Prepared in cooperation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program 

Draft Report to the Technical Work Group of the Glen 

Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program: 

Recommended Protocols for Core Monitoring of Sediment 

within the Colorado River Ecosystem Below Glen Canyon 

Dam 

Part IV – Developing a Scientifically Based Long-Term 

Monitoring Plan for the GCDAMP 

By David J. Topping, Scott A. Wright, David M. Rubin, and Theodore S. Melis 

DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
 ii

U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 200x 

Revised and reprinted: 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 

Suggested citation: 

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 material contained within this report. 
 iii

Contents 

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................1

Part 1. Recommended Protocols for Monitoring Suspended-Sediment Flux Throughout the Colorado River .4 

Part 2. Recommended Protocols for Monitoring Changes in Sand Storage Throughout the Colorado River 

Ecosystem..........................................................................................................................................................................16

Figures 

1.1 Location map showing streamflow and suspended-sediment transport data collection sites and fine 

sediment budget reaches....................................................................................................................................9 

1.2 Examples of the high-resolution laser-acoustic suspended-sediment data from the Grand Canyon 

gaging station beyond the period of calibration ...........................................................................................11 

1.3 Examples of mass-balance sand budgets for two reaches in the CRE during October 2006–February 

2007........................................................................................................................................................................12 

1.4 Example of a mass-balance pie chart indicating the March 1, 2007, location of large sand inputs 

supplied to the CRE by the Paria River in October 2006...............................................................................13 

2.1 Relation between the volume of sand measured by the mass-balance project between river miles 30 

and 61 and the volume of sand in combined FIST reaches 4 (river miles 29–32), 5 (river miles 42–46), 

and 6 (river miles 54–56) ....................................................................................................................................18 

2.2 Location map showing sediment budget reaches for Goals 7 and 8 core monitoring activities .............19 

2.3 Relation between the volume of sand measured by the mass-balance project between river miles 1 

and 30 and the volume of sand in (a) the low-elevation (<8,000 ft3/s) eddies and channel in 

combined FIST reaches 2 (river miles 1–3) and 3 (river miles 21–23), (b) only the channel in 

combined FIST reaches 2 and 3, and (c) only the low-elevation eddies in combined FIST reaches 2 

and 3. .....................................................................................................................................................................21 

2.4 Relation between the volume of sand measured by the mass-balance project between river miles 30 

and 61 and the volume of sand in (a) the low-elevation (<8,000 ft3/s) eddies and channel in 

combined FIST reaches 4 (river miles 29–32), 5 (river miles 42–46), and 6 (river miles 54–56), (b) only 

the channel in combined FIST reaches 4, 5, and 6, and (c) only the low-elevation eddies in combined 

FIST reaches 4, 5, and 6.....................................................................................................................................23 

Tables 

2.1 Possible alternatives for implementing long-term sediment monitoring tasks with and without 

beach/habitat building flow tests.....................................................................................................................29
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 1

1 Part IV – Developing a Scientifically Based Long2 Term Monitoring Plan for the GCDAMP 

3 By David J. Topping, Scott A. Wright, David M. Rubin, and Theodore S. Melis 

4 Executive Summary 

5 This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Grand Canyon 

6 Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) in cooperation with its sediment research cooperators 

7 to provide specific recommendations to the Technical Work Group of the Glen Canyon Dam 

8 Adaptive Management Program on long-term monitoring of sediment resources below Glen 

9 Canyon Dam. As described in the 2007–11 Monitoring and Research Plan, these recommendations 

10 represent the final step in a four-part process for developing an integrated long-term monitoring 

11 plan for the Colorado River ecosystem below Glen Canyon Dam. As such, this report provides a 

12 brief summary of the research findings from two science projects that were funded between 2000 

13 and 2007 specifically to test and evaluate new and existing methods for measuring suspended14 sediment transport and sand storage within the Colorado River ecosystem below the dam. The 

15 ecosystem is a complex river system that extends through Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

16 and Grand Canyon National Park, a distance of some 400 kilometers. The report also includes key 

17 findings from the ongoing external peer-review process for sediment monitoring, a three-part 

18 review that began in 1998 and was concluded in August 2006. 

19 The recommendations contained in this report are based on a combination of previous and 

20 ongoing sediment transport research, information needs identified by stakeholders, guidance from 

21 three external peer-review panels, a recent National Research Council (NRC) report on USGS river 

science1 22 , as well as logistical and programmatic constraints. While only a small amount of the 

23 published scientific information is recounted in this report, the entire body of findings has been 

24 carefully considered as the basis for specific recommendations contained herein. In addition to the 

25 guidance provided by previous research, stakeholder information needs, and peer-review panels (all 

26 described for Goals 7 and 8 in Parts 1 and 2 of this report, respectively), we have also taken into 

27 consideration the recent recommendations provided by the NRC with respect to sediment transport 

28 science and monitoring in rivers, as follows: 

29 

30 • “The USGS should increase its efforts to improve the understanding of sediment transport 

31 and river geomorphology in the nation’s rivers. Activities should include advancing basic 

32 research on sediment-transport processes, developing new technologies for measuring 

33 fluxes of bedload, suspended load, and washload, and monitoring flow velocity and water 

34 temperature associated with such sediment transport conditions. Through these activities, 

35 the USGS can provide key information and tools to predict channel morphodynamics, 

36 develop methods to mitigate future problems arising from sediment movement, and play a 

 

1

 Committee on River Science at the U.S. Geological Survey, National Research Council, 2007. River science at the 

U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 194 p. 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 2

1 guiding role in multi-agency efforts to deal with the increasingly important national 

2 sediment challenges.” 

3 

4 • “Leveraging the infrastructure of the stream gaging network, the USGS should greatly 

5 expand sediment monitoring of the nation’s rivers. To meet the growing needs for sediment 

6 data, the USGS should take the lead in developing a comprehensive national sediment 

7 monitoring program.” 

8 

9 • “An index reach monitoring approach would help address many data needs for USGS river 

10 science priorities. The USGS should begin efforts to design and implement sampling plans 

11 on reach scales to integrate monitoring of physical, chemical, and biological condition for 

12 river science investigations.” 

13 

14 While it is clear that a monitoring program for a single river ecosystem cannot completely 

15 satisfy these broad recommendations, we feel that the monitoring program outlined herein at least 

16 partly addresses each recommendation, and can serve as an example that may be followed in the 

17 future for rivers with similar sediment transport issues as the Colorado River below Glen Canyon 

18 Dam. Finally, we have necessarily taken into consideration some broad logistical and 

19 programmatic constraints in developing these recommendations. For example, one approach would 

20 be to recommend monitoring of all tributaries that have been identified to deliver sediment to the 

21 Colorado River in the reach of interest; however, since there are nearly 800 of these tributaries, this 

22 approach would not be logistically or financially feasible. Thus, we have used knowledge of the 

23 system gained from previous research (e.g., the relative importance of the various tributaries with 

24 respect to sediment inputs) in combination with the stakeholder information needs and management 

25 objectives, to develop monitoring recommendations that balance the need for information with the 

26 logistical and programmatic constraints. In the end, the level of monitoring must be sufficient to 

27 evaluate the state of the resource of interest over the long-term: logistical and programmatic 

28 constraints cannot be allowed to compromise this evaluation. We believe that the monitoring 

29 program outlined herein will meet this objective. 

30 The basic recommendations for long-term monitoring of sediment below the dam consist of 

31 a combination of annual to less frequent tasks aimed at: (1) continuously monitoring the flow and 

32 suspended-sediment flux (including grain size) between the dam and upper Lake Mead using a 

33 variety of conventional and sediment surrogate methods as part of Goal 7 (Quality of Water); (2) 

34 quantifying sediment storage throughout the system as part of Goal 8 (Sediment). Quantify 

35 sediment storage throughout the system requires annually measuring a subset of higher elevation 

36 sand deposits (with emphasis on sandbars used as campsites) in support of Goal 9 (Recreation); 

37 repeating inventories of all exposed mid- to higher elevation sand areas systemwide as derived 

38 from remote sensing imagery captured above 8,000 cfs stage elevation in support of Goals 6 

39 (Riparian Vegetation), 9 (Recreation), 11 (Cultural) and Goal 2 (DASA); and repeating annually to 

40 biennially topographic channel mapping of continuous reaches between the separate suspended41 sediment flux monitoring stations with emphasis on topography and grain size data below 8,000 cfs 

42 stage elevation as the third component of Goal 8 (Sediment) monitoring. 

43 In addition, as part of Goal 8 (Sediment), the recommendations also include the 

44 continuation of an appropriate level of long-term monitoring of coarse sediment impacts to the 

45 main channel from tributary floods and debris flows using field methods that have been previously 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 3

1 described in the ecosystem in combination with imagery from overflights (above 8,000 cfs stage 

2 elevation). 

3 While these recommendations are forwarded to managers for their consideration, the 

4 sediment researchers continue to evaluate existing data collected during past research. As with any 

5 planning process, the GCMRC anticipates that continued discussions between scientists and 

6 managers will result in a core monitoring strategy for sediment that meets the needs of the Glen 

7 Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 4

1 PART 1. Quality of Water [fine sediment] - Recommended Protocols for 

2 Monitoring Suspended-Sediment Flux Throughout the Colorado River 

3 Ecosystem 

4 In support of GCDAMP Goal 7: Establish water temperature, quality and flow dynamics to 

5 achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals (downstream sediment component only) 

6 Project Title 

7 Long-term monitoring for the “mass balance” of fine sediment (defined here as sand-sized 

8 and smaller particles) in multiple reaches of the CRE based on suspended-sediment flux 

9 measurements (short title: Mass Balance) 

10 Geographic Scope 

11 The mass balance project is primarily focused on a sub-reach of the main channel of the 

12 Colorado River ecosystem (CRE) from Lees Ferry (river mile 0) to upper Lake Mead (as measured 

13 at the gage upstream of Diamond Creek (river mile 226) (fig. 1.1). In addition, this project uses a 

14 combination of monitoring and modeling of tributary sediment inputs such that fine sediment and 

15 flow monitoring activities are also carried out in various tributary watersheds.

16 Justification for Long-Term Monitoring Effort 

17 The primary linkage between dam operations and the response of the physical, biological, 

18 and cultural resources in the Colorado River ecosystem between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead 

19 is through the discharge and quality of water in the Colorado River (U.S. Department of the 

20 Interior, 1995; National Research Council, 1996). Releases from Glen Canyon Dam provide the 

21 principal control on the discharge of water in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and 

22 Lake Mead. Only during periods of large tributary floods do tributaries exert any substantial 

23 control on the discharge of the Colorado River in the CRE. Fine sediment is an important water24 quality parameter in the CRE because it comprises side-channel deposits that are important to 

25 multiple biological, cultural, and recreational resources (Rubin and others, 2002; Wright and 

26 others, 2005), and, when suspended in the water column, influences the aquatic ecology of the 

27 river. 

28 Systematic measurements of the discharge of water and the quality of water (including 

29 suspended-sediment concentration) in the CRE began with the installation of the Lees Ferry gaging 

30 station by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in May 1921 (Topping and others, 2003; Howard, 

1947). During much of the 20th 31 century, daily measurements of suspended-sediment concentration 

32 and temperature, and episodic measurements of other water-quality parameters were made by the 

33 USGS at multiple sites in the CRE. This intensive period of measurements ended in the early 1970s 

34 (Topping and others, 2000a). 

35 Concern over the effects of the operations of Glen Canyon Dam on the CRE resulted in a 

36 new emphasis on measurements and modeling of water quality in the early 1980s (National 

37 Research Council, 1996). The results of these studies have been published in numerous USGS 

38 reports and journal articles. Research during and following the 1996 controlled-flood release (also 

39 referred to as a test of the beach/habitat-building flow concept or BHBF) from Glen Canyon Dam 

40 indicated that because sand transport was not regulated solely by the discharge of water (Rubin and 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 5

1 others, 1998, 2002; Topping and others, 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2005, in press a; Rubin and Topping, 

2 2001; Wright and others, 2005), a return to a daily measurement program was required to track the 

3 status of the sediment budget in the CRE. This resulted in reinstituting quasi-daily suspended4 sediment measurements at three gaging stations in the CRE in August 1999. Because substantial 

5 large discharge-independent changes in suspended-sediment concentration occur over timescales 

6 that could not be captured by this quasi-daily program, and this quasi-daily program proved to be 

7 cost prohibitive, laser diffraction and acoustic technologies for measuring suspended-sediment 

8 concentration and grain size were developed and tested in the CRE beginning in 2001 (Melis and 

9 others, 2003; Topping and others, 2004, 2006b, in press b). These tests have been successful and 

10 have been published in numerous reports in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Where and when 

11 possible, predictive models have been developed and tested for stage, discharge, and sediment12 transport. 

13 Computing fine-sediment budgets for various reaches is required for evaluating the effects 

14 of dam operations, including controlled floods. The most recent of three sediment protocol 

15 evaluation panels, SEDS-PEP III (Wohl and others, 2006), recognized this need and stated the 

16 following: 

17 “The second approach for monitoring sediment is to track inputs, storage, and outputs for a 

18 sediment mass balance. This provides the ability to quantify a trigger for beach habitat building 

19 flows (BHBFs). Continuing key uncertainties in using the mass balance approach include 

20 inputs from the Paria and the LCR [Little Colorado River], how much sediment remains stored 

21 in the main channel, and how much sediment has moved through the river system. Further 

22 quantifying the mass balance will provide insight into these unknowns for future controlled 

23 floods. A minimal level of mass balance would be based on considering only inputs. A more 

24 robust mass balance would also include outputs and overall mass balance. The panel believes 

25 that it is critical to have the more robust mass balance because our understanding of the system 

26 is insufficient at this point to make recommendations about controlled floods.” 

27 Herein we outline the “more robust” mass balance as recommended by the SEDS-PEP III 

28 (PEP). The PEP also recommended monitoring of the size and distribution of sandy deposits; this 

29 recommendation is addressed in the section on Goal 8 of the draft core monitoring report. Finally, 

30 the PEP panel reviewed the downstream quality-of-water project (which includes mass balance) 

31 annual work plan (Topping and others, 2006a) and stated: 

32 “In summary, the review panel commends the physical resources program director and 

33 contributing scientists for the progress made with respect to core monitoring and analysis since 

34 the 1999 program review. Although the panel believes that many specific improvements can be 

35 made within the physical resources program and in cross-program linkages within GCMRC, 

36 we think that the physical resources program is proceeding in a manner that will be effective in 

37 addressing core monitoring information needs and strategic science questions.” 

38 AMWG Goal(s) Addressed 

39 The mass balance project directly supports achievement of the following AMP goals:

40 

41 Goal 7 – Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve AMP 

42 ecosystem goals. 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 6

1 

2 Goal 8 – Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and 

3 along shorelines to achieve AMP ecosystem goals. 

4 

5 Because the project addresses the physical framework of the ecosystem, which underlies 

6 many biological, cultural, and recreational resource objectives, it indirectly supports achievement 

7 of almost all other AMP goals, as follows: 

8 

9 Goal 1 – Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable 

10 populations of desired species at higher trophic levels. The mass balance project 

11 supports this goal by providing information on flows and turbidity that aids in food base 

12 studies, such as the assessment of primary productivity and allochthonous inputs.

13 

14 Goal 2 – Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove 

15 jeopardy for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification 

16 to their critical habitats. The mass balance project supports this goal by providing 

17 sediment concentration data that is used to adjust for catch efficiency in population models, 

18 flow and stage data that is important to understanding the effects of nearshore habitat 

19 disruption caused by fluctuating flows, and information on sandbars which create backwater 

20 habitats that are thought to be important for native fish.

21 

22 Goal 6 – Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the 

23 Colorado River ecosystem, including threatened and endangered species and their 

24 critical habitat. The mass balance project tracks the transport and fate of fine sediment 

25 which provides the substrate for riparian vegetation and marsh communities.

26 

27 Goal 9 – Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

28 Colorado River ecosystem within the framework of AMP ecosystem goals. The mass 

29 balance project provides information to understand flow dynamics and the size and 

30 abundance of sandbars, which are resources that affect the recreational experiences of 

31 Colorado River users.

32 

33 Goal 11 – Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration 

34 and benefit of past, present, and future generations. The mass balance project collects 

35 information on sandbars that provide a source of sediment, through aeolian transport, to 

36 high elevation sand deposits that contain archaeological resources.

37 Key Science Questions and Managers’ Information Needs Addressed 

38 Several strategic science questions (SSQ) were identified by scientists and managers during 

39 the Knowledge Assessment Workshop conducted in the summer of 2005 (Melis and others, 2006). 

40 The mass balance monitoring project provides valuable information to help answer several of the 

41 questions related to sediment conservation, and in particular the primary sediment question: “Is 

42 there a ‘Flow-Only’ operation (i.e. a strategy for dam releases, including managing tributary inputs 

43 with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and maintain sandbar habitats over 

44 decadal time scales?” 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 7

1 The 2003 AMP Strategic Plan identified Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs) 

2 related to flow and water quality (Goal 7) and sediment storage (Goal 8). Because fine sediment is 

3 a water-quality parameter as well as a component of sediment storage, the fine sediment mass 

4 balance project addresses CMINs falling under Goals 7 and 8. The CMINS that are addressed by 

5 the mass balance project are listed below. For each, the prioritization ranking applied by the AMP 

6 Science Planning Group in 2006 is also included. 

7 

8 CMIN 7.4.1 – Determine and track releases from Glen Canyon Dam under all operating 

9 conditions. #1 ranked Goal 7 CMIN. 

10 

11 CMIN 7.4.2 – Determine and track flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam, particularly 

12 related to flow duration, upramp, and downramp conditions. #1 ranked Goal 7 CMIN 

13 (essentially the same as 7.4.1). 

14 

15 CMIN 7.2.1 – Determine the seasonal and yearly trends in turbidity, water temperature, 

16 conductivity, DO, and pH, (decide below whether selenium is important) changes in the 

17 mainstem throughout the Colorado River ecosystem. #3 ranked Goal 7 CMIN. 

18 

19 CMIN 7.1.2 – Determine and track LCR discharge near mouth (below springs). #4 ranked 

20 Goal 7 CMIN. 

21 

22 CMIN 8.1.3 – Track, as appropriate, the monthly sand and silt/clay -input volumes and 

23 grain-size characteristics, by reach, as measured or estimated at the Paria and Little 

24 Colorado River stations, other major tributaries like Kanab and Havasu creeks, and “lesser” 

25 tributaries. #1 ranked Goal 8 CMIN. 

26 

27 CMIN 8.1.2 – What are the monthly sand and silt/clay -export volumes and grain-size 

28 characteristics, by reach, as measured at Lees Ferry, Lower Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon, 

29 and Diamond Creek Stations? #2 ranked Goal 8 CMIN. 

30 

31 Developing and testing monitoring protocols for these CMINs was the primary focus of 

32 research and development conducted during fiscal years (FY) 1998–2006, as reviewed by SEDS33 PEP III. 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 8

1 Project Goals, Tasks, and Schedule by Task 

2 The overarching goal of the mass balance project is to provide information to the 

3 management group that meets their information needs, such that they can manage the system in a 

4 way that addresses their management goals (as outlined in the previous section). The primary tasks 

5 associated with meeting this objective are as follows: 

6 

7 • Collection of high-resolution time series of suspended-sediment flux at multiple mainstem 

8 locations and major tributaries (methods outlined in the following section). 

9 • Collection of high-resolution stage (discharge is computed based on results from a 

10 multidimensional flow model) and episodic suspended-sediment data on key lesser 

11 tributaries in Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. 

12 • Processing and analysis of the suspended-sediment flux data in order to construct sediment 

13 budgets for multiple reaches of the river through Marble and Grand Canyons. 

14 • Publication of the results in peer-reviewed outlets (USGS reports, journal articles) and 

15 presentation of the results at AMP management and scientific meetings. 

16 

17 The schedule of the mass balance core monitoring project is on a continuing basis. Data are 

18 collected essentially continuously, with results published annually (USGS report) and presentations 

19 given at Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management meetings on a biannual basis. 

20 Recommended Long-Term Monitoring Protocols 

21 Surface water measurements (i.e., stage and discharge) would be made through this project, 

22 using standard USGS methods (described in Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the 

23 U.S. Geological Survey, Book 3, Section A), at the following sites (see fig. 1.1): Colorado River at 

24 Lees Ferry, AZ (09380000), Colorado River near river mile 30 (new), Colorado River above the 

25 Little Colorado River near Desert View, AZ (09383100, currently discontinued), Colorado River 

26 near Grand Canyon, AZ (09402500), Colorado River above National Canyon near Supai, AZ 

27 (09404120, currently discontinued), Colorado River above Diamond Creek near Peach Springs, AZ 

28 (09404200), Paria River near Kanab, UT (09381800), Paria River at Lees Ferry, AZ (09382000), 

29 Little Colorado River near Cameron, AZ (09402000), Little Colorado River above mouth near 

30 Desert View, AZ (09402300), Moenkopi Wash Wash near Cameron, AZ (09401500, currently 

31 discontinued), Havasu Creek above mouth near Supai, AZ (09404115), and Kanab Creek above 

32 mouth near Supai, AZ (09403850, currently discontinued) (see fig. 1.1). At most sites, 15-minute 

33 data will be available approximately real-time (every four hours) through the USGS NWIS 

34 database (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/rt). The surface water gages would be maintained and 

35 operated by the USGS Water Resources Discipline (WRD) Arizona and Utah Water Science 

36 Centers. 

37 

38 

39 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 9

1 

2 Figure 1.1 Location map showing streamflow and suspended-sediment transport data collection 

3 sites and fine sediment budget reaches. Locations of lesser tributary monitoring stations are not 

4 shown.

5 The supply of fine sediment to the Colorado River from tributaries downstream from Glen 

6 Canyon Dam is computed using a combination of physically based models and measurements. On 

7 a near real-time basis, the concentration and grain-size distribution of the sand and finer material 

8 supplied by the major tributaries (Paria and Little Colorado Rivers) are computed using the real9 time discharge data along with a geomorphically coupled flow and sediment-transport model 

10 (Topping, 1997). Sediment-transport measurements are collected on these two major tributaries by 

11 conventional and pump methodologies by the USGS WRD Arizona and Utah Water Science 

12 Centers and provided to our laboratory. Because of the uncertainties associated with measurements 

13 of discharge and suspended-sediment concentration on the Paria River, additional sediment14 transport data may be collected on the Colorado River downstream from the mouth of the Paria 

15 River as an additional constraint on the fine-sediment supply to Marble Canyon during periods of 

16 flooding on the Paria River. As sediment transport data become available from the GCMRC’s 

17 sediment laboratory, the predictions from the models are verified (to within the error in the 

UMC 

LM

C 

EGC 

CGC 

WGC 

Mainstem flow 

Mainstem flow and sediment 

Tributary flow and sediment 

Sediment budget reach 

UMC – upper Marble Canyon 

LMC – lower Marble Canyon 

EGC – eastern Grand Canyon 

CGC – central Grand Canyon 

WGC – western Grand Canyon 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 10

1 measurements) and adjusted if necessary. Inputs of suspended sediment from Kanab and Havasu 

2 Creeks and Moenkopi Wash will be estimated on an event basis using measurements of flow and 

3 suspended-sediment concentration and grain-size using standard USGS methods (Techniques of 

4 Water-Resources Investigations of the U.S. Geological Survey, Book 3, Section C ). Inputs of 

5 suspended sand (with grain size) and suspended silt and clay from the lesser tributaries are 

6 computed based on stage and sediment data collected in a network established beginning in 2000; 

7 this network now covers 55% of the formerly ungaged tributary area between Glen Canyon Dam 

8 and the Little Colorado River. 

9 Mainstem suspended-sediment concentration and grain size are monitored every 15 minutes 

10 using laser-acoustic technologies at the following sites: 30-mile, 61-mile, 87-mile (near Grand 

11 Canyon gage), 166-mile, and 226-mile (above Diamond Creek gage, see figs. 1.1 and 1.2). The 

12 methodologies associated with the laser-acoustic technologies are described in Melis and others 

13 (2003), and Topping and others (2004, 2006b, and in press b). Conventional pump and cross14 sectionally integrated samples are also collected at these sites for calibration and validation of the 

15 laser-acoustic technologies. At the sites that are not monitored for stage and discharge by the 

16 Arizona Water Science Center (30-mile, 61-mile, 166-mile), stage is measured with the acoustic 

17 instrumentation and stage-discharge rating curves have been developed based on discharge 

18 measurements during the November 2004 controlled flood/BHBF test and during subsequent river 

19 trips. The discharge time series allow for computation of suspended-sediment flux, by grain size, at 

20 all sites. 

21 

 (a)

0

500

1,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1-12-20051-14-20051-16-20051-18-20051-20-20051-22-20051-24-20051-26-20051-28-2005

SUSPENDED-SILT & CLAY CONCENTRATION

WATER DISCHARGE

LISST-100

LISST-25X

3-FREQ. ACOUSTIC

CABLEWAY

PUMP

WATER DISCHARGE (m3/s)

CONCENTRATION (mg/l)

22 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 11

 (b)

0

500

1,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1-12-20051-14-20051-16-20051-18-20051-20-20051-22-20051-24-20051-26-20051-28-2005

SUSPENDED-SAND CONCENTRATION

WATER DISCHARGE

LISST-100

LISST-25X

3-FREQ. ACOUSTIC

CABLEWAY

PUMP

WATER DISCHARGE (m3/s)

CONCENTRATION (mg/l)

1 

2 

 (c)

0

500

1,000

0.07

0.09

0.11

0.13

0.15

0.17

0.19

1-12-20051-14-20051-16-20051-18-20051-20-20051-22-20051-24-20051-26-20051-28-2005

SUSPENDED-SAND D50

WATER DISCHARGE

LISST-100

3-FREQ. ACOUSTIC

CABLEWAY

PUMP

WATER DISCHARGE (m3/s)

D

50 (mm)

3 

4 

5 Figure 1.2 Examples of the high-resolution laser-acoustic suspended-sediment data from the 

6 Grand Canyon gaging station beyond the period of calibration. No EDI measurements were made 

7 from the cableway during this 17-day period. Silt and clay concentrations were too high during the 

8 first 3 1/2 days of this period to get LISST or acoustic measurements of suspended-sand 

9 concentration or median grain size. (a) Silt and clay concentration (preceding page), (b) Sand 

concentration, (c) Suspended-sand median grain size (D50 10 ). 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 12

1 

2 The tributary and mainstem suspended-sediment flux data are then used to compute 

3 sediment budgets, by summing the inputs and subtracting the export, for the following reaches of 

4 the CRE (fig. 1.1): river miles 0 to 30 (upper Marble Canyon, UMC), river miles 30 to 62 (lower 

5 Marble Canyon, LMC), river miles 62 to 88 (eastern Grand Canyon, EGC), river miles 87 to 166 

6 (central Grand Canyon, CGC), and river miles 166 to 226 (western Grand Canyon, WGC). These 

7 sediment budgets indicate whether sediment is accumulating or eroding, within the error associated 

8 with the measurements, from the given reach over the time period analyzed (figs. 1.3 and 1.4). 

9 

10 

(a)

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

MASS-BALANCE SAND BUDGET

FOR UPPER MARBLE CANYON (river-miles 1-30)

OCTOBER

2006

NOVEMBER

2006

DECEMBER

2006

JANUARY

2007

FEBRUARY

2007

MASS-BALANCE UNCERTAINTY ENVELOPE

WATER DISCHARGE

SAND MASS IN REACH RELATIVE TO 

THAT ON OCTOBER 1, 2006 (million metric tons)

INSTANTANEOUS DISCHARGE AT RIVER-MILE 30 (ft 3/s)

ACCUMULATION

EROSION

PARIA

RIVER

FLOODS

11 

(b)

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

MASS-BALANCE SAND BUDGET

FOR LOWER MARBLE CANYON (river-miles 30-61)

OCTOBER

2006

NOVEMBER

2006

DECEMBER

2006

JANUARY

2007

FEBRUARY

2007

MASS-BALANCE UNCERTAINTY ENVELOPE

WATER DISCHARGE

SAND MASS IN REACH RELATIVE TO 

THAT ON OCTOBER 1, 2006 (million metric tons)

INSTANTANEOUS DISCHARGE AT RIVER-MILE 61 (ft3/s)

ACCUMULATION

EROSION

12 

13 Figure 1.3 Examples of mass-balance sand budgets for two reaches in the CRE during October 

14 2006–February 2007: (a) upper Marble Canyon and (b) lower Marble Canyon. 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 13

1 Linkage to Other Resources, Processes and Models 

2 The mass balance core monitoring project provides data that is essential to the development 

3 and testing of numerical predictive models of discharge, stage, sediment transport, sandbar 

4 morphology, and other water-quality parameters (such as temperature, because these models 

5 require discharge and stage data/models). These predictive models can be used to evaluate a wide 

6 range of resource responses, such as the fate of sandbar habitats, to various dam release scenarios, 

7 such as controlled floods, steady flows, fluctuating flows, etc. 

8 The mass balance project provides the sediment data required for triggering future BHBF 

9 tests and management actions. 

10 The mass balance project also supports new research focused on the food web of the river 

11 ecosystem by providing continuous data on surface flow in the main channel and major tributaries, 

12 as well as suspended-sediment concentrations and grain size for suspended particles in transport. 

13 The mass balance and food web research project currently share personnel and sampling resources 

14 in order to document the organic content of suspended material. 

15 Finally, the mass balance project supports science activities in the fisheries program by 

16 providing flow and quality-of-water data that may be used by the fisheries biologist in evaluating 

17 their fish catch data, as well as growth, movement and habitat use information. In particular, 

18 suspended fines (silt and clay) data are currently being used to evaluate the catchability of 

19 nonnative fishes via electrofishing. 

20 

UPPER MARBLE CANYON

(river-miles 1-30)

LOWER MARBLE CANYON

(river-miles 30-61)

GRAND CANYON

(> river-mile 61)

> 680,000 metric tons

above river-mile 30

21 

22 Figure 1.4. Example of a mass-balance pie chart indicating the March 1, 2007, location of large 

23 sand inputs supplied to the CRE by the Paria River in October 2006. 

24 Expected Outcomes 

25 The expected outcomes are detailed throughout this report, summarized as follows: 

26 

27 • Streamflow (discharge and stage), and suspended-sediment concentration and grain-size 

28 time series at multiple mainstem sites and at the mouths of major tributaries (fig. 1.1). 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 14

1 • Sediment budgets for five reaches of the CRE: upper Marble Canyon, lower Marble 

2 Canyon, eastern Grand Canyon, central Grand Canyon, and western Grand Canyon 

3 (figs.1.1–1.4). 

4 • Annual peer-reviewed USGS report documenting results of the monitoring project. 

5 • Contribution to other research-related peer-reviewed publications (such as models). 

6 • Biannual presentations at GCDAMP meetings. 

7 Estimated proposed annual funding for core monitoring program 

8 Out of a total gross budget projected for FY 2008 downstream quality of water monitoring 

9 project of $883,024, the GCMRC estimated that approximately $700,000 of this amount is required 

10 to support monitoring of surface water and suspended-sediment data for the fine sediment mass 

11 balance (flux) monitoring currently described in the FY 2008 annual work plan. The estimated 

12 additional cost for all flow and suspended-sediment data required to fully implement the 

13 recommendations described herein is $345,000, resulting in a total funding need of $1,045,000. 

14 GOAL 7 - Sediment Monitoring References 

15 

16 Howard, C.S., 1947, Suspended sediment in the Colorado River 1925–41: U.S. Geological Survey 

17 Water-Supply Paper 998, 165 p. 

18 Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin D.M., 2003, Testing laser-based sensors for continuous in 

19 situ monitoring of suspended sediment in the Colorado River, Arizona, in Bogen, J., Fergus, T., 

20 and Walling, D.E., eds., Erosion and sediment transport measurement in rivers: technological and 

21 methodological advances: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, IAHS Press, IAHS 

22 Publication 283, p. 21–27. 

23 Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Ralston, B.E., Fairley, H.C., Kennedy, T.A., Andersen, M.E., Coggins, 

24 L.G. Jr., and Korman, J., 2006, 2005 Knowledge assessment of the effects of Glen Canyon Dam 

25 on the Colorado River ecosystem: an experimental planning support document: U.S. Geological 

26 Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., 82 p. 

27 National Research Council, 1996, River resource management in the Grand Canyon: Washington, 

28 D.C., National Academy Press, 226 p. 

29 Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., and Topping, D.J., 1998, Relation of inversely graded deposits to 

30 suspended-sediment grain-size evolution during the 1996 flood experiment in Grand Canyon: 

31 Geology, v. 26, p. 99–102. 

32 Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation and 

33 grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport (α), and tracking changes in bed-sediment 

34 grain size (β): Water Resources Research, v. 37, p. 133–146. 

35 Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, K., and Melis, T.S., 2002, Recent 

36 sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: EOS, Transactions, American 

37 Geophysical Union, v. 83, n. 25, p. 273, 277–278. 

38 Topping, D.J. 1997. Physics of flow, sediment transport, hydraulic geometry, and channel 

39 geomorphic adjustment during flash floods in an ephemeral river, the Paria River, Utah and 

40 Arizona, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington. 

41 Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., Kinzel, P.J., III, and Bennett, J.P., 1999, Linkage 

42 between grain-size evolution and sediment depletion during Colorado River floods, in Webb, 

43 R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The 1996 controlled flood in Grand 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 15

1 Canyon: Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 110, p. 71–

2 98. 

3 Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., Kinzel, P.J., III, and Corson, I.C., 2000b, Colorado 

4 River sediment transport: pt. 2: systematic bed-elevation and grain-size effects of sand supply 

5 limitation: Water Resources Research, v. 36, p. 543–570. 

6 Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, Jr., L.E., 2000a, Colorado River sediment transport: pt. 1: 

7 natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water Resources 

8 Research, v. 36, p.515–542. 

9 Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the 

10 instantaneous-discharge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921, 

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

12 Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., Rubin, D.M., and Wright, S.A., 2004, High-resolution monitoring of 

13 suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon using a 

14 laser-acoustic system, in Hu, C., and Tan, Y, eds., Proceedings of the Ninth International 

15 Symposium on River Sedimentation, October 18–21, 2004, Yichang, China: People’s Republic 

16 of China, Tsinghua University Press, p. 2507–2514. 

17 Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2005, Regulation of sand transport in the Colorado 

18 River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multi-year timescales: 

19 Sedimentology, v.52, p. 1133–1153. 

20 Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., and Rubin, D.M., 2006a, Project PHY 7.M1.07: Downstream 

21 integrated quality-of-water monitoring (below Glen Canyon Dam): fiscal year 2007 statement of 

22 work: U.S. Geological Survey Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center Administrative 

23 Document, 23 p. 

24 Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., 2006b, High-resolution monitoring of 

25 suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River using laser-diffraction 

26 instruments and a three-frequency acoustic system: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 8th Federal 

27 Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2–6, 2006, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1. 

28 Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., in press a, Coupled changes in sand grain size and 

29 sand transport driven by changes in the upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River: relative 

30 importance of changes in bed-sand grain size and bed-sand area: Sedimentary Geology. 

31 Topping, D.J., Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., and Rubin, D.M., in press b, High-resolution 

32 measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size in the Colorado River in 

33 Grand Canyon using a multi-frequency acoustic system: Proceedings of the Tenth International 

34 Symposium on River Sedimentation, August 1–4, 2007, Moscow, Russia. 

35 U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact 

36 Statement: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, 337 p. plus appendices. 

37 Wohl, E., Bennett, J.P., Blum, M.D., Grant, G.E., Hanes, D.M., Howard, A.D., Mueller, D.S., 

38 Schoellhamer, D.H., and Simoes, F.J., 2006, Protocol Evaluation Program (PEP-SEDS III): final 

39 report of the physical resources monitoring peer review panel, October 6, 2006: proceedings of 

40 the external peer review workshop III on long-term monitoring of water and sediment resources 

41 of the Colorado River Ecosystem: Administrative document, U.S. Geological Survey Grand 

42 Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 27 p. 

43 Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

44 operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, in Gloss, S.P., 

45 Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: 

46 U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 17–31. 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 16

1 PART 2. Recommended Protocols for Monitoring Changes in Sand Storage 

2 Throughout the Colorado River Ecosystem 

3 

4 In support of GCDAMP Goal 8: Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the 

5 main channel and along shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals 

6 Project Title 

7 Long-term monitoring for the sediment budget and sandbar status throughout the CRE 

8 utilizing direct topographic/bathymetric measurements and remote sensing (short title: SED 

9 TREND) 

10 Geographic Scope 

11 The SED TREND monitoring is focused on detecting long-term (i.e., 4-year to multi12 decadal) trends in the CRE (fig. 1.1) sediment budget for both fine (sand and finer material) and 

13 coarse sediment. In addition, this project utilizes a combination of direct topographic measurement 

14 and remote sensing to monitor the status of high-elevation (> the stage associated with a discharge 

of 8,000 ft3 15 /s) sandbars on an annual to 4-year basis. The geographic extent of this monitoring is 

16 from Glen Canyon Dam to the upper end of Lake Mead (near Separation Canyon).

17 Justification for Long-Term Monitoring Effort 

18 Sediment forms the physical template for the Colorado River ecosystem downstream from 

19 Glen Canyon Dam (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995; National Research Council, 1996). The 

20 endangered and threatened native fishes evolved in a highly turbid river (Gloss and Coggins, 2005), 

21 with turbidity predominantly due to suspended silt and clay, and to a lesser degree suspended sand. 

22 Prior to the closure of Glen Canyon Dam, 60% of upstream sediment supply from the Colorado 

23 River in Glen Canyon was silt and clay (Topping and others, 2000). Closure of Glen Canyon Dam 

24 reduced the supply of silt and clay by about 96% at the upstream boundary of Grand Canyon 

25 National Park, with the Paria River now the major supplier of silt and clay at this location (Topping 

26 and others 2000). The postdam Colorado River in Marble and Grand Canyons is much less turbid 

27 (with clearer-water conditions than ever occurred naturally) and, because the in-channel storage of 

28 sand, silt, and clay in the postdam Colorado River is greatly reduced from predam conditions, the 

29 Colorado River in the CRE is only now turbid during periods of tributary activity downstream from 

30 the dam. 

31 Sandbars and other sandy deposits in and along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon 

32 National Park were an integral part of the natural riverscape, and are important for riparian habitat, 

33 native fish habitat, protection of archeological sites, and recreation (Rubin and others, 2002; Wright 

34 and others, 2005). Recent work has shown that the low-elevation parts of these sandbars (< the 

stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 ft3 35 /s) in lateral recirculation eddies contain the bulk of 

36 the sand, silt, and clay in storage (Hazel and others, 2006), and the surface grain size of these 

37 sandbars is the dominant regulator of sand transport over multiyear timescales (Topping and others, 

38 2005). Thus, the low-elevation parts of sandbars and the channel (as will be shown below) 

39 comprise the long-term “bank account” for sediment in the CRE. These deposits have eroded 

40 substantially following the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam that reduced the supply of sand at 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 17

1 the upstream boundary of Grand Canyon National Park by about 94% (Topping and others, 2000). 

2 In response to this reduction in sand supply and the alteration of the natural hydrograph by dam 

3 operations (Topping and others, 2003), sandbars in Marble Canyon and the upstream part of Grand 

4 Canyon have substantially decreased in size since closure of the dam (Schmidt and others, 2004) 

5 and are still in decline under normal powerplant operations at the dam (Wright and others, 2005). 

6 Growing concern about the effects of the operations of Glen Canyon Dam on the CRE led 

7 to the initiation of systematic measurements of sandbars in the 1970s (Dolan and others, 1974; 

8 Howard, 1975; Howard and Dolan, 1981). This sandbar-monitoring program was revisited in the 

9 1980s (Schmidt and Graf, 1990), and eventually led to the sandbar-monitoring program conducted 

10 by Northern Arizona University (NAU) during the 1990s (Hazel and others, 1999; Schmidt and 

11 others, 2004). Evaluation begun in the 1990s and finalized in the geomorphic synthesis of Schmidt 

12 and others (2004) indicated that the observations of change made during these site-based programs 

13 were not necessarily representative of changes in the fine-sediment resource over longer reaches of 

14 the Colorado River because these programs utilized surveys of relatively small areas and the 

15 variability between sites was large. Moreover, the fact that substantial positive changes in sediment 

16 volume were observed in these site-based programs during periods when no sediment entered the 

17 system, called into question the value of sediment budgeting based on monitoring of small sites 

18 (Hazel and others, 2006). In contrast to the large variability within the site-based NAU data, 

19 analysis of cross-section data collected by the USGS indicated near-universal scour of sediment 

20 from the CRE during the 1990s (Flynn and Hornewer, 2003). These observations led to the 

21 development of the flux-based “mass-balance” sediment budgeting conducted under the 

22 downstream integrated quality-of-water (IQW) core-monitoring project (Goal 7) in 1999, and led to 

23 the development of the more comprehensive reach-based Fine Grained Integrated Sediment Team 

24 (FIST) monitoring project in 2001. 

25 The FIST project conducted reach-based fieldwork in 2002, 2004, and before and after the 

26 November 2004 BHBF test, and completed sandbar/campsite surveys in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 

27 and 2005. Data from these field efforts have been processed, finalized, and delivered to DASA. 

28 Results from the FIST project have been presented at the following professional scientific 

29 meetings: 2003 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting (published abstract); 2005 

30 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting (published abstract); 2004 American Geophysical 

31 Union Fall Meeting (2 published abstracts); 2005 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting (3 

32 published abstracts); 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, Reno, Nevada, April 2-

33 6, 2006 (published proceedings article). The project is now in its final stages with articles being 

34 prepared for publication. 

35 

36 Key results from the FIST project include the following: 

37 

38 1. More than 90% of the fine sediment stored in the CRE occurs in the lower-elevation parts of 

39 eddy sandbars and in the channel (below the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 ft3/s). 

40 This low-elevation sediment-storage environment is herein referred to as the fine-sediment 

41 “bank account.” Of the amount of fine sediment stored in eddies, approximately 90% is stored 

42 below the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 ft3/s (Hazel and others, 1999, 2006). 

43 2. Analyses indicate that sediment budgets constructed using FIST and mass-balance data track 

44 (meaning that they have the same sign) only in parts of the CRE (e.g., in upper and lower 

45 Marble Canyons, but not in the part of Grand Canyon between the Little Colorado River and 

46 river mile 88). Furthermore, in river segments where the FIST and mass-balance sediment 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 18

1 budgets do track (have the same sign; e.g., lower Marble Canyon), too much of the change in 

2 sand volume detected by the mass-balance approach occurs in the subset of this river segment 

3 in the FIST reaches (fig. 2.1). Thus, as was the case with the earlier NAU sandbar- monitoring 

4 program (which also do not always track (have the same sign) with the mass-balance sediment 

5 budgets), the extent of the river covered by the FIST reaches is still too small of an area to be 

6 representative of changes in the fine-sediment resource over longer reaches of the CRE. This 

7 result suggests that extrapolation of reach-based results (as in the FIST project) to longer 

8 segments of the CRE is extremely problematic, if not impossible. Therefore, in the future, 

9 extrapolation cannot be used and monitoring changes in the fine-sediment “bank account” at 

10 low elevations must be done over reaches that are much longer and ideally equate with the 

11 longer reaches used in the mass-balance project (fig. 2.2). 

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

-1,000,000 0

LOWER MARBLE CANYON

REACH 4 + 5 + 6

y = 9.0594e+5 + 1.2167x R2= 0.96547 

CHANNEL + LOW-ELEVATION EDDY SAND (metric tons)

SAND MASS BALANCE (metric tons)

12 

13 Figure 2.1 Relation between the volume of sand measured by the mass-balance project between 

14 river miles 30 and 61 and the volume of sand in combined FIST reaches 4 (river miles 29-32), 5 (river 

miles 42-46), and 6 (river miles 54-56). Note that although the relation is quite good (with an R215 value 

16 of 0.97), approximately 120% of the change in sand volume between river miles 30 and 61 occurred 

17 in only the 9 miles surveyed by the FIST project. Thus, the net change in the other un-surveyed 22 

18 miles of the CRE between river miles 30 and 61, must have undergone changes in sand volume that 

19 opposed those surveyed by FIST. Therefore, FIST sediment-budget results cannot be extrapolated 

20 to longer reaches of the CRE with any confidence. 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 19

1 

2 

3 Figure 2.2 Location map showing sediment budget reaches for Goals 7 and 8 core monitoring 

4 activities. FIST reaches 2 and 3 are located within UMC and FIST reaches 4–6 are located within 

5 LMC. 

6 

7 3. Analysis of sediment budgets constructed using FIST and mass-balance data indicate that, (a) in 

8 reaches immediately downstream from major tributaries, the main channel is the most 

9 important fine-sediment storage environment (fig. 2.3), and (b) in reaches farther downstream, 

that is in the bulk of the CRE, eddies below the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 ft3 10 /s 

11 are the most important fine-sediment storage environment (fig. 2.4). Therefore, monitoring the 

12 status of the fine-sediment “bank account” over decadal timescales requires monitoring changes 

13 in fine-sediment volume in both the main channel and the low-elevation (i.e., less than the stage 

associated with 8,000 ft3 14 /s) parts of eddies. 

UMC 

LMC 

EG

C 

CGC 

WGC 

Mainstem flow 

Mainstem flow and sediment 

Tributary flow and sediment 

Sediment budget reach 

UMC – upper Marble Canyon 

LMC – lower Marble Canyon 

EGC – eastern Grand Canyon 

CGC – central Grand Canyon 

WGC – western Grand Canyon 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 20

(a)

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000

UPPER MARBLE CANYON

REACH 2 + REACH 3

y = 1.9736e+5 + 0.4922x R2= 0.96173 

CHANNEL + LOW-ELEVATION EDDY SAND (metric tons)

SAND MASS BALANCE (metric tons)

1 

(b)

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000

UPPER MARBLE CANYON

REACH 2 + 3

y = 85964 + 0.36509x R2= 0.97048 

CHANNEL SAND MASS (metric tons)

SAND MASS BALANCE (metric tons)

2 

3 

4 Figure 2.3 (part 1) 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 21

(c)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000

UPPER MARBLE CANYON

REACH 2 + REACH 3

y = 1.1139e+5 + 0.12711x R2= 0.87466 

LOW-ELEVATION EDDY SAND MASS (metric tons)

SAND MASS BALANCE (metric tons)

1 

2 Figure 2.3 Relation between the volume of sand measured by the mass-balance project between 

river miles 1 and 30 and the volume of sand in (a) the low-elevation (<8,000 ft33 /s) eddies and channel 

4 in combined FIST reaches 2 (river miles 1–3) and 3 (river miles 21–23), (b) only the channel in 

5 combined FIST reaches 2 and 3, and (c) only the low-elevation eddies in combined FIST reaches 2 

6 and 3. Note that in this segment of the CRE the channel is the more important fine-sediment storage 

7 environment.

8 

9 4. Data collection on the geometries of backwaters (i.e., eddy return-current channels) requires 

topographic data collection below the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 ft3 10 /s. 

11 5. The sediment budget and the amount of sand at higher elevations (above the stage associated 

with a discharge of 8,000 ft3 12 /s) commonly varied inversely (did not have the same sign). This is 

13 because less than 10% of the fine-sediment in the CRE occurs at these higher elevations. 

14 Although it does not necessarily provide information on the status of the sediment budget, 

15 monitoring the fine sediment in these high-elevation environments is however required to 

16 evaluate the effectiveness of dam operations for rebuilding and maintaining the high-elevation 

17 parts of sandbars critical for GCDAMP Goals 6, 8, 9, and 11. 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 22

(a)

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

-1,000,000 0

LOWER MARBLE CANYON

REACH 4 + 5 + 6

y = 9.0594e+5 + 1.2167x R2= 0.96547 

CHANNEL + LOW-ELEVATION EDDY SAND (metric tons)

SAND MASS BALANCE (metric tons)

1 

(b)

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

-1,000,000 0

LOWER MARBLE CANYON

REACH 4 + 5 + 6

y = 3.687e+5 + 0.14039x R2= 0.25025 

CHANNEL SAND MASS (metric tons)

SAND MASS BALANCE (metric tons)

2 

3 

4 Figure 2.4 (part 1) 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 23

(c)

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

-1,000,000 0

LOWER MARBLE CANYON

REACH 4 + 5 + 6

y = 5.3724e+5 + 1.0763x R2= 0.83807 

LOW-ELEVATION EDDY SAND (metric tons)

SAND MASS BALANCE (metric tons)

1 

2 Figure 2.4 Relation between the volume of sand measured by the mass-balance project between 

river miles 30 and 61 and the volume of sand in (a) the low-elevation (<8,000 ft33 /s) eddies and 

4 channel in combined FIST reaches 4 (river miles 29–32), 5 (river miles 42–46), and 6 (river miles 54–

5 56), (b) only the channel in combined FIST reaches 4, 5, and 6, and (c) only the low-elevation eddies 

6 in combined FIST reaches 4, 5, and 6. Note that in this segment of the CRE the low-elevation eddy is 

7 the dominant fine-sediment storage environment. 

8 6. The sandbars monitored as part of the NAU time series are sufficient to detect trends in the 

area of sand at stages above the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 ft3 9 /s (Schmidt and 

10 others, 2004). 

11 7. There is not a unique relation between fine-sediment volume and area (owing to changes in 

12 deposit convexity/concavity in cross-section). This observation requires that both area and 

13 volume of fine sediment be monitored. 

14 8. Both bed grain size and bed sand area are important for regulating suspended-sand transport in 

15 the CRE (Rubin and Topping, 2001), although bed grain size dominates over bed sand area 

16 (Topping and others, in press). The dominant regulator of sand transport in the CRE over 

17 decadal timescales is the grain size of underwater sandbar surfaces (Topping and others, 2005). 

18 Furthermore, the grain size of exposed sandbar surfaces is an important regulator of aeolian 

19 sand transport upslope into areas containing archeological resources (Draut and Rubin, 2005, 

20 2006, in press; Draut and others, 2005). Thus, some aspect of any core-monitoring program 

21 must include surficial grain-size data. Monitoring of grain size can be accomplished through 

22 use of the on-shore and underwater versions of the underwater microscope developed by 

23 Chezar and Rubin (2004), Rubin and others (2006, in press) and algorithm developed by Rubin 

24 (2004). 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 24

1 A major outstanding question is whether frequent BHBFs conducted under sediment2 enriched conditions (such as those that existed during the 2004 BHBF test) can result in the 

3 rebuilding and maintenance of sandbars throughout the CRE. Scour of the low-elevation eddy and 

4 channel pool environments during sand-depleted BHBF tests, such as the 1996 Controlled Flood, is 

5 not subsequently offset by deposition of new sand under normal powerplant releases (Schmidt and 

6 others, 2004; Topping and others, 2006). Analysis of surveys conducted one to four times per year 

7 during the 1990s indicates that sandbars in Marble Canyon and the upstream part of Grand Canyon 

8 contained ~25% less sand at lower elevations in 2000 than in 1991, and that the lower-elevation 

9 parts of these sandbars and the adjacent channel bed never fully recovered in sand volume after 

10 scouring during the 1996 flood. This net decrease in low-elevation fine-sediment volume occurred 

11 despite that fact tributary inputs of sand during this period were well above average. Thus, 

12 controlled floods conducted under sediment-depleted conditions, such as those that existed in 1996, 

13 cannot be used to sustain sandbar area and volume. In addition, the dominant response 

14 (downstream from the upstream half of Marble Canyon) during the 2004 BHBF test was that 

15 eddies lost sand (although less than was gained in upper Marble Canyon). By definition, if BHBFs 

16 are to be a successful tool for the rebuilding and maintenance of sandbars in the CRE, then the 

17 volume of fine sediment stored at lower elevations (i.e., in the long-term fine-sediment “bank 

18 account”) must not decrease over longer timescales as a result of the occurrence of the BHBFs. 

19 Computing fine-sediment budgets for various reaches in the CRE (fig. 2) over long (i.e, 

20 decadal or longer) timescales is required for evaluating the effects of dam operations, including 

21 BHBFs. Over shorter timescales (up to perhaps several years), this is best done by the “mass 

22 balance” approach described in the section on Goal 7 of the Draft Core Monitoring Report. 

23 However, because of the increasing uncertainties over time associated with the “mass balance” 

24 approach, another approach is needed to track the fine-sediment budget for the CRE over longer 

25 timescales. This other complimentary approach (described herein) is required to evaluate whether 

26 future dam releases (including BHBFs) continue to mine the sediment “bank account” or whether 

27 this bank account (stored largely at elevations less than the stage associated with a discharge of 

8,000 ft3 28 /s) remains stable or increases under future dam releases. If the amount of sediment in this 

29 “bank account” continues to decrease, then dam operations will ultimately not be able to sustain the 

30 fine-sediment resources at higher elevations. In addition to this other approach for long-term 

31 sediment budgeting, additional monitoring is required to evaluate the effectiveness of future dam 

32 releases (including BHBFs) in rebuilding and maintaining the higher-elevation parts of sandbars. 

33 Both of these integrated monitoring programs are described as part of the SED TREND monitoring 

34 outline below. 

35 All of the aspects of sediment monitoring that comprise the SED TREND monitoring have 

36 been reviewed by three PEP panels convened in 1998, 1999, and 2006 (the final panel). The final 

37 PEP panel recommended that, over shorter timescales (months to years), monitoring of the 

38 sediment resource in the CRE is most accurately accomplished using the “mass-balance” approach 

39 described in the section on Goal 7 of the Draft Core Monitoring Report. In addition, this panel 

40 recommended that the annual protocol established by the USBR Glen Canyon Environmental 

41 Studies to monitor trends in the high-elevations parts of sandbars be continued. Furthermore, 

42 depending on the outcome of analyses that are now complete and cost, this panel recommended 

43 that longer reaches of the river could be surveyed at some frequency to track the fine-sediment 

44 budget over longer timescales. Finally, all three PEP panels recommended that continued 

45 monitoring of coarse sediment was also needed (Wohl and others, 2006). Coarse sediment (gravel) 

46 supplied to the CRE during tributary floods and debris flows provides the geomorphic framework 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 25

1 that controls the location and influences the size of eddy sandbars. Additionally coarse sediment 

2 provides an important substrate for the aquatic food base and for trout spawning. 

3 AMWG Goal(s) Addressed 

4 

5 The SED TREND monitoring directly supports achievement of the following AMP goals:

6 

7 Goal 8 – Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and 

8 along shorelines to achieve AMP ecosystem goals.

9 

10 Goal 9 – Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the 

11 Colorado River ecosystem within the framework of AMP ecosystem goals. The SED 

12 TREND monitoring provides information on the size and abundance of sandbars, which are 

13 resources that affect the recreational experiences of Colorado River users. 

14 

15 Goal 11 – Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration 

16 and benefit of past, present, and future generations. The SED TREND monitoring 

17 collects information on the sandbars that provide a source of sediment, through aeolian 

18 transport, to a number of high-elevation sand deposits that contain archaeological resources.

19 

20 Because the SED TREND monitoring addresses the physical framework of the ecosystem, 

21 which underlies many biological resource objectives, it also indirectly supports achievement of the 

22 following four AMP goals: 

23 

24 Goal 1 – Protect or improve the aquatic food base so that it will support viable 

25 populations of desired species at higher trophic levels. The SED TREND monitoring 

26 supports this goal by providing information on coarse sediment inputs which provide the 

27 substrate for parts of the aquatic food base.

28 

29 Goal 2 – Maintain or attain a viable population of existing native fish, remove 

30 jeopardy for humpback chub and razorback sucker, and prevent adverse modification 

31 to their critical habitats. The SED TREND monitoring supports this goal by providing 

32 information on sandbars which create backwater habitats that are thought to be important 

33 for native fish.

34 

35 Goal 6 – Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities within the 

36 Colorado River ecosystem, including threatened and endangered species and their 

37 critical habitat. The SED TREND monitoring monitors the status of the fine-sediment 

38 deposits which provides the substrate for riparian vegetation and marsh communities.

39 Key Science Questions and Managers’ Information Needs Addressed 

40 Several strategic science questions (SSQ) were identified by scientists and managers during 

41 the Knowledge Assessment Workshop conducted in the summer of 2005 (Melis and others, 2006). 

42 The SED TREND monitoring project provides valuable information to help answer several of the 

43 questions related to sediment conservation, and in particular the primary sediment question: “Is 

44 there a ‘Flow-Only’ operation (i.e. a strategy for dam releases, including managing tributary inputs 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 26

1 with BHBFs, without sediment augmentation) that will rebuild and maintain sandbar habitats over 

2 decadal time scales?” 

3 As mentioned above, the SED TREND monitoring tracks the status of sandbar habitats and 

4 is the project that monitors the long-term status of the fine-sediment “bank account” stored at lower 

5 elevations. Both of these types of data are required to answer this SSQ. 

6 The 2003 AMP Strategic Plan identified Core Monitoring Information Needs (CMINs) 

7 related to sediment storage (Goal 8). The CMINS that are addressed by the SED TREND 

8 monitoring are listed below. For each, the prioritization ranking applied by the AMP Science 

9 Planning Group in 2006 is also included. The SED TREND monitoring directly addresses three of 

10 the top five Goal 8 CMIN priorities; the other two of these five are addressed by the mass balance 

11 project described under Goal 7. 

12 

13 CMIN 8.1.1 – Determine and track the biennial fine-sediment volume and grain-size 

14 changes in the main channel below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach. #3 ranked Goal 8 CMIN. 

15 

16 CMIN 8.4.1 – Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume and grain17 size changes within eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. . #4 ranked Goal 

18 8 CMIN.

19 

20 CMIN 8.5.1 –Track, as appropriate, the biennial sandbar area, volume and grain-size 

21 changes above 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. #5 ranked Goal 8 CMIN. 

22 

23 The SED TREND monitoring also addresses these unranked Goal 8 CMINs. 

24 

25 CMIN 8.2.1 – Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume and grain26 size changes outside of eddies between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

27 

28 CMIN 8.3.1 – Track, as appropriate, the biennial or annual sandbar area, volume and grain29 size changes within eddies below 5,000 cfs stage, by reach. 

30 

31 CMIN 8.6.1 – Track, as appropriate, changes in coarse sediment (> 2 mm) abundance and 

32 distribution.

33 

34 The SED TREND monitoring also directly addresses this top-ranked Goal 9 CMIN priority. 

35 

36 CMIN 9.3.1 – Determine and track the size frequency, and distribution of camping beaches 

37 by reach and stage level in Glen and Grand Canyons. #1 ranked Goal 9 CMIN

38 

39 Developing and testing monitoring protocols for these CMINs was the primary focus of 

40 research and development conducted during FY 1998-2006, as reviewed by SEDS-PEP III. 

41 Finally, at the 2004 AMWG priority-setting workshop, questions relating specifically to 

42 sediment (and monitored by the herein described SED TREND monitoring) were identified under 

43 three of the top five priorities of the AMP. These priorities were, in decreasing order of relevance 

44 to sediment, AMWG Priority 4: What is the impact of sediment loss and what should we do about 

45 it?, AMWG Priority 3: What is the best flow regime?, and AMWG Priority 2: Which cultural 

46 resources, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP), are within the Area of Potential Effect, 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 27

1 which should we treat, and how do we best protect them? What is the status and trends of cultural 

2 resources and what are the agents of deterioration? 

3 Project Goals, Tasks, and Schedule by Task 

4 Goals 

5 The primary goal of the Goal 8 SED TREND core monitoring project is to determine 

6 magnitudes and trends in fine-sediment storage throughout the CRE in the main channel and eddies 

7 at all elevations, specifically broken down into bins below the stage associated with a discharge of 

8,000 ft3 8 /s (where over 90% of the fine sediment in the CRE is typically stored), between the stages 

associated with discharges of 8,000 and 25,000 ft3 9 /s, and above the stage associated with a 

discharge of 25,000 ft3 10 /s. 

11 The secondary goals of this project are to determine magnitudes and trends in campsite area 

12 and distribution (this supports Goal 9), backwater geometry (area plus depths) and distribution (this 

13 supports Goal 2), and the availability of open dry sand on sandbars that can be transported by the 

14 wind upslope into archeological sites thereby helping preserve these resources (this supports Goal 

15 11). 

16 Tasks 

17 These goals can be met through the following data collection efforts: 

18 

19 1. Annually, monitoring of the area and volume of fine sediment (as well as campsite area) above 

20 the stage associated with 8,000 ft3/s for subsets of sandbars and campsites throughout the CRE 

21 using ground-based surveys. This dataset is commonly referred to as the “NAU sandbar time 

22 series” and is the longest running dataset on the state of sandbars currently available (initiated 

23 in 1990). This task is conducted in coordination with Goal 9 core monitoring and will take 

24 place in the fall of each year. 

25 2. Approximately every four years (but only in years without BHBFs, see “Schedule by task” 

26 section below for details), monitoring of systemwide area and volume of fine sediment 

27 (especially open sand) above the stage associated with a discharge of 8,000 ft3/s (i.e., 

28 approximately 10% of the fine sediment in the CRE) based on aerial overflight data (LiDAR 

29 and orthrectified hyperspectral aerial photography). These remote-sensing data can be used to 

30 monitor the magnitude and trends in potential campsite area, backwater area and distribution, 

31 the availability of open dry sand on sandbars, as well as for other resource areas such as 

32 riparian vegetation monitoring. These data will also be used to help quantify the inputs of new 

33 gravel from tributaries. These gravel inputs provide important substrate for the aquatic food 

34 web. 

35 3. Annually (but only in years without BHBFs, see “Schedule by task” section for details), 

36 monitoring the area and volume of fine sediment at all elevations over long reaches using 

37 multi-beam bathymetric surveys, ground-based topographic surveys, underwater video 

38 transects, and limited underwater microscope data collection for bed grain size. Ideally, this 

39 task would be performed on a systemwide basis every 5-10 years in order to estimate fine 

40 sediment budgets over time scales for which the Goal 7 mass balance sediment budgets likely 

41 become inconclusive due to accumulating measurement errors. However, since it is currently 

42 logistically impossible to survey the bathymetry of the entire river in any given year, surveys 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 28

1 will be completed annually of 30–80 mile sections of the river with a different section surveyed 

2 each year on a rotating basis. The sections (or reaches) will correspond to the same reaches 

3 outlined in the Goal 7 mass balance core monitoring project (fig. 2.2), as follows: Reach 1 – 

4 RM0 to RM30 (upper Marble Canyon); Reach 2 – RM30 to RM61 (lower Marble Canyon); 

5 Reach 3 – RM61 to RM87 (eastern Grand Canyon); Reach 4 – RM87 to RM166 (central Grand 

6 Canyon); Reach 5 – RM166 to RM226 (western Grand Canyon, see fig. 2.1). These reach 

7 surveys will occur in the late spring and will only be completed in years without BHBFs (see 

8 “Schedule by task” section for details); thus, in the absence of BHBFs each reach would be 

9 surveyed every 5 years, or, if BHBFs occurred on average every other year, then each reach 

10 would be surveyed on average every 10 years. The 5-10 year interval is considered by sediment 

11 scientists to be sufficient to detect long-term trends in the fine sediment budget based on 

12 changes in topography and bathymetry. Finally, since some reaches are longer than others, it is 

13 possible that some reaches will be too long to survey completely in a single river trip (e.g., 

14 Reaches 4 and 5); for these reaches, available side-scan sonar data will be used to identify the 

15 portions of these reaches that are most likely to store fine sediment. It is also possible that 

16 continued technological advancements and improvements in methods will allow for complete 

17 surveys of these reaches in the future. In addition to providing key sediment budget information 

18 (i.e., the status of the fine-sediment “bank account”), these data will provide information on the 

19 location and geometries of backwaters thought to be important habitat for native fish. These 

20 data will also provide information on the accumulation of tributary-supplied gravel and the 

21 redistribution of this gravel (used as substrate by the aquatic food web) in the CRE. 

22 Schedule by Task 

23 The schedule for core monitoring under Goal 8 is complicated by the potential for BHBFs, 

24 except for Task 1 sandbar and campsite surveys which will occur annually in the fall whether or 

25 not a BHBF is scheduled. For Task 2 remote sensing missions and Task 3 reach surveys, it is 

26 advantageous to have these occur in years without BHBFs so that the monitoring data are not 

27 dominated by the effects of a single BHBF (BHBF monitoring is described under a separate 

28 science plan developed by the GCMRC in 2007). Rather, the remote sensing and reach survey 

29 monitoring should represent the integral response of the system to several years of dam operations 

30 and tributary inputs. Further, logistical constraints would make it difficult to conduct the remote 

31 sensing and reach survey core monitoring in addition to the BHBF monitoring. Thus, without 

32 knowing the exact frequency of BHBFs, it is impossible to outline the exact schedule for Goal 8 

33 core monitoring. 

34 It is possible, though, to outline potential schedules based on assumptions regarding BHBF 

35 frequency. Two possible 10-year schedules are outlined for illustrative purposes (table 2.1). The 

36 first is the schedule in the absence of BHBFs where the exact schedule can be delineated. The 

37 second schedule assumes that BHBFs occur every other year, which would be the approximate 

38 frequency under previous triggers based on tributary sediment supply. In reality, even if the 

39 frequency were every other year on average, there would likely be periods with successive years of 

40 BHBFs and successive years without BHBFs such that the core monitoring schedule for remote 

41 sensing and reach surveys must be flexible. 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 29

1 Table 2.1 Possible alternatives for implementing long-term sediment monitoring tasks with and 

2 without beach/habitat building flow tests 

3 

Schedule without BHBFs With BHBFs every other year 

Year 

Task 1: 

NAU 

sandbars 

Task 2: 

Remote 

sensing 

Task 3: 

Reach 

surveys 

Task 1: 

NAU 

sandbars 

Task 2: 

Remote 

sensing 

Task 3: 

Reach 

surveys 

2008 X X (R1) X X (R1) 

2009 (BHBF) X X X (R2) X 

2010 X X (R3) X X X (R2) 

2011 (BHBF) X X (R4) X 

2012 X X (R5) X X (R3) 

2013 (BHBF) X X X (R1) X 

2014 X X (R2) X X X (R4) 

2015 (BHBF) X X (R3) X 

2016 X X (R4) X X (R5) 

2017 (BHBF) X X X (R5) X 

4 

5 

6 Recommended Long-Term Monitoring Protocols 

7 Task 1 is conducted using standard ground-based surveying protocols described in Hazel 

8 and others (1999, 2000, in review). Task 2 is conducted using remote-sensing protocols described 

9 in Davis (2004) and LiDAR protocols (including error analyses) described in Davis and others (in 

10 review). Task 3 is conducted using standard ground-based surveying protocols and multibeam11 sonar bathymetric surveying protocols (including error analyses) described in Kaplinski and others 

12 (2000, 2007, in review). The grain-size data collected under Task 3 (recommended by the final 

13 SEDS-PEP III panel, Wohl and others, 2006) are collected and processed using protocols described 

14 in Rubin and others (2006, in press) and Rubin (2004). 

15 Linkage to other resources, processes and models 

16 The SED TREND monitoring project provides data (i.e, the maps showing the topography 

17 and distribution of sediment types over ~30-mile reaches of the river) that is essential to the 

18 development and testing of numerical predictive models of discharge, stage, sediment transport, 

19 and sandbar morphology. These predictive models can be used to evaluate a wide range of resource 

20 responses, such as the fate of sandbar habitats, to various dam release scenarios, such as controlled 

21 floods, steady flows, fluctuating flows, etc. 

22 The SED TREND monitoring provides the data used to evaluate the effectiveness of dam 

23 operations (including BHBFs) on rebuilding and maintaining sandbars in the CRE. Additionally, 

24 the SED TREND monitoring will provide the data showing whether dam operations continue to 

25 mine the long-term fine sediment “bank account” stored at elevations below the stage associated 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 30

with a discharge of 8,000 ft3 1 /s (more than 90% of the fine sediment in the system is currently stored 

2 below this elevation). If the amount of sediment in this “bank account” continues to decreases, then 

3 operations will ultimately not be able to sustain the fine-sediment resources at higher elevations. 

4 The SED TREND monitoring supports the campsite inventories conducted under Goal 9 by 

5 characterizing the status and trends of a sample of the sandbars used as campsites. The SED 

6 TREND monitoring supports Goal 11 by characterizing the status of fine-sediment at higher 

7 elevations in and around cultural sites, and by characterizing the amount of open dry sand available 

8 to be transported by the wind into some of these cultural sites (thereby helping to preserve these 

9 sites). The SED TREND monitoring also supports new research focused on the food web of the 

10 river ecosystem by providing data on the input of new gravel from tributaries, and the accumulation 

11 and redistribution of gravel used as a substrate by the aquatic food web. The SED TREND 

12 monitoring also provides information on the distribution of the fine-sediment deposits that form the 

13 substrate for the riparian ecology. Finally, the SED TREND monitoring supports science activities 

14 in the fisheries program by providing the data (as part of the long ~30-mile data collection effort 

15 described under Task 3) to characterize the locations and geometries of backwaters though to be 

16 important habitat for native fish. In addition, annual repeat inventories of nearshore backwater 

17 habitats have been collected periodically systemwide (and may continue), as measured each fall 

18 during fishery monitoring trips, as part of Goal 2 (Native Fish). 

19 Expected Outcomes 

20 The expected outcomes are detailed throughout this report, summarized as follows: 

21 

22 • Annual updates of the NAU sandbar time series showing trends in the area and volume of 

23 the high-elevation parts of sandbars. In addition to providing annual data showing the 

24 effectiveness of dam operations on rebuilding and maintaining sandbars, these data directly 

25 support the campsite monitoring conducted under Goal 9. 

26 • Maps and analyses of the systemwide area and volume of fine sediment at high elevations 

27 as determined by digital aerial photography and LiDAR. These maps and analyses will be 

28 of great use in characterizing the status of fine-sediment in and around cultural sites and in 

29 quantifying the dry high-elevation sand potentially available to be transported by the wind 

30 into these sites. 

31 • Topographic maps of the CRE in five long reaches: upper Marble Canyon, lower Marble 

32 Canyon, eastern Grand Canyon, central Grand Canyon, and western Grand Canyon. These 

33 maps will be produced 1-2 times per decade for each reach on average. These maps will 

34 characterize the geometries of the backwaters (thought to be important habitat for native 

35 fish) in each ~30-mile reach. 

36 • Decadal timescale sediment budgets for these five reaches of the CRE. These data will 

37 provide managers information on the long-term status of the fine-sediment “bank account.” 

38 These sediment budgets will be compared to the sediment budgets computed for these 

39 reaches under the complimentary mass balance project described under Goal 7. This 

40 comparison will help evaluate the uncertainties associated with the SED TREND 

41 monitoring and fine sediment mass balance approaches. 

42 • Where possible, data collected in upper Marble Canyon in FY 2008 will be compared with 

43 earlier multibeam-sonar data collected in 2000, 2001 and as part of the 2002–04 FIST 

44 project to evaluate volume changes in the fine-sediment bank account (2000 vs. 2008). 

45 • Annual peer-reviewed USGS data reports documenting results of the monitoring project. 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 31

1 • Contribution to other research-related peer-reviewed publications (such as models). 

2 • Biannual presentations at GCDAMP meetings. 

3 Estimated Proposed Annual Funding for SED TREND Core Monitoring Program 

4 Task #1 ~$95,000 (see FY 2008 draft work plan description for Project REC 9.R1.07/PHYS 

5 8.M2/07), 

6 Task #2 (scope of analyses and cost are yet to be fully determined; refer to FY 2008 and 

7 2009, DASA project descriptions for Goal #12, Remote Sensing and Analysis), 

8 Task #3 ~$200,000 (as described above). 

9 Goal #8 Sediment Monitoring References 

10 Chezar, H., and Rubin, D., 2004, Underwater microscope system: U.S. Patent and Trademark 

11 Office, patent number 6,680,795, January 20, 2004, 9 pages. 

12 Davis, P.A., 2004, Review of results and recommendations from the GCMRC 2000–2003 remote13 sensing initiative for monitoring environmental resources within the Colorado River ecosystem: 

14 U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1206, 73 p. 

15 Davis, P.A., Breedlove, M.J., and Melis, T.S., in review, Processing of temporal LiDAR and 

16 photogrammetric datasets for monitoring change in sediment resources within the Colorado 

17 River corridor in Arizona, 46 p. 

18 Dolan, R., Howard, A., and Gallenson, A., 1974, Man's impact on the Colorado River in the Grand 

19 Canyon: American Scientist, v. 62, p. 392–401. 

20 Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and 

21 precipitation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—November 2003 to 

22 December 2004: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1309, 70 p. 

23 [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1309/] 

24 Draut, A.E., Rubin, D.M., Dierker, J.L., Fairley, H.C., Griffiths, R.E., Hazel, J.E. Jr., Hunter, R.E., 

25 Kohl, K., Leap, L.M., Nials, F.L., Topping, D.J., and Yeatts, M, 2005, Sedimentology and 

26 stratigraphy of the Palisades, Lower Comanche, and Arroyo Grande areas of the Colorado River 

27 corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-

28 5072, 68 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5072/] 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 32

1 Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2006, Measurements of wind, aeolian sand transport, and 

2 precipitation in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—January 2005 to January 

3 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1188, 88 p. 

4 [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1188/] 

5 Draut, A.E., and Rubin, D.M., 2007, The role of aeolian sediment in the preservation of 

6 archaeological sites in the Colorado River corridor, Grand Canyon, Arizona—Final report on 

7 research activities, 2003–2006: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1001. 

8 Flynn, M.E. and Hornewer, N.J., 2003, Variations in sand storage measured at monumented cross 

9 sections in the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lava Falls Rapid, Northern 

10 Arizona, 1992–1999: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-4104, 39 p. 

11 Gloss, S.P., and Coggins, L.G., 2005, Foshes of Grand Canyon, in Gloss, S.P., Lovich, J.E., and 

12 Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: U.S. Geological 

13 Survey Circular 1282, p. 33–68. 

14 Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Dale, A., 1999, Topographic and 

15 bathymetric changes at thirty-three long-term study sites, in Webb, R.H., Schmidt, J.C., Marzolf, 

16 G.R., and Valdez, R.A., eds., The 1996 controlled flood in Grand Canyon: Washington, D.C., 

17 American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph 110, p. 161–184. 

18 Hazel, J.E. Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., and Manone, M., 2000, Sand Deposition in the Colorado 

19 River ecosystem from flooding of the Paria River and the effects of the November 1997, Glen 

20 Canyon Dam Test Flow: Final report to the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 

21 Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz., 37p. 

22 Hazel, J., Jr., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Kaplinski, M., 2006, Influence of a dam on fine23 sediment storage in a canyon river: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 111, F01025, 16 p. 

24 Hazel, J.E., Jr., Kaplinski, M., Parnell, R., Kohl, K., and Breedlove, M., in review, Cahpter 2: 

25 Control network and conventional survey techniques: fine-grained sediment monitoring in the 

26 Colorado River ecosystem, 26 p. 

27 Howard, A.D., 1975, Establishment of benchmark study sites along the Colorado River in Grand 

28 Canyon National Park for monitoring of beach erosion caused by natural forces and human 

29 impact: University of Virginia Grand Canyon Study Technical Report no. 1, 182 p. 

30 Howard, A., and Dolan, R., 1981, Geomorphology of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon: 

31 Journal of Geology, v. 89, p. 269–298. 

32 Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Parnell, R., Manone, M., and Gonzales, M., 2000, Evaluation of 

33 hydrographic survey techniques used for channel mapping by the Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

34 Research Center in the Colorado River ecosystem, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Final report to the 

35 Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz., 

36 37 p. 

37 Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2007, Integrating 

38 bathymetric, topographic, and LiDAR surveys of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon to assess 

39 the effect of a flow experiment from Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River ecosystem: 

40 Proceedings of the Hydrographic Society of America 2007 Annual Meeting, May 14–17, 

41 Norfolk, Virginia, 22 p. 

42 Kaplinski, M., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Parnell, R., Breedlove, M., and Gonzales, M., in review, The Fine 

43 Grained Integrated Sediment Team (FIST) Project: methods II: bathymetric surveys for 

44 monitoring change in sediment resources within the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona, 40 p. 

45 Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Ralston, B.E., Fairley, H.C., Kennedy, T.A., Andersen, M.E., Coggins, 

46 L.G. Jr., and Korman, J., 2006, 2005 Knowledge assessment of the effects of Glen Canyon Dam 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 33

1 on the Colorado River ecosystem: an experimental planning support document: U.S. Geological 

2 Survey, Flagstaff, Ariz., 82 p. 

3 National Research Council, 1996, River resource management in the Grand Canyon: Washington, 

4 D.C., National Academy Press, 226 p. 

5 Rubin, D.M., 2004, A simple autocorrelation algorithm for determining grain size from digital 

6 images of sediment: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 74, p. 160–165. 

7 Rubin, D.M., and Topping, D.J., 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation and 

8 grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport (α), and tracking changes in bed-sediment 

9 grain size (β): Water Resources Research, v. 37, p. 133–146. 

10 Rubin, D.M., Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, K., and Melis, T.S., 2002, Recent 

11 sediment studies refute Glen Canyon Dam hypothesis: Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical 

12 Union, v. 83, n. 25, p. 273, 277–278. 

13 Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2006, 

14 Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain size: 

15 U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1360 [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1360/] 

16 Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Topping, D.J., Melis, D.J., and Harney, J., in press, Two new approaches 

17 for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bed-sediment grain size: Sedimentary Geology. 

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

19 1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona: U.S. Geological Survey 

20 Professional Paper 1493, 74 p. 

21 Schmidt, J.C., Topping, D.J., Grams, P.E., and Hazel, J.E., 2004. System-wide changes in the 

22 distribution of fine sediment in the Colorado River corridor between Glen Canyon Dam and 

23 Bright Angel Creek, Arizona. Final report to the USGS Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research 

24 Center, Flagstaff, 

25 Ariz.[http://www.gcmrc.gov/library/reports/physical/Fine_Sed/Schmidt2004.pdf] 

26 Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Vierra, Jr., L.E., 2000, Colorado River sediment transport: pt. 1: 

27 natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam: Water Resources 

28 Research, v. 36, p.515–542. 

29 Topping, D.J., Schmidt, J.C., and Vierra, L.E., Jr., 2003, Computation and analysis of the 

30 instantaneous-discharge record for the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, May 8, 1921, 

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

32 Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Schmidt, J.C., 2005, Regulation of sand transport in the Colorado 

33 River by changes in the surface grain size of eddy sandbars over multi-year timescales: 

34 Sedimentology, v.52, p. 1133–1153. 

35 Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Schmidt, J.C., Hazel, J.E., Jr., Melis, T.S., Wright, S.A., Kaplinski, 

36 M., Draut, A.E., and Breedlove, M.J., 2006, Comparison of sediment-transport and bar-response 

37 results from the 1996 and 2004 controlled-flood experiments on the Colorado River in Grand 

38 Canyon: CD-ROM Proceedings of the 8th Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, 

39 Reno, Nevada, April 2--6, 2006, ISBN 0-9779007-1-1. 

40 Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., and Melis, T.S., in press, Coupled changes in sand grain size and sand 

41 transport driven by changes in the upstream supply of sand in the Colorado River: relative 

42 importance of changes in bed-sand grain size and bed-sand area: Sedimentary Geology. 

43 U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact 

44 Statement: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, 337 p. plus appendices. 

45 Wohl, E., Bennett, J.P., Blum, M.D., Grant, G.E., Hanes, D.M., Howard, A.D., Mueller, D.S., 

46 Schoellhamer, D.H., and Simoes, F.J., 2006, Protocol Evaluation Program (PEP-SEDS III): final 
DRAFT – DO NOT REPRODUCE, DISTRIBUTE, OR CITE. 

 34

1 report of the physical resources monitoring peer review panel, October 6, 2006: proceedings of 

2 the external peer review workshop III on long-term monitoring of water and sediment resources 

3 of the Colorado River Ecosystem: Administrative document, U.S. Geological Survey Grand 

4 Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 27 p. 

5 Wright, S.A., Melis, T.S., Topping, D.J., and Rubin, D.M., 2005, Influence of Glen Canyon Dam 

6 operations on downstream sand resources of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, in Gloss, S.P., 

7 Lovich, J.E., and Melis, T.S., eds., The state of the Colorado River ecosystem in Grand Canyon: 

8 U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1282, p. 17–31. 

9