|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 67: |
Line 67: |
| | |style="color:#000;"| | | |style="color:#000;"| |
| | | | |
| − | Bedrock-canyon rivers tend to be supply limited because they are efficient transporters of sediment and not because the upstream supply of sediment is small. Following episodic tributary floods that supply finer sand, sand migrates quickly downstream in the form of a wave in which large systematic changes in bed-sand grain size occur. The tributary fine-sediment (i.e., sand, silt, and clay) supply to the Colorado River in our study area is bimodal, with a clay primary mode and a sand-silt secondary mode. The tributary sand supply grades smoothly into the silt-and-clay supply such that the sand-size sediment comprises the coarser part of this secondary mode, which occurs in very fine sand (0.0625–0.125 mm) for the Paria River and in medium silt (0.0156–0.0312 mm)for the LCR. Both tributaries supply more silt and clay to the Colorado River than they do sand. During sediment years 1998–2017, silt and clay comprised 60.6% and 88.1% of the fine sediment supplied by the Paria River and LCR, respectively. Of the total amount of sand supplied since2011, the Paria River has contributed 57%, the LCR has contributed 21%, and all other tributaries combined have contributed 22%. The largest quantities of sand are supplied by the Paria River and LCR during summer thunderstorm-generated floods that last hours to a day. Large sand loads are rare during winter and spring months on both rivers. | + | Bedrock-canyon rivers tend to be supply limited because they are efficient transporters of sediment and not because the upstream supply of sediment is small. Following episodic tributary floods that supply finer sand, sand migrates quickly downstream in the form of a wave in which large systematic changes in bed-sand grain size occur. The tributary fine-sediment (i.e., sand, silt, and clay) supply to the Colorado River in our study area is bimodal, with a clay primary mode and a sand-silt secondary mode. The tributary sand supply grades smoothly into the silt-and-clay supply such that the sand-size sediment comprises the coarser part of this secondary mode, which occurs in very fine sand (0.0625–0.125 mm) for the Paria River and in medium silt (0.0156–0.0312 mm) for the LCR. Both tributaries supply more silt and clay to the Colorado River than they do sand. During sediment years 1998–2017, silt and clay comprised 60.6% and 88.1% of the fine sediment supplied by the Paria River and LCR, respectively. Of the total amount of sand supplied since 2011, the Paria River has contributed 57%, the LCR has contributed 21%, and all other tributaries combined have contributed 22%. The largest quantities of sand are supplied by the Paria River and LCR during summer thunderstorm-generated floods that last hours to a day. Large sand loads are rare during winter and spring months on both rivers. |
| | | | |
| − | Our late-1990s observations suggested that tributary floods generated sand waves that split into two packets, A and B: packet A was finer than packet B and migrated downstream in the Colorado River with a celerity slightly slower than the water velocity. Packet B migrated much more slowly than packet A; the amalgamated front of packet B had migrated only ∼10 km in the 3 and 10 days after two Paria River floods. The primary peak in QSAND—1/βQ cross covariance decays to background within 7–20 days of a tributary flood at all but the RK49 station, thus indicating that much of packet A exits our study area quickly. The lower celerity of packet B causes the secondary cross-covariance peak to become distinct from the primary peak with increasing distance downstream. Following a Paria River flood, the secondary peak (packet B) separates from the primary peak (packet A) between the RK49 and RK99 stations, and it takes ∼198 and ∼290 days for the tail of packet B to respectively reach these stations. Following an LCR flood, packet B separates from packet A upstream from the RK141 station, and it takes ∼261 days for the tail of packet B to reach this station. [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2020JF005565] | + | Our late-1990s observations suggested that tributary floods generated sand waves that split into two packets, A and B: packet A was finer than packet B and migrated downstream in the Colorado River with a celerity slightly slower than the water velocity. Packet B migrated much more slowly than packet A; the amalgamated front of packet B had migrated only ∼10 km in the 3 and 10 days after two Paria River floods. The primary peak in QSAND—1/βQ cross covariance decays to background within 7–20 days of a tributary flood at all but the RK49 station, thus indicating that much of packet A exits our study area quickly. The lower celerity of packet B causes the secondary cross-covariance peak to become distinct from the primary peak with increasing distance downstream. '''Following a Paria River flood, the secondary peak (packet B) separates from the primary peak (packet A) between the RK49 and RK99 stations, and it takes ∼198 and ∼290 days for the tail of packet B to respectively reach these stations. Following an LCR flood, packet B separates from packet A upstream from the RK141 station, and it takes ∼261 days for the tail of packet B to reach this station.''' [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2020JF005565] |
| | | | |
| | |- | | |- |
| Line 182: |
Line 182: |
| | | | |
| | '''2024''' | | '''2024''' |
| | + | *[https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20231093 Griffiths et al., 2024, Changes in sand storage in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park from July 2017 through June 2020] |
| | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2024-01-25-twg-meeting/20240125-AnnualReportingMeeting-ChannelResponseHighFlowsWesternGrandCanyon-508-UCRO.pdf Channel Response to High Flows in Western Grand Canyon ] | | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2024-01-25-twg-meeting/20240125-AnnualReportingMeeting-ChannelResponseHighFlowsWesternGrandCanyon-508-UCRO.pdf Channel Response to High Flows in Western Grand Canyon ] |
| | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2024-01-25-twg-meeting/20240125-AnnualReportingMeeting-ProjectAStreamflowWaterQualitySedimentTransportBudgetingColoradoRiverEcosystem-508-UCRO.pdf Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting in the Colorado River Ecosystem ] | | *[https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/amp/twg/2024-01-25-twg-meeting/20240125-AnnualReportingMeeting-ProjectAStreamflowWaterQualitySedimentTransportBudgetingColoradoRiverEcosystem-508-UCRO.pdf Project A: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport and Budgeting in the Colorado River Ecosystem ] |
Sediment transport and river discharge
|
|
When the discharge of the Colorado River was lower than about 9,000 ft3/s, sand accumulated in the reach in Marble and upper Grand Canyons. At discharges higher than about 9,000 ft3/s, however, sand-transport rates at the Grand Canyon gaging station generally equaled those at the Lees Ferry gaging station, and at discharges higher than about 16,000 ft3/s, sand-transport rates at the Grand Canyon gaging station generally either equaled or exceeded those at the Lees Ferry gaging station. Thus, at discharges greater than about 9,000 ft3/s, sand was either conveyed through or eroded from the reach in Marble and upper Grand Canyons.
As discharges less than 9,000 ft3/s became less common, the discharge of the river became progressively more conducive to the conveyance of sand through or the erosion of sand from Marble and upper Grand Canyons. [2]
|
How long is sand stored on the bed of the river?
|
|
Bedrock-canyon rivers tend to be supply limited because they are efficient transporters of sediment and not because the upstream supply of sediment is small. Following episodic tributary floods that supply finer sand, sand migrates quickly downstream in the form of a wave in which large systematic changes in bed-sand grain size occur. The tributary fine-sediment (i.e., sand, silt, and clay) supply to the Colorado River in our study area is bimodal, with a clay primary mode and a sand-silt secondary mode. The tributary sand supply grades smoothly into the silt-and-clay supply such that the sand-size sediment comprises the coarser part of this secondary mode, which occurs in very fine sand (0.0625–0.125 mm) for the Paria River and in medium silt (0.0156–0.0312 mm) for the LCR. Both tributaries supply more silt and clay to the Colorado River than they do sand. During sediment years 1998–2017, silt and clay comprised 60.6% and 88.1% of the fine sediment supplied by the Paria River and LCR, respectively. Of the total amount of sand supplied since 2011, the Paria River has contributed 57%, the LCR has contributed 21%, and all other tributaries combined have contributed 22%. The largest quantities of sand are supplied by the Paria River and LCR during summer thunderstorm-generated floods that last hours to a day. Large sand loads are rare during winter and spring months on both rivers.
Our late-1990s observations suggested that tributary floods generated sand waves that split into two packets, A and B: packet A was finer than packet B and migrated downstream in the Colorado River with a celerity slightly slower than the water velocity. Packet B migrated much more slowly than packet A; the amalgamated front of packet B had migrated only ∼10 km in the 3 and 10 days after two Paria River floods. The primary peak in QSAND—1/βQ cross covariance decays to background within 7–20 days of a tributary flood at all but the RK49 station, thus indicating that much of packet A exits our study area quickly. The lower celerity of packet B causes the secondary cross-covariance peak to become distinct from the primary peak with increasing distance downstream. Following a Paria River flood, the secondary peak (packet B) separates from the primary peak (packet A) between the RK49 and RK99 stations, and it takes ∼198 and ∼290 days for the tail of packet B to respectively reach these stations. Following an LCR flood, packet B separates from packet A upstream from the RK141 station, and it takes ∼261 days for the tail of packet B to reach this station. [3]
|
Updates
|
|
|
|
Links and Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sediment Gages
|
- Water Holes Canyon above the mouth
- Paria River near Kanab, UT
- Paria River at Lees Ferry, AZ
- Colorado River at Lees Ferry
- Badger Creek below highway 89A near Vermillion Cliffs, AZ
- Tanner Wash below highway 89A near Bitter Springs, AZ
- House Rock Wash above Emmett Wash near Cliff Dwellers, AZ
- North Canyon near Cliff Dwellers, AZ
- Shinumo Wash in Twentynine Mile Canyon near Cedar Ridge, AZ
- Colorado River near river mile 30
- Colorado River above Little Colorado River near Desert View, AZ
- Moenkopi Wash near Cameron, AZ
- Little Colorado River at Grand Falls, AZ
- Little Colorado River at Cameron, AZ
- Little Colorado River near Cameron, AZ
- Little Colorado River above the mouth near Desert View, AZ
- Colorado River near Grand Canyon, AZ
- Bright Angel Creek near Grand Canyon, AZ
- Shinumo Creek
- Kanab Creek above the mouth near Supai, AZ
- Havasu Creek above the mouth near Supai, AZ
- Colorado River above National Canyon near Supai, AZ
- Colorado River above Diamond Creek near Peach Springs, AZ
|
Sand Mass Balance Reaches in Grand Canyon
|
|
|
Presentations and Papers
|
|
2024
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
- Rubin et al., 2020, Causes of variability in suspended‐sand concentration evaluated using measurements in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: JGR Earth Surface
- GCMRC 2019 Annual Reporting Meeting Overview – Part 3
- Chapman et al., 2020, Estimating the contribution of tributary sand inputs to controlled flood deposits for sandbar restoration using elemental tracers, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: GSA Bulletin Associated data
- Project B: Effects of dam releases on in-channel sediment storage and sandbar dynamics
- Ashley et al., 2020, Estimating bedload from suspended load and water discharge in sand bed rivers: Water Resources Research.
- Geomorphic Change and Biogeomorphic Feedbacks in the Little Colorado River, Arizona
2019
2018
- Sand tells a story
- Sankey et al., 2018, Sand classifications along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon derived from 2002, 2009, and 2013 high-resolution multispectral airborne imagery: U.S. Geological Survey data release
- GCMRC Science Updates PPT
- Hadley et al., 2018, Quantifying geomorphic and vegetation change at sandbar campsites in response to flow regulation and controlled floods, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: River Research and Applications
- Key drivers of sand transport and storage in the Colorado River Ecosystem PPT
- Voichick, N. et al., 2018, Technical note--False low turbidity readings during high suspended-sediment concentrations: Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
- Grams et al., 2018, Automated remote cameras for monitoring alluvial sandbars on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: Open-File Report
2017
- Chapman, K., 2017, Determining the tributary sediment contribution to experimental flood deposits on the Colorado River in Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Flagstaff, Northern Arizona University, MS thesis
- Hamill, D., 2017, Quantifying riverbed sediment using recreational-grade side scan sonar: Logan, Utah State University, MS thesis
- Buscombe et al., 2017, Compositional signatures in acoustic backscatter over vegetated and unvegetated mixed sand-gravel riverbeds: Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface
- Griffiths and Topping, 2017, Importance of measuring discharge and sediment transport in lesser tributaries when closing sediment budgets: Geomorphology
- Kaplinski et al. 2017. Channel mapping river miles 29–62 of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, May 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2017–1030
- Project 1: Streamflow, Water Quality, Sediment Transport, and Sand Budgets in the Colorado River Ecosystem
- Project 2: Hydrologic Change and the Geomorphic Transformation of the Little Colorado River: Implications for Sediment Delivery to the Grand Canyon
- Sandbars and Sediment Storage in Marble and Grand Canyons: Response to Recent High-flow Experiments and Long-term Trends
2016
- Topping et al. 2016. Long-term continuous acoustical suspended-sediment measurements in rivers — Theory, application, bias, and error: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1823
- Sandbar Modeling Project Update
- Status of Sediment Resources – August 2016
- Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Science Updates and PPT (BO Compliance, Trout Updates, Green Sunfish, Fisheries PEP, Partners in Science)
- Observations of sand dune migration on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using high-resolution multibeam bathymetry
- Project 2: Streamflow, Water Quality, Sediment Transport, and Sand Budgets in the Colorado River Ecosystem
- Sandbars and Sediment Storage in Marble and Grand Canyons: Response to Recent high-flow Experiments and Long-Term Trends
2015
- Grams et al. 2015. Building Sandbars in the Grand Canyon, EOS, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union
- Alvarez. 2015. Turbulence, Sediment Transport, Erosion, and Sandbar Beach Failure Processes in Grand Canyon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
- GCMRC Science Update - Sediment
- GCMRC Science Update - Sediment
- Updates on 2014 HFE, Paria sediment inputs, and sediment mass balance
- Glen Canyon Tailwater Fishery “Integrating Fish and Channel Mapping”
- GCMRC’s Online Mapping and GIS Resources
- Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado River Ecosystem
- Sandbars and Sediment Storage in Marble and Grand Canyons: Response to Recent High-flow Experiments and Long-term Trends
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
- Wright, S.A., and Grams, P.E., 2010, Evaluation of Water Year 2011 Glen Canyon Dam flow release scenarios on downstream sand storage along the Colorado River in Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1133
- Update on Water Quality and 2010 Sand Input
- Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Updates and the Following Open File Reports: 1) Evaluation of Water Year 2011 Glen Canyon Dam Flow Release Scenarios on Downstream Sand Storage Along the Colorado River in Arizona, and 2) An Approach to Modeling Sediment Budgets in Supply-limited Rivers
- Report on Sediment Modeling to Support Development of 2011 Hydrograph
- Update on 2010 Sediment Inputs
- Temperature Control Device and Sediment Augmentation Report
- TWG Chair Temperature Control Device/Sediment Augmentation
- Minutes from June 21, 2010, TWG Webinar/Conference Call with Memo from John Hamill to Shane Capron dated May 17, 2010, Subject: TWG and stakeholder requests for GCMRC to evaluate the effects of various dam operation scenarios on sediment storage and loss in the Grand Canyon with Open File Report 2010-1133
- Mechanics and Modeling of Flow, Sediment Transport and Morphologic Change in Riverine Lateral Separation Zones
- Sediment and Temperature Modeling Update PPT as presented at January 2010 Annual Reporting Meeting
- AIF: Temperature Control Device and Sediment Augmentation and PPT
2009
2003
1999
1988
|
Other Stuff
|
Flash Flood videos
|
|
