampling site should be published along with the 

bedload data. Information on the spatial and temporal 

variability of transport should be published, as available. 

A continuous real-time record would be desirable and 

most users of bedload data would be willing to give up 

some level of accuracy in order to better understand the 

temporal variability of the transport processes. 

Regarding acceptable levels of error and accuracy that 

can be specified for bedload, the group concluded that we 

are simply not in a position to make recommendations 

because of the state of the science and our inability to 

assess the true rate of bedload transport outside of a 

limited number of sites. 

Observation 4a: Users require comprehensive 

information in published bedload data.

Observation 4b: At this point in time, acceptable levels 

of error and accuracy cannot be established for bedload 

samplers because the true rate of bedload transport is 

rarely known.

Observation 4c: Standards and protocols need to be 

developed for establishing the accuracy of bedload 

measurements. 

5. The group characterized the ideal sampling technology as 

one that would ultimately provide accurate 

measurements and precise data on the amount and sizes 

of material moved as bedload over a wide range of flow 

conditions. The device or technology should be portable 

or easily deployed in a number of types of rivers and 

streams. It should be reliable, safe to operate, and used 

without wading in streams at high flow. The device 

should be foolproof, easy to calibrate, and not disrupt the 

local transport field to the extent that it affects 

measurement. Since the technologies are likely to be 

used in systems moving coarse gravel and cobbles, they 

need to be rugged, durable, and able to withstand 

occasional collisions with large grains. Technologies that 

are automated and have low power requirements would 

be particularly useful in remote environments. 

Continuous records are needed to evaluate the temporal 

variability of the transport process. Several units may be 

deployed in order to evaluate spatial variability. The 

technology should be scaleable, with different sized 

devices available for channels of varying size and bed 

material. Finally, the technology must be affordable so 

that monitoring may be carried out at more than one site. 

Observation 5: The developers of bedload sampling 

technologies are encouraged to incorporate many of the 

ideal characteristics listed above into a single design. No 

single technology is likely to serve all data needs and 

more than one method may be required to assess the full 

range of bedload transport processes in a wide range of 

channel types.

6. The cost of developing new bedload technologies in times 

of decreasing budgets was recognized as a constraint to 

progress. Yet, there was an expressed need for pursuing 

the development of improved physical and new surrogate 

technologies. By focusing efforts at a few designated 

research sites, Federal agencies could invest limited 

resources while maximizing the potential to bring 

improved technologies to operational use. In the 

meantime, there should be an effort to improve 

understanding of the advantages and limitations of the 

current suite of technologies available for monitoring 

bedload transport. 

Observation 6: There is a need for the development of 

surrogate bedload technologies. Our ability to measure 

bedload transport is deficient and physical measurements 

must be improved to allow the evaluation of new 

technology. 

Primary Recommendations

The items listed here are specific recommendations for 

developing programs to improve our ability to monitor bedload 

and to test new instrumentation.

Recommendation 1: The development of nationally 

recognized sites for field calibrations of bedload sampling 

technologies should be given high priority to bring 

“better” (less-costly, certifiably accurate, safer) 

technologies to operational use. These are sites where true 

rates of transport are known and the accuracy of sampling 

technologies can be evaluated.

Recommendation 2: There should be a federally based 

oversight organization responsible for the field calibration 

sites, such as the FISP or a similar-type organization. This 

bedload-research program could be part of the proposed 

Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research 

(SMIAR) Program, such as that currently operated 

informally by the USGS, the components of which are 

described by Gray and Glysson (listed in appendix 4).

Recommendation 3: Additional discussion is needed on 

selecting the candidate sites for field testing bedload-
Breakout Session II 23

sampling technologies and the types of devices to be used 

in determining true rates of bedload transport. A separate 

work group that focuses solely on bedload issues should be 

convened to develop recommendations on how this might 

be done.

Recommendation 4: A white paper is needed to provide a 

comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of all existing 

bedload technologies and potential surrogate technologies. 

This paper would describe the state of the art in bedload 

measurement, offer recommendations on the use of 

devices in different types of stream environments, and 

provide guidance on desired sampler accuracy 

requirements for commercial developers. 

References, Breakout Session II:

Atkinson, E., 1994, Vortex-tube sediment extractors. I: 

Trapping efficiency: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 

120, no. 10, p. 1110-1125.

Bänzinger, R., and Burch, H., 1990, Acoustic sensors 

(hydrophones) as indicator for bed load in a mountain torrent, 

in, Hydrology in Mountainous Regions.: IAHS Publication 

193, p. 207-214.

Bänzinger, R. and Burch, H., 1991, Geschiebetransport in 

Wildbächen: Messung mittels eines neuartigen Sensors: 

Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt, v. 24, p. 576-579.

Beschta, R.L., 1981, Increased bag size improves Helley-Smith 

bed load sampler for use in streams with high sand and 

organic matter transport, in, Erosion and Sediment Transport 

Measurement: IAHS Publication 133, p. 17-25. 

Bogen, J. and Møen, K., 2003, Bed load measurements with a 

new passive ultrasonic sensor, in, J. Bogen, T. Fergus and D. 

Walling (eds.), Erosion and Sediment Transport 

Measurement in Rivers—Technological and Methodological 

Advances: IAHS Publication 283, p. 181-192.

Bransington, J., Rumsby, B.T., and McVey, R.A., 2000, 

Monitoring and modelling morphological change in a 

braided gravel-bed river using high resolution GPS-based 

survey: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 25 p. 

973-990.

Bunte, K., 1992, Particle number grain-size composition of 

bedload in a mountain stream, in, P. Billi, R. D. Hey, C.R. 

Thorne and P. Tacconi, eds.: Dynamics of Gravel Bed 

Rivers, Wiley, Chichester, p. 55-72. 

Bunte, K., 1996, Analyses of the temporal variation of coarse 

bedload transport and its grain size distribution (Squaw 

Creek, Montana): English translation of Ph.D. dissertation 

submitted to the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-GTR288, 123 p.

Bunte, K., 1997, Development and field testing of a bedload 

trap for sand and fine gravels in mountain gravel-bed streams 

(South Fork Cache la Poudre Creek, CO): Report prepared 

for the Stream Systems Technology Center, USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Fort Collins, Colo., 53 p.

Bunte, K., 1998, Development and field testing of a stationary 

net-frame bedload sampler for measuring entrainment of 

pebble and cobble particles: Report prepared for the Stream 

Systems Technology Center, USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort 

Collins, Colo., 74 p.

Bunte, K., 1999, Field testing of bedload traps for measuring 

entrainment of pebbles and cobbles at Little Granite Creek, 

WY: Report prepared for the Stream Systems Technology 

Center, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colo., 78 p.

Bunte, K., 2001, Field testing the sampling efficiency of 

bedload traps at East St. Louis Creek, CO: Report submitted 

to the Stream Systems Technology Center, USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, 

Colo., 84 p.

Bunte, K., 2002, Testing the sampling efficiency of the bedload 

traps by comparison with sediment collected in the debris 

basin at East St. Louis Creek: Report submitted to the Stream 

Systems Technology Center, USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colo., 44 p.

Bunte, K. and Abt, S.R., 2003, Sampler size and sampling time 

affect measured bedload transport rates and particle sizes 

measured with bedload traps in gravel-bed streams, in, J. 

Bogen, T. Fergus and D. Walling (eds.), Erosion and 

Sediment Transport Measurement in Rivers—Technological 

and Methodological Advances: IAHS Publication 283, p. 

126-133.

Bunte, K. and Swingle, K., 2002, Results from testing the 

bedload traps at Little Granite Creek, 2002: effect of 

sampling duration and sampler type on bedload transport 

rates and systematic variability of rating curves with basin 

area and stream bed parameters: Report submitted to the 

Stream Systems Technology Center, USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colo., 110 

p.

Bunte, K. and Swingle, K., 2003, Field testing the sampling 

efficiency of bedload traps at East St. Louis Creek, May - 

July 2003: Comparison of annual gravel load between 

bedload traps and debris basin: Report submitted to the 

Stream Systems Technology Center, USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colo., 86 p.

Bunte, K. and Swingle, K., 2004, Flume and field 

measurements of flow velocity profiles near the bedload trap 

entrance: Report submitted to the Stream Systems 

Technology Center, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, Colo., 40 p.

Bunte, K., Swingle, K., and Abt, S.R., 2005a, Guidelines for 

using bedload traps in coarse-bedded mountain streamsConstruction, installation, operation and sample processing: 

Stream Systems Technology Center, USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, 80 pp.
24 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

Bunte, K., Abt, S.R., and Potyondy, J.P., 2001, Portable 

bedload traps with high sampling intensity for representative 

sampling of gravel transport in wadable mountain streams, 

in, Proceedings of the 7th Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference, Reno, Nev., v. 2, p. III 24 - III 31, accessed 

August 31, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/

misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Bunte, K., Abt, S.R., Potyondy, J.P., and Ryan, S.E., 2004, 

Measurement of coarse gravel and cobble transport using a 

portable bedload trap: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 

130, no. 9, p. 879-893.

Busskamp, R., 1994a, Erosion, Einzellaufwege und 

Ruhephasenanalyse und Modellierung der stochastischen 

Parameter des Grobgeschiebetransportes. [Erosion, 

individual travel distances, and rest phases: analysis and 

modeling of the stochastic parameters of coarse bedload 

transport.] Ph.D. dissertation submitted to the Department of 

Earth Sciences at the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.

Busskamp, R., 1994b, The influence of channel steps on coarse 

bed load transport in mountain torrents—case study using the 

radio tracer technique 'PETSY', in, P. Ergenzinger and K.-H. 

Schmidt, eds., Dynamics and Geomorphology of Mountain 

Rivers: Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, Springer Verlag, 

Berlin, p. 129-139.

Busskamp, R. and Ergenzinger, P., 1991, Neue Analysen zum 

Transport von Grobgeschiebe—Messung Lagrangescher 

Parameter mit der Radiotracertechnik (PETSY). [New 

analyses of coarse bedload transport measurements of 

Lagrangian parameters with the radio tracer technique 

(PETSY)], in, Deutsche Gewässerkundliche Mitteilungen, v. 

35, no. 2, p. 57-63.

Busskamp, R. and Gintz, D., 1994, Geschiebefrachterfassung 

mit Hilfe von Tracern in einem Wildbach (Lainbach/

Oberbayern). [Bedload transport determination using tracers 

in a mountain torrent (Lainbach/Upper Bavaria)], in, D. 

Barsch, R. Mäusbacher, K.-H. Pörtge and K.-H. Schmidt, 

eds., Messungen in fluvialen Systemen. Feld- und 

Laboruntersuchungen zur Erfassung des Wasser- und 

Stoffhaushaltes: Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 179-193.

Butler, P.R., 1977, Movement of cobbles in a gravel-bed stream 

during a flood season: Geological Society of America 

Bulletin, v. 88, p. 1072-1074.

Chacho, E.F., Burrows R.L., and Emmett, W.W., 1989, 

Detection of coarse sediment movement using radio 

transmitters: International Association for Hydraulic 

Research (IAHR), Proceedings of the 23. Congress, 

Technical Session B, p. B367-B373.

Chacho, E.F., Emmett, W.W., and Burrows, R.L., 1994, 

Monitoring gravel movement using radio transmitters, in, 

G.V. Cotroneo and R.R. Rumer, eds., Hydraulic Engineering 

'94, Proceedings of the 1994 Conference, ASCE, New York, 

v. 2, p.785-789.

Chacho, E.F., Emmett, W.W., and Burrows, R.L., 1996, Motion 

characteristics of coarse sediment in a gravel-bed river, in, 

Proceedings of the 6th Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference, Las Vegas, Nev., V 1 -V 8, accessed August 31, 

2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/

FISC_1947-2001/

Childers, D., 1991, Sampling differences between the HelleySmith and BL-84 bedload samplers, in, Proceedings of the 

5th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las 

Vegas, Nev., VI 31 - VI 38, accessed August 31, 2004, 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Childers, D., 1999, Field comparison of six-pressure-difference 

bedload samplers in high energy flow: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resource Investigations Report 92-4068, 59 

p., accessed January 26, 2005, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/

pubs/wri/wri924068/

Childers, D., Kresch, D.L., Gustafson, S.A., Randle, T.J., 

Melena, J.T., and Cluer, B., 2000, Hydrologic data collected 

during the 1994 Lake Mills drawdown experiment, Elwha 

River, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigation Report 99-4215, 115 p. 

Church, M., Wolcott, J.F., and Fletcher, W.K., 1991, A test of 

equal mobility in fluvial sediment transport—behavior of the 

sand fraction: Water Resources Research, v. 27, no. 11, p. 

2941-2951.

D'Agostino, V., Lenzi, M.A., and Marchi, L., 1994, Sediment 

transport and water discharge during high flows in an 

instrumented watershed, in, P. Ergenzinger and K.-H. 

Schmidt, eds., Dynamics and Geomorphology of Mountain 

Rivers: Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, v. 52, p. 67-81, 

Springer Verlag, Berlin.

DeVries, P., Burges, S.J., Daigneau, J. and Stearns, D., 2001, 

Measurement of the temporal progression of scour in a poolriffle sequence in a gravel-bed stream using an electronic 

scour monitor: Water Resources Research, v. 37, no. 11, p. 

2805-2816.

Dinehart, R.L., 1992, Evolution of coarse gravel bed forms: 

field measurement at flood stage: Water Resources 

Research, v. 28, no. 10, p. 2667-2689. 

Dinehart, R.L., 2001, Bedform mapping in the Sacramento 

River, in, Proceedings of the 7th Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nev., v.1, p. III 55 - III 62, 

accessed August 31, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/

misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Dixon, M. and Ryan, S.E., 2001, Using an underwater video 

camera for observing bedload transport in mountain stream, 

in, Proceedings of the 7th Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference, Reno, Nev., poster-70-73, accessed August 31, 

2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/

FISC_1947-2001/

Downing, J., Farley, P.J., Bunte, K., Swingle, K. Ryan, S.E., 

and Dixon, M., 2003, Acoustic gravel-transport sensor, in, J. 

Bogen, T. Fergus and D. Walling, eds., Erosion and Sediment 

Transport Measurement in Rivers—Technological and 

Methodological Advances. IAHS Publication 283, p. 193-

200.

Druffel, L., Emmett, W.W., Schneider, V.R., and Skinner, J.V., 

1976, Laboratory hydraulic calibration of the Helley-Smith 

bedload sediment sampler: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 76-752.
Breakout Session II 25

Duizendstra, H.D., 2001a, Measuring, observing and pattern 

recognition of sediment transport in an armoured river using 

a sampler with attached underwater camera: Physics and 

Chemistry of the Earth, Part B, no. 26v. 1, p. 59-64. 

Duizendstra, H.D., 2001b, Determination of the sediment 

transport in an armoured gravel-bed river: Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms, v. 26, p. 1381-1393.

Emmett, W.W., 1980, A field calibration of the sediment 

trapping characteristics of the Helley-Smith bedload 

sampler: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1139, 

44 p.

Emmett, W.W., 1981, Measurement of bed load in rivers, in, 

Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurements: IAHS 

Publication 133, p. 3-15.

Emmett, W.W., Burrows, R.L., and Chacho, E.F., 1996, 

Coarse-particle transport in a gravel-bed river: International 

Journal of Sediment Research, v. 11, no. 2, p. 8-21.

Engel, P. and Lau, Y.L., 1981, The efficiency of basket type bed 

load samplers, in, Erosion and Sediment Transport 

Measurement: IAHS Publication 133, p. 27-34. 

Ergenzinger, P. and De Jong, C. 2003, Perspectives on bed load 

measurements, in, J. Bogen, T. Fergus and D. Walling, eds., 

Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement in 

Rivers—Technological and Methodological Advances: 

IAHS Publication 283, p.113-125.

Ergenzinger, P., de Jong, C., and Christaller, G., 1994a, 

Interrelationships between bedload transfer and river bed 

adjustment in mountain rivers—an example from Squaw 

Creek, Montana, in, M.J. Kirkby, ed., Process Models and 

Theoretical Geomorphology: John Wiley and Sons, New 

York, p. 141-158.

Ergenzinger, P., De Jong, C., Laronne, J.B., and Reid, I., 1994b, 

Short term temporal variations in bedload transport rates: 

Squaw Creek, Montana, USA, and Nahal Yatir and Nahal 

Estemoa, Israel, in, P. Ergenzinger and K.-H. Schmidt, eds., 

Dynamics and Geomorphology of Mountain Rivers: Lecture 

Notes in Earth Sciences, Springer Verlag, Berlin, p. 251-264.

Ferguson, R.I., and Wathen, S.J., 1998, Tracer-pebble 

movement along a concave river profile—virtual velocity in 

relation to grain size and shear stress: Water Resources 

Research, v. 34, no. 8, p. 2031-2038.

Ferguson, R.I., Hoey, T.B., Wathen, S.J., Werritty, A., 

Hardwick R.I., and Smith, G.H.S., 1998, Downstream fining 

of river gravels: integrated field, laboratory and modeling 

study, in, P.C. Klingeman, R.L. Beschta, P.D. Komar and 

J.B. Bradley, eds., Gravel-Bed Rivers in the Environment: 

Water Resources Publications LLC, Highlands Ranch, CO, 

p. 85-114.

Froehlich, W., 2003, Monitoring bedload transport using 

acoustic and magnetic devices, in, J. Bogen, T. Fergus and D. 

Walling, eds., Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement 

in Rivers—Technological and Methodological Advances: 

IAHS Publication 283, p. 201-210.

Gao, H., 1991, The comparison tests of gravel bed load 

samplers: Proceedings of the 5th Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, Nev., VI 55 - VI 62, 

accessed at August 31, 2004, a http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/

misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Garcia, C., Laronne, J.B., and Sala, M., 2000, Continuous 

monitoring of bedload flux in a mountain gravel-bed river: 

Geomorphology, v. 34, p. 23-31.

Gaudet, J.M., Roy, J.B., and Best, J.B., 1994, Effects of 

orientation and size of Helley-Smith sampler on its 

efficiency: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 120, no. 6, p. 

758-766.

Gintz, D., Hassan, M.A., and Schmidt, K.–H., 1996, Frequency 

and magnitude of bedload transport in a mountain river: 

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 21, p. 433-445.

Gottesfeld, A.S. and Tunnicliffe, J., 2003, Bed load 

measurements with a passive magnetic induction device. in, 

J. Bogen, T. Fergus and D. Walling, eds., Erosion and 

Sediment Transport Measurement in Rivers—Technological 

and Methodological Advances: IAHS-Publication 283, p. 

211-221.

Gray, J.R., Webb, R.H., and Hyndman, D.W., 1991, Low-flow 

sediment transport in the Colorado River: Proceedings of the 

5th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference: 

Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 

Subcommittee on Sedimentation, Las Vegas, Nev., v. 1, p. 

4-63 to 4-71, accessed August 31, 2004, at http://

water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Habersack, H.M., 2001, Radio-tracking gravel particles in a 

large braided river in New Zealand: a field test of the 

stochastic theory of bedload transport proposed by Einstein: 

Hydrological Processes, v. 15, p. 377-391.

Habersack, H.M., 2003, Use of radio-tracking techniques in 

bedload transport investigations, in, J. Bogen, T. Fergus and 

D.E. Walling, eds., Erosion and Transport Measurement in 

Rivers—Technological and Methodological Advances: 

IAHS Publication 283, p. 172-180. 

Habersack, H.M. and Laronne, J.B., 2001, Bed load texture in 

an alpine gravel bed river: Water Resources Research, v. 37, 

no. 12, p. 3359-3370.

Habersack, H.M. and Laronne, J.B., 2002, Evaluation and 

improvement of bedload discharge formulas based on 

Helley-Smith sampling in an Alpine gravel-bed river: 

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 128, no. 5, p. 484-499.

Habersack, H.M, Nachtnebel P.N., and Laronne, J.B., 2001, 

The continuous measurement of bedload discharge in a large 

alpine gravel bed river with a slot sampler: Journal of 

Hydraulic Research, v. 39, p. 125-133.

Hardardottir, J. and Snorrason, A., 2003, Sediment monitoring 

of glacial rivers in Iceland: new data on bed load transport, in, 

J. Bogen, T. Fergus and D. Walling, eds., Erosion and 

Sediment Transport Measurement in Rivers—Technological 

and Methodological Advances: IAHS Publication 283, p. 

154-163.

Harris, T. and Richards, K.S., 1995, Design and calibration of a 

recording bedload trap: Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms, v. 20, p. 711-720.

Haschenburger, J.K. and Church, M., 1998, Bed material 

transport estimated from the virtual velocity of sediment: 

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 23, p. 791-808.
26 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

Hassan, M.A., 1990, Scour, fill, and burial depth of coarse 

material in gravel bed streams: Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms, v. 15, p. 341-356.

Hassan, M.A. and Church, M., 1992, The movement of 

individual grains on the streambed, in, P. Billi, R.D. Hey, 

C.R. Thorne and P. Tacconi, eds., Dynamics of Gravel Bed 

Rivers: John Wiley, Chichester, Great Britain, p. 159-175.

Hassan, M.A. and Church, M., 2001, Sensitivity of bedload 

transport in Harris Creek – seasonal and spatial variation over 

a cobble-gravel bar: Water Resources Research, v. 37, no. 3, 

p. 813-825.

Hassan, M.A., and Ergenzinger, P., 2003, Use of tracers in 

fluvial geomorphology, in, Kondolf, G.M., and Piégay, H., 

eds., Tools in Fluvial Geomorphology: John Wiley and Sons, 

Chichester, Great Britain, p. 397-423.

Hassan, M.A., Church, M., and Ashworth, P.J., 1992, Virtual 

rate and mean distance of travel of individual clasts in gravelbed channels: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 17, 

p. 617-627.

Hassan, M.A., Church, M., and Schick, A.P., 1991, Distance of 

movement of coarse particles in gravel bed streams: Water 

Resources Research, v. 27, no. 4, p. 503-511.

Hassan, M.A., Schick, A.P., and Shaw, P., 1999, The transport 

of gravel in an ephemeral sandbed river: Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms, v. 25, p. 623-640.

Hayes, S.K., Montgomery, D.R., and Newhall, C.G., 2002, 

Fluvial sediment transport and deposition following the 1991 

eruption of Mount Pinatubo: Geomorphology, v. 45, p. 211-

224. 

Hayward, J.A., 1980, Hydrology and stream sediments in a 

mountain catchment, in, Tussock Grasslands and Mountain 

Lands Institute: Special Publication 17, 236 p. 

Hayward, J.A. and Sutherland, A.J., 1974, The Torlesse stream 

vertex-tube sediment trap: Journal of Hydrology (N.Z.), v. 

13, no. 1, p. 41-53.

Helley, E.J. and Smith, W., 1971, Development and calibration 

of a pressure-difference bedload sampler: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 73-108.

Hubbell, D.W., 1964, Apparatus and techniques for measuring 

bedload: U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1748, 

accessed January 26, 2005, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/

wsp/wsp1748/ 

Hubbell, D.W., Stevens, H.H., and Beverage, J.P., 1985, New 

approach to calibrating bed load samplers: Journal of 

Hydraulic Engineering, v. 111, no. 4, p. 677-694.

Hubbell, D.W., Stevens, H.H., Skinner, J.V., and Beverage, 

J.P., 1987, Laboratory Data on Coarse-Sediment Transport 

for Bedload-Sampler Calibrations: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2299, accessed January 26, 2005, at 

http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/wsp/wsp2299/

Johnson, C.W., Engleman, R.L., Smith, J.P., and Hansen, C.L., 

1977, Helley-Smith bed load samplers: Journal of the 

Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 103 (HY10), p. 1217-1221.

Kondolf, G.M. and W.V.G. Matthews, 1986, Transport of 

tracer gravels on a coastal California River: Journal of 

Hydrology, v. 85, p. 265-280.

Laronne, J.B. and Carson, M.A., 1976, Interrelationships 

between bed morphology and bed material transport for a 

small, gravel-bed channel: Sedimentology, v. 23, p. 76-85.

Laronne, J.B., Outhet, D.N., Duckham, J.L. and McCabe, T.J., 

1992, Determining event bedload volumes for evaluation of 

potential degradation sites due to gravel extraction, N.S.W., 

Australia, in, Erosion and Sediment Transport Monitoring in 

River Basins: IAHS Publication 210, p. 87-94.

Laronne, J.B., Alexandrov, Y., Bergman, N., Cohen, H., 

Garcia, C., Habersack, H., Powell, D.M., and Reid, I., 2003, 

The continuous monitoring of bedload flux in various fluvial 

systems, in, J. Bogen, T. Fergus and D. Walling, eds., 

Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement in 

Rivers—Technological and Methodological Advances: 

IAHS Publication 283, p. 134-145.

Lenzi, M.A., Marchi, L., and Scussel, G.R., 1990, Measurement 

of coarse sediment transport in a small Alpine stream, in, 

Hydrology in Mountainous Regions, 1, IAHS Publication 

193, p. 223-230.

Lenzi, M.A., D’Agostino, V., and Billi, P., 1999, Bedload 

transport in the instrumented catchment of the Rio Cordon. 

Part I: Analysis of bedload records, conditions and threshold 

of bedload entrainment: Catena, v. 36, p. 171-190.

Lewis, J. 1991, An improved bedload sampler: Proceedings of 

the 5th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las 

Vegas, Nev., VI 1 - VI 8, accessed August 31, 2004, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

McBain and Trush, 2004, Coarse sediment management plan 

for the lower Tuolumne River, revised final report. Prepared 

for the Tuolumne River Advisory Committee, McBain and 

Trush, Arcata, CA, 347 p., accessed January 19, 2005, at 

http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/Project.asp?code=2000-

41

McNamara, J.P., Bordon, J.C., and Fitzgerald, F., 2001, Radiotracking of cobbles in a mountain stream in southwest Idaho: 

Proceedings of the 7th Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference, Reno, Nev., v. 1: p. III 63 - III 69, accessed 

August 31, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/

misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Milhous, R.T., 1973, Sediment transport in a gravel-bottomed 

stream: Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis.

Mizuyama, T., Fujita, M., and Nonaka, M., 2003, Measurement 

of bedload with use of hydrophone in mountain torrents, in, 

J. Bogen, T. Fergus and D. Walling, eds., Erosion and 

Sediment Transport Measurement in Rivers—Technological 

and Methodological Advances: IAHS Publication 283, p. 

222-227.

Nankervis, J., 1994, Summary of fluvial study site data 

collection. Water Division 1 Water Rights Adjudication, 

Greeley, CO: Report prepared for the Stream Systems 

Technology Center, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colo., 24 

p.
Breakout Session II 27

Nanson, G.C., 1974, Bedload and suspended-load transport in a 

small, steep, mountain stream: American Journal of Science, 

v. 274, p. 471-486.

O’Leary, S.J. and Beschta, R.L., 1981, Bed load transport in an 

Oregon Coast Range stream: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 

17, no. 5, p. 886-894.

Pitlick, J., 1988, Variability of bed load movement: Water 

Resources Research, v. 24, no. 1, p. 173-177.

Powell, D.M. and Ashworth, P.J., 1995, Spatial pattern of flow 

competence and bedload transport in a divided gravel bed 

river: Water Resources Research, v. 31, no. 3, p. 741-752.

Powell, D.M., Reid, I., Laronne, J.B., and Frostick, L.E., 1998, 

Cross stream variability of bedload flux in narrow and wider 

ephemeral channels during desert flash floods, in, P.C. 

Klingeman, R.L. Beschta, P.D. Komar and J.B. Bradley, eds., 

Gravel-Bed Rivers in the Environment: Water Resources 

Publications, Littleton, Colo., p. 177-196.

Reid, I. and Frostick, L.E., 1986, Dynamics of bedload transport 

in Turkey Brook, a coarse grained alluvial channel: Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 11, p. 143-155.

Reid, I. and Laronne, J.B., 1995, Bed load sediment transport 

in an ephemeral stream and a comparison with seasonal and 

perennial counterparts: Water Resources Research, v. 31, no. 

3, p. 773-781.

Reid, I., Frostick, L.E., and Layman, J.T., 1985, The incidence 

and nature of bedload transport during flood flows in coarsegrained alluvial channels: Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms, v. 10, p. 33-44. 

Reid, I., Layman, J.T. and Frostick, L.E., 1980, The continuous 

measurements of bedload discharge: Journal of Hydraulic 

Research, v. 18, no. 3, p. 243-249.

Rennie, C.D., Millar, R.G., and Church, M.A., 2002, 

Measurement of bed load velocity using an acoustic Doppler 

current profiler: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 128, 

no. 5, p. 473-483.

Richardson, K., Benson, I., and Carling, P.A., 2003, An 

instrument to record sediment movement in bedrock 

channels, in, J. Bogen, T. Fergus and D. Walling, eds., 

Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement in 

Rivers—Technological and Methodological Advances: 

IAHS Publication 283, p. 228-235.

Rickenmann, D., 1994, Bedload transport and discharge in the 

Erlenbach stream, in, P. Ergenzinger and K.-H. Schmidt, 

eds., Dynamics and Geomorphology of Mountain Rivers: 

Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, v. 52, p. 53-66, Springer 

Verlag, Berlin.

Rickenmann, D., 1997, Sediment transport in Swiss torrents: 

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 22, p. 937-951.

Rickenmann, D. and Dupasquier, P., 1994, Messung des 

feststofftransportes im Erlenbach. [Sediment transport 

measurement in the Erlenbach stream]: Beiträge zur 

Geologie der Schweiz - Hydrologie, v. 35, p. 134-144.

Rickenmann, D., Hofer, B., and Fritschi, B., 1997, 

Geschiebemessungen mittels hydrophon. [Bedload transport 

measurements with a hydrophone]: Österreichische Wasserund Abfallwirtschaft, 11/12.

Rosenfeld, C.L., Castro, J.M., and Childers, E.S., 1996, 

Individual gravel tracking using a passive radio transponder 

system: Proceedings of the 6th Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, Nev., V47 - V51, 

accessed August 31, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/

misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Rouse, H.L., 1994, Measurement of bedload gravel transport: 

the calibration of a self-generated noise system: Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 19, p. 789-800.

Rubin, D.M., Tate, G.B., Topping, D.J., and Anima, R.A., 

2001, Use of rotating side-scan sonar to measure bedload: 

Proceedings of the 7th Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference, Reno, Nev., v. 1, p. III 139 - III 143, accessed 

August 31, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/

misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Ryan, S.E., 1998, Sampling bedload transport in coarse-grained 

mountain channels using portable samplers: Proceedings of 

the Federal Interagency Workshop “Sediment Technology 

for the 21st Century”, St. Petersburg, Fla., accessed 

September 2, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/

sedtech21/ryan.html

Ryan, S.E., 2001, The influence of sediment supply on rates of 

bedload transport: a case study of three streams on the San 

Juan National Forest: Proceedings of the 7th Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nev., v. 1, p. 

III 48 - III 54, accessed August 31, 2004, at http://

water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Ryan, S.E and Dixon, M., 2002, Bedload movement in a 

mountain gravel-bed stream: CD-ROM Video, Technology 

Transfer, Stream Systems Technology Center, Fort Collins, 

Colo.

Ryan, S.E. and Emmett, W.W., 2002, The nature of flow and 

sediment movement in Little Granite Creek near Bondurant, 

WY: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-90.

Ryan, S.E. and Porth, L.S., 1999, A field comparison of three 

pressure-difference bedload samplers: Geomorphology, v. 

30, p. 307-322.

Ryan, S.E. and Troendle, C.A., 1997, Measuring bedload in 

coarse-grained mountain channels: procedures, problems, 

and recommendations, in, Water Resources Education, 

Training, and Practice: Opportunities for the Next Century, 

American Water Resources Association Conference, 

Keystone, Colo., p. 949-958.

Schmidt, K.-H and Ergenzinger, P., 1992, Bedload entrainment, 

travel lengths, step lengths, rest periods, studied with passive 

(iron, magnetic) and active (radio) tracer techniques: Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 17, p. 147-165.

Schmidt, K.-H. and Gintz, D., 1995, Results of bedload tracer 

experiments in a mountain river, in, E.J. Hickins, ed., River 

Geomorphology: John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, Great 

Britain, p.37-54.

Sear, D.A., 1996, Sediment transport processes in pool-riffle 

sequences: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 21, p. 

241-262.
28 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

Sear, D.A., 2003, Event bed load yield measurement with load 

cell bed load traps and prediction of sediment yield from 

hydrograph shape, in, J. Bogen, T. Fergus and D. Walling, 

eds., Erosion and Sediment Transport Measurement in 

Rivers—Technological and Methodological Advances: 

IAHS Publication 283, p. 146-153.

Sear, D.A., Damon, W., Booker D.J., and Anderson, D.G., 

2000, A load cell based continuous recording bedload trap: 

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 25, p. 689-672.

Sear, D.A., Lee, M.W.E., Carling, P.A., Oakley, R.J., and 

Collins, M.B., 2003, An assessment of the accuracy of the 

Spatial Integration Method (S.I.M.) for estimating coarse 

bedload transport in gravel-bedded streams using passive 

tracers, in, J. Bogen, T. Fergus and D. Walling, eds., Erosion 

and Sediment Transport Measurement in 

Rivers—Technological and Methodological Advances: 

IAHS Publication 283, p. 164-171.

Sterling, S.M. and Church, M., 2002, Sediment trapping 

characteristics of a pit trap and the Helley-Smith sampler in a 

cobble gravel-bed river: Water Resources Research, v. 38, 

no. 6, 10.1029/2000WR000052, 2002. 

Tacconi, P. and Billi, P., 1987, Bed load transport measurement 

by a vortex-tube trap on Virginio Creek, Italy, in, C.R. 

Thorne, J.C. Bathurst and R.D. Hey, eds., Sediment 

Transport in Gravel-Bed Rivers: Wiley, Chichester, Great 

Britain, p. 583-615.

Taniguchi, S., Itakura, Y., Miyamoto, K., and Kurihara, J., 

1992, A new acoustic sensor for sediment discharge 

measurement, in, Erosion and Sediment Transport 

Monitoring in River Basins: IAHS Publication 210, p. 135-

142.

Thompson, D.M., Wohl, E.E., and Jarrett, R.D., 1996, A revised 

velocity-reversal and sediment sorting model for a highgradient, pool-riffle stream: Physical Geography, v. 17, no. 

2, p. 142-156.

Troendle, C.A., Nankervis, J.M., and Ryan, S.E., 1996, 

Sediment transport from small, steep-gradient watersheds in 

Colorado and Wyoming: Proceedings of the 6th Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, Nev., v. 

2, p. IX 39 - IX 45, accessed August 31, 2004, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Tunnicliffe, J., Gottesfeld, A.S., and Mohamed, M., 2000, High 

resolution measurement of bedload transport: Hydrological 

Processes, v. 14, p. 2631-2643.

Wathen, S.J., Hoey, T.B., and Werritty, A., 1995, Unequal 

mobility of gravel and sand in weakly bimodal river 

sediments: Water Resources Research, v. 31, no. 8, p. 2087-

2096.

Whitaker, A.C., 1997, The initiation of coarse bed load 

transport in gravel bed streams: Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Montana, Missoula.

Whitaker, A.C., and Potts, D.F., 1996, Validation of two 

threshold models for bedload initiation in an upland gravelbed stream, in, Watershed Restoration Management - 

Physical, Chemical, and Biological Considerations: 

Proceedings of the Annual Symposium, 1996: American 

Water Resources Association, p. 85-94. 

Wilcock, P.R., 2001, Toward a practical method for estimating 

sediment transport rates in gravel-bed rivers: Earth Surface 

Processes Landforms, v. 26, p. 1395-1408.

Xiang, Z. and Zhou, G., 1992, Measuring techniques of bed 

load in the Yangtze River, in, Erosion and Sediment 

Transport Monitoring in River Basins: IAHS Publication 

210, p. 175-180.

Yang, X. and Gao, H., 1998, Development of AYT gravel bedload sampler and method for bed-load measurement, in, 

Modelling Soil Erosion, Sediment Transport and Closely 

Related Hydrological Processes: IAHS Publication 249, p. 

345-352.
Breakout Session III, Bed-Material and 

Bed-Topography Measurement:

Data Needs, Uncertainty, and New Technologies 

By Christi A. Young and Vincent C. Tidwell

Introduction

Breakout session III focused on current and emerging bedmaterial and bed-topography data-collection techniques and 

methods. How these data are used by each of the represented 

agencies and uncertainties associated with these data were also 

discussed. The experience and interests of the participants were 

skewed more toward measurement of bed topography. Various 

surveying technologies applicable to bed-topography 

measurement received considerably more deliberative time and 

attention than bed-material measurement techniques, although 

many of the technologies identified were applicable to both 

types of measurements and to bedload measurements. 

Discussions focused on new technologies with agreement that 

traditional technologies are the standards for evaluation of 

surrogate technologies.

Discussions 

Participants were sent key questions prior to the workshop 

to facilitate discussion. These key questions are similar to those 

posed in other breakout sessions and are shown below in italics. 

The responses to each question represent participant consensus. 

1. What are your agency’s/organization’s/cooperator’s 

(organization) needs for this type of sediment data? How 

are these data used by your organization?

Bed-topography and bed-material data are collected and 

used generally as a basis for resource-management decisions. 

Monitoring programs are common for reservoir capacity, 

habitat conditions, navigation routes, channel and coastal 

evolution (geometry and bed-material size), discharge capacity, 

sediment transport and contaminant movement. The decisions 

may involve operation, maintenance, planning, design, 

construction, or compliance issues. Decisions often must be 

made that involve multiple issues and constraints. Predictive 

models used as tools to compare alternatives and project 

impacts often require bed-topography and bed-material data as 

independent variables.

2. Does your organization have any accuracy standards for 

collecting theses types (bed topography or bed material) 

of sediment data?

National and international mapping standards such as 

those maintained by the USGS National Mapping Program, 

Federal Geographic Data Committee, the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, and the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization’s Digital Geographic Information Exchange 

Standard were referred to for topographic and hydrographic 

data. Survey manuals and guidelines have been published by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2002), American Society of 

Civil Engineers (1975), ASTM International (2003), and the 

International Hydrographic Organization (1997). 

The accuracy requirements for topographic and 

hydrographic data usually are based on budget constraints and 

are spelled out specifically for individual data-collection 

efforts. The group emphasized that metadata accompanying all 

terrain/bed data should include data-collection details and 

documentation of data accuracy. Generally, 0.3- to 0.7-meter 

contour intervals are sufficient for most large-scale fluvial 

applications when data are collected via remote methods such 

as aerial photogrammetry or LIDAR for long reaches. An 

example of accuracy requirements would be 90 percent of 

points within ± 0.15 meter, and 100 percent of points within 

±0.3 meter. In small-scale, complex situations at least ±0.03 

meter accuracy may be required and can be obtained with a 

good control network using land surveying techniques. 

In the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) EM 1110-

2-1003 (2002), several error components are described for 

electronic echo sounding depth measurement methods used in 

bathymetric surveys of underwater bed topography. These 

sources of error include: measurement system accuracy, 

velocity calibration accuracy, sounder resolution, draft/index 

accuracy, tide/stage correction accuracy, platform stability 

error, vessel velocity error, and bottom reflectivity/sensitivity. 

These combined errors result in an estimated accuracy of an 

individual echo-sounding depth falling between ±0.1 and ±0.3 

meter for average river and harbor project conditions. Airborne 

technologies have similar error sources. Accuracy (closeness of 

a measurement to the actual value) should not be confused with 

the precision or repeatability of measurements. 

There was little discussion concerning accuracy standards 

for bed-material data. Depending upon the homogeneity of the 
30 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

surface and subsurface bed material, the location, density, and 

timing of sampling can impact the accuracy of bed-material 

data as much as the sampling and analysis equipment and 

procedures. Many technical society and government references 

provide guidance for the collection and analysis of bed-material 

samples including a USGS publication (Edwards and Glysson, 

1999); Forest Service publications (Bunte and Abt, 2001a; 

2001b); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1995); International 

Organization for Standardization (1997); American Society of 

Civil Engineers (1975); ASTM International (2003); and 

Canadian publications by Yuzyk and Winkler (1991), Ashmore 

and others (1988), and Yuzyk (1986).

Data uncertainty also was discussed. Participants viewed 

uncertainty as being inherent in traditional and new 

technologies. There are many potential sources of error: user, 

equipment, interpretation, and data processing. Uncertainty 

also is dependent upon system spatial and temporal variability. 

As stated previously, accuracy requirements tend to be projectspecific and time- and budget-driven. We agreed that data 

accuracy and uncertainty information should accompany all 

data. 

3. What methodologies and equipment are currently used to 

collect bed-topography and bed-material data in your 

organization? What are their strengths and limitations? 

What uncertainties are associated with them?

Bed topography: The historical standard for bed 

topography incorporated the measurement of set range lines by 

conventional land surveying equipment and techniques using 

stadia rods, transits, and total stations. Traditional methods are 

labor intensive and require considerable ground access and 

cleared site distance. Advances in global positioning systems 

(GPS) have in most applications eliminated the need for manual 

horizontal measurements. GPS-based methods were 

considered to be the most accurate (± millimeter range) and are 

used to calibrate, ground truth, and check other methods. 

Photogrammetric mapping or non-contact stereo aerial 

surveying was considered to be the more established, less 

costly, passive surveying technology. The accuracy of this 

technology depends upon the amount of ground truth-data 

available. The mosaic of individual photographic images can 

be used to develop cross sections and topographic maps. A 

limitation of this technology is the inability to obtain 

underwater prism information or ground surface elevations 

through dense vegetation. 

Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) remote sensing 

systems applications are increasing with advancements in this 

new technology. This technology also needs clear sight 

distance so ground surface data cannot be obtained in heavily 

vegetated areas. Early successful applications were in coastal 

surveys. More recent applications have incorporated airborne 

LIDAR bathymetry technology (1-kilohertz laser deployed 

with a 10-kilohertz topographic laser and a digital camera, e.g. 

Optech’s SHOALS-1000T system) to obtain bathymetry data in 

addition to topography. LIDAR bathymetry technology is 

largely dependent upon water clarity; turbidity and turbulent 

white water conditions can cause problems. The system can 

detect channel-bottom elevations up to about 2.5 times the 

Secchi depth, in coastal applications possibly up to 30 meter or 

more. Underwater data need to be corrected for the adsorption 

rate of water. The spatial density of points is related to the flight 

height; flight elevations can be higher for topography data 

collection than bathymetry. 

Bathymetric surveying techniques have developed rapidly 

in the past decade due to recent developments in multi-beam 

depth sounders. The multi-beam system provides the option of 

complete coverage of the underwater areas, thus removing the 

unknowns of previously unmapped underwater areas. There are 

high-grade GPS collection systems, real-time kinematic 

surveying, that accurately measure the altitude of the moving 

survey platform with obtainable centimeter accuracies for both 

horizontal and vertical measurements. There also are several 

versatile commercial software packages capable of 

simultaneously receiving data from multiple devices during 

collection and then processing the collected data for complete 

analyses. In addition to collecting data from numerous 

instruments simultaneously, the computer and software can be 

set up to integrate data from various sensors such as gyros, 

acoustic systems, heave-pitch-roll indicators, magnetometers, 

and seabed identifiers (Bureau of Reclamation, in press). 

Advances in computer systems and surveying 

technologies in recent decades have dramatically increased the 

volume of data and the rate of data acquisition and processing. 

These technologies have become widely accepted because of 

the increased coverage and reduced costs. Survey productivity 

has increased by a factor of 75 times since the 1960s and 10 

times since 1990s (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002). The 

productivity increases are mainly related to the electronic and 

computer development. Many of these new technologies, 

instrumentation, and associated software programs continue to 

evolve rapidly and are designed to be applied by a frequent user 

as considerable time is required to become proficient in their 

use. 

Bed Material: Most participants reported that their 

agencies continue to use standard, physical, bed-material 

sampling equipment (hand-held samplers US BMH-53, US 

BMH-60, and US BMH-80 and the cable-and-reel US BM-54 

sampler; Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project, 2004, 

Home page) and standard analysis techniques to accurately 

measure bed-material particles finer than about 16 millimeters. 

Sampling procedures for larger particles include pebble counts 

and grid or areal sampling for surface materials. The US SAH97 hand-held particle size analyzer (Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Project, 2004, Home page) and a sampling frame 

(Bunte and Abt, 2001b) are among recent equipment 

developments to improve pebble-count accuracy. Submerged 

surface and subsurface materials are sampled using a shovel or 

backhoe, pipe or barrel samplers, and freezer or resin core 

sampling techniques. The cost of collecting, transporting, and 

analyzing bed-material samples has severely limited the amount 

of data collected. Several participants had used digital 
Breakout Session III 31

photographic data and software to determine the size gradations 

of surface bed material in lieu of pebble counts in coarse-bed 

streams. Hand rodding and dynamic cone penetrometer testing 

has been used to locate subsurface layers. 

4. What are the new technologies that may be useful in this 

area? 

-- Is the new technology on the verge of being 

deployed at a large scale?

-- What limitations of existing equipment or methods 

would this technology improve on?

-- Is the new technology limited to specific 

application conditions?

-- What are the uncertainties associated with the new 

technology? 

Several new technologies and their potential applications 

to bed-topography or bed-material data collection were 

discussed. The technologies were divided into three broad 

categories: acoustic, electromagnetic, and optic. The 

information presented in table 5 reflects the opinions and 

experience of the participants, and should be used only as a 

qualitative assessment of the various technologies. Many of 

these technologies have been applied successfully in coastal 

and marine environments, and research is currently being 

conducted for riverine applications that include greater 

turbidity, bed variation, and flow velocities than are found in 

marine systems.

Table 5. Bed-topography measurement technologies

[ADP is acoustic Doppler profiler; ADCP is acoustic Doppler current profiler; ± is plus, minus]

Technology Accuracy

Cost in

dollars

(thousands)

Limitations, strengths, weaknesses Research

Acoustic Technologies

Normal incident 

(single beam)

±1 percent depth 

in marine 

environments

15-30 Simple, commercial available, minimal processing 

time, increased acquisition time

Multi-frequency analysis

ADP/ADCP 

(backscatter)

±1 percent of 

comparable 

methods

15-20 Convenient, can infer suspended-sediment

concentrations

Main focus currently is on 

suspended sediment

Multi-beam ±1 percent depth 

marine 

environment

100-500 Commercially available, many more data points 

collected, greater coverage, processing intensive 

(10x single beam), problems with turbulence and 

platform motion are magnified from single beam

Backscatter to characterize 

bed material, evolving on 

many fronts

Side scan sonar, 

Dual Frequency 

Identification 

Sonar 

(DIDSON)

Qualitative, wellrefined image30-100 Commercially available; superior image resolution; 

real-time views of bed-surface features, texture, 

and object location; works even in turbid water 

where optical systems would fail; towed in a fish, 

stability could be an issue

Draping image on 

georeferenced multi-beam 

image

Electromagnetic Technologies

Ground 

Penetrating 

Radar (GPR)

±5 percent 

(precision 

unknown)

50-60 Non-contact; would be good for monitoring during 

floods; restricted use; freshwater applications, 

conductivity affects depth range

Has focused on discharge 

measurements, applications 

in sediment just starting

Time Domain 

Reflectometry 

(TDR)

< 5 millimeters 10-15 Must be installed in stream; uses a cable to conduct 

signal; measures continuously air/water/soil 

interfaces; remote system; probe signal impacted 

by scour or aggradation

Stream applications are 

being researched
32 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

Optical Technologies

Laser (LIDAR, 

Light Detection 

and Ranging)

Considered “very 

good”

80-150, 10-

20

Vegetation can cause problems; non-contact, above 

ground or aerial deployment; considerable postprocessing usually by contractor; commercially 

available, purchased less often; potential to obtain 

underwater prism in some cases; active

In developing stages

Hyperspectral 

Irradiance 

50-70 Non-contact; passive system; currently mainly used 

for land classification; limited to shallow (10 

meter), clear water applications; data must be 

collected in daylight hours; dynamic range limits 

resolution

Ongoing for coastal 

sediment applications, 

future field applications 

proposed

Table 5. Bed-topography measurement technologies—Continued

[ADP is acoustic Doppler profiler; ADCP is acoustic Doppler current profiler; ± is plus, minus]

Technology Accuracy

Cost in

dollars

(thousands)

Limitations, strengths, weaknesses Research

New technologies discussed for bed-material 

measurements included expanding bed-topography acoustic 

technologies to obtain bands of bed-material size gradations 

and stratigraphy. Optical technologies including the 

underwater microscope system and analysis algorithm (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2001; Rubin, 2004) were presented in the 

plenary session. This system has the capability to acquire and 

analyze digital images of sediment grains on a riverbed or sea 

bottom eliminating the need to manually collect or physically 

analyze sediment samples. This type of technology holds the 

promise of reducing the costs associated with the acquisition of 

bed-material data. Digital photography and video technologies 

should be further developed to provide more continuous 

coverage and to provide the ability to utilize multiple cameras 

for mixed bed applications. Electromagnetic technologies 

could be expanded to provide some stratigraphy or gross bedmaterial identification. 

5. Is there any research planned in your organization to 

improve the collection or analysis of bed-topography or 

bed-material data? 

Presentations, workshop extended abstracts, and 

discussions about current and planned research and applications 

of new technologies are summarized below. 

Time domain reflectometry for real-time and 

continuous stream monitoring, presented by Vince Tidwell. 

Time domain reflectometry (TDR) operates by propagating a 

radar frequency electromagnetic pulse down a transmission line 

while monitoring the reflected signal. As the electromagnetic 

pulse propagates along the transmission line, it is subject to 

impedance by the dielectric properties of the media along the 

transmission line (e.g., air, water, sediment), reflection at 

dielectric discontinuities (e.g., air-water or water-sediment 

interface), and attenuation by electrically conductive materials 

(e.g., salts, clays). Taken together, these characteristics provide 

a basis for integrated stream monitoring; specifically, 

concurrent measurement of stream stage, channel profile, and 

aqueous conductivity. Requisite for such application is a means 

of extracting the desired stream properties from measured TDR 

traces. Analysis is complicated by the fact that interface 

location and aqueous conductivity vary concurrently and 

multiple interfaces may be present at any time. For this reason, 

a physically based multi-section model employing the S11

scatter function and Cole-Cole parameters for dielectric 

dispersion and loss is used to analyze acquired TDR traces. 

Tidwell and Brainard (in press) explored the capability of this 

multi-section modeling approach for interpreting TDR data 

acquired from complex environments, such as found in stream 

monitoring. 

A series of laboratory tank experiments were performed in 

which the depth of water, depth of sediment, and conductivity 

were varied systematically. Results indicate that the measured 

TDR traces respond to changes in interface position and 

aqueous conductivity in a manner consistent with multi-section 

model simulations. In fact, the multi-section model was found 

to accurately fit the measured traces over a broad range of test 

conditions. Comparisons between modeled and independently 

measured data indicate that TDR measurements can be made 

with an accuracy of ±3.4x10-3 meter for sensing the location of 

an air/water or water/sediment interface and ±7.4 percent of 

actual for the aqueous conductivity. 

Recently, TDR monitoring systems have been installed on 

the Rio Grande in New Mexico and Paria River in Arizona. The 

USGS streamflow gaging station on the Rio Grande at 

Albuquerque includes seven TDR probes for monitoring 

changes in channel morphology, while another probe measures 

stream stage and aqueous conductivity. The TDR system at the 

USGS streamflow gaging station, Paria River at Lees Ferry, is 

designed to measure stream stage and aqueous conductivity. In 

both cases, TDR measurements are compared directly with 
Breakout Session III 33

measurements made by the USGS using standard float, pressure 

transducer, and (or) radar technologies.

Naval Research Laboratory acoustic sediment 

classification system presented by Don Walter. This system 

collects bathymetry data and impedance values to output 

sediment properties such as: attenuation, density, porosity, 

sediment type, mean grain size, compressional velocity, shear 

velocity, and shear strength (semi-quantitative) up to a 

maximum of 4 meters below the bed. The technology was used 

traditionally for mine location and can be applied from surface 

ships, submarines, and air-borne craft. Echo-strength lines and 

segment data time/depth line, represent separation of 

gradations. An example of a lake bottom application was 

presented. Gas bubbles and density of bottom material impact 

the return intensity; bubbles can make the system lose the 

bottom location. Turbulence also can cause bubble pulse 

problems. These problems can be overcome by using different 

frequencies. Bottom roughness is an issue, depending upon 

beam width; bed forms can be identified. Future application 

will include using side scanning sonar to cover a swath of the 

bed. 

ADCP bridge scour studies; multi-beam survey 

applications; CHARTS and SHOALS LIDAR technologies; 

DIDSON sonar technology; and potential new research in 

radar applications presented by Dan Eng. Various research 

studies being conducted by the USACE were presented. ADCP 

technologies are being deployed remotely with internal pitch 

and roll compensation for bridge scour studies. LIDAR 

technologies being jointly research by the USACE and Navy, 

which incorporate above- and below-water surface topographic 

data collection, include the currently under-development 

CHARTS (Compact Hydrographic Airborne Rapid Total 

Survey) system, an improved version of the SHOALS 

(Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne Lidar Survey) 

system. DIDSON (Dual Frequency Identification Sonar) 

technologies obtain high resolution underwater acoustic images 

for object identification, with some modifications to the sensor 

array this technology could be used to obtain 3-dimensional 

data on bed profile and bedload transport especially in turbid 

waters. Repeat multi-beam surveys are being used to quantify 

changes in bed topography over time (this work was presented 

in the bedload breakout session II; see the extended abstract by 

Abraham (listed in appendix 4). Research into the aerial 

application of ultra wide-band radar similar in frequency to 

ground penetrating radar is in the early stages. There is the 

potential to obtain data quicker and with better resolution than 

some of the other technologies. The widespread use of these 

radar frequencies may be limited because of communication 

interference and health concerns. Synthetic aperture radar, 

currently used in military mapping applications, is an acoustic 

technology that could potentially provide information similar to 

LIDAR without light restrictions.

Underwater Microscope System and bed-topography 

measurement techniques applied in the Grand Canyon 

presented by Dave Rubin and Matt Kaplinski. Dave Rubin 

had presented very promising results on the application of a 

underwater microscope system in the opening plenary session 

for the measurement of bed sediments with the location of 

sampling sites obtained within a few meters. The challenges 

created by the vertical canyon walls in the Grand Canyon to the 

application of surveying technologies such as GPS, which rely 

on satellite communication, were highlighted. Photogrammetry 

contour errors vary because of vegetation and ground-truthing 

problems. They typically can obtain photogrammetry data with 

an accuracy of about 0.25 meter, with reduced accuracy in 

forested areas. 

Bed-topography data are collected in the Grand Canyon 

about every two years or before and after floods. Although GPS 

in combination with total stations are used to establish a closely 

spaced control network on the canyon rim, a robotic range 

azimuth system is used to establish location in the canyon. 

Multi-beam bathymetry data are collected at flows of 230 cubic 

meters per second; gravel bar data are supplemented with data 

from 850 cubic meter per second flows. Bathmetry data are 

collected using a RESON 8125 with 240 beams; 1⁄2-degree beam 

width down to a 0.5 meter. This narrow swath is sorted on a 0.6-

meter x 0.6-meter grid spacing. 

QTC Multiview, a post-processing software, uses 

backscatter data from the multi-beam equipment with data from 

known sediments to obtain the distribution of sediment types 

(for differentiation between gravel versus sand deposits; 

possibly also between silt versus clay deposits). This 

technology obtains high-resolution data and can almost 

measure the texture of the bottom. Some difficulties have been 

encountered when collecting backscatter data and topography 

data using the same transducer. Side scanning sonar data have 

been collected and once registered spatially, a time consuming 

process, can also be combined with aerial photography. 

Although bedload is not as significant as the suspended load in 

Colorado River sediment transport, side scanning sonar data 

have been used to estimate bedload transport (1⁄2 dune height 

times the dune movement rate). Dave Rubin encouraged 

participants to explore the possibility of working with a lab 

sponsored by the National Science Foundation to collect and 

process LIDAR data. 

The following additional extended abstracts listed in 

appendix 4 contain information on bed-topography and bedmaterial measurement technologies.

Dinehart, R.L., Spatial analysis of ADCP data in streams: 

This extended abstract describes using ADCP data to obtain 

bathymetric data and velocity to infer sediment transport.

Jackson, W.L., Regulated river restoration monitoring:

The Elwha River dam removal and restoration project. This 

extended abstract emphasizes the need for real-time data 

collection and evaluation especially when dealing with dam 

removal sediment loading conditions; and provides details on 

monitoring plan for Elwha River Restoration Project which 

includes bed-material size measurements and channel geometry 

as monitoring sub-categories.

Martini, Marinna, USGS capabilities for studying 

sediment transport in the ocean: This extended abstract 

describes several technologies being investigated by the USGS 
34 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

Coastal and Marine Geology Program including: applying side 

scanning sonar, sector scanning sonar, Differential Global 

Positioning System (DGPS), and sub-bottom profilers for 

mapping and coastal and sea bottom imaging; photographic 

systems that show promise for determining grain size such as a 

version of underwater microscope system discussed previously 

which recently underwent its first full field trial and the 

SEABOSS that can obtain real time video of the bottom, take 

35-millimeter still images, and acquire a grab sample; and 

mechanical sampling systems such as the hydraulically damped 

slow corer that does not disturb the sediment-water interface 

during sampling and the Honjo trap, a long-term, in-situ time 

series settling trap consisting of a large-diameter collecting 

cone attached to a rotating carousel of collection bottles that 

collects samples on a preset schedule.

Parchure, T.M., Sobecki, T.M., and Pratt, T.C., Fine 

sediment parameter measurement for sedimentation studies: 

This extended abstract describes the need for research of fine 

sediment parameters and the development of inexpensive 

equipment and procedures for testing fine sediments.

6. What are the priorities for research in this area? 

Many current and suggested research items have been 

previously discussed. The participants agreed that industry has 

taken the lead in the development and adaptation of the latest 

technology for the instrumentation and associated software 

used to collect and analyze bed-topography data. Research and 

development of bed-topography technologies should be left 

mostly to industry with agencies providing consistent feedback. 

A collective voice in feedback would be more effective. 

Research priorities include: 

• Combining technologies and expanding existing 

capabilities (e.g. bed-topography technologies 

expanded to provide bed-material characterizations)

• Applied research on non-contact, continuous systems

• Further investigation of opportunities to adapt coastal/

marine or ocean applications to the riverine 

environment

• Continued development of optical and acoustical 

surface bed material measuring and analysis 

technologies

• Shared development and distribution of postprocessing applications

The ideal sampler or measurement technology would have 

the following characteristics: 

• Adaptable under a variety of conditions

-- Marine, estuarine or riverine

-- Clear or turbid

-- Soft, fine or hard, gravel/cobble beds

-- Steep or flat terrain

-- Underwater/shoreline interface

• Provide quantifiably accurate results

• Reliable

-- Low maintenance, non-fouling, rugged

-- Simple to use, user-friendly

-- Easy to calibrate 

• Cost effective

• Portable

• Repeatable

• High density output relative to traditional methods

• Continuous, autonomous sampling

• Efficient post-processing and interpretation

7. What recommendations does the breakout session III 

group have for the Subcommittee on Sedimentation 

regarding bed-material and bed-topography data needs, 

uncertainty, and new technologies?

Breakout session III participants recommend that the 

Subcommittee on Sedimentation thoroughly review the 

proceedings from this workshop and collectively help support 

coordination and funding to address the identified research and 

data needs.

8. Where to from here? Would a Sediment Monitoring 

Instrument and Analysis Research Program, such as that 

proposed by the Turbidity and Other Sediment 

Surrogates Workshop (Gray and Glysson, 2003), and 

expanded on by Gray and Glysson (listed in appendix 4) 

be useful for attaining the fluvial-sediment-data needs of 

the Nation?

The participants agreed that a collective effort would help 

agencies to attain needed fluvial-sediment data. We suggest 

that FISP or another SMIAR Program group act as a 

clearinghouse for data and information on successes as well as 

problems with new technologies; develop or coordinate focused 

training programs or special sessions in conferences; be 

available to provide research assistance to develop site-specific 

solutions to problems encountered with new technologies; and 

promote effective communication among agencies between 

workshops. The Subcommittee on Sedimentation or FISP web 

pages should be expanded to include new technology 

information for each breakout session topic and pertinent links 

to data and research. Email groups, user groups, or bulletin 

boards should be established as needed for specific topical 

areas.
Breakout Session III 35

References Cited, Breakout Session III: 

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1975, Sedimentation 

engineering: American Society of Civil Engineering Manual 

No. 54, edited by V.A. Vanoni, 745 p.

ASTM International, 2003, Annual book of standards: ASTM 

International, section 11, volumes 11.01 and 11.02.

Ashmore, P.E., Yuzyk, T.R., and Herrington, R., 1988, Bedmaterial sampling in sand-bed streams. Sediment Survey 

Section, Water Resources Branch, Inland Waters Directorate, 

Report IWD-HQ-WRB-SS-88-4, 47 p.

Bunte K. and Abt, S.R., 2001a, Sampling surface and 

subsurface particle-size distributions in wadable gravel- and 

cobble-bed streams for analyses in sediment transport, 

hydraulics, and streambed monitoring: General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-74. Fort Collins, Colo.; U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 428 p.

Bunte K. and Abt, S.R., 2001b, Sampling frame for improving 

pebble count accuracy in coarse gravel-bed streams: Paper 

No. 00042 of Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association, v. 37, no. 4, p. 1001-1014.

Bureau of Reclamation, in press, Erosion and sedimentation 

manual: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver, Colo.

Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D., 1999, Field methods for 

measurement of fluvial sediment. U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, 

chapter C2, 89 p., accessed September 2, 2004, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/Edwards-TWRI.pdf

Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project, 2004, Home page: 

Accessed August 31, 2004, at http://fisp.wes.army.mil/

Gray, J.R., and Glysson, G.D., 2003, Proceedings of the Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation Workshop on Turbidity and 

Other Sediment Surrogates, April 30-May 2, 2002, Reno, 

Nev.: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1250, accessed 

September 3, 2004, at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2003/

circ1250/

International Hydrographic Organization, 1997, Standards for 

hydrographic surveys: International Hydrographic 

Organization Special Publication No. 44, Fourth Edition, 

Monaco.

International Organization for Standardization, 1997, 

Measurement of liquid flow in open channels – Bed material 

sampling: International Organization for Standardization, 

Publication No. ISO 4364:1997E, 39 p. 

Rubin, D. M., 2004, A simple autocorrelation algorithm for 

determining grain size from digital images of sediment. 

Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 74, no. 1, p. 160-165. 

Subcommittee on Sedimentation, 2005, Home page, accessed 

February 11, 2005, at http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/sos/

Tidwell, V.C., and Brainard, J.R., in press, Laboratory 

evaluation of time domain reflectometry for continuous 

monitoring of stream stage, channel profile and aqueous 

conductivity: Water Resources Research.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1995, Sedimentation 

investigations of rivers and reservoirs: Engineering and 

Design Manual No. 1110-2-4000. Department of the Army, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C., accessed 

September 2, 2004, at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/

usace-docs/eng-manuals/em1110-2-4000/toc.htm

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002, Engineering and design 

hydrographic surveying: EM 1110-2-1003, Department of 

the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C, 

accessed September 2, 2004, at

http://www.nap.usace.army.mil/channel/em/toc.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey, 2001, Underwater microscope system: 

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 135-01, 2 p., accessed 

January 26, 2005, at http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/

fs135-01/

Yuzyk, T.R., 1986, Bed material sampling in gravel-bed 

streams: Sediment Survey Section, Water Survey of Canada, 

Water Resources Branch, Inland Waters Directorate, 

Conservation and Protection, Environment Canada, Report 

IWD-HQ-WRB-SS-86-8, 62 p.

Yuzyk, T.R. and Winkler, T., 1991, Procedures for bed-material 

sampling: Lesson Package No. 28. Environment Canada, 

Water Resources Branch, Sediment Survey Section, Ottawa, 

Canada, 100 p.
Breakout Session IV, Sediment Data: Management, 

Sediment-Flux Computations, and Estimates from New Technologies 

By Mark N. Landers and Lawrence A. Freeman

Breakout session IV had two major topics assigned to it 

that integrate issues across breakout sessions I, II, and III. The 

results are presented in the two following sections: SedimentData Management, and Sediment-Flux Computations. 

Sediment-Data Management

Background (“Big Picture”) Considerations:

I. How are sediment data being used in a broad sense? 

Principal uses of sediment should be served effectively by 

sediment-data-management designs. Principal uses of 

data identified in the breakout session were:

A. Deriving reliable sediment-flux data.

B. Identifying trends caused by land-use management 

changes.

C. Assessing logging rehabilitation efforts.

D. Assisting in establishing Total Maximum Daily 

Loads (TMDLs; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2004) for “clean” sediment and 

contaminants.

E. Assessing the effects of downstream reservoirs 

(sediment trapping).

F. Predicting or quantifying effects of dam removal.

G. Monitoring fisheries habitat and stream restoration 

efforts.

H. Maintaining conveyance of navigation channels.

II. What data-management format(s) are optimal for these 

sediment-data users?

A. Nearly all are using relational database management 

systems (RDBMS).

B. These RDBMS must be (and almost always can be) 

accessible using Structured Query Language (SQL), 

an American National Standards Institute standard 

computer language. SQL statements are used to 

retrieve and update data in a database, which makes 

them adaptable for use by other database software, 

statistical packages, and advanced web software.

C. An essential feature for sediment databases is 

consistent definitions of each specific sediment and 

ancillary parameter. Valuable data attributes, in 

addition to site information, dates and times, should 

include method of sampling, method of analysis, and 

a quantitative uncertainty associated with the 

measurement. 

III. How do new technologies of sediment measurement and 

estimations from surrogates challenge sediment-datamanagement methods?

A. The advent of automatically and continuously 

monitored sediment data requires sediment timeseries data storage, with time units of 15 minutes 

becoming typical.

B. New technologies use one of a number of different 

operating principles and hence yield data that may be 

biased from or have a different variance than data 

produced by traditional methods (Edwards and 

Glysson, 1999). The uncertainty of different 

methods is not adequately quantified. Differences in 

sediment characteristics determined by different 

methods at a site may represent a bias between two 

methods; or simply greater measurement variance 

between methods.

C. Additional ancillary data that quantify the relation of 

the surrogate to the target sedimentary property (see 

below) are essential. For example, ancillary data are 

needed to define how optical technologies measure 

water/sediment properties (laser, OBS, turbidity, 

digital photo-optics; Gray and Gartner, 2004).

Status of sediment-data management and storage:

IV. How are data being managed now?

A. Discrete and composite samples, and those collected 

by the Equal-Width-Increment or Equal-DischargeIncrement methods (Edwards and Glysson, 1999) 

are stored in typical water-quality sample-data 

format and databases (Turcios and others, 2001; U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2004a). Raw analyses of 

sediment concentrations and particle-size 

distributions determined from physical samples are 

also in this database and in individual sediment 
Breakout Session IV 37

laboratory databases. Another example targeting 

sediment-associated parameters is the USEPA 

“National Sediment Quality Survey Database: 1980-

1999” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2004). Computed daily values of sediment load are 

stored in time-series databases. Two examples are 

Automatic Data Processing System (ADAPS) (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2003), and the USGS 

“Suspended-Sediment Database: Daily Values of 

Suspended and Ancillary Data” (U.S. Geological 

Survey, 2004b).

B. Databases are commonly developed and utilized for 

individual projects. These may offer maximum 

flexibility to the specific project, but often severely 

limits the availability and overall usefulness of the 

data, unless the data also are stored in a more 

distributed RDBMS.

Details of sediment-data management and storage:

V. What data need to be managed in any database, and which 

data elements are considered primary or secondary? 

Recommendations for primary data elements:

A. Quantitative (model) uncertainty of any computed 

value.

B. Qualitative remark codes for data where uncertainty 

cannot be quantified.

C. Store all samples with appropriate quality-control 

flags.

D. Storage of sediment-surrogate unit values at the same 

time interval on which they are recorded.

E. Archiving original (raw) electronic data sets.

F. All available particle-size distribution data should be 

stored electronically. 

G. Flag sediment data estimated or computed from 

surrogate data using a flag specific to the type of 

surrogate used.

H. Store and archive documentation of descriptions of 

the surrogate technology, the instrumentation, any 

calibration techniques or equations/models used.

I. Models and computations should be done in units that 

are consistent or are easily comparable.

J. Store raw analyses of sediment data in sediment lab 

database or make provisions to more easily move 

data from lab database to permanent agency 

database.

Recommendations for secondary data elements:

K. Original (raw) data should be stored in same database 

(side by side) as computed data.

L. Archive models or equations used to estimate 

sediment value from a surrogate value.

M. Document and archive overall uncertainty including 

model and measurement or calibration errors.

N. General Data-Management Observations

O. There are substantial gaps between current sedimentdata-management methods and the methods needed 

to accommodate newly developing technologies. 

Developments in instrument technology are moving 

far faster than efforts to test, evaluate and approve 

their use.

P. Existing databases generally are not sufficient to 

manage and archive data collected using new, 

unique or non-standard methods.

Q. General Data-Management Recommendations 

R. Expeditiously establish and approve new protocols 

for use of new technologies so that data generated by 

these means can be made available to the wide group 

of interested parties, not just individual project or 

internal agency personnel.

S. Make non-standard data – not collected or computed 

by approved methods – tagged with reliable 

uncertainty estimates available to the public; 

otherwise non-standard data should be appropriately 

flagged as “incomplete.” 

T. The Subcommittee on Sedimentation should form a 

task group to establish guidance for sedimentdatabase management. This guidance should include 

required and recommended characteristics of 

sediment databases. The guidance should address 

specific parameters and ancillary data requirements, 

as well as database functionality, availability, and 

distribution.

U. The Subcommittee on Sedimentation should consider 

formation of a sediment-data clearinghouse and 

establish minimum requirements for those data.

Sediment-Flux Computations 

Background (“Big Picture”) Considerations:

The potential users and applications of sediment-flux 

information are increasingly diverse as sediment and sedimentassociated constituents become water-quality and habitatlimiting factors in an increasing number of streams nationwide.

I. What time scales are being used and are needed? [Ranging 

from annual or seasonal to real time]

A. All time intervals are being used and are needed as 

follows: 
38 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

1. Real-time data for environmental impact assessment or management, health impacts for recreational users, intake quality for drinking water 

and other commercial users, and managing for 

impacts as they occur, including storm events 

and point source spills.

2. Sediment-flux information during storm runoff 

and discharge peaks can now be characterized. 

Traditionally this information was difficult to 

obtain through collection of physical samples.

3. Use of surrogates to estimate sediment concentrations for flux computations can yield fast 

turn-around times for peak load estimates and 

assessments (TMDLs). 

4. Daily, seasonal, and annual flux estimates continue to be needed.

5. Decadal or longer climatological studies are 

needed.

6. The appropriate time scale may depend on the 

sediment sources. 

7. Different time scales for data may be needed to 

drive models (physical and empirical).

II. What spatial scales are needed and what are the uses?

A. Scales involving multiple cross sections for 

evaluation of changes through reaches, or to define 

variations in transport among riffles and pools.

B. Multiple sampling and monitoring locations are 

needed to define incoming tributary loads or reduced 

sediment loads from management practices.

C. Adequate spatial resolution is needed to evaluate 

non-point source affects.

III. How may the sediment characteristics measured or 

estimated in continuous time series from surrogate 

measurements change the capabilities and accuracies of 

sediment-flux computations?

A. Has potential to greatly increase the accuracy of 

computations due to increased frequency of 

surrogate measurements to better characterize 

natural temporal variability in sediment 

characteristics. Data will provide validation or 

calibration for models.

B. High temporal resolution data may elucidate 

sediment processes that can in turn be used to 

improve physically based models.

C. Some surrogates provide better spatial resolution and 

are representative of larger sample volumes. For 

example acoustic backscatterance may ‘measure’ a 

sample volume of many cubic feet and can do so at a 

frequency that results in orders of magnitude more 

streamflow being measured compared to traditional 

techniques.

D. Laser diffraction devices may provide capability to 

obtain time-series particle-size distribution 

information that can lead to improved models, rating 

curves, and sediment management.

E. Time-series data may allow determination of 

sediment sources and rates of transport for different 

particles sizes (suspended sediment and bedload).

F. Surrogates other than water discharge will enable us 

to observe changes in sediment flux that are not 

represented by streamflow.

G. Provisional data may be available in near-real time.

H. Has ability to identify and incorporate the 

sedimentary attributes of floods into computations 

and models that would otherwise be missed or 

misinterpreted by collecting only routine samples.

I. Has capability to define sedimentary extremes for 

runoff periods, particularly maximum values, that 

could not be determined without collecting 

numerous physical samples, sometimes in hazardous 

situations.

J. Some surrogates that may supply sediment-flux 

information are being collected to obtain other kinds 

of information. Thus, they have multiple values and 

they are available without additional cost. For 

example acoustic backscatterance data are being 

collected for water discharge in ADCP 

measurements and Index Velocity stations. 

Turbidity data are being collected at many stations as 

a measure of the bulk optical property of water.

IV. What additional data/information are needed when 

computing sediment flux from surrogate parameters?

A. Ancillary data that can influence the relation of 

surrogates to sediment parameters.

1. Particle-size distributions

2. Sediment color

3. Water and air temperature

4. Salinity

5. Organic content

6. Stream stage and water discharge

B. Surrogate sensor/instrument calibration information.

1. Instrument make, model, meter identifier

2. Records of instrument recalibration or changes in 

instrumentation

C. Sensor-to-data calibration: Collect physical samples 

that represent the immediate vicinity of the sensor 

and in the cross section and use it to calibrate the 

sensor output in units of the physical sample.
Breakout Session IV 39

D. Take independent field measurements of the 

surrogate being recorded when possible using the 

same type of instrument.

Details:

V. Models can be grouped by the general methodology on 

which they are based. These include:

A. Physically based deterministic models.

1. Shear-based Transport formulas: Modified 

Einstein (Stevens, 1985), Meyer-Peter Müller, 

and others (Stevens and Yang, 1989)

a. GSTARS (Bureau or Reclamation, 2004)

b. HEC-6 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

2004)

c. CONCEPTS (Langendoen, 2000)

B. Empirical rating-curve models.

1. Regression (linear, non-parametric, LOESS, 

etc.)

a. LOADEST (can use surrogate data) 

(Runkel and others, 2004)

b. ADAPS (U.S. Geological Survey, 2003)

c. Sediment-transport curves (Glysson, 1987) 

C. Empirical time-series interpolation models.

1. GCLAS (U.S. Geological Survey, 2004c; 

Mckallip and others, 2001)

D. Other models.

1. Statistical time series can use surrogate data

2. ARIMA estimators

3. Neural net models

VI. Modeling Needs

A. Models that can accept multiple parameters of 

surrogate data as well as physical samples

B. Ensure that future models/computational software 

can incorporate multiple parameters of time-series 

surrogate data

C. Models and computational software should be able to 

provide estimates of errors

D. Models and computations need to be done in units 

that are consistent or are easily comparable

General Sediment-Flux Observations 

A. Flux computations and estimates based on surrogates 

should be made based on sufficient calibration 

sample data collected during the time period being 

computed or estimated. Strongly encourage 

collection of actual calibration samples during time 

period and for entire range of the period of interest, 

whenever possible. 

B. Models and computational software should be able to 

provide estimates of error, preferably expressed in 

units of the modeled parameter.

C. Models and computations need to be done in units 

that are consistent or are easily comparable.

D. All models need to have plotting capabilities.

General Sediment-Flux Recommendations 

A. Further research and development on existing 

surrogates are needed to determine if the data being 

recorded actually represents the sediment parameter 

of interest. Examples (Gray and Gartner, 2004):

1. Optical backscatterance

2. Turbidity

3. Acoustics (single- and multi-frequency)

4. Laser diffraction 

5. Pressure difference

6. Digital-optic imaging

B. Convene a working group to establish minimal 

standards and criteria for use of surrogates to 

compute sediment records.

C. Establish a clearinghouse of models, including a 

description of proper use and limits of the model.

D. Develop and support models that have the ability to 

incorporate multiple parameters from surrogate data 

and physical samples.

E. Ensure that future models/computational software 

can incorporate multiple parameters of time-series 

surrogate data as well as physical samples 

F. Develop protocols for data collection and flux 

computations that are based on surrogate data. 

G. Create the ability to compute transport rates of 

different particle-size classes; important for 

contaminant load estimates.

References Cited, Breakout Session IV:

Bureau of Reclamation, 2005, GSTARS, generalized sediment 

transport for alluvial river, accessed February 14, 2005, at 

http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment/model/gstars/

Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D., 1999, Field methods for 

measurement of fluvial sediment: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, 

chapter C2, 89 p., accessed September 2, 2004 at 

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/Edwards-TWRI.pdf
40 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

Glysson, G.D., 1987, Sediment-transport curves: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-218, 47 p., accessed 

September 3, 2004, at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/pubs/ofr/

ofr87218

Gray, J.R., and Gartner, J.W., 2004, Surrogate technologies for 

continuous suspended-sediment monitoring in the United 

States, in, Cheng Liu, ed., Proceedings of the 9th

International Symposium on River Sedimentation, Yichang, 

China, October 18-21, 2004, Tsinghua University Press, v. 4, 

p. 2515-2522.

Langendoen, E.J., 2000, CONCEPTS - Conservational channel 

evolution and pollutant transport system: Stream corridor 

version 1.0: Research Report No. 16, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National 

Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, Miss.

Mckallip, T.E., Koltun, G.F., Gray, J.R., and Glysson, G.D., 

2001, GCLAS: A graphical constituent loading analysis 

system: Proceedings of the 7th Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Conference, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, Nev., 

v. 2, p. VI-49 to VI-55, accessed September 2, 2004, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/misc_reports/FISC_1947-2001/

Runkel, R.L., Crawford, C.G., and Cohn, T.A., 2004, Load 

Estimator (LOADEST): A FORTRAN program for 

estimating constituent loads in streams and rivers: U.S 

Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Book 4, 

Chapter A5, 69 p., accessed February 5, 2005, at 

http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/tm4A5/

Stevens, H.H., 1985, Computer program for the computation of 

total sediment discharge by the modified Einstein procedure: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 85-4047, 77 p., accessed February 11, 2005, at http://

water.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/man_wrdapp?modein

Stevens, H.H., and Yang, Chih Ted, 1989, Summary and use of 

selected fluvial sediment-discharge formulas: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

89-4026, 121 p., accessed February 11, 2005, at http://

water.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/man_wrdapp?seddisch

Turcios, L.M., Gray, J.R., and Ledford, A.L., 2001, Summary 

of U.S. Geological Survey on-line instantaneous fluvial 

sediment and ancillary data, accessed September 2, 2004, at 

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/sediment/index.html

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004, HEC-6 v. 4.1, accessed 

September 2, 2004, at

http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/legacysoftware/

hec6/hec6-download.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004, National 

sediment quality survey database, 1980-1999, accessed 

September 2, 2004, at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/

nsidbase.html

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004a, Water quality samples for the 

nation, accessed September 2, 2004, at 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/qwdata

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004b, Suspended sediment database 

– Daily values of suspended sediment and ancillary data, 

accessed September 2, 2004, at http://co.water.usgs.gov/

sediment/

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004c, GCLAS – Graphical 

constituent loading analysis system, accessed September 2, 

2004, at http://hassrvares.er.usgs.gov/gclas.html

U.S. Geological Survey, 2003, Automated data processing 

system (ADAPS): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

03-123, accessed February 11, 2005, at

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/of/2003/ofr03123/
Appendices 41

Appendices

Appendix 1. Matrix of selected information gleaned from the four breakout sessions as compiled in the second plenary session of the Federal 

Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona. Empty boxes indicate that 

the topic was not addressed in the breakout or second plenary sessions, or was not applicable to the category. [SMIAR is Sediment Instrument and 

Analysis Research; FISP is the Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project]

Topic

Breakout

Session I,

Suspended

Sediment

Breakout

Session II,

Bedload

Breakout Session III Breakout Session IV

Bed Material Bed Topography Data

Management

Sediment-flux

Computations

DATA

Continuous timeseries/greater data 

amount, density

Needed Needed Needed Needed Need to store 

original data

Critically needed

Ancillary 

information

Needed Needed Needed Needed Considerable 

need

Considerable 

need

Physical calibration 

samples

Needed Needed Needed Needed Needed Critically needed

Accuracy criteria Have some Needed Needed Needed Needed (to 

accept/reject data)

Needed

Uncertainty 

estimates

Needed; available 

in some cases

Needed Needed Needed; also need 

storage 

capabilities

Needed in some 

cases

Protocols for data 

collection, 

computation & 

storage

Available for 

traditional 

technologies

Available for 

traditional 

technologies

Available for 

traditional 

technologies

Needed Databases 

generally 

insufficient

Needed for 

computations

Clearinghouse, data 

standards

Establish 

clearinghouse, 

data standards

Establish 

clearinghouse, 

data standards

Scale limitations Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Traditional Techniques

Extant Yes Not for all 

conditions

Not for 

unwadeable 

gravel bed

For most 

conditions

Yes Yes

Accuracy Relatively 

accurate

Accuracy 

uncertain

Mostly acceptable Mostly acceptable None available (Standards for 

computations)

Surrogate Techniques

Availability of 

instruments

Many, 

commercially 

available

Few, mostly 

research, in early 

development

Some, but not for 

unwadeable 

gravel bed

Several, 

Government or 

commercially 

available

Create data gaps/

problems;

need qualifying 

data

Need protocols 

for computations

Quantify accuracy Some need Major need Needed Some need Major need Major need

Applicable 

environments

Fluvial,

coastal zone, 

estuaries

Fluvial, marine 

and coastal zones

Freshwater, 

marine and

coastal zones

Freshwater, 

marine and

coastal zones
42 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

Models

Uses and needs Accurate data 

needed for better 

models

Uses and needs Uses and needs

Research & Oversight 

Basic research 

sought

Yes Yes, considerable Yes Yes Yes Yes

White paper sought Past, present, 

future 

technologies

Extant focus of 

current research 

venues or entities

Many field sites Need national 

calibration 

standard sites

Online interest 

groups

Need sediment 

database 

management task 

group

SMIAR Program 

needed

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Organizational 

oversight of a 

SMIAR Program

FISP, or FISPtype

organization

FISP, or FISPtype

organization

FISP, or FISPtype

organization

FISP, or FISPtype

organization

FISP, or FISPtype

organization

FISP, or FISPtype

organization

Appendix 1. Matrix of selected information gleaned from the four breakout sessions as compiled in the second plenary session of the Federal 

Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona. Empty boxes indicate that 

the topic was not addressed in the breakout or second plenary sessions, or was not applicable to the category. [SMIAR is Sediment Instrument and 

Analysis Research; FISP is the Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project]

Topic

Breakout

Session I,

Suspended

Sediment

Breakout

Session II,

Bedload

Breakout Session III Breakout Session IV

Bed Material Bed Topography Data

Management

Sediment-flux

Computations
Appendices 43

Appendix 2. List of registrants and respective affiliation for the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research 

Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Last Name First Name Affiliation1 City State Zip Code

Abraham David USACE Vicksburg MS 39189

Agrawal Yogesh Sequoia Scientific, Inc. Bellevue WA 98005

Barton Jonathan Penn State University University Park PA 16802

Braatz Dave Streamside Systems, Inc. Findlay OH 45840

Banks William USGS Baltimore MD 21237

Barteaux Chris FTS Victoria BC V9B-6B2

Bartlett Phil FTS Victoria BC V9B-6B2

Bent Gardner USGS Northborough MA 01532

Bunte Kristin Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523

Calhoun Daniel USGS Atlanta GA 30360

Dinehart Randal USGS Sacramento CA 95819

Eads Rand FS Arcata CA 95521

Eng Dan USACE Vicksburg MS 39180

Fenn Dennis USGS Flagstaff AZ 86001

Fisk Greg USGS Flagstaff AZ 86001

Flexner Morris USEPA Athens GA 30605

Freeman Larry USGS Marina CA 93933

Fulk Chance USGS Flagstaff AZ 86001

Fuller Elizabeth USGS Flagstaff AZ 86001

Gooding Daniel USGS Vancouver WA 98683

Gray John USGS Reston VA 20192

Hanes Daniel USGS Menlo Park CA 94025

Hayes Eugene USGS Bay St. Louis MS 39529

Higgins Johnna USGS Tacoma WA 98402

Holnbeck Steve USGS Helena MT 59601

Hornewer Nancy USGS Flagstaff AZ 86001

Hortness Jon USGS Boise ID 83713

Jackson Bill NPS Fort Collins CO 80528

James Scott Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque NM 87185

Jepsen Richard Sandia National Laboratories Carlsbad NM 88220

Johnson Gary USGS Urbana IL 61801

Kaplinski Matt University of Northern Arizona Flagstaff AZ 86011

Kenney Terry USGS West Valley City UT 84119

Krause Andreas Trinity River Restoration Prgm. Weaverville CA 96093

Kuhnle Roger ARS Oxford MS 38655

Lewis Jack FS Arcata CA 95521

Landers Mark USGS Atlanta GA 30360

Martini Marinna USGS Woods Hole MA 02543

Matherne Anne Marie USGS Albuquerque NM 87109

Matthews Graham GMA Hydrology Weaverville CA 96093
44 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

Melis Ted USGS-GCMRC Flagstaff AZ 86001

Nichols Mary ARS Tucson AZ 85719

Nolan K. Michael USGS Menlo Park CA 94025

Northby Jan University of Rhode Island Kingston RI 02881

O'Halloran Denis USGS Carnelian Bay CA 96160

O'Neal Wayne USGS-FISP Vicksburg MS 39180

Parchure T.M. USACE Vicksburg MS 39180

Phillips Jeffrey USGS West Valley City UT 80225

Potyondy John FS Fort Collins CO 80526

Roberts Jesse Sandia National Laboratories Carlsbad NM 88220

Robertson Dale USGS Madison WI 53562

Ross Jerry USGS Stennis Space Center MS 39529

Rubin David USGS Santa Cruz CA 95060

Ryan Sandra FS Laramie WY 82070

Schmeeckle Mark Arizona State University Tempe AZ 85069

Schmidt Larry FS Fort Collins CO 80526

SchubauerBeriganJoseph USEPA Cincinnati OH 45268

Slingerland Rudy Penn State University University Park PA 16802

Tidwell Vince Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque NM 87185

Tucker Randall Streamside Systems, Inc. Findlay OH 45840

Topping David USGS-GCMRC Flagstaff AZ 86001

Uhrich Mark USGS Portland OR 97216

Walter Don Naval Research Lab Stennis Space Center MS 39529

Wiele Stephen USGS Tucson AZ 85719

Wilberg Dale USGS Cedar City UT 84720

Wilcock Peter Johns Hopkins University Baltimore MD 21218

Wren Daniel University of Mississippi University MS 38677

Wright Scott USGS Flagstaff AZ 86001

Yang Ted BR Denver CO 80225

Young Christi BR Denver CO 80225

ARS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service

BR Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation

FISP Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project

FS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

GCMRC Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

NPS Department of the Interior, National Park Service

USACE Department of Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USGS Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey

1

Explanation of acronyms used in Appendix 2.

Appendix 2. List of registrants and respective affiliation for the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research 

Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona.—Continued

Last Name First Name Affiliation1 City State Zip Code
Appendix 3. Breakout session attendees as recorded by respective breakout session leaders, Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring 

Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Breakout Session I,

Suspended-Sediment 

Measurement: Data Needs, 

Uncertainty, and

New Technologies

Led by Roger A. Kuhnle and 

Daniel G. Wren

Breakout Session II, 

Bedload-Transport 

Measurement: Data Needs, 

Uncertainty, and 

New Technologies

Led by Sandra E. Ryan, Kristin 

Bunte, and John P. Potyondy

Breakout Session III, 

Bed-Material and 

Bed-Topography Measurement: 

Data Needs, Uncertainty, and 

New Technologies

Led by Christi A. Young and

 Vincent C. Tidwell

Breakout Session IV,

Sediment Data: Management, 

Sediment-Flux Computations, 

and Estimates from 

New Technologies

Led by Mark N. Landers and 

Lawrence A. Freeman

Yogi Agrawal David Abraham Gardner Bent Randal Dinehart

Bill Banks Jonathan S. Barton Dan Eng John Gray*

Chris Barteaux David Braatz Elizabeth Fuller Gary Johnson

Philip Bartlett John Gray* John Gray* Jack Lewis

Dan Calhoun Steve Holnbeck Daniel Hanes* Denis O’Halloran

Rand Eads Andreas Krause Bill Jackson Dale Robertson

Morris Flexner Graham Matthews Matt Kaplinksi Dale Wilberg

Dan Gooding Mary Nichols Terry Kenney

John Gray* John Potyondy Jerry Ross

Dan Hanes* Jesse Roberts David Rubin

Johnna Higgins Rudy Slingerland Larry Schmidt

Jon Hortness Randy Tucker Don Walter

Scott James Peter Wilcock

Marinna Martini

Anne-Marie Matherne

Ted Melis

Jan Northby

Wayne O’Neal

T.M. Parchure

Mark Schmeeckle

Joe Schubauer-Berigan

David Topping

Stephen Wiele

Scott Wright

Ted Yang

 *Attended multiple sessions

Appendices 45
46 Proceedings of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research Workshop

Appendix 4. Extended abstracts submitted as part of the Federal Interagency Sediment Monitoring Instrument and Analysis Research 

Workshop, September 9-11, 2003, Flagstaff, Arizona

The extended abstracts associated with this report are available only online at the following URL: 

http://water.usgs.gov/osw/techniques/sediment/sedsurrogate2003workshop/listofpapers.html

Extended abstracts by U.S. Geological Survey authors were reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Articles submitted by others did not go through the U.S. Geological Survey review process, and therefore may not adhere to U.S.

Geological Survey editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles were edited for consistency in 

appearance. The use of brand, firm, or trade names in any extended abstract does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological 

Survey. The authors and titles of extended abstracts are listed below in alphabetical order by principle author.

Abraham, David, Quantification of bed-load transport using multi-beam survey data: the ISSDOT Method (Integrated-Section Surface Difference 

over Time).

Agrawal, Y.C., and Pottsmith, H.C., Laser diffraction method: two new sediment sensors.

Barton, J.S., Slingerland, R.L., Gabrielson, T.B., and Johnson, P.A., Listening to bedload: a flume study relating acoustic response to bedload 

motion.

Braatz, D.A., and Tucker, R.L., A new series of sediment collectors for monitoring true bedload.

Bunte, Kristin, Potyondy, J.P., and Abt, S.R., Development of an improved bedload trap for sampling gravel and cobble bedload in coarse mountain 

streams.

Davis, J.E., and Rosati, J.D., Regional Sediment Management.

Dinehart, R.L., Spatial analysis of ADCP data in streams.

Gartner, J.W., and Gray, J.R., Summary of suspended-sediment technologies considered at the Interagency workshop on turbidity and other 

sediment surrogates.

Gray, J.R. and Glysson, G.D., Attributes for a sediment monitoring instrument and analysis research program.

Gray, J.R., Melis T.S., Eduardo Patiño, Gooding, D.J, Topping, D.J., Larsen, M.C., and Rasmussen, P.P., U.S. Geological Survey suspendedsediment surrogate research on optic, acoustic, and pressure-difference technologies.

Jackson, W.L., Regulated river restoration monitoring: The Elwah River dam removal and restoration project.

Kuhnle, R.A., and Wren, D.G., Cross-stream variations in suspended sediment transport over dunes, implications for sampling.

Laronne, J.B., and Gray, J.R., Formation of a Bedload Research International Cooperative.

Martini, Marinna, USGS capabilities for studying sediment transport in the ocean.

Nichols, M.H., and Renard, K.G., Sediment research and monitoring at the USDA-ARS Walnut Gulch experimental watershed.

Northby, J.A., New optical instruments for sediment re-suspension measurements.

Pratt, Thad, and Parchure, Trimbak, OBS calibration and field measurements.

Parchure, T.M., Sobecki, T.M., and Pratt, T.C., Fine sediment parameter measurement for sedimentation studies.

Roberts, J.D., James, S.C., and Jepsen, R.A., Measuring bedload fraction with the ASSET flume.

Ryan, S.E., The use of pressure-difference samplers in measuring bedload transport in small, coarse-grained alluvial channels.

Wren, Daniel, Kuhnle, R.A., and Chambers, James, Measurement of suspended-sediment concentration and particle size in laboratory flumes.

Wright, Scott, Comparison of direct and indirect measurements of cohesive sediment concentration and size.