U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Comparison of Sand Distribution Between April 1994 and June 1996

along Six Reaches of the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona

by

Roberto J. Anima^, Michael S. Marlow*, David M. Rubin*,

David J. Hoggl

Open-File Report 98-141

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. 

Geological Survey editoral standards (or with the North American 

Stratigraphic Code). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for 

descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. 

Government.

^.S. Geological Survey, Mail Stop 999, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park 

California, 94025

1998
Abstract..........................................................................................................................!

Introduction..................................................................................................................!

Methods....................................... .................................................................................. ..5

Navigation............................ .............................................................................. 5

Instrumentation..............................................................................................^

Seismic Reflection...................................... ...................................................... 5

Side-scan Sonar....................................... .......................................................... 5

Underwater Video.............................................................................................?

Data Analysis.................................................................................................................?

Description of Reaches................................................................................................ 9

Reach A...............................................................................................................9

Reach B...............................................................................................................9

Reach C... ........................................................................................................ ....9

Reach D...............................................................................................................15

Reach E...............................................................................................................15

Reach F........................... .................................................................................... 15

Discussion.................................... ................................................................................... 22

Conclusion.................................................. .................................................................... 23

List or Figures:

Figure 1 Location of the monitored reaches .............................................2

Figure 2 Location of monumented cross sections............ ................ ..........3

Figure 3 Section of the high-resolution seismic reflection profile

data...................................................................................................6

Figure 4 Map, Photo, and side scan sonar images ......................................8

Figure 5 Reach A............................................................................................... 10

Figure 6 Combined changes along reach A.... ............................................. 1 1

Figure 7 Reach B...............................................................................................12

Figure 8 Combined changes along reach B .................................................13

Figure 9 Reach C............................................................................... ................ 14

Figure 10 Combined changes along reach C.............................. .................. 16

Figure 11 Reach D.............................................................................................17

Figure 12 Combined changes along reach D.. ........................................ .....18

Figure 13 Reach E.............................................................................................29

Figure 14 Combined changes along reach E.. .................................... ..........20

Figure 15 Reach F.............................................................................................21

Figure 16 Combined changes along reach F.. ....................................... .......24

Figure 17 Plots of percentages of sand-size sediment along reaches A

and B between.......... ...................................................................... 25

Figure 18 Plots of percentages of sand-size sediment along reach C

and D................................................................................................27

Figure 19 Plots of percentages of sand-size sediment along reach E

and F ................................................................................................29

Figure 20 Plots of reaches A, B, and C combined, and D, E, and F

combined...................... ................................................................... 31

Table:

Table 1 Reaches along the Colorado River Corridor surveyed... ........... .4
Comparison of Sand Distribution 

Between April 1994 and June 1996

along in Six Reaches of the 

Colorado River, in Grand Canyon, Arizona

Roberto J. Anima, Michael S. Marlow, David M. Rubin and David J. Hogg 

U.S. Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Geology Team 

345 Middlefield Road M/S 999 , Menlo Park, CA. 94025

Abstract

Two geophysical surveys in April, 1994 and June, 1996 collected data along 

15 reaches of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. This report discusses six of 

those reaches between the Little Colorado River and Tanner Rapid. The surveys 

imaged the distribution of sand and mixtures of sand with pebbles, cobbles and 

boulders stored within the reaches. The surveys established a baseline of sand 

distribution before an experimental flood in March, 1996 and mapped changes in 

the areal distribution of sand within each reach after the 1996 flood. This study 

does not attempt to estimate the volume change in sediment stored within the 

reaches. Survey control relied on a network of monuments established by the 

Glen Canyon Environmental Study (GCES) and the United States Geological Survey 

Water Resources Division (WRD). The 1994 survey utilized a high-resolution 

seismic-reflection profiler, a side-scan sonar system, a bathymetric profiler, and 

underwater video system. The 1996 survey did not use the high-resolution seismic 

profiler because the system was generally unsuccessful in detecting subsurface 

structure due to multiples created in shallow water. Both surveys used 

underwater video to collect images of the river bed to validate our interpretations 

of the side-scan record. This report describes data collection, interpretation, and 

discusses trends found along the reaches studied in detail.

Introduction

This report is part of a study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the 

Glen Canyon Environmental Study (GCES, now the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, GCMRC), to analyze sediment transport within the Grand Canyon 

system in response to controlled water releases at Glen Canyon Dam (Fig. 1). Graf 

et al. (1995) give an excellent summary of the establishment of GCES, and the 

Congressional mandates regulating Glen Canyon Dam. This report presents data 

collected by the USGS (Coastal and Marine Geology Team) for GCES during two 

cruises. The first cruise was conducted between April 24 and May 13, 1994, and the 

second in June of 1996, following the experimental flow of March 1996. Data 

shown in this report include side-scan sonar and video images for both cruises, 

and examples of the high-resolution seismic-reflection records collected during 

the 1994 cruise. Data were collected along 32 traverses that cross 6 reaches located 

along 11 kilometers below the Little Colorado River (LCR) to Tanner Rapid (Fig. 2). 

This study provides a baseline of sediment distribution and its temporal variability 

for six reaches below the LCR) Additional data were collected along 10 additional 

reaches both above and below the LCR (Table 1). All analog and digital data are 

stored in U.S. Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Geology Team archives.
37

113'

UTAH

112' 111

36

35'

ot mortumemed cross 

sections downstream from 

from the mouth of ifie Paria 

er confluence (enlarged

GRAND 

CANYON

Area of monumented cross sections 

downstream from the mouth of the 

Little Colorado River (enlarged in fig. 5)

Figure 1 Location map of the study area below the Little Colorado River. 

Modified from Graf et al. (1995).
111° 52' 30"

36 12' 30"

50'

36° 10' -

36 7' 30"

36°05'

REACH - A

A1-A4

/ REACH -

J-Di-05 REACH -s

REACH -

REACH -F

Base from U.S. Geological Survey 

digital data, 1:100,000,1980 

Lambert Conformal Conic projection 

Standard Parallels 29* 30* and 45*30', 

central meridian -96* 00'

2 KILOMETERS

Figure 2 Location of the six monumented cross sections on the Colorado River 

downstream from the mouth of the Little Colorado River. Modified from 

Grafetal. (1995).
Table 1 Reaches along the Colorado River Corridor surveyed using 

geophysical techniques. The letters in the reach column in 

parentheses represent the numbering convention used by Water 

Resources Division (Graf et al., 1995). Reaches without WRD letters 

were added by the authors.

Reach River Mile (*) Cruise Dates

1- President Harding (h) 42-43 5/94, 6/96

2- Eminence Break 44 6/96

3- Saddle Canyon 47.5 6/96

4- Nankoweep(w) 51.5 5/94,6/96

5- Above the LCR(lg) 61 5/94, 6/96

6- Below the LCR(l)

Reach-A(la) 62 5/94, 6/96

7- Reach-B(lb) 62.6 5/94, 6/96

8- Reach-C(lc) 63.2 5/94, 6/96

9- Reach-D(ld) 64.8 5/94, 6/96

10- Reach-E(le) 65.8 5/94, 6/96

11- Reach-F(lf) 68.5 5/94, 6/96

12- Cremation (g) 87.5 5/94, 6/96

13- Above Crystal(c) 98 5/94, 6/96

14 National Canyon(n) 166 5/94, 6/96

15 Above Lava(v) 179 5/94, 6/96

* River miles are measure from Lee's Ferry (Mile 0) down river.
Methods 

Navigation

The survey used established monuments (Graf et al., 1994; Fig. 2) as 

navigation control of the geophysical traverses. Where possible, survey control 

consisted of extending a measured line, marked at 10 foot (3.048 meters) intervals, 

across the river between established monuments. Flags, aligned with monuments, 

were used to control traverses where a line was not strung across the river. The 

survey tracklines traverse the river and run longitudinally parallel to shore. 

Longitudinal lines cross the monumented traverses, and the flags served as range 

markers whose crossings were noted on the video, paper, and digitized records.

Longitudinal side-scan lines were run down the center of the river and 

along both banks to provide overlapping sonar images. Established monuments 

and the water's edge for the Colorado River below the LCR are well located on GIS 

maps published by Graf et al., (1995). We used these maps as a base for our 

interpretative maps, which in turn were derived from the geophysical and video 

data. Traverse profiles were located on her base map, using the water's edge as 

imaged on side-scan records for control.

Instrumentation 

Seismic Reflection

The seismic profiler used for the survey consisted of a Geopulse receiver 

model 5210, power supply model 5420, using a model 5813A a single-plate boomer 

sound source generating 105 joules over a frequency 1 to 4 Khz,, recorded at an 

1/8 second fire rate and record rate, on a EPC 1600 high-resolution seismic 

recorder. A single element hydrophone streamer and a 3 element streamer were 

used simultaneously to record the returning echos. The seismic-reflection survey 

instrumention was deployed from a 23 foot (7.5 meter) inflatable raft.

The seismic-reflection profiler was included in our first survey to 

investigate the amount of sediment cover over bedrock and/or talus. The idea was 

to image the cross-sectional area of sediment in the subsurface, then calculate the 

total volume stored along each reach. Because of the relatively shallow water 

depths encountered, the seismic-profiling system was not successful for this 

purpose because shallow-water multiples overprinted the record.

The seismic system records an air-water interface multiple reflection that 

occurs simultaneously with the subbottom reflections, at twice the water depth 

("Multiples", Fig. 3). Because the depths of the reaches studied were on average 3 

to 5 meters, the air-water multiple overprints the seismic-reflection record at 

these depths, making sediment thickness estimates difficult for most areas (Fig. 3).

Side-scan Sonar

The side-scan sonar system consisted of a Klein wet-paper recorder model 

53IT and a 500 Khz tow fish. Side-scan sonar measures the sonic reflectance of 

the bed material along the vessel's path and then converts that reflectance signal 

to an analog pulse that is both converted to a digital signal to be stored, and sent to 

a recorder where it burns the signal onto a wet paper record. Areas with high 

reflectance will image in black to gray, such as a boulder or rock outcrop. Fine 

sand will image a light tan color to almost white because of poor reflectance. 

Coarse sand, pebbles, and cobbles will image progressively darker than sand and 

show a more mottled appearance.
Reach C Line C2 Outgoing pulsey Area of 

sediment 

cover 

Multiples

River 

Bed

0 20 40 

meters

Reach C Line C3

Multiples

RR

Rive£ Bed~

Sand

Reach F Line F2 RL

Possible 

bedrock 

or talus

Multiples

Figure 3. Seismic-reflection profiles along reaches C2, C3, and F2. The profiles show 

the multiples caused by the water bottom reflection. The multiples repeat water bottom 

reflections down through the profile, obscuring the usable data. Although an interpretation 

has been suggested along line F2, seismic record interpretations of sand, bedrock, and 

talus contacts cannot be made with confidence due to the multiples.
This system can image the whole river bed with two to three shore-parallel 

lines. The image covers a 50-meter swath on either side of the tow fish. The sidescan sonar surveys imaged the distribution of river-bed material along each 

reach with an average overlap of 25 to 50 meters between lines.

Underwater Video

The underwater video camera sled (constructed by the USGSS) consists of a 

.9 X .3 X .3 meter aluminum frame rigged with a four point lifting harness. 

Attached to the frame are lead weights for vertical stability and stabilizer fins to 

control the sled in the horizontal plane. The single-chip color-video camera is 

aided by a wide beam 250 watt quartz-halogen light. The camera sled was towed 

from the front of the vessel at one- to-two meters above the bottom, depending on 

water clarity. Height above the bottom is controlled by a manually operated wire 

winch. A video monitor on the vessel and either VHS or High-Eight recorder was 

used for real-time data acquisition and viewing. The video recording system 

allowed a time and date stamp for future reference as well as an audio input 

describing riverbed features and position along the river traverses. Video images 

were still framed and downloaded onto a computer to produce the images displayed 

in Figure 4.

Data Analysis

We determined riverbed composition by imaging the river bottom using 

the side-scan sonar and observing where the various reflectivity patterns 

suggested textural changes in sediment size. We then used the underwater video 

run along the crossing lines to determine if the visual bottom characteristics 

matched the composition suggested by the side-scan sonar imagery. The 

compositions for the reaches below the LCR (mile 62) to Tanner Rapid (mile 68.5) 

were compiled on 1:50,000 scale topographic maps of Graf, et al., (1995) (Figs 5 - 

11). These maps show the water depths and the contours along the shorelines at a 

river discharge of 5,000 cubic feet per second (cfs). The river discharge during 

this survey was between 8,000 to 15,000 cfs resulting in an overall change in 

shoreline position of between 3 to 8 meters. Swift currents resulted in a boattracking error of 3-4 meters between the longitudinal and the transverse lines.

The shorelines on both sides of the river are defined in the side-scan sonar 

imagery by areas where the image abruptly turns white (i.e., no reflectance). 

The white area is usually adjacent to areas with very dark reflectance that 

indicate bedrock or boulders (Fig. 4). Points marking the shoreline and the raft's 

tracklines, and subsequently the interpreted imagery of the river bed were 

plotted on the GIS base maps of Graf et al. (1995).

The interpretative maps show only those areas with sand or mixtures of 

sand with other components. Areas with gray shading are areas of only bedrock, 

boulders, cobbles or pebbles without detectable amounts of sand. Video images 

resolved individual features as small as medium sand (.35 mm) to as large as 

medium sized boulders (1042 mm) (Fig 4). Line to line correlation on the side-scan 

sonar records of features such as ripple marks and sand waves to video images 

support the side-scan imagery interpretations (Fig. 4).

The changes in textural distribution within each reach can be attributed to 

the time lapse between the two surveys, variables in stream dynamics such as the 

occurrence of flash floods from side canyons, seasonal variations of side-canyon 

input of sediment, the high-volume experimental water flow, and the daily 

differences in the discharge rate. Also noted but not mapped were sand waves 

oriented normal to the flow at the base of reattachment bars. The sand waves are 

part of reattachment bar systems reported by Rubin et al. (1991) and Schmidt and 

Rubin (1995) as being part of the recirculation eddy pattern noted in their work.
Grand Canyon 

Reach 1A

May, 1994

Bedrock, boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

Sand with Sand Waves Sand and Pebbles

0 20 40 60 80 

Arizona State Plane 

Central Zone

1:2000

Contours in

1 meter intervals

Bedrock 

WRINKLES IN THE PAPER

30

h 15 

0

Flow Direction^ nT^TE^I I " " I ' DebnsFans ., cn 0 ». »

100 50 u Meters

 Shoreline

Figure 4. Map, photo, and side-scan sonar images showing the relationships of the 

side-scan sonar images and underwater video stills. The map used for this figure 

was modified from Graf et al., (1993). Contours shown on this and other maps are 

on land at 1 meter intervals from the waters edge.

8
Changes in bedforms (sand ripples, sand waves) were not mapped unless a change 

in sediment texture was seen in conjunction with the bedforms.

Description of Reaches

The six reaches surveyed between the LCR and Tanner Rapid (Fig. 2) are 

numbered using a slight modification of the letter and number designation 

convention of Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (WRD) and 

GCES (Konieczki et al., 1997)(this study; Al, B3, F2, etc., study by Konieczki et al., 

1997; lal, Ib3, If2, etc.). The use of river miles is referenced to miles below Lees 

Ferry. The use of river right or left is with reference to the down-river direction. 

The reaches, which are pools between rapids or riffles, average 348 meters in 

length and 115 meters in length. Onshore, reaches vary from sand beaches to 

extensive boulder fields to exposed bedrock.

Reach A

Reach A is located directly below the LCR, at mile 62, and is traversed by 

seven cross lines (Fig. 5). Reach A is approximately 650 meters in length, and 

crossing lines average 106 m in length. The right bank of reach A consists of 

ledges of Tapeats Sandstone (Hutoon, et al., 1976) exposed onshore at the ends of 

lines 1, 2, and 3. Midway between lines 3 and 4, the shore is composed of large 

boulders from a debris fan that extends down river to line 6. From line 6 to the 

end of the reach, the river bank is sand. The left bank of reach A is composed of 

talus and sand with exposures of Tapeats Sandstone.

Reach A shows variability in the bottom texture during both surveys (Fig. 

5a, 5b). Figure 6 highlights the changes noted between surveys. The 

predominant feature is the large amount of sand that was imaged along the middle 

and left sides of the river. A small gravel and cobble patch was noted during the 

1996 survey located along river right above the debris fan. These two features 

were the only evidence of change from the 1994 survey.

Reach B

Reach B (Fig. 7), which starts at the lower end of mile 62, is approximately 

350 meters in length and is traversed by 5 crossing lines averaging 143 meters in 

length. The reach contains two debris fans that extend into the channel (Fig. 7). 

The first debris fan is located on river right between crossing lines Bib and B2. 

The second debris fan extends into the channel from river left, is smaller, and lies 

directly downstream from the first debris fan. Except along the margins of the 

debris fans, reach B is dominated by sand along its length. Along the edges of the 

two debris fans, boulders and sand, and sand with pebbles are found. Tapeats 

Sandstone is well exposed from the start of the reach at Bl to just upstream of the 

river-left debris fan.

The 1996 survey show three new pebble and gravel patches and one new 

sand patch. The pebble and gravel were found upstream and downstream of the 

river right debris fan and downstream along mid-channel between line B3 to the 

end of the reach (Fig. 8). The new sand patch was found just

upstream and extending to slightly downstream of the apex of the river right 

debris fan.

Reach C

Reach C, mile 63 to mile 63.25, is located in a pool downstream from a large 

mid-channel bar and debris-fan complex that extends from river left (Not seen in 

Fig. 9). Reach C is between two debris fans, the upstream fan extends from river 

left, the downstream fan from river right (barely visible in Figure 9). Reach C is
May, 1994

x

0 20 40 60 80 100

Arizona State Plane

Central Zone

1:2000

Contours in

1 meter intervals

Grand Canyon 

Reach A

Sand Sand/pebbles Sand/cobbles Sand/boulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

June, 1996

x

Flow Direction

Figure 5. Maps of Reach A, showing that a large area along river left was covered with sand in 

1996, but had exposures of pebbles and cobbles in 1994.

10
Grand Canyon 

Reach A

Combined 1994, 1996 

Surveys

x

Flow Direction

0 20 40 60 80 100

Arizona State Plane

Central Zone

1:2000

Contours in

1 meter intervals

Sand Sand/pebbles Sand/cobbles Sand/boulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

Area of New Gravel/Pebbles Area of New Sand

Figure 6. Map of Reach A, showing the cumulative changes observed between the 1994 and 

1996 surveys.

11
222600

574600

574400

May, 1994

'- 222600

574400

Grand Canyon

Reach B

Mile 62.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

meters

Arizona State Plane 

Central Zone

1:2000

Contours in

1 meter intervals

222600

574400

Sand

574600 

I Sand/pebbles

574400

Sand/cobbles

June,1996

222600

Sand/boulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

Figure 7. Maps of Reach B showing that the areas of erosion were upstream and 

downstream of the debris fans. Deposition occurred near the apex and 

downstream the river right debris fan.

12
574600

Grand Canyon 

Reach B

Mile 62.5 Combined 1994, 1996

Surveys

574400

222600 222600

0 20 40 60 80 100

meters

Arizona State Plane 

Central Zone

1:2000

Contours in

1 meter intervals

Sand

574600

^H Sand/pebbles

574400

Sand/cobbles Sand/boulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

Area of New Gravel/Pebbles Area of New Sand

Figure 8. Reach B, map view of the cumulative changes in areas of erosion and 

deposition between the 1994 and 1996 surveys.

13
222800

0 20 40 60 80 100 

meters

Arizona State Plane 

Central Zone

1:2000

Contours in 

1 meter intervals

222600 -

Sand

222800

222600 -'

573600

Grand Canyon 

Reach C

May, 1994

222800

222600

Sand/pebbles Sand/cobbles

573600

Sand/boulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

June, 1996

<- 222800

222600

Figure 9. Reach C, had the most sand redistribution of any of the six reaches reported here. 

The center of the channel and both sides of the channel showed sand deposition 

over previously exposed cobbles and pebbles.

14
approximately 260 meters in length and is traversed by 5 crossing lines that 

average 174 meters in length. Reach C is the widest of all the reaches in this 

report. Onshore, Reach C consists of boulders and talus along river right as well 

as bedrock exposures of Tapeats Sandstone. The river's edge along river left 

consists predominately of boulders.

Reach C was the only reach that did not show any new pebble and gravel 

patches. Instead new sand was found in areas imaged as pebbles and gravel 

during the 1994 survey. The new sand patches are both along river right and mid 

river. The river right sand patch extends from line C2 to the end of the reach 

along river right. The sand patch along mid channel lies between lines C3 and C4 

(Fig. 10).

Reach D

Reach D at mile 64.6 to mile 64.9 is located on the upper part of a large pool 

downstream from a debris fan that formed at the mouth of Carbon Creek (Fig 11) 

(Stevens, 1983, Belknap, 1996). Reach D is approximately 240 meters in length 

traversed by 5 crossing lines averaging 78 meters in length. Along river right, 

sand-bar deposits extend from line D-l downstream to below line D-3 (Fig. 11). Dox 

Formation is exposed along river right from just above line D-4 to the end of the 

reach. River left is composed of talus slope deposits and Dox Formation.

Changes along Reach D consisted of one sand patch along the mid channel 

area between D2 and upstream of D4. In addition two gravel pebble patches were 

noted at mid channel below D4 and downstream and along river right of D5 (Fig. 

12).

Reach E

Reach E, below Lava Rapids, between mile 65.6 and 65.9, is approximately 

300 meters in length traversed by 5 crossing lines averaging 107 meters in length 

(Fig. 13). The reach begins downstream from the constriction in the river caused 

by the debris fan formed at the mouth of Lava Canyon (Fig. 13). Along river 

right, the shore line is dominated by exposures of Dox Formation as well as terrace 

gravel deposits, which increases in boulder and cobble content at line E5. River 

left, between E3 and E4, a well-formed reattachment bar eddy return channel 

formed in the channel. The river left channel margin is floored predominantly 

by boulders and large cobbles deposited as a debris fan from the mouth of 

Palisades Creek.

The changes mapped from 1996 survey shows Reach E to have relatively 

large gravel pebble patches along both river right and river left. The gravel 

pebble patches were located at El and between E3 and E5. Two new sand patches 

were found very close to one another along river left between lines E2 and E3 

(Fig. 14). The areas of sediment changes are within the area of the reattachment 

bar eddy return channel complex.

Reach F

Reach F is the last reach of the six reaches below the LCR. Reach F is 

located between mile 68 to above Tanner Rapid (Fig. 15). The reach is 

approximately 290 meters in length and traversed by 5 crossing lines,averaging 

85 meters in length. This is the only reach that is located along a river bend and 

exhibits features of a cut bank (river left) and accretionary bank deposit (river 

right) (Reineck and Singh, 1975, Alien, 1970, 1964). The shoreline along river 

right consists of vegetation along the entire reach and a very large reattachment 

bar along the downstream end of the reach (accretionary bank deposit). This 

area was not surveyed due to shallow depths. River left consists of exposures of 

Dox Formation from the start of the reach to line F2. From line F2 to the end of the

15
222800

0 20 40 60 80 100 

meters

Arizona State Plane 

Central Zone

1:2000 

Contours in

1 meter intervals

222600 -

Grand Canyon Reach C

573600

Combined 1994, 1996 

Surveys

222800

222600

Sand Sand/pebbles Sand/cobbles Sand/boulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

Area of New Gravel/Pebbles Area of New Sand

Figure 10. Reach C, map of the combined changes of areas of deposition between the 1994 

to 1996 surveys.

16
571000

222400 --

0 20 40 60 80 100 

meters

Arizona State Plane

Central Zone

1:2000

Flow Direction

May, 1994

- - 222400

Grand Canyon 

Reach D

Contours in 

1 meter intervals

571000

222400 --

June,1996

- - 222400

Flow Direction

Sand Sand/pebbles Sand/cobbles Sand/boulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

Figure 11. Reach D shows small changes between surveys. The area left of center, 

between D2 and D4, showed a covering of pebbles and cobbles. Previously 

unexposed pebbles were seen in two areas downstream of D4 and D5.

17
Grand Canyon 

Reach D

571000

222400 --

Combined 1994, 1996 

Surveys

0 20 40 60 80 100 

meters

 - 222400

Arizona State Plane 

Central Zone

1:2000 

Contours in

1 meter intervals

Flow Direction

Sand Sand/pebbles Sand/cobbles o ° '.. Sand/boulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

Area of New Gravel/Pebbles Area of New Sand

Figure 12. Reach D map shows small cumulative changes between the 1994 and 1996 surveys.

18
May, 1994

569600 569400

222200 --

222200

Flow Direction 569eo°

0 20 40 60 80 100 

meters

Grand Canyon 

Reach E

569400

Arizona State Plane

Central Zone Contours in 

1:2000 1 meter intervals

Sand Sand/pebbles

569600

Sand/cobbles Sand/boulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

June, 1996

569400

222200 --

222200

Flow Direction 569400

Figure 13. Maps of Reach E showing that the reach previously (1994) had exposed bedrock 

and pebbles and cobbles. New exposures of sand/pebbles (black) are found along 

three areas of the reach.

19
0 20 40 60 80 100 

meters

Arizona State Plane Contours in 

Central Zone 1 meter intervals 

1:2000

569600

Grand Canyon 

Reach E

222200 --

Combined 1994, 1996 

Surveys

569400

222200

Flow Direction 569400

Sand Sand/pebbles Sand/cobbles Sand/boulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

Area of New Gravel/Pebbles Area of New Sand

Figure 14. Map of Reach E showing the cumulative changes between the 1994 and 

1996 surveys.

20
221200

221000

0 20 40 60 80 100

meters

Arizona State Plane 

Central Zone 

1:2000

Contours in 

1 meter intervals

221200

221000

566000 May, 1994

Flow Direction

t Sand

Sand/pebbles

Sand/cobbles

Sand/ooulders

Bedrock.boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

566000

Grand Canyon 

Reach F June, 1996

566000

^mmgim Flow Direction

566000

Figure 15. Maps of Reach F, that is located above Tanner Rapid. Two small areas 

(above F2 and at F4) have new (1996) sand that covers boulders. Some 

cobbles and gravels were removed downstream from F1.

21
reach along river left consists of boulders and large cobbles that are part of the 

Tanner Canyon debris fan.

Reach F showed very minor areas of new sand, gravel and pebbles. Two 

patches of new sand were noted along the margins of the boulders upstream of F2 

and at F4. The gravel pebble patch was found downstream from Fl (Fig. 16). This 

reach did show changes along the river right shore line between F3 and F5. 

These changes appeared to be in the amount of material removed from the shore. 

This was not surveyed during the study.

Discussion

Our interpretation of two river-imaging data sets is based on comparison of 

underwater video to side-scan sonar imagery, we note where bedrock, boulders, 

cobbles, and pebbles were or were not exposed during the two surveys. The 

variations in the reflectivity intensity and image patterns of the river bottom on 

the side-scan data were matched with variations in sediment texture in the video 

data. The interpretative maps distinguish areas with sand from those with 

mixtures of sand. Although volumetric changes can not be made using sidescanning sonar, the areal distribution of sediment can be mapped. Changes in 

sediment distribution between the two surveys varied widely. Constrictions in the 

river, which commonly effect sediment distribution did not seem to be the 

controlling factor between the reaches studied.

The distribution of sand in the 1994 and 1996 surveys was measured along 

each of the crossing lines for each reach below the Little Colorado River. The 

results are plotted as a percentage of the river bottom covered by sand along each 

crossing line (figs. 17, 18, and 19). Figures 20 and 21 show the same data plotted 

for the reaches combined. Included in each plot is the ratio of change in the 

percent of sand from 1996 to 1994 along each line, as well as the downstream ratio 

of change along each reach. The ratio of change was determined by dividing the 

difference in the percentage of sand between 1996 to 1994, along each line, by the 

averaged percentage of sand in 1994 and 1996 (%sand in 96 - %sand in 94)/(%sand 

in 96 + %sand in 94)/2). The ratio of change was included to present a single 

number that provides information about sand coverage along the reaches, and, to 

show how much it changed relative to how much sand there was between surveys

The plots show the longitudinal variation in sand coverage, and show the 

change in sand coverage from 1994 to 1996. With the exception of reach B, and 

reach D, there was a general increase in sand coverage between 1994 to 1996. 

Reaches A and C, showed the greatest increases in sand coverage from 1994 to 

1996. Reach B showed the greatest decrease in sand coverage at the upstream and 

downstream ends of the reach. Reaches D and E show increases in sand coverage 

on the upstream ends of the reaches and decreases at their downstream ends 

Reach F shows a decrease in sand coverage along the upstream end of the reach 

with an increase at the downstream end.

Between 1994 and 1996, sand coverage on the bed generally increased, with 

the greatest increase in reaches A and C (figs. 17, 18, and 19). The remainder of 

the reaches showed variable changes, and in the case of reaches D and F suggest 

more of a change in sand cover from upstream to downstream. Reach B showed 

the greatest change in sand coverage of all the reaches, with a decrease in sand 

coverage along the upstream and downstream sections of the reach.

The graphs show a variability in overall sediment redistribution, with the 

ratio of change between 1996 to 1994 suggesting that the largest increase in sand 

coverage occurred along the first three reaches.

22
The volumes of sediment measured by Konieczki, et al. (1997) show a trend 

of erosion for reaches A, B, and C, while for the lower reaches D, E, and F, their 

data show appreciably less erosion, with some deposition along reach F. This 

study found the greatest increase in sand distribution along the first three 

reaches of the study area. The three lower reaches also showed a change in sand 

distribution but those changes were not as great in magnitude as along the upper 

reaches. The greater coverage of sand in 1996 may have resulted from post-flood 

reworking of the flood deposits, or may have resulted from tributary input.

Conclusion

Sand distribution in the channel of the Colorado River was imaged and 

mapped in April, 1994 and June, 1996. The 1994 survey was before the 

experimental flow and the 1996 survey was done almost three months after the 

experimental flood. We anticipated that the reaches would be depleted of sand, 

with greater areas of exposed pebbles, boulders, and bedrock. This, however, was 

not the case. Instead, the sand was more widely distributed in the channel after, 

than before, the flood (figs. 17-21). The study showed that the distribution of 

sand-size sediment that floors the reaches reported here changed between the two 

surveys. The study did not show an overall depletion of sand coverage. The 

results of the side-scan sonar and underwater video survey show that changes of 

sand coverage along the 6 reaches below the Little Colorado River were variable.

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank the individuals who helped with the field and 

office work that made this report possible. We thank Julie Graf, and her crew for 

their assistance with the initial surveys and allowing us to tag along on one of 

their bathymetric surveying trips. Special thanks to Christie O'Day who 

accompanied us on the second survey to help us in finding the marks. The 

authors wish to thank the two boatman who put the boat where we needed to be, 

John Toner and Lars Neimi, without them the data gathering and quality would 

have been sorely lacking. We want to thank Kay Kinshita, and Fujiko Issaya for 

their assistance in the field. And thanks to Rex Sanders and Jingping Xu for their 

review of the manuscript.

23
Grand Canyon 

Reach F

221200

0 20 40 60 80 100 

meters

Arizona State Plane 

Central Zone

1:2000

Contours in

1 meter intervals

221000

566000

Combined 1994, 1996 

Surveys

Flow Direction

566000

Sand Sand/pebbles Sand/cobbles Sand/boulders

Area of New Gravel/Pebbles

Bedrock,boulders, cobbles, 

or pebbles without sand

Area of New Sand

Figure 16. Map of Reach F showing the cumulative changes along the reach between the 

1994 and 1996 surveys.

24
Figure 17 Plots of percentages of sand-size sediment at the river bottom for 

each crossing line along reaches A and B between 1994 to 1996. Also plotted is 

the ratio of change from 1996 to 1994 (see text for explanation).

25
Ratio of Difference in %Sand Ratio of Difference in %Sand

&

(QO

1

o

"6 6

<G§>

O) 2?

o o 

c *I

Q

I

CO

9 S 1 s CM 

CO

** 

oo o 

O ic! '

cs

SO

PUBS 

%

PUBS 

%
Figure 18 Plots of percentages of sand-size sediment at the river bottom for 

each crossing line along reach C and D between 1994 to 1996. Also plotted is 

the ratio of change from 1996 to 1994 (see text for explanation).

27
% Sand 1994 

% Sand 1996 Reach C

100.0

80.0

60.0

 a

40.0

20.0

0.0

-50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0

Distance Downstream (m)

Ratio of Change

2.5

200.0

2.0

3J 

B>

1.5

1.0 <D

O 

<D

0.5

0.0

W

B>

-0.5 

250.0

%Sand 1994 

% Sand 1996

100.0

80.0

60.0

CO

C/)

40.0

20.0

0.0

-50.0

Reach D Ratio of Change

2.5

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0

Distance Downstream (m)

2.0

o

1.5 o 

O

I?

1.0 o 

O

o

0.5

0.0

V)

3 

Q.

-0.5 

200.0

28
Figure 19 Plots of percentages of sand-size sediment at the river bottom for 

each crossing line along reach E and F between 1994 to 1996. Also plotted is the 

ratio of change from 1996 to 1994 (see text for explanation).

29
Ratio of Difference in %Sand Ratio of Difference In %Sand

i

O

£ HI

cc

"5 

o

"o o

i i|"s % 

$

II

°. E

o i " in

*<0)

CO E

o go 2 2 

O0) 

Q

o

9 

a o c»

cc

i

o'o in

CVJ

ino 

"E o « o

 - ^ ^ 9 p o «£ in

CO

_ (A 9 c

o *5 

O0) 

D

o

enO 

pues 

% pues 

%
Figure 20 Plots of reaches A, B, and C combined, and D, E, and F combined

31
 % Sand 1994

 % Sand 1996

Reaches A,B,& C

Combined with

Ratio of Change in % Sand

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0

500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0

Distance Downstream (m)

Ratio of Change

2.5

2.0

1.5

to 

1.0 Q.

to to 

o>

o

0.5 _» 

to

CO

0.0

-0.5

2500.0

4000.0 5000.0

Reaches D,E,& F 

Combined with 

Ratio of Change in % Sand

Ratio of Change in % Sand 

% Sand 1996

% Sand 1994

6000.0 7000.0 8000.0

Distance Downstream (m)

9000.0 10000.0

32
References

Alien, J.R.L., 1964, Studies in fluviatile sedimentation: Six cyclothem from the 

lower Old Red Sandstone, Anglo-Welsh Basin. Sedimentology, 3, 163-198.

Alien, J.R.L., 1970, A quantitative model of grain size and sedimentary structures 

in lateral deposits. Journal of Geology, 7, 129-146.

Belknap, B, Evans, L.B., 1996, Grand Canyon River Guide, Seventh edition, 

Westwater Books, 96 pages.

Graf, J.B., Marlow, I.E., Fisk, G.G., Jansen S.M.D., 1994, Sand storage changes in the 

Colorado River downstream from the Paria and Little Colorado Rivers, June 

1992 to February 1994, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-446, 61 

pages.

Graf, J.B., Jansen, S.M.D., Fisk, G G., and Marlow, J.E., 1995, Topography and 

bathymetry of the Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Little 

Colorado River to Tanner Rapids; U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

95-726.

Hutoon, P.W., Billingsley, G.H. Jr., Breed, W.J., Sears, J.W., Ford, T.D, Clark, M.D., 

Babcock, R.S., Brown, E.H., 1976, Geologic Map of Grand Canyon National 

Park, Arizona: Grand Canyon Natural History Association Map, scale 

1:62,500.

Konieczki, A.D., Graf, J.B., Carpenter M.C., 1997, Streamflow and sediment data 

collected to determine the effects of a controlled flood in March and April 

1996 on the Colorado River between Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek, Arizona. 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-224, 55 pages, 11 Tables, 18 

Figures.

Reineck , H.E., Singh, I.E., 1975 Depositional Sedimentary Environments, with 

Reference to Terrigenous Clastics, Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, 

Berlin, 439 pgs, 579 figures.

Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Moore, J.N., 1991, Origin, structure, and evolution of a 

reattachment bar, Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Journal of 

Sedimentry Petrology, Vol. 60, No. 6, P. 982-991.

Schmidt, J.C., and Rubin, D.M., 1995, Regulated Streamflow, fine-grained deposits, 

and effective discharge in canyons with abundant debris fans, in Natural 

and Anthropogenic Influences in Fluvial Geomorphology: Washington, 

D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 89, p. 177-195.

Stevens, L., 1983, The Colorado River in Grand Canyon, a Comprehensive Guide to 

its Natural and Human History, 3d edit., Red Lake Books, P.O. Box 1315, 

Flagstaff, Arizona, 86002, 115 pgs.

33