1. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Proposed National Sediment and Water-Quality Monitoring Program Piloted in the Mississippi River Basin – A Synopsis Dave Rus (USGS), representing an interagency group that also includes: Dale W. Blevins (USGS), Charlie Demas (USGS), John Gray (USGS), Dave Heimann (USGS), Art Horowitz (USGS), Chuck E. Shadie (COE), Jim Stefanov (USGS), Rick Wilson (USGS), Andy Ziegler (USGS), and many other USGS/COE colleagues 2010 Missouri River Natural Resources Committee Conference Nebraska City, Nebraska, March 19, 2010

2. Presentation Outline  Need for monitoring program  The proposed program  The program’s approach  Next steps

3. Sediment can be costly  Sediment damages in North America (mostly in US) total $20-$50 BILLION annually (ARS- USGS)  COE dredging programs in MRB alone total ~$1billion annually  EPA, NOAA, USDA, others have major investments in MRB Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsProgram need

4. Sediment (or lack thereof) can be detrimental  As much as 25 mi 2 Louisiana coast lost annually  Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxia  Endangered species management  Reservoir lifespans  Flood impacts Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsProgram need

5. Proposal workgroup  A COE/USGS group met to address  Consistency issues  Monitoring shortcomings  The result? (besides lots of meetings/conference calls)  A COE/USGS proposal for a National Sediment & WQ Monitoring Program Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsProgram need

6. Vision: A National Sediment & WQ Monitoring Program USGS/COE Proposal that will… Establish a long-term, base-funded, network-designed national monitoring program to generate sediment, nutrient, and sediment-associated chemical concentrations, loads, budgets and temporal trends that are integrated within existing networks. Mississippi Basin will be the pilot program that grows into a national network Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsProgram need

7. Program Objectives  Establish a monitoring program capable of:  Accurate sediment/chemical budgets  Budgets at critical spatial/temporal scales  Constraining/quantifying uncertainty  Determine trends/loads relevant to the various economic/ecologic/restoration activities of a river Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsProgram need

8. National Program Cost/Benefits  400-450 stations at $75-$90M annually  Pilot program in Mississippi River Basin proposed at $17.6M in FY2012  National program cost is <1% of estimated sediment costs/damages Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsProgram need  Ergo, if the program facilitates a 1% reduction in sediment damages, it will pay for itself

9. MRB Pilot Program - Scope  68 stations  Max use of USGS gages & programs  Constituents  Suspended sediment (full gradation)  Nutrients, ions, trace metals, pesticides  Bed material (2 samples per year)  Bedload (Evaluated at 6 sites – 2 on the Missouri) Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsProgram need

10. Monitoring approach  An emphasis on using surrogates  Surrogates are related to sediment/chemicals in the water and are measured continuously  Need to calibrate a surrogate model with traditional sampling data Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsBackground

11. Surrogates  Streamflow, Turbidity, acoustic backscatter, ultraviolet nitrate, laser-based sensors Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsBackground UV Nitrate Acoustic Backscatter Laser-Based Turbidity

12. Sampling  Traditional sampling  12-20 samples/year  Using Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project (FISP) samplers Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsBackground

13. Synthesis of monitoring data  All data online in near- real time and publicly available  ID principal sources/sinks of sediment, nutrients, other QW constituents Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsBackground  Identify phase of transport of sediments as a function of location, flow, other variables waterwatch.usgs.gov

14. MRB Pilot Prelude?  Interest in initiating Louisiana MRB monitoring in 2010 (Science and Technology Program – COE and Louisiana).  Proof-of-concept / demonstration for surrogate monitoring, and shake-out for methodologies/protocols.  Will enable us to “hit the ground running” in 2012 Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsBackground

15. What’s next?  Proposal being considered by senior leadership within the USGS and COE for inclusion as a 2012 budget initiative  In the meantime, sharing the concept to potential partners and stakeholders Proposed programProgram approachNext stepsBackground

16. 16 Dave Rus(402) 328-4127 dlrus@usgs.govNebraska Water Science Center dlrus@usgs.gov Proposal team leader: John Gray(703) 648-5318 jrgray@usgs.govjrgray@usgs.govUSGS Office of Surface Water Thanks for listening Remnant dunes at the Nebraska City marina following high water of June 2008