U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5091

Prepared in cooperation with Tulsa County

Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, 

and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010, in the 

Arkansas River near Tulsa, Oklahoma
Cover. Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma, streamflow-gaging station located on the downstream side of the 11th Street bridge over the 

Arkansas River. Photograph is looking north towards the city of Tulsa. (Photograph by Steven D. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey, 2007).
Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment 

Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of 

Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010, in the 

Arkansas River near Tulsa, Oklahoma

By Jason M. Lewis, S. Jerrod Smith, Stephanie D. Buck, and Scott A. Strong

Prepared in cooperation with Tulsa County

Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5091

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011

This and other USGS information products are available at http://store.usgs.gov/

U.S. Geological Survey

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

To learn about the USGS and its information products visit http://www.usgs.gov/

1–888–ASK–USGS

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

U.S. Government.

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

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Lewis, J.M., Smith, S.J., Buck, S.D., and Strong, S.A., 2011, Estimation of annual suspended-sediment fluxes, 1931–

95, and evaluation of geomorphic changes, 1950–2010, in the Arkansas River near Tulsa, Oklahoma: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5091, 21 p. 
iii

Contents

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

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1

Characteristics of Sample Collection Sites and Suspended-Sediment Data .....................................2

Methods ..........................................................................................................................................................2

Estimating Suspended-Sediment Fluxes .........................................................................................2

Streambed Channel Changes at Arkansas River at Tulsa Station ...............................................4

Geographic Information System Assessment of Arkansas River Channel ................................6

Channel Centerline Length ...............................................................................................9

Channel Average Width ....................................................................................................9

Channel Lateral Migration Rate ......................................................................................9

Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes ......12

Arkansas River at Tulsa Station .......................................................................................................12

Arkansas River near Haskell Station ..............................................................................................12

Streambed Channel Adjustment at Arkansas River at Tulsa Station (07164500) .....................12

Geographic Information System Assessment of Changes in Position of the Arkansas 

River Channel ........................................................................................................................12

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................20

References Cited .........................................................................................................................................20

Figures

1–2. Maps showing: 

1. Location of Arkansas River Basin downstream from Keystone Dam, 

Keystone Lake, Zink Dam, and selected U.S. Geological Survey streamflowgaging stations east-central Oklahoma ..........................................................................3

2. Study segments, major tributaries, and drainage basins for the Arkansas 

River study reach between Keystone Dam and the Tulsa-Wagoner County 

line, Oklahoma: study segments end at (A) State Highway 97, (B) Interstate 

244 / U.S. Highway 75, (C) Interstate 44 / State Highway 66, (D) Creek Turnpike, 

(E) Memorial Road, and (F) Tulsa-Wagoner County line ..............................................7

3. Digitized streambanks for each study segment below Keystone Dam in 

Tulsa, Oklahoma: study segments end at (A) State Highway 97, (B) Interstate 

244 / U.S. Highway 75, (C) Interstate 44 / State Highway 66, (D) Creek Turnpike, 

(E) Memorial Road, and (F) Tulsa-Wagoner County line ..............................................8

4–9. Graphs showing: 

4. Sediment rating curves for Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma, streamflowgaging station (a) linear regression, (b) second-order polynomial regression 

for the period 1931–64 and two curves (c) linear regression, (d) second-order 

polynomial regression for the period 1965–95 .............................................................13

5. Estimated annual flow-weighted suspended-sediment concentrations at the 

Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma, streamflow-gaging station, 1931–95 ..............14

6. Sediment rating curves for Arkansas River near Haskell, Oklahoma, 

streamflow-gaging station (a) linear regression, (b) second-order polynomial 

regression for the period 1973–82 ..................................................................................14
iv

7. Annual flux estimates for the Arkansas River near Haskell streamflowgaging station, 1973–82 ....................................................................................................15

8. Streambed change over a 35-year period from 1970–2005 at Arkansas River 

at Tulsa station ..................................................................................................................15

9. Streambed change before and after the completion of Zink Dam at Arkansas 

River at Tulsa station ........................................................................................................16

10–11. Graphs of: 

10. Annual change in channel centerline length and channel average width for 

study segments of the Arkansas River study reach between Keystone Dam 

and the Tulsa-Wagoner County line, Oklahoma: study segments end at 

(A) State Highway 97, (B) Interstate 244 / U.S. Highway 75, (C) Interstate 44 / 

State Highway 66, (D) Creek Turnpike, (E) Memorial Road, and (F) Tulsa-Wagoner 

County line .........................................................................................................................17

11. Channel lateral migration rate for study segments of the Arkansas River 

study reach between Keystone Dam and the Tulsa-Wagoner County line, 

Oklahoma: study segments end at (A) State Highway 97, (B) Interstate 244 / 

U.S. Highway 75, (C) Interstate 44 / State Highway 66, (D) Creek Turnpike, 

(E) Memorial Road, and (F) Tulsa-Wagoner County line ............................................19

Tables

1. Summary characteristics of selected suspended-sediment sampling stations in 

the Arkansas River Basin near Tulsa, Oklahoma ...................................................................4

2. Summary characteristics of annual suspended-sediment and streamflow data for 

selected stations in the Arkansas River Basin .......................................................................5

3. Percentage within each flow range for days when suspended-sediment samples 

were collected and percentage within each flow range of total days for selected 

stations in the Arkansas River Basin ........................................................................................6

4. Morphological metrics and rates of change for study segments and the Arkansas 

River channel study reach between Keystone Dam and the Tulsa-Wagoner County 

line, Oklahoma ............................................................................................................................10

5. Comparison of estimated annual suspended-sediment fluxes using rating curves 

for the Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma, streamflow-gaging station (1931–95) ........18

6. Comparison of estimated annual suspended-sediment fluxes using rating curves 

for the Arkansas River near Haskell streamflow-gaging station (1973–82) .....................19
v

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2)

Flow rate

acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 1,233 cubic meter per year (m3/yr)

foot per year (ft/yr) 0.3048 meter per year (m/yr)

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

Mass

metric ton (MT) 106 Megatonne (Mt)

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Elevation, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.

Suspended-sediment concentrations in water are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or 

micrograms per liter (μg/L).

Abstract

An understanding of fluvial sediment transport and 

changing channel morphology can assist planners in making 

responsible decisions with future riverine development or restoration projects. Sediment rating curves can serve as simple 

models and can provide predictive tools to estimate annual 

sediment fluxes. Sediment flux models can aid in the design of 

river projects by providing insight to past and potential future 

sediment fluxes. Historical U.S. Geological Survey suspendedsediment and discharge data were evaluated to estimate annual 

suspended-sediment fluxes for two stations on the Arkansas 

River located downstream from Keystone Dam in Tulsa 

County. Annual suspended-sediment fluxes were estimated 

from 1931–95 for the Arkansas River at Tulsa streamflowgaging station (07164500) and from 1973–82 for the Arkansas 

River near Haskell streamflow-gaging station (07165570). 

The annual flow-weighted suspended-sediment concentration 

decreased from 1,970 milligrams per liter to 350 milligrams 

per liter after the completion of Keystone Dam at the Tulsa 

station. The streambed elevation at the Arkansas River at Tulsa 

station has changed less than 1 foot from 1970 to 2005, but 

the thalweg has shifted from a location near the right bank to a 

position near the left bank. There was little change in the position of most of the banks of the Arkansas River channel from 

1950 to 2009. The most substantial change evident from visual 

inspection of aerial photographs was an apparent decrease 

in sediment storage in the form of mid-channel and meander 

bars. The Arkansas River channel between Keystone Dam 

and the Tulsa-Wagoner County line showed a narrowing and 

lengthening (increase in sinuosity) over the transition period 

1950–77 followed by a steady widening and shortening of 

the river channel (decrease in sinuosity) during the post-dam 

(Keystone) periods 1977–85, 1985–2003, and 2003–10. 

Introduction

Estimation of suspended-sediment fluxes (or loads) is 

essential for understanding the amount of sediment that is 

carried by a river. Actual measurement of sediment fluxes is 

preferred but difficult to obtain, so estimates based on field 

data give the best possible insight into sediment-transport 

conditions. This estimation can assist planners in making 

responsible decisions with future riverine development or 

restoration projects and in planning for reservoir infilling, 

water-quality issues, and channel-bed-mining operations. 

Flow-regime changes cause changes in sediment dynamics 

including erosion and deposition, which in turn cause changes 

in stream-channel morphology. Changes in annual suspendedsediment fluxes are likely to produce geomorphic changes in 

the stream channel. Knowledge of sediment fluxes and how a 

river has changed over time can be useful in planning for the 

future. 

The Arkansas River, in the vicinity of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

was once an uncontrolled prairie river but over the past century has been affected by anthropogenic activities. With completion of Keystone Dam in 1964, river dynamics downstream 

from the dam changed. The dam, constructed for flood control 

and hydropower needs, reduced the amount of sediment that 

flowed downstream (Williams and Wolman, 1984). Because of 

the urban setting of much of the Arkansas River, many of the 

channel banks have been lined with rip-rap for erosion control. 

The Arkansas River channel, in the vicinity of Tulsa, has a 

wide sandy bottom, braided channels, and flow controlled by 

releases from Keystone Dam. Within this river reach, a lowwater dam (Zink dam) was built in 1983. A study by Juracek 

(1999) showed the geomorphic effects of low-water dams 

appear to be limited to a short reach of river channel located 

immediately downstream from dams.

Sediment rating curves have been developed for many 

rivers for determining annual and seasonal sediment loads 

(fluxes). In the absence of actual suspended-sediment concentration data, sediment-rating curves can serve as simple models and can provide predictive tools to estimate suspendedsediment concentrations/fluxes. Horowitz and others (2001) 

reported that very good annual suspended-sediment flux estimates (less than or equal to or plus/minus 15 percent) could be 

obtained by using linear or second-order polynomial sediment rating curves, with or without a “smearing” correction. 

Although apparently simple in concept, critical evaluation of 

Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–

95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010, in 

the Arkansas River near Tulsa, Oklahoma

By Jason M. Lewis, S. Jerrod Smith, Stephanie D. Buck, and Scott A. Strong 
2 Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010

the data, careful application of the technique, and an understanding of its limitations are required if the sediment rating 

curve method is to be used effectively. Over a 20-year period, 

errors of less than 1 percent in total flux can be achieved using 

a single rating curve based on data spanning the entire period 

(Horowitz, 2003). Sediment flux models can aid in the design 

of river projects by providing insight to past and potential 

future sediment fluxes. 

Tulsa County has developed a master plan for improving 

the Arkansas River corridor from below Keystone Dam to the 

Tulsa-Wagoner County line. Some of the primary goals for the 

plan include: improving riparian habitat along the corridor; 

bank stabilization; and building and enhancing dams, bridges, 

and amenities (Carter and Burgess, Inc., 2004; Guernsey and 

others, 2005). One component of the Arkansas River that 

needs further evaluation is fluvial sediment transport. A better 

understanding of suspended-sediment concentrations, annual 

fluxes, and geomorphic changes associated with the Arkansas 

River can assist planners and engineers in properly designing 

riparian enhancement projects. 

This report presents the results of a cooperative study by 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Tulsa County to estimate annual suspended-sediment fluxes for two streamflowgaging stations within the Arkansas River Basin near Tulsa, 

Oklahoma. Regression equations were developed for each station to predict annual suspended-sediment fluxes in the future. 

An evaluation of streambed changes over time at the Arkansas 

River at Tulsa station also is presented. Methods and results 

presented in this report were obtained by using a geographical information system (GIS) to evaluate geomorphic changes 

over time in the study reach of the Arkansas River. Study 

objectives were met by using available USGS suspendedsediment and streamflow-gaging station information, and aerial photography provided by Tulsa County. Results presented 

in this report will assist Tulsa County to better understand 

annual sediment fluxes and how the channel of the Arkansas 

River has changed over time.

Because of the urban setting of much of the Arkansas 

River study reach, many of the channel banks have been lined 

with rip-rap for erosion control. The effectiveness of these and 

other erosion control structures was not analyzed as part of 

this study. However, it is likely that these structures affect the 

rate of erosion and migration of channel banks over most of 

the study segments. 

Characteristics of Sample Collection 

Sites and Suspended-Sediment Data

The USGS streamflow-gaging station Arkansas River 

at Tulsa, Oklahoma (07164500), was established in 1904 by 

the United States Weather Bureau and is currently (2011) 

operated in cooperation with the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE). This streamflow-gaging station 

originally was associated with the old bridge located on U.S. 

Highway 66 until 1986, when the gage was moved to the new 

Arkansas River Bridge located 60 feet upstream from the old 

bridge on Interstate 244 (fig. 1). The Tulsa station is located 

10.1 miles upstream from Polecat Creek and 15.1 miles downstream from Keystone Dam. Keystone Dam, established in 

1964, regulates flow, except for the 109 square miles between 

the Keystone Dam and the Tulsa station. Drainage area of the 

Tulsa station is 74,615 square miles of which 12,541 square 

miles are noncontributing. Since 1983, the surface-water 

stage control for the Tulsa station has been the John Zink 

(Zink) low-water dam located 2.5 miles downstream from 

the Arkansas River at Tulsa streamflow-gaging station. The 

downstream side of the bridge is marked in 20-foot intervals 

and the channel is 1,500 feet wide (a recent measurement from 

top right bank to top left bank). 

The USGS streamflow-gaging station Arkansas River 

near Haskell, Oklahoma (07165570), was established in 

June 1972. The Haskell station is located downstream from 

State Highway 104, 2 miles east of the town of Haskell, and 

23.5 miles upstream from the confluence with the Verdigris 

River (fig. 1). The drainage area for the Haskell station 

is 75,473 square miles, of which 12,541 square miles are 

noncontributing.

The periods of sediment and streamflow data collection 

varied at each streamflow-gaging station used in the analyses (table 1). Historically there have been 1,839 suspendedsediment samples collected at the Tulsa station from 1930–95 

(table 2). Before the completion of Keystone Dam, 1,318 

samples were collected from the 1930–64 water years. After 

completion of the dam, 521 samples were collected during the 

1965–95 water years. There were 241 suspended-sediment 

samples collected at the Haskell station from the 1973–82 

water years (table 2).

There are limitations with the datasets at the Tulsa station and the Haskell station. Samples were collected by the 

USGS and the USACE. Most of the samples after 1970 were 

collected using a depth integrated method by the USGS (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2006), whereas, the methods used for collecting samples before 1970 are uncertain.

Methods

Estimating Suspended-Sediment Fluxes

At each streamflow-gaging station, annual suspendedsediment fluxes were estimated using available data for each 

water year (defined as the 12-month period from October 

1 through September 30 and is designated by the year the 

period ends). Annual suspended-sediment flux estimates 

were calculated using a relation of discharge to suspendedsediment concentration known as a sediment-rating (sediment 

transport) curve (Horowitz, 2003). The equation to calculate 

sediment fluxes or loads is the product of discharge, multiplied 
Methods 3

by suspended-sediment concentration, and multiplied by a 

conversion factor (Porterfield, 1977) to obtain the appropriate 

mass and time units: 

Flux (metric tons per day) = Discharge (cubic 

feet per second) * suspended-sediment concentration 

(milligrams per liter) * 0.00245 (1)

An extrapolation procedure, which determines the log-log 

regression relation of suspended-sediment concentration to 

discharge, was used in this study to estimate the suspendedsediment fluxes for all days. The accuracy of this approach 

depends on the sampling frequency and how well the samples 

represented the ranges of flow at each station (table 3). This 

procedure can produce very good results (less than or equal 

to plus or minus 15 percent from measured results) using 

linear or second-order polynomial sediment rating curves, with 

and without a “smearing” correction (Horowitz and others, 

2001; Horowitz, 2003).

Using this procedure, all of the available discharge 

and suspended-sediment data for the Arkansas River at 

Tulsa, Oklahoma (07164500), and Arkansas River near 

Haskell, Oklahoma (07165570), stations were analyzed (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2010). The available data for the Tulsa station were divided into two time periods (1930–64, 1965–95) 

to correspond to the periods before and after construction 

of the Keystone Dam. Available data for the Haskell station 

included the period 1973–82. These time periods were the 

Figure 1. Location of Arkansas River Basin downstream from Keystone Dam, Keystone Lake, Zink Dam, and selected U.S. Geological 

Survey streamflow-gaging stations east-central Oklahoma. 

Arkansas

Verdigris

Neosho

Cimarron

CREEK

Keystone

Lake

Fort

Gibson

Lake

07165570

07164500

TURNER

MUSKOGEE

CIMARRON WILL ROGERS

Hydrologic

unit 11110101

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000

Roads and administrative boundaries from University of Oklahoma

Center for Spatial Analysis, 1:100,000

Oklahoma State Plane North projection

North American Datum of 1983

Tulsa

Haikey

Snake

Creek

Creek

River

River

River

River

ZINK DAM

Haskell

KEYSTONE DAM

Polecat Creek

Study area

OKLAHOMA

2 8 4 6 MILES

0 2 4 6

0

8 KILOMETERS

44

44

44

165

117

69A

11

167

10

162

80A

166

135

56

16

20

66

51

72

16

51

66

75A

62

64

412

69

75

169

64B

62B

69

75

62

244

48

52

16

80

33

51B

104

97 88 266

ROGERS MA YES

TULSA

OSAGE

PAWNEE

CHER

OKEE

WAGONER

MUSKOGEE

OKMULGEE

OKFUSKEE

CREEK

EXPLANATION

City of Tulsa

Study area

U.S. Geological Survey

streamflow-gaging

station and number

07165570

36°20'

10'

36°00’

50'

35°40'

96°30' 20' 10' 96°00' 50' 40' 30' 95°20'
4 Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010

only times suspended-sediment samples were collected at the 

two streamflow-gaging stations. 

For each streamflow-gaging station and time period, the 

suspended-sediment concentration and daily mean discharge 

data were combined into a single calibration set and logtransformed. Linear and polynomial regression equations 

subsequently were calculated and evaluated using methods 

described in Helsel and Hirsch (2002). If the residual analysis 

performed for each regression was determined to be random 

then predicted daily suspended-sediment concentrations were 

calculated for each acceptable sediment rating curve. The 

daily suspended-sediment concentrations subsequently were 

used to calculate the daily fluxes for each sample day for each 

rating curve. To eliminate or reduce a bias that can occur when 

converting data from log-transformed to arithmetic scale a 

“smearing correction” was applied (Duan, 1983). The daily 

fluxes subsequently were summed to produce a measure of 

total flux. This approach produced four flux estimates: (1) linear uncorrected, (2) linear “smearing” corrected, (3) polynomial uncorrected, and (4) polynomial “smearing” corrected. 

This procedure compares the total fluxes from each of the four 

estimates with the calibration (field) data set (Horowitz and 

others, 2001, Horowitz, 2003; Horowitz, 2008). The regression equation that produced a total flux that most closely 

matched the calibration set was used to estimate suspendedsediment concentrations where no data were available. Total 

flux values are presented in megatonnes. A “tonne” is a metric 

ton, with a megatonne being equal to one million metric tons.

Streambed Channel Changes at Arkansas River 

at Tulsa Station

Historical streambed cross sections obtained as part 

of USGS discharge measurements from the bridge at the 

Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma, streamflow-gaging station 

(07164500) were evaluated to determine possible changes of 

the elevation and location of the streambed channel over time. 

These cross sections were analyzed to investigate whether: 

(1) the streambed changed with time because of sediment 

deposition, erosion, or both, and (2) the installation of the Zink 

low-water dam had any influence on streambed elevations.

Cross-section evaluation was conducted using the depths 

below water surface obtained during flow measurements to 

the nearest hundredth of a foot. The period of record used for 

this analysis included measurements made from 1970 through 

2005. This station has permanent markings on the bridge deck 

beginning at an initial point (marked 0) above the proximity 

of the right bank and marked in 20-foot increments. Using discharge measurements at this location is advantageous because 

the cross sections were measured using the same width increments marked on the bridge deck. All measurements used 

in this analysis begin at the mark of 140 feet from the initial 

reference mark of zero. The streambed-depth measurements 

could be compared because the same width increments marked 

on the bridge deck were used. Cross sections selected for 

graphical analysis also had to fit within a specified gage height 

and discharge range to reduce variability. 

Only cross sections measured from the bridge were used 

in this analysis, providing the least variation in location of 

each vertical transect along the cross section used to measure 

flow. Flow measurements obtained from the 1970s predominantly were conducted starting from the left edge of water. 

Beginning in 1980, flow measurements were made starting 

at the right edge of water. To compare the streambed depths 

using the same permanent bridge deck markings, increments 

were re-assigned as if the measurement started from the right 

edge of water. This adjustment made all the width increments 

comparable. 

For the cross-sectional analysis, measurements that had 

only a 5-percent difference from the mean gage height and 

discharge were used. The 5-percent criteria was arbitrarily 

Table 1. Summary characteristics of selected suspended-sediment sampling stations in the Arkansas River Basin near Tulsa, 

Oklahoma.

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mi2, square miles]

Station name Station 

identifier

Period of 

suspendedsediment 

recorda

Period of 

streamflow 

recorda

Period 

of record 

used in 

sedimentrating curve 

analysesa

Long-term 

mean 

annual 

streamflow 

(ft3/s)b

Period of 

record used 

in determination of 

long-term 

mean annual 

streamflowb

Drainage 

area 

(mi2)

Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma 07164500 1930–31, 

1939–95

1925–2011 1931–95 8,907c 1965–2009 74,615

Arkansas River near Haskell, Oklahoma 07165570 1973–82, 

1986–88

1972–2011 1972–83 10,890 1973–2009 75,473

a

 Source: U.S. Geological Survey (2010).

b

 Source: U.S. Geological Survey annual water data report accessed through U.S. Geological Survey (2010).

c

 Prior to regulation, 1926–64, 6,554 ft3/s.
Methods 5

Year

Number of 

annual 

suspendedsediment 

sampling 

eventsa

Streamflowweighted mean 

suspendedsediment 

concentration 

(mg/L)b

Annual 

mean 

streamflow 

(ft3/s)c

07164500 Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma

1931 72 651 2,620

1939 3 607 2,050

1940 9 1,040 2,250

1941 7 1,530 5,450

1942 13 2,540 14,000

1943 38 2,530 7,150

1944 87 2,660 8,960

1945 117 2,620 11,100

1946 58 2,460 4,800

1947 54 2,660 8,100

1948 59 2,030 7,560

1949 71 2,320 13,500

1950 62 2,130 7,740

1951 59 3,350 15,600

1952 43 862 5,440

1953 42 422 1,820

1954 45 486 1,280

1955 59 1,760 3,230

1956 43 2,350 1,900

1957 67 4,460 14,450

1958 44 1,240 7,760

1959 47 1,540 5,590

1960 51 3,380 14,020

1961 61 2,460 10,600

1962 47 2,760 9,620

1963 47 690 3,920

1964 55 559 2,420

1965 57 457 8,440

1966 35 124 2,610

1967 43 239 3,420

1968 32 209 4,550

1969 36 326 9,080

1970 25 278 5,210

1971 22 143 2,980

1972 16 142 2,930

1973 21 590 13,600

1974 14 514 15,800

1975 15 514 15,600

1976 8 179 3,710

Year

Number of 

annual 

suspendedsediment 

sampling 

eventsa

Streamflowweighted mean 

suspendedsediment 

concentration 

(mg/L)b

Annual 

mean 

streamflow 

(ft3/s)c

1977 16 304 4,970

1978 21 205 5,260

1979 13 271 6,560

1980 14 315 8,890

1981 15 145 1,860

1982 9 422 9,410

1983 6 394 7,550

1984 6 460 8,290

1985 5 284 8,270

1986 6 313 8,860

1987 6 960 22,800

1988 4 354 8,710

1989 6 314 7,230

1990 4 305 7,890

1991 6 134 1,810

1992 5 260 6,700

1993 3 809 22,300

1994 5 351 5,720

1995 5 749 16,800

07165570 Arkansas River near Haskell, Oklahoma

1973 40 924 14,420

1974 33 841 16,940

1975 28 847 16,690

1976 27 383 3,675

1977 26 582 4,913

1978 23 447 5,378

1979 11 513 5,782

1980 18 598 8,187

1981 22 316 2,097

1982 13 741 10,470

a

 Number of samples based on data available in U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Information System database as of October 15, 2010 .

b

 Annual streamflow-weighted mean suspended-sediment concentration 

calculated by dividing annual suspended-sediment load (table 3) by annual 

mean streamflow.

c

 Source: U.S. Geological Survey (2010).

Table 2. Summary characteristics of annual suspended-sediment and streamflow data for selected stations in the Arkansas River 

Basin.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; ft3/s, cubic feet per second]
6 Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010

selected as a way to choose discharge measurements close to 

one another in stage and flow values and also to limit variability. Preliminary analysis of all cross sections measured from 

the bridge resulted in a mean gage height of 4.7 feet. Only 

measurements within plus or minus 5 percent of 4.7 feet were 

used in this analysis. The same methodology was applied to 

discharge, making the range of flow 13,900–14,600 cubic feet 

per second. Cross sections, measured in the selected range of 

gage height and discharge, were used to evaluate the change in 

streambed morphology at the Tulsa station.

The gage heights determined from discharge measurements were converted to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

of 1929 (NGVD 29), so that the elevation of the streambed 

was measured in reference to the same datum as land-surface 

elevation. Discharge measurements were made from the old 

bridge at the location of U.S. Highway 66 until 1986 when the 

Tulsa station was relocated to the new Interstate 244 bridge. 

The gage datum for Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma 

streamflow-gaging station is 615.23 ft (NGVD 29) for the 

old and current bridge locations. The final elevations of the 

streambed were determined by adding the gage datum and 

mean gage height to the measured streambed depth. 

Streambed depths were evaluated in 10-year increments 

beginning in 1970 and ending in 2009. For each 10-year 

period, an average of three discharge measurements was used 

to determine streambed elevations. The 10-year period from 

1990–99 had only two discharge measurements that met the 

specified criteria. For the 10-year period from 2000–09, there 

were three discharge measurements from 2000–05 that met the 

gage height and discharge criteria because of the introduction 

of hydroacoustic instrumentation to measure streamflow after 

2005.

Geographic Information System Assessment of 

Arkansas River Channel

Aerial orthophotographs (geographically corrected aerial 

photograph) of the Arkansas River corridor in Tulsa County 

were obtained in digital format from Tulsa County (Gaylon 

Pinc, PMg, written commun., 2010). The collection included 

tiled photo sets from 1950, 1954, 1966, 1977, 1985, and 2010. 

Additional aerial orthophotographs were obtained in digital format from the National Agriculture Imagery Program 

(NAIP) for 2003, 2006, and 2008 (State of Oklahoma, 2003, 

2006, 2008). After a survey of available photographic coverage, image clarity, and spatial accuracy in GIS, the photograph sets for 1950, 1977, 1985, 2003, and 2010 were selected 

to be used for analysis of changes in position of Arkansas 

River channel banks. Aerial photographs from 1977, 1985, 

2003, and 2010 were available for the Arkansas River channel 

from Keystone Dam to the Tulsa-Wagoner County line (fig. 

2). The 1950 aerial photography was only available within or 

near the city of Tulsa, or about half of the river distance 

between Keystone Dam and the Tulsa-Wagoner County line 

(fig. 2). 

For each of the five selected years (1950, 1977, 1985, 

2003, and 2010), the banks of the Arkansas River were digitized at a scale of 1:6,000 (fig. 3). This scale only allows 

computation of general changes in river morphology over 

many miles; local scale changes in river morphology could 

not be evaluated at this scale. The edge of water was not 

used in digitization of riverbanks because annual aerial photographs show the river at different discharge and stage conditions, leading to very different water-surface areas and channel 

widths, especially at discharges less than 15,000 cubic feet 

per second. Instead, the banks of the river bankfull channel 

were delineated primarily by the presence of vegetation and 

evidence of recent fluvial activity (Copeland and others, 2000; 

VanLooy and Martin, 2005). In segments where locations of 

riverbanks were not obvious, photographs from the next or 

previous year were used for comparison. Mid-channel bars 

(bars surrounded by water) were considered to be part of the 

bankfull channel. Point bars on the inside of meander bends 

were considered to be part of the bankfull channel only when 

unvegetated, and only up to an elevation where a bar showed 

no obvious signs of reworking by flowing water. Tops of 

point bars, which appeared to have been altered by eolian 

processes, were not considered to be part of the bankfull 

channel. If a vegetated point bar was completely bisected 

by a channel braid, it was considered to be part of the bankfull channel (Shields and others, 2000). Any other bars and 

sediment deposits that showed evidence of human alteration, 

such as by all-terrain vehicle tracks, sediment mining, and 

aquaculture activities, were not considered part of the bankfull 

channel. 

At tributaries where large volumes of sediment are periodically deposited by tributary flood flows, the Arkansas River 

bankfull channel was defined by delineating a boundary where 

the evidence of reworking of sediment transitioned from being 

dominated by tributary flows to being dominated by Arkansas 

River flows. The 2008 NAIP aerial photographs for Tulsa 

County were used to check the quality of the 2003 and 2010 

digitized banks because the 2008 photography was collected 

when the river stage was relatively high, and the river was 

Table 3. Percentage within each flow range for days when 

suspended-sediment samples were collected and percentage 

within each flow range of total days for selected stations in the 

Arkansas River Basin. 

[ft3/s, cubic feet per second; >, greater than]

Stream 

discharge 

(ft3/s)

Arkansas River at 

Tulsa (1931–95)

Arkansas River near 

Haskell (1973–82)

Samples 

collected

(percent)

Total 

days

(percent)

Samples 

collected

(percent)

Total 

days

(percent)

0–500 7.1 8.2 13 4.1

501–5,000 47 56 41 50

5,001–10,000 12 16 11 20

10,001–50,000 26.4 18 30 25.2

>50,000 7.3 1.5 4.2 1.5
Methods 7

Figure 2. Study segments, major tributaries, and drainage basins for the Arkansas River study reach between Keystone Dam and the 

Tulsa-Wagoner County line, Oklahoma: study segments end at (A) State Highway 97, (B) Interstate 244 / U.S. Highway 75, (C) Interstate 

44 / State Highway 66, (D) Creek Turnpike, (E) Memorial Road, and (F) Tulsa-Wagoner County line. 

A

B C

D

E

F

Tulsa

07164500

Extent of

1950 aerial

photography

Keystone

Lake

Arkansas

River

Haikey

Creek

Broken

Arrow

Jo Creek e

Creek

Snake

Creek

Posey

Creek

Duck

Creek

Polecat

Creek

Creek

Browns

Rock

Creek

Shell

Bigheart

Cr

Mud

Cr

Anderson

Fisher Cr

Creek

Creek

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

North American Datum of 1983

Aerial photo extent (1950) modified

from County of Tulsa digital data

0 4 2 6 8 MILES

0 246 8 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Drainage area of the city of Tulsa

that does not drain to the Arkansas River

Drainage area of the city of Tulsa

that drains to the Arkansas River

Arkansas River watershed

below Keystone Dam

Tributary watershed boundary

Bridge crossing

Streamflow-gaging station

95°45'

96°00'

96°15'

96°30'

36°15'

36°00'

35°45'

TULSA COUNTY

WASHINGTON COUNTY

OSAGE COUNT

Y

WAGONER

COUNTY

ROGERS COUNTY

OKMULGEE COUNTY

CREEK COUNTY

PAWNEE COUNTY
8 Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010

Figure 3. Digitized streambanks for each study segment below Keystone Dam in Tulsa, Oklahoma: study segments end at (A) State 

Highway 97, (B) Interstate 244 / U.S. Highway 75, (C) Interstate 44 / State Highway 66, (D) Creek Turnpike, (E) Memorial Road, and 

(F) Tulsa-Wagoner County line. 

Base modified from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:24,000 

Albers Equal-Area Conic projection

North American Datum of 1983

3 MILES

0 2

0

3 KILOMETERS

2

1

1 F

Snake

Haikey

Memorial

Road

TULSA COUNTY

WAGONER COUNT

Y

Flow

Broken A rrow Cr eek

E

Posey Cr

Creek Turnpike

Pole cat Creek

Memorial

Road

Flow

Joe

Interstate 44/

State Highway 66

Creek Turnpike

Creek

Flow

D

A

Mud Creek

Fisher-Anderson Cr

Shell Creek

Flow

KEYSTONE

DAM

State Highway 97

B

Bigheart

Interstate 244/

U.S. Highway 75

State Highway 97

Flow

C

Interstate 244/

U.S. Highway 75

Interstate 44/

State Highway 66

07164500

Flow

EXPLANATION

Streamflow-gaging station

Tributary stream

County boundary

Bridge

Aerial orthophotograph coverage

2010

2003

1985

1977

1950 (incomplete aerial

photography coverage)

Creek

Creek

Creek
Methods 9

approaching bankfull width (but not necessarily bankfull discharge) in most reaches. When the 2008 photographs 

were taken (July 14, 2008), the discharge at streamflowgaging station 07164500 was about 15,000 cubic feet per 

second. Therefore, it is believed the banks digitized in this 

study represent the water surface at a minimum discharge 

of 15,000–20,000 cubic feet per second. Since the closure 

of Keystone Dam, a discharge of this magnitude occurs 

about annually (on average) at the Tulsa station (Lewis and 

Esralew, 2009). According to Leslie and others (2000), who 

studied changes in least tern habitat near streamflow-gaging 

station 07164500, bankfull discharge was about 90,000 cubic 

feet per second in 1992–93. Because the Arkansas River 

study segments have a wide channel (0.209 to 0.342 miles; 

table 4) with relatively steep banks, the change in wetted 

channel width likely would be small with discharges ranging 

from 20,000 to 90,000 cubic feet per second. The most 

recent stage-discharge rating curve (2011) for streamflow 

gaging station 07164500 did not have an obvious slope break 

that could be interpreted as an indicator of bankfull stage 

(James Wellman, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

2011). 

The bankfull discharge and bankfull channel are notoriously difficult to evaluate, partly because of the lack of consistent, universally applicable definitions of the terms 

and their morphological markers (Williams, 1978). The 

bankfull discharge, which completely fills the bankfull channel, is generally defined as the “maximum discharge that a 

channel can convey without overflowing onto the floodplain” 

(Copeland and others, 2000). However, the delineation of the 

bankfull channel from inspection of aerial photographs can be 

problematic, especially in channels undergoing adjustment to 

changes in flow regime. The Arkansas River channel within 

the study reach is unstable and is in the process of adjusting 

to a regulated flow regime, including a new bankfull discharge that is probably smaller than the bankfull discharge of 

the unregulated channel. Comparing pre-dam and post-dam 

statistics at the Tulsa station, the peak discharges associated with the 2- and 5-year recurrence intervals (50 and 20 

percent chance of flow being equaled or exceeded in a given 

year) have decreased by about 45 percent. The 2-year peak 

flow decreased from 81,300 cubic feet per second for the 

period 1923–64 to 44,600 cubic feet per second for the period 

1965–2007 (Lewis and Esralew, 2009). The 5-year peak flow 

decreased from 144,000 cubic feet per second for the period 

1923–64 to 80,200 cubic feet per second for the period 1965–

2007 (Lewis and Esralew, 2009). The recurrence interval of 

the bankfull discharge in stable channels generally is thought 

to be less than 10 years but may be much longer (Pickup and 

Warner, 1976; Williams, 1978).

The left and right banks of the Arkansas River channel were digitized for all 5 years (1950, 1977, 1985, 2003, 

and 2010) from aerial photographs (fig. 3). That digitization 

formed the foundation for the computation and analysis of 

several morphological metrics that can be used to assess rates 

of channel change (table 4). Also, the study reach was divided 

into six segments using major river crossings (bridges) as 

endpoints (figs. 2–3), allowing analysis of changes in banks 

with distance from Keystone Dam and with time between 

years of available aerial photographs. Bridges were chosen as 

segment endpoints instead of tributary confluences because 

much of the observed channel changes occurred at or near 

tributary confluences, especially at the Polecat Creek and 

Haikey Creek confluences (fig. 3). Changes in the channel 

were quantified by comparing the centerline length (sinuosity), average width of the digitized bankfull channel, and 

lateral migration rate between study segments and between 

years of aerial photography (table 4). To aid in interpretation 

of channel changes, the aerial photograph pair 1950–77 was 

defined as a transition period between pre-dam and post-dam 

flow conditions, and the three remaining aerial photograph 

pairs (1977–85, 1985–2003, and 2003–2010) were defined as 

post-dam periods. Because readily usable photographs for only 

one year were collected prior to the construction of Keystone 

Dam in 1964, comparisons of pre-dam and post-dam channel 

changes were not possible.

Channel Centerline Length

The channel centerline was computed using the Collapse 

Dual Lines to Centerline tool in ESRI ArcGIS (ESRI, 2010). 

Channel centerlines were used for analysis of the digitized 

banks because the centerlines are less sensitive to potential 

errors in bank delineation and are more easily manipulated in 

GIS. 

Channel Average Width

The lateral migration rate procedure (Shields and others, 

2000) can fail to capture and quantify changes in the channel 

resulting from symmetrical channel widening or narrowing, 

which can be substantial for streams adjusting to regulated 

flow regimes. To quantify changes in average channel width, 

the channel area was first computed for the study segment 

polygons defined by the digitized channel banks and bridge 

crossings (fig. 2). Average channel width then was computed 

by dividing the channel polygon area by the channel centerline 

length.

Channel Lateral Migration Rate

Channel lateral migration rate, also referred to as a 

channel activity index, was computed using a procedure documented by Shields and others (2000). For each time interval, 

areas between the bankfull-channel centerlines were computed 

for each segment (table 4). The areas then were divided by 

the channel centerline length and the number of years in the 

time interval to arrive at an average annual rate of area change 

per unit length, which is reported in units of feet per year. 

The channel lateral migration rate is always a number greater 

than or equal to 0. Therefore, this metric is not a measure of 

how fast the banks are moving in a particular direction but a 

general index of channel activity. 
Table 4. Morphological metrics and rates of change for study segments and the Arkansas River channel study reach between Keystone Dam and thline, Oklahoma. [--, not applicable; red values, negative change] Study segment (fig. 3) Description Channel centerline Channel polygo

Length (miles) Change in length (feet per year) Area (square miles) 

Transi- tion period Post-dam period T

p

1950 1977 1985 2003 2010 1950– 77 1977– 85 1985– 2003 2003– 10 1950 1977 1985 2003 2010 

A Keystone Dam to OK 97 -- 8.65 8.62 8.63 8.62 -- -14.88 2.78 -13.08 -- 2.108 2.106 2.243 2.255 B OK 97 to I-244 / US 75 -- 6.73 6.69 6.64 6.63 -- -31.97 -14.09 -7.40 -- 1.600 1.582 1.687 1.716 B1950 Westernmost extent of 1950 aerial photography coverage to I-244 / US 75 5.01 5.08 5.06 5.02 5.01 12.98 -11.34 -12.93 -7.50 1.325 1.154 1.175 1.238 1.262 

C I-244 / US 75 to I-44 / OK 66 4.12 4.14 4.11 4.05 4.04 5.11 -17.55 -17.75 -13.26 1.109 .866 .904 .996 1.022 

D I-44 / OK 66 to Creek Turnpike 5.53 5.59 5.56 5.53 5.51 11.33 -20.62 -8.15 -15.23 1.712 1.524 1.574 1.593 1.597 

E1950 Creek Turnpike to easternmost extent of 1950 aerial photography coverage 5.03 5.05 5.06 5.02 5.01 4.54 2.22 -11.70 -4.32 1.580 1.498 1.521 1.419 1.487 

E Creek Turnpike to Memorial Road -- 6.03 6.03 5.98 5.97 -- .79 -15.22 -2.13 -- 1.781 1.800 1.690 1.757 F Memorial Road to Tulsa- Wagoner County line -- 10.61 10.51 10.37 10.33 -- -64.20 -40.81 -27.13 -- 3.629 3.568 3.524 3.523 Study reach Keystone Dam to Tulsa- Wagoner County line -- 41.74 41.52 41.20 41.10 -- -148.43 -93.23 -78.24 -- 14.263 14.292 14.658 14.849 

Study 

reach 1950

Westernmost extent of 

1950 aerial photography coverage to easternmost extent of 1950 aerial photography coverage

19.69 19.86 19.79 19.62 19.57 33.96 -47.28 -50.52 -40.31 5.725 5.042 5.175 5.246 5.368 -
Table 4. Morphological metrics and rates of change for study segments and the Arkansas River channel study reach between Keystone Dam and thline, Oklahoma.—Continued[--, not applicable; red values, negative change]

Study 

segment 

(fig. 3)

Description

Channel average width (polygon area/centerline length) Channel lateral migration rate (Shiel

Average width

(miles)

Change in average width

(feet per year)

Area between centerlines

(thousands of square feet)

Transition 

period

Post-dam 

period

Transition 

period

Post-dam 

period

Tr

p

1950 1977 1985 2003 2010 1950– 77 1977– 85 1985– 2003 2003– 10 1950– 77 1977– 85 1985– 2003 2003– 10 1

A Keystone Dam to OK 97 -- 0.244 0.244 0.260 0.262 -- 0.27 4.57 1.50 -- 1,854.38 2,593.60 766.65 

B OK 97 to I-244 / US 75 -- .238 .237 .254 .259 -- -.68 5.16 3.59 -- 1,282.85 1,795.73 425.68 

B1950 Westernmost extent 

of 1950 aerial photography coverage to I-244 / US 75

0.264 .227 .232 .247 .252 -7.22 3.18 4.29 3.92 2,724.92 676.65 1,307.77 304.72 

C I-244 / US 75 to I-44 / 

OK 66

.269 .209 .220 .246 .253 -11.81 7.14 7.56 5.75 3,346.00 1,178.27 2,088.90 747.31 

D I-44 / OK 66 to Creek 

Turnpike

.310 .273 .283 .288 .290 -7.21 7.05 1.41 1.31 4,840.08 1,877.36 1,695.34 553.78 

E1950 Creek Turnpike to 

easternmost extent of 1950 aerial photography coverage 

.314 .296 .301 .283 .297 -3.44 2.83 -5.25 10.51 6,031.76 1,347.67 4,126.33 921.63 

E Creek Turnpike to 

Memorial Road

-- .296 .299 .283 .294 -- 2.05 -4.68 8.67 -- 1,609.28 4,587.10 1,144.47 

F Memorial Road to 

Wagoner County line

-- .342 .340 .340 .341 -- -1.74 .10 .81 -- 4,068.44 8,070.99 1,988.77 

Study 

reach

Keystone Dam to TulsaWagoner County line -- .342 .344 .356 .361 -- 1.69 3.39 4.19 -- 12,547.22 22,139.42 5,931.37 

Study 

reach 1950

Westernmost extent 

of 1950 aerial photography coverage to easternmost extent of 1950 aerial photography coverage

.291 .254 .261 .267 .274 -7.22 5.04 1.74 5.25 16,942.76 5,079.95 9,218.34 2,527.44 
12 Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010

Estimation of Annual SuspendedSediment Fluxes and Evaluation of 

Geomorphic Changes

Arkansas River at Tulsa Station

A linear uncorrected rating curve was determined to be 

the most appropriate curve for estimating suspended-sediment 

concentrations at the Tulsa station for the period 1931–64 

(fig. 4). The total flux (250 megatonnes) estimated by a linear 

uncorrected rating curve, most closely matched the total flux 

(211 megatonnes) from the calibration (actual) dataset. The 

total flux is the sum of all daily fluxes in which a suspendedsediment concentration sample was collected. For the period 

1965–95, a corrected polynomial rating curve yielded a total 

flux (7.02 megatonnes) that most closely matched the total 

flux of the calibration (actual) dataset (6.57 megatonnes) 

(fig. 4). Table 5 compares annual fluxes for water years 1931–

95 for each of the four rating curves, with the best fit estimated flux values that were selected. The average estimated 

annual sediment flux before construction of the Keystone Dam 

was 14.7 megatonnes. The average estimated annual flux for 

the Tulsa station after Keystone Dam construction was 3.99 

megatonnes. 

Flow-weighted suspended-sediment concentration is the 

total flux divided by the total flow for each year (Horowitz 

and others, 2001). Figure 5 shows annual flow-weighted 

suspended-sediment concentration changes over time. The 

data were shown in this way to normalize for flow (Horowitz 

and others, 2001). The median estimated flow-weighted 

suspended-sediment concentration of Keystone Dam before 

and after construction was 1,970 and 350 milligrams per liter, 

respectively.

Arkansas River near Haskell Station

A corrected linear rating curve was used to estimate 

suspended-sediment concentrations for the Arkansas River 

near Haskell period 1973–82 (fig. 6). The total flux (7.00 

megatonnes), estimated by a corrected linear rating curve, 

most closely matched the total actual flux (7.34 megatonnes) 

from the calibration (actual) dataset. The average estimated 

annual flux for the Haskell station from 1973–82 is 6.5 

megatonnes. Table 6 compares annual fluxes for each year 

for each of the four rating curves, with the best-fit predicted 

flux values that were selected. For the period 1973–82 the 

estimated annual flux ranged from 0.7 to 14.2 megatonnes 

(fig. 7). During the same period (1973–82) both the Haskell 

station and the Tulsa station had the same decreasing then 

increasing pattern in annual fluxes, with the Arkansas River 

near Haskell station always having a higher annual flux 

(tables 5 and 6).

Streambed Channel Adjustment at Arkansas 

River at Tulsa Station (07164500)

From 1970–79, the streambed elevation across the 

channel varied by up to 4.5 feet at the Tulsa station. The 

deepest section of the streambed (603.2 feet NGVD 29) was 

located 400 feet from the initial reference mark (zero) on the 

bridge deck above the right bank. The thalweg (deepest point 

of the river bed) of the stream was located closer to the right 

bank (fig. 8). During the 1980–89 period, the streambed elevation across the channel varied by up to 3.5 feet. The deepest 

section of the river (604.5 feet NGVD 29) was approximately 

750 feet from the initial mark near the right bank, with the 

thalweg being near the center of the stream channel (fig. 8). 

From 1990–99, the streambed elevation varied across the 

channel by up to 3 feet. The greatest depth occurred at approximately 950 feet from the initial reference mark near the 

right bank. During that time period, the thalweg was located 

closer to the left bank (fig. 8). From 2000–05, the streambed 

elevation across the channel varied by 4.3 feet with the greatest depth (603.5 feet NGVD 29) occurring 1,100 feet from 

the initial reference mark near the right edge of water. The 

thalweg during that time period was located near the left 

bank.

Construction of the John Zink low-water dam in 1983 

(downstream from the Tulsa station) substantially affected 

the deposition of sediment in the streambed. Mean streambed depths from measurements made during the 1970–83 

period (before Zink Dam completion) were compared to the 

mean streambed depths from measurements made during the 

1984–2005 period (after dam completion). There was a shift of 

the thalweg from the right side of the channel (604.1 feet bottom elevation) at 600 feet from a reference mark on the bridge 

above the right bank to the left side of the channel (604.3 feet 

bottom elevation) at 900 feet from initial reference mark of 

zero (fig. 9).

Based on the analysis of the streambed cross sections at 

the Tulsa station, there was a shift in the thalweg from near 

the right bank to near the left bank during the 35-year analysis 

period. Average bed elevation had minor change (less than 

1.0 foot) over the entire period. Data compilations comparing 

streambed cross-section depths before and after the construction of the Zink low-water dam further support a shift in the 

thalweg from the right to the left side of the river channel 

(fig. 9).

Geographic Information System Assessment 

of Changes in Position of the Arkansas River 

Channel

Positive changes in channel average width indicate 

channel widening, and negative changes in channel average width indicate channel narrowing during the analysis 

period (fig. 10). Based on analysis of aerial photographs, the 

2010 bankfull-channel centerline for the entire study reach 
Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes 13

Figure 4. Sediment rating curves for Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma, streamflow-gaging station (a) linear regression, (b) secondorder polynomial regression for the period 1931–64 and two curves (c) linear regression, (d) second-order polynomial regression for the 

period 1965–95. 

Log discharge

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Log suspended-sediment concentration Log suspended-sediment concentration

0.8

0

1.5

2.3

3.8

3.0

4.5

Log suspended-sediment concentration

0.8

0

1.5

2.3

3.8

3.0

4.5

Log suspended-sediment concentration

n = 1,318

n = 1,318

n = 521

n = 521

Y = 2.82 + 0.77X

Y = 2.818 + 1.005X - 0.186X2

Y = 1.85 + 0.416X

Y = 1.74 + 0.374X - 0.242X2

C. Linear regression, 1965–95

D. Second-order polynomial regression, 1965–95

A. Linear regression, 1935–64

B. Second-order polynomial regression, 1935–64

Line for equation

Sample

n Number of samples

EXPLANATION

1 Duan’s (1983) correction factor

Coefficient of determination (R2

) = 0.68

Actual Flux = 211 Megatonnes (Mt)

Predicted Flux = 250 Mt

Corrected1

 (1.554) Predicted Flux = 388 Mt

R2

 =0.71

Actual Flux = 211 Mt

Predicted Flux = 281 Mt

Corrected1

 (1.546) Predicted Flux = 435 Mt

R2

 = 0.22

Actual Flux = 6.57 Mt

Predicted Flux = 2.01 Mt

Corrected1

 (2.413) Predicted Flux = 4.84 Mt

R2

 = 0.25

Actual Flux = 6.57 Mt

Predicted Flux = 2.84 Mt

Corrected1

 (2.469) Predicted Flux = 7.02 Mt
14 Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010

Figure 5. Estimated annual flow-weighted suspended-sediment concentrations at the Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma, streamflowgaging station, 1931–95. 

Figure 6. Sediment rating curves for Arkansas River near Haskell, Oklahoma, streamflow-gaging station (a) linear regression, 

(b) second-order polynomial regression for the period 1973–82.

Median value (1,970 mg/L)

Median value (350 mg/L)

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Year

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Flow-weighted concentration, in milligrams per liter (mg/L)

Keystone Dam completed 1964

Log discharge

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0

0.8

0

1.5

2.3

3.8

3.0

4.5

Log suspended-sediment concentration

0.8

0

1.5

2.3

3.8

3.0

4.5

Log suspended-sediment concentration

n = 241

n = 241

Y = 2.132 + 0.54X

Y = 1.976 + 0.551X - 0.335X2

A. Linear regression, 1973–82

B. Second-order polynomial regression, 1973–82

Line for equation

Sample

n Number of samples

EXPLANATION

1 Duan’s (1983) correction factor

Coefficient of determination (R2

) = 0.37

Actual Flux = 7.34 Megatonnes (Mt)

Predicted Flux = 2.84 Mt

Corrected1

 (2.456) Predicted Flux = 7.00 Mt

R2

 = 0.44

Actual Flux = 7.34 Mt

Predicted Flux = 4.92 Mt

Corrected1

 (2.469) Predicted Flux = 11.48 Mt
Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes 15

Figure 7. Annual flux estimates for the Arkansas River near Haskell streamflow-gaging station, 1973–82. 

Figure 8. Streambed change over a 35-year period from 1970–2005 at Arkansas River at Tulsa station. 

0

10

20

30

40

Annual flux, in megatonnes

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985

Year

(Initial reference mark of zero located on the bridge deck of Interstate 244/U.S. Highway 75

above the right bank of the Arkansas River)

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

Distance from inital point near right bank, in feet

LEFT

(NORTH)

BANK

RIGHT

(SOUTH) 

BANK

600

602

604

606

608

610

612

Streambed elevation, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

1970–79

1980–89

1990–99

2000–05

EXPLANATION
16 Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010

from Keystone Dam to the Tulsa-Wagoner County line was 

about 41.1 miles long and was shortened by about 0.64 miles 

(1.5 percent) over the post-dam periods between 1977 and 

2010 (fig. 10, table 4). Individually, each study segment also 

had a net decrease in centerline length over the post-dam periods between 1977 and 2010 (fig. 10, table 4). 

Shortening of channel length was caused by a decrease in 

the sinuosity of the channel as mid-channel and meander bars, 

which were considered part of the channel bank, were eroded 

with time (figs. 3 and 10). In terms of lateral migration rate, 

the Arkansas River channel within the study reach was most 

active in the post-dam period 1977–1985 (7.12 feet per year) 

and least active for the post-dam period 2003–10 (3.90 feet per 

year) (table 4). The lateral migration rate for the entire study 

reach and most of the study segments steadily decreased from 

the post-dam period 1977–85 to the post-dam period 2003–10 

that may indicate some stabilization of the regulated channel 

(fig. 11, table 4) or decreases in the magnitude and frequency 

of high-discharge tributary flows over time in the post-dam 

periods have occurred. Channel lateral migration rates computed for the Arkansas River study segments ranged from 3.81 

to 8.41 feet per year during the transition period (1950–77) 

and from 1.73 to 9.08 feet per year during the post-dam periods (1977–85, 1985–2003, and 2003–10; table 4). These rates 

are less than channel lateral migration rates computed for the 

Missouri River downstream from Fort Peck Dam, Montana 

(5.9 to 21.6 feet per year; Shields and others, 2000), and for 

the Trinity River downstream from Lake Livingston Dam, 

Texas (9.3 to 16.2 feet per year; Wellmeyer and others, 2005). 

Since construction of Keystone Dam, the main inputs 

of new sediment to the Arkansas River channel likely have 

been from tributary flows, especially from Polecat Creek and 

Haikey Creek in study segments “E” and “F,” respectively. 

Tributary inputs of sediment can be substantial, even for 

smaller tributaries, taking decades to fully erode. However, 

lack of more recent sediment contribution has resulted in the 

net removal of meander and mid-channel bar deposits with 

time since flow regulation began. The rate of disappearance of 

mid-channel bars is difficult to measure from aerial photography because of changes in river stage and, thus, was not 

quantified as a part of this study.

The greatest channel narrowing occurred in the transition period 1950–77 and ranged from -11.81 to -3.44 feet per 

year (fig. 10, table 4). Channel narrowing during the transition 

period may be a result of degradation and rapid encroachment of vegetation into the channel following completion of 

Keystone Dam in 1964. Degradation followed by encroachment of vegetation is a typical response of channels to flow 

Figure 9. Streambed change before and after the completion of Zink Dam at Arkansas River at Tulsa station. 

(Initial reference mark of zero located on the bridge deck of Interstate 244/U.S. Highway 75

above the right bank of the Arkansas River)

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

Distance from inital point near right bank, in feet

600

602

604

606

608

610

612

Streambed elevation, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

LEFT

(NORTH)

BANK

RIGHT

(SOUTH) 

BANK

Pre-Zink Dam

Post-Zink Dam

EXPLANATION
Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes 17

Figure 10. Annual change in channel centerline length and channel average width for study segments of the Arkansas River 

study reach between Keystone Dam and the Tulsa-Wagoner County line, Oklahoma: study segments end at (A) State Highway 97, 

(B) Interstate 244 / U.S. Highway 75, (C) Interstate 44 / State Highway 66, (D) Creek Turnpike, (E) Memorial Road, and (F) Tulsa-Wagoner 

County line. 

CHANNEL AVERAGE WIDTH

Transition Post-dam

Widening Narrowing

CHANNEL CENTERLINE LENGTH

Transition Post-dam

Sinuosity

increasing

Sinuosity

decreasing

Aerial photography pair

1950 and 1977 1977 and 1985 1985 and 2003 2003 and 2010

-12

-9

-6

-3

0

3

6

9

12

Average annual change in channel average 

width, in feet per year

-60

-70

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

Average annual change in channel centerline length, in feet per year

* *

* *

A

B

C

D

E

F

EXPLANATION

Study segment

Black lines around the 

bars for segments B

and E represent the

subsegment covered by

1950 aerial photography.

* Aerial photography unavailable for study segments A and F in 1950
18 Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010

Water 

year

Linear 

regression

Polynomial 

regression Best fit 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Corrected 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Corrected 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

1931 1.71 2.65 1.78 2.75 1.71

1932 4.07 6.33 4.51 6.99 4.07

1933 1.91 2.97 2.09 3.24 1.91

1934 .79 1.23 .77 1.20 .79

1935 15.05 23.39 16.44 25.48 15.05

1936 1.65 2.56 1.76 2.73 1.65

1937 4.04 6.28 4.47 6.93 4.04

1938 10.68 16.59 11.58 17.94 10.68

1939 1.24 1.93 1.29 2.00 1.24

1940 2.33 3.62 2.47 3.83 2.33

1941 8.33 12.94 9.20 14.26 8.33

1942 35.59 55.30 38.14 59.12 35.59

1943 18.07 28.09 17.77 27.55 18.07

1944 23.79 36.97 24.74 38.35 23.79

1945 29.05 45.15 30.04 46.56 29.05

1946 11.79 18.32 11.05 17.13 11.79

1947 21.52 33.45 21.88 33.92 21.52

1948 15.34 23.84 17.26 26.76 15.34

1949 31.33 48.69 34.18 52.98 31.33

1950 16.45 25.57 17.64 27.34 16.45

1951 52.26 81.21 53.99 83.69 52.26

1952 4.69 7.29 5.10 7.91 4.69

1953 .77 1.19 .72 1.11 .77

1954 .62 .97 .62 .96 .62

1955 5.68 8.82 6.41 9.94 5.68

1956 4.47 6.95 4.62 7.16 4.47

1957 64.46 100.17 62.83 97.39 64.46

1958 9.63 14.96 10.85 16.81 9.63

1959 8.60 13.36 9.47 14.67 8.60

1960 47.40 73.66 42.89 66.48 47.40

1961 26.12 40.58 26.43 40.97 26.12

1962 16.91 26.28 18.30 28.37 16.91

1963 2.71 4.20 2.82 4.37 2.71

1964 1.35 2.10 1.36 2.11 1.35

Completion of Keystone Dam

Water 

year

Linear 

regression

Polynomial 

regression Best fit 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Corrected 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Corrected 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

1965 1.19 2.88 1.56 3.86 3.86

1966 .16 .40 .13 .32 .32

1967 .34 .83 .33 .82 .82

1968 .43 1.03 .38 .95 .95

1969 1.12 2.70 1.20 2.96 2.96

1970 .56 1.35 .59 1.45 1.45

1971 .21 .51 .17 .43 .43

1972 .21 .50 .17 .42 .42

1973 2.22 5.35 3.25 8.02 8.02

1974 2.39 5.77 3.29 8.12 8.12

1975 2.39 5.77 3.25 8.02 8.02

1976 .32 .76 .27 .66 .66

1977 .59 1.41 .61 1.51 1.51

1978 .50 1.20 .44 1.08 1.08

1979 .73 1.77 .72 1.78 1.78

1980 1.10 2.65 1.13 2.80 2.80

1981 .13 .31 .11 .27 .27

1982 1.32 3.18 1.61 3.97 3.97

1983 1.03 2.48 1.21 2.98 2.98

1984 1.18 2.85 1.54 3.81 3.81

1985 .96 2.32 .95 2.35 2.35

1986 1.06 2.55 1.12 2.77 2.77

1987 4.27 10.31 8.87 21.9 21.9

1988 1.12 2.71 1.25 3.08 3.08

1989 .87 2.10 .92 2.27 2.27

1990 .94 2.27 .97 2.41 2.41

1991 .12 .28 .10 .24 .24

1992 .73 1.77 .70 1.74 1.74

1993 4.07 9.82 7.31 18.0 18.0

1994 .69 1.66 .81 2.01 2.01

1995 3.03 7.32 5.09 12.6 12.6

Table 5. Comparison of estimated annual suspended-sediment fluxes using rating curves for the Arkansas River at Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

streamflow-gaging station (1931–95). 

[Mt; megatonnes, bold numbers; predicted flux selected]
Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes 19

Figure 11. Channel lateral migration rate (Shields and others, 2000) for study segments of the Arkansas River study reach between 

Keystone Dam and the Tulsa-Wagoner County line, Oklahoma: study segments end at (A) State Highway 97, (B) Interstate 244 / U.S. 

Highway 75, (C) Interstate 44 / State Highway 66, (D) Creek Turnpike, (E) Memorial Road, and (F) Tulsa-Wagoner County line. 

Water 

year

Linear 

regression

Polynomial 

regression Best fit 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Corrected 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Corrected 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

1973 5.4 13.3 9.4 21.9 13.3

1974 5.8 14.2 9.5 22.2 14.2

1975 5.8 14.1 9.2 21.4 14.1

1976 .6 1.4 .4 1.0 1.4

1977 1.2 2.9 1.2 2.8 2.9

Table 6. Comparison of estimated annual suspended-sediment fluxes using rating curves for the Arkansas River near Haskell 

streamflow-gaging station (1973–82). 

[Mt; megatonnes, bold numbers; predicted flux selected]

Water 

year

Linear 

regression

Polynomial 

regression Best fit 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Corrected 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

Corrected 

predicted 

flux 

(Mt)

1978 1.0 2.4 0.8 1.9 2.4

1979 1.2 3.0 1.1 2.6 3.0

1980 2.0 4.9 2.0 4.8 4.9

1981 .3 .7 .2 .5 .7

1982 3.2 7.8 4.2 9.8 7.8

CHANNEL LATERAL MIGRATION RATE

Transition Post-dam

Aerial photography pair

1950 and 1977 1977 and 1985 1985 and 2003 2003 and 2010

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Channel lateral 

migration rate, in square feet per year

A

B

C

D

E

F

EXPLANATION

Study segment

Black lines around the 

bars for segments B

and E represent the

subsegment covered by

1950 aerial photography.

* Aerial photography unavailable for study segments A and F in 1950

* *
20 Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010

regulation by dams (Williams and Wolman, 1984). Most of the 

study segments widened over the post-dam periods (fig. 10, 

table 4). Only the two most downstream segments (E and F) 

had channel narrowing at an average rate greater than 1 foot 

per year for the post-dam periods (fig. 10, table 4). Segment 

“E” narrowed at an average rate of about 5 feet per year over 

the post-dam period 1985–2003 (fig. 10, table 4). This narrowing was followed by substantial channel widening (8.67–10.51 

feet per year) in segment “E” from 2003–10 (table 4). Changes 

in average channel width for segment “E” probably were 

caused by changes in sediment storage at and just downstream 

from the Polecat Creek confluence (fig. 3). Polecat Creek, in 

terms of drainage basin area, is the largest tributary that joins 

the Arkansas River in the study reach (fig. 2). Most of the 

channel segments showed some channel widening over the 

post-dam periods (fig. 10). With the exception of the 2003–10 

widening in segment “E,” the greatest channel widening 

(7.56 ft/yr) occurred in segment “C” over the post-dam period 

1985–2003 (fig. 10, table 4).

Summary and Conclusions

This report presents the results of a cooperative study 

by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Tulsa County 

to estimate annual suspended-sediment fluxes and to evaluate geomorphologic changes of the Arkansas River in Tulsa 

County, Oklahoma. Annual suspended-sediment fluxes were 

estimated from 1931–95 for the Arkansas River at Tulsa, 

Oklahoma, streamflow-gaging station and from 1973–82 for 

the Arkansas River near Haskell, Oklahoma, streamflow-gaging station. Completion of Keystone Dam in 1964 reduced the 

mean annual suspended-sediment concentration by 82 percent 

from 1,970 milligrams per liter (1931–64) to 350 milligrams 

per liter (1965–95). The mean annual suspended-sediment 

flux at the Tulsa station before completion of Keystone Dam 

was 14.7 megatonnes and 4.0 megatonnes after completion. 

The mean annual flux for Haskell station was 6.5 megatonnes. 

During the same period (1973–82) both stations had similar 

patterns in annual fluxes, with the Haskell station always having a greater annual flux.

By analyzing the depths from discharge measurements of 

the same stage and discharge over time, the streambed elevations were shown to have no major change (less than 1.0 foot) 

from the period of 1970–2005. The thalweg shifted from a 

position near the right bank to a position located closer to the 

left bank.

There was little change in the position of most of the 

banks of the Arkansas River channel from 1950 to 2010 as 

defined using morphological metrics. The biggest change 

evident from visual inspection of aerial photography was an 

apparent decrease in sediment storage in the form of midchannel and meander bars. Since construction of Keystone 

Dam, the main inputs of new sediment to the Arkansas River 

channel likely have been from tributary flows, especially from 

Polecat Creek and Haikey Creek in study segments “E” and 

“F,” respectively. Tributary inputs of sediment can be substantial, even for smaller tributaries, taking decades to fully 

erode. However, lack of more recent sediment contribution 

has resulted in the net removal of meander and mid-channel 

bar deposits with time since flow regulation began. The rate of 

disappearance of mid-channel bars is difficult to measure from 

aerial photography because of changes in river stage and, thus, 

was not quantified as a part of this study. 

Generally, the Arkansas River channel between Keystone 

Dam and the Tulsa-Wagoner County line showed a narrowing and lengthening (increase in sinuosity) over the transition 

period 1950–77 followed by a steady widening and shortening 

(decrease in sinuosity) over the post-dam periods 1977–85, 

1985–2003, and 2003–10. The most recent period (2003–10) 

had the smallest amount of average annual change in centerline length and channel width, with a relatively small amount 

of centerline shortening and channel widening. That smaller 

change may be a result of channel stabilization or a decrease 

in the frequency of high discharge tributary flows over the 

post-dam period 2003–10.

Because of the urban setting of much of the Arkansas 

River study reach, many of the channel banks have been lined 

with rip-rap for erosion control. The effectiveness of these and 

other erosion control structures was not analyzed as part of 

this study. However, it is likely that these structures affect the 

rate of erosion and migration of channel banks over most of 

the study segments. 

References Cited

Carter and Burgess Inc., 2004, Final Arkansas River corridor master plan: Phase I vision plan: Prepared for Indian 

Nations Council of Governments, Tulsa, Oklahoma, August 

2004.

Copeland, R.R., Biednharn, D.S., and Fischenich, J.C., 2000, 

Channel-forming discharge: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

ERDC/CHL CHETN-VIII-5, 10 p.

Duan, N., 1983, Smearing estimate—a nonparametric retransformation method: Journal of the American Statistical 

Association, v. 78, no. 383, p. 605–610.

ESRI, 2010, Collapse dual lines to centerline (data management): ArcGIS Desktop Help, accessed on February 12, 

2011, at http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgiSDEsktop/9.2/index.

cfm?TopicName=collapse_dual_lines_to_centerline_(data_

management.

Guernsey, C.H., and Company, Edaw Inc., Hisinc, LLC, 

Alaback Design and Associates, Adaptive Ecosystems, 

Inc., Schnake Turnbo Frank, Inc., 2005, Final Arkansas 

River corridor master plan, Phase II master plan and prereconnaissance study: Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers.
References Cited 21

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 2002, Statistical methods in 

water research: Amsterdam, Elsevier, 529 p.

Horowitz, A.J., 2008, Determining annual suspended sediment 

and sediment-associated trace element and nutrient fluxes: 

The Science of the Total Environment, v. 400, p. 315–343.

Horowitz, A.J., 2003, An evaluation of rating curves for 

estimating suspended sediment concentrations for subsequent flux calculations: Hydrological Processes, v. 17, 

p. 3,387–3,409.

Horowitz, A.J., Elrick, K.A., and Smith, J.J., 2001, Estimating 

suspended sediment and trace element fuxes in large 

river basins: Methodological considerations as applied to 

the NASQAN Program: Hydrological Processes, v. 15, 

p. 1,107–1,132.

Juracek, K.E., 1999, Geomorphic effects of overflow dams on 

the Neosho River, Kansas: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 99–4147, 6 p.

Leslie, D.M., Wood, G.K., and Carter, T.S., 2000, Productivity 

of endangered least terns (Sterna antillarum athalassos) 

below a hydropower and flood-control facility on the 

Arkansas River: The Southwestern Naturalist, v. 45, no. 4, 

p. 483–489, accessed on December 2, 2010, at http://www.

jstor.org/stable/3672597.

Lewis, J.M., and Esralew, R.A., 2009, Statistical summaries 

of streamflow in and near Oklahoma through 2007: U.S. 

Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–

5112, 152 p.

Pickup, G., and Warner, R.F., 1976, Effects of hydrologic 

regime on magnitude and frequency of dominant discharge: 

Journal of Hydrology, v. 29, p. 51–75, accessed on January 

11, 2011, at (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/

B6V6C-487F8T2-4T/2/ccbcce3b2d3c889d39d07a1fdc5b

c4e7).

Porterfield, G., 1977, Computation of fluvial-sediment 

discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 3, chap. C3, 66 p.

Shields, F.D., Simon, A., Steffen, L.J., 2000, Reservoir effects 

on downstream river channel migration: Environmental 

Conservation, v. 27, p. 54–66.

State of Oklahoma, 2003, Digital orthophotography: 

Oklahoma Geographic Information Council, accessed May 

25, 2011, at http://okmaps.onenet.net/GIS_data.htm.

State of Oklahoma, 2006, Digital orthophotography: 

Oklahoma Geographic Information Council, accessed May 

25, 2011, at http://okmaps.onenet.net/GIS_data.htm.

State of Oklahoma, 2008, Digital orthophotography: 

Oklahoma Geographic Information Council, accessed May 

25, 2011, at http://okmaps.onenet.net/GIS_data.htm.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2010, USGS water data for the 

Nation: U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information 

System: Web Interface, accessed December 2, 2010, at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Collection of water samples 

(ver. 2.0): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, September, 

accessed February 2, 2011, at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/

twri9A4/.

VanLooy, J.A., and Martin, C.W., 2005, Channel and vegetation change on the Cimarron River, southwestern Kansas, 

1953–2001: Annals of the Association of American 

Geographers, v. 95, p. 727–739.

Wellmeyer, J.L., Slattery, M.C., and Phillips, J.D., 2005, 

Quantifying downstream impacts of impoundment of flow 

regime and channel planform, lower Trinity River, Texas: 

Geomorphology, v. 69, p. 1–13.

Williams, G.P., 1978, Bankfull discharge of rivers: Water 

Resources Research, v. 14, no. 6, p. 1,141–1,154.

Williams, G.P., and Wolman, M.G., 1984, Downstream 

effects of dams on alluvial rivers: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 1286, 83 p.

Publishing support provided by

Lafayette Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact: 

Director, USGS Oklahoma Water Science Center

202 NW 66th St., Bldg. 7

Oklahoma City, OK 73116

(405) 810-4400

Or visit the Oklahoma Water Science Center Web site at:

http://ok.water.usgs.gov
Lewis, Smith, Buck, and Strong—Estimation of Annual Suspended-Sediment Fluxes, 1931–95, and Evaluation of Geomorphic Changes, 1950–2010—SIR 2011–5091