U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2006-1243

Stage-Discharge Relations for the Colorado River in 

Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona,

1990-2005
Stage-Discharge Relations for the Colorado 

River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, 

Arizona, 1990-2005

By Joseph E. Hazel, Jr.1, Matt Kaplinski1, Rod Parnell1, Keith Kohl2, and

David J. Topping2

1

Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ

2

U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, AZ

Prepared in cooperation with Northern Arizona University

Open-File Report 2006–1243

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Hazel, Joseph, E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Topping, D.J., 2006, Stage-Discharge Relations for the 

Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1243, 7 p.
iii

Contents

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

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

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................1

Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................2

Physical Setting.....................................................................................................................................2

Data and Method Used in Formulating Stage-Discharge Relations .....................................................4

Streamflow-Gaging Data.....................................................................................................................4

Water-Surface Elevations ...................................................................................................................4

Computation of Stage-Discharge Relations.....................................................................................5

Summary..........................................................................................................................................................6

References Cited............................................................................................................................................6

Figures

1. Map showing study area, major tributaries and locations of U.S. Geological

Survey continuous-record streamflow-gaging stations, Colorado River,

Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona.....................................................................2

2. Graph showing stage-discharge relation for the study site located at river

mile 122.7R .....................................................................................................................................5

3. Graph showing stage-discharge relation for the study site located at river

mile 68.8R .......................................................................................................................................5

Table

1. Site names, locations, and stage-discharge relations, Colorado River,

Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona.........................................................................3

Conversion Factors

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

Flow rate

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

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

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 22.83 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 

In this report, horizontal and vertical coordinate information is referenced to the

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
Abstract

This report presents stage-discharge relations for 47 

discrete locations along the Colorado River, downstream from 

Glen Canyon Dam. Predicting the river stage that results from 

changes in flow regime is important for many studies investigating the effects of dam operations on resources in and along 

the Colorado River. The empirically based stage-discharge 

relations were developed from water-surface elevation data 

surveyed at known discharges at all 47 locations. The rating 

curves accurately predict stage at each location for discharges 

between 141 cubic meters per second and 1,274 cubic meters 

per second. The coefficient of determination (R2) of the fit to 

the data ranged from 0.993 to 1.00. Given the various contributing errors to the method, a conservative error estimate of 

±0.05 m was assigned to the rating curves.

Introduction

Closure of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963 dramatically 

altered the flow regime of the Colorado River in Grand 

Canyon National Park (GCNP) (U.S. Department of Interior, 1995). The pre-dam flow regime exhibited large annual 

fluctuations and small daily variations. Operations of the dam 

intentionally cause daily fluctuations for hydropower generation, while annual flow fluctuations are now substantially 

reduced. Although seasonal variations in the hydrograph have 

been flattened, daily discharge fluctuations generally occur 

over a much greater range than in the pre-dam era (Topping 

and others, 2003). The altered hydrograph has important consequences for the geomorphology and ecology of the Colorado 

River in GCNP, and the downstream riverine ecosystem is 

now the subject of a large-scale rehabilitation program called 

the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program (National 

Research Council, 1999). As part of this program, flow experiments are undertaken to benefit downstream resources.

The experimental designs proposed and implemented 

in the Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program have 

increased the need to predict river stage at particular locations. 

Stage ranges and inundation levels are important for their 

potential effect on a wide variety of ecosystem components. 

In 1990, Northern Arizona University, in cooperation with the 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Glen Canyon Environmental 

Studies (U.S. Department of Interior, 1995), began a project of 

surveying sandbars located along the Colorado River in GCNP 

(fig. 1). As part of this project, stage-discharge rating curves 

were developed by Northern Arizona University, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, from numerous surveys 

of water-surface elevation at known discharges. The rating 

curves have been used to (1) quantify changes in sandbar area 

and volume within specific stage elevation ranges (Kaplinski 

and others, 1995; Hazel and others, 1999; Hazel and others, 2006), (2) determine camping area as a function of stage 

elevation (Kaplinski and others, 2005), (3) calibrate ground 

water models (Springer and others, 1999; Sabol and Springer, 

2005), (4) check the accuracy and set boundary conditions of 

hydraulic models that predict shoreline water-surface elevations (Magirl and Breedlove, 2005; Wiele and Torrizo, 2003; 

Wiele and Torrizo, 2005); (5) predict flood-stage elevations 

and inundation levels at archeological sites (Draut and others, 

2005), (6) determine impacts to habitat and associated endangered Kanab Ambersnail populations (Meretsky and others, 

2000; Cox and others, 2005), (7) examine trout spawninghabitat preference as a function of discharge (Korman and others, 2005), and (8) investigate near-shore water temperatures 

(Korman and others, 2006).

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present stage-discharge 

relations for 47 discrete locations in the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Ariz (table 

1). The report describes an empirically based method of formulating stage-discharge relations by using surveys of watersurface elevations at known discharges. The results are of 

value for the prediction and execution of field experiments and 

other analyses of ecosystem responses to dam operations. The 

stage range of the relations is limited to the highest discharge 

in cubic meters per second (1,274 m3/s) observed during the 

study period, 1990-2005. The rating curves presented in this 

report predict local stage accurately, but are site-specific and 

cannot be applied elsewhere. In addition, infrequent rockfall 

or debris flows that alter channel geometry and river hydraulics can potentially alter the stage-discharge relations and by 

necessity will have to be accounted for.

Stage-Discharge Relations for the Colorado River in Glen, 

Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona, 1990-2005

By Joseph E. Hazel, Jr., Matt Kaplinski, Rod Parnell, Keith Kohl, and David J. Topping
Acknowledgments

We thank Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon 

National Recreation area for permission to access study sites 

along the Colorado River. Numerous people provided field 

assistance, but we thank Eric Kellerup and Greg Sponenburgh 

in particular. The manuscript benefited from technical reviews 

by Amy Draut and Stephen Wiele, and thorough editorial 

reviews and revisions by Cathy Rubin and Keith Lucey.

Physical Setting

Locations on the Colorado River are traditionally defined 

by the river mile (RM) downstream from Lees Ferry, Arizona 

(RM 0). In this report, study sites are referred to by river mile 

location along the river centerline developed by the USGS 

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006). This river mile centerline was developed 

in a geographic information system (GIS) and is considered 

more accurate than previous river-mile estimates. One site is 

located in Glen Canyon, the reach between Glen Canyon Dam 

and Lees Ferry (RM -15 to 0). Twenty-one sites are located in 

Marble Canyon, the reach between Lees Ferry and the confluence with the Little Colorado River (RM 0 to 61.7). Twentyfive sites are located in Grand Canyon, between the confluence 

with the Little Colorado River and Diamond Creek (RM 226). 

The study area includes four U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

streamflow-gaging stations (fig. 1). The streamflow-gaging 

stations utilized for this report are located at Lees Ferry (RM 

0; station number 09380000), above the confluence with 

the Little Colorado River (RM 61.5; 09381000, discontinued in 2002), Grand Canyon near Phantom Ranch (RM 88; 

09402500), and above the confluence with Diamond Creek 

near Peach Springs (RM 225.4; 09404200).

The longitudinal profile of the Colorado River includes 

shallow areas at rapids and riffles and deep pools that typically 

occur upstream and downstream from rapids (Leopold, 1969). 

Rapids are commonly located where talus deposits and tributary 

debris fans constrict the river channel. Longitudinal variation in 

channel and valley width varies in relation to the erodibility of 

the bedrock exposed at river level (Howard and Dolan, 1981). 

The average water-surface gradient is 0.0015 between Lees 

Ferry and Diamond Creek and ranges from less than 0.0005 in 

pools to greater than 0.01 in rapids (Schmidt and Graf, 1990). 

Water-surface slope flattens in pools and recirculation zones 

(or eddies) located upstream and downstream from rapids. The 

study sites were focused on sandbars located in eddies where 

water-surface elevations are near horizontal. The upstream and 

downstream length of channel to which each stage-discharge 

relation can apply is shown in table 1.

37o

111o 112o 113o

36o

Lake Mead

Lake Powell

Paria River

UTAH

ARIZONA

ARIZONA

Map Area

Grand Canyon National Park

Lit t le

Colora do

R i v e r Cameron

Grand Canyon

Lees Ferry

Colorado

River

09383000

(R M 0)

09383100

(R M 61.5)

09402500

(R M 88)

09404200

(R M 225.4)

09383000

Glen Canyon

Dam

R M

DiamondCreek

0 50 Miles

0 50 Kilometers

U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging

 station with station number

River mile downstream from Lees Ferry, Arizona

EXPLANATION

Figure 1. Study area, major tributaries and locations of U.S. Geological Survey continuous-record 

streamflow-gaging stations, Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to upper Lake Mead, Arizona.

   Stage-Discharge Relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona, 1990-2005
Table 1. Site names, locations, and stage-discharge relations, Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona—

Continued

[Site names are given by location along the river mile (RM) centerline (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006) downstream from Lees Ferry, in Grand Canyon 

National Park except, -6.5R, which is in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. L and R refer to the left and right bank as viewed in a downstream direction, 

respectively; extent, channel reach to which stage-discharge relation applies; Z, height in meters above the Geodetic Reference System of 1980/North American 

Datum of 1983 ellipsoid; Q, discharge; m3/s, cubic meters per second; the predicted stage change is given for the difference in water-surface elevation for 

discharges between 142 m3/s and 1,274 m3/s, in meters (m)]

Site Name (RM) Upstream Extent (RM) Downstream Extent (RM) Stage-Discharge Relation, Q in m3/s Stage Change (m)

-6.5R -6.70 -6.50 Z = 927.2345 + 0.0046Q - 9.7557x10-7Q 2 3.64

1.2R 1.10 1.30 Z = 920.1800 + 0.0058Q - 1.8793x10-6Q2 3.53

2.6L 2.48 2.68 Z = 919.5346 + 0.0060Q - 1.7549x10-6Q2 3.99

8.2L 8.10 8.35 Z = 912.7481 + 0.0035Q - 2.6250x10-6Q2 3.51

16.7L 16.65 16.8 Z = 894.5953 + 0.0052Q - 1.4169x10-6Q2 3.61

22.0R 21.05 22.08 Z = 878.4473 + 0.0103Q – 3.0524x10-6Q2 6.76

23.6L 23.53 23.65 Z = 873.8798 + 0.0099Q - 3.3402x10-6Q2 5.86

29.5L 29.43 29.55 Z = 856.3392 + 0.0084Q - 2.4403x10-6Q2 5.65

30.8R 30.68 30.82 Z = 853.6511 + 0.0085Q - 2.3554x10-6Q2 5.83

31.9R 31.85 32.05 Z = 853.0456 + 0.0049Q - 1.3643x10-6Q2 3.41

32.2R 32.18 32.21 Z = 852.2250 + 0.0043Q - 4.5342x10-7Q2 4.12

33.3L 33.15 33.30 Z = 849.1904 + 0.0065Q - 1.1068x10-6Q2 5.53

35.1L 35.03 35.20 Z = 846.3659 + 0.0090Q - 2.7067x10-6Q2 5.87

41.3L 41.20 41.52 Z = 839.6944 + 0.0059Q - 1.1409x10-6Q2 4.84

43.4L 43.37 43.47 Z = 838.3170 + 0.0072Q - 1.9473x10-6Q2 4.98

44.5L 44.40 44.72 Z = 835.5083 + 0.0066Q - 1.6682x10-6Q2 4.76

45.0L 44.87 45.03 Z = 835.2158 + 0.0051Q - 6.9759x10-7Q2 4.63

47.6R 47.50 47.75 Z = 833.0905 + 0.0059Q - 1.5676x10-6Q2 4.13

50.2R 50.10 50.25 Z = 829.1319 + 0.0064Q - 1.6577x10-6Q2 4.59

51.5L 51.32 51.57 Z = 828.5607 + 0.0061Q - 1.7551x10-6Q2 4.09

55.9R 55.80 56.00 Z = 819.3199 + 0.0044Q - 1.2732x10-6Q2 2.93

56.6R 56.50 56.57 Z = 816.6207 + 0.0044Q - 1.1396x10-6Q2 3.19

62.9R 62.82 62.98 Z = 799.8819 + 0.0059Q - 1.3166x10-6Q2 4.56

65.2R 65.08 65.30 Z = 795.7844 + 0.0043Q - 9.7169x10-7Q2 3.33

66.1L 66.03 66.25 Z = 793.6146 + 0.0042Q - 1.4984x10-7Q2 2.37

68.8R 68.65 68.90 Z = 786.0775 + 0.0041Q - 1.1667x10-6Q2 2.81

81.7L 81.73 81.78 Z = 735.9746 + 0.0059Q - 1.4777x10-6Q2 4.35

84.6R 84.50 84.60 Z = 724.6525 + 0.0062Q - 1.1833x10-6Q2 5.15

87.6L 87.50 87.68 Z = 716.0649 + 0.0075Q - 2.5026x10-6Q2 4.50

88.1R 88.00 88.13 Z = 716.3174 + 0.0059Q - 1.6647x10-6Q2 3.96

91.8R 91.72 91.80 Z = 699.4004 + 0.0064Q - 1.4437x10-6Q2 4.93

93.8L 93.75 93.86 Z = 696.9266 + 0.0057Q - 1.8772x10-6Q2 3.44

Introduction   
Table 1. Site names, locations, and stage-discharge relations, Colorado River, Glen Canyon Dam to Diamond Creek, Arizona—

Continued

[Site names are given by location along the river mile (RM) centerline (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006) downstream from Lees Ferry, in Grand Canyon 

National Park except, -6.5R, which is in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. L and R refer to the left and right bank as viewed in a downstream direction, 

respectively; extent, channel reach to which stage-discharge relation applies; Z, height in meters above the Geodetic Reference System of 1980/North American 

Datum of 1983 ellipsoid; Q, discharge; m3/s, cubic meters per second; the predicted stage change is given for the difference in water-surface elevation for 

discharges between 142 m3/s and 1,274 m3/s, in meters (m)]

Site Name (RM) Upstream Extent (RM) Downstream Extent (RM) Stage-Discharge Relation, Q in m3/s Stage Change (m)

104.4R 104.35 104.45 Z = 658.3761 + 0.0066Q - 1.8602 x10-6Q2 4.51

119.4R 119.33 119.45 Z = 613.6991 + 0.0072Q - 1.7671x10-6Q2 5.33

122.7R 122.70 122.80 Z = 607.9881 + 0.0073Q - 2.1437x10-6Q2 4.80

123.3L 123.17 123.30 Z = 607.2691 + 0.0078Q - 2.5742x10-6Q2 4.70

137.7L 137.65 137.72 Z = 562.4849 + 0.0067Q - 1.8079x10-6Q2 5.55

139.6R 139.50 139.66 Z = 557.1314 + 0.0075Q - 2.0031x10-6Q2 5.27

145.8L 145.83 145.90 Z = 539.8538 + 0.0083Q - 2.2142x10-6Q2 5.83

167.2L 167.10 167.25 Z = 505.4650 + 0.0051Q - 9.7770x10-7Q2 4.23

172.6L 172.50 172.70 Z = 497.2574 + 0.0061Q - 1.4370x10-6Q2 4.55

183.3R 183.20 183.38 Z = 470.1667 + 0.0069Q - 1.8743x10-6Q2 4.84

194.6L 194.50 194.70 Z = 446.8107 + 0.0064Q - 1.7595x10-6Q2 4.44

202.3R 202.30 202.48 Z = 431.4507 + 0.0059Q - 1.3866x10-6Q2 4.46

213.3L 213.30 213.28 Z = 403.5871 + 0.0096Q - 2.5109x10-6Q2 6.80

220.1R 220.05 220.12 Z = 394.3845 + 0.0039Q - 5.3231x10-7Q2 3.54

225.5R 225.40 225.60 Z = 380.6412 + 0.0065Q - 2.4598x10-6Q2 3.45

Data and Method Used in Formulating

Stage-Discharge Relations

Streamflow-Gaging Data

Discharge measurements at the USGS continuous-record 

streamflow-gaging stations were used to determine discharge 

at each study site. The USGS uses a standard method of computing discharge by developing a stage-discharge rating curve 

to convert measured stage to discharge (Rantz and others, 

1982). The method employs numerous flow velocity measurements and surveyed cross sections at each gage to construct 

a stage-discharge relation. The accuracies of the continuousrecord streamflow-gaging stations in the study area, for the 

period of study, are considered “good,” which means that 95 

percent of the daily mean discharges are within 10 percent of 

true (McCormack and others, 2003).

Water-Surface Elevations

Water-surface elevations (high and low watermarks from 

peak and trough discharges, and strandlines from tributary and 

controlled floods) were surveyed with optical total stations 

located on geodetic control network benchmarks. The benchmarks were referenced to National Spatial Reference System 

(NSRS) control stations (Doyle, 1994) located along the 

canyon rim by using static Global Positioning System (GPS) 

techniques. GPS observations yield heights above the ellipsoid 

defined by the Geodetic Reference System of 1980 (GRS80) 

and the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). In this 

report, ellipsoidal heights have not been converted to North 

American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) orthometric 

heights because the current national geoid model (GEOID03) 

does not incorporate sufficient gravity measurements in the 

region to account for the effects of topography (mass/ void) 

on height measurements. As a result, spatial data collected for 

resource monitoring in GCNP is, at this time, referenced to the 

NAD83 ellipsoid (Saleh and others, 2003). When an accurate 

geoid model of the study area is produced, the stage-discharge 

relations in this report can readily be converted to NAVD88 

orthometric heights.

The control network benchmarks have positioning accuracies of less than 0.03 meter (m) and ellipsoidal height accuracies of between 0.01 and 0.10 m at 95 percent confidence 

(Zilkoski and others, 1997). Precision of optical measurements 

 Stage-Discharge Relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona, 1990-2005
is 0.05 m or better. Points collected along the water surface or 

along strand lines corresponded to an average density of one 

point per 1 to 2 linear meters. After verification of positions 

and heights, the point data were converted to mean values for 

the stage elevations of interest. The range of elevation differences was typically less than 0.10 m, and standard deviations 

were at or better than 0.03 m.

Computation of Stage-Discharge Relations

Stage-discharge relations were empirically developed for 

each site by compiling the stage data and assigning a discharge 

to each mean elevation by comparing steady discharges and 

daily peak and trough discharges from the nearest streamflowgaging station upstream or downstream from each site. Watersurface elevations surveyed during the rising or falling limb of 

the diurnal discharge wave were discarded. As a result, there 

was no need to route the relevant portions of the Glen Canyon 

Dam discharge record to the location of study by using the 

one-dimensional, unsteady-flow model of Wiele and Griffin 

(1997). Substantial differences in trough and peak discharges 

between streamflow-gaging stations were accounted for by 

interpolating the values between gages. Fitting a line to the 

data by using a second-order polynomial leads to a stagedischarge relation for a particular site as:

Z = C0 + C1Q + C2Q2, (1)

where Z is stage in meters, C0, C1, and C2 are polynomial 

coefficients referenced to NAD83 ellipsoid height, and 

Q is discharge in cubic meters per second. With the data 

available, this equation yields a rating curve for discharges 

between142 m3/s and 1,274 m3/s (fig. 2). The coefficient of 

determination (R2) of the fit to the data ranged from 0.993 to 

1.00. The rating curves and their applicable locations along 

the river are shown in table 1.

The stage change predicted by the relations varies considerably between sites. The smallest stage change between 

142 m3/s and 1,274 m3/s is 2.37 m at RM 66.1L, whereas the 

greatest stage change for this same difference in discharge is 

6.80 m at RM 213.3L (table 1). Because of the nature of the 

polynomial fit, extrapolation of the relations for discharges 

greater than 1,274 m3/s will yield erroneous values. In addition, to use the stage-discharge relation for discharge data 

in cubic feet per second, the data must first be converted to 

cubic meters per second.

Possible sources of error with this method are the effects 

of wave attenuation, evaporation, inflow from springs, or 

water released from bank storage between the streamflowgaging stations and each site of interest. However, the difference in rating curves between any two gaging stations is less 

than 5 percent during periods of little or no ungaged-tributary 

input, and, for the purposes of this report, these factors are 

negligible. Ungaged-tributary inflow was accounted for by 

solely utilizing the downstream gaging station from the site of 

interest. Given these independent sources of error and the error 

associated with optical total station surveys, a conservative 

Figure 3. Stage-discharge relations for the study site located 

at river mile 68.8R, showing the relations computed prior to and 

following a debris flow in Tanner Wash on August 20, 1993.

Figure 2. Stage-discharge relation for the study site located 

at river mile 122.7R.

0 500 1,000 1,500

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METERSPER SECOND

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

WAT

E

R-S

U

RFAC

E(S

TAG

E) ELEVATIO

N,

IN

M

E

T

E

R

S

A

B

OV

E

N

A

D83 ELLIP

S

OID

0 500 1,000 1,500

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC METERS PER SECOND

785

786

787

788

789

790

WAT

E

R-S

U

RFAC

E(S

TAG

E) ELEVATIO

N,

IN

M

E

T

E

R

S

A

B

OV

E

T

H

E

N

A

D83 ELLIP

S

OID

post-debris flow

pre-debris flow

error estimate of ±0.05 m was assigned to the rating curves in 

this report.

Local changes in the stage-discharge relations can be 

caused by changes in the channel constriction due to debris 

flows and rockfalls (fig. 3). During the period of study there 

were two debris flow-induced changes in channel geometry 

Data and Method Used in Formulating Stage-Discharge Relations   
that caused substantial changes in the nearby stage-discharge 

relation. The first was a debris flow in Tanner Wash on August 

20, 1993 (Melis and others, 1994) that increased the watersurface elevation of the pool upstream from Tanner Rapid 

(RM 69.0) by about 1.2 m at a discharge of 227 m3/s (fig. 3). 

The second was a debris flow in Lava Canyon (RM 65.8R) on 

September 11, 2002 that increased the water-surface elevation of the pool upstream from Lava Canyon Rapid (stagedischarge relation at RM 65.2R) by 0.3-0.5 m. Future debris 

flows in tributaries to the Colorado River could potentially 

cause hydraulic and geomorphic changes that would affect the 

stage-discharge relations described in this report.

Summary

Stage data collected from 1990-2005 were used to 

develop stage-discharge relations at 47 locations along the 

Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. The 

stage data were compiled and assigned discharge values by 

comparing steady discharges and daily peak and trough discharges from the nearest streamflow-gaging station, upstream 

or downstream from each site. A second-order polynomial was 

fit to the data yielding a rating curve for each site. The rating 

curves accurately predict stage within ±0.05 m, for discharges 

ranging from 141 m3/s to 1,274 m3/s. The stage change at the 

sites varied from 2.37 m to 6.80 m for this range of discharge. 

The relations are convenient to use and require no additional 

information to produce a stage prediction at a given location. 

Because of the nature of the polynomial fit, however, the 

relations are not suited for predicting river stages greater than 

1,274 m3/s. In order to use the stage-discharge relation for 

discharge data in cubic feet per second the data must first be 

converted to cubic meters per second.

References Cited

Cox, D., Lutz, C., and Nelson, C., 2005, Beach habitat 

building and status of the endangered Kanab Ambersnail, 

in Abstracts of the Colorado River Ecosystem Science 

Symposium, Tempe, Ariz., October 25-27: Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, p. 73.

Doyle, D.R., 1994, Development of the National Spatial 

Reference System, National Geodetic Survey, Silver Spring, 

Maryland, USA, http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/

develop_NSRS.html.

Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., 

Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Hunter, R.E., Kohl, K., 

Leap, L.M., Nials, F., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M., 2005, 

Sedimentology and stratigraphy of the Palisades, Lower 

Comanche, and Arroyo Grande areas of the Colorado River 

corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2005—5072, 68 p.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and 

Dale, A., 1999, Topographic and bathymetric changes 

at thirty-three long-term study sites, in R.H. Webb, J.C. 

Schmidt, G.R. Marzolf, and Valdez, R.A., eds., The controlled flood in Grand Canyon: American Geophysical 

Union Monograph Series, v. 110, p. 161-184.

Hazel, J.E., Jr., Topping, D. J., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, 

M., 2006, Influence of a dam on fine-sediment storage in 

a canyon river: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 111, 

F01025, doi: 10.1029/2004JF000193, 16 p.

Howard, A. D., and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the 

Colorado River: Journal of Geology, v. 89, p. 269-298.

Kaplinski, M., Hazel Jr., J. E., and Beus, S. S., 1995, Monitoring the effects of Interim Flows from Glen Canyon Dam on 

sand bars in the Colorado River Corridor, Grand Canyon 

National Park, Arizona: Final Report to Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, 

Ariz., 62 p.

Kaplinski, M., Hazel Jr., J.E., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., 2005, 

Campsite area monitoring in the Colorado River ecosystem, 

1998-2003: Final Report submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Northern Arizona University, 

Flagstaff, Ariz., 39 p.

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T., Sneep, 

J., and Magirl, C., 2005, Effects of 2003-2004 fluctuating 

flows from Glen Canyon Dam on the early life history 

stages of rainbow trout in the Colorado River: Final Report 

submitted to Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz., 183 p.

Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., and Buszowski, J., 2006, Effects of 

air and mainstem water temperatures, hydraulic isolation, and 

fluctuating flows from Glen Canyon Dam on water temperatures in nearshore and backwater environments in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon: Final Report to Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, Flagstaff, Ariz., 57 p.

Leopold, L.B., 1969, The rapids and the pools — Grand 

Canyon: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 669-D, 

p. 131-145.

Magirl, C.S., and Breedlove, M.J., 2005, An improved 

STARS model—predicted Colorado River water-surface 

elevations and virtual shorelines for flows up to 200,000 

ft3/s, Abstracts of the Colorado River Ecosystem Science 

Symposium, Tempe, Ariz., October 25-27: Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Center, p. 56.

McCormack, H.H., Fisk, G.G., Duet, N.R., Evans, D.W., 

Roberts, W.P., and Castillo, N.K., 2003, Water Resources 

Data for Arizona, Water Year 2002: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Data Report AZ-02-1, 337 p.

Melis, T.S., Webb, R.H., Griffiths, P.G., and Wise, T.J., and 

others, 1994, Magnitude and frequency data for historic

 Stage-Discharge Relations for the Colorado River in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons, Arizona, 1990-2005
debris flows in Grand Canyon National Park and vicinity, 

Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 94-4214, 285 p.

Meretsky, V.J., Stevens, L.E., and Wegner, D.L., 2000, Balancing endangered species and ecosystems — A case study 

of adaptive management in Grand Canyon: Environmental 

Management, v. 25, no. 6, p. 579-586.

National Research Council, 1999, Downstream — Adaptive 

Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River 

Ecosystem: Washington D.C., National Acadamy Press, 

230 p.

Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 

2175, 631 p.

Sabol, T.A., and Springer, A.E., 2005, Simulating the phreatic surface within new sediments deposited during the 

November 2004 High Flow Test along the Colorado River, 

Grand Canyon, Arizona: EOS Transactions, American 

Geophysical Union, 86(52), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract 

H53B-0472.

Saleh, R.A., Chayes, D.N., Dasler, J.L., Doyle, D.R., Sanchez, 

R., Renslow, M.S., and Rose, J.J., 2003, Survey protocol 

evaluation program: Final Report to the Grand Canyon 

Monitoring and Research Program, http://www.gcmrc.

gov/library/reports/GIS/Saleh2003.pdf.

Schmidt, J.C., and Graf, J. B., 1990, Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 to 1986, Colorado River, 

Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1493, 74 p.

Springer, A.E., Petroutson,W.D., and Semmens, B.A., 1999, 

Spatial and temporal variability of hydraulic conductivity 

in active reattachment bars of the Colorado River, Grand 

Canyon: Ground Water, v. 37, no. 3, p. 338-344.

Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, Jr., L.E., 2003, Computation and analysis of the instantaneous-discharge record 

for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921 

through September 30, 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1677, 118 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam—Final Environmental Impact Statement: Bureau 

of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, 337 p., plus appendices.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006, Grand Canyon Monitoring 

and Research Center, Colorado Mileage System [Spatial 

Database, GIS.BASE_GCMRC_TenthMile], 1st Revised 

Edition, accessed June 16, 2006, at URL http://www.gcmrc.

gov/products/ims/ims.htm

Wiele, S.M., and Griffin, E.R., 1997, Modifications to a onedimensional model of unsteady flow in the Colorado River 

through the Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 97-4046, 17 p.

Wiele, S.M., and Torrizo, M., 2003, A stage-normalized function for the synthesis of stage-discharge relations for the 

Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 03-4037, 23 p.

Wiele, S.M. and Torizzo, M., 2005, Modeling of sand deposition in archeologically significant reaches of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, USA, in Bates, P., Lane, S., 

and Ferguson, R., eds., Computational Fluid Dynamics 

— Applications in Environmental Hydraulics: West Sussex, 

England, John Wiley and Sons, p. 357-394.

Zilkoski, D.B., D’Onofrio, J.D. and Frakes, S.J., 1997, 

Guidelines for Establishing GPS-Derived Ellipsoid Heights 

(Standards: 2 cm and 5 cm), version 4.3, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NOS NGS-58, National Geodetic Survey, 

Silver Springs, MD, USA, 22 p., http://www.ngs.noaa.

gov/PUBS_LIB/NGS-58.html.

References Cited