U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2011–1049

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District

Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment 

within Constructed Chutes and the Main Channel at 

Upper Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, Missouri River, 

Nebraska, 2008

Characteristics of Suspended and 

Streambed Sediment within Constructed 

Chutes and the Main Channel at Upper 

Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, 

Missouri River, Nebraska, 2008

By Brenda K. Woodward and David L. Rus

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District

Open-File Report 2011–1049

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

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

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:

Woodward, B.K., and Rus, D.L., 2011, Characteristics of suspended and streambed sediment within constructed 

chutes and the main channel at Upper Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, Missouri River, Nebraska, 2008: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1049, 29 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Description of Study Sites...................................................................................................................2

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................6

Sampling Design ...................................................................................................................................6

Data-Collection Techniques................................................................................................................6

Water Samples Analyzed for Suspended-Sediment Characteristics .................................6

Turbidity .........................................................................................................................................7

Streambed-Sediment Samples..................................................................................................7

Streamflow....................................................................................................................................9

Statistical Analyses..............................................................................................................................9

Suspended- and Streambed-Sediment Characteristics .........................................................................9

Data Summaries..................................................................................................................................10

Comparative Analyses .......................................................................................................................11

Inlet-Structure Effects on Sediment Distribution .................................................................11

Changes in Sediment Characteristics between the Inlet and Outlet of the Chute .........11

Chute Effects on Sediment Characteristics in the Main Channel .....................................13

Chute Dynamics: Effect on Sediment Characteristics ........................................................14

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................16

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................17

Appendix 1. Suspended sediment Upper Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, 

Missouri River, 2008....................................................................................................................20

Appendix 2. Streambed sediment Upper Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, 

Missouri River, 2008....................................................................................................................24

Figures

1. Map showing location of study sites sampled within the Missouri River for 

this study ........................................................................................................................................3

2. 2008 aerial orthophotography showing Upper Hamburg Bend sampling locations..........4

3. 2008 aerial orthophotography showing Glovers Point Bend sampling locations ..............5

4. Graph showing relative potential for chute-river system dynamics, as 

represented by Missouri River streamflow during the operational period of 

each chute studied.......................................................................................................................6

5. Graphs showing averaged streambed grain-size distributions for each site 

sampled, Missouri River, 2008 ..................................................................................................10

6. Graph showing relation of sample size to minimum detectable difference in 

suspended-sediment concentration for four groups of tested comparisons, 

Missouri River, 2008....................................................................................................................11

7. Photographs showing freshly eroded streambank and freshly deposited 

sediment in the Upper Hamburg Bend chute following a Missouri River flood 

event, June 2008 .........................................................................................................................13
iv

Tables

1. Transects and transect-sample types collected in 2008........................................................7

2. Summary of sediment data collected by transect, 2008 ........................................................8

3. Summary of results from statistical comparisons made using paired t-tests, 

Missouri River, 2008....................................................................................................................12

4. Summary of results from statistical comparisons used to understand the 

effect of chute dynamics on sediment characteristics, Missouri River, 2008..................15

Conversion Factors

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Flow rate

meter per second (m/s) 3.281 feet per second (ft/s)

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s)

Mass

ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 28.35 gram (g) 

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg) 

Volume

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

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 

(NAVD 88).

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

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).

8. Daily suspended-sediment concentration, Missouri River at Sioux City, Iowa, 

and Missouri River at Nebraska City, Nebr., and discretely sampled 

concentrations measured for this study, May 2008 through September 2008 .................16
Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment 

within Constructed Chutes and the Main Channel at 

Upper Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, Missouri River, 

Nebraska, 2008

By Brenda K. Woodward and David L. Rus

Abstract 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, as 

part of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Mitigation Project, has constructed 17 off-channel chutes 

along the channelized Missouri River, downstream from Sioux 

City, Iowa, to increase habitat diversity. To better understand 

characteristics of suspended and streambed sediment within 

these constructed chutes, the U.S. Geological Survey investigated specific aspects of chute design and function in relation 

to sediment characteristics including: (1) effects of inlet structures; (2) changes occurring between the inlet and the outlet of 

a chute; (3) effects of chutes on sediment characteristics in the 

main channel; and (4) differences in chute dynamics between 

sampled chutes. Two chutes differing in design, location, and 

dynamics were studied, Upper Hamburg Bend near Nebraska 

City, Nebr., and Glovers Point Bend near Winnebago, Nebr. 

Each site was characterized using five or more sampling transects (two in the chute and three to four in the main channel) 

designed to bracket sediment exchanges between chutes and 

the main channel. A sixth transect was included at the Upper 

Hamburg Bend study site to account for the effects of a nontarget chute having its inlet midway between the inlet and outlet of the primary chute. Representative samples of suspended 

and streambed sediment were collected at each transect, along 

with measurements of turbidity and streamflow, between June 

and November 2008. Four sets of samples were collected at 

the Glovers Point Bend study site and five sample sets were 

collected from the Upper Hamburg Bend study site. 

Results from paired t-tests and standard t-tests indicated 

that the inlet structure design, passing inflow only from the 

top of the main-channel water column, reduced the supply of 

coarse-grained suspended sediment entering the chutes. Statistical comparisons did not indicate differences between the 

inlet and outlet of either chute; however, anecdotal evidence 

of recent bank erosion and in-channel deposition was observed 

in both chutes during the study period. Chutes had little effect 

on Missouri River main-channel sediment characteristics, 

which could be explained by the much greater streamflow of 

the main channel. Between-chute comparisons showed no 

significant differences in the suspended-sediment characteristics; however, the Upper Hamburg Bend chute had a coarser 

streambed, wider channel, and much greater streamflow than 

did the Glovers Point Bend chute. 

Introduction 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Omaha 

District, as part of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and 

Navigation Mitigation Project (BSNP), has constructed 17 offchannel chutes along the channelized Missouri River, downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. These chutes were constructed 

to increase shallow-water habitat (defined by water less than 

1.5 meters (m) deep flowing with current velocity less than 

0.75 meters per second (m/s) and determined at a streamflow 

equal to the August 50-percent flow exceedance) to mitigate 

the habitat lost through the creation and maintenance of the 

navigation channel on the main stem of the Missouri River 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000). Channel evolution is 

allowed to occur, which creates natural, shallow-water habitats 

within the chutes. Habitat that has been created must be maintained and evaluated to understand how it is being used by 

aquatic species and what geomorphic processes are working 

within these chutes. This type of information is important from 

a scientific perspective and for river management decisions. 

The primary goal of each chute project is to provide 

shallow-water habitat. Some chutes are fully constructed, 

whereas, other chutes are created by dredging a small pilot 

channel and allowing it to erode into a mature chute. Project 

design varies depending on the characteristics of land available and the chute location within the bend. Typically, chute 

inlets are designed to only allow the top portion of the Missouri River water column to enter the chute and to divert a 

maximum of 8–10 percent of the Missouri River streamflow. 

In general, current side-channel chutes, both self-maintaining 
2 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

and engineered, provide additional shallow-water, lowvelocity habitat adjacent to Missouri River bends. The habitat 

conditions found within the chutes typically can be found 

within the main channel only in limited areas (Jacobson and 

others, 2004).

Inlet-structure design is an important part of the construction of each chute. Inlet structures provide grade control for 

the chute and water control of the part of the Missouri River 

water column that enters the chute. Streambed elevation 

within the chute, as well as inlet angles, control water flow 

into the chute (Shields and Abt, 1989). The part of the water 

column diverting into the chute has a large effect on sediment transport within the chute explained by the theoretical 

distribution of sediment in the water column (Van Rijn, 1984). 

If the inlet structure is designed to only allow the top part of 

the water column into the chute, mainly fine sediment will be 

allowed into the chute (Horowitz, 2008). Therefore, the large 

grain-size fraction of the sediment load, which would otherwise fall out of suspension as velocity decreases within the 

chute and would be deposited at the mouth of the chute, is not 

allowed to enter. If the sediment transport capacity of a chute 

is not in equilibrium with the sediment supply at the inlet, the 

chute may eventually fill with sediment, alter the sediment 

regime of the main channel (Schropp, 1995; Barneveld and 

others, 1994), or capture the main channel (Slingerland and 

Smith, 1998).

A number of uncertainties are associated with chuteinlet design. The effect of control structures on the sediment 

budget within chutes of this type on the lower Missouri River 

has not been well documented, including how these structures 

affect physical habitat and erosion within the chute. Evaluation of sediment characteristics within the chutes will lead to 

an understanding of how current designs are performing. The 

effect of uncontrolled erosion within the chutes on the sediment characteristics of the Missouri River main channel also 

remains unclear. Finally, information is needed to document 

rates of chute evolution or erosion and how these affect the life 

cycle of each project. To address these uncertainties, the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the USACE, 

Omaha District, studied the characteristics of sediment at two 

bends of the Missouri River where chutes have been constructed—Upper Hamburg Bend and Glovers Point Bend.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the methods 

used to collect sediment samples and the suspended- and 

streambed-sediment characteristics of two constructed chutes 

of the Missouri River in 2008. The report presents comparisons made to investigate specific aspects of chute design and 

function in relation to sediment distribution including: (1) the 

effect of the inlet structure; (2) changes occurring between the 

inlet and the outlet of the chute; (3) the effect of the chutes 

on sediment characteristics in the main channel; and (4) the 

difference in chute dynamics between the two chutes sampled 

and the effect of sediment characteristics.

Description of Study Sites

Two chutes of differing design and dynamics were 

selected for the study (fig. 1). The first, Upper Hamburg Bend 

(UHAM) chute, is located along the right bank of the main 

channel, 891 kilometers (km) above the mouth of the Missouri 

River (or river mile 554), downstream from Nebraska City, 

Nebr. The chute has a riprap control structure at its inlet that 

diverts water from the right bank of the Missouri River main 

channel into the chute (fig. 2). Water that enters the UHAM 

chute flows for approximately 5.0 km before returning to the 

Missouri River main channel. The UHAM chute was built in 

1996 as a 3-m wide pilot channel, but has widened considerably since then with bankfull width approaching 80 m as of 

2008. UHAM chute was studied previously by Jacobson and 

others (2004), who reported the chute had increased shallowwater habitat in the bend. Jacobson and others (2004) also 

documented lateral migration of the chute during 1998–2001. 

A complicating factor in the study of sediment distribution 

through the UHAM chute-river system is the presence of a 

second chute, constructed in 2004, along the left bank of the 

main channel (fig. 2).

The second study site, Glovers Point Bend (GLOVR) 

chute, is located along the right bank of the Missouri River, 

approximately 1,147 km above the mouth (river mile 713), 

and near Winnebago, Nebr. (fig. 1). The chute was constructed 

in 2007 as a 30.5-m wide channel. A reverse-sill structure 

located in the main channel just upstream from the GLOVR 

inlet directs water flow toward the chute. The inlet is designed 

to allow water to flow into the chute from the top section of 

the Missouri River water column. The GLOVR chute flows 

for approximately 3.2 km before reconnecting with the main 

channel. The chute includes a road crossing over a culvert that 

currently serves as a grade-control structure located 0.6 km 

downstream from the chute inlet (fig. 3). Just upstream from 

the chute outlet is an inlet to a large area of backwater habitat 

to the left of the chute. 

In addition to the design differences between the two 

chute projects, streamflow differences have a substantial 

effect on chute dynamics. From a geomorphic perspective, the 

streamflow regime imposed upon each chute is an important 

factor affecting the channel evolution, because the hydraulic 

power of streamflow provides the sediment-transport mechanism by which the chutes erode or aggrade toward their 

chute-specific equilibrium state. Although streamflow within 

the two chutes is not gaged, the UHAM chute-river system has 

had greater annual and peak streamflows, and thus a greater 

possibility of geomorphic work (energy dissipated) than has 

the GLOVR chute-river system, both during the years of their 

respective existence and in terms of cumulative streamflow 

(fig. 4).
Introduction 3

Figure 1. Location of study sites sampled within the Missouri River for this study.

NEBRASKA

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

NEBRASKA

IOWA

MISSOURI

KANSAS

SOUTH DAKOTA GAVINS POINT DAM

UPPER HAMBURG BEND

Sioux City

Winnebago

Decatur

Blair

Omaha

Nebraska City

Study site

Missouri River

Channelized Missouri River

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station

and number

Base from Nebraska Department of Natural Resources 

digital data, 2005, 1:24,000

Nebraska State Plane FIPS zone 2600

Standard parallels 40°N and 43°N

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

GLOVERS POINT BEND

40°

42°

98° 96°

EXPLANATION

Study area 06807000

06807000

06484000

06601200
Base from Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, Geospatial Data Center, 2008, 1:7,720Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 14North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 KILOMETER0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 MILE

40°37′40°36′40°35′

40°36′30′′40°35′30′′

95°46′30′′ 95°46′ 95°45′30′′ 95°45′ 95°44′30′′ Chute inlet closeup

Chute outlet closeup

UHAM–MR–US

UHAM–CH–IN

UHAM–MR–MP1

Missouri River main

channel Upper Hamburg

c

h

ute

Control structure

UHAM–MR–MP2

UHAM–CH–OUT

UHAM–MR–DS

Left bank

chute UHAM–

UHAM–CH–I

Sediment sampling transectAbbreviations: UHAM, Upper Hamburg B

IN, inlet; OUT, outlet; US, upstream; M

EXPLANAT

Figure 2. 2008 aerial orthophotography showing Upper Hamburg Bend sampling locations.
Figure 3. 2008 aerial orthophotography showing Glovers Point Bend sampling locations.

Base from Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, Geospatial Data Center, 2008, 1:7,920Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 14North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 KILOMETER

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 MILE

Chute inlet closeup

Backwater inlet closeup

GLOVR–MR–DS

Culvert Culvert

Sediment sampling transectAbbreviations: GLOVR, Glovers Point B

IN, inlet; OUT, outlet; US, upstream; 

42°16′

42°15′30′′

42°15′

42°14′30′′

96°20′30′′ 96°20′ 96°19′30′′ 96°19′

GLOVR–CH–OUT

GLOVR–MR–US

GLOVR–CH–IN

GLOVR–MR–MP

GLOVR–CH–IN

EXPLANAT

Missouri

River

main

channel

Backwater

G

l

o

v

e

r

s

P

o

i

nt

Chute
6 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

500

1,500

2,500

3,500

4,500

Streamflow, in cubic meters per second 

Operational period, in years

Mean annual flow, Oct. 1–Sept. 30, Missouri River near Decatur, Nebr.

Mean annual flow, Oct. 1–Sept. 30, Missouri River near Nebraska City, Nebr.

Peak flow, Oct. 1–Sept. 30, Missouri River near Decatur, Nebr.

Peak flow, Oct. 1–Sept. 30, Missouri River near Nebraska City, Nebr.

(U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System: 

http://waterdata.usgs.giv/nwis/sw) 

EXPLANATION

Methods

The general approach of this study was to collect a 

suspended- and streambed-sediment data set that allowed 

for multiple paired comparisons between different locations 

within a site and between sites. Each site was characterized by 

a series of transects set up to bracket the effects of the chute 

on suspended sediment, and each set of transects was sampled 

on multiple occasions. At each transect suspended-sediment 

and streambed-sediment data were collected. Statistical 

comparisons focused on four main sediment-transport effects 

of chute design and function, as described in the purpose and 

scope section (inlet-structure effects, within-chute changes, 

chute effects on the main channel sediment characteristics, and 

differences in chute dynamics). 

Sampling Design

To allow the desired comparisons, each site was characterized using a series of sampling transects. Each transect 

was located to represent the sediment-transport conditions 

upstream or downstream from a location of potential 

exchanges within the chute-river system. The following specific exchanges were targeted: (1) diversion of main-channel 

water into the chute, (2) the channel-forming processes of 

erosion and deposition within the chute, and (3) the return of 

chute water back to the main channel. At each site, a minimum of five transects was required to bracket these exchange 

locations (table 1, figs. 2 and 3). Three transects were located 

on the main channel and were upstream from, at approximately the midpoint, and downstream from the chute. Two 

more transects were located within the chute—one near the 

inlet (downstream from the control structure) and one near the 

outlet. These chute transects bracketed the sediment exchanges 

associated with chute dynamics (the energy-dissipation history and potential of each site where energy dissipation is 

a function of cumulative flow, chute design, chute location, 

hydrologic regime, source sediment supplies, and chute bank 

materials) at each site. 

At the UHAM site, a left-bank chute had its inlet from 

the main channel located between the inlet and outlet of the 

right-bank chute being studied (fig. 2). In order to evaluate the 

sediment-transport effect of the right-bank chute, the effect of 

the left-bank chute had to be removed from the main-channel 

transport conditions. To do so, a sixth transect was added to 

the main channel as a second midpoint transect at the UHAM 

site to isolate the left-bank chute’s effect on transport in the 

main channel. 

During 2008, the UHAM transects were sampled on five 

separate occasions, and the GLOVR transects were sampled 

on four occasions. These sample events represented a range of 

Missouri River streamflows from 561 to 1,140 m3/s (table 2). 

Sampled flows within the chutes ranged from about 0.8 to 

172 m3/s. The first sets of samples were collected in June 

2008, and the final sets were collected in September and 

November 2008 at the GLOVR and UHAM sites, respectively.

Data-Collection Techniques

Sediment at each transect was characterized through the 

collection of representative samples of suspended and streambed sediment, the measurement of streamflow, and the determination of turbidity. All samples were collected following 

USGS protocols and are described in the following section. 

Water Samples Analyzed for SuspendedSediment Characteristics

All water samples were collected following the accepted 

protocols of the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey, variously 

dated). For wadeable transects (limited to the GLOVR chute 

during normal or low streamflows), a US DH-48 sampler 

(Davis, 2005) attached to a wading rod was transited vertically through the water column to fill the sample bottle. For 

nonwadeable transects, a US D-96 or a US DH-2 (Davis, 

2005) was transited through the water column using a crane 

Figure 4. Relative potential for chute-river system dynamics, as 

represented by Missouri River streamflow (measured at nearby 

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations) during the 

operational period of each chute studied.
Methods 7

system mounted on the bow of a boat. In all cases, a constant, 

isokinetic transit rate (Edwards and Glysson, 1999) was used 

to collect the water sample at each sampled vertical across a 

transect. The water sample was collected at the center vertical from each of 10 equal-width increments of a transect and 

composited into a polyethylene churn-splitter container. Subsequently, an aliquot was split from the composite sample and 

submitted for laboratory analysis. 

Samples were analyzed by the USGS Iowa Sediment 

Laboratory at Iowa City, Iowa, for total suspended-sediment 

concentration and the fraction of sediment mass finer than 

sand (SF) (operationally defined here as particles finer than 

0.062 millimeter (mm) in diameter). A subset of samples 

also was analyzed for grain-size distribution using a visualaccumulation-tube technique (Guy, 1969). This technique 

characterized samples by determining the corresponding 

fractions of suspended sediment finer than 0.0625, 0.125, 0.25, 

and 0.5 mm in diameter. 

Turbidity

Turbidity was measured in conjunction with the suspended-sediment sampling described previously. An aliquot 

of the composite sample was split from the churn for turbidity 

analysis. Five turbidity readings were taken of the aliquot and 

the median value was reported. Turbidity measurements were 

made using a Hach model 2100P turbidimeter (Hach Company, Loveland, Colo.). 

Streambed-Sediment Samples

Streambed-sediment samples were collected at all but 

one transect. At the UHAM site, the streambed sediment in 

the main channel and in the right-bank chute was assumed 

to be unaffected by the inlet of the left-bank chute, and thus 

no samples were collected from the transect immediately 

upstream from that inlet (transect UHAM–MR–MP1, table 1). 

Samples were collected using a US BM-54 in nonwadeable 

transects and a US BMH-53 on wadeable transects (Davis, 

2005). Streambed subsamples were collected from five points 

along a transect that corresponded to alternate points where 

suspended sediment was sampled. Occasionally, subsamples 

could not be successfully collected from one or more of the 

five points. This circumstance was most common along the 

margins of the main channel and was presumably the result of 

streambed materials (such as artificial riprap) being larger than 

the sampling orifice. The subsamples that were successfully 

collected were composited before being analyzed. 

Samples were analyzed by the USGS Iowa Sediment 

Laboratory using standard sieve analyses that determined 

the fraction of streambed sediments finer than 0.0625, 0.075, 

0.150, 0.212, 0.3, 0.425, 0.6, 1.18, 2.36, 4.75, 9.50, and 

19.0 mm in diameter. Using linear interpolation between the 

determined percentages, the diameters corresponding to the 

16th (d16), 50th (d50, or median), and 84th (d84) percentiles of 

the grain-size distribution were estimated for each sample. 

Furthermore, the heterogeneity of each sample was numerically quantified as the difference between d84 and d16, or d84–16. 

Table 1. Transects and transect-sample types collected in 2008.

[ID, identifier; UHAM, Upper Hamburg Bend; GLOVR, Glovers Point Bend; MR, Missouri River; US, upstream; MP, midpoint; DS, downstream; IN, inlet; 

OUT, outlet; R, River; NE, Nebraska; SS, suspended sediment; SB, streambed sediment; X, samples of the indicated type were collected at the indicated transect; --, samples of the indicated type were not colleccted at the indicated transect]

Site ID Transect ID Transect name U.S. Geological 

Survey station ID

Sample type

SS SB

UHAM UHAM–MR–US Missouri R at Upper Hamburg Bend, NE Upstream 403712095460601 X X

UHAM UHAM–MR–MP1 Missouri R at Upper Hamburg Bend, NE Midpoint1 403547095450101 X --

UHAM UHAM–MR–MP2 Missouri R at Upper Hamburg Bend, NE Midpoint2 403508095455501 X X

UHAM UHAM–MR–DS Missouri River at Upper Hamburg Bend, NE Downstream 403438095462501 X X

UHAM UHAM–CH–IN Upper Hamburg Bend Chute, NE Inlet 403701095460001 X X

UHAM UHAM–CH–OUT Upper Hamburg Bend Chute, NE Outlet 403455095462401 X X

GLOVR GLOVR–MR–US Missouri R at Glovers Point Bend, NE Upstream 421606096202701 X X

GLOVR GLOVR–MR–MP Missouri R at Glovers Point Bend, NE Midpoint 421455096194201 X X

GLOVR GLOVR–MR–DS Missouri R at Glovers Point Bend, NE Downstream 421410096200401 X X

GLOVR GLOVR–CH–IN Glovers Point Bend Chute, NE Inlet 421556096202201 X X

GLOVR GLOVR–CH–OUT Glovers Point Bend Chute, NE Outlet 421417096200701 X X
Table 2. Summary of sediment data collected by transect, 2008. [ID, identifier; Qmax, maximum streamflow associated with a set of samples; Qmin, minimum streamflow associated with a set of samples; m3/s, cubic meters per second; SSCt, totcentration; mg/L, milligrams per liter; SF, fraction of sample finer than 0.0625 millimeters; %, percent; NTRU, nephelometric turbidity ratio units; d50, median diameter; mm, mdiameter between the 84th and 16th percentiles of the grain-size distribution; --, not applicable] Site ID Transect ID 2Qmax, in m3/s 2Qmin, in m3/s Suspended-sediment samples Streambed-sedim

Number of samples Average SSCt, in mg/L Average SF, in % Average turbidity, in NTRU Number of samples Average d50, in mm 

UHAM UHAM–MR–US 1,140 648 14 416 47 134 5 0.46 UHAM UHAM–MR–MP1 977 643 13 474 46 160 -- -- UHAM UHAM–MR–MP2 977 643 5 536 47 137 5 .38 UHAM UHAM–MR–DS 1,140 648 5 507 52 139 5 .34 UHAM UHAM–CH–IN 172 6.65 5 304 91 141 5 .63 UHAM UHAM–CH–OUT 172 6.65 5 354 86 145 5 .44 

GLOVR GLOVR–MR–US 796 561 4 405 61 250 4 .35 GLOVR GLOVR–MR–MP 790 561 4 378 67 240 4 .37 GLOVR GLOVR–MR–DS 796 561 4 480 59 236 4 .42 GLOVR GLOVR–CH–IN 10.4 .79 4 274 89 216 4 .17 GLOVR GLOVR–CH–OUT 10.4 .79 4 365 72 251 4 .24 

1One of the associated samples was inadvertantly destroyed during shipment to the laboratory. 2Streamflow data from U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw.
Suspended- and Streambed-Sediment Characteristics 9

Streamflow

Streamflow measurements were made following USGS 

standard protocol (Oberg and others, 2005; Mueller and 

Wagner, 2008). During each sampling event, streamflow was 

measured at one main-channel transect and one chute transect. 

Streamflow for all other transects at that site was estimated 

from those two measurements. Streamflow entering the leftbank chute at the UHAM site was not measured, and for the 

stated purpose of determining the sediment-transport effects of 

the right-bank chute, was assumed to have a negligible effect 

on streamflow in the main channel. 

At nonwadeable transects, streamflow was measured 

using an acoustic Doppler current profiler in conjunction 

with a differential global positioning system receiver and a 

200 kilohertz (kHz) single-beam depth sounder. At wadeable 

transects, streamflow was measured using either an acoustic 

Doppler velocimeter or an acoustic Doppler current profiler 

mounted on a tethered boat. 

Statistical Analyses

Statistical comparison tests and corresponding significance levels derived from Student’s t distribution were used to 

evaluate the effects of each chute on sediment characteristics. 

Because there were only nine sampling events, the Student’s 

t statistic was used for these tests. The distribution of the 

t statistic is similar to a normal distribution but presumes 

more variance as a function of the sample size, thus making it 

preferable for small sample sizes such as were available in this 

study (Ott and Longnecker, 2001). Paired t-tests and standard 

t-tests with unequal variance were used to determine whether 

two subsets of samples were different from one another. Paired 

t-tests were preferred because they can detect smaller differences by removing extraneous variability (such as might be 

caused by varying streamflow conditions) from the comparisons. For paired t-tests, samples were paired by the day of 

sample collection, thus allowing for intrasite comparisons. For 

intersite and streamflow-gaging station comparisons, standard 

t-tests (adjusted for the effects of unequal variability between 

the two data sets) were used. Data subsets were declared to 

be significantly different at the 95-percent confidence level 

(alpha = 0.05). For each test result reported, the corresponding 

p-value also is reported. The p-value represents the probability that the statistical test results, or more extreme values, 

could have occurred if the null hypothesis was true. In the 

comparisons, the null hypothesis is that the two samples are 

not different. A p-value smaller than the alpha level (or rejection level) of 0.05 indicates that the statistical test outcome 

provides evidence that the null hypothesis is false, because 

the results are rare in an instant where the null hypothesis is 

true. Therefore, if the resulting p-value is less than 0.05, the 

test statistic is shown to be significant, meaning that the null 

hypothesis (the two samples being the same) is rejected and 

the two samples are declared with 95-percent confidence to be 

significantly different. 

Data were grouped into a series of subsets corresponding to testing each of four effects of the chutes on sediment 

characteristics. The main-channel transects upstream from 

the chute (<SITE IDENTIFIER (ID)>-MR-US, table 1) were 

paired to chute transects at the inlet (<SITE ID>-CH-IN) to 

determine the effects of the inlet structure. The chute transects 

at the inlet were paired to the chute transects at the outlet 

(<SITE ID>-CH-OUT) to identify any change in sediment 

characteristic within the chutes. For identifying the effects of 

the chute on main-channel sediment characteristics, two sets 

of groupings were used: (1) main-channel transects upstream 

from the chute were paired with main-channel transects 

downstream from the chute (<SITE ID>-MR-DS) to determine 

if the chutes had an overall effect on sediment characteristics 

in the main channel and (2) main-channel transects at the 

mid-point of the chute (<SITE ID>-MR-MP; MP2 at UHAM) 

were paired with main-channel transects downstream from 

the chute to determine if the chutes had a localized effect 

on sediment characteristics in the main channel. The difference in chute dynamics was tested by comparing the chute 

transects at one site with the chute transects at the other site 

(for example, UHAM–CH–OUT compared to GLOVR–CH–

OUT). Unlike the other comparisons, testing differences in 

chute dynamics could not be done using paired t-tests, and 

standard t-tests were used. Standard t-tests also were used to 

compare suspended-sediment data collected at the Missouri 

River at Sioux City, Iowa streamflow-gaging station (station 

ID 06486000) to suspended-sediment data collected at the 

Missouri River at Nebraska City, Nebr. streamflow-gaging 

station (station ID 06807000) (fig.1). Suspended-sediment 

concentration data from these streamflow-gaging stations were 

compared for the period of record, for the summer (May 1 thru 

Sept 30, 2008), and for just those days on which sampling was 

conducted at the nearby study site without accounting for differences in discharge.

Quality-control data (replicate samples) were analyzed 

for variability as the percent of deviation from the original 

sample ((sample – replicate)/sample * 100). This analysis 

gives an idea of just how variable data samples may be, even 

with the small number of quality-control samples. 

Suspended- and Streambed-Sediment 

Characteristics

In this section of the report, results for each stated purpose are presented and discussed, following an initial summarization of results. The results indicate that the inlet structure 

does affect sediment characteristics within each chute. In 

contrast, changes in sediment characteristics within each 

chute and chute contributions to sediment characteristics of 

the Missouri River main channel were not significant at times 

when samples were collected. Likewise, no significant differences in suspended sediment were found between the two 
10 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

chutes, despite their differing dynamics. However, differences 

between chutes in streambed sediment were detected.

Samples were collected to characterize a range of 

streamflow conditions (table 2) in an effort to understand 

a wide range of sediment transport conditions within each 

chute. However, in early June 2008, the lower Missouri River, 

including the Upper Hamburg Bend reach, was carrying high 

flows that peaked at a discharge of 3,766 m3/s (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009). This flow is greater than a 5-year flood and 

less than a 10-year flood (based on analysis using PeakFQ 

[Flynn and others, 2006]), and the discharge is exceeded 

only 0.5 percent of the time in the streamflow record. Data 

collected during this high flow would have been valuable 

in understanding the extremes of sediment transport within 

the UHAM chute, but the sites during these conditions were 

unsafe, and access was not feasible. Samples were collected 

in early June 2008 at Glovers Point Bend during high-flow 

conditions (appendixes 1 and 2). 

Data Summaries

In total, 51 suspended-sediment samples were collected, 

of which two were concurrent-replicate samples to evaluate field variability (table 2, appendix 1). Three samples 

(including one of the replicates) were destroyed in shipment 

before analysis. Analytical results from the remaining replicate 

sample indicated variability of approximately 10 percent for 

total suspended-sediment concentration (SSCt) and 8 percent 

for the fraction of sediment mass finer than sand (SF) (operationally defined here as particles finer than 0.0625 mm in 

diameter).

Forty-seven streambed samples were collected, including two concurrent replicates (table 2, appendix 2). Results 

from the two replicate samples indicated, on average, 10 percent variability in d50 and 26 percent variability in d84–16. In 

streambed-sediment samples, there was greater variabiity associated with coarser materials. Averaged (for all sample dates 

for a single transect) streambed grain-size distributions (GSD) 

were very similar with only two exceptions, the GLOVR 

chute GSD and the UHAM–CH–IN GSD (fig. 5). Averaged 

(for all sample dates for a single transect) grain-size distributions indicate mostly similar streambeds in the Missouri 

River, so one average is used to represent all three sampled 

Missouri River transects at each site. The chute transect that 

had a streambed GSD most similar to that of its corresponding 

main-channel transects was UHAM–CH–OUT (fig. 5). The 

graphical summary indicates that the average streambed GSD 

for both GLOVR chute transects was finer than the GLOVR 

Figure 5. Averaged streambed grain-size distributions for each site sampled, Missouri River, 2008.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Particle size diameter, in millimeters

A

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Particle size diameter, in millimeters

B

Percent of sample finer than given diameter

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent of sample finer than given diameter

Average of all GLOVR–MR samples

Average of all GLOVR–CH–IN samples

Average of all GLOVR–CH–OUT samples

Abbreviations: 

GLOVR, Glovers Point; MR, Missouri 

River; CH, chute; IN, inlet; OUT, outlet 

Average of all UHAM–MR samples

Average of all UHAM–CH–IN samples

Average of all UHAM–CH–OUT samples

Abbreviations: 

UHAM, Upper Hamburg Bend; 

MR, Missouri River; CH, chute; 

IN, inlet; OUT, outlet 

EXPLANATION EXPLANATION
Suspended- and Streambed-Sediment Characteristics 11

main-channel transects. Additionally, the streambed at the inlet 

of the UHAM chute was more heterogeneous than all other 

transects. This is likely the result of a large depositional zone 

(created by slow-moving water comprising approximately 

one-fourth of the transect) along the northeastern end of the 

transect, and this transect probably is not representative of the 

chute as a whole. 

Comparative Analyses

In general, the main detectable difference in sediment 

characteristics was related to the inlet structures’ effect on the 

sediment supply within the chute. Comparisons of suspendedsediment concentrations from chute inlets to chute outlets did 

not reveal substantial erosive or depositional processes occurring in the chutes, though anecdotal evidence, such as photographs and observations, indicated otherwise. Photographs and 

observations at each chute following high-flow events documented substantial bank erosion and deposition within both 

chutes. Sediment transport in the main channel showed no 

dependence on chute processes. Suspended-sediment concentrations were similar in both chutes, but streambed-sediment 

size and heterogeneity were different. The streambed sediment 

in the UHAM chute was similar to that of the Missouri River 

main-channel streambed sediment. 

The small number of samples constrained the statistical 

power to detect subtle differences. For example, given the 

measured variance in the data, figure 6 shows the magnitude 

of this constraint for SSCt. The improvement in detectability 

of differences provided by the reduction of extraneous variance in comparisons made using paired-sample tests is shown 

in figure 6. 

Inlet-Structure Effects on Sediment Distribution

The inlet structures of both chutes reduced the supply 

of suspended sand entering chutes while leaving the supply 

of suspended particles finer than sand (particles finer than 

0.0625 mm in diameter hereinafter called fines) unchanged in 

the water column (table 3). This result was expected based on 

the sediment transport theory, and because only water from 

the top of the main-channel water column will pass the inlet 

structures. The structures had no detectable effect on turbidity. 

This may indicate that, as measured in this study, turbidity was 

affected very little by the sand fraction of suspended sediment. 

The completion of hydrographic surveys in conjunction with 

the suspended- and streambed-sediment sampling would have 

added strength to the conclusions that the suspended-sand load 

was being reduced by the control structure and not by deposition within the chute at the inlet. However, comparisons of the 

Missouri River streambed upstream from chute inlets to the 

chute inlet streambed indicated that the inlet structure had no 

significant effect on grain-size distribution in deposited materials, the exception being an increase in grain-size heterogeneity 

in the UHAM chute (table 3). This result is likely an artifact 

of a nonrepresentatively located transect (UHAM–CH–IN). 

When streambed average GSD curves were examined, the 

GLOVR-CH streambed was on average finer than that of 

the Missouri River at GLOVR and at UHAM. However, the 

GLOVR–MR–US streambed was not significantly different 

from the GLOVR–CH–IN streambed when comparing d50, 

heterogeneity (d84–16), or the fraction of sediment mass finer 

than sand (SF). 

Changes in Sediment Characteristics between 

the Inlet and Outlet of the Chute

Although the chutes were designed to allow channel 

forming processes to evolve longitudinally as they approach 

equilibrium, only two of the statistical comparisons indicated 

significant differences in sediment characteristics between 

the transects at the inlet and outlet of the chutes at the time of 

sampling (table 3). Of the suspended-sediment characteristics 

tested, only SSCt for both sites pooled showed a significantly 

higher concentration at the outlet. The other significant difference was related to the aforementioned fines patch along 

the UHAM–CH–IN streambed. Nonetheless, there was 

physical evidence that channel evolution was occurring at 

both sites. For example, following a June 2008 flood event 

at the UHAM site, numerous examples of freshly eroded 

Figure 6. Relation of sample size to minimum detectable 

difference in suspended-sediment concentration for four groups 

of tested comparisons, Missouri River, 2008. Detectable difference in suspended-sediment concentration, in milligrams per liter

Number of samples

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 5 10 15 20 25

Inlet structure—Paired t-test

Within chute—Paired t-test

Chute effects on main channel—Paired t-test

Between chute—Standard t-test

Largest number of samples attained by the study

EXPLANATION
12 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

Table 3. Summary of results from statistical comparisons made using paired t-tests, Missouri River, 2008.

[Transect groups represent a subset of transect-level data and may include both sites or each site individually; <Site ID>-MR-MP at UHAM site refers to 

UHAM–MR–MP2; n, number of samples; p-value, probability value (italic); d, mean of differences between the paired groupings (group 1 - group 2); 

SSCt, suspended-sediment concentration, total; mg/L, milligrams per liter; SSC<0.062, suspended-sediment concentration of particles finer than 0.062 millimeters (mm) in diameter; SSC>0.062, suspended-sediment concentration of particles 0.062 mm or larger in diameter; SS SF, suspended-sediment fraction finer than 

sand, that is, finer than 0.062 mm in diameter; %, percent; NTRU, nephelometric turbidity ratio units; SSLt, suspended-sediment load, total; ton/d, tons per day; 

SSL>0.062, suspended-sediment load of particles 0.062 mm or larger in diameter; SSL<0.062, suspended-sediment load of particles finer than 0.062 mm in diameter; 

d50, median streambed diameter; mm, millimeters; d84–16, difference in diameter between the 84th and 16th percentiles of the streambed grain-size distribution, in 

millimeters; SB SF, streambed sediment finer than sand; --, insignificant difference]

Transect group 1 Transect group 2 Constituent

Both sites GLOVR SITE UHAM SITE

n p-value d n p-value d n p-value d

Comparisons related to the effects of the inlet structure

<SITE ID>-MR-US <SITE ID>-CH-IN SSCt (mg/L) 8 0.002 149 4 0.048 132 4 0.055 --

SSC<0.062 (mg/L) 8 .1143 -- 4 .2138 -- 4 .4603 --

SSC>0.062 (mg/L) 8 .0025 105 4 .0031 65 4 .0284 145

SS SF (%) 8 .0046 -30 4 .0754 -- 4 .0711 --

Turbidity (NTRU) 9 .4429 -- 4 .2931 -- 5 .4766 --

d50 9 .9046 -- 4 .0718 -- 5 .2925 --

d84–16 9 .1145 -- 4 .0922 -- 5 .0356 -0.17

SB SF (%) 9 .4989 -- 4 .445 -- 5 .9713 --

Comparisons related to changes within the chute

<SITE ID>-CH-IN <SITE ID>-CH-OUT SSCt (mg/L) 9 0.044 -68 4 0.147 -- 5 0.259 --

SSLt (ton/d) 9 .1475 -- 4 .3092 -- 5 .1728 --

SSL>0.062 (ton/d) 9 .1531 -- 4 .3622 -- 5 .1547 --

SSL<0.062 (ton/d) 9 .1426 -- 4 .1078 -- 5 .1887 --

Turbidity (NTRU) 9 .3121 -- 4 .4078 -- 5 .6393 --

d50 9 .3522 -- 4 .2751 -- 5 .1534 --

d84–16 9 .057 -- 4 .3767 -- 5 .0261 2.00

SB SF (%) 9 .3425 -- 4 .5107 -- 5 .3739 --

Comparisons related to the effects of the chutes on the main channel

<SITE ID>-MR-US <SITE ID>-MR-DS SSLt (ton/d) 8 0.263 -- 4 0.446 -- 4 0.468 --

SSL>0.062 (ton/d) 8 .3597 -- 4 .4423 -- 4 .7297 --

SSL<0.062 (ton/d) 8 .507 -- 4 .4014 -- 4 .3840 --

d50 9 .5059 -- 4 .5038 -- 5 .0954 --

d84–16 9 .3109 -- 4 .1100 -- 5 .1819 --

SB SF (%) 9 .1536 -- 4 .4807 -- 5 .2710 --

<SITE ID>-MR-MP <SITE ID>-MR-DS SSCt (mg/L) 9 .651 -- 4 .338 -- 5 .115 --

SSLt (ton/d) 9 .1544 -- 4 .3453 -- 5 .2813 --

d50 9 .9024 -- 4 .1029 -- 5 .3960 --

d84–16 9 .5296 -- 4 .0713 -- 5 .7945 --

SB SF (%) 9 .3162 -- 4 1.0000 -- 5 .2835 --
Suspended- and Streambed-Sediment Characteristics 13

streambanks (fig. 7A) and freshly deposited sediment (fig. 7B) 

were observed in the chute. Additionally, SSCt and turbidity 

increased downstream along the GLOVR chute during the 

high-streamflow event measured on June 5, 2008, but showed 

less variability during lower streamflows (appendix 1). 

The discrepancy between the measured data and the 

anecdotal evidence (fig. 7A and 7B) indicates that the datasets 

may have been inadequate for these particular comparisons. 

Increasing the number of samples would have improved 

statistical robustness (fig. 6), but the data need to represent 

time periods in which geomorphic processes were active to 

more adequately characterize their effectiveness within the 

chutes. Many geomorphic processes, streambank erosion 

in particular, occur over short, discrete time intervals when 

energy thresholds are met (Schumm and others, 1984) rather 

than as continuous processes for which our sampling design 

was better suited. Localized events may further complicate the 

issue of geomorphic processes within Missouri River chutes. 

For example, localized rainfall (affecting an area of 259 square 

kilometers [km2] around a chute) may saturate and erode chute 

streambanks but have a negligible effect on chute streamflow, 

which is regulated and drains an area that is three orders of 

magnitude larger. A more intensive study, including sediment 

sampling throughout and immediately following a large storm, 

may have discriminated differences related to sediment transport more successfully. 

Though not reflected in the data compiled for this study, 

differences were observed between the two chutes that may 

have been related to the chute geometry, interior structure at 

the GLOVR site, and physical location in relation to the mainchannel and within the Missouri River system. During periods 

of high flow in the Missouri River, streamflow in parts of the 

GLOVR chute could be characterized as backwater-affected, 

apparently caused by a short reach of anabranched channels of 

shallow, flowing water (fig. 3). The cause of this shallowness 

was not investigated in this study, but the reach appeared to 

be acting as a downstream control on streamflow in the chute 

during the study period. Assessing the hydraulic conditions of 

the chute was outside the scope of the sampling design, and 

further investigation of chute hydraulics at the GLOVR site 

is needed. In contrast, the UHAM site was characterized by 

freely flowing water (with the exception of the depositional 

zone along the left bank in the proximity of the inlet) as might 

be expected from partial upstream control by submerged 

weir conditions.

Chute Effects on Sediment Characteristics in the 

Main Channel

Although the effects of geomorphic processes in the 

chutes were inherently different from those of the main channel because of different dynamics and unprotected banks, the 

chutes had no detectable effect on the sediment characteristic 

in the main channel. This was true for the overall chute effect 

(main-channel comparisons between transects upstream and 

downstream from the chute) and the downstream effect of 

chute contributions into the main channel (main-channel 

comparisons between the midpoint transect and downstream 

transect), and for suspended-sediment and streambed characteristics (table 3). These results support the hypothesis that the 

sediment contributions from the chutes do not significantly 

affect the sediment budget of the Missouri River. However, the 

same limitations that applied to the analysis within the chutes 

also applied to these comparisons, albeit to a lesser extent, 

Figure 7. Photographs showing (A) freshly eroded streambank and (B) freshly deposited sediment in the Upper Hamburg Bend chute 

following a Missouri River flood event, June 2008. (Photographs by Dave Rus, U.S. Geological Survey.)
14 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

because streamflow is so much greater in the main channel as 

compared to the chutes. 

Suspended-sediment transport within the UHAM main 

channel did not appear to be affected by the left-bank chute 

inlet based on comparisons of suspended sediment in the 

main channel upstream and downstream from all chute inlets 

sampled. For the 10 pairs of samples collected and analyzed 

to bracket a chute inlet, there was no significant difference in 

any tested variable between the “upstream from inlet” set and 

the “downstream from inlet” set when data were pooled across 

sites. The tested variables were SSCt, suspended-sand concentration (SSC>0.065), percent of sediment finer than sand (SF), 

and turbidity. 

Chute Dynamics: Effect on Sediment 

Characteristics 

Chute dynamics refer to the energy-dissipation history 

and potential of each site; energy dissipation is a function 

of cumulative flow, chute design, chute location, hydrologic 

regime, source sediment supplies, and chute-bank materials. 

Comparisons between the sites to investigate differences in 

sediment characteristics that may indicate effects of different 

chute dynamics identified significant differences in streambed 

sediment but not suspended sediment (table 4). Differences 

in stream width and discharge also were tested because these 

physical attributes play a role in sediment transport and channel evolution. Wetted width and discharge varied significantly 

between the two chutes but not between the main channels 

(table 4, discharge not shown in table 4 because only one discharge measurement was made within the chute during each 

sampling trip). UHAM had greater stream width and much 

higher discharge (table 4). 

None of the suspended-sediment characteristics (SSCt, 

SF, and turbidity) were significantly different between the two 

chutes for any of the transect groups tested (table 4). These 

intersite comparisons focused on the chutes, but also included 

the upstream transects of the main channel to verify that differences between the two chutes were not a result of different 

suspended-sediment concentrations in the water being supplied to the chutes from the main channel. These main-channel 

comparisons indicated that the supply of suspended sediment 

was similar for both chutes. This was unexpected given that 

a large tributary, the Platte River, contributes sediment to the 

Missouri River between the sites (fig. 1). The USGS operates streamflow-gaging stations—Missouri River at Sioux 

City, Iowa (06486000), and Missouri River at Nebraska City, 

Nebr. (06807000)—relatively near the sampling sites where 

suspended-sediment samples are collected routinely (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2009). Daily sediment data from these 

stream gages were analyzed to support and explain the above 

results. The Missouri River at Nebraska City typically had 

a much greater suspended-sediment concentration than did 

the Missouri River at Sioux City during the summer (May 1 

through September 30) of 2008 as shown on figure 8. Samples 

collected from UHAM and GLOVR generally were similar in 

suspended-sediment concentrations to the streamflow-gaging 

station nearest the site, as shown on figure 8. The suspendedsediment concentration measured in the Missouri River at 

GLOVR on June 5 was much higher than that measured at 

Sioux City, most likely because the Floyd River (not shown), 

which enters the Missouri between the Sioux City streamflowgaging station and the GLOVR study site, was contributing 

high flows. When suspended-sediment concentrations from 

the period of record (water years 1972 to 1976, 1992 to 2000, 

and 2004 to 2008 at Sioux City and water years 1972 to 1976, 

and 1992 to 2008 at Nebraska City) at each streamflow-gaging 

station are compared using a standard t-test with unequal variance, the difference was significant (p-value of 0). When daily 

suspended-sediment concentrations from the two streamflowgaging stations for the period May 1, 2008 through Sept 30, 

2008 were compared using the standard t-test with unequal 

variance, the difference was again significant (p-value of 

4.37x10-11). However, if the streamflow-gaging station data set 

is restricted to the days when sampling occurred at GLOVR 

and UHAM for this study, the SSCt at the two streamflowgaging stations was not different (p-value of 0.24 using a 

standard t-test with unequal variance). These results verify that 

samples collected and analyzed for the study sites were representative, but because of when the samples were collected, 

the samples did not represent the longer-term difference in 

suspended-sediment concentrations between these Missouri 

River sites. 

Though the fraction of fine particles in the streambed was 

similar at both chutes, there were significant differences in 

the overall GSD between the two chutes. Streambed d50 at the 

UHAM chute, for the average of 10 samples collected at both 

transects combined, was 0.34 mm greater than that for the 

GLOVR chute, with an average of 8 samples collected at both 

transects. This result also was evident for separate comparisons of sample groupings for the transects near the inlet and 

outlet of the chutes (table 4). Comparisons of streambed d84–16

indicated that the UHAM chute was significantly more heterogeneous than was the GLOVR chute for the combined, outlet, 

and inlet data sets. As with suspended sediment, there was no 

significant difference in streambed sediment being supplied 

to each of the chutes based on comparisons between the two 

MR-US transects. 

Though not tested explicitly, the streambed of the UHAM 

chute appeared to more closely resemble the main channel 

than did the GLOVR chute’s streambed. This was further demonstrated by differences in the streambed GSD curves (fig. 5). 

For the two transects in the GLOVR chute, the shapes of the 

curves were similar to all the other nine transects sampled in 

the study but were shifted to the left, indicating a finer streambed with similar heterogeneity. 

In addition to the sediment characteristics compared 

for the study, there were two clear differences observed in 

the physical characteristics of the chutes that likely played 

important roles in sediment transport—chute wetted width 

and streamflow. The UHAM chute was observed to be much 
Table 4. Summary of results from statistical comparisons used to understand the effect of chute dynamics on sediment characteristics, Missouri Riv[UHAM, Upper Hamburg Bend; GLOVR, Glovers Point Bend; CH, Chute; IN, inlet; OUT, outlet; COMB, combined inlet and outlet; n1, number of samples from UHAM site; GLOVR site; p-value, probability value (italic); d, mean of differences between the sites (group listed first - group listed second); SSCt, suspended-sediment concentration, totalSS SF, suspended sediment finer than sand, that is, finer than 0.062 mm in diameter; %, percent; d50, median streambed sediment diameter; mm, millimeters; d84–16, difference in 16th percentiles of the streambed grain-size distribution; SB SF, streambed sediment finer than sand; NTRU, nephelometric turbidity ratio units; ft, feet; --, insignificant differen

Constituent

UHAM–CH–IN compared to 

GLOVR–CH–IN

UHAM–CH–OUT compared to 

GLOVR–CH–OUT

UHAM-CH-COMB compared to 

GLOVR-CH-COMB

UHA

n1 n2 p-value d n1 n2 p-value d n1 n2 p-value d n1 

SSCt (mg/L) 5 4 0.904 -- 5 4 0.970 -- 10 8 0.956 -- 4 

SS SF (%) 5 4 .7016 -- 5 4 .3057 -- 10 8 .2645 -- 4 Turbidity (NTRU) 5 4 .7064 -- 5 4 .6600 -- 10 8 .5162 -- 5 d50 (mm) 5 4 .0340 0.47 5 4 .0437 0.20 10 8 .0027 0.34 5 d84–16 (mm) 5 4 .0080 2.97 5 4 .0202 .88 10 8 .0021 1.83 5 SB SF (%) 5 4 .4968 -- 5 4 .8375 -- 10 8 .4651 -- 5 Wetted width (ft) 5 4 .0002 248 5 4 .0363 68 10 8 .0001 158 5 
16 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

wider than the GLOVR chute. Though wetted width measurements were collected at each transect, as required for 

discharge and water-quality sampling, these widths may not 

be representative of the average width throughout the chute. 

Nonetheless, the UHAM chute was found to be significantly 

wider than the GLOVR chute (table 4). Streamflow also was 

significantly greater (p-value of 0.0293, not shown in table 4 

because only one discharge measurement was made within the 

chute during each sampling trip) at the UHAM chute than the 

GLOVR chute. At 106 m3/s, streamflow in the UHAM chute 

was more than 19 times greater, on average, than the GLOVR 

chute. The percentage of main-channel streamflow entering 

each chute was different between the two sites as well. At 

the GLOVR study site, the greatest percentage of upstream 

flow diverted into the chute was 1.33 percent on June 6, 2008, 

when the main channel was carrying 782 m3/s and the chute 

was carrying 10.4 m3/s. GLOVR chute carried from 0.14 to 

1.33 percent (1.33, 0.14, 0.88, and 0.54 percent on June 5, 

July 2, September 3, and September 12, respectively) of the 

main-channel flow. The greatest percentage of upstream flow 

diverted into the UHAM chute was 15.6 percent, on June 23, 

2008, when the main channel was carrying 1,104 m3/s and the 

chute was carrying 172 m3/s. UHAM chute carried from 1.03 

to 15.6 percent (15.6, 14.4, 11.4, 9.15, and 1.03 percent on 

June 23, July 1, August 14, September 11, and November 25, 

respectively) of the main-channel flow measured for these 

sampling events. 

Figure 8. Daily suspended-sediment concentration, Missouri River at Sioux City, Iowa, and Missouri River at Nebraska City, Nebr., and 

discretely sampled concentrations measured for this study, May 2008 through September 2008.

EXPLANATION

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

4/22/2008 5/12/2008 6/1/2008 6/21/2008 7/11/2008 7/31/2008 8/20/2008 9/9/2008 9/29/2008 10/19/2008

Average total daily suspended-sediment concentration, in milligrams per liter

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 06486000 

Missouri River at Sioux City, Iowa

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station 06807000 

Missouri River at Nebraska City, Nebr.

Glovers Point Bend Missouri River average

Upper Hamburg Bend Missouri River average

As demonstrated by differences in streambed material, 

width, and streamflow, the chute dynamics at UHAM more 

closely resembled the main channel than those characteristics 

at GLOVR in the specific parameters measured. This may 

reflect the greater amount of geomorphic work or energy dissipated throughout the years of operation of the UHAM chute 

as compared to the GLOVR chute. However, these differences 

also could be explained by differences in chute design, water 

or sediment supply, or differences in location and streambank 

materials that affect the amount of geomorphic work done 

within a chute. 

Summary and Conclusions 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has constructed 

17 off-channel chutes along the channelized Missouri River 

to increase shallow water habitat that has been lost. Currently, 

2008, there are many uncertainties concerning the functioning of these chute projects. This research investigated specific 

aspects of chute design and function in relation to sediment 

characteristics including: (1) the effects of inlet structures; 

(2) changes occurring within the chutes; (3) the effects of 

chutes on sediment characteristics in the main channel; and 

(4) differences in chute dynamics between the two chutes. 

The effect of side-channel chutes on sediment transport in the 
References Cited 17

Missouri River was studied for two sites located on the lower 

Missouri River at Upper Hamburg Bend near Nebraska City, 

Nebr. (UHAM), and at Glovers Point Bend near Winnebago, 

Nebr. (GLOVR). Each site was characterized using a minimum of five sampling transects (two in the chute and three 

in the main channel) designed to bracket sediment exchanges 

between the chutes and the main channel. A sixth transect was 

included at the UHAM site to bracket a nontarget chute inlet 

midway between the primary chute inlet and outlet. Gradecontrol structures at UHAM have recently (2009) been modified, so results for 2008 sampling may no longer adequately 

describe sediment characteristics at this site.

A temporal series of representative water and streambedsediment samples were collected at each transect in conjunction with streamflow and turbidity measurements between 

June and November 2008. Five sample sets were collected 

at the UHAM site and four sample sets were collected at 

the GLOVR site. Water samples were analyzed for total 

suspended-sediment concentration and for the sediment fraction finer than 0.062 millimeters, and streambed samples were 

analyzed for grain-size distribution. Paired t-tests and standard 

t-tests were used to compare sets of transects grouped according to the respective purposes of the study. 

As expected, the suspended-sediment supply at the inlet 

structure from the top part of the main-channel water column 

reduced the amount of coarse suspended sediments while 

leaving the fine sediments unaffected in the chutes. Despite 

significant differences in suspended-sediment concentration 

(SSCt) and suspended-sand concentration (SSC>0.062) between 

the main-channel transects upstream from the chute (MR-US) 

and chute inlets, bed material median size did not differ. Statistical results did not indicate differences between the inlets 

and outlets of the chutes; however, evidence of recent channel 

evolution was observed in both chutes. The insignificant effect 

of the chutes on sediment characteristics of the main channel 

was probably related to the much greater streamflow of the 

Missouri River main channel as compared to the chutes. There 

were no significant differences in the suspended-sediment 

characteristics between the two sites. Differences in chute 

dynamics at the UHAM site led to a coarser streambed, greater 

wetted width, and much greater streamflow in the chute than at 

the GLOVR site. U.S. Geological Survey daily suspended-sediment data from nearby streamflow-gaging stations indicated 

that suspended-sediment concentrations are typically different between the study sites, as would be expected because of 

intervening large tributaries such as the Platte River. However, 

when streamflow-gaging-station sediment data were compared only for those days when samples were collected at the 

UHAM and GLOVR study sites, there was no detectable difference between the sites. 

The main difference detected by this study was that 

suspended sediment at the chute inlets was finer than that of 

the Missouri River main channel upstream of the inlets. It was 

concluded that the inlet structures have a significant effect 

on the sediment supply to the chutes. In addition, the results 

indicated that the chutes had little effect on the sediment 

characteristics in the main channel. In general, there were 

few differences detected that were not already expected based 

on sediment-transport theory. However, several expected 

differences (based on theory or field observations) were not 

detected by the statistical comparisons, mainly differences 

in SSCt between the chute inlets and outlets when data were 

tested for each site separately, as well as, differences in SSCt

between the main channel at UHAM compared to SSCt in the 

main channel at GLOVR. This discrepancy may have been the 

result of a small number of samples, the timing of samples, 

and the samples representing different portions of the hydrograph that could be remedied by continued monitoring of these 

sites under the same sample design with a focus on sampling 

during events. 

References Cited

Barneveld, H.J., Nieuwkamer, R.L.J., and Klaassen, G.J., 

1994, Secondary channels—Opportunities for and limitations of habitat restoration: Water Science and Technology, 

v. 29, no. 3, p. 335–345.

Davis, B.E., 2005, A guide to the proper selection and use of 

federally approved sediment and water-quality samplers: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005–1087, 20 p.

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, 

chap. C2, 89 p.

Flynn, K.M., Kirby, W.H., and Hummel, P.R., 2006, User’s 

manual for program PeakFQ, Annual Flood Frequency 

Analysis Using Bulletin 17B Guidelines: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques and Methods, book 4, chap. B4, 42 p.

Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for sediment 

analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of WaterResources Investigations, book 5, chap. Cl, 58 p.

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

and sediment-associated trace element and nutrient fluxes: 

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

Jacobson, R.B., Johnson, H.E., Laustrup, M.S., D’Urso, G.J., 

and Reuter, J.M., 2004, Physical habitat dynamics in four 

side-channel chutes, Lower Missouri River: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open–File Report 2004–1071, 66 p.

Mueller, D.S., and Wagner, C.R., 2008, Measuring discharge 

with acoustic Doppler current profilers from a moving 

boat: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, 

chap. 3A–22, 73 p.
18 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

Oberg, K.A., Morlock, S.E., and Caldwell, W.S., 2005, 

Quality-assurance plan for discharge measurements using 

acoustic Doppler current profilers: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5183, 35 p.

Ott, R.L., and Longnecker, Michael, 2001, An introduction 

to statistical methods and data analysis (5th ed.): Pacific 

Grove, Calif., Duxbury, 1,152 p.

Schropp, M.H.I., 1995, Principles of designing secondary 

channels along the River Rhine for the benefit of ecological restoration: Water Science and Technology, v. 31, no. 8, 

p. 379–382.

Schumm, S.A., Harvey, M.D., and Watson, C.C., 1984, Incised 

Channels—Morphology, Dynamics and Control: Littleton, 

Colo., Water Resources Publications, 200 p.

Shields, R.D., Jr., and Abt, S.T., 1989, Sediment deposition in 

cutoff meander bends and implications for effective management—Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, v. 4, 

p. 381–396.

Slingerland, Rudy, and Smith, N.D., 1998, Necessary conditions for a meandering-river avulsion: Geology, v. 26, no. 5, 

p. 435–438.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000, Biological opinion on 

the operation of the Missouri River main stem reservoir 

system, operation and maintenance of the Missouri River 

bank stabilization and navigation project, and operation of 

the Kansas River reservoir system: Minneapolis, Minn., 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 286 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2009, USGS Surface-water data for 

the Nation, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw, accessed 

November 1, 2009. 

U.S. Geological Survey, variously dated, National field 

manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1–A9, accessed December 15, 2009 

at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A. (Chapter updates and 

revisions are ongoing and are summarized at http://water.

usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/mastererrata.html).

Van Rijn, L.C., 1984, Sediment transport—Part II, Suspended 

load transport: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 110, 

no. 11, p. 1,613–1,641. 
Appendixes
20 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

Appendix 1. Suspended sediment Upper Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, Missouri River, 2008.

[STAID, station identification number; yyyymmdd, date format in 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day; hhmm, 24-hour time format in 2-digit hour and 

2-digit minute; USGS National Water Information System parameter numbers given in parentheses; +/-, plus or minus; nm, nanometer; NTRU, nephelometric 

turbidity ratio units; R, River; NE, Nebraska; --, not measured; EWI, equal width increment; b, sample container broken during shipment prior to analysis]

Transect name U.S. Geological 

Survey STAID

DATES, 

yyyymmdd

TIMES, 

hhmm

Temperature, air, 

degrees 

Celsius 

(00020)

Discharge, 

instantaneous, 

cubic feet per 

second 

(00061)

Temperature, water, 

degrees 

Celsius 

(00010)

Turbidity, water, 

unfiltered, broad band 

light source (400–680 nm), 

detectors at multiple 

angles including 

90 +/- 30 degrees, ratiometric correction, NTRU 

(63676)

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Downstream

403438095462501 20080623 1540 -- 39,000 -- 300 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Downstream

403438095462501 20080701 1310 -- 40,300 -- 240 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Downstream

403438095462501 20080814 1430 24.6 33,600 28.1 63 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Downstream

403438095462501 20080911 1300 -- 30,500 21.1 48 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Downstream

403438095462501 20081125 1410 10.3 22,900 5.4 45 

Upper Hamburg Chute, NE Outlet 403455095462401 20080623 1430 -- 6,080 -- 320 

Upper Hamburg Chute, NE Outlet 403455095462401 20080701 1150 -- 5,810 25.2 270 

Upper Hamburg Chute, NE Outlet 403455095462401 20080814 1515 29.7 3,820 30.0 64 

Upper Hamburg Chute, NE Outlet 403455095462401 20080911 1430 -- 2,790 22.8 46 

Upper Hamburg Chute, NE Outlet 403455095462401 20081125 1140 5.2 235 6.0 23 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Midpoint2

403508095455501 20080623 1620 -- 32,900 -- 300 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Midpoint2

403508095455501 20080701 1350 29.6 34,500 24.3 230 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Midpoint2

403508095455501 20080701 1357a -- 34,500 -- 230 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Midpoint2

403508095455501 20080814 1345 24.6 29,800 28.1 63 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Midpoint2

403508095455501 20080911 1200 -- 27,700 21.1 46 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Midpoint2

403508095455501 20081125 1450 11.1 22,700 4.7 46 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Midpoint1

403547095450101 20080623 1710 -- 32,900 -- 310 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Midpoint1

403547095450101 20080701 1530 31.9 34,500 24.3 220 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Midpoint1

403547095450101 20080814 1300 24.6 29,800 28.1 64 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Midpoint1

403547095450101 20080911 1130 -- 27,700 21.1 46 

Upper Hamburg Chute, NE Inlet 403701095460001 20080623 1140 -- 6,080 26.0 300 

Upper Hamburg Chute, NE Inlet 403701095460001 20080701 1030 27.8 5,810 24.8 250 

Upper Hamburg Chute, NE Inlet 403701095460001 20080814 1600 29.7 3,820 30.0 66 

Upper Hamburg Chute, NE Inlet 403701095460001 20080911 1530 -- 2,790 22.8 50 

Upper Hamburg Chute, NE Inlet 403701095460001 20081125 1000 5.2 235 6.0 39 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Upstream

403712095460601 20080623 1750 -- 39,000 -- 310 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Upstream

403712095460601 20080701 1620 -- 40,300 24.5 210 
Appendix 1 21

Stream 

width, 

feet 

(00004)

Sampler type 

(84164)

Sampling 

method, 

code 

(82398)

Suspended 

sediment, 

fall diameter 

(deionized water), 

percent smaller 

than 0.0625 millimeters 

(70342)

Suspended 

sediment, 

fall diameter 

(deionized water), 

percent smaller 

than 0.125 millimeters 

(70343)

Suspended 

sediment, 

fall diameter 

(deionized water), 

percent smaller 

than 0.25 millimeters 

(70344)

Suspended 

sediment, 

fall diameter 

(deionized water), 

percent smaller 

than 0.5 millimeters 

(70345)

Suspended 

sediment, 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.0625 millimeters 

(70331)

Total 

suspendedsediment 

concentration, 

milligrams per 

liter 

(80154)

780 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 79 819

795 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 75 692

763 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 42 358

765 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 30 43 85 100 -- 351

761 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 33 43 77 100 -- 314

165 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 86 774

177 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 81 692

175 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 84 180

164 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 82 99

164 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 99 25

780 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 72 894

825 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 75 673

825 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 69 741

640 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 40 367

645 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 31 47 88 100 -- 333

656 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 15 25 87 100 -- 412

762 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 72 861

780 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 66 717

780 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 44 319

740 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- b b

300 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 94 612

378 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 85 577

277 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 89 162

268 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 87 103

295 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 100 66

825 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 76 832

600 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 78 581
22 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

Transect name U.S. Geological 

Survey STAID

DATES, 

yyyymmdd

TIMES, 

hhmm

Temperature, air, 

degrees 

Celsius 

(00020)

Discharge, 

instantaneous, 

cubic feet per 

second 

(00061)

Temperature, water, 

degrees 

Celsius 

(00010)

Turbidity, water, 

unfiltered, broad band 

light source (400–680 nm), 

detectors at multiple 

angles including 

90 +/- 30 degrees, ratiometric correction, NTRU 

(63676)

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Upstream

403712095460601 20080814 1145 24.6 33,600 28.1 63 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Upstream

403712095460601 20080911 1100 -- 30,500 21.1 46 

Missouri R at Upper Hamburg 

Chute, NE Upstream

403712095460601 20081125 1550 11.0 22,900 4.1 42 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Downstream

421410096200401 20080605 1410 -- 27,600 21.5 810 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Downstream

421410096200401 20080702 1320 25.1 19,800 25.1 73 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Downstream

421410096200401 20080903 1800 -- 28,100 -- 34 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Downstream

421410096200401 20080912 1200 17.7 24,600 19.4 28 

Glovers Chute, NE Outlet 421417096200701 20080605 1440 -- 367 -- 890 

Glovers Chute, NE Outlet 421417096200701 20080702 1400 -- 28 28.2 53 

Glovers Chute, NE Outlet 421417096200701 20080903 1700 23.6 248 23.0 34 

Glovers Chute, NE Outlet 421417096200701 20080912 1300 16.6 132 20.5 27 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Midpoint

421455096194201 20080605 1340 21.5 27,300 -- 820 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Midpoint

421455096194201 20080702 1240 31.1 19,800 25.1 74 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Midpoint

421455096194201 20080903 1300 20.6 27,900 23.2 36 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Midpoint

421455096194201 20080912 1100 17.7 24,500 19.4 28 

Glovers Chute, NE Inlet 421556096202201 20080605 1500 -- 367 20.9 750 

Glovers Chute, NE Inlet 421556096202201 20080702 1030 27.8 28 24.2 58 

Glovers Chute, NE Inlet 421556096202201 20080702 1037a -- 28 -- 61 

Glovers Chute, NE Inlet 421556096202201 20080903 1500 23.6 248 23.0 31 

Glovers Chute, NE Inlet 421556096202201 20080912 900 17.0 132 20.6 26 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Upstream

421606096202701 20080605 1300 -- 27,600 -- 860 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Upstream

421606096202701 20080702 1210 -- 19,800 -- 79 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Upstream

421606096202701 20080903 1400 20.6 28,100 23.2 34 

Missouri R at Glovers Chute, NE 

Upstream

421606096202701 20080912 1000 17.7 24,600 19.4 27 

a

Replicate sample collected to assess field variability. 

Appendix 1. Suspended sediment Upper Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, Missouri River, 2008.—Continued

[STAID, station identification number; yyyymmdd, date format in 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day; hhmm, 24-hour time format in 2-digit hour and 

2-digit minute; USGS National Water Information System parameter numbers given in parentheses; +/-, plus or minus; NTRU, nephelometric turbidity ratio 

units; R, River; NE, Nebraska; --, not measured; EWI, equal width increment; b, sample container broken during shipment prior to analysis]
Appendix 1 23

Stream 

width, 

feet 

(00004)

Sampler type 

(84164)

Sampling 

method, 

code 

(82398)

Suspended 

sediment, 

fall diameter 

(deionized water), 

percent smaller 

than 0.0625 millimeters 

(70342)

Suspended 

sediment, 

fall diameter 

(deionized water), 

percent smaller 

than 0.125 millimeters 

(70343)

Suspended 

sediment, 

fall diameter 

(deionized water), 

percent smaller 

than 0.25 millimeters 

(70344)

Suspended 

sediment, 

fall diameter 

(deionized water), 

percent smaller 

than 0.5 millimeters 

(70345)

Suspended 

sediment, 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.0625 millimeters 

(70331)

Total 

suspendedsediment 

concentration, 

milligrams per 

liter 

(80154)

799 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 38 371

675 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- b b

755 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 45 60 93 100 -- 297

690 US D-96 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 69 1,480

600 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 77 175

676 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 49 65 90 100 -- 137

650 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 40 57 87 100 -- 127

120 US D-96 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 97 1,040

44 Sampler US DH-48 EWI -- -- -- -- 42 298

125 Sampler US DH-48 EWI -- -- -- -- 82 67

115 Sampler US DH-48 EWI -- -- -- -- 66 55

630 US D-96 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 92 1,110

600 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 78 166

673 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 49 65 78 100 -- 135

665 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 47 57 84 100 -- 101

60 US D-96 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 98 887

56 Sampler US DH-48 EWI -- -- -- -- 89 108

Sampler US DH-48 EWI -- -- -- -- b b

50 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 78 61

58 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 91 39

750 US D-96 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 93 1,140

600 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI -- -- -- -- 68 199

704 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 47 64 88 100 -- 141

639 US DH-2 Bag Sampler EWI 36 48 70 100 -- 141
24 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

Transect name U.S. Geological 

Survey STAID

DATES, 

yyyymmdd

TIMES, 

hhmm

Discharge, 

instantaneous, 

cubic feet per 

second 

(00061)

Stream 

width, 

feet 

(00004)

Sampler 

type 

(84164)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.0625 millimeters 

(80164)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.075 millimeters 

(69075)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.15 millimeters 

(69073)

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Downstream

403438095462501 20080623 1520 39,000 780 US BM-54 0 0 5 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Downstream

403438095462501 20080701 1250 40,300 795 US BM-54 1 1 10 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Downstream

403438095462501 20080814 1830 33,600 763 US BM-54 0 0 1 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Downstream

403438095462501 20080911 1300 30,500 765 US BM-54 0 0 1 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Downstream

403438095462501 20081125 1340 22,900 761 US BM-54 5 6 17 

Upper Hamburg Chute, 

NE Outlet

403455095462401 20080623 1450 6,080 165 US BM-54 4 4 7 

Upper Hamburg Chute, 

NE Outlet

403455095462401 20080701 1210 5,810 177 US BM-54 1 1 3 

Upper Hamburg Chute, 

NE Outlet

403455095462401 20080814 1845 3,820 175 US BM-54 4 5 12 

Upper Hamburg Chute, 

NE Outlet

403455095462401 20080911 1430 2,790 164 US BM-54 10 11 25 

Upper Hamburg Chute, 

NE Outlet

403455095462401 20081125 1200 235 164 US BM-54 10 11 17 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Midpoint2

403508095455501 20080623 1640 32,900 780 US BM-54 0 0 2 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Midpoint2

403508095455501 20080701 1430 34,500 825 US BM-54 0 0 2 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Midpoint2

403508095455501 20080701 1437a 34,500 825 US BM-54 0 0 1 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Midpoint2

403508095455501 20080814 1815 29,800 640 US BM-54 0 0 1 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Midpoint2

403508095455501 20080911 1200 27,700 645 US BM-54 0 0 1 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Midpoint2

403508095455501 20081125 1500 22,700 656 US BM-54 0 0 0 

Upper Hamburg Chute, 

NE Inlet

403701095460001 20080623 1210 6,080 300 US BM-54 4 5 18 

Upper Hamburg Chute, 

NE Inlet

403701095460001 20080701 1020 5,810 378 US BM-54 0 0 1 

Upper Hamburg Chute, 

NE Inlet

403701095460001 20080814 1630 3,820 277 US BM-54 7 8 17 

Appendix 2. Streambed sediment Upper Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, Missouri River, 2008.

[STAID, station identification number; yyyymmdd, date format in 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day; hhmm, 24-hour time format in 2-digit hour and 

2-digit minute; USGS National Water Information System parameter numbers given in parentheses; R, river; NE, Nebraska; --, not measured]
Appendix 2 25

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.212 millimeters 

(69072)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.3 millimeters 

(69071)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.425 millimeters 

(69070)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.6 millimeters 

(69069)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 1.18 millimeters 

(69067)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 2.36 millimeters 

(69065)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 4.75 millimeters 

(69062)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 9.5 millimeters 

(69058)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 19 millimeters 

(69054)

21 50 65 74 86 94 99 100 100

31 58 72 81 92 97 100 100 100

7 39 54 75 93 98 100 100 100

6 35 52 63 84 95 99 100 100

27 45 66 77 90 97 100 100 100

15 26 41 63 88 97 100 100 100

12 21 31 49 70 84 96 100 100

25 41 53 69 84 90 96 99 100

43 59 67 77 88 95 98 99 100

24 35 49 70 93 99 100 100 100

13 43 66 79 93 98 100 100 100

16 46 71 83 94 98 100 100 100

10 33 61 77 91 96 99 100 100

4 36 61 76 91 96 99 100 100

6 38 65 77 89 95 98 100 100

4 21 42 55 75 87 94 98 100

34 46 51 58 79 94 98 100 100

3 9 15 26 50 72 88 96 100

29 38 43 48 59 74 87 100 100
26 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

Transect name U.S. Geological 

Survey STAID

DATES, 

yyyymmdd

TIMES, 

hhmm

Discharge, 

instantaneous, 

cubic feet per 

second 

(00061)

Stream 

width, 

feet 

(00004)

Sampler 

type 

(84164)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.0625 millimeters 

(80164)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.075 millimeters 

(69075)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.15 millimeters 

(69073)

Upper Hamburg Chute, 

NE Inlet

403701095460001 20080911 1530 2,790 268 US BM-54 15 18 39 

Upper Hamburg Chute, 

NE Inlet

403701095460001 20081125 930 235 295 US BM-54 9 11 32 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Upstream

403712095460601 20080623 1810 39,000 825 US BM-54 0 1 4 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Upstream

403712095460601 20080701 1630 40,300 780 US BM-54 10 11 16 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Upstream

403712095460601 20080814 1750 33,600 799 US BM-54 21 22 27 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Upstream

403712095460601 20080911 1100 30,500 675 US BM-54 2 2 4 

Missouri R at Upper 

Hamburg Chute, NE 

Upstream

403712095460601 20081125 1600 22,900 755 US BM-54 1 1 2 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Downstream

421410096200401 20080605 1640 27,600 690 US BM-54 1 1 3 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Downstream

421410096200401 20080702 1310 19,800 600 US BM-54 0 0 0 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Downstream

421410096200401 20080903 1800 28,100 676 US BM-54 7 8 11 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Downstream

421410096200401 20080912 1200 24,600 650 US BM-54 1 1 4 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Outlet

421417096200701 20080605 1700 367 120 US BM-54 0 0 1 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Outlet

421417096200701 20080702 1410 28 44 US BMH-53 1 1 17 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Outlet

421417096200701 20080903 1700 248 125 US BMH-53 17 20 37 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Outlet

421417096200701 20080912 1300 132 115 US BMH-53 9 10 40 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Midpoint

421455096194201 20080605 1620 27,300 630 US BM-54 0 0 2 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Midpoint

421455096194201 20080702 1250 19,800 600 US BM-54 0 0 1 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Midpoint

421455096194201 20080903 1300 27,900 673 US BM-54 9 10 15 

Appendix 2. Streambed sediment Upper Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, Missouri River, 2008.—Continued

[STAID, station identification number; yyyymmdd, date format in 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day; hhmm, 24-hour time format in 2-digit hour and 

2-digit minute; USGS National Water Information System parameter numbers given in parentheses; R, river; NE, Nebraska; --, not measured]
Appendix 2 27

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.212 millimeters 

(69072)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.3 millimeters 

(69071)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.425 millimeters 

(69070)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.6 millimeters 

(69069)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 1.18 millimeters 

(69067)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 2.36 millimeters 

(69065)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 4.75 millimeters 

(69062)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 9.5 millimeters 

(69058)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 19 millimeters 

(69054)

46 49 51 52 61 72 85 95 100

41 44 46 53 73 88 100 100 100

14 34 55 74 91 97 100 100 100

21 29 39 52 75 85 92 96 100

33 45 52 58 69 78 87 89 100

8 22 36 50 72 87 97 100 100

11 39 65 82 93 97 100 100 100

11 29 54 74 85 88 90 93 100

3 15 41 70 87 93 97 100 100

16 33 52 74 91 96 98 100 100

11 32 64 86 95 98 100 100 100

8 28 55 80 93 97 99 100 100

62 92 98 99 100 100 100 100 100

63 87 96 98 98 100 100 100 100

81 94 99 100 100 100 100 100 100

11 39 71 88 96 98 99 100 100

6 25 60 85 94 97 99 100 100

18 30 55 81 93 98 100 100 100
28 Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of Two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008

Transect name U.S. Geological 

Survey STAID

DATES, 

yyyymmdd

TIMES, 

hhmm

Discharge, 

instantaneous, 

cubic feet per 

second 

(00061)

Stream 

width, 

feet 

(00004)

Sampler 

type 

(84164)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.0625 millimeters 

(80164)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.075 millimeters 

(69075)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.15 millimeters 

(69073)

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Midpoint

421455096194201 20080912 1100 24,500 665 US BM-54 0 0 1 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Inlet

421556096202201 20080605 1530 367 60 US BM-54 7 9 31 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Inlet

421556096202201 20080702 1040 28 56 US BMH-53 6 8 33 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Inlet

421556096202201 20080702 1047a 28 -- US BMH-53 5 6 29 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Inlet

421556096202201 20080903 1500 248 50 US BM-54 5 7 22 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Inlet

421556096202201 20080912 900 132 58 US BM-54 28 32 65 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Upstream

421606096202701 20080605 1540 27,600 750 US BM-54 0 0 1 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Upstream

421606096202701 20080702 1150 19,800 600 US BM-54 13 15 32 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Upstream

421606096202701 20080903 1400 28,100 704 US BM-54 6 7 10 

Missouri R at 

Glovers Chute, NE 

Upstream

421606096202701 20080912 1000 24,600 639 US BM-54 1 2 9 

a

Replicate sample collected to assess field variability. 

Appendix 2. Streambed sediment Upper Hamburg and Glovers Point Bends, Missouri River, 2008.—Continued

STAID, station identification number; yyyymmdd, date format in 4-digit year, 2-digit month, and 2-digit day; hhmm, 24-hour time format in 2-digit hour and 

2-digit minute; USGS National Water Information System parameter numbers given in parentheses; R, river; NE, Nebraska; --, not measured]
Appendix 2 29

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.212 millimeters 

(69072)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.3 millimeters 

(69071)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.425 millimeters 

(69070)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 0.6 millimeters 

(69069)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 1.18 millimeters 

(69067)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 2.36 millimeters 

(69065)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 4.75 millimeters 

(69062)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 9.5 millimeters 

(69058)

Bed sediment, 

dry sieved; 

sieve diameter, 

percent smaller 

than 19 millimeters 

(69054)

6 31 73 95 99 100 100 100 100

74 93 96 96 97 99 100 100 100

75 91 95 96 97 99 100 100 100

71 89 93 95 97 98 100 100 100

62 92 98 98 100 100 100 100 100

88 95 97 98 100 100 100 100 100

3 13 35 72 91 97 99 100 100

74 91 95 97 98 99 100 100 100

14 32 65 85 93 97 99 100 100

17 36 61 86 96 99 100 100 100
Publishing support provided by:

Rolla Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director, USGS Nebraska Water Science Center

5231 South 19 Street

Lincoln, NE 68512

(402) 328–4100

Or visit the Nebraska Water Science Center Web site at:

http://ne.water.usgs.gov

Woodward and Rus—Characteristics of Suspended and Streambed Sediment of two Missouri River Chutes, Nebraska, 2008—Open-File Report 2011–1049