05 – 06 Experimental Update on Fine-S

TWG Meeting – February 3, 200

9 Review Paria River Sediment Trigger & Activity (2004-05)9 Preliminary Results of Sand-Bar Area and VolumChanges as Measured in the Long-Term Monitoring Measured Repeatedly by the Northern Arizona UnivGeology Department9 Preliminary Results of the Suspended-Sediment Balance for Marble Canyon for July 2004 through J2005, as Estimated by the USGS

Preliminary Data – Subject to Review and Revision 02/02/05
Paria River Provides the Key S

Inputs in the Post-Dam Er

• Typically, inputs coabout 50% sand and • Concentrations as h1,000,000 mg/l (a womuddy stream!)• Average Annual Sa~1.4 million metric t• Median Sand Grain 115 

μm (fine)

• Located 15 Miles BCanyon Dam• Bars Structure Fish 

Sand Concentrations ~ 28% by Volume!!!August 24, 2003
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

.01

.1

15

102030507080909599

99.9

99.99

1924-20031980-2003 ONLY1997-2003 ONLY

PARIA RIVER ANNUAL SAND SUPPLY (million metric tons)

% OF YEARS IN WHICH SAND SUPPLY IS EXCEEDED

800,000 metric tons

61% OF YEARS EXCEEDED DURING 1924-200354% OF YEARS EXCEEDED DURING 1980-200355% OF YEARS EXCEEDED DURING 1997-2003

Basis for Experimental Design Relating to Paria River S(Testing the concept of sand bar response under a relatively frequent sand enrichment condition 

Preliminary Data – Subject to Review and Revision 02/02/05
Real-Time Estimation for Sand Inputs in S

of Experimental Triggering at Paria R

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

MODEL-PREDICTED SAND LOAD (kg/s)

(INCLUDES BOTH UNSAMPLED ZONE AND BEDLOAD)

MEASURED SAND LOAD (kg/s)

(DOES NOT INCLUDE UNSAMPLED ZONE OR BEDLOAD)

MEAN DIFFERENCE: MODEL IS 7% LOW RELATIVE TO MEASUREMENTSINTEGRATED DIFFERENCE: MODEL IS 7% LOW RELATIVE TO MEASUREMENTSn=93

MODEL-PREDICTED vs. MEASURED SAND LOAD  IN THE PARIA RIVER (JULY-OCTOBER 2004)

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

0 0.01 0.1 1 10 

MODEL-PREDICTED SILT&CLAY LOAD (kg/s)

(INCLUDES BOTH UNSAMPLED ZONE AND BEDLOAD)

MEASURED SILT&CLAY L

(DOES NOT INCLUDE UNSAMPLED 

MEAN DIFFERENCE: MODEL IS 36% HIGH RELAINTEGRATED DIFFERENCE: MODEL IS 36% HIGn=52

MODEL-PREDICTED vs. MEASURE IN THE PARIA RIVER (JULY-SE

(after Topping, 1997)

(after Topping, 1997)

Preliminary Data – Subject to Review and Revision 02/02/05

With Respect to Sand for events above 1,000 cfs, the model Works E
SOP for Reporting on Paria River San

Monitor storm activity & runoff from 3 “real-time” gaEvent Responses – field crews make flow measurcollect conventional SS samples (even if it’s cold, drainy).Modeling Estimated Inputs – the Arizona District USGS reports preliminary flow hydrograph and the model predicts sand and fine-sediment loads and gDelivery of Preliminary Results – the results are through the GCMRC and the BuRec is notified and (recently, this whole sequence has occurred in as lhours)
Ex Post-Facto Evaluation of the 2004 Warm-Sea

Inputs from Paria River

Warm-Season PPT started withSome Early “monsoon” activity,But Cumulative Rainfall was ScantUntil after September 1st, when Dam

Operations were Abruptly Reduced

Tropical Storms Came Late Warm Season with Largest EOccurring in Late October anNovember – From an Experi

Perspective, Total Sand InpuEqual to the Long-Term AnnAbout 800,000 metric tons.
0.0

0.51.01.52.02.53.0

2000 2001 2002 2003 20

TRIBUTARY SAND INPUT BETWEEN THE 

LEES FERRY AND GRAND CANYON GAGES

SINCE AUGUST 1, 1999

PARIA RIVER (20% UNCERTAINTY) LITTLE COLORADO RIVER (30% UNCERTAINTY)

CUMULATIVE SAND INPUT SINCE AUG 15, 1999 

(million metric tons)

Little Colorado River Drainage

Area ~ 26,091 sq. mi.

Paria River DrainageArea ~ 1,410 sq. mi.

Preliminary Data – Subject to Review and Revision 02/02/05
Results of Sep 2003 vs. Dec 200

NAU Sand Bar Surveys

Of the 12 Sites in Marble Canyon Where Sand-Bar Have Been Repeated Annually Since 1990:Upper Marble Canyon Response – Total Bar Area increased by 27% and Volume was increased by 5Lower Marble Canyon Response – Total Bar Areincreased by only 2%, while Total Bar Volume incre15%.Contrasting Response - Upper MC Bar Volume Rwas Almost 4X Greater than in Lower MC

Preliminary Results – Subject to Review and Revision 02/02/05
NAU Sand Bar Surveys: 1996 vs. 

Of the Sites in Marble Canyon Where Sand-Bar SuHave Been Repeated Annually Since 1990:Upper Marble Canyon Response - 2/3 of the sites in Upper Marble Were Larger with respect to Area and Volume after the 2004 Test thafter the 1996 BHBF Experiment (in Dec 2004, the total area of Uppwas back to 1990 level and there was 10% more sand volume!)Lower Marble Canyon Response – Only 1/3 of the sites measured atest were larger than they were following the 1996 BHBF Experimen2004, the total area was 23% less and the total volume was 4% less measured in 1990)2004 Experimental Sand Mass Balance – of the approximately 800,0tons input into Upper Marble Canyon in Jul-Nov 2004, approximately metric tons were retained in the reach above river mile 30, following High-Flow Test (the only documented positive result in Upper Marble during a high-flow release since high-resolution mass-balance bega1999.) Preliminary Data – Subject to Review and Revision 02/02/05
Update on Recent Fine-Sediment I

The Paria River peaked at 3,100 cfs on Jan 11, 2005

This was the largest peak since Oct 2000 and second largest since S

Estimated recent Marble Canyon Fine Sediment Inputs

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Dec-21

Dec-28

Jan-04

Jan-11

Jan-18

Jan-25

Feb-01

Million metric tons

SandTotal Fine Sediment

3,100 cfs Paria River peak on Jan 11, 2005 

Estimates based on Topping model20% sand uncertainty40% total fine sediment uncertainty10% contribution from other tribs 

Input Summary: De

Paria River + Marble tribSand: 1.2 – 1.8 Million me

Total Fines: ~2.2 – 5

Little Colorado RiverSand: 0.23 – 0.38 Mmt

Total Fines: perhaps 

Export: 0.2 – 0.5 Mm

mile since Ja

Retention: 0.7 – 1.6 Mm

retained aboMarble Cany

Export rate:Without furth

export is abosand every twunder 5-20k 

higher immediately f

Note: These numbers are preliminary and subject to change. In particular, the export numbers had to be estimated for the periods of highest export. Thus, processing of samples in the lab could significantly alter these numbers.

Preliminary Data – Subject to Review and Revision 02/02/05
Seasonal Timing of Paria River Sand Inputs into the Colora

Monthly-to-Diurnal Dam Operations (8.23 maf release 

-4.0-3.0-2.0-1.0

0.01.02.03.04.0

MASS-BALANCE SAND BUDGET

BETWEEN LEES FERRY AND THE GRAND CA

2000 2001 2002 2003 

MASS-BALANCE UNCERTAINTY 

WATER DISCHARGE

SAND MASS IN REACH RELATIVE TO 

THAT ON AUG 15, 1999 (million metric tons)

PARIA RIVER FLOODS LCR FLOOD

PARIA RIVER FL

ACCUMULATION

EROSION

Export of Sand is Forced by seasonally “adjusting” MonthlyVolumes in Minimum Release Years + Exp. FluctuatingFlows Designed to Disadvantage Non-Native FishTo Benefit Endangered Native Fish

Preliminary Data – Subject to Review and Revision 02/02/05

2004 Warm Season FloodPeaks Were in ThisRange with NominalDurations

-2.0-1.0

0.01.02.03.0

SEDIMENT-YEAR 2004 MASS-BALAN

BETWEEN LEES FERRY AND THE GRA

JUL 2003

SEP 2003

NOV 2003

JAN 2004

MAR 2004

MASS-BALANCE UNCERTAINTY EWATER DISCHARGE

SAND MASS IN REACH RELATIVE TO 

THAT ON JUL 1, 2003 (million metric tons)

PARIA RIVER FLOOD

ACCUMULATION

EROSION
Preliminary Data – Review Slides from the 08/09/04 A

-2.0-1.0

0.01.02.03.0

05112233

SEDIMENT-YEAR 2004 MASS-BALANCE SAND BUDGET

BETWEEN LEES FERRY AND THE GRAND CANYON GAG

JUL 2003

SEP 2003

NOV 2003

JAN 2004

MAR 2004

MAY 2004

JUL 2004

MASS-BALANCE UNCERTAINTY ENVELOPEWATER DISCHARGE

SAND MASS IN REACH RELATIVE TO 

THAT ON JUL 1, 2003 (million metric tons)

PARIA RIVER FLOOD

ACCUMULATION

EROSION

Under 2 Consecutive 8.23 MAF Release Water Years - What’s Happening He
Preliminary Data – Review Slides from the 08/09/04 

-2.0-1.0

0.01.02.03.0

05,0101520253035

SEDIMENT-YEAR 2003 MASS-BALANCE SAND BUDGET

BETWEEN LEES FERRY AND THE GRAND CANYON GAG

JUL 2002

SEP 2002

NOV 2002

JAN 2003

MAR 2003

MAY 2003

JUL 2003

MASS-BALANCE UNCERTAINTY ENVELOPEWATER DISCHARGE

SAND MASS IN REACH RELATIVE TO 

THAT ON JUL 1, 2002 (million metric tons)

LITTLE COLORADO RIVER FLOOD

ACCUMULATION

EROSION

Under 2 Consecutive 8.23 MAF Release Water Years - What’s HaNeed to Further Assess the Pattern of Monthly Release Volumes 
SBSC’s Grand Canyon Monitoring & Research Cen

Ongoing Considerations for Future 

Experimental Operations & Managemen

Other Sediment Experimental Treatments for Consideration by - Discuss whether or not it is still desirable or useful to test ExpeHigh-Flow scenarios #2 or #3 (from 2002 EA) to further learning- Consider recommendations for testing even shorter-duration hreleases (30 hours or less) following significant fine-sediment enrfrom Paria or Little Colorado Rivers, perhaps preceded by a per

fluctuating flows of prescribed duration that would more evenly new sand inputs through more of the test reach (presumably at tlosing more of the sub-sand sized material before the high flow r- Consider recommendations for other alternative operational teEIS strategy for accumulating multiple sand inputs over the couthan 1 year that might result in a more robust sand supply to meresponse against (within Record-of-Decision constraints)?
0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Sand Bar Area (m2)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Daily Mean Discharge

from Glen Canyon Dam (ft3/s)

Sand Bar Area and Volume above 8,000 ft3/s

in Upper and Lower Marble Canyon

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Sand Bar Volume (m3)

Year

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Daily Mean Discharge

from Glen Canyon Dam (ft3/s)

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

1996

Controlled Flood 2000 LSSF 2004 HighFlow Experiment

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

3 - 33 mile

43 - 56 mile

3 - 33 mile

43 - 56 mile

1996

Controlled Flood

2000 LSSF 2004 High

Flow Experiment