Report 300-1 

by 

August 1977 

Prepared by 

E 

E 
River 

'better 

this 

flood 

tion 

herein is a of studies in conconducted the U. S. 

, on the of the Lower Missis 

sdiction. These studies are conducted to a 

of the fluvial processes of the river and to 

effective and economical stabilization works for 

s the first a new series of 

the of Previous 

shed under the old series are not 

under the direction of Mr. J. E. 

Division. The and were 

. Robbins the Section with the assistance of 

Messrs. Stewart and D. R. Williams. 

, CE, was District , and LTC C. W. 

Steelman District of the District 

the of this 
Preface 

List of Tables 

List of Plates 

List of 

List of 

Conversion Factors, U. S. 

Measurement 

Introduction 

Data Collection 

Characteristics 

Channel Characteristics 

Sediment 

Bed Material 

References 

A: Tables 

B: Plates 

D: 

E: Notation 

to Metric (SI) Units of 

iii 

iv 

v 

ix 

X 

1 

2 

2 

3 

6 

13 
l 

2 

2A 

7 

of Record on the Missi 

to 

River at Vickss in the for the at-a-Station Channel 

Characteristics 

Values of in the ions for 

Channel Characteristics with Those from Previous 

Measurements, 

, Mile .9 

Missi River, 

, Mile A..l:IP, 13 March 

Sediment Measurements, 

, Mile AHP, 

of Material from Bed of Mi 

for Calendar Year 

of Material from Bed of 

District, for Calendar Year 1966 

of Material from Bed of Missi 

for Calendar Year 1967 

of Material from Bed of Mi 

District, for Calendar Year 

s of Material from Bed of 

District for Calendar Year 1969 

s of Material from Bed of Missi 

District, 

of Material from Bed of Missis 

Calendar Year 

of Material from Bed of Hissis 

for Calendar Year 

of Material from Bed of Missis 

, for Calendar Year 

of Material from Bed of Missis 

for Calendar Year 

Bed Material 

strict 

scale) for Missi 

in Metric (SI) and U. S. 

iv 

Units 

River, 

River, 

River, 

River, 

River, 

River, 

River, 

River 

River; 

River, 

River 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

13 

District Index Mile 

District Index , Mile 

Profile son, 

to 465 

to 300 

and Low 

and Low 

OzarkOzarkArkansas City, Arkansas, Mile 

Helena, Arkansas, Mlle 650 to 

to 

Di duration months, range 

Occurrence of 

range 

Occurrence of minimum di 

range 

Relation of width, 

year, Arkansas 

year, 

Relation of width, 

year, Natchez 

Revetment construction hi 

bank hi 

, Natchez 

, Arkansas 

, Arkansas disto 

to 

to 

District 

range 

sediment 

range 

v 

range 

sediment 

range 

, Arkansas diswater 

water 

by water 

District 

and concentration, 

and concentration, 

and concentration, 

and concentration, 

and concentration, 
22 

31 

sediment and concentration, 

sediment and concenArkansas 

sediment and concentrend of measured sediment and concentrations Natchez 

concentrations 

Arkansas 

of measured 

Arkansas 

of 

of measured 

Natchez 

sediment 

range 

sediment 

sediment 

and 

and 

and 

of ratio of measured fine to measured total 

range 

ratio of measured fine to measured total 

of 

range 

sediment 

range 

sediment 

range 

range 

range 

range 

fine to measured total 

range 

vs. di by w·ater year, 

vs. di by water year, 

vs. di water year 

vs. water year, 

vs. di water year, 

vs. di water year, 

sediment concentration vs. di 

di range 

vi 

concentration vs. 

range 

concentration vs. di 
33 

39 

40 

45 

48 

49 

50 

Measured sand concentration vs. di 

year, Arkansas City di range 

year, 

concentration vs. 

range 

concentration vs. 

year, range 

range 

average water 

average water 

at 

at Natchez 

by water 

water 

water 

range 

Relation 

ALWP, and 

mile 565.9, 

sediment concentration, 

range 

below 

at Arkansas range, 

Relation of ' below 

and velocity 

mile 435. major rise of 

Relation of 

ALWP, and 

sediment concentration, below 

at Natchez di range, 

mile . 34, 1973 

Variation in average bed-material sizes at Arkansas disrange 

Variation in average bed-material siz.es at 

range 

Variation in average bed-material sizes at Natchez di 

range 

Variation of bed materials in the 

District 

Variation of bed materials in the 

District year 1966 

Variation in of bed materials in the 

District during calendar year 1967 

Variation of bed materials in the 

District year 1968 

Variation in composition of bed materials in the 

District calendar year 1969 

Variation of bed materials in the 

District year 1970 

Variation of bed materials in the 

District year 1971 

vii 
of bed materials in the 

year 

of bed materials in the 

year 

of bed materials in the 

year 

in size of bed materials for the 

of 

Eutaw Reach 

of 

Variation of 

Carolina Reach, 

ion of 

Carolina Reach, ALWP 

of average 

vs. 

vs. 

Variation in 

Di 

average bed-material sizes for the 

and energy 

4 ft 

and energy 

ft 

energy 

2 ft 

s and energy 

28 ft 

s with 

, Arkansas 

Helena di 

for flood 

viii 

with distance, Ozarkwith distance, Ozarkwith distance, Cracraftwith distance, Cracraft-

, Vicksburg District, 

major rises 

.9 AHP 

range, 

range, 1957, 

rises 

major rises 

.7 AHP 

in the 
1 Gravel cover at head of Cottonwood Bar, mile 470, 26 

2 Cobbles on Cottonwood Bar, mile 470 

3 Island Dike No. 2, mile 416, 

4 of Island Dike No. 2, mile 

5 Gravel cover at head of Middle Ground Island, mile 409, 3 October 

1973 

6 Gravel cover at head of Middle Ground Island, mile 409, 7 

7 Gravel cover at head of Middle Ground Island, mile • 7 

8 Gravel cover at head of middle bar, mile . 4' 22 

9 Gravel cover at head of middle bar, mile 388.4, 22 

10 Sand waves on lower end of middle bar, 387, 22 

1975 

ll Sand waves on lower end of middle bar, mile ' 22 

12 Sand waves on lower end of middle bar, mile ' 22 

ix 
verted 

units of measurement used in this 

metric (SI) units as follows: 

can be coninches 

feet 

miles statute) 

square miles (U. . statute) 

ounces . fluid) 

s) 

tons (2000 lbm) 

second 

per second 

Fahrenheit 

.4 

2.54 

0.3048 

1.609344 

2.589988 

0.7645549 

2.957353 X 10-5 

0. 

907.1847 

0.3048 

0.02831685 

millimetres 

centimetres 

metres 

kilometres 

square kilometres 

cubic metres 

cubic metres 

metres per second 

cubic metres per 

second 

from Fahrenheit (F) readC = (5/9)(F ). To obtain Kelvin 

) + 

X 
The ultimate purpose of sediment studies in the U. S. 

District, , is to 

the 

a workable of the basic 

River and to 

of sediment in the Lower Missi 

toward effective and economical stabilization works for flood control and The more immediate 

purpose of this 

collected and 

, however the data that have been 

·to date (1929-1974) and to show what trends exist 

District. For this 

and bed sediments for the Vicksmeasurements of all available bedmaterial are , but of sediment 

measurements has been lirrli ted to data collected at the three main disical 

ranges since data at these ranges have been collected at 

intervals. Some 

s of sediment 

of the data is made, but no theoretare The information presented in the tables and of this may be considered as a 

toward the realization of the ultimate purpose of sediment studies 

in the Lower Missis River. 

Previous that include information on the fluvial sediment 

for the of the Missis River under of the 

District may be found in References 1 9. 

Because the River is an alluvial river, it is a very 

which s its widths ~ and meander 

sizes to the sequence of water di on the systhe sequence of sediment from erosional 

processes, and the proneness of the banks to erosion or 

, either natural or artificial, in the 

, or 

redistribution of 

of the channel involve the 

of sediment. most 
300 

encountered in channel maintenance are caused the 

into and within the Therefore, a 

trends of sediment movement is necessary for 

ion and flood control channel. 

sediment 

River at Arkansas 

were collected interand Then 

season of , bed-material were taken 

several locations the District. 

District 

10 River 

a data collection 

This program was initiated to 

base for studies to a better of 

water and sediment The 

District of the river has been direaches as shown in Plates l and 2, and data have 

reach as need and 

surveys, bed-form 

stribution, bed-material and 

have 

' di 

sediwater-surface In addition, routine sediment 

established at the three at 

, and Natchez and , respecsediment were collected 

ranges; since sediment have 

River serves as the or outlet for runof the continental United States. The 

for s. units of measureon page x. 
basin covers more than 1, 5,000 square miles, has a area 

of 1, square miles, includes all or of 31 states and two 

Canadian and resembles a funnel into the 

of Mexico. Waters from as far east as New York and as far west as 

Montana contribute to flows in the lower river. 

The main tributaries to the lower river above 

Ohio, St. Francis, White, Arkansas, and Yazoo Rivers. 

are the 

The Ohio River 

contributes more water to the Lower 

winter and months, and the Middle 

tributes more the suiPJller and falL 

Flows in the Lovrer Missi 

as shown in 1. Di 

June due to snow melt and 

mean annual flow from to 

River follow a 

rains. At 

,000 cfs. 

the 

contrend 

, the 

flows redistribute of sediment, both in susand the bed, and it is these flows which about the 

most dramatic in channel and 

banks are cut, pool areas are scoured, and sediment is 

in cross , middle bars, and overbank areas. Most of the annual 

record at 

have occurred in 

and March as shown in 

from 

and but several have occurred in 

2. The of 

are shown in Table 1. 

The Missis 

from 

River is ect to of low flow icuthis 

which 

November as shown in 

, it is sometimes necessary to some of the eros 

have built up with sediment the flows in order to 

the channel open. 

In a natural river, the di of of bed 

and bank material, and sediment concentration are or determinants 

of the and and showed that 

to bank-full in a natural river section the width, , and 

3 
as power functions. These functions 

can be written as 

'l'hen 

and 

D v = 

Ttl = width of ft 

k and m = constants for a cross section 

Q = water di cfs 

D = mean of flow in the cross section, ft 

= mean of flow in the cross section, 

these functions can be combined to 

Q = WDV = 

b + f + m = l 

(a)(c)(k) = l 

ssi River at the Arkansas , Vicksburg, 

ranges were used to the relations of width 

to and are shown in 

order to of this 

from year to year, the data need to be 

4, 5, and 6, 

and to be able to 

taken 

the same cross section for any location. The Arkansas 

Natchez ranges have been located at their 

, and and 

each range were in order to determine the range of 

b , and m and to see if there have been 

An increase or decrease in the value of the 

indicate a or smaller rate of increase of the deValues of the 

summarized in Table 2. 

for the three 

4 
In the Vicksburg District, several cutoffs were made on the MissisRiver the IS • In the upper end of the District around 

Arkansas cutoffs were not made until Since data to 

cutoffs were available at Arkansas the values of b , f and m 

were for water years and 1933 to compare with those after 

cutoffs. Table 2 shows in with some deviations, that since 

the values of b and m have increased and vaJ.ues of f have decreased at Arkansas City, An increase in b indicates a rate of 

increase of width with di 

smaller rate of increase of 

while a decrease in f indicates a 

with This would 

that the cross section has become more dish An increase in m 

indicates a rate of increase in with di These 

may have been initiated by the cutoff program which increased 

the river However, since values of b , f , and m were not 

computed for all the years since 1929, other fluctuations may have also 

occurred. 

At Vicksburg, from 1950 to 1972, values of b tended to increase 

and v-alues of f tended to decrease. This trend may have been due to 

the outvrard of a low sandbar on the right side of the channel. 

Then, 1973 and 1974, there was a decrease in the value of b and 

an increase in the value of f . These later trends were due 

to the flood flows which caused the sandbar to retreat. Values of m 

decreased 1950-1971 and then to increase during the followyears. 

At Natchez, no 

years for which values of b 

6 shows that since 

trends in the exponents were noted for the 

f , and m were computed. However, 

there has been an increase in and a 

decrease in at the Natchez cross section. These trends are 

due to the flood flows. 

The average values of the s b , f , and m at the three 

ranges determined from the data in Table 2 are: 

Arkansas 

Vicksburg 

Natchez 

0.170 

0.280 

0. 

5 

0.282 

o. 

o. 

0.547 

0. 

0.583 
These that the width increases at a faster rate with disthe at , while the converse is true at the 

other However, because the three ranges are each 

in rather narrow sections of the river, values of b f , and 

m these ranges should not be considered ive 

the river between them. The average values of the expof m from several studies on various river 

ed Table 2A. 

Because the mean annual flow of the Missi River is essenand 

Missis 

ments s 

sediment 

secured 

cone 

valves 

the District the of 

in the downstream direction, as 

for other rivers, were not relevant. 

sediment measurements are made on the 

River in the 

and Natchez 

establish 

sediment 

District at the Arkansas 

ranges. The purpose of these measuretrends in sediment characteristics and 

taken at Arkansas and 

were obtained the sediment which 

3 L. of about 8 oz of water. '· This consisted of a 

of with a 

end. About lb of lead were cast around the 

check valve 

in the 

cones base to base, and near the apex of the top 

iron rod was inserted with an in the end for attachline. The cable was attached so that the 

and the at about in. 

direction necessary to the valve checks from aswhen open. As the was lowered, the check 

were forced open the resistance of the water unimAt the proper the downward motion 

checked· the valves closed and were held closed by the 

6 
reversed pressure of the water as the was At 

verticals about across the river, 

were taken from the surface, , and near the bottom, and then combined to form a o~,'"~~~; the sediment concentration of each was of total di carried in 

the vertical divisions. The sum of these was taken as the 

mean concentration of sediment the cross section. 

Since sediment have been taken with the 

17 verticals are located at centroids of 

of flow as defined streamflow measurements. Six verticals 

are across each range, and four are taken in 

each vertical at centroids of of flow. These centroids 

are located at 10.7, . 3, .0, and 84.0 of the total depth . 

All 

results are 

tration of 

tration of 

for one 

sediment are for concentration, and the 

in per million (ppm) by weight. The concensand in each is determined, and the concenfine sediment finer than 0. 

in each vertical. The sands are 

mm) is determined 

from the fines 

over the Standard Sieve No. 230. The average of these is then taken to be the mean concentration of sediment the cross section. The sediment load 

:::: 

where 

sediment di 

sediment concentration, ppm 

= constant for conversion of units 

sediment taken 1929-1931 and at 

Arkansas Vicksburg, and Natchez are in Tables 3, 4, and 

5, 

, measured sediment varied as 

follows: 

7 
Q ed 

Concentration Concentration 

Arkansas Mean ,000 485 

Max. ·? 

~, ,000 2, 

Min. 39,000 

Mean 577,000 479 528 

Max. 3, ,000 2,338 

Min. ,000 68 

sediment measurements made 1967-1974 varied as 

Q 

Concentration Concentration 

Arkansas Mean ,000 275 305 

Max. 2, ,000 1,054 

tvlin. ,000 68 

Mean 000 296 324 

Max. 2, ,000 1,021 

Min. ,000 79 

Mean ,000 276 

Max. 1, ,000 

Min. 69,000 89 

the data for the 1929-1931 and indicates that the sediment concentrations have decreased since 

Much of this decrease could be due 

to the bank stabilization program. The bank revetment construction 

the 

that the or 

the 

District is shown in 7 which indicates 

of the work has been done since 1945. 8 

the District for three 

Between 1892 and 

there has been a reduction in the total volume of bank 

occurred between and Thus, the 

stabilization has had on the of material enriver from banks can be realized. 

8 
9, 10, and 11 show the annual average measured 

sediment and concentration for the three ranges for 

water years 1968 

range showed very 

1974. 

sediment 

1969, the 

and concentrations. These 

measurements were due to increased turbulence and scour resultfrom the construction of the for the new 

is about 0.3 mile of the range. 

During , measured fines 

0.062 mm) were found to vary as follows: 

Arkansas Mean 

Max. 

Min. 

Mean 

Max. 

Min. 

Natchez Mean 

Max. 

Min. 

376,000 

1, ,000 

,000 

,000 

1,448,000 

,000 

402,000 

980,000 

,000 

Concentration 

188 

940 

79 

which 

finer than 

Q 

Concentration 

196 

188 

12, 13, and show the annual average fine sediment 

The 

and concentration for Arkansas 

for water years 

, and the 

, and Natchez, 

1974. 

trends for measured 

sediment which are similar to that of streamflow 4). 

sediment and concentrations occur 

between December and The extreme maxim~~ sediment 

occurred in December and , while the extreme maximum concentrations occurred in November and December. Minimmn sediment 

and concentrations occur from October. 

from 122 to ppm. 

from ,000 

to 1, ,000 tons per 

trends of measured fine sediment and 

9 
June. 

103 

from 

sands 

finer than 0. 

fines 

~~) are shown in 

occur from December 

mean fines concentrations 

average measured 

,000 tons per 

fines elds 

from 

, and 23 show the trends of the ratio of meameasured total sediment at Arkansas , VicksThe ratio is a miniwhen there is an increase in 

The extreme minimum of the ratio is 0.20, and the 

average fines content 

of the total measured sediratio of measured fine measured total 

sediment 

to 

for 

, and Natchez is 0.70, 0. , and 

Fines Yield 

,100 

323 

210 

appears that is more material in susat the other stations. This may be due to the 

of the 

from the Yazoo River. 

to determine whether or not the relation of 

10 

\ 
measured over the years. 

In this , fine sediment 

total sediment concentrations, and the sand concentrations were 

each year of record 

curves but 

power functions 

ments and the 

the 

line \vas drawn to 

and a 

the relation for 

). The lines were not intended to be 

lines of trend. In most cases 

the between the sediand can be as follows: 

= = 

p ,r,n,j,x,y, and z =constants for a cross section 

fines 

than 0 062 mm), 

finer 

CT = sediment concentration, ppm 

However, it was found that for the water year the power 

function did not the relation between the total 

ment concen-tration di This was 

above bank-full. The decrease was found to be most 

material finer than 0. 

dilution. 

mm and can be 

sedidue to the 

went 

in the 

attributed to 

the , the j was found to be 0. 

and l. at Arkansas From to 

, the value of 

same tvTO ranges. A 

and varied from 1. to 2. at the 

value of j indicates a line 

and, thus, rate of increase of sediment with disAt Natchez, data were available and j was 

found to vary from l to L The values all the are 

summarized for each year of record in Table 2. 

11 
, and show the relation of 

sediment 

sediment 

at any 

less than 

The measured 

,000 cfs was lower in 

year at Arkansas 

sediment 

and ). As discussed earlier, this reducto the bank stabilization program. Since 

to has fluctuated from year to 

and Natchez. However, at there was a 

then, in 

to carry less sediment each year 

there was an increase in sediments for 

The annual variation in the relation between sussediments and is also shown in 

year of record, were made in which the relation besediment and di was to water 

or No consistent 

found from these for water However, 

rise within a year's was considered 

differences in 

be detected. 

sediments for ri and 

, for a di 

sediment 

than for 

and 

and concentrations for ri were 

between sediexist, but in most cases 

other factors. 

annual variations in the average water at the three 

the are shown in 36, 

variations were found to be very consistent from year to 

es difference in the 

the three ranges even the 

river miles. 

show the relat of 

below average low water 

or rise of 

the 

when the 

average water ternThese 

and down-

) , and 

s 

sediment conwas 

, the and mean below AL\>lP 

12 
were less for di than for dis-

, except at Natchez where the of below AL\·JP to 

was reversed and fluctuated 

of bed material obtained in the District were 

collected with a bucket to , the District 

the bed-material for collection of 

bed on the left side of the range. At Vicksthe river channel is acent to a limestone bluff which has a 

base out into the bed of the river. Because of the rock botthe bucket is used rather than risk the 

The BM-54 has been such that it is less than the 

bucket to fine material to be washed out as the is taken 

and then raised the water column. 

District took 

the 

, the 

bucket and the to determine if there was any difference 

in the obtained. The D84 , D50 , and sizes for 

were as follows: 

Drag bucket 

difference 

In almost all , the 

the retained 

the 

of 

l. 

l. 

6.6 

0.422 

0.422 

0.0 

0. 

0. 

6.0 

sizes were very close; however, 

more of the finer material while 

material. 

which was low water, 

a survey of bed materials of the Missis River was made between 

Cairo, Illinois, and New Orleans, Louisiana. 5 In this survey, samwere taken from the of the of which 304 were 

in the District. 
trict 

in 

however, 

bed-material have been taken in the 

with the sediment Bedare obtained at the same verticals as the suswhich are located at centroids of 

are taken across each of the three main 

ranges. bed were taken at 

at 

sediment ranges located 

of the river. 

each range 

these ranges are now 

of 

in mind. 

method has been used 

no mechanical 

the 200 sieve 

sified as 

The 

each 4 to 12 bed 

on the width of the cross section. 

sediment ranges have been 

taken at the center of flow. 

are made, the used 

to all bed-material 

s has been made of 

( 0. 074 :mm). Material finer than 

material. 

~~.~~~.,, and the results are 

distribution for the 

for of the 

is to determine the of the total 

sum the percent retained on each fraction, and 

each total the number of the average 

finer distribution 

size distributions for 

well as the cumulative 

distribution), 

reaches for and are in 

data of the bed material are in 

show the variation in average bed-material 

, and Natchez di ranges, reThe the 

was to form a size distribution from each year's 

data for each of the three ranges. Then, 
from each size distribution, the , and were 

determined. 

45-54 show the variation in the of bed material 

in the District for and 1966-1974. To the 

curves, the vertical distances between acent .j 

the of the material in the range between the lines. 

of these shows that there has been a increase 

in the of material finer than 0.295 mm since Conthere has been a decrease in the of material 

than 0.589 mm. The of material between 0.295 and 0. mm 

was in 

decreased to 

terials in the 

The 

however, by 1974, the 

what it was in 

shows the variation in the median size 

District for the 

for these varies from 0. to 0. 

trend has been a decrease in the D50 size since 

had 

bed ma-

, and 

win. The 

which is 

to what one However, the variation in 

and in the number of taken each year within each 

reach needs to be in mind when the averages. 
size classification which has been recommended the 

Subcommittee Sediment 

the American 

size scales have been devised various scientific 

groups ze the size However, s in 

are prone to adhere to the Wentworth scale, or 

some variation thereof. The size classification in Table embraces 

and the ltlenhrorth scale. This table also shows that the median 

of bed material in the District falls within the 

range of fine to coarse sand. 

'I'he v-ariations in the av-erage bed-material sizes (reprebed-material sizes for the District as a whole) for the years 

are shown in 56. The used in comav-erage bed-material sizes was to determine a comdistribution for each reach which was assumed to be 

that reach. These distributions were then 

reach factor, The 

then determined from the av-erage size distrithe and the were smaller than in 1932, while 

, there has been a decrease in 

bed-material sizes 1967 and 1973. The 

and may be due to , while the 

size may be due to the flood of that year. The 

flood flows of gav-e the riv-er a much sediment transport 

resulted in a of the bed material. 

of record the has varied from 

mm between miles .8 and .0 abov-e head of passes 

) . 

i to note that ev-en there has been a genbed-material sizes for the District as a whole, 

increase in the extent of 

bars and islands the District since the 

Aerial reconnaissance the lowf1oods rev-ealed extensiv-e s 
from the northern end of the District to as far south as Natchez 

mile , which is about 78 miles below It is believed that 

these were carried in the flood flows, because 

are on top of islands and middle bars which were built up in elevation the water. the flows the river 

scoured down into some of the old and this bed 

material up onto the island and sandbar surfaces. Gravel were 

found at the head end of islands, middle bars, and bars. 

Several field were made the low-water seasons to the size of material in the s and to 

examine the sand waves left the flows. Photos 1 and 2 were 

taken end of the middle bar located in 

the left channel at mile AHP. It was in 

this area that the sizes of material were found. Photo 1 is a 

view of the cover that was on the crests of dunes. 

This was continuous, below· the shallow 

sand cover shown in the Photo 2 shows some of the 

sizes of material which measured 8 to 12 em (3 to 5 in.) their 

or axis. 

Photos 3 and 4 were taken 23 of the Island 

Dike No. 2 located at mile AHP. Photo 3 is a 

view of the dike inshore from about ft out. The interstices 

in the quarry stone were found to be filled with , some of which 

were 6 em (2+ in.) in diameter their or axis (Photo 4), It was 

int to find on of the dike since the dike cro1?n is 

10 to ft above the riverbed. It is rather doubtful that the 

rolled up the side of the dike; therefore, the material must have 

been carried in 

dike water. This 

rial that the river can carry 

rial is never found in the 

on the sediment 

diameter. 

Photo was taken 3 

due to the turbulence caused the 

an indication of the sizes of mateis 0. I 

em ~ ) in 

the head of Middle Ground 
show 

of 

11, 

AHP} a view of the cover that 

the flood. The year (7 

was made to rJ!iddle Ground Island. Photos 6 and 7 

the sizes of material found with the sizes 

or axis. A trench was cut to show the thickness 

and sand. As shown in Photo 7, the 

to be an armor the thickness of the 

materials the sand was found to have inwere taken 22 at the head of the 

.4 AHP. Photo 8 is a view of the extensive 

, and Photo 9 i a the size of material 

sizes of material measured 6 to 8 em (2 to 

or axes. 

size of material found in the 

District indicate that there is material 

the river flows than is ever 

of sediment 

been described as 

in the Missisin volume, but 

material are than 

of sediment are the riverbed in 

waves. the field to (22 

sand waves from the water were 

end of the middle bar around mile 387 AHP. Photos 10, 

views of the sand waves, most of which 

ft in at their crest. 

and at various s on the in 

sons of the bed forms within the main channel. 

for and low 

Ozark-Eutaw Reach (see Plate l for location). Plate 3 

sand waves 30 ft in 

ft while at a 12-ft 

and 300 to 

diminished to 

ft in The 
out of the bed 

trated in Plate 4. 

low is more 

The massiveness of the bed load on the Lower Missis 

ill usis exemthe extensive and the enormous sand waves; 

however, the of this load is that cannot be effecmeasured thus far. 

The are two 

; at the same time, are two of the more difficult parameters to isolate and In a river the size of the , the 

varies 

water-surface 

across any one cross section, and the 

takes on a of 

Thus, an to determine a coefficient that is 

of an entire cross section or reach is difficult and subject to considerable error. 

Various studies have been made of the characteristics of 

the Missis A rather of the District's 

of the Lower Missi was made by M. in In 

his made an l.ntensive of data from one 

reach and one reach. The parameters were in to indicate the wide variation in data 

from range to range, to show the differences in 

and low , and to compare reaches with reaches. 

Data from the Ozark-Eutaw Reach were selected to illustrate results in a 

and Cracraft-Carolina data were used for a 

reach (see Plate l for location). 

In the factor 

cient in the ion 

where S is the of the energy line. 

19 

a coeffi-

( 1) 
varies 

reach 

that 

shows the variation of the and energy 

reach at a low of 4 ft above ALWP. The 

varies Values of !! vary 

from 0.02 to 0. and average about 0.03. 

data 

ALWP. There is a 

reach 

increase 

at 

in 

a of 

with 

a limited fin!! from low to 

the same for reach at a low 

above AL'VITP In this case, the is 

reach 

in the 

the reach from 

s a little 

data for the 

reach. The 

0.026 to 0.048 and averthan for the 

reach at a 

reach. 

of 

When and 60 are ' a 

is noted -vli th a very limited in 

average for a reach and a 

the in -vTith and the relative refrom to low At low ' the 

the variation of with for both the 

and the reach. In addition, this shows 

of with in There 

in the average value for a meanderreach. However there \vas a wide 

range to range as shown in 

coefficient it is necessary to measure 

in the water-surface elevation; as 

in the Lower Mi River s very 

of -vrhich not lonreaches which 1vere used to determine ·water--

included gages located on one 
sometimes both banks of the river at intervals of 3,000 to 5,000 ft. 

were then between these gages. However, it must be 

in mind that the river can be than 5,000 ft in width; thus, 

5,000 ft between gages is a very short of river in relative 

terms. Due to the water-surface ' a coefficient 

between 5, 000-ft s of river may not be a 

true indication of the actual 

biased by the transverse 

since, the ion may be 

A recent study has been made by the Potamology Section of the variation of the s with di at the Arkansas disrange, mile .9 AHP. In this a much of 

river was used to determine the water-surface The 

tions were made by the difference in water-surface elevation 

between the local gage at mile .9 AHP and the Arkansas gage at 

mile 554.1 AHP, a distance of 11.8 miles. Plate 5 shows the location of 

the Arkansas City range and the gages used in 

ions. The locations of dikes and bank revetment are also shown 

with the dates of construction. This section of river is sinuous 

and contains a of cross-sectional divided flows 

at shows a summary of the variation of the 

water-surface with di for water years 

show that the decreases with di 

treme values vary by a factor of 2 for any one 

The cross section at the di range, mile 

water-surface were used for comput in 

were not available for the of the energy 

water-surface was substituted. In , for 

the water-surface can be assumed to 

The data 

and that the ex-

.9 AHP, and the 

ion l. Data 

and so the 

flow 

the energy 

The values were the 

water 

each year. 

, and a line was drawn to the relation for 

63 shows a summary of the variation of with disfor water years The data shOiv that decreases 

with di and varies over a range than shown in 

IS The values of range from a of 0. at low 

21 
a o:f 0. at di From 1969 to 1970 there 

increase in while from 1970 to there was a 

decrease. and 1974, values of "n" were much 

increase 

s 

years :for less 

was due in to 

in the form of sand waves 

than 1,000,000 cfs. The 

volumes o:f bed sedithe water of 

those years (Plates 3 and 4 and Photos 10, 11, and 12). For 

1,000 000 cfs, values were roughly the same for 

water year , the relation between the 

was to ri or 

and water No consistent were found for 

the ri or however, there did seem to be some correlat with the water in that the warmer tended 

the cooler ones. 

\-rnen rise :for each year's 

then the differences in the 

was considered 

between the 

other 

and 

be detected. As shown in 64, 

on the 

the 

the values were limb than 

limb than on the 

showed no consistent 

to see what 

coef:ficient at the Arkansas 

were to 

1973, the values were 

limb. Data plotted for 

may have occurred in the 

range, data from 

Water-surface 

used 

encountered because no 

however, a 

with the data as to what 

was 

gages been used in the 

of the old 

been 

of water-surface 

surveys, it 

for a very short 

After 

that the 

of river. As 

discussed earlier this may introduce more errors in the computations. 

the variation of the 

The 

from 0. to 0. The 

22 

are 

with di 

scattered with 

scatter in "n" values 
may be due in to the way was The data are 

to and , but there does not seem to be 

any correlation with the rises or falls~ 

data were not so determination of the variation of with 

was not 

Due to the different locations of gages used in the 

for the recent data and the data, there can be no true 

son of for the two different time 

In order to see if the result from the Arkansas City di 

range were , data from the Helena di range, mile 662.7 AF~ 

were used to see how varied with The Helena 

range was chosen, since there were no other ranges within the 

District which had a gage close by with data for dewere made the difference in water-surface elevation between the Helena gage at mile .3 

AHP and the gage at mile .5 AHP, a distance of 

10.8 miles. Water-surface and the cross section at the di 

range mile 662.7 AHP, were used in the of the 

, and the data were the same as for the Arkansas disrange. Plate 6 shows the location of the Helena range 

and the gages used in ions. In addition, the dikes and 

bank revetment locations are shown with dates of construction. This reach is much than the Arkansas area, 

and there is a 

stream of the 

eros the river at Helena about 1 mile downrange. Like the Arkansas area, the Helena 

Reach has divided flows at medium to 

shows a summary of the variation of with 

for water years 1957 and 

decreases with The 

from a low of 0. di to a 

The values at Helena for low 

they are at Arkansas From to 

, while from 1966 to there was a 

difficult to say whether or not river 

23 

1966, 

data show that 

values of range 

of o. at low disare less than 

there was an increase in 

decrease. It would be 

structures caused this 
more detailed of channel Durof were much 

increase was due in 

than 

to 

years. This 

volumes of bed sediin the form of sand waves the flood as was ment 

consistent were found from in which the reand to ri or 

However, if the major rise for each year's 

considered , then the differences in the 

nesse between the and could be detected. As 

shown in most cases the 

on limb than on the limb. 

shows the variation of the 

strict for flood di 

values were obtained from the 

values were 

in the Vicks-

' and 1974. These 

River Flowline Study" 

done the s Branch of the District. The mean, minimum, and maximum values and the di were as 

follows: 

Mean 

Peak 

l, 

0.021 

0. 

,000 

values tended to be the 

1, 

tended to be the lowest; however, while the 

for these 3 yr, the di 

of 

0 030 

0.020 

0.038 

,000 l, 

0.027 

0.020 

0.032 

,000 

, and the 1945 values 

was the 

was lowest. This would sugon the channel condiflows. The bed forms s elements) of 

with the however, 

in in 20 The 

is on the rate of in the 

fast rise or fall will occur with a different 
than a slow rise or fall. Also, because the a 

stream is related to the 

different channel than a of 

after each will be different. 

a of low flows will 

flows; thus, the floods occurIn summary, the wide variation that occurs in "nn at a range for 

any one the associated with 

to for allua 

vial river Values of varied by a factor of 2 at low disand by a factor of 1.3 at 

care needs to be taken in the use of coefficients. 

Since the is a which is 

dent on several variables, it is difficult to isolate 

and it in relation to channel works. 

does not the effects of the individual variables used in comIn order to understand the in the 

coefficient, it would be necessary to make a detailed study of the 

in , velocities, cross-sectional 

and other related fluvial of the river in relation 

to channel works. 

Flows in the Lower River follow a trend 

from Febrains. Jl1ost of the 

in which the are 

ruary June due to snowmelt and 

annual 

occurred in 

curred from 

flow for the 

have occurred in , but several have 

and March. Most of the annual low flows have ocNovember. At , the mean annual 

was ,000 cfs. 

In a natural river section, the width, , and vary 

with as power functions as follows: 

D = v::::: 
values 

the 

the f , and m were determined for 

ranges and are as follovrs: 

m 

0. 0. 0. 

0. o. 0. 

0. o. o. 

ranges are each located in rather narrow secb f ' and m at these ranges should 

of the reaches of river between them. 

measurements at Arkansas and show 

of sediments has decreased since 

This decrease could be due 

which has reduced bank 

sediment and concentrations 

to the bank 

The 

occur from 

while minimum and concentrations 

October. The average ratios of measured fine 

sediment at Arkansas 

0. , 0.67, and 0. 

sediment was found to vary with the 0. 

and 

L For the 

varied with the l. to 

The sediment at any 

,000 cfs was lower in 

power of 

disthan 

size of the bed material falls between 0. 

l 

has been decrease in the 

, with the 

m.rn between miles .0 AHP. However, 

increase in the extent of 

bars and islands the District since the 

Extensive s were found 

the District to as far south as Natchez Island, 

miles below The sizes of 
materials measured 8 to 12 5 in.) their or axes. 

'rhe massiveness of the bed load carried 

made 

the Missis River is 

These profiles sho1.r sand •raves that ft in 

water. 

and to ft 

in dow~ the channel. 

Studies of the characteristics of the Lower Missi 

River showed that when the s coefficient was 

for a reach of river there was little of with 

in However there was a wide variation in 

from range to range. Recent has that the values 

are on gage locations used for the water-surface 

due to the of the water-surface 

in the were over 

reaches of river, and the values of at a range were found 

decrease 1-1i th and to vary over a range of 

values than shown Values of at range varied from a 

of 0. 

low di 

at low di 

, values of 

to a low of 0. at At 

varied a factor of 2; at dis-

, values of varied a factor of 1.3. This 

the associated with to a value of 

ions for alluvial river 

to use in 

and 

values of much than in years, and this was 

due in to the sand waves that in the channel flows. Values of for overbank flow were not 

invest in this 
l. 

4. 

5 

with 

10. 

Observations on the Missi River, 11 

Commission, , Miss. 

s of Sediment Observations at 

River Commission, VicksStation, CE, InIts Tributaries Prior to 

, Miss. 

, Miss. 

Bed Materials and Their Movement, 

Lower Missi River," 

, Miss. 

on Sediment , Mississippi River 11 Technical Memorandum No. 120-1, 

of 

Low Water of 

, Miss. 

and Maddock, 

Channels and Some 

on Sediment , Mis11 Technical Memorandum No. 120-2, 

of Gravel s in the 

, Miss. 

11 Technical Memoranof Bed Material, MisAreas of 

, Miss. 

of 11 Professional 

D. C. 
Wolman, M.G., Natural Channel of 

vania, 11 Professional 

D. C. 

Subcommittee on Sedimentation, Committee on Water Resources, of Fluvial 

No. , 1963, St. Anthony Falls 

Minn. 

Sediment Termi-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Vol , No. 6, 

, M. G., Characteristics 

Channels; Interim FY 1970, 11 

, Research 

River Co~~ission, 

20. Simons, D. B. and Richardson, E. V., Effect s 

scharge Relations in Alluvial 

' 1962, u. s. 



Table 1 

l 1927 2,278,000 est. 58.4 1 185 

2 1937 2,060,000 55.5 2 43 

3 1973 1 962 000 53.5 6 89 

4 1945 1,922,000 49.8 15 47 

5 1950 1,876,000 47.7 23 29 

6 1975 1,832 000 49.9 14 32 

7 1913 1,783,000 52.2 8 42 

8 1912 1,780,000 51.7 11 72 

9 1897 1,777,000 52 5 7 75 

10 1922 1,752,000 54.9 4 70 

11 1929 l 741,000 55.1 3 106 

12 1916 1,735,000 53.9 5 90 

13 1907 1,721,000 49.7 16 73 

14 1943 1,671 000 45.8 28 9 

15 1920 1,649,000** 50.9 12 78 

16 1944 1,609,000 45.6 30 3 

17 1,606 000** 51.8 10 82 

1961 1,578,000 47.3 24 12 

* in feet mean sea level and are not 

with the 

** have been exceeded of no record. 
Table 2 

1929 0.498 0.440 0.965* 0.006* 

0 329 0.474 

0.345 0.536 

0.360 0.580 

0.298 0 580 1.493 1.175 0 492 1. 768 

1969 236 0.595 1. 780 1.476 0.780 1.606 

0.228 0.583 1.796 1.438 0.798 1.927 

.289 0.518 1.948 1.565 0.949 1.550 

0.300 0.516 1. 725 1.453 0.725 1.346 

0.163 0.576 1.366 1.086 1.230 

1974 0.051 0.615 1.872 1.517 0.872 1.595 

1.209 0.210 

0.222 .531 

0.352 0.573 

0.127 0.548 1.566 1.275 0.567 1. 506 

.168 0.518 2.417 2.108 1.415 2.334 

.162 0.514 2.047 1.872 1.047 1. 559 

1971 .157 0.499 1.912 1.653 0.910 1.503 

1972 0.117 0.529 1.930 1 662 0.929 1.565 ') 

.;; 0.154 0.556 1. 0.888 1.109 

0.208 0.538 1. 754 1.334 0.753 1.512 

Natchez 

0.056 0.385 0.559 

0. 377 0.571 

1972 .392 0.544 1.462 1.120 0.462 1.159 

0.319 .645 1.123 0.698 1.150 

355 0.596 1.258 0.886 1.270 

total concentration. 

= concentration of 

sands. 

n and z constants for a 

* 
Table 2A 

Great Plains and South\..rest (ll) 0.26 0.40 0.34 

Middle River 

St. Louis, Mo. (12) 0.07 0.43 0.50 

Lower 

0.17 0.28 0.55 

Miss. 0.28 0.19 0.53 

Natchez, Miss. 0.05 0.37 .58 

10 stations on the 

Black River, Miss. (13} 0.05 0.17 0.78 

streams in 

semiarid u.s. 0.29 0.36 0.34 

158 stations 

in u.s. (14) 0.12 0.45 0.43 

Scioto River, Ohio 0.00 0.30 0. 70 

Various Tenn. 0.06 0.48 0.46 

Codorous Creek, Penn. (15) 0.00 0.40 0.60 

Creek Penn. (16) 0.04 0.41 0.55 

Note: W= width of flow. 

Q water 

average 
2 5. 3,680 909 1, 

7 3,680 1,541 410 

8 5.713 64. 680 1,390 377 

79 8 ,680 597 428 

96 65. 3,687 0.928 2 530 

1,449 .96 0 3,690 1 485 

1,497 6. 67 1 3,690 2 607 

1,551 6 38 66.0 3,690 2,016 482 

.62 .6 .04 682 

6 1,279 5. 66.1 3,680 0.833 1,952 566 

384 5.75 65.4 3,680 1,706 457 

13 1, 343 5.57 65.4 3,680 0.890 407 

1,431 5.88 66.0 3,680 231 319 

6.34 69. 690 1. 1,140 261 

6.26 70.4 ,690 1,220 278 

27 757 6.73 70,8 3,690 1.21 1,535 324 

30 1, 712 6.43 72.1 1,376 298 

June 3 632 6.18 71. 1.04 845 192 

6 1,552 5.95 70.6 3,690 720 172 

10 1,474 73 69.8 3,690 1.10 771 194 

(Continued) 

head of passes, miles. 

** Fines--material than 0.062 mm. 

(Sheet 1 of 18) 
(Continued) 

Water 

Avg. Surface Water Ratio of 

Date 

1929 

June 13 1,323 5.39 63.7 3,680 514 

17 1,283 29 66.0 3,680 1.08 1,886 545 

20 1,185 5.06 7 3,670 1,940 607 

24 977 4.55 58.5 3,670 0.928 2,477 941 

925 4.35 58.0 3,660 2,629 1,055 

Avg. 1,414 1,674 463 

April - June 1929 Hax. 1,757 2,629 1,055 

Nin. 925 720 172 

1930 

2 124 1.81 23.3 2,960 0.587 54 160 

3 126 1.91 22~3 2 63 186 

123 23.2 0.549 41 122 

123 22.9 2,940 0.549 39 116 

121 1. 85 22.2 2,940 .511 57 174 

16 135 94 23.6 2,960 0.568 91 249 

17 139 l. 93 2,960 0.549 109 290 

20 135 1. 82 9 3,000 0.492 llO 301 

22 175 2.17 26.7 3,020 0.549 154 

25 189 257 

193 424 

(Continued) 

2 of 18) 
3 398 

2J~ 0 1~' ..J..-JO 

130 

20 137 101 

21 134 

24 144 1,983 

134 ,650 

82 23. 2, 940 580 1, 719 

1. 98 2,940 0.663 579 1,600 

31 551 

November 1 136 483 1,317 

3 134 387 

4 132 

131 263 743 

128 237 685 

125 226 670 . 123 221 666 

11 118 183 574 

(Sheet 3 
(Continued) 

Date 

1930 

November 12 118 449 

14 117 140 442 

15 117 134 423 

17 111 1.69 5 2,900 135 450 

18 117 l. 76 22.8 2,900 0.549 156 495 

19 120 154 475 

20 118 146 458 

120 455 

22 124 153 456 

128 135 390 

25 132 168 471 

26 138 171 458 

28 149 167 415 

December l 150 141 349 

151 144 354 

151 202 496 

4 156 209 497 

5 158 280 657 

6 171 305 660 

8 175 238 509 

(Continued) 

4 of 18) 
1' 

,308 

268 l,99 

176 

177 168 

90 

. 30 911 241 

31 867 

79 

6 74 208 

7 

18) 
Date 

63 

64 

73 

lf.;l 78 204 

161 103 236 

102 

537 

959 2 ... 650 

39 116 

0~ 585 340 

.77 538 293 

0.819 123 163 

0. 83 117 

474 228 286 0.81 

Apr 

- 715 727 340 0.91 

263 91 117 128 0~74 

(Continued) 
33. 239 

5.69 3,550 .570 117 421 0.60 

Narch 15 2.98 3,280 o. 783 367 408 0.89 

29 1,049 3,360 0.599 809 1,320 0.61 

April 22 853 3,520 563 60 324 0.55 

3 972 .65 3,570 0.602 71 356 518 

5. 41. o. 74 402 142 261 

3. 9 440 o. 81 233 246 212 224 0. 

2.25 6 3,160 0.822 78 54 57 103 0.95 

690 4.47 40.3 3,518 o.678 0.73 

\·later 1967 63 1,051 5.93 49. 4,430 o.szz 0.95 

196 25 27.6 3,160 o.S63 42 54 

300 32.0 3,250 0. 65 125 141 154 174 

18 328 33.0 3, o. 721 52 95 116 108 131 

2() 35~1 ~. o. 719 144 201 133 0.72 

(Continued) 

(Sheet 7 18! 
Table (Continued} 

Hater 

Avg. Surface Water Ratio of 

Date 

1969 

January 20 419 3.49 34.8 3,450 0.708 38 191 277 169 245 0.69 

February 27 886 5.18 48.3 3,540 0.502 43 380 688 159 288 0.55 

~larch 12 638 4.17 44.0 3,480 0.620 44 291 502 169 292 0.58 

April 30 6.06 4,440 0.588 60 727 1,197 232 382 0.61 

August 8 3.67 3,450 0.766 82 230 295 175 224 0.78 

5 247 2.35 33.2 3,160 0.873 80 53 61 79 92 0.86 

Avg. 541 .so 37.9 3,492 0.698 56 248 386 153 224 0. 72 

1-/ater Year - 69 Max. 1,163 6.06 48.3 4,440 0.873 82 727 1,197 232 382 0.89 

Hin. 247 2.35 32.0 3,160 0.502 38 53 61 79 92 0.55 

October 2 250 2.40 32.6 3,190 0.867 71 71 82 105 121 0.87 

November 7 301 2. 71 34.6 3,210 0.837 54 119 103 147 0.70 

1970 

February 714 4.70 43.4 3,500 0.656 37 481 1,022 250 531 0.47 

~larch 9 632 30 42.1 3,490 0.671 48 440 666 258 391 0.66 

27 681 45 43.7 3,500 0.663 45 209 114 209 0.55 

Hay 20 1,114 5.51 45.4 4,450 0.444 70 504 904 168 301 0.56 

June 5 612 4.08 42.9 3,500 0. 772 72 313 464 190 281 0.68 

{Continued} 

8 of 18) 
133 

- 70 

131 0.70 

18 510 494 0.39 

884 557 o. 

3,570 485 379 47 

60 116 155 

64 454 692 258 
Table (Continued) 

Water 

Avg. Surface \.Jater (;eJ.>m) Ratio of 

Date 

1971 

July 2 366 3. 33.7 3,260 0.930 82 295 414 299 420 0. 71 

August 3.65 34.5 3,280 80 155 204 140 184 0. 76 

September 20 252 2.83 29.8 ,.990 77 7l 94 104 138 0.75 

551; 4.03 39.0 3,371 61 304 531 191 315 0.64 

1970 - 1,005 5. 74 49.0 3,570 82 732 1,327 307 557 0. 76 

Min. 2.83 29.8 2,990 40 71 94 95 136 0.39 

22£ 2.65 4 ,950 1.05 69 43 64 72 107 0.67 

312 15 32.4 3,060 0.786 57 79 138 94 164 0.57 

January 516 4.16 36.3 3,420 0.729 48 184 452 132 325 0.41 

February 11 565 4.19 39.7 3,400 0.734 40 216 425 142 279 0.51 

21 871 5.12 47.5 3,580 0.607 50 364 622 155 265 0.58 

677 4.42 43. 3,510 0.701 57 290 540 159 296 0.54 

1 1,096 5.80 4,370 0.603 61 641 1,126 381 0.57 

8 1,239 .20 44.5 4,490 0.594 62 461 989 138 296 0.47 

15 1,090 5.65 43.2 4,470 0.592 64 438 729 149 248 0.60 

22 923 4.88 .8 4,420 0.602 66 498 739 200 297 0.67 

30 601 4.30 41.5 3,520 0.767 68 228 318 141 196 o. 72 

(Continued) 

(Sheet 10 of 18) 
128 110 

78 

78 107 103 

78 184 

3 7~ 

. ·- 287 

10 567 4.14 1 3,500 0.607 296 1!07 73 

17 411 35.3 370 971 115 104 o. 77 

:,os 34.7 370 0. 97f! 82 128 117 143 0.82 

362 32.8 ,350 o. 82 81 121 0. 

400 34. ,370 82 158 187 147 173 

3. • 3 3, 0.900 80 197 245 166 0.81 

21 3.42 33.4 .>, 0.976 159 183 154 0.87 

28 384 3.46 33.4 3,350 0.965 100 122 97 118 0.82 

September 5 294 13 32.0 1.06 79 78 74 0.76 

11 276 2.94 32.5 ,010 1.06 79 61 73 82 98 0.84 

284 .96 31.4 050 L 78 69 80 90 105 0.86 

370 3.46 32.6 3,280 0.958 77 234 281 235 282 

522 3.85 36.8 3,473 0.869 71 209 326 137 0.72 

Water 1971 

- 72 1,239 6.20 47. 4,490 1.16 82 1,126 235 381 0.87 Min. 222 2.65 28.4 2,950 0.592 40 64 72 98 0.41 

(Continued) 

(Sheet 11 
3 (Continued) 

Water 

Avg. Avg. Surface Water Ratio of 

Date 

1972 

October 2 339 3.23 32.2 3,260 0.955 72 253 281 277 308 0.90 

10 415 3. 33.7 3,350 0.888 70 166 240 148 215 0.69 

16 398 3.59 33.4 3,320 0.888 68 115 183 107 171 0.63 

348 3.28 32.6 0.958 60 91 139 97 148 0.66 

November 3 498 33.9 0.891 59 485 626 361 466 o. 77 

6 574 56 35.9 3,510 0. 729 58 360 636 233 411 0.57 

821 47 42.0 3,570 0.648 54 412 686 186 310 0.60 

1,014 47.6 ,590 0.586 47 760 1,186 278 434 0.64 

965 5.88 45.7 3,590 0.632 46 544 923 209 355 0.59 

December 5 853 5 .. 65 0.587 255 531 111 231 0.48 

13 920 5.75 ,580 0.599 42 387 652 156 263 0.59 

18 ,081 6.18 40. 370 0.571 40 533 1,125 183 386 0.47 

26 1,238 6.88 40.5 0.534 40 347 884 104 265 0.39 

1973 

January 2 1,198 62 40. 4,440 0.552 41 329 814 102 40 

12 1,141 6. 41.2 4,440 0.555 37 830 1,442 270 469 0.58 

1,051 5. 77 41.1 4,430 0.520 37 473 853 167 301 0.55 

689 4. 42.0 3,550 0.671 288 155 254 0.61 

994 1 '•,430 0.592 40 1,007 1,329 376 496 0.76 

(Continued) 

(Sheet 
40 

870 0. 

1,684 0.65 

751 244 58 

223 60 

53 703 1,237 271 

0. 60 ,343 135 0.49 

o. 1,171 134 0, 

14 0.538 113 0.53 

0.539 0.60 

4,510 0. 646 163 58 

644 70 461. 226 

0. 73 443 680 215 

0.684 77 386 131 

0.799 79 499 608 211 

46*6 0. 198 
Table 

9 582 3.66 0 3, 0.955 80 268 304 171 194 

3. 3 3,500 1.01 81 273 294 207 0. 

400 2.88 4 .08 155 167 144 

August 608 0.891 81 667 716 407 437 0.93 

6 507 3.43 3,480 0. 80 347 234 254 0. 

339 2.63 44.9 2,870 1.05 113 122 134 

20 408 3.02 

2.87 168 187 

10 80 70 84 

269 77 62 71 

240 42 3 2,790 74 50 56 78 86 0.91 

918 .96 44.2 3,883 o. 718 60 429 683 177 265 0.68 

818 7.65 57.7 5,370 1. 82 ,319 ,762 435 581 0.95 

240 2.03 32.2 2, 770 Q,L;3 37 45 51 62 71 

October 2 300 .48 11 74 77 86 95 106 0.90 

569 82 0 974 761 851 496 555 0.89 

15 576 3.86 0.947 70 503 554 324 357 0. 

23 608 4.00 0. 800 898 488 548 o. 

541 3.68 3,470 0.941 64 550 328 377 87 

(Continued) 

14 18) 
0. 60 317 298 

o. 55 108 

0, 106 

o. 52 

.91 1;,470 0.669 0.49 

17 1,160 5.80 .o 4}440 .668 1, 0.55 

5. 43. 0. 38 570 1,479 187 485 o. 

9 o. 1+4 552 1,504 157 428 

6.63 45.0 0.624 46 683 1 189 o. 4 6.80 7 0.616 781 203 0.47 11 1,475 7.11 46. 4,500 0.612 692 757 174 0.39 

19 1,156 5.88 44.0 4 0.632 '•5 380 888 285 0.43 1 5.47 0.629 45 594 965 341 

49.4 3,590 0.599 52 278 489 121 213 0.57 

50.8 600 o. 54 490 741 185 280 

5. 43.3 !; 0.653 54 492 794 175 0.62 

(Continued) 

(Sheet 15 
Table 3 

Date 

1974 

5 1,016 5.41 42.4 0.634 53 288 553 105 202 0.52 

8 954 5.20 51.0 3,600 0.644 53 360 566 140 220 0.64 

1,013 5.26 43.6 4,420 0.639 55 440 781 286 0.56 

1,025 5. 9 4,430 0.631 58 481 738 267 0.65 

942 50.9 3,610 0.647 63 434 614 242 o. 71 

May 801 48.1 3,580 0.676 66 538 667 249 309 0.81 

725 52.0 3,110 0. 379 520 194 266 0.73 

728 52.1 3,110 0.828 69 348 479 175 21+4 0.72 

943 49.7 3,600 o. 1,505 739 592 684 0.87 

3 1,067 43.4 4,440 0.576 71 1,265 1,596 440 555 0.79 

10 5. 77 46.4 ,470 0.697 71 1,018 316 0. 

17 6.08 47.6 ,500 0.664 74 786 224 230 0.97 

24 1,109 5.45 45.5 4 0.567 74 945 240 316 0.76 

1 4.65 50.8 0.642 74 485 617 213 271 0.79 

8 4. 77 48.2 0.655 77 485 651 219 294 0.74 

4.03 49.9 3,060 0.623 82 480 289 0, 76 

427 09 47. 2,890 o. 73~ 83 190 165 0.88 

29 354 2. 76 45.2 2,840 0.803 84 142 155 149 162 0.92 

August 5 306 56 42.5 2,820 o. 788 80 45 56 68 0.79 

303 41.8 2,830 0.793 80 93 100 123 0.93 

(Continued) 

(Sheet of 18) 
26 

ltiater 1973 

260 

619 

646 

86 

, 

,840 

2,830 

2, 

64 

64 

78 

~306 

696 

150 

9Lt-O 

108 0.86 

175 

1,054 0.89 

17 
. 05 0 . 43 373 131 224 

4.17 o. 44 177 315 103 184 0.56 

o. 727 55 327 469 250 0.69 

2,970 0.751 64 1,049 1,306 940 1 0.89 

Min. 233 2,810 0.671 55 58 0.20 

(Sheet 
4 

13 967 3,100 ' 1 

3,130 ,068 

3, ,171 1,096 

61.7 3,170 1, 771 

63. l 

28 63.4 ,330 2,127 616 

April 1 04 65.6 3,370 2 575 

11 6.41 3,390 1,653 432 

6.55 .4 3,390 ,290 

1,571 6.68 3,390 556 

Hay 1,535 81 66.5 2,207 

8 6. 63.4 2,063 523 

4~' ~~ 6. 65.8 1,539 398 

587 6. 67.6 3,390 1,610 376 

31 1,669 7.35 3,390 2,098 466 

June 6 1,670 6.85 71. 3,400 1 328 

Avg. 1,367 6. 65.2 ~. 

~ 2,064 

Har - Jun 1929 Hax. 670 7. 71.9 3,400 171 ,096 

Hin. 5. 60.9 3,100 328 

* AHP--above head of miles. 

Fines--material 0.062 

1 of 17) 
Date 

129 1.40 38.8 

132 L 38.8 

137 1.50 38.6 

9 1. 47 39.0 

10 1.44 

13 137 1.49 39.1 

15 146 59 38.9 

138 .50 39. 

164 .71 39.4 

October 1 171 

4 156 

8 139 

10 1311 

13 132 

139 

22 140 

l110 

360 

360 

2,350 

2,350 

2,350 

,360 

,360 

,430 

4 (Continued) 

\-later 

Surface ~-later 

(Continued) 

Ratio 

33 95 

30 84 

28 77 

25 68 

27 75 

33 89 

104 

66 176 

260 

148 297 

174 

139 

111 

319 

341 

126 336 

136 339 

119 

99 262 

91 

(Sheet 2 17) 
331 

0 

.36 ·) 4' 

127 131 

.1 

155 

146 4-03 

403 

386 

143 403 

2 156 

of 
Date 

156 

11 

17 202 

January 143 

5 145 

7 147 

8 145 

190 

23 

171 

161 

362 

96 

i21 

118 

94 

1 

509 

483 

239 

227 

208 

201! 

(Sheet 
~--"(p"-'p=m} __ 

572 2,670 177 335 0.53 

584 ,730 0 

410 1,940 320 290 o. 78 

1 055 2,970 671 236 0 

,870 344 157 66 

22 174 160 

13 114 

59 307 484 179 

1968 82 1,254 290 441 

39 70 126 

010 54 122 154 0.87 

1 ·) 

~, 458 305 0.53 

17) 
1969 

l,Olfl 2,970 1,448 ,021 0.51 

7 849 2,860 52 682 ,064 0.64 

757 ,860 68 1,012 363 496 0.73 

751 790 84 l 1,326 536 655 0. ·0 .;;;., 296 354 216 258 0,84 

5 119 

913 293 

,865 536 1,021 

104 119 135 

10 3. 72 95 120 0, 

27 4.95 43. 249 412 0. 

18 3.86 lf6. 5 2,020 74 76 141 0. 54 

.07 2 2,050 44 153 223 0.68 

9 .17 46.0 ,500 39 434 446 0.61 

6 647 18 .8 730 45 616 237 67 

727 5. 46.9 ,770 52 647 213 330 0.65 

(Continued) 

(Sheet 6 of 
662 5.09 47.4 

56.9 2 779 49.1 

4 

716 

2,740 

3,060 

790 

2,340 

84 

79 

40 

44 

60 

108 

100 

1,018 

479 

181 

699 

88 

671 352 

175 89 

535 183 

,035 288 

754 228 

128 

460 

156 

300 

576 

(Sheet 

o. 

o. 

0.83 

0. 

0.70 

o. 

0.61 

0.50 

0.64 

o. 

o. 71 
(Continued) 

(Sheet 
,060 

,070 497 

,040 

,790 

2,380 76 265 

40.9 79 178 o. 75 

40.2 80 120 140 159 0.86 

41.6 80 193 0. 

41.1 80 289 239 0.80 

380 o. 

4.87 80 190 110 l"r jlJ 0. 

24 4.57 198 135 177 0. , 

J-1. 4.37 145 97 133 0.73 

4.57 84 195 172 

4.68 83 173 142 

21 416 2,250 206 239 184 0.86 

402 2,220 131 121 150 0.81 

September 5 327 2,060 82 92 111 104 0. 

314 1,970 81 70 85 83 101 0.82 

306 1,970 75 91 112 0.81 

(Continued) 

(Sheet 9 17) 
Table 4 

1972 

25 79 233 0.96 

72 432 0.72 

l..Jater 1,020 1,484 0.96 

Min. 70 85 0.36 

October 389 2,100 288 338 0.85 

10 429 2,200 183 0.68 

16 435 ,220 157 o. 

388 .0 ,140 113 0.64 

30 109 

6 5~35 60 596 366 

13 6.34 57 351 646 o. 

20 6.56 49.0 51 564 136 228 459 50 

27 6.94 49. 1, 454 o. 

4 6.68 48.6 46 363 906 141 352 0. 1,0 

18 ,100 48. 3 u "tJ. 1,450 489 0.40 

1, .81 SLO 3 080 40 1,705 516 0.36 

January 1,216 .6 ,080 42 367 249 112 0.29 

(Continued) 

of 17) 
8 394 

7.06 

648 o. 

20 0. 

26 6.70 408 0. 

0.66 

12 

,100 101 

26 3,170 54 

844 180 

55 166 

18 1, 142 

3,300 59 527 111 

8, ,300 

8.91 104 

8. 3,300 109 0.43 

300 llO 84 

ll 
Avg. Avg. 

May 7 1,869 62.1 3, 

9 1,887 9.03 3,300 

1,881 8. 71 3,300 

,887 8.70 300 

21 1,802 300 

1 64. ,300 

1, ,300 

30 1,580 56.7 3,300 

4 ,405 3 

362 • 7 

11 1, 7 ,1,8 

,330 7.39 

18 ,270 7.06 

20 6.84 

25 1,039 6. 3,100 

27 984 100 

July 2 861 ,840 

5 792 ,810 

9 ,780 

624 2,760 

Water 

Surface Water 

66 

70 

70 

76 

so 

81 

82 

82 

(Continued) 

1,436 

549 595 

629 1,252 

544 1,358 

005 

406 1,002 

344 

367 609 

667 

575 

375 552 

364 462 

545 

416 470 

409 

336 

Ratio of 

130 285 0.46 

108 117 0.44 

247 0.50 

107 267 0.40 

87 207 0.42 

83 205 0.40 

69 0.87 

o. 48 

109 0. 

lOO 0.60 

203 

124 67 

107 168 0.64 

115 169 0.68 

165 0. 79 

138 0.81 

209 0.89 

195 220 0.89 

219 244 0.90 

200 225 0. 

(Sheet 17) 
469 84 

181 

30 183 219 0.84 

606 4. 93 

149 139 

3.96 0.85 

27 168 184 

3. 87 90 

336 9 ' 80 88 0.86 

46. 2, 78 

3.04 4 ,070 81 88 0.92 

162 

2,504 366 646 

69 

103 110 0. 

439 504 0. 

471 

(Sheet 13 of 
611 677 345 

66 671 

.47 381 

12 4.34 209 

110 

460 2,370 60 198 

56 406 535 

10 50 31,Q 

46 

388 

39 1,439 2.,., LL 480 46 

600 459 174 423 0 , .. .'l.t 

427 451 o. 

620 0. 

346 o. 

1,076 6, 56~ ,090 1,267 180 437 o. 

8 ~" ~:J 6 3,060 54 898 

14 17) 

(Continued) 

16 
943 

100 

107 

0. 
5 

of 

1970 

April 29 5.59 56.4 2,960 65 800 , 107 318 440 o. 

October 614 4.48 2 ,840 69 602 798 364 482 0. 76 

September 29 312 3.14 36.2 2,750 78 102 133 121 158 o. 77 

620 4.40 850 71 501 679 268 360 0.75 

1970-Sept 1971 933 5.59 56.4 2,960 78 800 1,107 364 482 o. 

Min. 312 3.14 3' o. 750 102 133 121 158 0. 72 

January 14 5.46 49.3 45 516 886 247 424 0.58 

April 604 4.31 49.1 59 230 353 141 217 o. 

May 10 6.03 59. 63 444 908 156 319 0.49 

16 .12 59.9 64 488 169 327 0.52 

25 901 5. 58.8 2,910 70 454 707 187 291 0.64 

June 4.40 51.0 2,880 74 340 443 10" ,:;, 254 0.77 

3.60 44.4 770 76 221 287 185 240 0.77 

14 375 3.35 40.9 2, 78 263 313 260 310 0.84 

21 3.03 38.7 2, ]l,O 80 175 200 202 231 0.87 

3. 7 2 ' 0.82 

July 3 2, 79 

13 534 4.14 45.6 2,830 77 327 420 227 292 o. 78 

20 4~" .co 3.58 42. 780 80 144 194 125 169 0. 74 

27 420 3 .. 62 41.7 2 83 169 205 149 181 0.82 

* AHP--above head of passes, miles. >;b'r; Fines--material finer than 0.062 mm. 

(Sheet 1 of 7) 
30 

,800 

409 153 117 0.84 

9 648 ,860 0. 

16 2,900 ,143 256 0.50 

957 ' 48 696 ' 270 505 0. 

976 2,920 ,108 208 

6 

14 ,910 0.48 

'9!;0 40 o. 
1973 

January 4 ,263 6.48 66.3 39 551 130 0.80 

17 1,166 6.20 63.9 38 493 006 

24 867 5.29 56.4 449 788 

8 1' 1 482 117 159 

,112 6. 40 1' 312 456 0.68 

,148 6.07 40 396 128 280 0.46 

}farch 963 5 42 131 0.56 

710 4.55 568 188 

812 860 

28 53 794 

3 1,560 56 601 

10 1, 753 600 127 0.40 

,720 74.0 3,000 127 310 

71 734 111 159 

1 72.0 58 ,209 271 

27 1,790 76.0 60 531 1,428 

May 1 851; 75.7 61 630 1, 

4 1, 75.7 1, 109 262 

8 1,868 7. 79. 3,000 96 282 

,903 8.03 79.0 3,000 65 1,246 104 243 

15 1,912 8.00 79.7 3,000 65 562 1,479 109 

18 2,017 8.37 80.3 3,000 65 386 

22 L .47 83.7 3,000 435 960 

25 1,911 .93 3,000 438 984 191 

29 '712 3 69 374 81 201 

(Sheet 7) 
80 

691 87 

704 

410 646 189 

14 388 185 

325 

1,191 156 

1,028 5.35 80 o. 74 

927 80 193 o. 

80 528 206 0.89 

6 762 81 370 477 180 0.78 

373 405 211 0 

13 81 416 470 252 285 

551 51 258 198 

20 506 3.29 2,860 351 283 91 

24 453 3.08 2,860 316 0.94 

420 .98 2,870 273 260 0.93 

604 3. 698 376 0.88 

554 3. 479 536 321 0.89 

353 2.76 2,840 82 201 217 211 0.93 

3.00 2,850 82 168 192 157 180 o. 

30 45~ 2,840 81 176 190 180 195 

{Continued) 

(Sheet 
TablE> 

Date 

322 .62 !;3.5 2,830 79 151 158 174 182 0.96 

14 329 2.70 3 2,820 81 82 92 92 104 0.88 

20 289 2.49 41.1 2,820 77 62 69 79 89 0.89 

265 .32 40.7 2,800 76 68 74 95 103 0.92 

Avg. 1,052 5.49 61.2 2,924 65 417 732 166 258 0.66 

~later Year 1972-73 2,017 8.37 33.7 3,000 84 935 l ,484 376 557 0.96 

Min. 265 2.32 38.3 2, 770 38 62 69 79 89 0.34 

October 304 2.53 42 2,830 77 93 102 114 125 0.91 

12 553 3.76 50.5 2,910 73 723 836 485 561 0.86 

18 571 3.73 52.4 2,920 68 425 276 292 0.95 

583 3.91 51.0 2 68 632 662 402 421 0.95 

1 555 3.78 50. 2, 63 443 521 296 348 0.85 

9 496 3.52 48.6 2,900 59 303 227 0.79 

21 382 3.03 44.2 2,850 56 133 165 129 160 0.81 

29 615 4.13 51.0 2 920 58 980 1,184 591 714 0.83 

December 5 946 5.23 61.8 54 966 1,249 379 490 o. 77 

15 , 191 6.05 66.3 2,970 48 770 1,917 240 597 0.40 

,131 5.95 64.0 2 44 497 540 162 177 0.92 

27 879 .88 60.8 43 483 204 305 0.67 

1974 

January 9 1,156 5.90 65.8 2,980 40 505 657 162 211 0.77 

1,261 6.21 69.5 2,920 39 476 547 140 161 0.87 

(Continued) 

(Sheet 5 7) 
50 

933 

28 

212 

57 599 297 

442 623 , 

1,101 61 

989 

9 295 

225 241 

June 1' 64.5 838 305 377 

20 1,298 6.09 • 5 75 644 

1,180 5.57 7Ll 74 604 906 

3 958 4. 2,950 76 661 

11 845 4 0 638 230 280 

18 626 3.82 56.7 340 382 

25 13 5 84 381 316 351 

387 2.87 4 82 250 

of 
4 

1 

159 p v, 
* retained. 

finer~ 

finer. 

finer. 
Table 6 {Continued) 

Miles Below Length Samples 

Kentucky Bend (l)* 

498.7- 509.4 10.7 8 (2) 

(3) 100.00 99.90 99.90 98.80 91.00 78,50 32.40 3. 70 1.00 0.00 

10 (2) 100.00 86.70 85.25 84.16 83.61 82.83 81.63 79.69 73.66 56.17 29~25 9.40 1. 59 0.27 0.00 

(3) 100.00 99.90 99.90 99.60 98.70 82.10 31.90 9.90 1.10 0.00 

520.7- 534.3 13.6 11 (2) 100.00 99.79 99.68 99.51 99.28 98.82 97.17 87.85 62.85 17.09 1. 50 0.45 0.00 

(3) 100.00 99.90 99.80 98.70 91.80 62.00 14.00 3. 70 0.00 

534.3- 544.0 9.7 15 100.00 98.39 97.44 96. 7l 96.19 95.49 94.31 91.98 83.69 57.01 32.04 12.20 0.95 0. 78 0.00 

544.0 - 548.9 4.9 (2) 100.00 78.13 75.16 72.26 71.03 69.96 68.73 67.10 62.60 42.00 16.23 2.66 0.16 0.06 0.00 

(3) 100.00 99.90 99.80 99.80 98.80 60.50 37.00 7.00 0.30 0.10 0.00 

548.9 - 556.2 7.3 6 (2) 100.00 96.65 95.23 93.71 92.63 91.18 88.98 84. 78 69.75 41.27 18.90 6.18 0.23 0.06 0.00 

(3) 100.00 99.30 87.40 59.30 22.70 0.60 0.20 0.00 

556.2 - 561.0 4.8 

100.00 99.80 99.60 99.30 98.80 97.50 92.80 75.70 48.20 16.80 0.90 0.10 0.00 100.00 99.80 98.90 98.80 98.50 98.10 97.20 90.50 66.70 33.20 5.10 0.10 0.00 

(Continued) 

retained. (Sheet 2 of 4) 

* Average percent 

Average percent finer~ 

Maximum percent finer. 

Hinimum percent finer. 

* retained~ 

finer .. 

finer~ 

finer. 

4) 
100.00 

percent retained. 

100.00 99.86 

92 92.17 89. 

(2) only. 

71 

36 43 

o.oo 

0.00 

(Sheet 1 of 
* (1) Average percent retained. 

finer. 

finer~ 

finer. 

92.38 09 86.88 83.31 

finer than 0.074 mm, These are included 

23.06 

(1) and (2) only. 

72.45 58.10 

o. 52 0.12 0.03 

(Sheet 2 of 4) 
retained, 

finer. 

finer, 

4) 
(Sheet 4 4) 
Average percent: retained .• 

Average percent finer. 

~fuximum finer. 

Mtnimum percent finer. 

(3) 

100.00 90.81 32 

** Number of samples in finer than 0.074 mm. These are. included in 

8 

(Sheet 1 of 4) 

and (2) 
Average percent retained. 

Average percent finer. 

tmxLuum percent finer~ 

Minimum percent finer. 

(4) 100.00 72. 57.52 

8 

36.13 29.7l! 

** Number of samples in total finer than 0.074 mm. These are included in (1) and (2) only. 

23.86 

37.21 

94.56 

1 

24.31 

12.90 

61 

0.24 

11.04 

85 

83 

0,06 

1.68 

o.oo 

0.24 

0.09 

0.56 

0.09 

0.00 

o.oo 

(Sheet of 4) 
8 

(3) 

(3) 

(4) 

(Sheet 

These (2) only. 
Haterproof 

368. 

* Average percent retained. 

Average percent finer. 

Maximum percent finer~ 

(4) Minimum perc.ent finer. 

(l)* 

(Sheet 4 of 4) 
4) 

0.074 {2) 
(4) 100.00 86.41 62.83 60. 

(Continued) 

in 

01 0.06 

(2) 

L04 

00 

0.00 

0.13 

0.00 

0.00 

(Sheet of 4) 
(2) 

* Average percent retained. 

Average percent finer. 

Maximum finer. 

Hinimum percent finer. 

Number of samples total finer 

100.00 81.81 71.47 68.60 

0.074 are 

66 64.98 

(Continued) 

and 

60. 

64.34 

0.96 

"' .j 
(3) 

(4) 

9 

(Sheet 4 of 4) 
94.29 0.00 

100.00 43.75 39.25 38.25 75 0.17 0.00 

* Average 

Average percent 

Maximum percent finer. 

Minimum percent 

** Number samples o. These only. 
* Average percent retained. 

Average percent finer. 

Maximum percent finer. 

(4) Minimum percent finer. 

100.00 74.84 51.82 44.05 

10 

40 ... 3.6 39.31 34.96 

Number samples in total finer than 0.074 mm. These are included in (1) and (2) only. 

0.70 0.08 

(Sheet 4) 
(Sheet 3 of 

than 0.074 mm. (2) 
Average percent retained. 

Average percent finer, 

Maximum percent finer. 

Minimwn percent finer. 
mm. (2) 
0,074 I!lll!, These included (2) 
* finer~ 

finer. 

finer than 0.074 mm. These 
11 

0.074 mm. included (1) (2) only. 
(4) 

retained, 

finer~ 

finer. 

than 0.074 in (l) (2) 
* Average percent retained. 

Average percent finer. 

Haximum percent finer .. 

Ninimum percent finer. 

100.00 75.54 97 64.50 60.98 56.57 50.41 36.45 

Number of samples in total finer than 074 mm. These are included in (1) and (2) only. 

98.87 

3.38 22 
and 
Average percent retained. 

Average percent finer. 

Maximum percent finer. 

Minimum percent finer. 

Number of samples in total finer than 0.074 rom. These are included 

12 

(l) and (2) only. 
(1) and 
These are included (2) 
finer than 0. These (2) 
00 87 

074 {2) 

3.52 

o.oo 

0.00 

3.03 

0.00 

0.00 

4) 
550.4- 531.2 

o.oo 

(4) 100.00 67 93. 11 0.00 

than included (1) 
(1) Average percent retained. 

(2) Average percent finer. 

(3) Maximum percent finer. 

(4) ~linimu:m percent finer. 

100.00 89.48 86.98 

14 

100.00 

84.89 83.97 82. 76.79 

Number of samples in total finer than 0.074 rom. These are included in (1) and (2) only. 

99.73 

99.42 

98.62 

99.49 

99.87 

53.26 16.19 

94.67 71.86 51.28 29.22 0.00 

39.27 8.04 0.43 0.00 

65.45 21.93 3.32 0.35 

0.00 

97.95 77.07 3.48 0.00 

2.84 0.83 0.42 0.00 

(Sheet 4) 
mm. (1) (2) 
Average percent finer~ 

Maximum 

Minimum percent finer~ 

** Number in total than 

4 of 4) 

in (li (2) 

479.8 - 472.0 3** (2) 

(3) 

Average percent retained. 

Average finer. 

Maximum percent finer. 

Minimum percent 

of samples in total 

100.00 99.81 99.81 98.06 97.48 

100.00 99.12 97.70 

95.57 93.87 89.82 80.87 66.22 59.67 54.85 49.77 46.66 

100.00 99.80 99.49 98.98 96.11 73.57 42.01 21.41 

94.83 

99.79 

70.40 7.44 

0.72 

0.20 0. 

0.00 

0.00 

(Sheet 2 of 4) 

than 0.074 mm. These a.re included in (1) and (2) only. 
395.2 - 381.4 

100.00 75.42 35.21 

** included (2) 
(Sheet 4) 

0.074 only. 
s 

finer than given 

mean mm; and s~ 

1.651 

0.361 

0.169 

0.533 

913 

7.114 

0.391 

0. 

088 

28 

709 

0.379 

0.251 

0.468 

1.071 

2. 

finer than 

0~525 

0.331 

0.211 0.222 0.176 

0.329 0.329 0.261 

945 0.554 0.410 

3.466 756 

given 16 percent finer than 

28 

0.519 0,438 0.1,]2 

0.302 0.263 0.303 0.315 

0.169 0.123 0.157 0.007 

0.271 0.199 0.206 0.120 

0.489 0.305 0.497 0.454 

Ll98 0. l. 997 050 

given size; 

1 7) 
565. 

includes discharge range 

CHOCTAW BAR 76 22 

565.9 - 550.4 0.704 0.700 0.558 0.440 

0.375 0.392 0.345 0.287 

0.217 0.244 0.219 0.222 0.168 

0.461 0.503 0.378 0.391 

GREE.NviLLE 54 

550.4 - 531.2 0.537 

0.336 

0.185 0.216 

0.279 0.418 

LAKEPORT 41 19 24 2 6 

531.2 - 524.2 4.213 0.702 0.549 0.545 0.543 0.547 0.529 0.531 0.455 0.423 

0.426 0.417 0.344 0.351 317 0.323 0.351 0.311 292 299 

0.231 0.292 0.231 0.229 0.151 0.175 0.233 0.217 0.213 0.189 

0.708 0.492 0.389 0.383 0.274 0.276 0.371 0.353 0.323 0.313 

I' .a 3.185 072 0. 718 0. 728 079 0.682 0.592 0.587 0.522 0.651 s 6.938 2.623 1. 945 2.516 3.863 1.865 1. 943 1.510 1.443 2.064 

(Continued) 

(Sheet 2. of 7) 
of 7) 
8 

0.686 

918 

0.194 

(Continued) 

0.549 

018 

0. 

0.004 

0. 

o. 

2, 

4 of 7) 
5 of 
0. 211+ 

0.378 

3.550 

(Continued) 

0.431 

0.893 

0.307 

0.169 

0.230 

0.922 

0. 

0. 

0.339 

1.469 

0.869 

2.470 

(Sheet of 7) 

17 



MILE 620 TO 465 
Ml 
10 

J. 30 FEET 

M.S.L. 

80 

~ Ill 

"' 

PROFILE NO. I 

STAGE +36 A.LW.P. 20 FEB 73 

0" 1, !30,000 c.f.s. 

STATION INTERVAL= 50 METERS 

PROFILE NO. I 

STAGE + 12 A.L.W.P. 6 SEP 73 

Q:: 299 1000 c.f.s. 

STATION INTERVAL: 50 METERS 

SG 577.0R 

W. S. = 136 FEET M.S.L. 

20 FEB. 73 

J. 40 FEET 

M.S.L 

SG 577 OR 

W S. = ll3.5 FEET M.S.L. 

! 30 FEET 

M.S.L. 

80 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

~ 

60 

1-

70 ~ 

!; 

(/) 

:r: 

80 e; 

Q 

90 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

LONGITUDINAL PROFILE COMPARISON 

HIGH AND LOW STAGE 

OZARK-EUTAW 

1973 

PLATE 3 

ARKANSAS 

GAGE 

ARKANSAS 

M!SS!SS!I'PI RI\IEil 



100 

OCT.I936-SEP.1974 

NOTE: NiJMiliERS ON BARS INDICATE PRECENT Of TIME 

FLOW IS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED 

LIOO 

MISSISSIPPI RIVEI'l 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

DISCHARGE DURATION BY MONTHS 

VICKSBURG DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 435.41 AHP 


DISC ARGE (1,000 cfs) 

MISSISSIPPI 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

RELATION WIDTH, DEPTH, AND 

DISCHARGE BY 

DISCHARGE RANGE 

565.9 AHP 
:r: 

!-

0 

'$:: 

>-

1::: 

u 

0 

_j 

w 

> 

DISCHARGE (1,000 cfs) 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

POT AMOLOGY STUDIES 

RELATION OF WIDTH, DEPTH, AND VELOCITY 

TO DISCHARGE BY WATER YEAR 

VICKSBURG DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 435.41 AHP 

RE 
1,000 
1900 1910 1930 
LW 300 (.9 

<( 

0::: 

L!J 

~ 

--

MILES AHP (1962) 

·-

N 

w 

::r: 

u 

l:i 

2: 

LEGEND 

BANK CAVING FOR 

!877-1892 

1931-1941 

1965-1972 

a:: 

w 

> 

0:: 

0 

_j 

0 

VICKSBURG 

;J::J.J,I-IVU CfS 

490,000 cfs 

cfs 
LEGEND 

WATER YEAR 

NOTE: 

NUMBER ABOVE BARS 

INDICATE NUMBER OF 

MEASUREMENTS MADE. 

MISSISSIF'i>l RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

AVERAGE MEASURED SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 

YIELD AND CONCENTRATION, 1968-1974 

ARKANSAS CITY DISCHARGE RANGE 

MIL£ 565.9 AHP 
CK 
80 

.,..: 

;;:: 

""' .a 

0 

..J 

w 

:;:: 

I- !5 :z 

w fi :2: 

0 0::: w I- (f) z 0 w w 0 

0 z 

z 0 w 0 a_ 

(f) 

:::> 

(/) 

w 0 

w ~ a:: a:: :::> w (/) 

<! 

IJ.J ~ ::iE 

w 

(!) 

<! 

0::: 

w 

> 

<! 

11 

G) 

c 

::0 

m 

YIELD 

WATER 

NOTE. 

NUMBERS ABOVE BARS 

INDICATE NUMBER OF 

MEASUREMENTS MADE 

LEG EN 

CONCENTRATION 

Ml SSISSIPPI RIVE 

PO GY UDiE 

AVERAGE MEASURED SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 

YIELD CONCENTRATION, 1972-1974 

NATCHEZ DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 362.34AHP 
YIELD 

mm 

196!1 1969 1970 1971 1972 

WATER YEAR 

1973 \974 

NUMBERS ABOVE BARS 

INDICATE NUMBER OF 

MADE 

ISSISS1PP1 RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STU IE 

AVERAGE MEASURED FINE SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 

YIELD AND CONCENTRATION, 1968-1974 

ARKANSAS CITY DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 565, 9 AHP 
i 

"" .Q 

~ 6001---------8-----

LEGEND 

0. YIELD CONCENTRATION 

1958 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 

WATER YEAR 

1974 

NOTE' 

NUMBERS ABOVE BARS 

INDICATE NUMBER OF 

MEASUREMENTS MADE 

ISSISSIPPI RIVER 

POTAMOLOG Y STUD IE 

AVERAGE MEASURED FINE SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 

YIELD AND ,1968-1974 

VICKSBURG DISCHARGE RANGE 

MIL£ 435.41 AHP 
M 

GEN 

a::: 

1-

0 z 

i.IJ w 0 

~ z 

w 0 a. 0 

YIELD 

{/) 

:::J i.IJ }f) (!) 

w <( 

2 a:: 

i:i:: > 0 <( 

~ :::J 

IE 

MEASURED F!NE SUSPENDED SEDIMENT (f) 

<( 

lJJ AND 1972-

::;;;: 

NATCHEZ DISCHARGE RANGE 

362.34 AHP 
D 
0 

_j 

l±l 

>-

fz 

w 

::i:: 

c; 

w 

fJ) l5 

~ 0 IX 

w f- 0 z z w w u n. z IJJ 0 :::> u IJJ 

0 

w 

0::: 

:::> 

fJ) 

<! 

w 

:::: 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

POTAMOLOG STUDIES 

MONTHLY TREND OF MEASURED SUSPENDED 

SEDIMENT YIELD AND CONCENTRATIONS 

VICKSBURG DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 
0 

...J 

w 

21500 

2000 

;;: 16 00 

f2 

w 

:::!! 

i5 

w 

(.!) I 000 

0 

w 

0 

2 

w 

CL 

(/") 1500 

:;; 

(/") 

0 

YIELD CONCENTRATION 

i 1200 ~-----------4~---?.r--~~--------~~--~~------------------------·-4 

1:1 

~ 1000 ~----~,~--~,,_--~,'r---f,'r---+~--~,'r---+~--·-----------------------4 a. 

200 

APR 1970- MAR 1975 

MISSISSIPPI RlVER 

GY STUDIES 

MONTHLY TREND OF MEASURED SUSPENDED 

SEDIMENT YIELD AND CONCENTRATIONS 

NATCHEZ DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 1:162.34 AHP 
w 
>-

<t. 

0 

" (I') 

z 2000 iSOO 0 

!-~ 

NOTE: FINES< .062 0 LEGEND 0 1'100 

0 

0 1500 1200 _J 

IJJ ... :;::: .Q CONCENTRATION 

1- e 1000 0.. z Q. 

w 

:::ilE z i5 1000 0 800 

w 

(I') i= 

<( 

0 a:: w 1- 600 

0 z z w w u (L 500 z {f) 0 ::::l u fJ) 

w 

z 

iL 

0 0 w 

a: 

::::l 

UJ 

<t. JAN 1968 DEC 1974 w 

:l! 

MISSISS I AlliER 

POTAMOLOGY STUD! S 

MONTHLY TREND OF MEASURED FINE SUSPENDED 

SEDIMENT IELD AND CONCENTRATIONS 

VICKSBURG DISCHARGE RANGE 

p 
z 

0 

0 

ll.J 

z 

i:L 

0 

ll.J 

a::: 

::::> APR 1970 MAR 1975 (f) 

<:( 

ll.J 

::;;; 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

POTAMOLOG Y STUD IE 

M TREND OF MEASURED FINE SUSPENDED 

T YIELD AND CONCENTRATIONS 

NATCHEZ DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 
G> 

c: 

::0 

m 

0 

w 

0 

z 

w 

... 

<I) 

::> 

"' 

w 

z 

;:;: 

0 

w 

Ill:: 

::> 

"' <f 

w 

::iE 

a 

w 

0 

z 

w 

"-

"' :::>

"' 

..J 

<( 

1-

0 

>-

0 

w 

0:: 

:::> 

"' <( 

w 

:!! 

1,;_ 

0 

0 

i= 

<( 

er: 

NOTE: FINES <.062mm 

0.1 

0 

APR 1967- DEC 1974 

MISS ISS I I" PI RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

MONTHLY TREND OF RATIO OF MEASURED FINE 

TO MEASURED TOTAL SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 

ARKANSAS CITY DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE !565.9 AHP 
0 0 

w w 

"' :;;) "' :;;) 

IIi <!) 

<{ <I 1.U IJJ 

:IE :;; 

LEG EN 

u. 

0 0.2 

0 NOTE: FINES < .062 mm f-

<1: 

n::: 

0 

JAN 1968- DEC 1974 

MISS!SS!!'PI RIVER 

s 

MONT LY END RATIO OF MEASURED Fl 

TO MEASURED SUSPENDED 

VICKSBURG DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 
ONT 

TO 

ES 

F EASURED F! 

DISCHARGE RANGE 

AHP 
2,000 5,000 

ISCHARGE ( 

M !SSiSSiPPI RIVER 

MEASURED SUSPENDE SEDIMENT YIELD 

VS DISCHARGE BY YEAR 

ARKANSAS CITY DISCHARGE RANGE 

565.9 
>- <:( 

0 

' (.() 

z 

0 

r0 

_j 

w 

>-

0 

w 

0 

z 

w 

(L 

(f) 

::J 

5,000 

1,000 

500 

(.() 200 

100 

100 2CO 500 1poo 

DISCHARGE (1000 cfs) 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

MEASURED SUSPENDED SEDIMENT YIELD 

VS DISCHARGE BY WATER YEAR 

VICKSBURG Dl RANGE 

MILE 435.41 AHP 

5,000 

FIGURE 

NOTE: 

FIN S- ATERIAL 

THAN 0.062 mm 

20 ~----~--~--L--L~~_L_L __ L_J_~~L_ ____ L_ __ ~ __ L__L_L_L~~ 

100 200 2,000 

DISCHARGE ( cfs) 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

POTAMO STUD I 

MEASURED FINE SEDIMENT YIELD 

VS DISCHARGE BY WATER 

ARKANSA CITY DISCHARGE RANG 

MILE 

FIGURE 
IS HARGE 

ISS!SSIPPI 
100 200 

DISCHARGE (1000 

NOTE: 

FINES -MATERIAL 

FINER THAN 0.062 m 

MISS!SSIPP! 

E 
DISCHARGE 

MEASURED 

D SCHARGE ( cfs) 

1\t!SSISSIPPI 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

MEASURED TOTAL SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 

CONCENTRATION VS DISCHARGE WATER AR 

NATCHEZ DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 362.1'54 
z 

0 

ti 

0::: 

1-

z 

w 

0 

z 

0 

0 

0 

z 

<( 

(/) 

0 

w 

0 

z 

w 

a... 

(/) 

:::> 

(/) 

0 

~ :::> 

(/) 

<( 

w 

z 

DISCHARGE ( cfs) 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

MEASURED SUSPENDED SAND CONCENTRATION 

VS DISCHARGE BY WATER YEAR 

ARKANSAS CITY DISCHARGE RANGE 

MIL£ 565.9 AHP 

E 
A E { 

M 

M 
E 

0. 

0. 

z 

0 

1-

<:t 

0:: 

1-

z 

lJJ 

0 

z 

<( 

en 

0 

lJJ 

0 

z 

lJJ 

I:L 

(!} 

::::l 

(/) 

0 

w 

0:: 

:::> 

(/) 

<( 

w 

::iE 

200 2,000 

DISCHARGE cfs) 

M ISSISS!PP! RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY 

MEASURED SUSPENDED 

VS DISCHARGE BY 

EZ DISCHARGE 

362.34 

FIGURE 

MINIMUM 

OF RECORD 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

FIVE-DAY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE 

AT VICKSBURG DISCHARGE RANG£ 

MILE P. 

OCT 
PERIOD OF RECORD 1962-1974 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

FIVE-DAY AVERAGE WATER TEMPERATURE 

AT NATCHEZ DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 362.34 A.H.P, 

(100,000 chl 

iSSIPPI RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

RELATiON STAGE, 

CONCENTRATION 

AND VELOCITY TO DISCHARGE VICKSBURG 

IS CHARGE RANGE ,MILE 435.41 DURING 

MAJOR RISE 
12 16 22 

DISCHARGE \IOO,OOOcfs) 

MISS I $SIPPI RIVER 

OLOGY STUDIES 

RELATiON OF STAGE, SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 

CONCENTRATION, DEPTH BELOW ALW 

AND VELOCITY TO DISCHARGE AT NATCHE 

DISCHARGE RANGE, MILE DURING 

MAJOR RISE OF 1973 

FIGURE 41 
0.8 

/ ""··...._,, __ {:;, 

QS v ~ 

~--~ -' 

~ ~ 1%- I 

0.5 ,__.. 

0,4 

I 

! 

0.3 

------ ~ 

0.2 

- NUI\.8 \M?LES 

0 

1974 

NDAR 
()) 

w 

N 

iii 

a 

w 

en 

0~-

9 

0. a 

0. 7 

0 .6 

0 .5 

:4 

.5 

0 .2 

0 .I 

0 

I 

16 / !\. 

/ 

/ 

/ 

,./ 

I~ I 

~ 

57 ;sa 70 

1968 1969 11HO 

I \ ~ I \ ~ II \p 

~~------~f' 

__,. ..___ 

--- ~ 

as 382 226 

NUMBER OF SAMPLES I .. _ 

1971 IIH2 1973 1974 

CALENDAR YEAR MISSiSSIPPI FIIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

VARiATION IN AVERAGE BED MATERIAL SIZES 

AT VICKSBURG DISCHARGE RANGE 

41 IIHP 
m 

0 

__. 

~ 

~~ I 

I I 

l~ I I 

l 

I ~ 

t;r- I 

I I 

2 256 

0 

VARIATION IN SIZES 

MILE 
520 1120 

MILES-AKP 

M ISS!SSIPP! RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STU 

:104 SAMPLES AVERAGED BY STUDY REACHES 

ON tATA 
MILES (19621 

MIS SISSIPPl 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

VARIATION IN COMPOSITION OF BED 

BY STUDY 
MI$SISS!PPI RIVER 

VARIATION IN COMPOSITION 

1967 

REACHES 

6v 

< "' "' "' 1l> 

"' '" 0 

"' -<

"' -<

c 

0 

-< 

"' 

:1> '"

0 

::r; 

"' "' 

3:': 

l> 

-1 

o;!';u 

:z 

·-I 

fl1 

:0 

1:) 

0 

r 

fTI 

0 

c:p.-

:z<ll-Q 

G"> 0 -i zzl> 

0 -S::!I: 

m;:;;orin 

g :p.::S-,...:-

;u 0 0 ::tl 

:;>; S!! Ui <; -<GI> • 

fl1 0 c :II 

l>;uzO ::11 Q -

- 0 1'1 Wo u; m-., 

Y)U'l -1 

::11 

0 

-1 

i: 

rtil "' 

' l> 

:X: 

, 

"' g 

g: 0 

... 

0 0 

:!: 

0 

1!: 

0 

... "' 

0 0 

Cliii!UL ATIVE PERCENT FINER SIZE INDICATED 

---YAZOO 

" 

-8/S BLACK 

\ 

\ 

I'OTAMOLOGY 

STUDY 

SMITH POINT·Tfii'IIN!Nfi 

it:RHEN£-OZARK 

OZIUU<·IIUTAW 

CHOCTAW BAR 

GREENV!Ll.E 

LAKEPORT 

KENiliCKY SEND 

CIMCHA !'f'T- CA!fOLI!IIA 

CAROLINA -DAI.ESH£0 

BALESHEO 4NOIN6 

AJIO!: 

AJAX· COTTONWOOD 

corrwooo 

COTTONWOOD-BELLE IS. 

BEllE IS. -MILLIKEN SEND 

MILLIKEN lJENlJ·V!CKSBIJRG 

RACETRACK 

POINT PLEASANT 

GRANO Glll.F 

RODN/£Y 

WATERPROOF 

NATCHI!:'Z 

ST. CATHERINE 

80UGERE 

G) 

c: 

:::0 

m 

MILES- (1962) 

320 

MISSISSif'PI RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

VARIATION COMPOSITION OF BED 

MATERIALS IN THE VICKSBURG DISTRICT 

DURING CA 

SAMPLES AVERAGED STUOY !!£ACHES 

RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

SAMPLES AVERAGED STUDY REACHES 
MILES- AHP (1962) 

MISSiSSIPPI 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

VARIATION IN COMPOSITION BED 

MATERIALS IN 

lNG 
MILES (1962) 

MISSISSIPPI 

VARIATION IN D SIZE 

FOR 

LEGEND 

019112 

El 

+ 
0 l 

'f 

w 

<.!> 

<{ 

0:: ' w 

> 

<{ ,).3 

0 

w 

!-

::r:: ) 

<.!> 

w 

:;: 

1932 

CAL NDA AR 

LEGENC 

D 84 50 0 

0 0 
:o l 

.ii, 

.08 

.07 ,.._. .....• 

.06 

.05 

.04 

.03 

.02 

! 

.01 

PJTAMOLOGY 

/',----SLOPE ..... --.... 

I .,'h 

\ 

t \ - ·' ' ./ 

~~~~~ -¥Jt7r \ I : b--.0 \/ '· I 

I ~ I 

I 

I 

I I 

M 

I 

J. 

575 573 i 569 567 

-

2 

10-

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

s 

6 

5 

565 

~ -

-

w 

n. 

0 

_J 

>-

(!) 

a:: 

z 

!Jj 

ILES-AHP (1962) 

M!SS!SSIPP! RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

VARIATION OF ROUGHNESS AND ENERGY SLOPE 

WITH DISTANCE, OZARK -EUTAW REACH 

(MEANDERING REACH) 

FOR 25-27 OCT 66 ALWP STAGE FT 

FIGURE 57 

(/) 

(/) 

I.e! 

z 

:r: 

(.;) 

:::J 

0 

u: 

20, 

.10 

.09 

08 

06 

05 

.04 

.03 

02 

.0 I 

/ 

/ -;/ ..... ······-· 

-·- 'J:? 

~ 

i 

I 

r 

513 

.-- i_ 

-- l ·,' / 

\ ;r4· '""- A. 

--<:r I 

n~ 

v 

IN(; n ~ 

~ ~-___L r- ·- ~ i-- - v 

512 

~ / 

. . 

NOTE FROM _.MOLOGv REPORT 19- 3 

BY MG ANDING JUNE 1970 

I 

I 

! 

·--· 

51 I 51() 509 506 

MILES AHP(I962) 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

VARiATION OF ROUGHNESS AND ENERGY SLOPE 

WITH DISTANCE, CRACRAFT -CAROLINA REACH 

(STRAIGHT RE.ACH) 

FOR 18- 19 OCT 66 ALWP STAGE 2 FT 

2 

I 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

iZ 

I 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

507 

I.e! 

CL 

0 

_J 

(f) 

>-

(9 

0:: 

z 

I.e! 

FIGURE 59 
l 

.~~ j:l.. -~ 9 

.08 j [,, 

.07 11'_ .,""' ;c / II - Q.. =D-~ ~~-=--o Is 

O" 

/"0 \ ~/ 15 ,/ 

~ /I 

" cf II~ y- ,.,...0 f4 v 

-/-- --r-~ -~~- .r~ 

1- ·----:: lL'---:--- 13 v 4 L/ \ \ 

~ v I"-

.02 \ 2 I \ / 

)I \ .L ) ___ 

!! 

!i I~ Ia 

(!] 

z 

17 

I I 
G 

5 10 15 20 25 30 

STAGE IN FEET 

M ISSIPPI RIVER 

POTA M OLOGY ST Dl ES 

VARiATION AVERAGE ROUGHNESS WITH STAGE 

v 
400 600 800 1000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 

SCH (I 

MISSISSIPPI i'l!VER 
.07!------

.06 

200 

I 

I 

400 600 800 1000 

( l 

----- NVELOPE OF DATA 

---

1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 
DISCHARGE ( IOO,OOOcfs) 

MiSSISSIPPI RIVER 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

VARIATION OF ROUGH IIIESS WITH 

DISCHARGE DURING MAJOR RISES 1969-74) 

ARKANSAS CITY DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 565.9 AHP 
~ 

(/) 

(/) 

w 

z 

:c 

\.!) 

:::l 

0 

0:: 

.05 

• 

0 

0 

.04 ---- ~-----

ll!l 

I 0 

0 

.03 

0 

.02 

.0!~----~------~----~------~------~----_. ______ J-______ ~----~----~ 

0 200 400 600 800 1000 !200 1400 1600 1800 2000 

1929 

1930 

!9 31 

1932 

LEGEND 

STAGE 

RiSING FALLING 

0 

C:, 

0 

\} . 

DISCHARGE ( !000 cfs ) MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

ES 

ROUGHNESS VS. DISCHARGE 

ARKANSAS CITY DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 565.9 AHP 

1929-1932 
1800 

POTAMOLOGY STUDIES 

DISCHARGE 

RANGE 
APRIL II 

1968 

.05 

APRIL 

.03 JUN£9 

1967 

.02 

.05 

. 

(/) 

Ul 

w 

z MAY/2 I 

(D 

::J !966 

0 .u2 0:: 

.04 MAY 

MARCH 

.03 APRIL 15 

/965 

.02 

.04 

3 JAN 

FEB 15 

.02 

.01 

2 4 6 8 iO 12 14 16 18 20 

DISCHARGE 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

VARIATION OF ROUGHNESS WITH 

DISCHARGE DURING MAJOR RISES 

HELENA DISCHARGE RANGE 

MILE 662.7 AHP 

F 67 
6 

E 














Q 

sediment 

of 

concentration, 

line 

the 

' ppm 

s 

l11Jil 

mrn 

mrn)'