U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5074

Prepared for the Missouri River Recovery-Integrated Science Program 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Yankton, South Dakota

Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches 

of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07
Cover photograph. The research vessel Slim Funk using Real Time Kinematic GPS positioning to measure the depth, elevation, velocity, and 

substrate in the Little Sioux reach of the Missouri River in early March 2006. Photo by Matt Smith, contracted to the USGS by Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.
Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches 

of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

By Caroline M. Elliott, Joanna M. Reuter, and Robert B. Jacobson

Prepared for the Missouri River Recovery-Integrated Science Program 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Yankton, South Dakota

Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5074

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009

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

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

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:

Elliott, C.M., Reuter, J. R., and Jacobson, R.B., 2009, Channel morphodynamics in four reaches of the Lower Missouri 

River, 2006–07: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5074, 258 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Background............................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Physical Setting and Study Reaches.................................................................................................3

Approach and Methods................................................................................................................................7

Monitoring and Compilation Surveys ................................................................................................7

Data Processing and Analysis..........................................................................................................10

Hydroacoustic Data...................................................................................................................10

Longitudinal Profiles and Bedforms .......................................................................................13

Compilation Surveys..................................................................................................................13

Bed Velocity................................................................................................................................13

Cross-Section Comparison Error Analysis ............................................................................14

Results ...........................................................................................................................................................17

Cross-Section Change .......................................................................................................................17

Yankton Reach............................................................................................................................18

Kenslers Bend Reach................................................................................................................18

Little Sioux Reach ......................................................................................................................23

Miami Reach...............................................................................................................................25

Longitudinal Profiles...........................................................................................................................30

Reach-Scale Profiles ................................................................................................................30

Bedforms.....................................................................................................................................41

Substrate..............................................................................................................................................43

Bed Velocity.........................................................................................................................................46

Discussion.....................................................................................................................................................46

Discharge Variation and Morphodynamics....................................................................................48

Geomorphic Changes................................................................................................................48

Flow Pulses and Morphodynamics.........................................................................................48

Flow and Bedload Transport Measures.................................................................................52

Reach Geomorphology .............................................................................................................52

Change Based on Compilation Surveys 2006–07..................................................................52

Implications for Understanding Sturgeon Habitat Dynamics......................................................56

Implications for Future Habitat Studies, Lower Missouri River..................................................62

Summary........................................................................................................................................................63

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................64

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................64

Appendices...................................................................................................................................................67
iv

Figures

1–5. Maps showing:

 1. Lower Missouri River with the four study reaches, Gavins Point Dam, major 

tributaries, and gages indicated .........................................................................................2

 2. Aerial orthophotograph of the Yankton reach on the South Dakota-Nebraska 

 border with June 2007 bathymetry, and randomly selected monitoring transects....4

 3. Aerial orthophotograph of the Kenslers Bend reach on the South Dakota-

 Nebraska border with June 2007 bathymetry, and randomly selected monitoring 

 transects .................................................................................................................................5

 4. Aerial orthophotograph of the Little Sioux reach on the Nebraska-Iowa border with 

June 2007 bathymetry, and randomly selected monitoring transects..........................6

 5. Aerial orthophotograph of the Miami reach in Missouri with June 2007 bathymetry, 

and randomly selected monitoring transects...................................................................8

6. Graph showing hydrographs and survey dates for 2006–07 at Gavins Point Dam, Nebr., 

Sioux City, Iowa., Decatur, Nebr., and Waverly, Mo. ..............................................................9

7. Map showing aerial orthophotograph of the Yankton reach with compilation survey 

transects, randomly selected survey transects, and long profile lines indicated...........11

8–23. Graphs showing:

 8. Repeat cross sections at Yankton and the Little Sioux reaches used in cross 

section change error analysis...........................................................................................13

 9. Typical survey cross sections in the Yankton reach .....................................................14

 10. Deposition, erosion, and net change for the Yankton reach........................................17

 11. Typical survey cross sections in the Kenslers Bend reach .........................................18

 12. Deposition, erosion, and net change for the Kenslers Bend reach............................19

 13. Typical survey cross sections in the Little Sioux reach................................................23

 14. Deposition, erosion, and net change for the Little Sioux reach ..................................24

 15. Typical survey cross sections for the Miami reach.......................................................30

 16. Deposition, erosion, and net change for the Miami reach...........................................36

 17. Longitudinal profiles for the Yankton reach ....................................................................38

 18. Longitudinal profiles for Kenslers Bend reach...............................................................38

 19. Long and short profiles for each survey date in the Little Sioux reach......................39

 20. Long and short profiles for each survey date in the Miami reach ..............................40

 21. Compiled short and long longitudinal profiles for 2006 and 2007 in the Little Sioux

 reach......................................................................................................................................41

 22. Compiled short and long longitudinal profiles for 2006 and 2007 in the Miami 

 reach......................................................................................................................................42

 23. Bedform dimensions and one-dimensional sediment flux calculated from bedforms 

in the four reaches ..............................................................................................................43

24–26. Maps showing:

 24. Example side-scan sonar survey with bed features indicated....................................45

 25. Side-scan sonar and bedforms in the Yankton reach ...................................................46

 26. Side-scan sonar and bedforms in the Kenslers Bend reach .......................................47

27–33. Graphs showing:

 27. Average bed velocity and discharge in all reaches ......................................................48

 28. Reach averaged deposition, erosion, and net change for the Yankton, Kenslers 

Bend, Little Sioux, and Miami reaches ............................................................................51
v

 29. Average deposition and erosion in the four reaches with corresponding surveys 

and hydrographs..................................................................................................................53

 30. Percent of cross-section area with deposition, erosion, or net change for the four 

monitoring reaches .............................................................................................................54

 31. Typical cross sections at the same scale for the four reaches...................................55

 32. Histograms of depths at median annual flow in the four reaches ..............................56

 33. Longitudinal profiles at median or near-median annual flow for the four reaches..57

34–37. Maps showing:

 34. Changes in elevation based on 2006 and 2007 compilation surveys in the Yankton 

 reach......................................................................................................................................58

 35. Changes in elevation based on 2006 and 2007 compilation surveys in the Kenslers 

Bend reach ...........................................................................................................................59

 36. Changes in elevation based on 2006 and 2007 compilation surveys in the Little 

Sioux reach...........................................................................................................................60

 37. Changes in elevation based on 2006 and 2007 compilation surveys in the Miami 

 reach......................................................................................................................................61

38–39. Graphs showing:

 38. Changes in elevation from the 2006 to 2007 compilation surveys in the four 

reaches .................................................................................................................................62

 39. Areas of deposition, erosion, and net change for the four reaches from 2006 and 

2007 compilation surveys ...................................................................................................63

Tables

1. Reach characteristics of the four study reaches..................................................................10

2. Survey reaches with survey dates and discharges..............................................................12

3. Error values from repeat cross sections at each site ..........................................................13

4. Cross-section comparison values for the Yankton reach, 2006–07....................................15

5. Cross-section comparison values for the Kenslers Bend reach, 2006–07........................20

6. Cross-section comparison values for the Little Sioux reach, 2006–07 ..............................26

7. Cross-section comparison values for the Miami reach, 2006–07.......................................31

8. Bedform dimensions and dune movement calculations for each reach and 

 discharge .....................................................................................................................................44

9. Bed velocity from acoustic Doppler current profiler data...................................................49

10. Cross-section erosion and deposition for the four reaches................................................50

11. Change in grid area from compilation surveys, 2006–07......................................................54
vi

Conversion Factors, Abbreviations, and Datums

Multiply By To obtain

Length

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Flow rate

foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s)

Mass

ton per year (ton/yr) 0.9072 megagram per year (Mg/yr)

Speed

knot (kn) 0.51444 meter/second (m/s)

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Area

square meter (m2) 0.0002471 acre 

square kilometer (km2) 247.1 acre

square meter (m2) 10.76 square foot (ft2) 

square kilometer (km2) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Volume

cubic meter (m3) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3)

cubic meter (m3) 0.0008107 acre-foot (acre-ft) 

cubic kilometer (km3)

Flow rate

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 70.07 acre-foot per day (acre-ft/d) 

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

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

meter per hour (m/hr) 3.281 foot per hour (ft/hr)

Mass

megagram per year (Mg/yr) 1.102 ton per year (ton/yr)

metric ton per year 1.102 ton per year (ton/yr) 

Distances along the Missouri River are given in river miles upstream from the junction with 

the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri.

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 World Geodetic System of 1984 

(WGS 84). 
Abstract

Channel morphodynamics in response to flow modifications from Gavins Point Dam are examined in four reaches of 

the Lower Missouri River. Measures include changes in channel morphology and indicators of sediment transport in four 6 

kilometer long reaches located downstream from Gavins Point 

Dam, near Yankton, South Dakota, Kenslers Bend, Nebraska, 

Little Sioux, Iowa, and Miami, Missouri. Each of the four 

reaches was divided into 300 transects with a 20-meter spacing and surveyed during the summer in 2006 and 2007. A 

subset of 30 transects was randomly selected and surveyed 

7–10 times in 2006–07 over a wide range of discharges including managed and natural flow events. Hydroacoustic mapping 

used a survey-grade echosounder and a Real Time Kinematic 

Global Positioning System to evaluate channel change. Acoustic Doppler current profiler measurements were used to evaluate bed-sediment velocity. Results indicate varying amounts 

of deposition, erosion, net change, and sediment transport in 

the four Lower Missouri River reaches. The Yankton reach 

was the most stable over monthly and annual time-frames. The 

Kenslers Bend and Little Sioux reaches exhibited substantial 

amounts of deposition and erosion, although net change was 

generally low in both reaches. Total, or gross geomorphic 

change was greatest in the Kenslers Bend reach. The Miami 

reach exhibited varying rates of deposition and erosion, and 

low net change. The Yankton, Kenslers Bend, and Miami 

reaches experienced net erosion during the time period that 

bracketed the managed May 2006 spring rise event from 

Gavins Point Dam.

Introduction

This report addresses the potential for pulsed flow 

modifications (spring rises) to alter channel morphodynamics 

in the Lower Missouri River (fig. 1). Channel morphodynamics refers to the change in channel morphology characteristics 

associated with erosion and deposition of sediment (that is, 

from geomorphic processes). Channel morphodynamics are 

an important component of aquatic habitat dynamics because 

morphodynamics involve changing the geometry and substrate 

characteristics that determine how water and energy are distributed in a reach, thereby creating aquatic habitat. 

In this report we emphasize understanding of dynamics of 

habitat required by the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)

for spawning. We assessed sediment transport and channel 

morphodynamics at four river reaches over 2 years, 2006–07. 

During the spring of 2006, a pulsed flow modification was 

implemented on the Lower Missouri River. While no flow 

modification was implemented during 2007, three of the four 

reaches experienced substantial flow variation that allowed 

us to assess channel morphodynamics arising from sediment 

transport. 

Background

The Missouri River drains 1,371,000 square kilometers 

(km2) of North America and has the Nation’s largest reservoir 

system with 91 cubic kilometers (km3) of storage (Galat and 

others, 2005; Jacobson and others, 2009). The mainstem system of reservoirs impounds the runoff from 53 percent of the 

drainage basin (fig. 1). The reservoir system has substantially 

altered the flow regime, including reducing intra-annual flow 

variability, generally decreasing spring pulses, and generally 

increasing summer low flows. The intensity of hydrologic 

alteration diminishes downstream from the dams as tributaries enter the Missouri River. The 590 kilometers (km) downstream from the Kansas River confluence (at Kansas City, 

Missouri) retains substantial intra-annual variability including 

spring-summer flow pulses (Galat and Lipkin, 2000; Jacobson 

and Heuser, 2002; Pegg and others, 2003; Jacobson and others, 2009).

The sediment load of the river also has decreased as a 

result of trapping by the reservoir system. The sediment load 

has decreased from 326 million megagrams per year (Mg/y, or 

326 million metric tons per year) to 55 million Mg/y as measured at Hermann, Missouri, from the pre-dam to post-dam 

time period (Jacobson and others, 2009a). Downstream from 

Gavins Point Dam at present, the suspended-sediment load 

increases from 0.24 million Mg/y at Yankton, South Dakota; 

7.3 million Mg/y at Sioux City, Iowa; 18.6 million Mg/y at 

Omaha, Nebraska; and 41.9 million Mg/y at Kansas City, 

Missouri (Jacobson and others, 2009a). The ratio of post-dam 

Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower 

Missouri River, 2006–07

By Caroline M. Elliott, Joanna M. Reuter, and Robert B. Jacobson
!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

B

B

B

B

"

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

98° 96° 94° 92° 

42°

40°

38°

I O W A

M I S S O U R I

K A N S A S

N E B R A S K A

S O U T H

D A K O T A

Sioux City

Waverly

Decatur

GavinsPointDam

0 50 100 KILOMETERS

0 50 100 MILES

Base data from the National Atlas, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projectionZone 15

Missouri River basin

Lower Missouri River segments

GavinsPoncaBig SiouxPlatteKansasGrandOsageMissouri RiverMissouri River tributary

# U.S. Geological Survey 

B Study reach

!P River-mile marker and n

EXPLANATION

Waterbody data from the U.S. Geological Survey National H

River Miles (1960) from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

M iss o u r i

R i v e r

b a si n

Little Sioux River

100

200

700

800

600

400

300

500

900

500

Omaha

Number is distance upstr

with the Mississippi Riv

Kenslers Bend

Little Sioux

Yankton

Miami

Hermann

Kansas City

Nebraska City

Omaha

Figure 1. Lower Missouri River with the four study reaches, Gavins Point Dam, major tributaries, and gages indicated.
Introduction 3

to pre-dam suspended sediment levels varies longitudinally in 

the Lower Missouri River from 0.2 percent at Yankton, South 

Dakota, to 12.5 and 14.1 percent at Omaha, Nebraska, and 

Kansas City, Missouri, respectively, to 16.9 percent at Hermann, Missouri (Jacobson and others, 2009a).

From St. Louis, Missouri to Sioux City, Iowa, the Lower 

Missouri River has been engineered for bank stabilization and 

navigation. Wing dikes and revetments now stabilize 1,200 

km of riverbanks. Dikes and other navigation structures focus 

the flow in the thalweg to maintain a narrow, swift, and selfdredging navigation channel in what was historically a shallow 

river characterized by interspersed braided, anabranched, and 

single-channel reaches. River engineering resulted in the loss 

of as much as 400 km2 of river-corridor habitats (Funk and 

Robinson, 1974; Hesse and Sheets, 1993; National Research 

Council, 2002; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004; Galat 

and others, 2005).

Declines of native species have been attributed to 

changes in flow regime, sediment regime, and channel morphology on the Lower Missouri River (National Research 

Council, 2002; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003). Biological effects include the general decline of native fish species 

populations, commercial fish catches (Hesse, 1987; Pflieger 

and Grace, 1987; Hesse and others, 1989; Hesse and Sheets, 

1993; Galat and others, 2005) and sandbar nesting birds (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000a). In 2000, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion, subsequently 

amended in 2003, that indicated management of the reservoir, 

and bank stabilization and navigation projects threatened three 

listed species, the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), 

interior least tern (Sternula antillarum athalassos) and the 

piping plover (Charadrius melodus) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2000a, 2003). Among other remedies, the Biological 

Opinion required changes in flow regime and channel morphology to provide habitat for reproduction and survival of 

these species. Specifically, the Biological Opinion called for 

naturalization of the flow regime to:

1. Build sandbars in 95 km of the Lower Missouri River 

downstream from Gavins Point Dam, to support nesting 

of the least tern and piping plover;

2. Connect the main channel to the flood plain seasonally, to 

augment nutrient and energy exchange and to provide fish 

access to overbank habitats;

3. Maintain nursery habitat for larval and juvenile pallid 

sturgeon by achieving seasonal low flows in late summer;

4. Provide an environmental spawning cue for the pallid 

sturgeon through some combination of discharge and 

discharge-related variables like temperature, turbidity, and 

water velocity; and

5. Provide access to spawning habitat and/or “conditioning” 

of spawning habitat for pallid sturgeon by flushing fine 

sediment from coarse substrate.

This report specifically addresses item 5 in the list: the 

extent to which flow modification can alter spawning habitat 

by increasing sediment transport, especially flow modifications that may result in flushing fine sediment from coarse substrate. The specific question is included in a study design that 

addresses general aspects of sediment transport and morphodynamics associated with discharge variation on a multiyear 

time-frame. Measuring sediment transport in a large sand-bedded river is difficult, and direct and indirect methods produce 

varying results (Gaeuman and Jacobson, 2007). Also, modeling sediment transport in aquatic habitat assessments presents 

some fundamental challenges (Jacobson and others, 2009). 

Hydrodynamic habitat simulation studies typically use models 

that assume a fixed bed and lack the ability to model sediment 

transport and channel evolution. For low-flow studies or studies on rivers with immobile beds, this is a minor problem. For 

studies that attempt to simulate the ecological effects of flows 

capable of transporting bed material, this has been a substantial limitation because the models do not account for changing 

channel boundary conditions (geometry and flow resistance). 

Understanding of morphodynamics gained in this study will 

provide guidance on errors associated with fixed-bed assumptions in hydrodynamic modeling of the Lower Missouri River.

Purpose and Scope

We assessed channel morphodynamics through repeated 

measurements of channel morphology, substrate, and measures 

of sediment transport in four reaches of the Lower Missouri 

River. These reaches are located near Yankton, South Dakota, 

Kenslers Bend, Nebraska, Little Sioux, Iowa, and Miami, 

Missouri. The specific objective of this project to evaluate 

sediment transport over a range of discharges to assess the 

potential role of flow modifications and natural flow events 

in modifying habitats thought to be important in life history 

of the endangered pallid sturgeon. Changes in cross-sectional 

shape and size, substrate, acoustic bed velocity, bedload-transport rates, and velocity structures were monitored over a range 

of discharges to address sensitivity of erosion and deposition 

to flow variation arising from one manipulated flow release 

and several natural events. Patterns in scour and fill were analyzed between survey dates for each reach and among the four 

reaches along the Lower Missouri River.

To communicate effectively with stakeholders, managers, and other scientists working on the Lower Missouri River, 

we have used a mix of U.S. customary units and International 

System of Units (SI) units of measure. For locations along the 

river, the customary units of river mile (RM) are used. Reachscale hydraulic variables —velocity and depth — are in SI 

units of meters per second and meters.

Physical Setting and Study Reaches

The four study reaches are all located on the Lower 

Missouri River below Gavins Point Dam, which is situated 
4 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

at RM 811 (fig. 1, table 1). These reaches were chosen based 

on telemetry data from sturgeon locations in 2005 and the 

presence of coarse substrate in the Yankton and Kenslers Bend 

reaches. Each reach is approximately 6-km long. 

The upstream reach site is located on the NebraskaSouth Dakota border adjacent to Yankton, South Dakota (RM 

808.3-804.5; fig. 2). This reach is located 5 km downstream 

from Gavins Point Dam, and has a substantially altered flow 

regime because of proximity to the dam (Jacobson and Galat, 

2006; Jacobson, 2008). The Yankton reach retains some of 

the natural geomorphology of the Missouri River that existed 

before channelization (Elliott and Jacobson, 2006). There 

is a large island and side channel in the upstream portion of 

the reach, and the average bankfull width is 436 meters (m). 

Much of the exposed bank in this reach is heavily armored (71 

percent, table 1) with coarse bank revetment (angular boulders 

and rip-rap) to prevent bank erosion. There are no in-channel 

engineering structures present in this reach. 

The Kenslers Bend reach (RM 748.2-743.9, fig. 3) is 

located on the Nebraska-South Dakota border between Ponca 

State Park and Sioux City, Iowa. This segment of river is 

channelized with engineering structures but does not support 

commercial navigation. The average bankfull width is 243 m. 

Nearly half (44 percent) of the banks in this reach are directly 

protected with bank revetment, and there are 33 spur, or wing 

dikes in this reach that generally occur in dike fields on the 

inside of bends opposite revetted banks. Wing or spur dikes 

are rock structures oriented perpendicular to slightly downstream from the general direction of flow. For 1.3 km downstream from river mile 745.5 the right bank is composed of 

bedrock (9 percent of the bank in the reach).

The Little Sioux Reach (RM 673.6-669.8) is located on 

the Nebraska-Iowa border just upstream of the confluence with 

the Little Sioux River (fig. 4). This reach is within the portion 

of the Lower Missouri River channelized for navigation. The 

average bankfull width in this reach is 223 m. The banks in 

!P

!P

!P

!P

21

28

1

2

3

9

18

13

16

8

11

30

12

14

4

7

19

10

17

15

5

6

29

26

2

2

7

2

5

4

22

20

23

808

807

805

806

97°25'30" 97°24'45" 97°24' 97°23'15" 97°22'30"

42°52'

42°51'30"

42°51'

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program,

digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

EXPLANATION

0 200 400 METERS

0 750 1,500 FEET

River miles (1960) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Elevation, in meters, June 2007

351.1

341.2

Randomly selected transect and number

!P River mile marker and number —

Number is distance upstream

from the Mississippi River, in miles

808

Figure 2. Yankton reach on the South Dakota-Nebraska border with June 2007 bathymetry, and randomly selected monitoring 

transects.
Introduction 5

Figure 3. Kenslers Bend reach on the South Dakota-Nebraska border with June 2007 bathymetry, and randomly selected 

monitoring transects.

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

1

7

5

8

4

9

3

2

6

11

20

14

21

18

28

22

30

23

13

10

16

2

2

5

4

15

17

27

19

29

12

26

746

747

748

744

745

96°39' 96°38'15" 96°37'30" 96°36'45" 96°36'

42°33'

42°32'30"

42°32'

42°31'30"

42°31'

42°30'30"

42°30'

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program,

digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

EXPLANATION

0 200 400 METERS

0 750 1,500 FEET

River miles (1960) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Elevation, in meters, July 2007

331.0

320.4

Randomly selected transect and number

!P River mile marker and number—

Number is distance upstream

from the Mississippi River, in miles

745
6 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

62 p6 0

51 p8 0

43 p4 0

37 p0 0

24 p0 0

10 p4 0

4p20

9p20

2p60

62 p0 0

35 p8 0

10 p0 0

23 p8 0

45 p6 0

22 p2 0

31 p0 0

36 p8 0

27 p8 0

59 p8 0

60 p6 0

51 p0 0

32 p8 0

43 p2 0

39 p2 0

20 p0

57 p4 0

16 p8 0

48 p4 0

30 p2 0

56 p4 0

58 p8 0

50 p0 0

670

671

672

673

96°06'45" 96°06' 96°05'15" 96°04'30"

41°50'30"

41°50'

41°49'30"

41°49'

41°48'30"

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program,

digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

EXPLANATION

0 200 400 METERS

0 750 1,500 FEET

River miles (1960) from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Elevation, in meters, July 2008

305.15

297.2

Randomly selected transect and number

!P River mile marker and number —

Number is distance upstream

from the Mississippi River, in miles

670

Figure 4. Little Sioux reach on the Nebraska-Iowa border with June 2007 bathymetry, and randomly selected monitoring 

transects.
Approach and Methods 7

this reach are revetted on the outside of bends and have wingdike structures on the inside of bends. A little over half (56 

percent) of the banks in this reach are directly protected with 

revetment. The opposite bank from revetment is kept in place 

by 36 rock dikes, all of them spur, or wing-dike style dikes 

(table 1).

The Miami reach (RM 263.7-259.6, fig. 5) is located in 

Missouri, in the channelized portion of the Lower Missouri 

River. Because of tributary inputs and distance from the dam 

(fig. 6), this part of the Missouri River has a more naturalized 

flow regime (Jacobson and Galat, 2006; Jacobson, 2008). The 

average bankfull width in this reach is 345 m. There is some 

bedrock interaction with the channel on the right descending 

bank near the Miami Bridge (about 4 percent of the bankline 

in the reach). This reach has an engineered channel that 

includes bank revetment (23 percent) and several types of 

dike features. In addition to wing dikes, the reach has L-head 

dikes, which are wing dikes with extensions oriented parallel 

to flow, and are generally longer than spur dikes. There are 4.8 

dikes per km in this reach, 16 wing dikes, and 16 L-head dikes 

(table 1). 

The time period that encompasses this study was a period 

of drought in the Missouri River Basin, and the releases from 

Gavins Point Dam, including the 710 m3/s spring rise (fig. 

6) in May 2006, were small compared to those occurring in 

wetter periods (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006b). A 

high-flow event from Gavins Point Dam in 1997 peaked at 

1,985 m3/s and releases exceeded 1,600 m3/s for over 200 

days. The 1997 high flows created large sandbars and substantially changed the geomorphology of the 59-mile reach below 

Gavins Point Dam (Elliott and Jacobson, 2006). The effects 

of regional storm events and tributary inputs increase downstream from the dam and produce natural flow events, such as 

the high flows in the Miami reach in 2007 (fig 6). 

Approach and Methods

Changes in channel morphology, substrate, and acoustic 

velocity were monitored over a range of discharges in a 2-year 

period. The monitoring period included a manipulated flow 

pulse (spring rise) in May 2006 as well as some unanticipated 

natural flow pulses (fig. 6).

Monitoring and Compilation Surveys

In each of the four 6-km study reaches, the channel was 

divided into 300 transects with 20-m spacing (fig. 7). All of 

these transects were surveyed in the summers of 2006 and 

2007 as a compilation survey for hydrodynamic models. A 

subset of 30–33 transects at each site was randomly selected at 

the beginning of the project, and the same set of transects was 

resurveyed 3–5 times each year in 2006–07 (table 2). All surveys used a Real Time Kinematic Global Positioning System 

(RTK-GPS) and hydroacoustic mapping protocols established 

by the U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental 

Research Center (USGS CERC) (Elliott and others, 2004; 

Reuter and others, 2008). Transects were drawn perpendicular 

to the channel for each reach and subsequently resurveyed 

using Hypack navigation and survey software (Hypack, Inc., 

Middletown, Connecticut, fig. 7). 

Random selection of transects was essential for calculating unbiased estimates of geomorphic change. These transects 

were used to evaluate change in the cross-section shape and 

area, substrate conditions, and in velocity structure. Selection of a subset of the full set of transects also was necessary 

to allow completion of surveys during transient flow events; 

surveys of randomized transects were generally completed 

during 1 day. There were seven to ten surveys per site over 

the 2006–07 study period (table 2). Surveys were coordinated 

with the planned flow modification in May 2006 (U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 2006a; Jacobson and Galat, 2008). In the 

two downstream reaches, the planned flow modification was 

small relative to natural variation, particularly in the Miami 

reach where a nonmanaged high-flow event occurred in April–

May 2007 (fig. 6). Efforts were made to survey this reach at 

the highest possible discharge consistent with boat safety.

Aquatic surveys of monitoring transects in all reaches 

used RTK-GPS positioning, a survey grade echosounder, a 

bed-material classifying system, and a 1,200 kilohertz (kHz) 

Workhorse Rio Grande acoustic Doppler current profiler 

(ADCP, Teledyne RD Instruments, Poway, California). A 

survey grade RTK-GPS with real-time base station corrections 

which provide sub-decimeter horizontal and vertical accuracy 

was used. Simultaneous collection of RTK-GPS-controlled 

ADCP data provided current-velocity data and bed-velocity 

measurements (Gaeuman and Jacobson, 2005, 2006).

A survey-grade 200 kHz InnerSpace (InnerSpace 456, 

InnerSpace Technology, Inc., Karlstadt, New Jersey) echosounder with an 8 degree transducer was used by USGS 

Nebraska Water Resources Division crews in the Yankton 

and Kenslers Bend reaches in 2006–07. A USGS Iowa Water 

Resources Division crew assisted with surveys in the Yankton and Kenslers Bend reaches in 2006, using an 8 degree 

transducer with a 200 kHz Bathy 500-MF echosounder 

(Ocean Data Equipment Corp., Providence, Rhode Island). 

In the Little Sioux and Miami reaches USGS CERC crews 

used a 210 kHz survey-grade Odom EchoTrac echosounder 

with an 8 degree transducer (Odom Hydrographic Systems 

Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana). Crews used consistent setup parameters and logging for these instruments following 

USGS CERC habitat mapping protocols (Reuter and others, 

2008). Soundings were logged using laptop computers and 

Hypack navigation with a sampling rate of 5 hertz (Hz) for 

monitoring transects. Boat speeds were kept below 1.5 meters 

per second (m/s, 3 knots) where possible, and did not exceed 

2.5 m/s (5 knots). Depth data were not collected in areas the 

boat could not navigate, generally areas shallower than 0.6 

m. Careful boat operation, RTK-GPS, and navigation software allowed planned transects to be driven accurately within 

3 m, and in many cases within 1.5 m of the planned survey 
8 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

Figure 5. Miami reach in Missouri with June 2007 bathymetry, and randomly selected monitoring transects.

!P

!P

!P

!P

3p20

3p80

0p40

30 p8 0

65 p0 0

15 p4 0

51 p2 0

39 p0 0

63 p2 0

25 p4 0

62 p6 0

48 p4 0

38 p0 0

53 p0 0

32 p4 0

56 p4 0

17 p8 0

28 p0 0

24 p4 0

12 p6 0

13 p2 0

25 p2 0

65 p8 0

50 p2 0

49 p4 0

23 p4 0

14 p6 0

62 p0 0

13 p6 0

54 p2 0

43 p4 0

43 p0 0

55

p0 0

263

262

261

260

93°14'15" 93°13'30" 93°12'45" 93°12'

39°22'

39°21'30"

39°21'

39°20'30"

39°20'

39°19'30"

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program,

digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

EXPLANATION

0 200 400 METERS

0 750 1,500 FEET

River miles (1960) from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Elevation, in meters, August 2007

191.9

180.2

Randomly selected transects

!P River mile marker and number—

Number is distance upstream

from the Mississippi River, in miles

262
Approach and Methods 9

lines. Elevation control was established at each site before the 

first survey was conducted, and the same benchmarks were 

used throughout the project. At Yankton and Kenslers Bend 

sites, however, slight differences in the base coordinate units 

entered in the benchmarks between the 2006 and 2007 surveys 

resulted in an offset between the lines surveyed in 2006 and 

2007. Consequently, at the Yankton site, the 2006 and 2007 

surveys can only be compared within years. At the Kenslers 

Bend site the 2006 surveys and March 2007 surveys can be 

compared, and the rest of the 2007 surveys can be compared 

with one another.

Terrestrial RTK-GPS surveys were conducted to extend 

the hydroacoustic surveys from the water’s edge to the top of 

the bank. These surveys were conducted in the spring and fall 

low-flow surveys in the Yankton and Kenslers Bend reaches. 

Due to high flows in the spring in the Little Sioux and Miami 

reaches, ground surveys only complement the fall low-flow 

survey in 2007. 

Gavins Point Dam, Nebraska, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Data

River mile 811

Yankton reach

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow gage 6486000, Sioux City, Iowa

River mile 732.4

Kenslers Bend reach 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow gage 6601200, Decatur, Nebraska

River mile 691.1 

Little Sioux reach

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D 

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow gage 6895500, Waverly, Missouri

River mile 293.4

Miami reach

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC 

METERS PER SECOND

2006 2 007 

Discharge

Survey date

Figure 6. Hydrographs and survey dates for 2006–07 at Gavins Point Dam, Nebr., Sioux City, Iowa., Decatur, Nebr., and Waverly, Mo.
10 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

Longitudinal profiles were collected using the surveygrade echosounders during each survey based on the approximate thalweg location as it existed in 2006 (fig. 7). The same 

longitudinal profile through the entire reach was resurveyed 

for each site on each survey date in 2006–07 in the Little 

Sioux and Miami sites. A second, 500 m long profile that 

included at least one channel cross-over was resurveyed after 

2.5–3 hours to quantify bedform changes and dimensions. A 

faster data logging rate (10 Hz) was used on the longitudinal 

profiles to acquire higher-resolution data, and boat speed was 

kept at a minimum, usually slightly higher than current velocity in the thalweg to allow steering. Longitudinal profiles were 

collected for bedform differencing calculations to develop 

estimates for one-dimensional bedload transport in the two 

downstream (Little Sioux and Miami) reaches for 2006 and 

2007 (Simons and others, 1965).

Side-scan sonar surveys were performed to provide 

higher-resolution information on substrate and other habitat features in each of the four reaches in 2007. Side-scan 

sonar produces a high-resolution image of the bed based on 

hydroacoustic returns. A 900 kHz towfish (Marine Sonic Technology, Ltd. White Marsh, Virginia) was lowered below the 

boat using a powered winch. The side-scan was deployed to 

produce an image of the bed along the boat track, with a total 

swath width of 40 m. Multiple longitudinal transects were 

driven at approximately 30-m intervals to produce images 

covering the full extent of the reaches. Differential GPS positioning was used to approximate the location of the towfish, 

the precise position of which varies based on the amount of 

cable deployed. Side-scan allows for interpretation of bottom 

material and identification of additional habitat features such 

as large woody debris. 

Data Processing and Analysis

Hydroacoustic and survey data for all four reaches were 

processed and analyzed by USGS CERC. Data were analyzed 

using automated scripts where possible for consistency and 

efficiency. All data are maintained and archived by USGS 

CERC.

 Hydroacoustic Data

Thirty-four surveys in 2006–07 (table 2) over the four 

study reaches were completed and processed to obtain watersurface elevation, depth, bed elevation, velocity, and bedvelocity data. Hydroacoustic data processing methods are 

presented in more detail in Reuter and others (2008). The eight 

compilation surveys (of all 300 transects) were processed and 

interpolated into 5-m grids for reach visualization and area 

change calculations. All data are projected in Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 14 North (Yankton, Kenslers Bend) or 15 

North (Little Sioux, Miami) with the World Geodetic System 

of 1984 datum.

Table 1. Reach characteristics of the four study reaches.[Gavins Point Dam, South Dakota (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); Missouri River main-stem streamflow-gaging stations and identification numbers: Sioux City, 06486000; Decatur, 06486000; Waverly, 06895500; m3/s, cubic meters per second; m2, square meters; km, kilometers; m/m, meters per meter]

Site Nearest Missouri River stream gage Median daily flow, in m3/s Average bankfull width, meters1 Average cross sectional area at median daily flow, in m2 Reach length, in km Reach slope, m/m Percent of banks revetted Percent of bank material bedrock Number of wing dikes2 Number of “L-head” dikes2 Number of dikes per kilo- meter2

Yankton Gavins Point Dam, 

South Dakota

735 436 652 6.3 0.00012 71 0 0 0 0.0

Kenslers Bend Sioux City, Iowa 825 243 656 6.3 0.00024 44 9 33 0 4.7Little Sioux Decatur, Nebraska 810 223 744 6.5 0.00021 56 0 36 0 5.5Miami Waverly, Missouri 1,430 345 1,242 5.6 0.00015 23 4 16 16 4.8

1Bankfull width estimated from monitoring cross-section ground survey data.2Dike and revetment information from 2006 National Aerial Imagery Program aerial photography and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, unpublished data.
Approach and Methods 11

Depth and water-surface elevation data from the echosounder and RTK-GPS for each survey were processed using 

Hypack software, exported as text files and converted to 

ArcMap shapefiles (version 9.2, ESRI, Redlands, California). 

Water surface elevations were checked and adjusted in regions 

where RTK-GPS quality was degraded, such as under bridges 

or near the bank where tree cover can block satellite signals 

or cause multipath errors. Depth was subtracted from watersurface elevation to provide bed elevation.

Bed-elevation points for the randomly selected transects 

were processed to compare changes between each survey over 

the 2006–07 period using a custom Python (Python Software 

Foundation, Hampton, New Hampshire) script. The script 

projects bed elevations for each transect to the planned line 

and calculates erosion and deposition areas for 0.25-m increments along the transect between each survey date pair in a 

spreadsheet. Geomorphic change was calculated for the area 

common to each pair of survey dates. 

Transects that were surveyed multiple times in a day, 

(typically during reciprocal discharge measurements) also 

were analyzed to determine survey replicability and acceptable offline data parameters. For the four reaches, the absolute 

value of the distance offline was low (table 3, 1.04–1.83 m). 

However, near the banks where obstacles and shallow areas 

frequently occur and boat navigation is more difficult, data 

points frequently were further offline than data collected in 

the middle of transects. To include more near-bank data, a 

threshold of 3 m was chosen and scripts were run to include 

cross-section data for analysis that is within a 3-m distance 

from planned survey lines. 

To allow comparisons between survey reaches spaced 

over hundreds of river miles with varying degrees of channel 

engineering, surveys were compared to cross-section areas at 

median-annual flow. The median-flow area was determined 

for every cross section, and the average cross-section area 

for each reach at median-annual flow was then calculated. 

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

808

807

805

806

97°26'15" 97°25'30" 97°24'45" 97°24' 97°23'15" 97°22'30"

42°52'30"

42°52'

42°51'30"

42°51'

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program,

digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

EXPLANATION

0 200 400 METERS

0 750 1,500 FEET

River miles from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1960

Longitudinal profile

Randomly selected transect

Transects

!P River mile marker and number—

Number is distance upstream

from the Mississippi River, in miles

807

Figure 7. Yankton reach with compilation survey transects, randomly selected survey transects, and long profile lines indicated.
12 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

Table 2. Survey reaches with survey dates and discharges.

[m3/s, cubic meters per second; NE WSC, U. S. Geological Survey Nebraska Water Science Center; IA WSC, U.S. Geological Survey Iowa Water Science 

Center; CERC, U.S. Geological Survey Columbia Environmental Research Center, R.V., research vessel; Gavins Point Dam (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); Missouri River main-stem streamflow-gaging stations and identification numbers: Sioux City 06486000; Decatur, 06601200; Waverly, 06895500]

Site Survey date Survey crew/vessel Discharge (daily average 

m3/s) Gage1

2006

Yankton 03/07/2006, 03/08/2006, 

03/10/2006

NE WSC 245 Gavins Point Dam

03/27/2006–03/29/2006 NE, IA WSC 590–595 Gavins Point Dam

05/15/2006 NE, IA WSC 710 Gavins Point Dam

06/26/2006–06/28/2006 NE, IA WSC 170 Gavins Point Dam

Kenslers Bend 03/9/2006, 03/10/2006 NE WSC 350 Sioux City

03/27/2006, 03/30/2006 IA WSC 660–675 Sioux City

05/14/2006, 05/16/2006, 

05/25/2006

NE, IA WSC 690–870 Sioux City

06/19/2006–06/22/2006 NE, IA WSC 825–850 Sioux City

Little Sioux 03/13/2006–03/16/2006 CERC, R.V. Slim Funk 365–370 Decatur

04/17/2006 CERC, R.V. Slim Funk 770 Decatur

05/17/2006 CERC, R.V. Slim Funk 865 Decatur

07/18/2006–07/20/2006 CERC, R.V. Slim Funk 760 Decatur

10/24/2006 CERC, R.V. Slim Funk 330 Decatur

Miami 03/23/2006 CERC, R.V. Lucien Brush 730 Waverly

04/19/2006 CERC, R.V. Lucien Brush 1,410 Waverly

05/22/2006 CERC, R.V. Lucien Brush 1,190 Waverly

07/25/2006–07/26/2006 CERC, R.V. Lucien Brush 975–990 Waverly

11/06/2006 CERC, R.V. Lucien Brush 600 Waverly

2007

Yankton 03/08/2007, 03/09/2007, 

03/13/2007, 03/14/2007

NE WSC 255–455 Gavins Point Dam

06/18/2007–06/29/2007 NE WSC 510 Gavins Point Dam

11/08/2007 NE WSC 255 Gavins Point Dam

Kenslers Bend 03/15/2007, 03/16/2007 NE WSC 1,085 Sioux City

04/11/2007–04/13/2007 NE WSC 615–640 Sioux City

07/18/2007–07/25/2007 NE WSC 690–715 Sioux City

11/09/2007, 11/10/2007 NE WSC 340 Sioux City

Little Sioux 03/16/2007 CERC, R.V. Slim Funk 1,140 Decatur

04/10/2007 CERC, R.V. Slim Funk 655 Decatur

07/19/2007, 07/20/2007 CERC, R.V. Lucien Brush 715–730 Decatur

10/30/2007, 10/31/2007 CERC, R.V. Slim Funk 420–425 Decatur

Miami 03/26/2007 CERC, R.V. Funk w/ Brush 

equipment

1,605 Waverly

04/30/2007 CERC, R.V. Lucien Brush 2,420 Waverly

05/18/2007 CERC, R.V. Lucien Brush 3,285 Waverly

08/13/2007–08/15/2007 CERC, R.V. Lucien Brush 1,490–1680 Waverly

11/26/2007–11/28/2007 CERC, R.V. Lucien Brush 865–880 Waverly
Approach and Methods 13

The reach-average median-flow cross-sectional area, or index 

cross-sectional area is used to normalize comparisons of geomorphic change among reaches. 

Longitudinal Profiles and Bedforms

Paired longitudinal profiles from the echosounder and 

RTK-GPS were processed in Hypack to remove erroneous 

pings related to spurious echoes from fish, turbulence, or poor 

bottom conditions. These profiles were then analyzed to determine average bedform dimensions and to measure dune movement, which has been demonstrated to be a reliable method 

for measuring bedload transport in large sand-bedded rivers 

such as the Missouri (Gaeuman and Jacobson, 2007). Bedform 

movement rates were calculated by methods developed by 

the National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics (McElroy, 

2006). In the Little Sioux and Miami reaches characteristic 

bedform calculations were made for the 500-m long region 

where the paired longitudinal profiles overlap. This calculation 

was conducted between the longitudinal thalweg profile and 

the shorter longitudinal thalweg profile driven 2–3 hours later. 

Characteristic bedform dimensions were calculated for the 

Yankton and Kenslers Bend reaches from longitudinal profiles, 

but paired profiles were not available for measurement of dune 

movement. 

Compilation Surveys

The water-surface and bed-elevation data from the 

echosounder and RTK-GPS for the compilation surveys were 

processed in a similar manner as the monitoring surveys to 

create point data in ArcMap. The data then were interpolated 

using krigging, blanked to a 5-m grid, and stored in the ESRI 

grid format (ESRI, Redlands, California) (Reuter and others, 

2008). Elevation and depth grids were produced for volumetric change calculations between the summer 2006 and summer 

2007 surveys. Calculations were performed in ArcMap using 

the map calculator function.

Bed Velocity

Data obtained with an ADCP were processed in Winriver 

10.06 software (Teledyne RD Instruments, Poway, California) 

and exported with bottom-track and GPS positioning to allow 

for calculation of bed velocities (Gaeuman and Jacobson, 

2005, 2006, 2007). Bed-velocity calculations were performed 

with a Python script that calculates the difference between the 

bottom-track and GPS-based boat positions to determine bed 

velocity for each ensemble. These values also were averaged 

across a cross section by projecting the values on the navigation lines and taking a length-weighted average to determine 

an average bed velocity for each cross section in each survey. 

0 50 100 150 200

ELEVATI

ON, IN

METERS 

344

346

348

350

352

354

Little Sioux, line 2 p 60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200

302

304

306

308

Yankton, line 6 310 3/13/2007 3/16/2007

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Line 5

Figure 8. Repeat cross sections at Yankton and the Little Sioux reaches used in cross section change error analysis. 

Table 3. Error values from repeat cross sections at each site.

Site

Average apparent 

deposition (square 

meters) 

Average apparent 

erosion (square 

meters)

Average apparent total change 

(square meters)

Percent of index 

cross section 

area1

Average absolute 

value of survey distance off planned 

lines, (meters)

Yankton 2.3 -3.8 6.1 0.9 1.83

Kenslers Bend 7.8 -17.3 25.2 3.8 1.82

Little Sioux 8.8 -13.2 22.0 3.0 1.04

Miami 21.4 -24.7 46.2 3.7 1.32

1

Index cross-section area is calculated from the average median-flow cross-section area.
14 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

Cross-Section Comparison Error Analysis

Lines were driven as closely as possible to the planned 

lines using Hypack navigation software. The absolute value of 

the average distance offline for all of the surveys was 1.43 m 

(fig. 8, table 3), well below the goal of driving lines to within 3 

m of the planned survey lines. Several sets of repeat cross sections were analyzed at each site for multiple dates to evaluate 

the error caused by boat navigation. At least four repeat cross 

sections were driven in succession and compared for differences in erosion and deposition quantities (fig. 8). The range 

in apparent deposition and erosion calculated from repeat surveys varied for each reach and were smallest at Yankton and 

largest at Miami (table 3). Variation in the apparent deposition 

and erosion ranged 2.3– -24.7 m2 (square meters). Variation in 

the average apparent total change was 6.1–46.2 m2, 0.9 to 3.8 

percent of index cross-sectional areas. These values represent 

the minimum detectible geomorphic change based on the 

precision of boat driving and background bottom variation 

related to bedform amplitudes, to dune movement, and the orientation of the transect across dune fields. Therefore, for each 

site only changes above these minimum thresholds were considered detectible. For example, for cross sections at Miami, 

the average median-flow cross-sectional area is 1,242 m2; the 

minimum detectable change (46.2 m2) is approximately 3.7 

percent of the total cross-sectional area (table 3). Minimum 

detectible areas were lowest at Yankton because of fewer large 

sand dunes and less overall topographic variation in the bed. 

At sites with larger dunes, such as the Kenslers Bend, Little 

Sioux, and Miami reaches (for example, fig. 8), a slight change 

in boat navigation could represent the difference between a 

dune crest and trough, and, therefore, more variation in area 

change detection is possible for repeat transects.

Figure 9. Typical survey cross sections in the Yankton reach.

River mile 808

River mile 806.2

River mile 807 Yankton 2006 line 13 River mile 805.4

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ELEVATION, IN METER

S

346

348

350

352

354

356

358

Yankton 2006 Line 7

ELEVATION, IN

METERS

346

348

350

352

354

356

358

Yankton 2006 line 25

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Yankton 2006 line 2

March

April

May

June 

EXPLANATION

2006

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

ELEVA

TIO

N, IN METERS

Yankton, 2006, line 7 Yankton, 2006, line 2

Yankton, 2006, line 13 Yankton, 2006, line 25

River mile 808

River mile 807

River mile 806.2

River mile 805.4
Table 4. Cross-section comparison values for the Yankton reach, 2006–07.

River 

mile

Line 

number

March 2006 to March II 2006 March II 2006 to May 2006 May 2006 to June 2006 March 2006 

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square 

meters)

Net 

change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square meters)

Erosion 

area, 

(square 

meters)

Net 

change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square 

meters)

Net 

change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square meters)

Ero

ar

(sq

met

808.3 5 3.6 -3.4 0.2 1.2 -0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 -

808.2 6 3.8 -0.6 3.1 4.7 -0.3 4.4 0.8 -2.7 -1.9 10.1 -

808 7 4.7 -2.2 2.5 7.8 -1.1 6.8 4.2 -2.5 1.7 11.1 -

807.9 8 7.8 -0.7 7.2 3.4 -2.1 1.3 1.6 -4.9 -3.3 6.6 -

807.7 9 4.5 -2.1 2.5 3.0 -4.2 -1.2 9.7 -0.1 9.6 9.8 -

807.5 10 10.7 -6.5 4.2 0.1 -0.7 -0.6 1.2 0.0 1.2 9.6 -4

807.2 11 2.6 -5.3 -2.7 3.4 -0.8 2.6 0.4 -2.1 -1.7 5.6 -

807.1 12 1.0 -4.5 -3.5 3.5 -0.3 3.2 1.7 -1.3 0.4 4.1 -

807 13 5.1 -3.5 1.6 5.4 -1.6 3.8 2.2 -3.2 -1.0 6.8 -

806.9 14 4.3 -3.4 0.9 5.3 -3.0 2.3 6.1 -6.4 -0.2 5.5 -

806.8 15 2.6 -4.5 -1.9 21.0 -0.3 20.7 1.6 -11.1 -9.6 9.6 -

806.8 16 1.1 -13.7 -12.7 14.5 -0.4 14.0 5.6 -2.7 2.9 8.9 -2

806.7 17 4.3 -2.2 2.0 6.8 -0.7 6.1 0.3 -10.1 -9.8 1.8 -

806.6 18 18.9 -1.3 17.6 2.7 -7.5 -4.8 7.6 -5.2 2.4 18.4 -

806.5 19 13.0 -3.4 9.6 7.1 -1.2 5.9 2.2 -5.8 -3.6 7.9 -2

806.3 1 7.5 -1.0 6.4 11.8 -0.4 11.5 3.9 -4.7 -0.8 18.6 -

806.2 2 14.7 -2.1 12.6 6.1 -3.6 2.5 4.2 -4.8 -0.6 17.2 -

806.1 3 18.5 -2.5 16.0 2.5 -19.3 -16.8 17.0 -0.5 16.5 15.3 -2

805.9 4 11.7 -3.3 8.4 3.3 -11.8 -8.6 18.1 -2.1 16.0 18.6 -2

805.8 20 10.2 -3.0 7.2 3.3 -16.4 -13.2 23.1 -4.3 18.7 16.3 -2

805.8 21 11.8 -4.9 6.8 2.7 -21.0 -18.3 24.5 -0.5 24.0 16.2 -2

805.7 22 12.0 -2.0 10.0 2.2 -14.2 -12.0 12.7 -4.3 8.3 10.2 -2

805.5 23 0.7 -0.2 0.5 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 0.6 -

805.4 24 28.8 -0.8 28.0 1.5 -30.9 -29.4 23.2 -1.8 21.4 21.5 -

805.4 25 34.1 -0.5 33.6 5.0 -28.2 -23.2 16.8 -7.3 9.6 22.3 -

805.2 26 25.2 -4.3 21.0 3.7 -28.2 -24.6 26.8 -3.4 23.4 23.3 -

805.1 27 38.7 -2.6 36.1 2.8 -17.5 -14.7 6.2 -10.6 -4.3 16.5 -

804.9 28 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 5.2 0.0 5.2 -no data- -no 

804.8 29 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no 

804.6 30 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 0.2 -0.2 -no data- -no Total area 302.1 -84.6 217.4 134.7 -216.0 -81.3 227.1 -102.8 124.2 315.7 -59

Number of cross sections

27 27 27 26 26 26 28 28 28 27 27 

Average 11.2 -3.1 8.1 5.2 -8.3 -3.1 8.1 -3.7 4.4 11.7 -2
Table 4. Cross-section comparison values for the Yankton reach, 2006–07.—Continued River mile Line number March 2007 to June 2007 June 2007 to November 2007 March 2007 to November 2007 Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) 808.3 5 0.7 -18.6 -18.0 3.9 -11.3 -7.4 0.1 -20.9 -20.8 808.2 6 0.5 -20.9 -20.4 6.8 -6.3 0.5 0.7 -20.5 -19.8 808 7 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 807.9 8 0.6 -7.3 -6.8 4.5 -7.6 -3.1 0.4 -11.6 -11.2 807.7 9 3.0 -7.2 -4.3 2.3 -8.5 -6.1 1.1 -10.8 -9.8 807.5 10 4.8 -22.5 -17.6 11.2 -16.9 -5.7 0.2 -23.5 -23.3 807.2 11 7.7 -3.4 4.3 0.1 -26.7 -26.6 0.1 -22.4 -22.3 807.1 12 3.4 -4.6 -1.2 0.8 -13.4 -12.6 0.7 -15.1 -14.4 807 13 8.5 -0.9 7.7 0.0 -24.1 -24.1 0.2 -15.9 -15.7 806.9 14 17.1 -0.3 16.9 3.3 -19.7 -16.4 6.5 -6.7 -0.2 806.8 15 3.7 -5.4 -1.7 0.5 -23.4 -23.0 0.3 -24.9 -24.7 806.8 16 0.4 -5.1 -4.8 0.5 -6.0 -5.5 0.0 -10.3 -10.3 806.7 17 0.3 -15.9 -15.6 1.5 -6.8 -5.3 0.1 -18.5 -18.5 806.6 18 1.0 -9.3 -8.3 2.8 -6.6 -3.9 0.2 -8.6 -8.4 806.5 19 4.7 -23.0 -18.3 12.3 -9.7 2.6 10.1 -29.4 -19.4 806.3 1 1.0 -16.7 -15.6 11.1 -7.7 3.4 5.7 -18.1 -12.3 806.2 2 1.9 -22.8 -20.9 3.5 -7.5 -4.0 1.4 -26.3 -24.9 806.1 3 -no data- -no data- -no data- 0.0 -1.4 -1.4 -no data- -no data- -no data- 805.9 4 -no data- -no data- -no data- 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 -no data- -no data- -no data- 805.8 20 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 805.8 21 -no data- -no data- -no data- 0.0 -0.3 -0.3 -no data- -no data- -no data- 805.7 22 -no data- -no data- -no data- 0.0 -0.9 -0.9 -no data- -no data- -no data- 805.5 23 2.8 -12.6 -9.7 0.6 -20.8 -20.2 0.6 -29.0 -28.4

805.4 24 13.1 -3.2 9.9 0.0 -39.4 -39.4 0.3 -30.5 -30.2805.4 25 17.3 -10.3 7.0 3.6 -41.4 -37.8 0.6 -31.5 -30.9805.2 26 7.9 -28.7 -20.8 8.3 -21.9 -13.6 1.1 -38.1 -36.9805.1 27 0.1 -47.7 -47.6 30.6 -1.2 29.4 3.8 -18.0 -14.3804.9 28 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data804.8 29 0.2 -1.6 -1.5 0.0 -4.5 -4.5 0.0 -5.7 -5.7804.6 30 0.3 -11.5 -11.2 2.2 -5.7 -3.5 0.8 -15.5 -14.7Total area 100.9 -299.3 -198.4 110.4 -340.2 -229.8 34.8 -451.9 -417.1Number of cross sections

23 23 23 23 27 27 23 23 23

Average 4.4 -13.0 -8.6 4.8 -12.6 -8.5 1.5 -19.6 -18.1
Results 17

Results

The following section presents results of monitoring the 

four reaches over 2006–07. Monitoring results for cross-section change, longitudinal profiles, bedforms, substrate, and bed 

velocity are presented for each reach. There are many possible 

combinations of dates to compare for the four sites and we 

have chosen to present the bulk of the results in the form of 

figures and tables and highlight the main trends in the text.

Cross-Section Change

Change for the purposes of this analysis is only calculated for the common area between a pair of cross-section 

surveys. Ground survey points were not collected for every 

survey date and are not as dense as boat survey points, 

therefore, change calculations do not include edges of cross 

sections; field observations indicated that bank erosion was 

negligible during the course of this study.

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

Yankton March 2006–April 2006

CH

ANGE, IN SQUA

RE METE

RS

Yankton April 2006–May 2006

Yankton May 2006–June 2006

Yankton March 2006–June 2006

Yankton March 2007–June 2007

Yankton June 2007–November 2007

Yankton March 2007–November 2007

-50

-25

0

25

50

-50

-25

0

25

50

Yankton March 2006–April 2006

Yankton April 2006–May 2006

-50

-25

0

25

50

Yankton May 2006–June 2006

-50

-25

0

25

50

Yankton March 2006–June 2006

-50

-25

0

25

50

Yankton March 2007–June 2007

-50

-25

0

25

50 Yankton June 2007–November 2007

-50

-25

0

25

50

Yankton March 2007–November 2007

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

DEPOSITION OR EROSION NET CHANGE

Deposition

Erosion 

Net Change

EXPLANATION

Figure 10. Deposition, erosion, and net change for the Yankton reach.
18 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

Yankton Reach

Thirty cross sections were surveyed in the Yankton reach 

three times each in 2006 and 2007 (figs. 9, 10, appendix 1). 

The planned lines for these surveys were slightly different in 

2006 than 2007, therefore, the cross-section comparisons and 

areas were calculated accordingly (table 4). Net cross-section 

change (fig. 10, table 4) was minimal, generally less than 3 

percent compared to the index cross-section area for the study 

period. Typical cross sections (fig. 9) showed relatively little 

change in cross-section form and structure during the survey 

period. Magnitudes of erosion and deposition were often 

below the range of change detection based on error analysis 

(tables 3, 4). 

There was a small amount of net erosion in the April 

2006–May 2006 time period which encompasses the May 

12 spring rise event from Gavins Point Dam (fig. 10, table 

4). Magnitudes of erosion and deposition were highest in the 

cross sections located downstream from river mile 806.5, 

including the region adjacent to the Yankton Bridge at Highway 81. This was also the narrowest portion of the Yankton 

monitoring reach.

Kenslers Bend Reach

In the Kenslers Bend reach, 30 cross sections were surveyed four times each in 2006 and 2007 (appendix 2, figs. 11, 

12, table 5). Morphodynamic changes in the Kenslers Bend 

reach were much more variable and of a higher magnitude 

than the Yankton reach. The average net change for all cross 

sections was -8.5–8.5 percent of the index cross-section area. 

Typical cross sections show the types of scour and fill that 

occurred in this reach (fig. 11). Changes in bed elevation were 

substantial compared to the Yankton reach. 

Overall trends were net deposition of 36.9 m2 on average for each cross section in 2006 and a nearly opposite trend 

of net erosion averaging -36.1 m2 per cross section, in 2007 

(table 5). Some individual cross sections had net erosion in 

2006 and deposition in 2007, opposite of overall reach trends 

(fig. 12, table 5). March 2006–April 2006 was a time period 

of net deposition in all but one cross section, followed by a 

time period of net erosion from April 2006–May 2006, in 

most cross sections, which includes the May pulsed flow from 

Gavins Point Dam. 

Kenslers Bend 2006 line 17

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

324

326

328

330

332

334

336

Kenslers Bend 2006 line 29 River mile 746

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEV

ATION, IN

METERS

324

326

328

330

332

334

336

338

River mile 744.3

Kenslers Bend 2006 line 10

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324

326

328

330

332

334

336

338

River mile 747.1 324 Kenslers Bend 2006 line 3

326

328

330

332

334

336

338

River mile 747.7

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 10

River mile 747.1

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 3

River mile 747.7

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 29

River mile 744.3

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 17

River mile 746

March I

March II

May

June

March

EXPLANATION

2006

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

ELEVATI

ON, IN METERS

Figure 11. Typical survey cross sections in the Kenslers Bend reach.
Results 19

Figure 12. Deposition, erosion, and net change for the Kenslers Bend reach.

-300

-150

0

150

300

-300

-150

0

150

300

CHANGE, IN SQUARE

METER

S

Kenslers Bend March 2006–April 2006

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

Kenslers Bend May 2006–June 2006

Kenslers Bend March 2006–June 2006

Kenslers Bend April 2006–May 2006

Kenslers Bend June 2006–March 2007

Kenslers Bend April 2007–July 2007

Kensler's Bend July 2007–November 2007

Kenslers Bend March 2006–June 2006

Kenslers Bend April 2007–July 2007

-300

-150

0

150

300

Kenslers Bend March 2006–April 2006

-300

-150

0

150

300 Kenslers Bend April 2006–May 2006

Kenslers Bend May 2006–June 2006

Kenslers Bend June 2006–March 2007

-300

-150

0

150

300

Kenslers Bend April 2007–July 2007

-300

-150

0

150

300

Kenslers Bend March 2006–June 2006

-300

-150

0

150

300

Kensler's Bend July 2007–November 2007

-300

-150

0

150

300

Kenslers Bend March 2006–June 2006

-300

-150

0

150

300

Kenslers Bend April 2007–July 2007

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

DEPOSITION OR EROSION NET CHANGE

Deposition

Erosion 

Net Change

EXPLANATION
Table 5. Cross section comparison values for the Kenslers Bend reach, 2006–07. River mile Line number March 2006 to March II 2006 March II 2006 to May 2006 May 2006 to June 2006 Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area, (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net chan

(square meters

747.8 1 55.5 -27.0 28.5 23.8 -115.6 -91.7 -no data- -no data- -no data747.7 2 124.3 -19.4 104.9 27.1 -52.0 -25.0 0.3 -73.4 -73.0 747.7 3 153.0 -29.1 123.9 42.9 -74.0 -31.0 8.7 -67.8 -59.1 747.5 4 28.4 -24.6 3.8 12.2 -121.7 -109.5 -no data- -no data- -no data

747.4 5 44.6 -0.9 43.7 8.2 -129.1 -120.8 -no data- -no data- -no data747.4 6 41.3 -14.3 27.0 9.7 -80.9 -71.1 -no data- -no data- -no data747.2 7 145.8 -52.4 93.5 24.3 -60.6 -36.2 -no data- -no data- -no data747.2 8 27.3 -12.1 15.2 128.8 -51.6 77.2 -no data- -no data- -no data747.1 9 47.0 -25.9 21.1 18.3 -143.6 -125.3 -no data- -no data- -no data747.1 10 44.9 -15.9 29.0 16.3 -117.7 -101.4 -no data- -no data- -no data747 11 66.2 -8.0 58.2 33.8 -51.7 -17.9 -no data- -no data- -no data746.8 12 127.2 -53.0 74.2 46.3 -93.0 -46.7 5.4 -85.8 -80.5 746.7 13 33.8 -25.9 7.9 118.3 -111.9 6.3 55.2 -47.5 7.7 746.7 14 92.9 -9.8 83.1 55.2 -133.9 -78.7 118.8 -84.9 33.9 746.6 15 214.6 -72.0 142.6 19.1 -100.0 -80.9 193.7 -155.3 38.3 746.5 16 48.7 -81.4 -32.6 105.2 -59.3 45.8 21.9 -140.3 -118.4 746.3 30 162.1 -35.8 126.3 19.7 -78.3 -58.6 148.9 -60.5 88.4 746 17 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 14.1 0.0 14.1 745.7 18 115.2 -0.1 115.1 13.5 -63.5 -50.0 13.8 -90.1 -76.2 745.7 19 80.9 -0.4 80.4 91.5 -73.4 18.1 35.6 -96.1 -60.5 745.2 20 90.5 -31.7 58.8 31.9 -22.1 9.8 15.2 -4.1 11.1 745.1 28 25.1 -6.0 19.1 40.2 -4.0 36.2 0.7 -40.6 -39.9 745 21 70.9 -3.3 67.6 25.3 -33.5 -8.2 5.5 -46.0 -40.6744.8 26 74.8 -23.5 51.3 59.7 -16.0 43.8 33.4 -25.2 8.3744.7 27 55.2 -25.4 29.8 34.2 -23.1 11.1 15.7 -98.1 -82.4744.5 22 139.7 -64.7 75.0 107.3 -52.9 54.4 15.1 -29.9 -14.8744.4 23 66.2 -55.5 10.7 180.9 -51.7 129.2 9.6 -26.1 -16.5744.3 29 28.6 -1.3 27.3 7.8 -5.5 2.2 38.0 -3.3 34.7744.1 24 139.9 -22.0 117.9 40.1 -28.5 11.6 8.5 -65.3 -56.8744.1 25 92.4 -31.1 61.3 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data

Total area 2,436.8 -772.4 1,664.5 1,341.6 -1,949.3 -607.6 758.2 -1,240.4 -482.2Number of cross sections

29 29 29 28 28 28 20 20 20

Average 84.0 -26.6 57.4 47.9 -69.6 -21.7 37.9 -62.0 -24.1
Table 5. Cross section comparison values for the Kenslers Bend reach, 2006–07.—Continued 

River mile Line number

June 2006 to March 2007 March 2006 to June 2006 April 2007 to July 2007

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square meters)

Net 

change 

(square meters)

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square meters)

Net change 

(square meters)

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area, 

(square meters)

Net cha

(squar

meter

747.8 1 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 139.2 -116.6 22.6747.7 2 135.0 -84.6 50.3 42.9 -41.6 1.3 21.1 -108.2 -87.1747.7 3 -no data- -no data- -no data- 89.1 -55.6 33.5 0.0 -87.4 -87.4747.5 4 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 112.2 -116.3 -4.1747.4 5 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 157.5 -129.1 28.4747.4 6 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 169.9 -169.8 0.1747.2 7 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 0.8 -54.5 -53.7747.2 8 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 24.8 -43.1 -18.4747.1 9 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 82.7 -57.4 25.3747.1 10 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 139.0 -78.2 60.8747 11 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 173.3 -173.6 -0.3746.8 12 101.7 -18.2 83.5 57.3 -107.0 -49.7 48.9 -165.7 -116.8746.7 13 -no data- -no data- -no data- 128.8 -158.3 -29.6 107.0 -15.7 91.3746.7 14 66.1 -59.2 6.8 226.5 -46.4 180.2 160.3 -134.0 26.3746.6 15 -no data- -no data- -no data- 190.7 -89.7 101.0 177.7 -189.2 -11.5746.5 16 113.8 -6.9 106.9 26.0 -166.3 -140.3 151.1 -129.5 21.6746.3 30 -no data- -no data- -no data- 92.2 -42.1 50.1 116.1 -92.4 23.8746 17 0.0 -13.3 -13.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 74.4 -44.3 30.1745.7 18 -no data- -no data- -no data- 116.1 -59.3 56.8 72.4 -92.1 -19.6745.7 19 33.1 -136.9 -103.8 173.9 -32.7 141.2 92.8 -106.5 -13.7745.2 20 -no data- -no data- -no data- 77.1 -138.8 -61.6 252.7 -87.7 164.9745.1 28 83.6 -0.3 83.3 12.0 -1.8 10.2 121.5 -60.5 61.0745 21 -no data- -no data- -no data- 35.3 -19.7 15.6 77.4 -79.2 -1.8744.8 26 46.9 -41.5 5.4 142.2 -72.3 69.9 203.7 -46.5 157.1744.7 27 -no data- -no data- -no data- 88.0 -125.4 -37.4 89.5 -84.6 4.8744.5 22 47.4 -38.7 8.7 163.4 -107.7 55.7 155.5 -157.2 -1.7744.4 23 -no data- -no data- -no data- 151.9 -71.7 80.2 149.3 -146.2 3.1744.3 29 30.8 -10.0 20.8 103.6 0.0 103.6 93.4 -87.1 6.3744.1 24 -no data- -no data- -no data- 129.4 -15.6 113.8 154.4 0.0 154.4744.1 25 39.2 -97.7 -58.5 174.4 -57.1 117.4 120.8 -211.2 -90.4

Total area 697.4 -507.3 190.1 2221.0 -1409.1 811.9 3,439.2 -3,063.8 375.5Number of cross sections

11 11 11 22 22 22 30 30 30

Average 63.4 -46.1 17.3 101.0 -64.0 36.9 114.6 -102.1 12.5
Table 5. Cross section comparison values for the Kenslers Bend reach, 2006–07.—Continued River mile Line number July 2007 to November 2007 April 2007 to November 2007 March 2006 to March 2007 Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net ch

(squa

mete

747.8 1 72.1 -50.0 22.2 159.0 -114.5 44.6 131.8 -144.9 -13747.7 2 70.8 -111.8 -41.0 68.4 -204.9 -136.5 117.5 -61.8 55747.7 3 2.0 -124.4 -122.3 0.1 -209.7 -209.5 -no data- -no data- -no da747.5 4 72.6 -102.6 -30.1 62.2 -96.3 -34.1 103.3 -128.6 -25747.4 5 41.7 -67.9 -26.2 99.4 -97.1 2.2 -no data- -no data- -no da747.4 6 66.0 -72.4 -6.5 137.3 -142.9 -5.7 167.1 -149.7 17747.2 7 0.0 -139.5 -139.5 0.0 -179.2 -179.2 -no data- -no data- -no da747.2 8 46.4 -136.0 -89.6 53.1 -161.2 -108.1 91.7 -32.5 59747.1 9 33.3 -96.3 -62.9 47.3 -85.1 -37.9 -no data- -no data- -no da747.1 10 38.1 -103.7 -65.6 69.7 -75.0 -5.3 128.7 -98.8 29747 11 61.8 -84.4 -22.6 111.2 -134.4 -23.1 -no data- -no data- -no da746.8 12 126.8 -51.9 74.8 167.3 -166.6 0.7 119.2 -97.9 21746.7 13 1.5 -195.8 -194.3 17.6 -105.4 -87.8 -no data- -no data- -no da746.7 14 42.2 -160.6 -118.4 79.6 -171.8 -92.2 187.2 -36.2 151746.6 15 24.7 -78.4 -53.7 136.0 -201.2 -65.2 -no data- -no data- -no da746.5 16 62.8 -59.6 3.2 140.8 -110.0 30.8 44.2 -94.9 -50746.3 30 21.0 -181.0 -160.0 15.4 -77.1 -61.6 -no data- -no data- -no da746 17 63.9 -118.0 -54.0 41.8 -66.0 -24.2 0.0 -0.1 -0745.7 18 117.4 -85.6 31.8 51.6 -39.1 12.5 -no data- -no data- -no da745.7 19 138.4 -106.3 32.1 40.2 -21.3 19.0 123.5 -54.1 69745.2 20 104.9 -146.5 -41.7 128.1 -14.9 113.2 -no data- -no data- -no da745.1 28 50.0 -155.6 -105.7 90.4 -95.4 -5.0 96.1 0.0 96745 21 44.5 -78.8 -34.3 60.1 -88.2 -28.1 -no data- -no data- -no da744.8 26 38.0 -139.3 -101.3 67.5 -11.8 55.7 152.9 -137.9 15744.7 27 83.7 -52.5 31.2 61.6 -36.2 25.5 -no data- -no data- -no da744.5 22 165.5 -181.0 -15.5 36.7 -53.5 -16.8 131.8 -82.8 49744.4 23 125.5 -192.7 -67.2 20.1 -73.0 -52.9 -no data- -no data- -no da744.3 29 124.2 -147.4 -23.2 101.1 -118.3 -17.1 136.0 0.0 136744.1 24 0.0 -256.6 -256.6 12.9 -73.5 -60.7 -no data- -no data- -no da744.1 25 77.7 -122.1 -44.4 109.9 -244.7 -134.8 116.7 -123.5 -6

Total area 1,917.3 -3,598.7 -1,681.4 2,186.6 -3,268.3 -1,081.7 1,847.7 -1,243.8 603Number of cross sections

30 30 30 30 30 30 16 16 16

Average 63.9 -120.0 -56.0 72.9 -108.9 -36.1 115.5 -77.7 37
Results 23

In the Kenslers Bend reach the most channel change 

occurred in where bars scoured and became open channel 

or channel became bars. This is likely from bar migration 

through the reach. This style of channel change occurred in 

over half of the Kenslers Bend cross sections. 

Little Sioux Reach

Thirty-three transects were surveyed at the Little Sioux 

reach five times in 2006 and four times in 2007 resulting in 

16 comparisons (appendix 3, figs. 13, 14, table 6). Typical 

cross sections from the Little Sioux reach showed changes in 

the channel similar to that seen in the Kenslers Bend reach 

(fig. 13). Although there were large magnitudes of deposition 

and erosion, between -12.41–13.6 percent of the index crosssectional area, net change was low through the reach (-4.1–3.3 

percent). In the Sioux reach, overall trends of erosion and 

deposition tended to be similar in adjacent cross sections 

reflecting change on a larger scale, such as mid-channel bars 

moving through the system.

The overall trend in the Sioux reach in 2006 was mixed 

with deposition and erosion occurring on all cross sections 

on an individual basis, but net erosion and deposition varying by cross-section location (fig. 14, table 6). In 2007 there 

was higher-magnitude deposition and erosion, and a measurable net change on a cross-section by cross-section basis, but 

reach average net change was -2.3 m2 (fig. 14, table 6). April 

2006 to May 2006 was the time period that included the 2006 

spring rise event; the reach had approximately equal amounts 

of erosion and deposition (fig. 14, table 10). During the winter 

from October 2006 to March 2007, net cross-section change 

was positive in nearly every cross section, but nearly all cross 

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

ELEVA

TIO

N, IN METERS

Little Sioux line 60p60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300

302

304

306

308

310

312

314

River mile 669.9

Little Sioux line 2p60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEV

ATION, IN

METERS

300

302

304

306

308

310

312

314

River mile 673.4 Little Sioux line 24p00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300

302

304

306

308

310

312

314

River mile 672.1

Little Sioux line 51p80

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300

302

304

306

308

310

312

314

River mile 670.4

March

April

May

July

October

Little Sioux, line 29p60

River mile 673.4

Little Sioux, line 24p00

River mile 672.1

Little Sioux, line 51p80

River mile 670.4

Little Sioux, line 60p60

River mile 669.9

ELEVA

TION, IN ME

TERS

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

EXPLANATION

March

April

July

October

2006 2007

Figure 13. Typical survey cross sections in the Little Sioux reach.
24 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Little Sioux March 2006–April 2006

Little Sioux April 2006–May 2006

Little Sioux May 2006–July 2006

Little Sioux July 2006–November 2006

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

CHANGE, IN SQUARE

METER

S

Little Sioux March 2006–April 2006

Little Sioux April 2006–May 2006

Little Sioux May 2006–July 2006

Little Sioux July 2006–November 2006

Little Sioux November 2006–March 2007

Little Sioux March 2007–April 2007

Little Sioux April 2007–July 2007

Little Sioux July 2007–November 2007

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

DEPOSITION OR EROSION

A.

NET CHANGE

Little Sioux November 2006–March 2007

Little Sioux March 2007–April 2007

Little Sioux April 2007–July 2007

Little Sioux July 2007–November 2007

Deposition

Erosion 

Net Change

EXPLANATION

Figure 14. Deposition, erosion, and net change for the Little Sioux reach.
Results 25

sections had erosion as well as deposition. In general, this 

reach experienced erosion and deposition at every cross section during most time periods, but the overall net change was 

low (fig. 14). 

Miami Reach

Thirty-three transects were surveyed at the Miami reach 

five times in 2006 and five times in 2007 (appendix 4, figs. 15, 

16, table 7). Erosion and deposition magnitudes ranged from 

-9.25–8.56 percent of the index cross-section area (1,242 m2), 

but net change was between -6.1 and 5.2 percent. 

In 2006, nearly all cross sections showed erosion, and the 

net result was erosion for the entire reach (fig 16 ). In 2007, 

the net result for the reach was erosion, but there was less 

erosion and more deposition on an individual cross-section 

basis (table 7). From May 2006 to July 2006, there were high 

rates of erosion, particularly from river miles 262.2–261.0, 

a bend that had a large amount of net erosion. From the late 

summer to fall (July 2006 to October 2006), the same region 

Figure 14. Deposition, erosion, and net change for the Little Sioux reach.—Continued

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

CH

ANGE, IN SQUA

RE METE

RS

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

DEPOSITION OR EROSION NET CHANGE

Little Sioux March 2006–November 2006

Little Sioux March 2007–November 2007

Little Sioux March 2006–November 2007

Little Sioux March 2006–March 2007

Little Sioux April 2006–April 2007

Little Sioux July 2006–July 2007

Little Sioux November 2006–November 2007

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Little Sioux March 2007–November 2007

Little Sioux March 2006–November 2006

Little Sioux March 2006–November 2007

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Little Sioux March 2006–March 2007

Little Sioux April 2006–April 2007

Little Sioux July 2006–July 2007

Little Sioux November 2006–November 2007

Deposition

Erosion 

Net Change

EXPLANATION

B.
Table 6. Cross section comparison values for the Little Sioux reach, 2006–07. River mile Line number March 2006 to April 2006 April 2006 to May 2006 May 2006 to July 2006 July 200

Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area, (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) 

673.4 2p60 152.9 -44.4 108.5 33.6 -9.8 23.8 34.1 -32.4 1.7 77.6 

673.4 4p20 17.2 -70.0 -52.9 86.5 -44.8 41.8 104.7 -74.3 30.4 88.2 

673.0 10p00 82.3 -50.5 31.8 26.0 -19.0 7.0 42.3 -12.8 29.6 50.1 

673.0 10p40 61.6 -4.9 56.8 16.3 -4.3 12.1 27.9 -3.5 24.4 21.0 

673.0 9p20 92.8 -29.8 63.0 23.5 -7.4 16.2 131.7 0.0 131.7 13.5 

672.6 16p80 113.8 -90.0 23.9 44.1 -24.2 19.9 14.3 -59.5 -45.2 82.0 

672.4 20p20 45.4 -0.8 44.6 0.7 -95.4 -94.7 1.3 -45.7 -44.4 19.6 

672.3 22p20 114.4 -17.0 97.4 33.1 -0.8 32.3 4.1 -99.1 -95.1 7.7 

672.2 23p80 32.1 -36.2 -4.1 108.6 -54.9 53.8 74.2 -86.4 -12.2 18.6 

672.1 24p00 31.0 -14.0 17.0 100.2 -32.9 67.3 67.7 -68.0 -0.3 1.5 

671.9 27p80 64.6 -12.2 52.4 54.8 -10.4 44.4 74.4 -129.1 -54.7 60.1 

671.8 30p20 22.5 -14.9 7.7 31.0 -28.9 2.1 38.0 -77.5 -39.5 105.2 

671.7 31p00 46.6 -6.2 40.4 14.8 -35.9 -21.1 97.2 -82.9 14.3 68.3 

671.6 32p80 40.4 -6.6 33.9 39.9 -14.4 25.5 82.9 -110.9 -28.0 34.0 

671.4 35p80 28.5 -34.1 -5.6 37.2 -5.2 31.9 35.3 -81.4 -46.1 175.0 

671.3 36p80 66.8 -16.6 50.2 29.6 -15.3 14.3 80.2 -76.3 3.8 131.9 

671.3 37p00 69.1 -34.3 34.8 25.2 -12.3 12.8 84.3 -69.4 14.9 114.9 

671.2 39p20 5.6 -24.4 -18.9 30.8 -8.0 22.8 110.1 -105.3 4.8 61.3 

671.0 43p20 53.4 -37.9 15.5 21.0 -11.2 9.8 39.8 -21.8 18.0 89.1 

670.9 43p40 36.5 -41.6 -5.0 37.2 -5.4 31.8 35.2 -25.2 9.9 70.5 

670.8 45p60 31.1 -15.9 15.2 19.4 -7.8 11.7 20.0 -18.1 1.9 44.1 

670.6 48p40 11.4 -42.4 -31.0 6.8 -15.4 -8.6 8.5 -27.8 -19.3 31.9 

670.6 50p00 11.7 -11.0 0.7 16.7 -17.8 -1.1 2.8 -36.8 -34.0 19.6 

670.5 51p00 22.9 -8.6 14.4 10.5 -13.3 -2.8 8.9 -28.1 -19.3 64.7 

670.4 51p80 87.8 -23.1 64.6 31.8 -4.5 27.3 1.5 -39.0 -37.5 74.6 

670.3 56p40 22.5 -36.8 -14.3 42.4 -2.8 39.6 50.6 -86.9 -36.3 88.3 

670.2 57p40 110.5 -56.7 53.8 16.2 -21.5 -5.3 47.2 -54.1 -6.9 120.3 

670.1 58p80 70.7 -53.7 17.0 26.3 -45.2 -18.9 40.6 -82.5 -41.9 87.7 

670.0 59p80 7.7 -47.7 -40.0 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 61.6 

669.9 60p60 34.5 -13.4 21.1 6.3 -52.7 -46.4 113.8 -108.3 5.5 41.9 

669.8 62p00 57.1 -3.3 53.8 15.6 -23.9 -8.4 49.5 -93.0 -43.5 51.7 

669.8 62p60 76.3 -8.3 68.0 18.7 -25.2 -6.5 25.1 -51.9 -26.8 66.6 

Total area 1,721.8 -907.3 814.5 1,005.1 -987.0 18.2 1,548.1 -1,888.1 -340.0 2,043.0 

Number of cross sections 32 32 32 31 31 31 31 31 31 32 

Average 53.8 -28.4 25.5 32.4 -31.8 0.6 49.9 -60.9 -11.0 63.8 
Table 6. Cross section comparison values for the Little Sioux reach, 2006–07.—Continued

River 

mile

Line 

number

November 2006 to March 2007 March 2007 to April 2007 April 2007 to July 2007 July 2007 

Deposition area 

(square meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square meters)

Net 

change 

(square meters)

Deposition area 

(square meters)

Erosion 

area, 

(square 

meters)

Net 

change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square 

meters)

Net 

change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Er

a

(s

m

673.4 2p60 50.6 -30.2 20.4 43.8 -33.3 10.5 101.4 -98.2 3.1 151.1 -

673.4 4p20 127.7 -97.4 30.2 26.5 -37.0 -10.6 146.8 -147.2 -0.5 100.2 -

673.0 10p00 143.7 -137.8 5.9 41.8 -45.9 -4.1 152.5 -122.7 29.8 33.9 

673.0 10p40 3.8 -98.9 -95.1 21.1 -19.1 1.9 106.2 -20.5 85.8 31.8 

673.0 9p20 129.6 -63.7 66.0 50.3 -46.8 3.5 140.9 -74.9 66.0 11.3 -

672.6 16p80 116.9 -112.1 4.7 19.6 -24.9 -5.3 142.4 -128.6 13.8 54.3 

672.4 20p20 63.2 -25.5 37.7 17.2 -5.7 11.5 110.0 0.0 110.0 8.1 -

672.3 22p20 41.7 -6.6 35.1 8.3 -12.7 -4.4 83.6 -11.4 72.2 3.7 

672.2 23p80 54.0 -37.4 16.6 31.0 -20.7 10.3 29.1 -15.7 13.3 101.4 

672.1 24p00 33.5 -42.9 -9.4 30.6 -12.0 18.6 21.2 -9.2 12.1 116.0 

671.9 27p80 42.7 -57.0 -14.2 40.7 -30.0 10.7 59.1 -71.1 -12.0 35.6 

671.8 30p20 68.5 -12.9 55.6 15.4 -23.5 -8.1 28.6 -97.5 -68.9 75.9 

671.7 31p00 95.4 -20.5 74.9 21.2 -38.2 -17.1 14.2 -63.6 -49.4 120.3 

671.6 32p80 120.7 -82.8 37.9 20.3 -25.1 -4.8 6.2 -57.6 -51.4 62.7 -

671.4 35p80 37.3 -29.9 7.5 15.4 -36.6 -21.2 120.0 -111.9 8.2 68.4 

671.3 36p80 69.5 -34.9 34.6 24.7 -27.1 -2.5 76.9 -81.3 -4.4 121.7 

671.3 37p00 71.9 -18.0 53.9 25.3 -18.3 7.0 64.9 -77.9 -13.1 132.1 -

671.2 39p20 135.4 -108.0 27.4 35.9 -25.8 10.1 9.4 -24.4 -15.0 25.5 -

671.0 43p20 55.8 -28.2 27.6 39.0 -57.6 -18.6 107.1 -72.4 34.7 29.0 

670.9 43p40 82.1 -20.6 61.5 26.3 -55.9 -29.6 81.9 -90.6 -8.7 34.5 

670.8 45p60 152.9 -44.9 108.1 34.1 -17.7 16.4 15.6 -132.8 -117.2 51.1 

670.6 48p40 30.8 -20.3 10.4 26.1 -9.2 16.9 131.9 -54.2 77.6 24.3 

670.6 50p00 52.1 -20.1 31.9 25.8 -11.0 14.8 124.6 -124.9 -0.3 36.6 

670.5 51p00 41.0 -37.3 3.7 22.2 -8.3 13.9 52.5 -84.3 -31.7 103.7 

670.4 51p80 21.8 -48.4 -26.6 27.9 -9.9 17.9 35.7 -34.5 1.1 123.7 

670.3 56p40 24.8 -43.7 -18.9 14.4 -41.2 -26.8 116.3 -72.5 43.8 35.2 

670.2 57p40 17.5 -38.3 -20.9 8.6 -34.3 -25.8 39.5 -37.8 1.8 -no data- -no 

670.1 58p80 91.0 -24.0 67.0 15.9 -74.5 -58.6 28.8 -9.3 19.5 128.4 -

670.0 59p80 93.2 -45.8 47.4 24.4 -32.7 -8.2 60.2 -54.9 5.3 62.9 -

669.9 60p60 101.0 -55.5 45.5 31.4 -25.5 5.9 59.2 -41.4 17.8 19.3 

669.8 62p00 41.2 -63.5 -22.3 65.2 -23.3 41.9 43.5 -33.2 10.4 24.0 

669.8 62p60 28.5 -70.1 -41.6 84.7 -25.2 59.6 26.6 -46.2 -19.6 50.0 

Total area 2,239.7 -1,577.0 662.7 935.1 -909.1 26.0 2,336.8 -2,102.7 234.1 1,976.9 -2,

Number of cross sections

32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 31 

Average 70.0 -49.3 20.7 29.2 -28.4 0.8 73.0 -65.7 7.3 63.8 
Table 6. Cross section comparison values for the Little Sioux reach, 2006–07.—Continued River mile Line number March 2006 to October 2006 March 2007 to October 2007 March 2006 to October 2007 Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area, (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) 673.4 2p60 75.4 -13.3 62.0 50.6 -31.0 19.6 115.8 -13.7 102.1 673.4 4p20 108.6 -125.6 -17.0 62.3 -97.2 -35.0 77.8 -99.2 -21.4 673.0 10p00 111.6 -77.9 33.7 169.2 -170.3 -1.1 122.6 -84.0 38.6 673.0 10p40 58.4 -5.7 52.6 127.4 -12.9 114.5 76.1 -4.0 72.1 673.0 9p20 76.6 -82.6 -6.0 91.7 -148.6 -56.8 86.9 -83.7 3.2 672.6 16p80 110.1 -72.7 37.4 154.1 -151.6 2.5 153.4 -108.6 44.8 672.4 20p20 19.6 -144.5 -124.9 22.2 -38.5 -16.3 14.0 -117.6 -103.6 672.3 22p20 18.4 -54.0 -35.6 45.2 -15.7 29.6 52.8 -23.9 28.9 672.2 23p80 27.2 -47.2 -20.0 136.5 -92.8 43.8 126.4 -86.0 40.4 672.1 24p00 30.2 -27.7 2.5 144.5 -30.6 113.9 134.9 -27.8 107.1 671.9 27p80 124.7 -88.5 36.2 54.3 -72.6 -18.3 52.0 -48.3 3.7 671.8 30p20 14.4 -30.2 -15.8 87.3 -154.4 -67.1 90.8 -118.3 -27.5 671.7 31p00 26.3 -46.2 -19.9 130.1 -160.1 -30.1 145.3 -120.3 25.0 671.6 32p80 85.4 -84.1 1.3 47.6 -146.8 -99.1 49.5 -109.6 -60.1 671.4 35p80 161.8 -155.2 6.5 140.3 -132.2 8.1 94.9 -73.0 21.9 671.3 36p80 81.8 -67.8 14.0 172.1 -151.6 20.5 162.2 -92.0 70.1 671.3 37p00 49.4 -59.9 -10.5 174.8 -160.6 14.1 165.5 -108.2 57.3 671.2 39p20 72.1 -69.8 2.3 46.0 -136.3 -90.2 19.5 -80.0 -60.5 671.0 43p20 130.5 -143.4 -12.9 117.5 -108.3 9.3 46.3 -22.3 24.0 670.9 43p40 103.8 -120.2 -16.4 94.4 -127.4 -32.9 33.1 -21.2 11.9 670.8 45p60 53.6 -43.3 10.4 75.7 -188.7 -113.0 35.7 -30.3 5.3 670.6 48p40 34.0 -134.1 -100.1 72.8 -14.5 58.3 13.7 -44.9 -31.2 670.6 50p00 35.0 -150.5 -115.5 129.7 -100.5 29.2 1.9 -56.6 -54.7

670.5 51p00 76.9 -73.7 3.2 150.4 -102.0 48.4 21.9 -8.1 13.8670.4 51p80 74.9 -34.4 40.5 165.1 -91.8 73.3 117.0 -30.0 87.0670.3 56p40 154.1 -134.1 20.0 97.0 -99.0 -2.0 37.2 -37.8 -0.6670.2 57p40 90.9 -3.5 87.4 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data670.1 58p80 56.8 -70.3 -13.5 70.8 -132.3 -61.6 116.1 -124.4 -8.3670.0 59p80 71.7 -110.0 -38.3 21.0 -94.0 -72.9 50.1 -113.7 -63.6669.9 60p60 78.8 -119.9 -41.1 11.6 -63.1 -51.5 16.4 -63.5 -47.1669.8 62p00 88.8 -93.0 -4.2 78.5 -50.3 28.2 35.9 -34.2 1.7669.8 62p60 94.6 -75.5 19.1 118.8 -56.5 62.3 75.3 -35.5 39.8

Total area 2,396.5 -2,558.7 -162.3 3,059.8 -3,132.4 -72.6 2,340.8 -2,020.7 320.2Number of cross sections

32 32 32 31 31 31 31 31 31

Average 74.9 -80.0 -5.1 98.7 -101.0 -2.3 75.5 -65.2 10.3
Table 6. Cross section comparison values for the Little Sioux reach, 2006–07.—Continued

River 

mile

Line 

number

March 2006 to March 2007 April 2006 to April 2007 July 2006 to July 2007 October 200

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square 

meters)

Net 

change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area, 

(square 

meters)

Net 

change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square meters)

Net 

change 

(square meters)

Deposition area 

(square meters)

E(m

673.4 2p60 83.7 -1.2 82.5 70.6 -86.2 -15.6 5.8 -43.5 -37.7 65.8 

673.4 4p20 35.6 -22.4 13.2 59.1 -3.6 55.5 24.0 -41.1 -17.1 56.7 

673.0 10p00 101.6 -61.9 39.7 112.0 -108.2 3.8 29.3 -32.2 -3.0 47.8 

673.0 10p40 20.7 -63.2 -42.4 10.2 -107.5 -97.3 0.1 -48.1 -48.0 35.5 

673.0 9p20 115.2 -55.2 59.9 92.7 -92.2 0.5 0.9 -82.2 -81.4 50.8 

672.6 16p80 77.9 -35.7 42.2 140.1 -126.9 13.2 77.2 -24.9 52.3 50.8 

672.4 20p20 4.3 -91.5 -87.2 0.0 -120.5 -120.5 130.2 -1.6 128.6 28.3 

672.3 22p20 20.0 -20.6 -0.6 11.2 -113.6 -102.4 37.4 -4.8 32.6 71.9 

672.2 23p80 18.0 -21.4 -3.4 28.9 -17.9 11.0 21.3 -38.6 -17.2 106.2 

672.1 24p00 14.1 -20.9 -6.8 11.1 -16.3 -5.1 2.1 -62.2 -60.1 112.1 

671.9 27p80 70.4 -48.4 22.0 69.4 -89.2 -19.8 62.9 -84.3 -21.4 88.3 

671.8 30p20 46.0 -6.2 39.8 50.6 -26.5 24.0 54.5 -61.9 -7.5 102.3 

671.7 31p00 59.6 -4.6 55.0 24.2 -26.8 -2.5 67.4 -112.5 -45.1 131.0 

671.6 32p80 61.8 -22.6 39.2 24.4 -23.8 0.5 79.6 -128.0 -48.3 1.0 

671.4 35p80 143.3 -129.2 14.0 110.2 -111.9 -1.7 55.8 -35.1 20.6 159.0 

671.3 36p80 112.8 -64.2 48.6 107.2 -111.7 -4.5 92.3 -119.3 -27.0 190.7 

671.3 37p00 89.4 -45.9 43.5 123.4 -107.9 15.5 105.5 -130.7 -25.3 189.9 

671.2 39p20 68.0 -38.2 29.8 63.7 -4.9 58.7 136.6 -120.5 16.1 44.6 

671.0 43p20 145.7 -131.1 14.6 49.8 -69.1 -19.2 19.4 -31.6 -12.3 128.9 

670.9 43p40 158.9 -113.7 45.2 74.6 -54.0 20.6 15.6 -45.3 -29.8 103.6 

670.8 45p60 161.8 -43.4 118.5 165.7 -45.9 119.7 43.6 -54.7 -11.1 51.7 

670.6 48p40 27.6 -117.3 -89.7 42.0 -83.8 -41.8 71.9 -8.2 63.7 89.7 

670.6 50p00 58.8 -142.5 -83.7 57.4 -127.2 -69.8 37.6 -72.6 -35.0 133.5 

670.5 51p00 107.1 -84.3 22.8 107.9 -138.0 -30.1 35.9 -75.7 -39.8 122.1 

670.4 51p80 79.5 -65.6 13.9 94.2 -127.0 -32.8 71.8 -93.2 -21.5 119.4 

670.3 56p40 117.6 -116.2 1.4 77.0 -88.1 -11.1 87.4 -58.0 29.4 117.6 

670.2 57p40 70.6 -3.8 66.8 92.6 -105.3 -12.7 45.2 -43.9 1.3 -no data- -n

670.1 58p80 84.1 -31.1 52.9 59.7 -82.2 -22.5 180.9 -123.1 57.8 74.0 

670.0 59p80 38.7 -29.5 9.1 60.4 -19.5 40.9 180.4 -129.6 50.8 30.7 

669.9 60p60 33.3 -28.9 4.4 25.0 -35.9 -10.8 169.5 -121.6 47.9 66.2 

669.8 62p00 34.5 -60.9 -26.5 4.0 -42.4 -38.4 72.8 -48.9 23.9 110.2 

669.8 62p60 33.2 -55.7 -22.5 12.6 -43.5 -30.9 9.6 -26.7 -17.2 129.6 

Total area 2,293.7 -1,777.3 516.4 2,032.2 -2,357.6 -325.4 2,024.4 -2,105.0 -80.7 2,809.8 -2

Number of cross sections

32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 31 

Average 71.7 -55.5 16.1 63.5 -73.7 -10.2 63.3 -65.8 -2.5 90.6 
30 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

(RM 262.2–261.0) experienced high deposition, and the reach 

experienced net overall deposition. 

In general, the region around the Miami bridge (fig. 16) 

was more stable than the rest of the reach and scour and fill 

was highest downstream from wing dikes. Cross sections in 

the Miami reach did not have erosion and deposition occur on 

individual cross sections as was seen in the Little Sioux reach. 

Instead, there was generally a trend for a given cross section 

towards deposition or erosion for any pair of dates (fig. 16). 

Longitudinal Profiles

Longitudinal profiles were assessed for reach-scale comparisons and characteristic bedform calculations. These profiles were surveyed along planned lines in what was estimated 

to be the thalweg of each reach based on channel plan form in 

March 2006. The same line was driven for each subsequent 

survey. 

Reach-Scale Profiles

Longitudinal thalweg profiles were not collected for 

every survey in the Yankton and Kenslers Bend reaches. The 

longitudinal profiles surveyed in June 2007 show a thalweg 

trace and characteristic bedforms for the Yankton reach (fig. 

17). The July 2007 survey at Kenslers Bend demonstrates 

characteristic bedforms in the reach (fig. 18). Gravel and sand 

dunes were present on portions of the bed in both of these 

reaches. 

Figure 15. Typical survey cross sections for the Miami reach.

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

180

185

190

195

Mi Miami line 48p40 ami line 63p20

500 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

180

185

190

195

Miami line 25p40

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

180

185

190

195

Miami line 13p60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

500 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

180

185

190

195

EXPLANATION

March

April

May

July

October

March

April

May

July

October

2006 2007

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

ELEVA

TION, IN ME

TERS

Miami, line 63p20

River mile 263.4

Miami, line 48p40

River mile 262.5

Miami, line 25p40

River mile 261.1

Miami, line 13p60

River mile 260.3
Table 7. Cross section comparison values for the Miami reach, 2006–07.

River 

mile

Line 

number

March 2006 to April 2006 April 2006 to May 2006 May 2006 to July 2006 July 2006 to 

Deposition area 

(square meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square meters)

Net 

change 

(square meters)

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area, 

(square meters)

Net 

change 

(square meters)

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square 

meters)

Net 

change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Er

a

(sq

me

259.5 0p40 46.7 -25.0 21.7 40.1 -27.1 13.0 24.6 -37.3 -12.6 33.7 

259.7 3p20 57.8 -4.3 53.5 44.6 -22.5 22.1 27.6 -47.4 -19.8 19.1 

259.7 3p80 69.4 -7.1 62.3 55.4 -38.2 17.2 12.3 -64.5 -52.2 22.6 

260.3 12p60 69.3 -37.8 31.5 6.4 -72.9 -66.5 13.9 -64.0 -50.1 18.5 

260.3 13p20 81.3 -31.9 49.4 2.5 -91.1 -88.6 28.4 -37.0 -8.5 5.5 

260.3 13p60 86.5 -44.7 41.7 6.5 -100.5 -94.1 17.2 -35.5 -18.2 8.1 

260.4 14p60 55.4 -59.7 -4.3 9.9 -74.4 -64.5 23.2 -44.6 -21.4 13.0 

260.5 15p40 64.8 -44.8 20.0 15.2 -76.8 -61.6 13.9 -35.6 -21.7 6.8 

260.6 17p80 55.5 -43.2 12.3 51.0 -48.8 2.3 27.0 -47.7 -20.6 17.5 

261.0 23p40 23.5 -33.1 -9.6 11.9 -74.8 -62.9 0.0 -192.2 -192.2 210.8 

261.0 24p40 28.7 -58.4 -29.7 9.7 -75.7 -66.0 0.0 -177.2 -177.2 233.3 

261.1 25p20 42.2 -76.1 -33.8 10.8 -61.9 -51.2 0.0 -194.4 -194.4 224.1 

261.1 25p40 41.8 -84.1 -42.4 18.3 -72.2 -53.9 1.3 -189.4 -188.1 219.2 

261.2 28p00 20.6 -64.8 -44.1 35.0 -45.3 -10.3 0.0 -189.3 -189.3 227.8 

261.4 30p80 32.1 -55.4 -23.3 33.0 -27.5 5.6 0.1 -197.9 -197.7 186.2 

261.5 32p40 16.1 -40.5 -24.4 26.6 -29.0 -2.5 0.0 -180.4 -180.4 253.8 

261.9 38p00 73.8 -4.2 69.6 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 79.2 

261.9 39p00 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no 

262.2 43p00 42.9 -12.2 30.8 10.5 -58.9 -48.4 6.2 -293.0 -286.7 234.4 

262.2 43p40 83.2 -6.2 77.0 25.8 -64.6 -38.8 13.5 -262.6 -249.1 241.2 

262.5 48p40 66.5 -1.9 64.6 3.2 -40.4 -37.2 78.0 -31.3 46.7 16.6 

262.6 49p40 42.3 -10.5 31.7 31.5 -4.2 27.3 44.1 -16.8 27.3 0.3 

262.6 50p20 52.9 -24.0 28.8 46.9 -9.8 37.0 10.1 -15.4 -5.3 0.7 

262.7 51p20 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no 

262.8 53p00 110.2 0.0 110.2 18.6 -33.3 -14.8 4.3 -88.9 -84.6 9.7 -

262.9 54p20 77.7 -1.3 76.4 10.3 -61.9 -51.6 2.8 -71.5 -68.7 46.9 

262.9 55p00 62.9 -11.6 51.4 20.0 -51.8 -31.8 19.6 -65.8 -46.2 32.0 

263.0 55p60 58.9 -37.4 21.5 44.2 -18.3 25.9 29.4 -90.7 -61.3 34.8 

263.3 62p00 30.3 -40.5 -10.2 29.8 -55.2 -25.4 51.1 -66.7 -15.6 13.8 

263.4 62p60 35.3 -47.3 -12.0 17.2 -65.0 -47.8 72.8 -77.9 -5.1 72.6 

263.4 63p20 38.6 -83.4 -44.8 14.4 -58.9 -44.4 85.6 -62.6 23.0 105.9 

263.5 65p00 36.3 -39.8 -3.6 66.8 -63.7 3.1 49.2 -17.2 32.0 103.7 

263.6 65p80 196.6 -35.9 160.7 76.4 -58.2 18.1 90.1 -110.9 -20.8 45.1 -

Total area 1,800.2 -1,067.0 733.1 792.6 -1,583.3 -168.7 746.4 -3,005.3 -2,258.9 2,736.8 -1,

Number of cross sections

31 31 31 30 30 30 30 30 30 31 

Average 58.1 -34.4 23.6 26.4 -52.8 -5.6 24.9 -100.2 -75.3 88.3 
Table 7. Cross section comparison values for the Miami reach, 2006–07.—Continued River mile Line number March 2007 to April 2007 April 2007 to May 2007 May 2007 to August 2007 August 2007 t

Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area, (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Er

(sm

259.5 0p40 4.0 -100.8 -96.8 67.1 -24.6 42.4 27.6 -25.2 2.4 41.0 

259.7 3p20 19.6 -63.1 -43.5 3.5 -156.5 -153.0 140.1 -5.4 134.7 56.9 

259.7 3p80 8.9 -87.4 -78.6 33.6 -124.2 -90.5 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no 

260.3 12p60 13.9 -53.8 -40.0 60.0 -5.8 54.2 5.6 -75.0 -69.4 1.6 

260.3 13p20 16.4 -91.6 -75.2 62.3 -28.4 33.9 13.2 -63.6 -50.4 21.9 

260.3 13p60 8.0 -87.4 -79.4 82.8 -7.8 75.0 2.4 -73.3 -71.0 2.7 

260.4 14p60 35.2 -46.2 -11.0 23.0 -56.4 -33.4 58.8 -28.4 30.5 13.6 

260.5 15p40 30.8 -85.2 -54.4 30.3 -105.1 -74.8 133.5 -16.5 117.0 10.6 -

260.6 17p80 34.1 -44.0 -9.9 8.1 -141.7 -133.6 234.2 -1.3 232.9 2.8 -

261.0 23p40 30.5 -86.7 -56.2 45.3 -94.2 -48.8 203.6 -10.3 193.3 28.1 

261.0 24p40 29.2 -83.0 -53.8 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 21.2 

261.1 25p20 25.0 -122.2 -97.2 15.5 -153.8 -138.4 246.4 -12.8 233.6 37.3 

261.1 25p40 20.4 -97.0 -76.6 13.3 -140.9 -127.6 264.7 -14.5 250.2 23.8 

261.2 28p00 13.1 -85.4 -72.3 241.2 -82.2 159.0 28.7 -133.3 -104.7 70.2 

261.4 30p80 67.7 -108.7 -41.0 106.5 -48.5 58.0 50.5 -108.2 -57.6 47.4 

261.5 32p40 36.5 -90.4 -53.9 62.7 -46.8 15.9 188.7 -133.3 55.4 74.1 

261.9 38p00 85.0 -17.6 67.4 32.3 -78.3 -46.0 26.0 -27.3 -1.3 34.4 

261.9 39p00 18.6 -106.4 -87.9 107.6 -0.2 107.4 24.8 -29.0 -4.3 32.0 

262.2 43p00 34.9 -58.9 -24.0 56.3 -69.8 -13.5 37.7 -63.4 -25.7 8.0 

262.2 43p40 35.5 -60.8 -25.3 72.5 -65.2 7.3 58.5 -94.7 -36.2 22.3 

262.5 48p40 8.5 -45.2 -36.7 11.8 -98.1 -86.3 77.0 -4.1 72.9 18.1 

262.6 49p40 -no data- -no data- -no data- 2.1 -150.9 -148.8 76.9 0.0 76.9 27.5 

262.6 50p20 8.7 -36.6 -27.9 2.3 -92.5 -90.2 62.0 -2.1 59.9 13.1 

262.7 51p20 24.5 -64.5 -40.0 18.9 -61.5 -42.6 75.8 -0.4 75.5 0.1 

262.8 53p00 7.0 -122.4 -115.4 3.1 -104.3 -101.2 108.5 -5.2 103.3 4.2 

262.9 54p20 31.5 -44.9 -13.4 19.5 -33.3 -13.9 80.2 -6.3 74.0 7.6 

262.9 55p00 11.9 -74.1 -62.1 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 1.6 -

263.0 55p60 39.9 -36.2 3.7 28.2 -54.1 -25.9 136.0 -7.7 128.3 5.3 

263.3 62p00 26.7 -65.2 -38.5 144.3 -10.8 133.5 21.4 -77.9 -56.5 22.8 

263.4 62p60 32.9 -29.7 3.2 150.5 -5.3 145.2 37.2 -125.2 -88.0 31.7 

263.4 63p20 82.3 -21.7 60.6 155.6 -26.4 129.3 34.2 -137.7 -103.5 28.2 

263.5 65p00 27.7 -66.8 -39.2 52.9 -88.4 -35.6 156.5 -52.8 103.7 22.1 

263.6 65p80 19.6 -125.9 -106.3 254.2 -81.2 173.0 126.6 -374.1 -247.4 59.4 -

Total area 888.6 -2,309.9 -1,421.3 1,967.2 -2,237.4 -270.2 2,737.5 -1,708.9 1,028.6 791.7 -1

Number of cross sections

32 32 32 31 31 31 30 30 30.0 32.0 

Average 27.8 -72.2 -44.4 63.5 -72.2 -8.7 91.3 -57.0 34.3 24.7 
Table 7. Cross section comparison values for the Miami reach, 2006–07.—Continued

River mile Line number

November 2006 to March 2007 March 2006 to November 2006 March 2007 to November 2007

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square 

meters)

Net 

change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square meters)

Erosion 

area, 

(square 

meters)

Net 

change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square 

meters)

Net chang

(square meters)

259.5 0p40 42.7 -32.4 10.2 40.1 -29.4 10.7 20.6 -48.1 -27.5

259.7 3p20 51.0 -31.2 19.9 44.6 -33.1 11.6 41.8 -58.4 -16.5

259.7 3p80 51.6 -38.4 13.2 55.4 -53.3 2.1 47.4 -29.4 18.1

260.3 12p60 114.1 -15.5 98.6 6.4 -126.4 -120.0 1.2 -53.2 -52.0

260.3 13p20 143.1 -2.2 140.9 2.5 -137.2 -134.8 2.3 -122.5 -120.2

260.3 13p60 155.2 -6.3 148.8 6.5 -149.2 -142.8 0.8 -82.9 -82.0

260.4 14p60 118.3 -27.6 90.8 9.9 -151.1 -141.1 11.3 -73.6 -62.3

260.5 15p40 131.5 -4.6 126.9 15.2 -114.9 -99.7 10.0 -133.4 -123.4

260.6 17p80 55.2 -31.5 23.7 51.0 -105.5 -54.4 45.3 -55.5 -10.2

261.0 23p40 44.3 -109.2 -64.9 11.9 -73.3 -61.5 72.0 -29.2 42.8

261.0 24p40 20.4 -121.0 -100.6 9.7 -103.7 -94.0 52.1 -27.7 24.5

261.1 25p20 43.8 -82.8 -39.0 10.8 -139.6 -128.8 51.1 -43.5 7.6

261.1 25p40 46.9 -85.9 -39.1 18.3 -155.5 -137.1 73.9 -47.3 26.6

261.2 28p00 131.7 -105.7 25.9 35.0 -110.8 -75.8 44.2 -75.6 -31.3

261.4 30p80 78.5 -49.8 28.8 33.0 -100.0 -67.0 74.7 -94.5 -19.8

261.5 32p40 110.3 -152.6 -42.4 26.6 -92.2 -65.6 68.1 -38.8 29.3

261.9 38p00 94.5 -77.9 16.6 0.0 -92.6 -92.6 94.4 -48.7 45.7

261.9 39p00 135.3 -83.7 51.6 -no data- -no data- -no data- 63.2 -39.4 23.8

262.2 43p00 117.2 -7.7 109.4 10.5 -100.2 -89.7 4.3 -115.4 -111.0

262.2 43p40 98.9 -9.6 89.2 25.8 -56.3 -30.5 5.6 -99.5 -93.9

262.5 48p40 36.7 -12.3 24.4 3.2 -14.2 -11.0 3.9 -46.9 -42.9

262.6 49p40 -no data- -no data- -no data- 31.5 -31.2 0.3 -no data- -no data- -no data262.6 50p20 54.9 -1.0 54.0 46.9 -59.2 -12.4 0.2 -65.8 -65.5

262.7 51p20 110.9 -12.7 98.1 0.0 -82.2 -82.2 14.7 -106.7 -92.0

262.8 53p00 194.1 -4.7 189.4 18.6 -119.2 -100.6 3.1 -159.6 -156.4

262.9 54p20 87.9 -54.5 33.4 10.3 -160.2 -149.9 13.1 -49.3 -36.2

262.9 55p00 76.6 -39.6 37.0 20.0 -161.8 -141.8 15.2 -66.6 -51.4

263.0 55p60 58.5 -64.4 -6.0 44.2 -150.3 -106.1 40.6 -17.2 23.4

263.3 62p00 81.6 -52.7 28.9 29.8 -141.2 -111.4 45.0 -22.4 22.6

263.4 62p60 17.5 -52.6 -35.1 17.2 -99.8 -82.6 75.8 -31.7 44.1

263.4 63p20 23.5 -44.6 -21.0 14.4 -87.1 -72.7 75.9 -51.4 24.5

263.5 65p00 74.3 -119.4 -45.1 66.8 -46.2 20.5 60.0 -36.1 23.9

263.6 65p80 316.8 -94.0 222.9 76.4 -62.4 14.0 21.9 -281.4 -259.5

Total area 2,917.6 -1,628.1 1,289.5 792.6 -3,139.4 -2,346.8 1,154.0 -2,251.2 -522.4Number of cross sections

32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32

Average 91.2 -50.9 40.3 24.8 -98.1 -73.3 36.1 -70.4 -16.3
Table 7. Cross section comparison values for the Miami reach, 2006–07.—Continued River mile Line number March 2006 to November 2007 March 2006 to March 2007 April 2006 to April 2007 Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area (square meters) Net change (square meters) Deposi- tion area (square meters) Erosion area, (square meters) Net chang

(squarmeters

259.5 0p40 21.9 -47.3 -25.5 35.1 -33.1 2.0 1.5 -118.0 -116.259.7 3p20 68.9 -60.9 8.0 61.0 -36.5 24.6 18.3 -90.7 -72.259.7 3p80 40.9 -61.8 -21.0 31.5 -44.8 -13.3 3.8 -158.1 -154.260.3 12p60 12.6 -36.9 -24.3 51.6 -42.2 9.4 8.7 -70.7 -62.260.3 13p20 16.1 -89.0 -72.9 73.6 -26.3 47.3 23.6 -101.0 -77.260.3 13p60 9.2 -40.5 -31.3 55.5 -19.3 36.2 16.5 -101.5 -84.260.4 14p60 19.2 -110.2 -91.0 51.7 -80.5 -28.8 38.1 -73.6 -35.260.5 15p40 25.0 -122.2 -97.2 66.3 -40.0 26.3 46.5 -94.6 -48.260.6 17p80 91.4 -111.0 -19.6 53.7 -63.0 -9.3 32.2 -63.8 -31.261.0 23p40 55.8 -131.5 -75.7 47.2 -165.7 -118.5 16.9 -182.0 -165.261.0 24p40 50.5 -166.3 -115.8 62.6 -202.9 -140.3 17.9 -182.3 -164.261.1 25p20 72.6 -159.2 -86.6 63.2 -157.4 -94.3 22.2 -179.8 -157.261.1 25p40 90.1 -167.5 -77.4 79.8 -183.8 -104.1 40.6 -178.8 -138.261.2 28p00 35.4 -73.6 -38.2 54.3 -60.7 -6.4 36.2 -71.2 -35.261.4 30p80 43.3 -65.0 -21.7 106.9 -108.8 -1.9 63.1 -82.7 -19.261.5 32p40 55.2 -43.2 12.0 67.8 -85.0 -17.2 64.6 -111.3 -46.261.9 38p00 102.6 -65.7 36.9 71.6 -80.4 -8.8 37.8 -48.8 -11.261.9 39p00 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no dat262.2 43p00 11.3 -104.2 -92.9 63.0 -44.8 18.2 30.0 -66.6 -36.262.2 43p40 46.4 -72.1 -25.7 93.7 -25.5 68.2 55.3 -89.4 -34.262.5 48p40 24.3 -8.9 15.4 64.9 -6.4 58.5 20.4 -63.4 -43.262.6 49p40 29.3 -29.5 -0.2 -no data- -no data- -no data- 27.9 -13.5 14.262.6 50p20 14.6 -52.3 -37.7 54.3 -26.6 27.7 9.6 -38.5 -28.262.7 51p20 6.3 -66.4 -60.1 68.3 -36.4 31.9 -no data- -no data- -no dat262.8 53p00 3.1 -81.8 -78.7 82.2 -4.4 77.8 1.7 -149.5 -147.262.9 54p20 30.2 -116.1 -85.9 30.3 -80.1 -49.7 18.9 -158.5 -139.262.9 55p00 63.7 -142.4 -78.7 71.8 -101.9 -30.1 17.8 -161.4 -143.263.0 55p60 74.5 -115.3 -40.9 67.2 -131.5 -64.3 37.7 -119.8 -82.263.3 62p00 47.6 -69.1 -21.5 39.1 -83.2 -44.1 48.0 -120.4 -72.263.4 62p60 48.5 -78.1 -29.6 44.1 -118.0 -73.8 35.1 -93.7 -58.263.4 63p20 64.9 -99.9 -35.0 50.2 -109.7 -59.5 71.8 -25.9 45.263.5 65p00 69.2 -51.2 18.0 54.3 -60.1 -5.8 66.2 -107.7 -41.263.6 65p80 93.3 -99.5 -6.3 307.6 -54.4 253.2 96.0 -109.9 -13.

Total area 1,438.1 -2,739.0 -1,300.9 2,124.4 -2,313.4 -189.0 1,025.1 -3,227.1 -2,202.Number of cross sections 32 32 32 31 31 31 31 31 31Average 44.9 -85.6 -40.7 68.5 -74.6 -6.1 33.1 -104.1 -71.
Table 7. Cross section comparison values for the Miami reach, 2006–07.—Continued

River mile Line number

May 2006 to May 2007 July 2006 to August 2007 March 2006 to March 2007

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square 

meters)

Net change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square 

meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square 

meters)

Net change 

(square 

meters)

Deposition area 

(square meters)

Erosion 

area 

(square 

meters)

Net 

chang

(squa

meter

259.5 0p40 38.7 -125.7 -87.0 31.8 -103.7 -71.9 24.5 -41.7 -17259.7 3p20 0.0 -247.5 -247.5 4.6 -97.6 -93.0 43.3 -39.9 3259.7 3p80 0.7 -262.7 -262.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 -22.9 0260.3 12p60 73.2 -14.6 58.6 73.5 -34.2 39.3 0.3 -46.7 -46260.3 13p20 49.9 -4.8 45.1 51.1 -47.9 3.2 59.4 -38.7 20260.3 13p60 84.4 -0.3 84.1 59.4 -28.1 31.3 2.6 -41.2 -38260.4 14p60 56.9 -61.3 -4.3 77.1 -29.6 47.5 78.1 -49.6 28260.5 15p40 42.2 -103.6 -61.4 105.5 -28.2 77.3 72.6 -69.1 3260.6 17p80 0.7 -168.1 -167.4 92.2 -6.0 86.2 30.2 -16.8 13261.0 23p40 26.3 -177.3 -151.0 234.5 0.0 234.5 54.4 -76.6 -22261.0 24p40 -no data- -no data- -no data- 193.6 0.0 193.6 10.6 -86.7 -76261.1 25p20 10.0 -254.8 -244.8 183.2 0.0 183.2 19.6 -51.0 -31261.1 25p40 12.6 -224.6 -212.0 205.1 -2.1 203.0 39.2 -51.5 -12261.2 28p00 191.8 -57.5 134.3 221.0 -2.1 218.9 69.6 -90.2 -20261.4 30p80 96.0 -63.2 32.8 172.9 0.0 172.9 59.5 -50.8 8261.5 32p40 114.2 -142.6 -28.4 214.5 -7.0 207.5 112.3 -125.3 -13261.9 38p00 -no data- -no data- -no data- 75.9 -26.8 49.1 123.1 -61.1 62261.9 39p00 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 105.7 -30.4 75262.2 43p00 73.4 -75.1 -1.7 270.9 -11.5 259.4 38.6 -40.2 -1262.2 43p40 76.0 -64.0 12.0 254.4 -29.3 225.1 41.7 -46.4 -4262.5 48p40 0.9 -93.0 -92.1 28.9 -94.8 -65.9 15.8 -34.4 -18262.6 49p40 0.0 -161.7 -161.7 0.4 -95.0 -94.6 9.4 -18.1 -8262.6 50p20 0.0 -156.2 -156.2 11.2 -102.1 -91.0 10.1 -21.6 -11262.7 51p20 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- 20.3 -14.3 5262.8 53p00 2.3 -236.5 -234.3 14.9 -61.3 -46.4 46.3 -13.3 33262.9 54p20 13.4 -115.3 -101.9 61.2 -20.4 40.8 59.9 -62.7 -2262.9 55p00 -no data- -no data- -no data- 73.4 -19.6 53.8 35.9 -50.1 -14263.0 55p60 25.9 -159.9 -133.9 72.5 -16.8 55.7 59.4 -42.0 17263.3 62p00 109.1 -22.6 86.5 88.4 -42.9 45.5 81.4 -29.9 51263.4 62p60 146.4 -12.0 134.4 131.5 -80.0 51.5 42.7 -33.7 9263.4 63p20 227.0 -7.4 219.6 172.2 -79.7 92.5 61.2 -57.7 3263.5 65p00 37.2 -117.2 -80.1 40.9 -49.2 -8.3 55.1 -76.3 -21263.6 65p80 230.8 -87.7 143.1 78.3 -164.0 -85.8 101.6 -138.2 -36

Total area 1,739.7 -3,216.8 369.6 3,295.2 -1,280.1 2,015.1 1,608.0 -1,669.1 -61Number of cross sections

28 28 28 31 31 31 33.0 33.0 33

Average 62.1 -114.9 13.2 106.3 -41.3 65.0 48.7 -50.6 -1
36 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami March 2006–April 2006

Miami April 2006–May 2006

Miami May 2006–July 2006

Miami July 2006–November 2006

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami March 2006–April 2006

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami April 2006–May 2006

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami May 2006–July 2006

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami July 2006–November 2006

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

Miami March 2007–April 2007

Miami April 2007–May 2007

Miami May 2007–August 2007

Miami August 2007–November 2007

Miami November 2006–March 2007

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami March 2007–April 2007

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami April 2007–May 2007

Miami May 2007–August 2007

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami August 2007–November 2007

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami November 2006–March 2007

DEPOSITION OR EROSION

A.

NET CHANGE

CHANGE, IN SQUARE

METERS

Deposition

Erosion 

Net Change

EXPLANATION

Figure 16. Deposition, erosion, and net change for the Miami reach.
Results 37

-400

-200

0

200

400 Miami March 2006–November 2006

Miami March 2007–November 2007

Miami March 2006–November 2007

Miami March 2006–March 2007

Miami April 2006–April 2007

Miami May 2006–May 2007

Miami July 2006–August 2007

Miami November 2006–November 2007

Miami March 2006–November 2006

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami March 2007–November 2007

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami March 2006–November 2007

-400

-200

0

200

400

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami March 2006–March 2007

Miami April 2006–April 2007

UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

DEPOSITION OR EROSION NET CHANGE

CHANGE, IN SQUARE

METERS

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami May 2006–May 2007

-400

-200

0

200

400 Miami July 2006–August 2007

-400

-200

0

200

400

Miami November 2006–November 2007

Deposition

Erosion 

Net Change

EXPLANATION

B.

Figure 16. Deposition, erosion, and net change for the Miami reach.—Continued
38 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

ELEV

ATI

O

N, IN 

METERS

342

344

346

348

350

352

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

ELEVA

TION, IN ME

TERS

342

344

346

348

350

352

344

346

348

350

352

Yankton, June 28,2007

509.7 cubic meters per second

EXPLANATION

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

ELEVA

TION, IN

METERS

344

346

348

350

352

Longitudinal profile water surface

Longitudinal profile elevation

Short longitudinal profile water surface

Short longitudinal profile elevation

A

A

B C B

C

Gravel

Sand dunes

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

1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400

1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400

2,000 2,050 2,100 2,150 2,200

Figure 17. Longitudinal profiles for the Yankton reach.

Figure 18. Longitudinal profiles for Kenslers Bend reach.

ELEVATI

ON, IN

METERS

324

326

328

330

332

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

324

326

328

330

332

Longitudinal profile water surface

Longitudinal profile elevation

Short longitudinal profile water surface

Short longitudinal profile elevation

324

326

328

330

332

Kenslers Bend, July 25, 2007 

707.9 cubic meters per second

EXPLANATION

Sand dunes Gravel and bedrock

Gravel and bedrock,

right descending bank

(from side-scan)

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

1,200 1,210 1,220 1,230 1,240 1,250 5,000 5,010 5,020 5,030 5,040 5,050

A

A B

B
Results 39

Figure 19. Long and short profiles for each survey date in the Little Sioux reach.

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

ELEV

ATI

O

N, IN 

METERS

298

300

302

304

306

308

310

312

March 2006, 371.0 cubic meters per second

March 2007, 1,138.3 cubic meters per second

April 2006, 767.4 cubic meters per second

April 2007, 654.1 cubic meters per second

May 2006, 866.4 cubic meters per second

July 2006, 761.7 cubic meters per second

July 2007, 730.6 cubic meters per second

October 2006, 328.5 cubic meters per second

November 2007, 419.1 cubic meters per second

Little Sioux Reach, 2006 and 2007 longitudinal profiles

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

ELEVATI

ON, IN

METERS

298

300

302

304

306

308

310

312

EXPLANATION

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

ELEVA

TION, IN ME

TERS

302

304

306

308

310

312

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

1,100 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 

1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 

A

A

B

B
40 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

ELEVA

TION, IN ME

TERS

184

186

188

190

192

194

196

March 2006, 1,138.3 cubic meters per second

March 2007, 1,608.6 cubic meters per second

April 2006, 1,410.2 cubic meters per second

April 2007, 2,418.3 cubic meters per second

May 2006, 1,129.1 cubic meters per second

May 2007, 3,284.4 cubic meters per second

July 2006, 991.1 cubic meters per second

August 2007, 1,489.5 cubic meters per second

November 2006, 608.8 cubic meters per second

November 2007, 880.7 cubic meters per second

Miami Reach 2006 and 2007 longitudinal profiles

EXPLANATION

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

ELEVATI

ON, IN

METERS

186

188

190

192

194

196

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

ELEVA

TIO

N, IN METERS

184

186

188

190

192

194

196

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

6,600 6,500 6,400 6,300 6,200 6,100 6,000

6,600 6,550 6,500 6,450 6,400 

Figure 20. Long and short profiles for each survey date in the Miami reach.
Results 41

Longitudinal thalweg profiles were surveyed in the Little 

Sioux and Miami reaches for every survey over the 2-year 

period (figs. 19 and 20). Short profiles in a 500-m long subsection of the longitudinal profile also were resampled 2–4 hours 

later to measure dune movement. The bed changed in elevation considerably over the surveys in the Little Sioux reach. 

Large-scale channel feature (sandbar) movement as well as 

smaller-scale (dune) movement occurred in this reach over 

the range of discharges surveyed. Thalweg elevation changes 

in the Little Sioux reach were in the range of 4–5 m. Thalweg 

bed elevation change was mostly at the dune scale, and the 

changes in elevations in the Miami reach were 2–4 m (fig. 20). 

Bedforms

Changes in bedform size were observed in longitudinal 

profiles in all reaches with variation in discharge (table 8, figs. 

21–23). Detailed sequences of bedform change over a large 

range of discharges were surveyed in the Little Sioux and 

Miami reaches (figs. 21–22). Characteristic dune length and 

height for all reaches generally increased with discharge (fig. 

23). 

 Gravel bedforms in the Yankton reach tended to be 

fairly flat with small < 0.3 m fluctuations in height (fig. 17 

C), or have gentle dune-forms that covered tens of meters in 

302

304

306

308

310

Longitudinal profile 

Short longitudinal profile 

April 17

767.4 cubic meters per second

302

304

306

308

310

Longitudinal profile July 18

761.7 cubic meters per second

302

304

306

308

310

Longitudinal profile 

Short longitudinal profile

March 16

1,138.3 cubic meters per second

302

304

306

308

310

Longitudinal profile 

Short longitudinal profile 

July 19

730.6 cubic meters per second

302

304

306

308

310 Longitudinal profile 

Short longitudinal profile

March 14

371.0 cubic meters per second

302

304

306

308

310

Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile

Little Sioux, 2006

May 17

866.5 cubic meters per second

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

ELEV

ATI

O

N, IN 

METERS

302

304

306

308

310

Longitudinal profile 

Short longitudinal profile 

October 24

328.5 cubic meters per second

302

304

306

308

310

Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile 

April 10

654.1 cubic meters per second

302

304

306

308

310

Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile

October 31

 419.1 cubic meters per second

1,000 1,120 1,140 1,160 1,180 1,200 1,000 1,120 1,140 1,160 1,180 1,200

Little Sioux, 2007

Figure 21. Compiled short and long longitudinal profiles for 2006 and 2007 in the Little Sioux reach.
42 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

longitudinal distance and average amplitudes greater than 0.3 

m (table 8; fig. 17 D). These low-relief bedforms were less 

steep than bedforms in the other three reaches with very low 

dune length to height ratios (fig. 23). Side-scan sonar indicated some locations in the Yankton reach where sand dunes 

cover bedrock, but these conditions were likely transient and 

were difficult to detect unless side-scan sonar imagery was 

collected the same date as a longitudinal profile. The Kenslers 

Bend reach was mostly sand bedded, although there is gravel 

and bedrock on the right bank near river mile 745.5. The longitudinal profile follows portions of the channel thalweg that 

were sand bedded and gravel bedded (fig. 18). 

In the Kenslers Bend reach characteristic bedform measurements were made in a sand-bedded portion of the longitudinal profile. Dunes for the entire study period ranged from 

0.25–0.41 m in height to 1.8–5.4 m in length (table 8). Dune 

length to height ratios generally increased with discharge (fig. 

23). Dunes were similar to dune sizes for comparable discharges in the Little Sioux Reach (fig. 23). 

Characteristic dunes in the predominately sand-bedded 

Little Sioux reach ranged in size for all of the surveys from 

Figure 22. Compiled short and long longitudinal profiles for 2006 and 2007 in the Miami reach.

184

188

192

196 Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile

March 22 

1,138.3 cubic meters per second 

184

188

192

196 Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile

April 19

1,410.2 cubic meters per second

184

188

192

196 Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile

May 22

1,192.1 cubic meters per second

ELEVATI

ON, IN

METERS

184

188

192

196

Longitudinal profile July 25

991.1 cubic meters per second

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

184

188

192

196

Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile

November 6

608.8 cubic meters per second

184

188

192

196 Long profile elevation

Short profile elevation

Miami, 2007

March 26

1,605.6 cubic meters per second

ELEVATI

ON, IN

METERS

184

188

192

196

Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile

April 30

2,418.3 cubic meters per second 

184

188

192

196

Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile

May 18

3,284.4 cubic meters per second

184

188

192

196 Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile

August 15

1,489.5 cubic meters per second

184

188

192

196 Longitudinal profile

Short longitudinal profile

November 26

880.7 cubic meters per second

6,400 6,350 6,300 6,250 6,200 6,400 6,350 6,300 6,250 6,200

Miami, 2006
Results 43

0.17–0.92 m high (figs. 21, 23, table 8). Dune length varied 

from 2.46–8.1 m. The largest bedforms occurred during the 

highest flow surveyed, March 16, 2007, at 1,140 m3/s. Bedform differencing between the long and short longitudinal 

profiles, a measure of sediment transport produced one-dimensional sediment fluxes ranging from 0.11–0.54 m2

/hr (table 8, 

fig. 23). 

In the Miami reach, characteristic dunes varied in height 

for all of the surveys from 0.52–1.45 m (fig. 22, table 8). Dune 

length varied from 5.04–38.7 m. Bedform size increased with 

discharge, until the highest surveyed discharge, 3,280 m3/s 

measured on May 18, 2007 (figs. 22, 23). Dunes decreased in 

size considerably at this flow, and the mean bed elevation was 

also much lower than the two previous surveys that spring 

(figs. 20, 22–23). This change in bedforms occurred on the 

falling limb of the hydrograph, after a peak flow of 8,070 m3/s 

on May 8, 2007. During the 18-day period between the April 

30 survey (2,420 m3/s) and the May 18 survey there were 11 

days with a flow above the April 30 flow (3,280 m3/s). The 

May 18 survey thalweg bed elevation was 1–2 m below previously surveyed dune fields over much of the surveyed length 

(fig. 20). During this event the bed may have scoured to an 

armored level. In this case there may have not been sufficient 

sediment supply from upstream at this stage in the flood event 

to replenish the dunes in this reach. 

Bedform differencing calculations resulted in onedimensional bed-material sediment flux values of 0.42 to 1.53 

m2/hr in the Miami reach (table 8, fig. 23). One-dimensional 

bed-material sediment flux increased with discharge generally in the Little Sioux and Miami reaches, but this sediment 

transport measure decreased from the April 2007 to May 2007 

surveys in the Miami reach.

Substrate

Side-scan sonar surveys conducted in all the reaches 

in 2007 allowed for visualization of substrate such as sand, 

gravel, and bank revetment rock, and other river habitat and 

biotic features including large woody debris and fish (fig. 

24). In addition, the side-scan sonar surveys conducted in the 

Yankton and Kenslers Bend reaches coincided with surveys 

that allow for additional longitudinal profile interpretation. 

At Yankton, a region with a flat long profile with very small 

(< 0.2 m) oscillations in height was validated by side scan as 

gravel (fig. 25). In the Kenslers Bend reach, the transition on 

the right descending bank near river mile 745 from sand bed 

to gravel was observed on side scan, and subtle differences in 

bedforms from jagged crests to more rounded crests were verified as gravel/bedrock and sand dunes, respectively (fig. 26).

Figure 23. Bedform dimensions and one-dimensional sediment flux calculated from bedforms in the four reaches.

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METERS PER SECOND

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

DUNE HEIGHT

T

O LEN

G

TH R

A

TIO

0

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

EXPLANATION

DUNE LENGTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

DUNE HEIGHT

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METERS PER SECOND

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

DUNE HEIGHT 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METERS PER SECOND

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

DUNE LENG

TH

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METERS PER SECOND

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

ONE DIMENSIONAL 

SEDIMEN

T FLUX, 

IN SQUARE

METERS

PE

R HOUR

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Yankton

Kenslers Bend

Little Sioux

Miami
Table 8. Bedforms dimensions and dune movement calculations for each reach and discharge. [Gavins Point Dam, South Dakota (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); Missouri River main-stem streamflow-gaging stations and identification numbers: Sioux City, Iowa, 06406601200; Waverly, Missouri 06895500] Site Date Gage Discharge, (cubic meters per second) Water tempera- ture (degrees Celsius1) Characteristic dune height (meters) Characteristic dune length (meters) Dune height to length ratio 

Yankton 03/08/2006 Gavins Point Dam 255 3 0.25 37.25 0.01 

03/28/2006 Gavins Point Dam 595 4 0.55 49.61 0.01 05/15/2006 Gavins Point Dam 708 15 0.75 66.00 0.01 06/26/2006 Gavins Point Dam 708 23 0.17 2.25 0.08 03/09/2007 Gavins Point Dam 255 3 0.46 37.80 0.01 03/13/2007 Gavins Point Dam 453 3 0.43 54.38 0.01 06/28/2007 Gavins Point Dam 508 24 0.50 15.30 0.03 

Kenslers Bend 03/10/2006 Sioux City 348 5 0.25 3.00 0.08 

03/30/2006 Sioux City 674 8 0.41 3.90 0.11 05/15/2006 Sioux City 708 10 0.33 4.80 0.07 06/19/2006 Sioux City 827 23 0.36 1.80 0.20 04/12/2007 Sioux City 629 5 0.37 5.10 0.07 07/25/2007 Sioux City 708 27 0.36 5.40 0.07 

Little Sioux 03/14/2006 Decatur 368 4 0.34 2.46 0.14 

04/17/2006 Decatur 767 16 0.34 3.08 0.11 05/17/2006 Decatur 867 15 0.33 3.69 0.09 07/18/2006 Decatur 736 27 0.31 2.46 0.13 10/24/2006 Decatur 329 7 0.29 4.32 0.07 03/16/2007 Decatur 1,138 3 0.92 8.10 0.11 04/10/2007 Decatur 654 6 0.42 4.50 0.09 07/19/2007 Decatur 714 28 0.37 3.12 0.12 10/31/2007 Decatur 425 11 0.17 3.75 0.05 

Miami 03/22/2006 Waverly 708 6 0.60 6.15 0.10 

04/19/2006 Waverly 1,410 19 0.74 10.50 0.07 05/22/2006 Waverly 1,192 20 0.67 10.20 0.07 07/25/2006 Waverly 991 29 0.69 6.08 0.11 

11/06/2006 Waverly 609 11 0.52 5.04 0.10 

03/26/2007 Waverly 1,606 13 1.25 23.40 0.05 04/30/2007 Waverly 2,418 15 1.45 38.70 0.04 05/18/2007 Waverly 3,285 21 0.77 15.60 0.05 08/15/2007 Waverly 1,490 30 0.62 9.77 0.06 

11/26/2007 Waverly 881 6 1.05 16.65 0.06 

1Temperature data from measurements made at the same time as bedform measurements using an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP).2No data values- calculations are for sand-bed only; no calculations available for Yankton. For all other –no data- values bend long and short profile survey pairs were not 
Results 45

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

670

671

672

673

96°06'45" 96°06' 96°05'15" 96°04'30"

41°50'15"

41°49'30"

41°48'45"

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program, digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

0 500 1,000 METERS

0 1,500 3,000 FEET

0 10 20 METERS

0 15 30 60 FEET

0 10 20 METERS

0 15 30 60 FEET

EXPLANATION

!

!P

59+80

Fine sediment

Sand, dunes

Sand, dunes

Sand, dunes

Wing dike

(rock)

Bank revetment

(rock)

Large

woody

debris

A

A

B

B

C

C

River miles (1960)

from U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers

Randomly selected transects

River mile

0 10 20 METERS

0 15 30 60 FEET

Figure 24. Side-scan sonar survey with bed features indicated.
46 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

Bed Velocity

In addition to bedform differencing, bed-velocity measurements using ADCP data were calculated as an additional 

measure of sediment transport. Bed velocity was measured 

by subtracting the bottom-tracking position produced by the 

ADCP from the position derived from the GPS over a time 

period. The ADCPs deployed for these transects utilize four 

beams, which widen through the water column with distance 

from the instrument. Each beam measures an independent 

region on the bed, which is spatially averaged by the ADCP. 

Nevertheless, spatially patchy distributions of sediment movement can introduce considerable variability in bed-velocity 

measurements. Potential errors in bed-velocity calculations 

are related to the assumption that bedload velocity is homogenous within the sampled area, and that noise introduced by 

suspended sediment is negligible (Rennie and others, 2002; 

Rennie and Millar, 2004). Average bed-velocity magnitudes 

for an entire survey date are used to reduce measurement noise 

(table 9). Bed velocities generally increased with discharge 

in all the reaches (fig. 27). The highest average bed-velocity 

magnitude occurred in the Miami reach during a high flow on 

April 30, 2007. The highest surveyed discharge on May 18, 

2007, had a considerably lower bed-velocity magnitude, similar to the trend observed in bedform size and one-dimensional 

bed-material flux in the Miami reach from April to May in 

2007. 

Discussion

The following sections address sensitivity of reach 

morphodynamics to discharge variations, differences among 

the monitored reaches, and implications for understanding 

!!!

!! !P !

!!! !

! !!!!

!

!

!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!

!!!

!!!!! !! !! !!! !!!!! !!!! !!

!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! !! !! !

! !

! !! ! !!!!

! !!

!!!!!! ! !

! !! ! !! !! ! !!! !!!

!! !!! !!! !!! !!!! !

1

2

14

15

13

19

16

17

18

3

12

807

97°25' 97°24'45" 97°24'30" 97°24'15" 42°52'15"

42°52'

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program, digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

River miles from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1960

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

13

0 10 METERS

0 20 40 FEET

EXPLANATION

! Longitudinal profile 5/24/2007

Randomly selected transects

!P River mile

Longitudinal profile, 5/24/2007

Randomly selected transect

River mile

180 200 220 240 260

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

DEPTH, IN METERS

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

Gravel

Gravel

Figure 25. Side-scan sonar and bedforms in the Yankton reach.
!P

!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

20

21

28

27

26

745

96°37'30" 96°37'15" 96°37'

42°30'45"

42°30'30"

42°30'15"

Base from

U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program, digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

0 100 200 METERS

0 500 1,000 FEET

River miles from

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1960

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EXPL

A

N

ATIO

N

0 5 10 METERS

0 10 20 40 FEET

0 5 10 METERS

0 10 20 40 FEET

!

Longitudinal profile 5/25/2007Randomly selected transects

!P River mile

380 400 

0.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

DEPTH, IN METERS

DIS

TANCE FROM S

DIS

TANCE FROM 

DEPTH, IN METERS

1100 1120 11

3.5

4.04.55.05.56.06.5

Gravel/bedrockSand dunes

Sand dunes

Sand dunes

Gravel/bedrock

Gravel/bedrock

B

A

B

A

A

B

B

Longitudinal profile, 5/25/2007Randomly selected transectRiver mile

River miles (1960)from U.S.Army Corps of Engineers

1,100 1,120 1,14

Figure 26. Side-scan sonar and bedforms in the Kenslers Bend reach.
48 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

sturgeon habitat dynamics. Although the 2006 pulsed flow 

modification from Gavins Point Dam did not provide a 

distinct, isolated pulse, and the 2007 control year included 

substantial uncontrolled flow pulses, results from the four 

monitored reaches provide information on spatial variability 

and morphodynamic sensitivity to flow pulses. 

Discharge Variation and Morphodynamics

Monitoring results provide several measures of how 

discharge variation affects sediment transport and channel 

morphology. Geomorphic changes address how the channel 

geometry changes at the cross section and reach scale. Resurveys of the randomized cross sections document change within 

and among years. Resurveys of the entire reach (compilation 

surveys) document total geomorphic change on an annual 

timeframe. These direct morphologic measures are complemented with indirect measures of bedload transport; bedform 

differencing and bed velocity.

Geomorphic Changes

For comparison purposes, the magnitudes of erosion and 

deposition were normalized by a percent of the average survey 

cross-section area at median annual flow or index crosssection area. For all possible date combinations, the Yankton 

reach had the least deposition, erosion, and net change (fig. 28, 

table 10). Percent total change in the Yankton reach was 2–3 

percent of index cross-section area. The Kenslers Bend reach 

had the highest rates of deposition, erosion, and net change of 

the four reaches with total change rates from 14–33 percent of 

index cross-sectional area (table 10). The Little Sioux reach 

had fairly high rates of deposition and erosion, and moderately 

low total change rates of 8 to 26 percent of index cross-section 

area. The Miami reach had intermediate rates of deposition, 

erosion, and total change, 6 to 14 percent when compared to 

the other three reaches (table 10).

Average magnitudes of deposition and erosion in the 

Yankton reach were much lower than the other three reaches 

(fig. 28, table 10). This was probably because of several factors. First, this reach is located closest (approximately 5 RM) 

downstream from Gavins Point Dam, in a reach characterized 

by declining water-surface elevations and channel incision 

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007b; Jacobson and others, 2009). Also, this reach has distinctly coarser substrate 

compared to the other three primarily sand-bedded reaches, 

ranging from gravel to cobble bottom overlain with patches of 

small dunes and rippled sand (fig. 24). 

Flow Pulses and Morphodynamics

In March 2006 all the surveys took place before the 

planned manipulated flow pulse from Gavins Point Dam (U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, 2007a). The pulsed flow modification from Gavins Point Dam occurred during a 7-year period 

of drought in the basin (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

2006b) and was small when compared to high flow releases 

from the dam such as the 1997 flow event. The 2006 pulse was 

initiated from Gavins Point Dam on May 12 from a base discharge of 456 m3

/s. Discharge was increased to about 710 m3/s 

over 2 days, held constant for 2 days, and then dropped about 

113 m3/s over 3 days. After May 19, discharges were cycled 

between 710 and 594 m3/s, 1 day up and 2 days down until 

June 13 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007a). All reaches 

were re-surveyed in April 2006 (figs. 6, 29, table 10); these 

resurveys generally captured increases from low winter flows 

to near navigation level flows. In all of the reaches there was 

net deposition from March 2006 to April 2006. Subsequently, 

from the April 2006 survey to May 2006 survey the Yankton, 

Kenslers Bend, and Miami reaches experienced net erosion, 

and the Little Sioux reach experienced no net change (figs. 

28–29, table 10). Net erosion in the Yankton was small in the 

time period. 

Discharges for the May 2006 surveys were greater than 

the April surveys at the three upstream reaches, and all four 

reaches had substantial flow variation (manipulated and nonmanipulated) between the two surveys. During the summer 

flows in 2006 the general trend was erosion in all reaches. 

Between the October/November 2006 and March 2007 surveys, deposition was dominant in the Little Sioux and Miami 

reaches. During the June 2006 to March 2007 time period, 

which includes late summer and winter flows in the Kenslers 

Bend reach, there was net deposition as well. There was no 

planned pulsed-flow modification from Gavins Point Dam 

in 2007. Nevertheless, there was substantial flow variation 

because of ramping of flows to support navigation, unplanned 

flow pulses out of the James, Vermillion, and Big Sioux Rivers, and the sustained high flow in the spring in the Miami 

DISCHARGE, IN PERCENT OF

MEDIAN DAILY DISCHARGE

0 50 100 150 200 250

AVERA

GE BED

VELOCITY, 

IN METERS PER SEC

OND 0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

EXPLANATION

Yankton

Kenslers Bend

Little Sioux

Miami

Figure 27. Average bed velocity and discharge in all reaches.
Discussion 49

Table 9. Bed velocity from acoustic Doppler current profiler data.

[Gavins Point Dam, South Dakota (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); Missouri River main-stem streamflow-gaging stations and identification numbers: 

Sioux City, Iowa, 06486000; Decatur, Nebraska, 06601200; Waverly, Missouri 06895500]

Site Date Gage

Discharge 

(cubic meters 

per second)

Percent 

discharge of 

median daily 

discharge

Mean bed 

velocity magnitude (meters 

per second)

Mean depth 

(meters)

Yankton 20060307 Gavins Point Dam 255 35 0.03 2.40

20060328 Gavins Point Dam 595 81 0.03 2.70

20060515 Gavins Point Dam 708 96 0.13 2.76

20060627 Gavins Point Dam 708 96 0.09 2.61

20070314 Gavins Point Dam 453 62 0.01 2.40

20070626 Gavins Point Dam 510 69 0.07 2.62

20071108 Gavins Point Dam 254 34 0.04 2.06

Kenslers Bend 20060309 Sioux City 348 42 0.04 2.26

20060330 Sioux City 657 80 0.05 2.92

20060516 Sioux City 869 105 0.08 3.33

20060620 Sioux City 850 103 0.11 3.45

20070315 Sioux City 1,085 132 0.08 2.94

20070411 Sioux City 629 76 0.04 2.55

20070620 Sioux City 708 86 0.07 3.20

20071110 Sioux City 343 42 0.03 2.09

Little Sioux 20060316 Decatur 365 45 0.03 2.46

20060417 Decatur 767 95 0.04 3.93

20060517 Decatur 867 107 0.05 4.14

20060720 Decatur 759 94 0.10 3.62

20061024 Decatur 329 41 0.04 2.27

20070316 Decatur 1,138 141 0.07 4.74

20070410 Decatur 654 81 0.03 3.45

20070720 Decatur 714 88 0.09 3.53

20071031 Decatur 419 52 0.09 2.75

Miami 20060323 Waverly 731 51 0.03 3.17

20060419 Waverly 1,410 99 0.05 4.38

20060522 Waverly 1,192 83 0.04 4.07

20060727 Waverly 983 69 0.02 3.44

20061106 Waverly 609 43 0.04 3.01

20070326 Waverly 1,606 112 0.06 4.66

20070430 Waverly 2,418 169 0.17 5.78

20070518 Waverly 3,285 230 0.04 7.49

20070814 Waverly 1,490 104 0.03 4.73

20071126 Waverly 881 62 0.04 3.54
50 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

Table 10. Cross-section erosion and deposition for the four reaches.

[m2, square meters; index cross-section area, average cross-section area at median annual flow]

Site Dates

Number of 

cross sections

Average deposition area (m2

 )

Average 

erosion area 

(m2)

Average net 

change (m2)

Percent net 

change of 

index crosssection area

Average 

total change 

(m2)

Percent total 

change of 

index crosssection area

2006

Yankton March–April 27 11.2 -3.1 8.1 1.2 14.3 2.2

April–May 28 4.8 -7.7 -2.9 -0.4 12.5 1.9

May–June 30 7.6 -3.4 4.1 0.6 11.0 1.7

Kenslers March–April 30 81.2 -25.7 55.5 8.5 107.0 16.3

Bend April–May 29 46.3 -67.2 -21.0 -3.2 113.5 17.3

May–June 21 36.1 -59.1 -23.0 -3.5 95.2 14.5

Little March–April 33 52.2 -27.5 24.7 3.3 79.7 10.7

Sioux April–May 32 31.4 -30.8 0.6 0.1 62.3 8.4

May–July 32 58.1 -59.0 -0.9 -0.1 117.1 15.7

July–October 33 61.9 -92.3 -30.4 -4.1 154.2 20.7

Miami March–April 32 56.3 -33.3 22.9 1.8 89.6 7.2

April–May 30 26.4 -52.8 -26.4 -2.1 79.2 6.4

May–July 30 24.9 -100.2 -75.3 -6.1 125.1 10.1

July–November 31 88.3 -53.4 34.9 2.8 141.7 11.4

2007

Yankton March–June 25 4.0 -12.0 -7.9 -1.2 16.0 2.5

June–November 29 3.8 -11.7 -7.9 -1.2 15.5 2.4

Kenslers June 2006–January 2007 12 58.1 -42.3 15.8 2.4 100.4 15.3

Bend April–July 30 114.6 -102.1 12.5 1.9 216.8 33.1

July–November 30 63.9 -120.0 -56.0 -8.5 183.9 28.0

Little October 2006–March 2007 33 67.9 -47.8 20.1 2.7 115.7 15.5

Sioux March–April 33 28.3 -27.5 0.8 0.1 55.9 7.5

April–July 33 70.8 -63.7 7.1 1.0 134.5 18.1

July–October 32 61.8 -72.9 -11.2 -1.5 134.7 18.1

Miami November 2006–March 2007 32 91.2 -50.9 40.3 3.2 142.1 11.4

March–April 32 27.8 -72.2 -44.4 -3.6 100.0 8.0

April–June 31 63.5 -72.2 -8.7 -0.7 135.6 10.9

June–August 31 88.3 -55.1 33.2 2.7 143.4 11.5

August–November 33 24.0 -54.1 -30.1 -2.4 78.1 6.3

Annual

Yankton March 2006–June 2006 27 11.7 -2.2 9.5 1.5 13.9 2.1

March 2007–November 2007 24 1.4 -18.8 -17.4 -2.7 20.3 3.1

Kenslers March 2006–June 2006 22 101.0 -64.0 36.9 5.6 165.0 25.2

Bend April 2007–November 2007 30 72.9 -108.9 -36.1 -5.5 181.8 27.7

Little March 2006–October 2006 33 72.6 -77.5 -4.9 -0.7 150.2 20.2

Sioux March 2007–October 2007 32 95.6 -97.9 -2.3 -0.3 193.5 26.0

March 2006–October 2007 32 73.2 -63.1 10.0 1.3 136.3 18.3

Miami March 2006–November 2006 32 24.8 -98.1 -73.3 -5.9 122.9 9.9

March 2007–November 2007 32 36.1 -70.4 -34.3 -2.8 106.4 8.6

March 2006–November 2007 32 44.9 -85.6 -40.7 -3.3 130.5 10.5

Intra-annual

Yankton1 -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no data- -no dataKenslers Bend March 2006– March 2007 16 115.5 -77.7 37.7 5.8 193.2 29.5

Little March 2006– March 2007 33 69.5 -53.9 15.6 2.1 123.4 16.6

Sioux April 2006– April 2007 33 61.6 -71.4 -9.9 -1.3 133.0 17.9

June 2006–200707 33 61.3 -63.8 -2.4 -0.3 125.1 16.8

October 2006– October 2007 32 87.8 -68.9 18.9 2.5 156.7 21.1

Miami March 2006–March 2007 31 68.5 -74.6 -6.1 -0.5 143.2 11.5

April 2006– April 2007 32 32.0 -100.8 -68.8 -5.5 132.9 10.7

June 2006–June 2007 28 62.1 -114.9 -52.8 -4.2 177.0 14.3

July 2006–August 2007 31 106.3 -41.3 65.0 5.2 147.6 11.9

November 2006–November 2007 33 48.7 -50.6 -1.9 -0.1 99.3 8.0

1

Because of changes in cross section data collection at Yankton, no intra-annual data are available for this reach.
Discussion 51

Figure 28. Reach averaged deposition, erosion, and net change for the Yankton, Kenslers Bend, Little Sioux, and Miami reaches. 

-200

-100

0

100

200

-200

-100

0

100

200

March 2006 - April 2006 April 2006 - May 2006

May 2006 - July 2006 July 2006 - October 2006

DEP

OSI

TIO

N

O

R ER

O

SION, IN S

QUARE METERS

October 2006 - March 2007

-200

-100

0

100

200

March 2006 - October 2006 October 2006 - March 2007

May 2006 - July 2006 July 2006 - October 2006

March 2006 - April 2006 April 2006 - May 2006

March 2006 - October 2006

DEPOSITION OR EROSION NET CHANGE

YA

N

K

T

O

N

LITTLE

SI

OUX

KENSLERS

BEND

MIA

MI

YA

N

K

T

O

N

LIT

TLE

SI

OUX

KE

N

SLERS 

BEND

MIA

MI

YA

N

K

T

O

N

LITTLE

SI

OUX

KENSLERS

BEND

MIA

MI

YA

N

K

T

O

N

LIT

TLE

SIOUX

KEN

SLER

S

BEND

MIA

MI

EXPLANATION

DEPOSITION OR EROSION, IN SQUARE ME

TER

S -200

-100

0

100

200

-200

-100

0

100

200

March 2007 - April 2007 April 2007 - May 2007

April/May 2007 - July 2007 July 2007 - October 2007

-200

-100

0

100

200

Average cross-section deposition

Average cross-section erosion

March 2007 - October 2007

March 2007 - April 2007 April 2007 - May 2007

April/May 2007 - July 2007 July 2007 - October 2007

Average net change

March 2007 - October 2007

DEPOSITION OR EROSION NET CHANGE

DEPOSITION OR EROSION NET CHANGE

2006

YA

N

K

T

O

N

LITTLE

SI

OUX

KENSLERS

BEND

MIA

MI

YA

N

K

T

O

N

LIT

TLE

SI

OUX

KE

N

SLERS 

BEND

MIA

MI

YA

N

K

T

O

N

LIT

TLE

SIOUX

KEN

SLER

S

BEND

MIA

MI

YA

N

K

T

O

N

LIT

TLE

SI

OUX

KENSLERS

BEND

MIAMI

DEPOSITION OR EROSION NET CHANGE

2007

Error in measurement
52 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

reach. During the 2007 summer months the general trend was 

net erosion (figs. 28–30). This was also a period associated 

with high rates of total geomorphic change in the Kenslers 

Bend and Little Sioux reaches. The “bump” down to fall flows 

appeared to be associated with erosion as well (fig. 30, table 

10). 

Pulsed flow magnitudes that were considered in design of 

the 2006 spring rise ranged 480–680 m3/s above a background 

navigation release of nominally 710 m3/s (Jacobson, 2008; 

Jacobson and Galat, 2008). While it is difficult to attribute 

morphodynamic effects to individual flow pulses monitored 

during these surveys, it is clear that flow pulses with magnitudes as little as 250 m3

/s above background navigation flows 

were associated with measurable changes in the bed. In the 

spring in the two upstream reaches that are most likely to be 

affected by modified pulsed flows, flow pulses were associated 

with net erosion (fig. 30). This result supports the hypothesis 

that pulsed flow modifications are of a magnitude that can 

have significant influence on channel morphodynamics and 

perhaps on habitat quantity and quality.

Flow and Bedload Transport Measures

In addition to direct measures of geomorphic change, 

monitoring included assessment of one-dimensional bedload 

transport rates by bedform differencing (Simons and others, 

1980) and bed velocities (Gaeuman and Jacobson, 2006). Onedimensional bedload transport rates measure bedload movement by dune displacement in the thalweg. As such, these are 

the highest rates of bedload transport within a reach and cannot be extrapolated to total or cross-sectional average bedload 

fluxes. However, the one-dimensional bedload transport data 

do provide a consistent index of bedload transport potential 

among reaches. The lowest rates measured are about 0.1 m2/h 

at about 370 m3/s and rates increase linearly to greater than 1.5 

m2/h at 2,400–3,300 m3/s at Miami (fig. 23, table 8). The highest discharge for which one-dimensional rates were obtained 

(3,280 m3/s) was 1.51 m2/h whereas, at a somewhat lower 

discharge (2,420 m3/s) the rate was 1.53 m2/h. Leveling off of 

the one-dimensional transport rate may represent increasing 

proportion of sand being transported in suspension rather than 

as bedload (Nittrouer and others, 2008).

Average bed velocities calculated for the reaches over 

the same discharges also increased linearly with discharge, 

although the relation seems to deteriorate at the highest 

discharges measured (fig. 27, table 8). Bed-velocity data are 

spatially very heterogeneous, but data averaged over hundreds 

of ADCP ensembles yield consistent results. Similar to onedimensional bedload transport rates, there may be thresholds 

above which bed velocities cannot be measured reliably. 

These two methods confirm that for the sandbed Missouri 

River, bedload is moving at all discharges in the thalweg, and 

that transport increases linearly with increasing discharge. 

Hence, flow pulses of any size can be expected to increase 

bedload sediment transport, and therefore, have the potential 

to affect morphodynamics and habitats in the channel.

Reach Geomorphology

Representative cross sections for each reach show the 

average bankfull widths for each reach on the Lower Missouri 

River do not increase in a monotonically downstream manner 

(fig. 31), as expected on nonengineered large rivers (Leopold 

and Maddock, 1953). Analysis of depth maps created from the 

elevation grids and modeled water surfaces at median daily 

flow shows that mean depths increase downstream (fig. 32). 

The Yankton reach, because of the lack of channelization for 

navigation, is the widest of the four reaches with the shallowest mean depth. The Kenslers Bend and Sioux reaches are the 

narrowest reaches with the mean depths being greater in the 

Little Sioux reach (figs. 31–32). The constricted nature of the 

Kenslers Bend and Sioux reaches may explain the large magnitude of geomorphic changes in these reaches over the course 

of the year. 

In the Kenslers Bend and Little Sioux reaches, the 

expected course of the thalweg as defined by the engineered 

channel planform was not always the deepest part of the 

channel (fig. 33). The Kenslers Bend longitudinal profile 

shows many bars that are located where the channel thalweg is 

expected based on channel engineering structures. The Little 

Sioux reach exhibits a similar pattern, although there are fewer 

and larger bars than the Kenslers Bend reach (fig. 33). The 

Miami longitudinal profile shows that the thalweg follows the 

expected pattern based on channel engineering structures. 

Shifting in the thalweg and bar locations are associated 

with the large total geomorphic changes in these reaches. 

While it is not possible to associate change events with 

individual flow pulses, the amount of change associated with 

relatively small flow pulses indicates high sensitivity of channel morphodynamics to flow pulses. Peak flows experienced at 

streamflow gaging stations at Sioux City, Iowa, and Decatur, 

Nebraska, during 2006–07 were equaled or exceeded 12–19 

percent of the time based on the post-regulation period of 

record at these gages, indicating that the discharges responsible for morphologic change were not extreme. The peak flows 

correspond roughly to pulses 350–620 m3/s above navigation 

discharges, within pulse magnitudes considered in design of 

spring pulsed flows (Jacobson and Galat, 2008).

Change Based on Compilation Surveys 2006–07

Change maps were calculated for the grids created from 

the 2006 and 2007 compilation surveys (figs. 34–37). Similar 

to trends detected in cross sections, the Yankton reach had the 

most stable total bathymetry between the 2 years (fig. 34, figs. 

38–39). There was some scour on bars, generally less than 

1 m and some deposition near the thalweg in deeper areas, 

also usually less than 1 m. This is substantially less morphodynamic change than between the two summer compilation 

surveys in the other reaches (table 11). Net change of Yankton 

was 86,928 m3, the highest net deposition among the four 

reaches; total geomorphic change (the sum of erosion and 

deposition), however, was lowest in this reach, at 404,724 m3. 
Discussion 53

Figure 29. Average deposition and erosion in the four reaches with corresponding surveys and hydrographs.

Waverly, Missouri Miami

 J M M J S N J M M J S N J

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8000

10000

12000

14000

-400

-200

0

200

400

-400

-200

0

200

400

0

1,000

2,000

3000

4000

5000

-300

-150

0

150

300

-300

-150

0

150

300

Decatur, Nebraska Little Sioux

0

1,000

2,000

3000

4000

5000

-200

0

200

400

-200

0

200

Sioux City, Iowa Kenslers Bend

DEP

OSI

TION 

O

R ER

O

SIO

N, IN S

QUARE 

METERS

DISCHARGE , IN CUBIC

METERS PER SECOND

0

1,000

2,000

23000

4000

5000

-100

-50

0

50

100

Net change

Gavins Point Dam, South Dakota Yankton

-100

-50

0

50

100

Deposition

Erosion

Discharge

Survey Date

2006 2007

EXPLANATION
54 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

In the Kenslers Bend reach, the channel thalweg and bar 

pattern reversed location in many transects from June 2006 to 

June 2007 because of migrating bars (fig. 35, Appendix B). 

Deposition and erosion magnitudes were as much as 6–7 m in 

some places. Magnitudes of erosion and deposition between 

the June 2006 to July 2007 compilation survey grids were 

the highest of all the survey reaches, but net deposition was 

35,952 m3, less than that at Yankton (table 11, fig. 39). Total or 

gross change magnitudes were highest in this reach (2,081,501 

m3) with nearly twice the volume of total change in the Sioux 

reach (table 11, fig. 39).

Channel position shifting similar to the Kenslers Bend 

reach occurred in the Little Sioux reach because of bar migration (fig. 36). Deposition and erosion magnitudes were also 

3–4 m in some places in this reach (fig. 38). The total net 

change between the survey grids from the July 2006 to July 

2007 surveys was -134,200 m3, the highest magnitude net 

change of the four reaches (table 11, fig. 39). Total, or gross 

change was 1,065,998 m3 (table 11).

Trends in the Miami reach differed from the other three 

reaches. The locations of the thalweg and bars were fairly 

stable (fig. 37). However, deposition occurred on bars, in or 

near the thalweg in main channel areas, and inside dike fields 

Figure 30. Percent of cross-section area with deposition, erosion, or net change for the four monitoring reaches.

2006 2007

GROSS CHANGE

0

10

20

30

40

DEPO

SITIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

Yankton

Kenslers Bend

Little Sioux

MIami

EROSIO

N

0

5

10

15

20

NET CHANGE

-10

-5

0

5

10

PERCENTA

GE 

OF T

O

T

AL CR

OSS-SEC

TION AREA

 MAR MAY JULY SEPT NOV JAN MAR MAY JULY SEPT NOV

EXPLANATION

Table 11. Change in grid area from compilation surveys, 2006–07.

Reach Deposition 

(cubic meters)

Erosion (cubic 

meters)

Net change 

(cubic meters)

Total change 

(cubic meters)

Yankton 245,826 -158,898 86,928 404,724

Kenslers Bend 1,058,726 -1,022,775 35,952 2,081,501

Little Sioux 465,862 -600,137 -134,200 1,065,998

Miami 407,124 -455,427 -48,303 862,551
Discussion 55

near the bank. Erosion occurred in scour holes downstream 

from dikes and in some thalweg areas. Deposition and erosion magnitudes were generally 2 m or less (fig. 38). The net 

change was -48,303 m2 from the July 2006 to August 2007 

surveys (table 11, fig. 39). Total or gross change in this reach 

for 2006–07 was 862,551 m3.

In the Yankton reach there was little change in the general 

structure of the topography, and the multithread channel pattern was similar over the 2 years. As an additional measure of 

morphodynamic change at the three downstream reaches, transects were classified as occurring in either cross-overs (sites 

where the thalweg is in the process of crossing to the opposite 

bank) or bends according to the location of the transects on the 

2006 and 2007 compilation survey bathymetry (figs. 34–37). 

In the Kenslers Bend reach, 57 percent of the randomly 

selected transects were in cross-overs and 43 percent in bends 

in 2006. In 2007, however, 43 percent of the transects were 

located in bends and 57 percent were located in cross-overs, 

and one-half of the bends and cross-overs changed from one 

class to the other. In the Little Sioux Reach in 2006, randomly 

selected cross sections primarily were located at cross-overs 

rather than bends (63 to 38 percent). In 2007, this number 

changed with 56 percent of the transects in cross-overs and 44 

percent in bends. 

Based on the July 2006 and August 2007 compilation 

survey bathymetry, the bends at Miami were stable, and there 

were not any changes between the classification of cross 

sections as occurring on bends or cross-overs. More random 

cross sections fell in bends than cross-overs (66 percent to 38 

percent). 

Figure 31. Typical cross sections at the same scale for the four reaches.

400 300 200 100 0

180

185

190

195

200

River m Miami ile 262.5

 Average bankfull width = 345 meters

Little Sioux 

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

-100 0 100 200 300 400

295

300

305

310

315

River mile 670.4

Average bankfull width = 225 meters

Yankton

0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVA

TION, IN 

METERS 

340

345

350

355

360

River mile 805.4

Average bankfull width = 435 meters

Kenslers Bend

-100 0 100 200 300 400

320

325

330

335

340

River mile 746

Average bankfull width = 245 meters

EXPLANATION

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

July 2006

October 2006

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

July 2007

October 2007
56 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

Implications for Understanding Sturgeon Habitat 

Dynamics

This report provides unique documentation of morphodynamic changes on the Lower Missouri River. No other published datasets quantify geomorphic changes at the reach scale 

as many as five times per year and correlate changes with 

indicators of bedload transport. These data provide fundamental understanding of processes, rates, and scale of morphodynamic changes, which have a bearing on many aspects of 

habitat restoration on the river. 

These data document substantial variation among river 

segments. The Yankton reach showed very small amounts 

of change, consistent with armoring of the bed and the high 

proportion of stabilized banks. Change was greatest in the 

Kenslers Bend and Little Sioux reaches where a narrow channel concentrates flow and sediment transport resulting in large 

vertical changes in the riverbed. 

The downstream three reaches are characterized by 

substantial geomorphic change even during times of relatively small discharges. Expressed as a percentage of index 

cross-sectional area, 8 to 33 percent of the channel area was 

changed between successive surveys at Kenslers Bend, Little 

Sioux, and Miami (table 10). At Yankton, only 2 to 3 percent 

was changed (table 10). This morphodynamic change sets the 

background level of variability within which habitats are created, used, and assessed on this river. For example, assessment 

of habitat availability with hydrodynamic models that do not 

take morphodynamic change into account may incur substantial errors in predicting habitat availability within and among 

years (Jacobson and others, 2009b). Assessments of habitat 

restoration efforts also need to account for the background 

level of morphodynamic change to assure accurate measures 

of project performance. 

Although these results document substantial intrareach 

and intrayear variability, they also confirm that on an annual 

basis erosion and deposition tend to cancel out to define an 

equilibrium channel morphology in the four reaches. In Yankton and Miami reaches, the equilibrium results in a balance of 

erosion and deposition such that channel features remain in 

the same location and same proportion from year to year. In 

the Kenslers Bend and Little Sioux reaches, the rough balance 

of erosion and deposition attests to a reach-scale equilibrium, 

but within the reaches channel features shift positions substantially. The implication is that habitat assessments based 

on static-bed hydrodynamic models may not be reliable for 

predicting habitat locations within a reach over time. Such 

models, however, will do better at predicting total habitat 

availability in the reach without specifying where it is located.

One of the primary questions addressed by this report is 

the extent to which flow pulses could “condition” spawning 

substrates by flushing them of fine sediment. Among all the 

reaches, the Yankton reach has the best prospects for natural 

gravel-cobble substrate thought to be required by sturgeon for 

spawning (Buckley and Kynard, 1981; Paragamian and others, 

2001; Laustrup and others, 2007). The monitoring and sidescan data indicate that the substrate is mostly clean, having 

relatively small and discontinuous patches of sand overlying it. Flow pulses are capable of transporting the sand and 

flushing it from the underlying substrate; however, the large 

Figure 32. Depths at median annual flow in the four reaches.

0 2 4 6 8 10

PERCENTA

GE OF TOT

AL A

REA

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

DEPTH, IN METERS

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 2 4 6 8 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

Yankton Kenslers Bend

Li Miami ttle Sioux

Mean depth = 2.95 meters Mean depth = 3.44 meters

Mean depth = 4.02 meters Mean depth = 4.62 meters

750 cubic meters per second 800 cubic meters per second

800 cubic meters per second 1,450 cubic meters per second
Discussion 57

Figure 33. Longitudinal profiles at median or near-median annual flow for the four reaches.

344

346

348

350

352

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324

326

328

330

332

300

302

304

306

308

310

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

184

186

188

190

192

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

Yankton, June 28, 2007, 509.7 cubic meters per second 

Kenslers Bend, July 25, 2007 707.9 cubic meters per second 

Little Sioux, April 17, 2006 767.4 cubic meters per second 

Miami, April 19, 2006, 1,410.2 cubic meters per second 

346

348

350

352

324

326

328

330

332

304

306

308

310

186

188

190

192

0 50 100 150 200

344

346

348

350

352

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324

326

328

330

332

302

304

306

308

310

DISTANCE FROM START OF LINE, IN METERS

184

186

188

190

192

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

A

B

B

A

C

C

D

D

E

F

G

H

E

F

G

H

1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 

1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 

2,000 2,050 2,100 2,150 2,200 

1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 
58 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

Figure 34. Changes in elevation based on 2006 and 2007 compilation surveys in the Yankton reach.

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

808

807

805

806

42°51'45"

42°51'

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

808

807

805

806

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

808

807

805

806

97°25'30" 97°24'45" 97°24' 97°23'15" 97°22'30"

42°52'

42°51'30"

42°52'

42°51'30"

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program,

digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

0 200 400 METERS

0 750 1,500 FEET

River miles (1960) from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

EXPLANATION

High : 351.919

Low : 341.537

Change 2006-2007,

in meters

-2

-1

0 - -0.3

-0.2 - 0

0.1 - 0.3

0.4 - 1

2

3

4 - 6

-3

-2

-1

0 - -0.3

-0.2 - 0

0.1 - 0.3

0.4 - 1

2

3

4 - 6

--5

3--4

-4--3

-3--2

-2--1

-1--0.3

-0.3-0

0-0.3

0.3-1

1-2

2-3

3-4

Erosion

Deposition

351.9

341.1

Elevation, in meters

!P One Mile Interval 805

Change in elevation,

2006–07, in meters

< -5 to -4

< -4 to -3

< -3 to -2

< -2 to -1

< -1 to -0.3

< -0.3 to 0

< 0 to 0.3

< 0.3 to 1

< 1 to 2

< 2 to 3

< 3 to 4

Erosion

Deposition

No change

River mile marker

and number- Number

is distance upstream

from the Mississippi

River, in miles
Figure 35. Changes in elevation based on 2006 and 2007 compilation surveys in the Kenslers Bend reach.

!P

!P

!P

!P

746

747

748

745

96°38' 9

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

746

747

748

744

745

96°38' 96°37' 96°36'

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

746

747

748

744

745

96°38' 96°37' 96°36'

42°33'

42°32'15"

42°31'30"

42°30'45"

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Imagery Program, digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

River miles (1960) from U

0 0 

EXPLANATION

Elevation, in meters

High : 308.133Low : 297.218

308.8297.2

!P River mile

-6.502166748 - -3-2.999999999 - -2-1.999999999 - -1-0.999999999 - -0.3-0.3 - 00 - 0.30.3 - 11.000000001 - 22.000000001 - 33.000000001 - 7.495483398

Change in Elecatio

River mile markerand number- Numberis distance upstream from the Mississippi River, in miles

746

< -6 to -3< -3 to -2< -2 to -1< -1 to -0.3< -0.3 to 0< 0 to 0.3< 0.3 to 1< 1 to 2< 2 to 3< 3 to 7

Change in elevation,2006–07, in meters

Erosion

No change

Deposition
Figure 36. Changes in elevation based on 2006 and 2007 compilation surveys in the Little Sioux reach.

!P

!P

!P

671

672

673

670

671

672

673

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

670

671

672

673

96°06'45" 96°06' 96°05'15" 96°04'30" 96°06'45" 96°06' 96°05'15" 96°04'30" 96°06'45" 96°06' 

41°50'15"

41°49'30"

41°48'45"

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Imagery Program, digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 14

River miles (1960) from U

0 5

0 1,25

EXPLANATION

Elevation, in meters

High : 308.133Low : 297.218

308.8297.2

!P

e marker

-4-3-2-10 - -0.3-0.2 - 00.1 - 0.30.4 - 1234 - 7

Change in elevation,2006–07, in meters

< -5 to -4< -4 to -3< -3 to -2< -2 to -1< -1 to -0.3< -0.3 to 0< 0 to 0.3< 0.3 to 1< 1 to 2< 2 to 3< 3 to 4

Erosion

Deposition

No change

River mile marker and number- Numberis distance upstreamfrom the MississippiRiver, in miles

746
Figure 37. Changes in elevation based on 2006 and 2007 compilation surveys in the Miami reach.

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

263

2

93°14' 93°13

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

263

262

261

260

93°14' 93°13' 93°12'

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P 263

262

261

260

93°14' 93°13' 93°12'

39°21'45"

39°21'

39°20'15"

39°19'30"

Base from U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Imagery Program, digital data, 2006

Universal Transverse Mercator projection

Zone 15

River miles (1960) from 

0 

0 

EXPLANATION

!P River mile

Change 2006-2007, in meters Elevation, in meters

High : 308.133Low : 297.218

191.9180.2

-4-3-2-10 - -0.3-0.2 - 00.1 - 0.30.4 - 1234 - 7

-7--3

-3--2

-2--1

-1--0.3-0.3-00-0.30.3-1

1-22-33-44-6

ErosionDeposition

River mile marker and number- Numberis distance upstream from the MississippiRiver, in miles

263

Change in elevation2006–07, in meters

< -7 to -3< -3 to -2< -2 to -1< -1 to -0.3< -0.3 to 0< 0 to 0.3< 0.3 to 1< 1 to 2< 2 to 3< 3 to 4< 4 to 6

No changeErosion

Deposition
62 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

quantity of coarse substrate in the reach indicates that availability is probably not a limiting factor in sturgeon reproduction. In contrast, the downstream three reaches have sandbeds 

with hard, coarse substrate limited to areas along engineered 

rock structures or along bedrock banks. Flow pulses in these 

reaches are capable of transporting sediment and, therefore, 

have the potential to scour sand from hard substrate areas 

where hard substrate occurs at depth, although the areas 

would be smaller and have a patchier distribution compared to 

Yankton.

Implications for Future Habitat Studies, Lower 

Missouri River

Sediment transport and morphodynamic processes 

likely will continue to be important issues for restoration and 

management of the Lower Missouri River because they are 

fundamental to habitat dynamics for many species. In addition to a need to understand how flow pulses may transport 

sediment and alter sturgeon spawning habitats, understanding 

of sediment transport and morphodynamic processes is also 

fundamental to managing emergent sandbars and shallow, 

aquatic habitats. 

The data and analysis presented here document that 

flows similar in magnitude to those under consideration for 

manipulated flow releases are capable of transporting sediment 

and altering habitats. Whether pulsed flows can “condition” 

spawning substrate at the right time, in the right place, and in 

patches of the right size for successful pallid sturgeon spawning remains unknown. Improved understanding of where and 

when sturgeon spawn will be necessary to address these questions. Emerging data from pallid sturgeon telemetry indicate 

that hatchery origin fish can spawn on riprap on revetted 

outside bends (A. DeLonay, unpub. data). These observations 

support the idea that availability of habitats with necessary 

substrate characteristics may not be limiting for sturgeon 

spawning, although whether observed spawning is optimal or 

successful has yet to be determined.

Understanding of sediment transport and morphodynamics also is important for restoring and managing emergent 

sandbar habitats and shallow, aquatic habitats. The former 

are important for nesting of the interior least tern and piping 

plover, and the latter has been assumed to be important for 

recruitment of sturgeon because it provides rearing habitat for 

larval and juvenile fish, and perhaps because it hosts aquatic 

insects and fishes that sturgeon prey upon (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b, 2003). Critical questions remain about 

which flows are responsible for creating and maintaining these 

-7.5--7.0-7.0--6.5-6.5--6.0

--6.0--5.5

-5.5--5.0

--5.0--4.5

-4.5--4.0-4.0--3.5-3.5--3.0-3.0--2.5-2.5--2.0-2.0--1.5-1.5--1.0-1.0--0.5

-0.5-0.0

0.0-0.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-7.5--7.0-7.0--6.5-6.5--6.0

--6.0--5.5

-5.5--5.0

--5.0--4.5

-4.5--4.0-4.0--3.5-3.5--3.0-3.0--2.5-2.5--2.0-2.0--1.5-1.5--1.0-1.0--0.5

-0.5-0.0

0.0-0.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

CHANGE, IN METERS

-7.5--7.0-7.0--6.5-6.5--6.0

--6.0--5.5

-5.5--5.0

--5.0--4.5

-4.5--4.0-4.0--3.5-3.5--3.0-3.0--2.5-2.5--2.0-2.0--1.5-1.5--1.0-1.0--0.5

-0.5-0.0

0.0-0.5

PERCEN

T

A

GE 

OF T

O

T

AL REACH AREA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-7.5--7.0-7.0--6.5-6.5--6.0

--6.0--5.5

-5.5--5.0

--5.0--4.5

-4.5--4.0-4.0--3.5-3.5--3.0-3.0--2.5-2.5--2.0-2.0--1.5-1.5--1.0

-1.0--0.5

-0.5-0.0

0.0-0.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yankton Kenslers Bend

Little Sioux Miami

Figure 38. Changes in elevation from the 2006 to 2007 compilation surveys in the four reaches.
Summary 63

habitats, and which flows are responsible for destroying habitat, and are effective flows manageable? Geomorphic surveys 

like those used in this study can be used to develop relations 

between flow and morphodynamic responses, but it will be 

necessary to use a sampling design that can isolate effects of 

individual flow events. The logistic requirements of bracketing surveys around individual flow events on a large, dynamic 

river would be challenging.

Finally, morphodynamics at the scale of sedimentary 

bedforms are of interest because of their role in altering flow 

resistance, and because bedforms define habitats at scales used 

by native fishes like pallid sturgeon. Improved understanding 

of how bedforms vary seasonally and with discharge is needed 

to improve parameter estimates for hydrodynamic models that 

serve as very useful tools in habitat assessments (Jacobson and 

others, 2009). Understanding of the spatial and temporal variation of bedforms in the Lower Missouri River has the potential 

to provide insight into flow refugia, fish migration pathways, 

food sources, and larval drift dynamics.

Summary 

This report summarizes morphodynamic monitoring 

data collected in four reaches of the Lower Missouri River. 

The Yankton reach experienced the least amount of geomorphic change during the study period 2006–07. This is likely 

because of the proximity to the dam and relative coarseness of 

the bed. The substrate in the Yankton reach is predominately 

gravel with little sand on the bed. Furthermore, flows in the 

Yankton reach were the lowest of the four reaches. Channel morphological changes in the Yankton reach tend to be 

distributed uniformly, and, therefore, do not substantially alter 

habitats.

The Kenslers Bend and Little Sioux reaches both have 

a meandering thalweg within a relatively simple, engineered 

channel planform. Multiple bends and cross-overs occur 

within a bend in these reaches and sandbars appear to be 

migrating through them on annual timeframes. Magnitudes 

of deposition and erosion in both reaches are high relative to 

the other two reaches, yet net change is low in the Sioux reach 

and somewhat higher in the Kenslers Bend reach. Net change, 

deposition, and erosion as a proportion of index cross-section 

area are highest in the Kenslers Bend reach. Both reaches 

exhibit constricted cross sections and the Sioux reach is the 

narrowest and deepest of the four reaches.

The Miami reach exhibits a channel pattern that fits the 

channel engineering at the bend and cross-over scale. Scour 

and fill occurred mainly on bars or behind wing dikes in this 

reach. Sediment transport surrogates, including bed velocity, 

bedform geometry, and bedform differencing show an increasing trend with discharge with the exception of the highest 

discharge during the May 2007 survey when sediment supply 

may have been exhausted or sediment transport rates were too 

high for the methods used.

The time period that encompassed the pulsed-flow modification in May 2006 resulted in net erosion in three of the 

four reaches, although the magnitude of net erosion was low 

in the Yankton reaches. The Little Sioux reach had essentially 

no net change during the April–May time period in 2006. This 

was followed by a period dominated by erosion during the 

sustained summer high flows. From fall 2006 to March 2007 

the general trend among sites was deposition. The spring 2007 

trends are difficult to link to individual flow events because 

of timing of surveys in relation to high spring flows out of 

upstream tributaries such as the James, Vermillion, and Big 

Sioux Rivers; and the sustained high flow in the spring in the 

Miami reach.

The monitoring data indicate that flow pulses of the scale 

considered in design of the flow pulses (spring rises) on the 

Lower Missouri River are capable of transporting sediment in 

all four reaches, and may, therefore, have the potential to flush 

fine sediment from spawning substrate where hard substrate 

occurs at depth. Coarse, hard substrate thought to be required 

for spawning of sturgeon is abundant in the Yankton reach and 

may be altered by flow pulses, but because of its abundance, 

Figure 39. Areas of deposition, erosion, and net change for the four reaches from 2006 and 2007 

compilation surveys.

CH

A

NGE, IN

CUBIC

METER

S

NET CHANGE, IN

CUBIC ME

TER

S

MIAMI LITTLE 

SIOUX

KENSLERS

BEND

YANKTON 

Deposition

Erosion

Net change

1,500,000 EXPLANATION

1,000,000

 500,000

 0

-500,000

-1,000,000

-1,500,000

500,000

250,000

 0

-250,000

-500,000
64 Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07

clean patches may not be a constraint on spawning. In the 

downstream three reaches, our data show that flow pulses are 

capable of transporting sandbed material, but it is not clear if 

transport would result in creating patches of sufficient size and 

quality to benefit pallid sturgeon reproduction. 

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the USGS Nebraska and Iowa 

Water Science Centers for data collection in the Yankton and 

Kenslers Bend reaches, specifically Michael Anderson and 

Brenda Woodward. Hal Johnson, of USGS CERC, and Matt 

Smith, and Chad Vishy of Arctic Slope Resources Corporation 

provided technical assistance in data collection and some data 

processing. 

References Cited

Buckley, J., and Kynard, B., 1981, Spawning and rearing of 

shortnosed sturgeon from the Connecticut River: Progressive Fish Culturist, v. 43, no. 2, p. 74–76.

Elliott, C.M., and Jacobson, R.B., 2006, Geomorphic classification and assessment of channel dynamics in the Missouri 

National Recreational River, South Dakota and Nebraska: 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 

2006–5313, 66 p.

Elliott, C.M., Jacobson, R.B., and DeLonay, A.J., 2004, Physical aquatic habitat assessment, Fort Randall segment of the 

Missouri River, Nebraska and South Dakota: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004–1060, 34 p.

Funk, J.L., and Robinson, J.W., 1974, Changes in the channel 

of the lower Missouri River and effects on fish and wildlife: 

Jefferson City, Mo., Missouri Department of Conservation.

Gaeuman, D., and Jacobson, R.B., 2005, Aquatic habitat mapping with an acoustic Doppler current profiler—considerations for data quality: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 2005–1163, 20 p.

Gaeuman, D., and Jacobson, R.B., 2006, Acoustic bed velocity 

and bed load dynamics in a large sand bed river: Journal of 

Geophysical Research-Earth Surface, v. 111, p. 1–14.

Gaeuman, D., and Jacobson, R.B., 2007, Field assessment of 

alternative bedload transport estimators: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, v. 133, no. 12, p. 1319–1328.

Galat, D.L., Berry, C.R., Jr., Peters, E.J., and White, R.G., 

2005, Missouri River basin, in Benke, A.C., and Cushing, 

C.E., eds., Rivers of North America: Oxford, Elsevier Academic Press, p. 427–480.

Galat, D.L., and Lipkin, R., 2000, Restoring ecological integrity of great rivers—Historical hydrographs aid in defining 

reference conditions for the Missouri River: Hydrobiologia, 

v. 422/423, p. 29–48.

Hesse, L.W., 1987, Taming the wild Missouri River—What 

has it cost?: Fisheries, v. 12, no. 22, p. 2–9.

Hesse, L.W., Schmulback, J.C., Carr, J.M., Keenlyne, K.D., 

Unkenholz, D.G., Robinson, J.W., and Mestl, G.E., eds., 

1989, Missouri River fishery resources in relation to past, 

present, and future stresses, Canadian Special Publication of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 353–371 p.

Hesse, L.W., and Sheets, W., 1993, The Missouri River hydrosystem: Fisheries, v. 18, no. 5, p. 5–14.

Jacobson, R.B., 2008, Analysis of pulsed flow modification 

alternatives, Lower Missouri River, 2005: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2008–1113, 14 p.

Jacobson, R.B., Blevins, D.W., and Bitner, C.J., 2009a, Sediment regime constraints on river restoration—An example 

from the Lower Missouri River, in James, L.A., Rathburn, 

S.L., and Whittecar, G.R., eds., Management and Restoration of Fluvial Systems with Broad Historical Changes 

and Human Impacts: Denver, Colo., Geological Society of 

America, v. 451, p. 1–22.

Jacobson, R.B., and Galat, D.L., 2006, Flow and form in rehabilitation of large-river ecosystems—An example from the 

Lower Missouri River: Geomorphology, v. 77, p. 249–269.

Jacobson, R.B., and Galat, D.L., 2008, Design of a naturalized 

flow regime on the Lower Missouri River: Ecohydrology, v. 

1, no. 2, p. 80–104.

Jacobson, R.B., and Heuser, J., 2002, Visualization of flow 

alternatives, Lower Missouri River: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2002–122, no pagination

Jacobson, R.B., Johnson, H.E. III, and Dietsch, B.J., 2009b, 

Hydrodynamic simulations of physical aquatic habitat availability for pallid sturgeon in the Lower Missouri River, at 

Yankton, South Dakota, Kenslers Bend, Nebraska, Little 

Sioux, Iowa, and Miami, Missouri 2006–07: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5058, 

68 p.

Laustrup, M.S., Jacobson, R.B., and Simpkins, D.G., 2007, 

Distribution of potential spawning habitat for sturgeon in 

the Lower Missouri River, 2003–06: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1192, 26 p.

Leopold, L.B., and Maddock, T., 1953, The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 232 57 p.
References Cited 65

McElroy, B., 2006, The calculator for topographic characteristics and sediment transport from sand bed surveys, The 

Stream Restoration Toolbox (1.1 ed.): Minneapolis, Minn., 

National Center for Earth-surface Dynamics.

National Research Council, 2002, The Missouri River ecosystem—exploring the prospects for recovery: Washington, 

D.C., National Academy Press, 176 p.

Nittrouer, J.A., Allison, M.A., and Campanella, R., 2008, Bedform transport rates for the lower most Mississippi River: 

Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Surface, v. 113.

Paragamian, V.L., Kruse, G., and Wakkinen, V., 2001, Spawning habitat of Kootenai River white sturgeon, post-Libby 

Dam: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 

21, p. 22–33.

Pegg, M.A., Pierce, C.L., and Roy, A., 2003, Hydrological 

alteration along the Missouri River Basin—A time series 

approach: Aquatic Sciences, v. 65, p. 63–72.

Pflieger, W.L., and Grace, T.B., 1987, Changes in the fish 

fauna of the lower Missouri River, 1940–1983, in Matthews, W.J., and Heins, D.C., eds., Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes: Norman, 

Okla., University of Oklahoma Press, p. 166–177.

Rennie, C.D., and Millar, R.G., 2004, Measurement of the spatial distribution of fluvial bedload transport velocity in both 

sand and gravel: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 

29, p. 1173–1193.

Rennie, C.D., Millar, R.G., and Church, M.A., 2002, Measurement of bedload velocity using an acoustic Doppler current 

profiler: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering-Asce, v. 128, p. 

473–483.

Reuter, J.M., Jacobson, R.B., Elliott, C.M., Johnson, H.E., 

and DeLonay, A.J., 2008, Hydraulic and substrate maps of 

reaches used by sturgeon (genus Scaphirhynchus) in the 

Lower Missouri River, 2005—07: U.S. Geological Survey 

Data Series 386, 422 p.

Simons, D.B., Li, R.M., and Schall, J.D., 1980, Report regarding the safe yield of sand and gravel from the Russian River 

—Dry Creek System, Supplement to Evaluation Report: 

Aggregate Resources Management Study: Draft Environmental Impact Report 

Simons, D.B., Richardson, E.V., and F., N.C., 1965, Bedload 

equation for ripples and dunes: U.S. Geological Survey 

Professional Paper 9 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2004, Summary Missouri 

River final environmental impact statement - master water 

Control Manual review and update: Portland, Oregon: U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers 28 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006a, Missouri River Mainstem system - 2005–2006 annual operating plan: U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division 28 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006b, Missouri River Mainstem System 2006–2007 Annual Operating Plan: 89 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007a, Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System Summary of Actual 2006 Regulation 

Missouri River Basin: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 77 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2007b, Missouri River stage 

trends: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division 43 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000a, 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: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service., 296 p. http://www.nwd-mr.usace.army.mil/mmanual/opinion.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b, 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: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 286 p. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003, Amendment to the 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: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., 308 p. 

Appendix 1. Yankton Reach Cross Sections
Yankton, 2006, line 5

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358360

River mile 808.3

Figure 1–1. Yankton cross-section line 5 at Missouri River mile 808.3 in 2006.
Figure 1–2. Yankton cross-section line 5 at Missouri River mile 808.3 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 5 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

ggrggrgourgorgourgourounorgornunruoguorngunourdngnuorgnunoudrgdordnungordgnorunogdrunorduourdnoudunodugndgndunnrgdnrgdogdrodrguodrguogronunrgnuorguodrgodnunrgnuodrguodrgdnunourgnuodrgdorgdnunourgdnuorgdorgdnuorgdnuorgdnuordnuorgdnunougdnuorgdrgdnunourgdnorgdorgduorgdnuorgnuorgdnuorgdnunourgdnuorgdogrdnunourgdnuorgdogroudnurgdnuorgodngroudnurgnuodrgodngroudnugrnuodrgodnrgoudnugronugdrogdnrgunoudnrgonurdgordogrundnogrudnogruogdunrnogdurndouurgodurgnodgnrdoungnrduognrduorgdonunrgdonugdrouugdruodnrgonrgdounugdronudrgodnrgunoudngronudrgodrgunoudngrodnurgodrgunoudngrodnurgodrgunoudngrodnugrodrgunoudnrgodnugrogdrunougdnruogdnrogrdognunrdogurdnougurdogurndogrndounrngdourngdourugdorungoudrgnodrgunnodrgnrodungroduognrduogrudougnurdgonurdognrdnogrundnogurdnougdurgdournogdrnogdrungnodurgnoudurgrdougnrodognrdungonrduognunrdogrudgounurdgourdngordnogrunnogdrugnoudurgodurgnrodgnrodunognrduognrduogurdgounurdgonurdgnrodgnroundgonrduognrduogrudougnurdgonurdnogrdnogrundnogdurnougdurgdournogdrnogdrunnogdurnougdrugdournogdrnogdrunnodgurnoudurgodugrnodgnrdougunrndguonrdogrdorgnundogurndouugrdougrndonrgdouunnrgdonugdrodrgunoundrguondgrodgrnunoudrguodnrgodgrounungdruodnrgodrgounundronudrgodgunnodrgnudrgduornogddrgnunoudurgorgdongruordngunodrnguodrgoudrnuogdrunnogdnurougdurogdnrogdnurogdnunrgodnurgoudrugodnrgodnruogdnrunogdnuourgdurougdnrdognrdongurdognunrdognuordgurdongudournudounrgdnoudnrgdnogdrngdurogdorngurogundorngunrogudrogudorngudrongudrnoudourndugoundgnrdgnourdgnourdgourdgnourngourdngoudrngdrongdorungodrugndorugnordugnrodugnordgunordgurnogduorngdurognudrougnurdgonrgodnruogdnrunogdnurgoudurgodnrgodnruogdnrunogdnurougdurodnrgodnuogdnrungdnurougdrogdnorgdurodgnunrognunrodgurdogudourngudroungdrongdnorugdrnoudgnordugnrodungonrundgorundgordugodrungdourunougdrngdorndgroundgorundgorundgorunndogrudgouurndgorndgorundgorundgorundgorunndgourudgourndgorndgorungdorundgorungdorunngdroungdorugordugnrodugnordugnrodgunordgurnogduorngdurongundorgnundrogurdogudourngurdougngdronrdonrugdonougundnrugdrodgrnondgunordgudrgournogdrunnogdurgoudurgonrodnrugodnungodnrugdrugodnrgodnruogdrunogdnurgouurgodnrgodngruodrngunodrnuodrgoudnuogdrunngdnurgoudrgodnrogdrguodnurgourgnuodnrgordnguodnrgunoudrgnuordgorgdnuodnrgunourdgnuordogrgdnuodnurgourdgnuognrdorgdnuordgnuougrdonugrndorgundnordgonurdgourundogdrungnondgurourdguodrnogdrnogudnurougdurngodnrgondruogdnrunodgnuourgdurgoudnrdognrdonguordgnunrdognurodguourdngudrougndrgonrdgonrudognrunogdnurgoudurgodnrgodnrguogdnrunougdrnuogrdogrgoudnurgodnurordgnorunngdounourdugdrugoungdnordngrdronrgdunogodrngourundgourgunoudgroodrunngrornudorguodgorungourndgunoudrgunoundrgodrngorunndgodogrnuoudgruodruonungrondronudrngoudroudgngrouundngdrounggouunnrdgoundrgunndroduronrunndgodrugonroungudorungoungrudronguunndrodgroungundrongdougngrunndogundgrouunngrdounrogndrogdrngourndgoudourngoudrungodrungorunngodondrugoundrugodrugonrundgondongruounrudgorudonundgrondgonrungroudgudongrundroungdoungronouundgrondrgoundgroudroundgroundroungrunondroundgrouunndgroundgrouunndgodungrrouunndgodroungouunndrgodrgounrgoundorungourundogrundogrunondgondguourndguoudrnouundgrnodrnourgnodgordgunourdgundournunougrndorndorgunnodgordgnuourdugdougrnunourndgongrodunnrodgdgronudrougdurongroundgunrodgnoudrgundrondgurodunorndguodrnugourndugdornguoudnrgdnorundgrnodgrnodunogrdunorudgourdgnourdugnordungourdnogrdunngodrnogdunrogdrunougdurourdnodgrnodgunndougrndurgdounngrdongrdoudrguodgroundgronurgunondrgoudnrgoudgrunoundruodnrdoonuddnunudndnddd ggrgorgorugorungorundgorunngdroungdorugodrugnrdogunrodgurnogdurongdurgonundgrongrudogrguodrgnourdgronugrodgunogrudnrouronduronduonogudngudngudurndrndornnoddogdudungugrngnourgodougrdurogronrgnguornourudrdorgnunodognogunrdugnugrduordnorgndonudoudourdudngonungdrnugrdngdorgordngrodgrunogroudrogunrogurgounrgourourdngorundgorungodrunngodugondrugoundrugodrugongrundongrdongruongrudogudrongudronudrnougrnoudgrnoudgngrodungrodungrdgounrdgoundgrougunndrogundgroungdroundgruondgroundgroundggrnoudgroundgrgrouundrodunroouunndrronduounndoodundundudnundndndndddd

gggrrrgogroourggourgourunoguorgunnourgonuornuorgdrnuordnuognuorourdnugdnuorgdnunourgdnrogdnunourdgorndungordognrundogrudnounrgdourgdnoudugrodugnrdonrgunounrgdonugdrodrgunoudnrguodnrgodrgnunoudrguodnrgdorgnunoudrgdnuorgdorgdnuorgdnuourgdnuordngorgdnunoudrgnuordgorgdnuogdnrunourgdnuordgordnoguurgdnoudurgnonrdgonrduogdnrunougdnurogdrogdnurogdnunrogdnurougdurogdnrogdnurogdnunrogdnurougdurogdnrodgnurodgnunordgnurdogurdoungurdongdorgnudrongunrdongundorgudrogudourngudrnougdrongdorngudrongundorngundrogudrogduourngudroungdrnougdrnogdorngduornungdrnogundorgdunrogduorgdurnogudroungdurnougdorngdnorugdrnogdunorgdurnogdunorngdunrogudorgdurnogudroungdurnougdorngdrnougdorndugnorundgnordungordungordungrodunogdrungdounrdgourudgroundogrndogurndgourndogrunndougurdorgndoungrdunoungrdodrgoudngrunnougdrodrgoudnrgunoungdrodrgodnurgunoundgrogdrdonurgougundrorngdonugdrunoungdrogdrougdrnogunnrdougrdogunrdogurndougurndogrndogurndogunrndgouurdgorndgorundgorundogrunndougurdgorndgorundgorundgorunndgorundgourugdourngdorngdorungodrugndorugnrodungordugnodrugnrodugnordgunnordugrodugnorgdunnrodgurogduorngudrongudourgnudrgnoudrgonrdgonruogdnrunogdnurougdurgodnrgodnrugodnrgunoudgnruodgrogrdnuogrdnounrgodnurgoudgrogundnrguonrdugordogrnundognrugdouurgdourgdnrognrodgunonrdguonrdguoudournugdornudourngdonruourdngdornundourgndorgnunougrddgonunourdgodnrunoudgordnuourdgorudngourngdorgdnunoundrgdrognunrdogdorngunrodgurodngunodrgurodngudrouogdrnguodrnguounurgdronugdrondgonrgundonrgudonrundgoudgrounudogrudougnrdgonurgonrdgonrundngoudngourudogdruougnrdgnourdnogrdnogrdunnogdurnougurddogurnodgrndounrgndougrndouugrdougnrdognrdouunnrgdonurgdodrgouunndrguondrogdrnunogdnurdougdurogndrgodnurogdnrungodnurougdruogdnorgdnurgodnunrogdnrunogduroudgurodgnrogdnurgodnunrogdnrunogdugroudgurodnrgodrnogudnrougundgurnodrgorndugondrougundgnruodrgordnguongdrouungdrnuordgorgdnounrgdouunrgdunorgdorgnduogrnudourdgnuorgndogroudnunrgdnuorgodgroundugrnudogrogdnrnodurgonurgdogdunrouugndruorgndonrgdounugrdonugdrogdnrgunoundrgonurdgordgrounndgorudnogruogdrugnoudurgnodurgnrodgnrodgunonrdguonrdguoudgroungudorngudounrgdronugdrnodgorngundonrgduonrungdoudgrounudogrudougnrgdonurgonrdgronundgnroudognrudogrdguounurdgonurdgrondgnroundgonrudognrduogrudougnurdgonurdnogrdnogrundnogdurnougdurgdourgnodrgnrodungnroduognrduogrdugounurdgonurdgonrdgnorundgnoudgnrouduogrduougnrdgonurdgnordgonrundnogdunourgudogduroungdrnuogdrnodrgnoudnurgdonurgoddnrgunoundrguondrgodrnunougdrgdnuodrgorndugodnrougundnrugodrgodnruogndrunogdnurougdurgodnrgodnruogdnrgunodnguroudrugodrnogdnrogudgnuroudurgnorgndogrndourgdnunourdguonrgdogrnunoudgrudnogrdogrnogudrogdnurogdurnougurndgourndogrndorungnodurngoudrgudorgunougdrrnogdungrnodrogndungrorodugnungrodrougdunngrodrougdunngrodrougunngrodrougunngrodrougunngrodrougunngrodrougunnrogdrougunnrogdourgunnrodgurounnogrduogrnguodurgounurgdronungrodongrundondgruonundgroudgrnoudgrdogunnrdognurougurdogurdnogrndoungrndourgndougrdounngrdounrgduogdrounndgronugrduodgroundnrgonugdroudrgouundnrguongdrodrgnunoudrguondgrodgrnunougdruogdnrogdrognunrdourgdnougrdounngrdounrgduogdrougndronugrduongrdogundnrognudrogurdogurdnogurndouurgndougrndognrdgouunnrgduonrgdrogdronunogdruogndrguodurgounurdgronudgnrogdonrgundongrdurongundgroudrognudgroroudgnugrodnrougungrodngroudungrondrougdrungondrougdoungrndroudgunrogundrogdrunogndougrndouungrodunrodgunnrodgrgourndgoudourngourungodrungorunnodgondgruoundgruoduronundgrondrnourgnoudogrudnourdgundoununroungdorndouunrndgdornugourddgorgnunoundrgondrgunrdogdrnounogdruogdnrdugourdougnurdgonurdnogrdnorundngodurngoudrugdorugnoudrngodrgunnordgnodrugodungrouduognrudougnrdognurdngordnounrdngodrungrouddorguoungrduongdunrongdrngunodrgoudrngodruogdrunndogrudnougurdougrnodgrndougnrduonrgdounrgdongundrogundrguodruogrndogrnudgounurdourgdnorgdnogunnrodgurndguordguorndgornudgornudorgudnorgudnogunrnodgurnduorgduorgndogunrdounugrduogrndodngronugrdonudgroudngruondgroundrgnuodrgoundrgoudnunrgoundrgodgrunoundrgnuodrgdorgnodugdnrunourdugnorgdonrgdourgdnuougdrounrgndorgunndogrdonugrdougruondgrdounnrgonudgroudgroundnrguondgroudgronudgruodngrogudnrognudrogurndogrdunougurndgourndogrndogrunodgurngoudurngdourngdrongdroungnodrgunodrguordgurondguorndugourngudornguodnrgdorngudrnougdrnogunodrngduonrgudoudroungudorngudourngdornguodgnrdrognundrnogurodgnungrododugrnugrodrugodunngrodnorugdnrougdorugdunnrogdounrgunnrodurgoundorgduognruondgurnuogrdnuodgrnodgnurodgnurdourgdnougrdnouugnrdougnrdonrgdouunnrgdonugdrogdrgunoundruognrdgordognurgdorugdnouurgdnrogunrodgonrdgunrongdurongundogrudgronudgrourodgnrugodnroungourdgnrougdrungodrunordgonruondrugondrungoudgronudgrounudorugngroundnrdgonugrounndgroudgngroudnroudgrungrouunndgroundoungrounndrogurndgroundgroundougrouunndgroundgrungrouunndgrodgunrodgrouunndgrodgroungrounndgrodgungrouundgroudrnourunndroundrounondoundonudndudunudunndnnnddndddd

gggrgrgorgorgorungorugorugounourugonrduroungdnorugdourngdorngdunounrgdorngundorgdornundorguordnunrgdouorgdnunourgdguodnunourgdogrgnunoudorgnuorgrgdonuordnuorgrdnuordnuogdnuorrougdnudnuorgdnunourgdnogdnunourgdogndunrougdognuourdgodnuourdngordnuroudngdornugourdngdorngunoudnrgdorngundorgdornungdoruogdnrudogrudougnurdnogurdnogdrnogdunrnogdurndougurdogurndogrndogunrndourgndouurgdougnrdognrdunougnrduonrgdorgdonundrgoudnrguodgruondrgnuodrgnuodrgodnunrgdnuorguodrgdnunourgnuodrgdorgdnunourgdnuorgdorgdnuorgdnuourgdnuorgdnogrdnunourgdnuorgdogroudnurgdnuorogdnrgdnougnuroudrgdunorndogrndogudnurougdurngondrgondruogdnrungodnurougdrugodnrogdnruogdnunrogdnurougdurogdnrgodnurgodnruodgnrunodgnuourdgurougdnrdognrdognurdognunrdognurodguourdgnurdougnrdognordngurdognunrdognunordgurdogudourngudrnougdrogndorngurdognundrongunrdogudrogudronugdourngudnourgdrnougdnorgdrnogduorngudrongundrongundrogundorudgorudgnroudgnordugnrodugnordugnordugnordugnrodungordunngodrungdorungodrugdourungdourngdorngdorungodrugndorungrodungodrugndrougnordungnordungordgunrodgunrodgunrogdunorgudrogudrongudrognudrougnurdgonrgodnruogdnrungodnurgoudrguodnrgodrgnuodrgnunourdgnuorgdogrdnunourgdnuogrdogrndougrdnuogrodunrgonudgrounndgroudnrguogdrounndgronugrduodgroundnrgonudrgoudrgouundnrguondrgodgrnunoudgrnudordgorgnodugdnrouunrgdunordogrgndounugdrourdgunonrdogrndogudnurougdurngondrgondruogdnrungodnurougdrugodnrgodnruogdnrunogdnuourgduroudgnrdognrdongurdognundorngunrdogudrogudorngudronudgournudgnourdgnourdgnourdgnourdgnourdgnourdgnourdgnourdgnourdngourdngoudrngdorgnrdoungordugnodrungrodungodrungdorundogrunndogunrdgouurdgorndorgundogurnduorndougnudrgdnognrduorgdounurgodngrnuodgronudrgoudnrgunnoudgrdorgdonugruondrgonudgrundnorgdourgdunounrgdorgdnunourgdorgdnuougrndorgdonurguondrgnudogrdnuorgdonugrundnorgdourgdunounrgodrgdnuourgndogrdnuogronudrgoudngrunnoudrgodrgduongrnuodrgodnurgunoundgrodrgdonugruondrgonudrgunoudnrgodgrdnuogronudrgoudnrgunnoudgrdorgdonugruondrgonudrgunoudnrgodgrdnuogronudrgoudnrgunoundgrdogrdonurgouundrgondgrnuodgrnudogrodngurogudrnougurndgorndgorundgorundogrunndougurdgorndgroundgorundgroungdorunngdorungdrougordugnodrugnourdungourdngdourngdourngoudrngdrongdorungdroungdorungdorungdorunngdorundogrudgouurndgorndgorundgorundgorundogrunndgouurdgorndgorundgorundgorundgorunndgorudgourungdourngdrongdorungdorungdorungdroundgorunngdorundgourudgourndgorndgorundgorundgorunndogrundgourudgorndgorundogrundgourndogrundgouurndgorndgorundgorundgorunndogrudgorundgorundgorundgorundgorundgourundougrndgorndgorundgorundgorunndgorudgorundgorundgorungdorungdrougndorungnordungrodugordungnordungordungrodugordugnrodungordungodrundgorundgorundgorundgorunngdorungdroungodrugdorundgorungdorungdorungdorungdrougnodrugnordugnordgunnrodgunrodguorgdunrongudrogudrgonugrdounrugdonrgodgnrougdrnugourdguonrgnodrogrnundgorudgnougurdrogunrodgrongdunorngdougrnudrogduorgunnordgnuodgrnougrdurdonurgodnrounrogudnorudougunrndgourndunounrgrdorunnodgodrgnorungudorgunordgurogdnunrondguorndgunrodgudronuogdruodrngudonurgdournugdornudgnourdnogrundngordnogdurogdrungouudrnogurdgnodrgnodurngodugnrdouuogndruougnrdgnourdgnogrdrongdunngrodugrongudrogdrougnrudgorngoudgroungrdonrugodrunoundgrogrudonurndgougoundrugonrudgngrdounrdgonrudgrounngdrogundrooundrnoudrnourundrouuodunondouunndunnunddundndnndddd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground ground ground

ground ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground ground

ground

ground

ground

ground ground ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgorgrunoruoundundndd

ggrouorunnudndd

ggrgororuounundndd

ggrgoroguruonrnuoddnundd

ggrgororuouunndndd

ggrorouunndd

ground

ggrorounudnd

ggrorounundd

grgogruornuodnundd

grgouronudnd

grgorunoudnd

grgogruornoudunndd

ground

ground

ggrorounudnd

ggrorouunndd

ground

grogurgnogdruorgnuogdrnuorgdnougrdnuordnoudnundd

ggrorgougrnuorgdnoudrnuoudndnd

ggrorgougrnuogrdnourgdoungrnudogrdnourgdoungrnudourdnodunndd

ggrorguornuodnudnd

ggrogruogrnourgdonurnudodnudnd

ggrorounudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgoruonudnd

ground

ggroruonudnd

grgogruournodnudnd

ggroruonudnd

ground

ggrogrougrnuorndoudunndd

grgogruornoudunndd

grgogruornoudunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgogrunoruodnudnd

ground

ggrougrogronuruodnndudnd

ground

ggrogruoruonunddnd

ground

ground

ggrogruogrgnunorduorodnuudnndd

ggrorouunndd

ggroruonundd

ground

ground

ggroruonudnd

ground

ggrogruornoudunndd

ground

ground

ground

ggrogrunoroudundnd

ground

ground

ggrogrunogruogruodnrundodnudnd

ground

ggrgorourunounddnd

ground

ggroruonudnd

ggrgorgrounoruuondnuddnd

ggrgorguorogunrnuogdrdnunorduodnudnd

ground

ground

ggrgorguourongrodunrudnonuddnd

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ggroruonudnd

ground

ground

ggrogrourgunogrnduordnuodnudnd

ground

grgorunoudnd

ground

ground

ggrogruornuodnundd

ggrorguogrnuogrdnuordunodnudnd

grgoruonundd

ggrorguornunodudnd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

grgorguornuodnudnd

grgorgunorguoudnrgodnrguodnrguodnrgunodruodnudnd

grgorguonruodnundd

grgourgonrudonudnd

grgorugonurgdonrudonundd

grgorunoudnd

ground

grougnrdound

grgorugonrugdonruodnudnd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

grougnrdound

grgouronudnd

grgouronudnd

ground

grgourgonurdonund d

grgourgonrugdonurgdonrudonudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgorguonruodnundd

grgorguonruodnudnd

ground

ggrorgunorguoudnrodnudnd

ground

ground

grgorugonurgdonrgudonrugodnunrdound d

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgourgonurgdonrudonudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

grogurnogdurgnorudognurdnodund

grgouroundnd

ground

ground

grgourognudronudnd

ground

ground

grogurnogdunroudnd

ground

ground

grogurgnoudrgonurdgonurgdounrdonudnd

ground

grgourgonrgudonrugodnrugdonrudonudnd

ground

grgouronudnd

grgorguonruodnudnd

grogurngodrguonruodgnurdgnordguonruodnundd

ground

ground

grgorguonruodngudrnodund

grgoruonudnd

grgorunoudnd

ground

grgorguonruodnundd

grgourgonruodgnudrgnogdruornuodnudnd

grgorunoudnd

grgouronudnd

ground

ground

ggroruonudnd

ground

grgogruorgnuodrgunondrgunodgruoudrnodundnd

ground

ground

grgoruonudnd

ground

grgorguonrguodnrguodnrunodudnd

ground

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

grgoruonudnd

grgorungourdonudnd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

grgourgonrudonudnd

grgorguonrguodnrgunodruodnudnd

grgoruonudnd

grgogruornuodnudnd

ground

ggroruonundd

ggrogruoruonunddnd

ground

grgogurornruodunnudndd

ggrgorguorgorgunrougdnorugnodurgndunorgndorudorudnoundundndd

ggrroouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrgorgorugorugnrorundunounduodundndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ground

ggrorouunnudndd

ggrgougogrgroungunorruonduornuoddnudnudndndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ggrorouunndd

ground

grgorunoudnd

ggrggorgorurouronuonudnudndndd

ground

ground

ggrgororuounundndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrgorrouounundndd

grrounundd

ggrgougorgorunorunodundundndd

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ggrouorunnudndd

ground

ggrorouunndd

ggrrgorourunonuudnndd

ground

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ggrgorgoruouunrondunndundd

ground

ground

ggrgorgoruorunoundundndd

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ggrgororgurounrunnodudundndd

ggrgororuounundndd

ggrroouunndd

ggrgrogourgunornorudoudnundndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggroruonudnd

ggrogruogrgnuorgdnuorgoudnrourdnoundunddnd

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrorguogrunornduoudndnd

ggroruonudnd

ggroruonudnd

ground

grgorguonruodnudnd

ground

grogurnodund

ground

grgouronudnd

grgouronudnd

ground

grgouroundnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggroruoundnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrgroouruonunnddgdround

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrgorouruonnuddnd

ground

ggrorouunndd

grggorguroonruuodnundndd

ground

ground

ggrgorgourguornornudoudnundndd

ggrroouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrgrooruoununnddd

ground

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

grounundd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grounundd

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

groundggrroouunndd

groundground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground ground

grougndround

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground ground

ground ground

ground

ground

ground ground

ground

ground ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground groundground

ground

ground ground

ground

ground ground ground ground

ground

ground

ground

groundground

ground

ground

ground

groundground

groungdround

ground ground

ground

ground

ggrggororunrouuonunudnddndd

ggrgorgoruorunououndundnndd

ground

ground

ggrorounudnd

ggrgorgoruournuondnuddnd

ground

ggrgoroguruonrornuddunnudndd

ggrorounudnd

ground

ground

grgoruonudnd

ggrorounudnd

ggrorunoudnd

ggrorounundd

ggrorguornuodnudnd

grgoruoundnd

ground

grgoruonudnd

grgoruonudnd

ground

grgogruornuodnundd

grgoruoundnd

ground

grgorguonruoudndnd

ground

grgorunoudnd

grgoruonudnd

grgoruonundd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

grgorunoudnd

grgourgonruodnudnd

grgounrgorgundorguoudnrgodnruodnudnd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

grgoruoundnd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgorguounrodnudnd

grgorugonrugodnrguodnruodnundd

grgorugonurdonudnd

ground

ground

grgouronudnd

ground

grgouronudnd

grgourgonrugdonrugdonrugdounrdoundnd

grgoruonudnd

grgorugonurdonudnd

grgoruonudnd

groguronudnd

grogurognundrogdurnogdurnogdurnogdurongundrogdurnogdurnogdurnodund

grogurnodund

ground

grogurnodund

ground

grogurnogdurnodund

ground

grogurnogdurnodund

grogurnogduroungdrnogdurnogdurngoudrongudrnogdunrodund

ground

grogurognundrogdurnogdurnoudnd

grgourognundrodund

ground

ground

ground

grgourognudrnodund

grgouronund d

grgourgonrudonudnd

ground

grgorguonruodnudnd

grgorugonurgodnrugdonrudonundd

grgorunoudnd

grgorguounrgodnruodnudnd

ggrorgunorguodnruodnudnd

ggrorguorgunogdnruodrnoudunndd

grgoruonudnd

ggrorguougrnogrdnourdunonuddnd

ground

ggroruonudnd

ggrgorgunorourunoudnddnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ggroruonudnd

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ggrgorogurguonrgunordodnruuodnunddnd

ground

ggroruornunudndd

ggrgorgounrouruondunddnd

ground

ggrogrgourogunruodnrgunorddnunruodnuddnd

ggrogrgourgunorogdnurougdnrunogdrnduordnuoudndnd

ggrgorguoronuruodnunddnd

ggrogrguornuoroudnudndnd

ggrogruogrnuogrdnunogrduogruodnrundodnudnd

ggrogruogrnuordnuodnundd

ggrorguorgnuodnrguodnrunodudnd

ground

grgorguonruodnudnd

ground

ground

ground

grgorguonrguodnrgunodruoudndnd

grgorugonrguodnrguodnrguodnrguodgnruodrnuodnundd

ground

grgoruonudnd

ggrorguorgnuodnrguodgnruodrnoudunndd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

grgorguognruodrgnuogdrnuorgdnuogdrnuougrdnordunodnudnd

ggrorgougrunogrndunogrduorduonunddnd

ground

ggrogrourunondudnd

ggrogruogrunogrdnuogrgdnuorgudnorgourdnuogdrnuognrdnuogrgdnourgdunrnoogrduunodrnuoddnudnd

ggrgorogurougnrgunodrgnduorodnuruodnnunddd

ggroruounndd

ggrgorouruonnuddnd

ggrogruogrnunoruodudnndd

ground

ggrorouunndd

ggrogruornunoudndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggroruonundd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrogrguorgunorogdnuruodrnuondunddnd

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrorunoudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggroruonudnd

grgorguornuodnudnd

ground

ground

ground

grgorguonruodnundd

ground

ground

ground

grgorgunorguodgnruodrnoudunndd

ground

grgoruonudnd

ground

ggrouroundnd

ground

ground

ggrogrourunonuddnd

ggrogrunogruordnuodnudnd

ground

ggroruonudnd

grrounundd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

grgrorunguorunnrduodnunddd

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ggrogrguorgnunouogdrunogrndougdrudonrnudodnudnd

grgrogunruornunoudddnd

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ggroruonudnd

ground

ground

ggroruonundd

grgogruornuodnundd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggroruonudnd

grgogrunogruorgdunogrdnunorduodnudnd

ground

grgogruornuodnudnd

ggrourounndd

ggrorunoundd

ggrogrourunounddnd

ggrogruogrnunorduodunndd

ggroruonudnd

ground

ggrogruogrgnuordnorunoduundndd

ground

ggrorouunndd

ggroruronunudndd

ggrogruornuoudnndd

ground

ggrgorgouurornoundunndd

ground

ground

ggrgorgourguorngouungodrnunrongdoruunrdnuodnunddd

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ggrougrorunonuudndndd

ground

ground

ground

ggrgororuounundndd

ggrgorgoruguorgnorungdorugdnorunduorndoundudnndd

ggroruoundnd

ground

ground

ggrgroouruonnuddnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrogruogrunogrdnuogrdunnogrudogrgdnourdunoronududnndd

ground

ggrorunoudnd

ground

ground

ground

ggroruonudnd

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ggrgorouruonnuddnd

grgogruornuodnudnd

ground

ground

ground

ggrogruornoudunndd

ggrogruornuodunndd

ggrorguorunodnudnd

ggrougrogrnougrdunogrnduordunondudnd

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ggrogruorgnuordunodnudnd

ground

ggrorguogrnuordnuodundnd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

ggroruounndd

ggroruonudnd

ground

ground

grgogruornuodunndd

ground

ground

ground

grgogruornuodnudnd

grgogruorgnunorduodnudnd

grgoruonudnd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ggroruoundnd

ground

ggrourgornuodnudnd

ggrougrornoudunndd

ggrogruorunnodudnd

ground

ground

ggrogrourunondudnd

ground

ground

ggroruounndd

ggroruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrouounndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ggrgoruoronuundndd

ground

ground

ground

grgorunruonuddnd

ground

ground

ggroruoundnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgogruogrnuordonuudndnd

ground

ggrogruorunodnudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ggrorouunndd

ggroruoundnd

ground

ggrgorunroouundndd

ground

ggrgorgoruorunorundunndudndd

ggrorouunndd

ggrorouunndd

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

gggrroroouuunnnddd

ggrroouunndd

ggrrroouuunndd

ground

ground

gggrroroouuunnnddd

ggggrrororououununndnddd

ground

ggrroouunndd

ground

groundground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ground

ggrroouunndd

ggggrrororououununndnddd

ggrroouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggggrgrgorgorgorguorguoruornuornuornuodnuodnundnudnuddndndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground ground

ground ground

ground

ground

ground ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrogrgourunonrodudnudnd

ggrougroronuudnndd

ggrogrgourgnuorgondurguordnognurduodnrnoudundndd

ground

ground

ggrorguorgrnunourduondnuddnd

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunnd

ground

ggrgororuounundndd

ground

ground

ggrgoruoronuudnndd

ground

ggrgorgourgournonrudoudnundndd

ground

ggrgororuounnuddnd

ggrorouunndd

ggrorouunndd

ground

ggrogrounruodnudnd

ggrogrourounnudndd

ggroruonundd

ground

ground

ground

ggrorounundd

ground

ground

ggrogruorgnourundnodudnd

ggroruonundd

ground

grgoruonundd

grgogrugornuordounundndd

ggrorgougrnunorduodnudnd

ground

grgogruorgnoudrunondundd

ground

ground

ggrorguornuodnudnd

ggroruoundnd

ground

grgogruognruodrnuodnudnd

ground

ground

ground

grgorguonrguodngruodnrgunodrguoudnrgodrgnuodnruodnundd

ground

ground

grgorguornuodnudnd

ground

grgourgonrudonudnd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

grgorguonrugodnurdonudnd

ground

grgounround d

grgouronudnd

ground

grgouronudnd

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

grgourgonrugdonurgdonrudonudnd

ground

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

grgourgonurdonudnd

grgorugonurdonudnd

ground

grgourognurdonudnd

grogurgnoduronudnd

grgounroundd

ground

ground

grgouronudnd

ground

grgouronudnd

grgouronudnd

ground

grgoruonudnd

grgorugonrundound d

grgorguonrguodnrguodnrguodnrgunodrguodnruodnudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgoruonudnd

grgogruorgnunoudrondudnd

ground

grgogruornuodnundd

ground

ggroruonundd

ground

ground

ground

ggrorguornuodnudnd

grgorguonruodnudnd

grgorunoudnd

ggrourgorgunodnruodnudnd

ground

grgogruonruodnudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgorguonrguodnrguodnruodnundd

grgorguonrudoundnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgounrgounrdoudnd

grgourgonurdonudnd

grgouronudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grogurnodund

ground

ground

grgounrgourdognurdonudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

grogurnogdurnodund

ground

ground

ground

ground

grogurnogdurnodund

ground

grogurnodund

ground

ground

grogunrodund

ground

ground

grogurnodund

ground

ground

ground

grogurnodgurnodund

grogurnodund

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grogurnodund

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grogurnogdurnodund

ground

ground

ground

ground

grogurnodund

ground

ground

grogurnougdrnodund

grogurnodund

ground

grougrnodund

ground

ground

grogurnodund

ground

ground

ground

grgounroudnd

grougrnodund

grgounroudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgouronudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgouronudnd

ground

ground

grgourognundroudnd

ground

grgoruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgouroundnd

ground

ground

grgouronund d

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgouronudnd

grogunrodund

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgouronudnd

ground

grogurnodund

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgouronudnd

ground

grogurnodund

groguronudnd

grgourognudrnodund

ground

groguronudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

groguronudnd

ground

ground

grgourgonrudonudnd

grgorugonurgdonurdoundnd

ground

grogurnodund

ground

ground

ground

groguronudnd

ground

ground

ground

grogurnodund

ground

ground

groguronudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grgorguonruodnudnd

ground

ground

ggroruoundnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggroruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

grorunundd

ggroruonudnd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrouronudnd

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ggrogruornouudnndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ggrorouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

gggrgroorruouonunudndndd

ggrroouunndd

ground

ground

ground

gggrroroouuunnnddd

ggrouroouunnundndd

ground

ground

ggrroouunndd

ground

ground

groundggrroouunndd

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

ground

River mile 808.3
Figure 1–3. Yankton cross-section line 6 at Missouri River mile 808.2 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 6

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358360

E

River mile 808.2
Figure 1–4. Yankton cross-section line 6 at Missouri River mile 808.2 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 6 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

E

River mile 808.2
Figure 1–5. Yankton cross-section line 7 at Missouri River mile 808 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006,Line 7

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358360

River mile 808
Figure 1–6. Yankton cross-section line 7 at Missouri River mile 808 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, Line 7 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354

River mile 808
Figure 1–7. Yankton cross-section line 8 at Missouri River mile 807.9 in 2006.

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358360

Yankton, 2006, line 8

River mile 807.9
Figure 1–8. Yankton cross-section line 8 at Missouri River mile 807.9 in 2007. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354

Yankton, 2007, line 8

River mile 807.9
Figure 1–9. Yankton cross-section line 9 at Missouri River mile 807.7 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 9

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 807.7
Figure 1–10. Yankton cross-section line 9 at Missouri River mile 807.7 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 9 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356

River mile 807.7
Figure 1–11. Yankton cross-section line 10 at Missouri River mile 807.5 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 10

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 200 400 600 800 1000

ELEVATION, IN METERS

348350352354356358

River mile 807.5
Figure 1–12. Yankton cross-section line 10 at Missouri River mile 807.5 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 10 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

348349350351352353354355

River mile 807.5
Figure 1–13. Yankton cross-section line 11 at Missouri River mile 807.2 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 11

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 807.2
Figure 1–14. Yankton cross-section line 11 at Missouri River mile 807.2 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 11 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

347348349350351352

River mile 807.2
Figure 1 –15. Yankton cross-section line 12 at Missouri River mile 807.1 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 12

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358360

River mile 807.1
Figure 1–16. Yankton cross-section line 12 at Missouri River mile 807.1 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 12 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356

River mile 807.1
Figure 1–17. Yankton cross-section line 13 at Missouri River mile 807.0 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 13

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 807
Figure 1–18. Yankton cross-section line 13 at Missouri River mile 807.0 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 13 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 807
Figure 1–19. Yankton cross-section line 14 at Missouri River mile 806.9 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 14

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 806.9
Figure 1–20. Yankton cross-section line 14 at Missouri River mile 806.9 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 14 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354

River mile 806.9
Figure 1–21. Yankton cross-section line 15 at Missouri River mile 806.8 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 15

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 806.8
Figure 1–22. Yankton cross-section line 15 at Missouri River mile 806.8 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 15 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356

River mile 806.8
Figure 1–23. Yankton cross-section line 16 at Missouri River mile 806.8 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 16

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 806.8
Figure1–24. Yankton cross-section line 16 at Missouri River mile 806.8 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 16 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

347348349350351352353354

River mile 806.8
Figure 1–25. Yankton cross-section line 17 at Missouri River mile 806.7 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 17

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 806.7
Figure 1–26. Yankton cross-section line 17 at Missouri River mile 806.7 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 17 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356

River mile 806.7
Figure 1–27. Yankton cross-section line 18 at Missouri River mile 806.6 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 18

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 200 400 600 800 1000

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 806.6
Figure1–28. Yankton cross-section line 18 at Missouri River mile 806.6 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 18 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356

River mile 806.6
Figure 1–29. Yankton cross-section line 19 at Missouri River mile 806.5 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 19

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 200 400 600 800

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 806.5
Figure 1–30. Yankton cross-section line 19 at Missouri River mile 806.5 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 19 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354

River mile 806.5
Figure 1–31. Yankton cross-section line 1 at Missouri River mile 806.3 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, Line 1

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358

River mile 806.3
Figure 1–32. Yankton cross-section line 1 at Missouri River mile 806.3 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, Line 1 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354

River mile 806.3
Figure 1–33. Yankton cross-section line 2 at Missouri River mile 806.2 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 2

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358

River mile 806.2
Figure 1–34. Yankton cross-section line 2 at Missouri River mile 806.2 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 2 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354

River mile 806.2
Figure 1–35. Yankton cross-section line 3 at Missouri River mile 806.1 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 3

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346

348350352354

356358360362

River mile 806.1
Figure 1–36. Yankton cross-section line 3 at Missouri River mile 806.1 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 3 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, INMETERS 

344346348350352354

River mile 806.1
Figure 1–37. Yankton cross-section line 4 at Missouri River mile 805.9 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 4

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358360

River mile 805.9
Figure 1–38. Yankton cross-section line 4 at Missouri River mile 805.9 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 4 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358

River mile 805.9
Figure 1–39. Yankton cross-section line 20 at Missouri River mile 805.8 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 20

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358360362

River mile 805.8
Figure 1–40. Yankton cross-section line 20 at Missouri River mile 805.8 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 20 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356

River mile 805.8
Figure 1–41. Yankton cross-section line 21 at Missouri River mile 805.8 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 21

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358360

River mile 805.8
Figure 1–42. Yankton cross-section line 21 at Missouri River mile 805.8 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 21 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358

River mile 805.8
Figure 1–43. Yankton cross-section line 22 at Missouri River mile 805.7 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 22

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358360

River mile 805.7
Figure 1–44. Yankton cross-section line 22 at Missouri River mile 805.7 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 22 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

344346348350352354356358360

River mile 805.7
Figure 1–45. Yankton cross-section line 23 at Missouri River mile 805.5 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 23

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 805.5
Figure 1–46. Yankton cross-section line 23 at Missouri River mile 805.5 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 23 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 805.5
Figure 1–47. Yankton cross-section line 24 at Missouri River mile 805.4 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 24

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358360

River mile 805.4
Figure 1–48. Yankton cross-section line 24 at Missouri River mile 805.4 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 24 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 805.4
Figure 1–49. Yankton cross-section line 25 at Missouri River mile 805.4 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 25

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 805.4
Figure 1–50. Yankton cross-section line 25 at Missouri River mile 805.4 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 25 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 805.4
Figure 1–51. Yankton cross-section line 26 at Missouri River mile 805.2 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 26

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 805.2
Figure 1–52. Yankton cross-section line 26 at Missouri River mile 805.2 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 26 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 805.2
Figure 1–53. Yankton cross-section line 27 at Missouri River mile 805.1 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 27

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

ELEVATION, IN METERS

348350352354356358

River mile 805.1
Figure 1–54. Yankton cross-section line 27 at Missouri River mile 805.1 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 27 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500

ELEVATION, IN METERS

347348349350351352353354355

River mile 805.1
Figure 1–55. Yankton cross-section line 28 at Missouri River mile 804.9 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 28

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

ELEVATION, IN METERS

348350352354356358

River mile 804.9
Figure 1–56. Yankton cross-section line 28 at Missouri River mile 804.9 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 28 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356

River mile 804.9
Figure 1–57. Yankton cross-section line 29 at Missouri River mile 804.8 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 29

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

ELEVATION, INMETERS 

346348350352354356358

River mile 804.8
Figure 1–58. Yankton cross-section line 29 at Missouri River mile 804.8 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 29 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 200 400 600 800

ELEVATION, IN METERS

348349350351352353

River mile 804.8
Figure 1–59. Yankton cross-section line 30 at Missouri River mile 804.6 in 2006.

Yankton, 2006, line 30

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346348350352354356358

River mile 804.6
Figure 1–60. Yankton cross-section line 30 at Missouri River mile 804.6 in 2007. Yankton, 2007, line 30 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

ELEVATION, IN METERS

346347348349350351352

River mile 804.6

Appendix 2. Kenslers Bend Reach Cross Sections
Figure 2–1. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 1 at Missouri River mile 747.8 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 1

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334336338

River mile 747.8
Figure 2–2. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 1 at Missouri River mile 747.8 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 1 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334336338

River mile 747.8
Figure 2–3. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 2 at Missouri River mile 747.7 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 2

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324

326328330332

334336338340

River mile 747.7
Figure 2–4. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 2 at Missouri River mile 747.7 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 2 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 747.7
Figure 2–5. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 3 at Missouri River mile 747.7 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 3

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, INMETERS 

324326328330332334336338

River mile 747.7
Figure 2–6. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 3 at Missouri River mile 747.7 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 3 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, INMETERS 

324326328330332334336

River mile 747.7
Figure 2–7. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 4 at Missouri River mile 747.5 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 4

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 747.5
Figure 2–8. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 4 at Missouri River mile 747.5 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 4 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 747.5
Figure 2–9. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 5 at Missouri River mile 747.4 in 2006.

Kensler's Bend, 2006, line 5

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

326328330332334336338340

River mile 747.4
Figure 2–10. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 5 at Missouri River mile 747.4 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 5 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 747.4
Figure 2–11. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 6 at Missouri River mile 747.4 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 6

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324

326328330332

334336338340

River mile 747.4
Figure 2–12. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 6 at Missouri River mile 747.4 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 6 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334336

River mile 747.4
Figure 2–13. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 7 at Missouri River mile 747.2 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 7

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324

326328330332

334336338340

River mile 747.2
Figure 2–14. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 7 at Missouri River mile 747.2 in 2007. Kenslers Bend 2007, line 7 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334

River mile 747.2
Figure 2–15. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 8 at Missouri River mile 747.2 in 2006.

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338340

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 8

River mile 747.2
Figure 2–16. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 8 at Missouri River mile 747.2 in 2007. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334

Kenslers, Bend 2007, line 8

River mile 747.2
Figure 2–17. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 9 at Missouri River mile 747.1 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 9

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338340

River mile 747.1
Figure 2–18. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 9 at Missouri River mile 747.1 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 9 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 747.1
Figure 2–19. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 10 at Missouri River mile 747.1 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 10

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338340

River mile 747.1
Figure 2–20. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 10 at Missouri River mile 747.1 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 10 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 747.1
Figure 2–21. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 11 at Missouri River mile 747 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 11

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338340

River mile 747
Figure 2–22. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 11 at Missouri River mile 747 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 11 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 747
Figure 2–23. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 12 at Missouri River mile 746.8 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 12

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 746.8
Figure 2–24. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 12 at Missouri River mile 746.8 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 12 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 746.8
Figure 2–25. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 13 at Missouri River mile 746.7 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 13

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338340

River mile 746.7
Figure 2–26. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 13 at Missouri River mile 746.7 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 13 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 746.7
Figure 2–27. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 14 at Missouri River mile 746.7 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 14

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 746.7
Figure 2–28. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 14 at Missouri River mile 746.7 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 14 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 746.7
Figure 2–29. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 15 at Missouri River mile 746.6 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 15

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 746.6
Figure 2–30. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 15 at Missouri River mile 746.6 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 15 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, INMETERS 

324326328330332334336

River mile 746.6
Figure 2–31. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 16 at Missouri River mile 746.5 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 16

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

320322

324326328330

332334336338

River mile 746.5
Figure 2–32. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 16 at Missouri River mile 746.5 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 16 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 746.5
Figure 2–33. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 30 at Missouri River mile 746.3 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 30

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 746.3
Figure 2–34. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 30 at Missouri River mile 746.3 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 30 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 746.3
Figure 2–35. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 17 at Missouri River mile 746 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 17

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 746
Figure 2–36. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 17 at Missouri River mile 746 in 2007. Kenslers Bend 2007 line 17 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334336338

River mile 746
Figure 2–37. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 18 at Missouri River mile 745.7 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 18

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334336

River mile 745.7
Figure 2–38. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 18 at Missouri River mile 745.7 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 18 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 745.7
Figure 2–39. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 19 at Missouri River mile 745.7 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 19

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 745.7
Figure 2–40. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 19 at Missouri River mile 745.7 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 19 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338340

River mile 745.7
Figure 2–41. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 20 at Missouri River mile 745.2 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 20

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334336

River mile 745.2
Figure 2–42. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 20 at Missouri River mile 745.2 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 20 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

318320

322324326328

330332334336

River mile 745.2
Figure 2–43. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 28 at Missouri River mile 745.1 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 28

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 745.1
Figure 2–44. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 28 at Missouri River mile 745.1 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 28 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334

River mile 745.1
Figure 2–45. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 21 at Missouri River mile 745 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 21

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338340

EX

River mile 745
Figure 2–46. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 21 at Missouri River mile 745 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 21 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 745
Figure 2–47. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 26 at Missouri River mile 744.8 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 26

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328

330332334336338340

River mile 744.8
Figure 2–48. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 26 at Missouri River mile 744.8 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 26 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334336

River mile 744.8
Figure 2–49. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 27 at Missouri River mile 744.7 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 27

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 744.7
Figure 2–50. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 27 at Missouri River mile 744.7 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 27 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334

River mile 744.7
Figure 2–51. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 22 at Missouri River mile 744.5 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend 2006, line, 22

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, INMETERS 

324326328330332334336338

River mile 744.5
Figure 2–52. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 22 at Missouri River mile 744.5 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 22 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, INMETERS 

324326328330332334

River mile 744.5
Figure 2–53. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 23 at Missouri River mile 744.4 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 23

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 744.4
Figure 2–54. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 23 at Missouri River mile 744.4 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 23 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336

River mile 744.4
Figure 2–55. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 29 at Missouri River mile 744.3 in 2006.

Kensler's Bend, 2006, line 29

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334336338

River mile 744.3
Figure 2–56. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 29 at Missouri River mile 744.3 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 29 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334336

River mile 744.3
Figure 2–57. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 24 at Missouri River mile 744.1 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 24

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ELEVATION, IN METERS

324326328330332334336338

River mile 744.1
Figure 2–58. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 24 at Missouri River mile 744.1 in 2007. HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334

Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 24 River mile 744.1
Figure 2–59. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 25 at Missouri River mile 744.1 in 2006.

Kenslers Bend, 2006, line 25

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334336338

River mile 744.1
Figure 2–60. Kenslers Bend cross-section line 25 at Missouri River mile 744.1 in 2007. Kenslers Bend, 2007, line 25 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

322324326328330332334

River mile 744.1

Appendix 3. Little Sioux Reach Cross Sections
Figure 3–1. Little Sioux cross-section line 2p60 at Missouri River mile 673.4 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 2p60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

302304306308310312314

River mile 673.4
Figure 3–2. Little Sioux cross-section line 4p20 at Missouri River mile 673.4 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 4p20 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

298300302304306308310312314

River mile 673.4
Figure 3–3. Little Sioux cross-section line 9p20 at Missouri River mile 673.0 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 9p20

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 673
Figure 3–4. Little Sioux cross-section line 10p00 at Missouri River mile 673.0 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 10p00 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 673.0
Figure 3–5. Little Sioux cross-section line 10p40 at Missouri River mile 673.0 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 10p40

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 673.0
Figure 3–6. Little Sioux cross-section line 16p80 at Missouri River mile 672.6 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 16p80 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 672.6
Figure 3–7. Little Sioux cross-section line 20p20 at Missouri River mile 672.4 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 20p20

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 672.4
Figure 3–8. Little Sioux cross-section line 22p20 at Missouri River mile 672.3 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 22p20 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 672.3
Figure 3–9. Little Sioux cross-section line 23p80 at Missouri River mile 672.2 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 23p80

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 672.2
Figure 3–10. Little Sioux cross-section line 24p00 at Missouri River mile 672.1 for 2006–07. Littl e Sioux, line 24p00 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 672.1
Figure 3–11. Little Sioux cross-section line 27p80 at Missouri River mile 671.9 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 27p80

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 671.9
Figure 3–12. Little Sioux cross-section line 30p20 at Missouri River mile 671.8 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 30p20 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314316

River mile 671.8 
Figure 3–13. Little Sioux cross-section line 31p00 at Missouri River mile 671.7 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 31p00

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 671.7
Figure 3–14. Little Sioux cross-section line 32p80 at Missouri River mile 671.6 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 32p80 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

302304306308310312

River mile 671.6
Figure 3–15. Little Sioux cross-section line 35p80 at Missouri River mile 671.4 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 35p80

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 671.4
Figure 3–16. Little Sioux cross-section line 36p80 at Missouri River mile 671.3 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 36p80 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 671.3
Figure 3–17. Little Sioux cross-section line 37p00 at Missouri River mile 671.3 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 37p00

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 671.3 
Figure 3–18. Little Sioux cross-section line 39p20 at Missouri River mile 671.2 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 39p20 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 671.2
Figure 3–19. Little Sioux cross-section line 43p20 at Missouri River mile 671.0 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 43p20

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 671
Figure 3–20. Little Sioux cross-section line 43p40 at Missouri River mile 670.9 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 43p40 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 670.9
Figure 3–21. Little Sioux cross-section line 45p60 at Missouri River mile 670.8 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 45p60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 670.8
Figure 3–22. Little Sioux cross-section line 48p40 at Missouri River mile 670.6 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 48p40 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 670.6
Figure 3–23. Little Sioux cross-section line 50p00 at Missouri River mile 670.6 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 50p00

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 670.6
Figure 3–24. Little Sioux cross-section line 51p00 at Missouri River mile 670.5 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 51p00 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 670.5
Figure 3–25. Little Sioux cross-section line 51p80 at Missouri River mile 670.4 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 51p80p

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN FEET

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 670.4
Figure 3–26. Little Sioux cross-section line 56p40 at Missouri River mile 670.3 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 56p40 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ELEVATION, INMETERS 

300302304306308310312

River mile 670.3
Figure 3–27. Little Sioux cross-section line 57p40 at Missouri River mile 670.2 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 57p40

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 670.2
Figure 3–28. Little Sioux cross-section line 58p80 at Missouri River mile 670.1 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 58p80 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 670.1
Figure 3–29. Little Sioux cross-section line 59p80 at Missouri River mile 670.0 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 59p80

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

298300302304306308310312314

River mile 670.0
Figure 3–30. Little Sioux cross-section line 60p60 at Missouri River mile 669.9 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 60p60 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312

River mile 669.9
Figure 3–31. Little Sioux cross-section line 62p00 at Missouri River mile 669.8 for 2006–07.

Little Sioux, line 62p00

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 669.8
Figure 3–32. ittle Sioux cross-section line 62p60 at Missouri River mile 669.8 for 2006–07. Little Sioux, line 62p60 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 0 50 100 150 200 250

ELEVATION, IN METERS

300302304306308310312314

River mile 669.8

Appendix 4. Miami Reach Cross Sections
Figure 4–1. Miami cross-section line 65p80 at Missouri River mile 263.6 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 65p80

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

178180182184186188190192194196198

River mile 263.6
Figure 4–2. Miami cross-section line 65p00 at Missouri River mile 263.5 for 2006–07. Miami, line 65p00 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184

186188190192

194196198200

River mile 263.5
Figure 4–3. Miami cross-section line 63p20 at Missouri River mile 263.4 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 63p20

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

175180185190195200

River mile 263.4
Figure 4–4. Miami cross-section line 62p60 at Missouri River mile 263.4 for 2006–07. Miami, line 62p60 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

184186188190192194196198

River mile 263.4
Figure 4–5. Miami cross-section line 62p00 at Missouri River mile 263.3 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 62p00

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

184186188190192194196198

River mile 263.3
Figure 4–6. Miami cross-section line 55p60 at Missouri River mile 263 for 2006–07. Miami, line 55p60 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

180182184186188190

192194196198

River mile 263
Figure 4–7. Miami cross-section line 55p00 at Missouri River mile 262.9 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 55p00

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

180182184186188190192194196198200

River mile 262.9
Figure 4–8. Miami cross-section line 54p20 at Missouri River mile 262.9 for 2006–07. Miami, line 54p20 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 262.9
Figure 4–9. Miami cross-section line 53p00 at Missouri River mile 262.8 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 53p00

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

500 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184

186188190192

194196198200

River mile 262.8
Figure 4–10. Miami cross-section line 51p20 at Missouri River mile 262.7 for 2006–07. Miami, line 51p20 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 500 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

184186188190192194196198

River mile 262.7
Figure 4–11. Miami cross-section line 50p20 at Missouri River mile 262.6 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 50p20

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196

River mile 262.6
Figure 4–12. Miami cross-section line 49p40 at Missouri River mile 262.6 for 2006–07. Miami, line 49p40 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 262.6
Figure 4–13. Miami cross-section line 48p40 at Missouri River mile 262.5 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 48p40

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 262.5
Figure 4–14. Miami cross-section line 43p40 at Missouri River mile 262.2 for 2006–07. Miami, line 43p40 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 500 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 262.2
Figure 4–15. Miami cross-section line 43p00 at Missouri River mile 262.2 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 43p00

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

500 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184

186188190192

194196198200

River mile 262.2
Figure 4–16. Miami cross-section line 39p00 at Missouri River mile 261.9 for 2006–07. Miami, line 39p00 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 500 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

184186188190192194196198200

River mile 261.9
Figure 4–17. Miami cross-section line 38p00 at Missouri River mile 261.9 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 38p00

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

500 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184

186188190192

194196198200

River mile 261.9
Figure 4–18. Miami cross-section line 32p40 at Missouri River mile 261.5 for 2006–07. Miami, line 32p40 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196

River mile 261.5
Figure 4–19. Miami cross-section line 30p80 at Missouri River mile 261.4 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 30p80

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 261.4
Figure 4–20. Miami cross-section line 28p00 at Missouri River mile 261.2 for 2006–07. Miami, line 28p00 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

178180182184186188190192194196198

River mile 261.2
Figure 4–21. Miami cross-section line 25p40 at Missouri River mile 261.1 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 25p40

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

184186188190192194196

River mile 261.1
Figure 4–22. Miami cross-section line 25p20 at Missouri River mile 261.1 for 2006–07. Miami, line 25p20 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 261.1
Figure 4–23. Miami cross-section line 24p40 at Missouri River mile 261 for 2006–07. 

Miami, line 24p40

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 261.0
Figure 4–24. Miami cross-section line 23p40 at Missouri River mile 261 for 2006–07. Miami, line 23p40 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196

River mile 261.0
Figure 4–25. Miami cross-section line 17p80 at Missouri River mile 260.6 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 17p80

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 260.6
Figure 4–26. Miami cross-section line 15p40 at Missouri River mile 260.5 for 2006–07. Miami, line 15p40 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196

River mile 260.5
Figure 4–27. Miami cross-section line 14p60 at Missouri River mile 260.4 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 14p60

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196

River mile 260.4
Figure 4–28. Miami cross-section line 13p60 at Missouri River mile 260.3 for 2006–07. Miami, line 13p60 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184

186188190192

194196198200

River mile 260.3
Figure 4–29. Miami cross-section line 13p20 at Missouri River mile 260.3 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 13p20

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

500 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184

186188190192

194196198200

River mile 260.3
Figure 4–30. Miami cross-section line 12p60 at Missouri River mile 260.3 for 2006–07. Miami, line 12p60 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 260.3
Figure 4–31. Miami cross-section line 3p80 at Missouri River mile 259.7 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 3p80

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 259.7
Figure 4–32. Miami cross-section line 3p20 at Missouri River mile 259.7 for 2006–07. Miami, line 3p20 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184186188190192194196198

River mile 259.7
Figure 4–33. Miami cross-section line 0p40 at Missouri River mile 259.5 for 2006–07.

Miami, line 0p40

HORIZONTAL DISTANCE, IN METERS

400 300 200 100 0

ELEVATION, IN METERS

182184

186188190192

194196198200

River mile 259.5
Prepared by:

Rolla Publishing Service Center

1400 Independence Road

Rolla, MO 65401

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Director

U.S. Geological Survey

Columbia Environmental Research Center

4200 New Haven Road

Columbia, MO 65201

(573) 875–5399

Or visit the Columbia Environmental Research Center website at:

http://www.cerc.usgs.gov


Elliott and others—Channel Morphodynamics in Four Reaches of the Lower Missouri River, 2006–07—Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5074