Integrating Bathymetric, Topographic, and LiDAR Surveys of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon to Assess the Effect of a Flow

Experiment From Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River Ecosystem M. Kaplinski1, J.E. Hazel, Jr.1, R. Parnell1, M. Breedlove2, J.C. Schmidt2
1 2

Department of Geology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Department of Watershed Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5210

1.0 Introduction The Colorado River, or red river, earned its name by carrying large quantities of reddish colored sand, silt, and clay. The construction of Glen Canyon Dam radically altered the system by effectively eliminating the upstream sediment supply of finegrained sediment and now the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park runs clear for most of the year. Tributaries below the dam now provide the only sediment to the system. Dam releases have also altered the daily and seasonal flow patterns of the river, which has been shown to transport more sand downstream than is supplied by the tributaries (Topping et al., 2000; Rubin et al., 2002). In response to the reduction in sediment supply and the alteration of the natural hydrograph by dam operations, sandbars have substantially decreased in size since closure of the dam (Webb, 1996). Sandbars along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon are important because they provide camps for river runners and hikers, habitat for native plants and animals, protect of archeological deposits, and are an integral component of the natural landscape (Rubin et al., 2002). Not surprisingly, the decline in the number and size of sandbars in Grand Canyon is a concern to river managers tasked with conserving Grand Canyon National Parks natural resources. An experimental flow plan was developed to investigate ways in which the trend of dwindling sediment resources could be reversed (USDOI, 2002). The experimental plan was designed to keep dam releases relatively low during the fall monsoon season to allow the accumulation and retention of new tributary sand inputs in the channel. Then, if more than 800,000 metric tons of new sand were retained during this period, release a

controlled flood above power plant capacity (31,000 ft3/s) to redistribute this new sand from the channel bed into the eddies. Between September and November, 2004, the first main tributary below Glen Canyon Dam, the Paria River, supplied about 920,000+/180,000 metric tons of sand, thus triggering the high flow experiment. On November 21, 2004, a 60-hr controlled flood release of 41,000 ft3/s was released from Glen Canyon Dam (Figure 1). Prior to the experiment, a team of scientists from Northern Arizona University, Utah State University, the U.S. Geological Survey Coastal and Marine Geology Branch, and the U.S. Geological Surveys Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center was formed to monitor the effects of flows from 2001 through 2005. Termed the Fine Grained Integrated Sediment Team (FIST), the project was an outgrowth and integration of previous efforts (Hazel et al., 1999; Schmidt, 1999; Topping et al., 2000; Rubin et al., 2002; 2006; USGS-GCMRC, 1999). The FIST project strategy was to assess the effects of experimental dam operations by measuring changes in topography and sediment grain size in the channel. Changes in topography, or channel form, are assumed to be primarily due to movement of sand-sized sediment. We collected topographic, bathymetric, and grain-size surveys at resolutions sufficient to fully represent three-dimensional channel form below the 97,000 ft3/s stage elevation in 11, 1-3 mile, long-term monitoring reaches. A total of six survey river trips were conducted, with the last two being the subject of this paper. Logistical constraints limited the surveys for the controlled flood experiment to only 6 of the 11 long-term monitoring reaches. This paper reports on the methods and previews the results of the FIST project before and after the November 2004 controlled flood.

45000 40000 35000

Discharge (ft3/s)

30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

Nov. 11-24

Dec. 1-14

November

December

Figure 1. Discharge hydrograph from USGS gaging station Colorado River near Lees Ferry (09380000) during period of study. The 60 hr controlled flood release of 41,000 ft3/s was released from Glen Canyon Dam on November 21, 2004. Survey trip dates are shown by bars. 2.0 Background Following construction of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963, increasing concern was expressed by the public and federal and state agencies regarding how dam operations may be adversely affecting the downstream environment. As a result of these concerns, the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (GCPA) was signed in to law. The GCPA established and implemented a long-term monitoring and research program to ensure the Glen Canyon Dam is operated "... in such a manner as to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established, including, but not limited to natural and cultural resources and visitor use. During this period an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared on the effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the downstream environment (U.S.D.O.I., 1995). The preferred alternative of the EIS placed experimental restrictions on dam operations and established a federal advisory committee called the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) to ensure that

the mandates of the GCPA are met. The GCDAMP is an 11 million dollar per year effort to: 1) scientifically monitor the effects of flow experiments and other management actions; and 2) use the results of the monitoring and research to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on insure that dam operations meet the intent of the GCPA. The U.S. Geological surveys Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center is the scientific branch of the GCDAMP that has responsibility for the programs monitoring and research efforts. Additional details about the program can be found at (http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/index.html).

3.0 Study Area The study area is the Colorado River Ecosystem (CRE) in Glen, Marble and Grand Canyons, Arizona (Figure 2). Locations in the study area are traditionally defined by river mile distance downstream or upstream from Lees Ferry, Arizona (river mile 0). The river miles used in this report are defined by the location along the river centerline developed by the GCMRC (USGS-GCMRC, 2006). The eleven reaches originally selected for the FIST long-term monitoring project are shown in Figure 1. Due to logistical constraints, only reaches 2 through 7 were surveyed for the 2004 controlled flood experiment. These reaches comprise approximately 18% of the eastern portion of Grand Canyon and vary from 0.8 to 4 mi in length, with an average length of 2.2 mi. Reach 2 lies directly below the Paria River. Reaches 3 and 4 are located in a relatively narrow section of the river corridor, termed upper Marble Canyon, and reaches 5 and 6 lie within the wider, more alluvial lower Marble Canyon section. Reach 7 is located directly below the Little Colorado River confluence. This subset of reaches limits the assessment to the eastern portion of Grand Canyon. However, previous work has shown that this portion of Grand Canyon is the most sediment-starved portions of the CRE and of an appropriate scale for monitoring (Schmidt et al., 1999).

Figure 2. The Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park. Shown are major tributaries and locations of the long term monitoring reaches. 4.0 Data Collection and Processing We conducted surveys before and after the experimental high flow release. Surveys consisted of LiDAR overflights and data collected on two 14 day river trips (Figure 1). During the river trips, we conducted bathymetric surveys, conventional total station surveys, subaqueous and subaerial grain size measurements, and sedimentologic sampling. The river trips consisted of 20 to 24 personnel divided into six crews transported by six motorized rafts. The rafts consisted of two 33-ft pontoon rafts to carry survey crews, backup scientific equipment, battery charging stations, and all of the camping gear and food, a 22-ft snout raft with crane assembly and instrumentation for underwater grain size and video sampling, a 17-ft bathymetric survey vessel, and two 17ft sport boats to transport survey crews.

4.1 Geodetic Control Network All of the data collected are referenced to a geodetic control network developed by the GCMRC. The control network consists of a 16 primary control network benchmarks established along the canyon rim and connected to the National Spatial Reference System (Doyle, 1994), with secondary and tertiary points located along the river corridor. Secondary control points along the river corridor are obtained by simultaneous GPS occupations with the established rim control points using the procedures described by Zilkoski et al. (1997). Tertiary control points were referenced to the secondary point network using conventional survey techniques. The secondary and tertiary control points are stable survey marks monumented by a chiseled or scribed x, PK masonry nail, or carriage bolt. The positional accuracy of the primary rim control network is constrained to 0.02 m vertical and 0.02 m horizontal standard, while secondary and tertiary points have positioning accuracy errors of less than 0.03 m and ellipsoidal height accuracies of between 0.01 m and 0.10 m, at 95 percent degree of confidence. All of the measurements are collected in the Arizona State Plane central zone grid in meters, using the NAD83 datum to derive ellipsoid heights. Ellipsoidal heights were not converted to the NAVD88 orthometric heights because the current national geoid model (GEOID03) does not incorporate sufficient gravity measurements in the region to account for the effects of topography on height measurements.

4.2 Bathymetry 4.2.1 Survey Vessel Multibeam bathymetric surveys were conducted using a survey vessel specifically designed to operate in a large river system. The survey vessel is a 17-ft. long, 8-ft.wide mini snout with two 28 diameter inflatable pontoons and a single piece, aluminum deck/frame (Figure 3). The vessel is equipped with a waterproof aluminum box that contains most of the sensitive electronic equipment, an adjustable swivel mast assembly designed to mount a navigation target or GPS antennae on top and a submerged transducer on the bottom, electrical system with a generator, batteries, inverter-charger system, power connection box, and a submerged grounding plate. Navigating the rapids of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon requires that the entire system is shock mounted

and waterproof.

The entire system can be switched from operational to travel mode

(and visa versa) within about 10 minutes.

Figure 3. Photograph of Survey Vessel in November 2004. 4.2.2 Navigation We used a range-azimuth navigation system for all of the bathymetric surveys described in this report (Table 1). The canyon setting and associated environmental conditions precluded the use of kinematic-GPS techniques for acquisition of field survey data. The reaches are characterized by steep slopes, and in places, dense vegetation, which leads to loss of satellite lock and position fix during GPS surveying. The rangeazimuth system is preferred for use in Grand Canyon because of its ability to provide highly accurate positioning information in all sections of the river corridor. The rangeazimuth system uses a robotic total station located on a river corridor control point benchmark to track the position and elevation of a target mounted on the survey vessel. The raw positioning information (slope distance, horizontal and vertical angles) is referenced to the benchmark and transmitted back to the vessel by radio modems at a rate of 4 Hz. The measured depths are then subtracted from the elevation of the transducer to derive bottom elevations, rather than depth. Using elevations, rather than depths eliminates the need for independent measurements of water level (e.g. fluctuating flows, tides), which is one of the major sources of uncertainty in hydrographic surveying (Byrnes et al, 2002). We used a Geodimeter ATS-PT from Spectra Precision as the shore

station to track the survey vessel. The Geodimeter ATS-PT provides an accuracy of 1 meters/second that is +/- 2mm in horizontal, vertical and slope distance at a range of 300 meters and a constant target speed.

4.2.3

Multibeam Sonar System Components We used a Reson SeaBat 8125 high-resolution echosounder system. The Seabat

8125 system is a 120 degree swath angle that uses 240 beams with a 1 x 0.5 degree beamwidth at a frequency of 455 kHz to provide a depth resolution of 0.006m, and an update rate of up to 40Hz (Table 1). The 8125 transducer head was rotated 30 degree to starboard. This provided swath angles of 90o to starboard and 30o to port, which extended the coverage further towards shallow, rocky shoreline areas. Tilting the transducer also increased our efficiency by reducing the number of line files needed to completely cover the survey site. Motion compensation and heading information were collected using a TSS MAHRS system. The MAHRS system provides an accuracy of 0.03 degrees of pitch and roll measurement at a rate of 200Hz and 5 cm or 5% of heave amplitude, whichever is greater. Heading information from the MAHRS unit provides a dynamic accuracy of 0.1 degrees and maximum angular velocity of 200 degrees per second. This system improved accuracy over previous surveys through its ability to provide stable heading information during high rate turns. An Odom digibar Pro velocimeter was used to determine the sound velocity within the water column. All data were collected using Hypack and Hysweep software installed on a ruggedized windowsbased computer. Table 1. Bathymetric survey equipment configuration.
Survey Date
Nov. 2004

Navigation

Sonar

MRU

Heading

Software

Range-Azimuth

Reson 8125

TSS MAHRS

TSS MAHRS

Hypack

Dec. 2004

Range-Azimuth

Reson 8125

TSS MAHRS

TSS MAHRS

Hypack

4.2.4 Bathymetric Data Collection Procedures Bathymetric surveys of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon are constrained by the pool and drop morphology of the river (Leopold, 1969). In a pool and drop system, the river consists of long, flat sections of water that range in length from 300 to 1200 meters, separated by steep, turbulent rapids and riffles. In Grand Canyon, 66% of the elevation drop in the river occurs in just 9% of the river (Magirl et al., 2005). The extent of a survey is further constrained by the line of sight range azimuth navigation system. For our surveys, we limited the range of operations to within 600 m of the shore station. Within each study reach, four to seven individual shore station positions are required to cover the entire reach. Figure 4 shows the outline of 7 individual bathymetric surveys collected within reach 5. Data collected from each shore station position are considered an individual survey and each survey is collected and processed separately. Prior to launching the survey trip, the positions of the various system components were measured and several patch tests were conducted. Patch test lines were also collected during the trips in case any of the system components were moved from their original positions. The system component measurements and patch test results were entered into the Hypack software and applied to all of the data collected on a survey trip. Line files for the individual surveys were constructed on previous trips. Once the navigation connections were established, each line is followed and the data collected. Data collection involved frequent adjustment the range, gain, and power settings in order to maintain a good bottom signal. Following collection along the line files, areas not covered by running the lines are filled in as needed to ensure total coverage of the survey area.

Figure 4. May 2002 orthophotography of long term monitoring reach #5, Point Hansborough, showing the outline of 7 individual bathymetric surveys. Surveys in this reach cover an area of 407,679 m2. Shore station locations are shown with purple triangles. Downstream flow enters the reach from the top left. The location of Figures 5, 7, and 8 is outlined with a box. 4.2.5 Data Processing and Analysis All bathymetric data were edited and processed using a four step procedure with Hypack and Hysweep software. The first editing step involves examining each line of data collected and deleting erroneous points from the vessel navigation track, navigation target elevations, heave, pitch, and roll data. The second and most time consuming step was editing individual soundings in the sweep editor. The majority of the data was noisy, contained a high number of bad soundings, and did not lend itself to automated processing techniques, such as CUBE filtering (Calder and Mayer, 2003), until swath editing was completed. The high level of noise is thought to be due to the poor acoustic environment, characterized by rapid elevation changes, zones of aeration, and strong current transitions. The nature of the complex topography along the channel bed also 10

precludes the application of most filtering schemes. We only applied filters based on sounding quality indicators and a starboard angle limit of 70 degrees and settled on a fairly heavy handed standard of editing where most, if not all of the soundings were deleted where it was not clear what was bottom and what was noise. The edited soundings were reduced to a 0.25 m grid and exported as ASCII x,y,z text files for import into a GIS for surface construction and volumetric analysis. We quantified the depth measurement accuracy of each survey trip by conducting cross line checks. Four cross line checks were conducted for each survey trip. For each cross line check 0.25m surface grids were generated for each pair of lines. The difference in surface elevation was calculated for overlapping grid nodes within the cross line area. The data from all four cross line checks were combined for each survey trip and analyzed statistically to derive an estimate of depth accuracy or uncertainty. Depth accuracy estimates are reported in terms of root mean square error (RMSEz) at the 95% confidence level and the mean absolute error (MAEz). Table 2 summarizes the results of the depth accuracy assessment. RMSEz errors were 9.4 and 9.8 cm, with MAEz errors of 3.8 cm. The mean elevation difference (MEz) values calculated for each survey trip range between -0.1 and 0.02 cm and indicate that quality control and calibration procedures successfully minimized bias errors. One of the goals of the FIST project was to detect changes of 0.25m or greater in the sediment surfaces. Change detection at the 0.25 m level with 95% confidence requires a vertical MAEz accuracy of 9 cm (Brock et al., 2001). All of the MAEz estimated depth error values derived in this study exceed this requirement. Table 2. Summary of depth accuracy assessment. Abbreviations are defined in text.
Survey Date
Nov. 2004 Dec. 2004

MEz (cm)
-0.1 0.02

SDEz (cm)
4.8 5.0

RMSEz (cm)
9.4 9.8

MAEz (cm)
3.8 3.8

n
28996 18661

11

4.3 Conventional (Total Station) Surveys The canyon setting and associated environmental conditions precluded the use of kinematic-GPS techniques for rapid acquisition of field survey data. The reaches are characterized by steep slopes, and in places, dense vegetation, which leads to loss of satellite lock and position fix during GPS surveying. As a result, conventional total station surveying provided the best compromise of speed, accuracy, and coverage. The following were collected using conventional surveying techniques: 1) topographic data for terrain analysis; 2) check points for ground-truthing LiDAR data; 3) spatial locations of subaerial and subaqueous sampling locations (e.g., scour chains, digital microscopes, and video cameras); and 4) placing temporary benchmarks for the range-azimuth shore station or additional total station locations. A systematic method was adopted for field data collection, in which ground points were collected by three survey crews in concert with spatial referencing of other surveying requirements. Figure 5 shows an example of the distribution of survey point data from the December 2004 survey at river mile 44.6 in reach 5. Using these conventional survey methods we acquired up to 3000 total points within a typical field day, including periods of downtime due to changes in control point occupation and inclement weather. Although the spatial distribution and density of points was highly variable, points concentrated in areas of substantial change varied from 0.5 to 1 pt/m2.

12

Figure 5. Detail of the topographic survey and point distribution of the December 2004 survey at river mile 44.6 in reach 5. 4.4 Grain size We used two versions (underwater and handheld) of a patented digital imaging system and an underwater video camera to map the spatial and temporal variability of grain size within the study reaches, plus an (Chezar and Rubin, 2004; Rubin et al., 2006). Previous work has shown that changes in grain size on the bed can be as important as changes in flow in regulating sediment transport (Rubin and Topping, 2001). The underwater microscope consists of a plumbing-inspection video camera inside a wrecking ball that is lowered to the bottom by a winch (Figure 6a). Images from the underwater video are recorded digitally on deck, and selected images are used for grain-size analysis in the office. Although the images have relatively low resolution (less than one megapixel), they are nevertheless adequate to determine mean grain size of sediment coarser than very fine sand in a 1 cm2 area of the bed surface.

13

A.

B.

Figure 6. A. The 22-ft motorized raft equipped with the grain-size microscope system. B. Lightweight digital microscope camera system in use. Photos by Dave Rubin. A lightweight, hand-held microscope was used on the subaerially exposed sand bars (Figure 6b). This system consists of a 5-megapixel digital camera with macro lens into an underwater housing that was modified to accommodate a light ring, and, depending on 14

the camera and model of macro lens, the area being photographed is typically ~2 cm across, and pixel size is on the order of 10 microns. Grain size was determined using an autocorrelation algorithm developed by Rubin (2004) that can rapidly analyze samples at rates up to 100 samples per hour (Rubin et al., 2006). This hardware is capable of collecting hundreds of images per day. Sampling locations were spatially referenced with a total station. 4.5 Sedimentologic Data Stratigraphic and sedimentologic data were collected at several sites within each reach to investigate the structure of the new sand bar deposits. Scour chains were installed in November 2004. The 1-m length chains were emplaced vertically and the locations marked with pinflags, which were spatially referenced with a total station. In December 2004, the scour chain locations were staked out with total station and excavated. Sedimentologic analyses of the excavations at recovered chain locations aid in the ability to identify flood deposits and to measure scour and fill (Schmidt et al., 1999).

4.6 LiDAR Two LiDAR overflights were conducted in November and December 2004. Both flights were collected with fixed-wing aircraft flying at 100-knots at altitudes above 1,250 m. The November flights used a DATIS III LiDAR system and the December flights used a RAMS LiDAR. Four flight lines were collected over every square meter of surface which produced an average combined point density of 4-5 points/m2. During each airborne survey, canyon-rim base stations were occupied with dual frequency GPS receivers. Restriction were placed on the overflights that limited collection to areas that had two base stations within a 30 km radius of each study site, when the aircraft receiver PDOP values were less than 3.5., and to scan half angles less than 20o. Vertical offset and planimetric errors were detected in the both delivered data sets. These were corrected to achieve vertical precisions of 10 cm and volumetric error less than 5 cm.

15

4.7 GIS analysis Reach-scale, bare-earth ground surface models were constructed in a GIS (Arc/Info). We use the term composite surface to describe the surface model. The composite surface is formed as a series of 1 m lattice grids extracted from TIN models of the input bathymetric, total station, and LiDAR datasets. Input data sets were modified to exclude LiDAR data collected from the river surface and above the 97,000 ft3/s stage elevation. Vegetated-area polygons, identified from LiDAR intensity values and digital imagery, were used as erasure polygons to exclude these areas from the surfaces during TIN construction. Similarly, bathymetric polygons enclosing areas with no sonar data were used to erase these surface areas. Each TIN was clipped by a boundary polygon constructed by unioning the boundary polygons encompassing each final input data file. Figure 7 shows the composite surface at river mile 44.6 in reach 5. A primary goal of the FIST project was to evaluate changes in fine-grained sediment storage within select reaches of the CRE. Thus, our surfaces needed to be classified by texture or grain size in order to delineate areas of fine-grained deposition. We devised a methodology to classifying surfaces into two broad texture classes; rough and smooth. This technique differentiated areas of rough, rocky substrate comprised of ledges, talus and boulders from smoother, graded surfaces composed primarily of sand, small gravels and cobbles. The classification technique involved constructing a hillshaded grid on top of a surface generated from the 0.25 m bathymetry data with a sun altitude of 90 degrees and no vertical exaggeration. This grid was then classified into rough and smooth components based on the extent and intensity of shadows developed in the hill shade. Figure 8 shows the results of the texture classification in a pool in reach 5.

16

Figure 7. Composite 1-m grid surface combining bathymetry, LiDAR, and total station surveys from the December 2004 surface at river mile 44.6 in reach 5. Location of figure is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 8. Example of textural mapping from a pool in reach 5. A) hillshade of 0.25 m bathymetric grid. B) polygons in blue delineating rough (bedrock, talus, boulders) from smooth (cobble, gravel, sand) substrates. Location of figure is shown in Figure 4.

17

Fine-grained sediment storage and change within reaches was quantified for various geomorphic and stage zones using differences in surface elevations and the generalized texture composition of those surfaces. Each 1-meter surface grid cell in any year has an elevation, a texture (roughness) value, and a geomorphic zone value. Geomorphic zones were derived from previous aerial photographic interpretation and outline eddy, main channel, channel margin, and debris fan zones (Schmidt et al., 1999). Differences between monitoring periods were evaluated by differencing the surfaces for the two time periods.

5.0 Results Volumes calculated from composite surfaces comparison quantify the effect of the controlled flood on the fine-grained sediment within each of the reaches. Figure 9 shows the volume comparison from November to December 2004, as well as the outline of eddy geomorphic zones within reach 5. Sand bars are located within eddies and we use changes in eddy zone volume as the primary metric to assess the efficacy of the controlled flood. The comparison map shows the pattern of change that is characterized by scour in the main channel and deeper portions of eddies and fill along the higher elevations within eddies and at the lower, exit slopes of pools. Eddies in the upstream portion of the reach (top of figure) were primarily scoured of sand, while the downstream eddies were mostly depositional. The summation of eddy change within reach 5 shows that the controlled flood resulted in a net erosion of over 4,000 m3 of sand from eddies (Figure 10). The net eddy zone change within all study reaches shows that the controlled flood did result in a net increase in the volume of sandbars in the first 42 miles of Grand Canyon (Figure 10). However, the volume of sandbars downstream of about mile 42 decreased. Therefore, the amount of new sand prior to the 2004 controlled flood was sufficient to result in increases in sandbar volume in only the first 40 miles of the 270 mile long reach of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Future controlled floods require more sand to achieve increases in the total volume of eddy sandbars throughout all of Grand Canyon.

18

Figure 9. Map of surface change from November to December 2004. Eddy zone geomorphic boundaries are outlined by black polygons.
40000 Eddy Zone Volume Change (m3)

20000

reach 4 reach 3

0
reach 2 reach 5

-20000
reach 6 reach 7

-40000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Distance Downstream (miles)

Figure 10. Volume change within eddy deposition zones for each reach.

19

6.0 Summary Surveys were conducted to assess the effects of an experimental controlled flood from Glen Canyon Dam on the sediment resources along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. We collected bathymetric, total station, grain size, and LiDAR survey data on research river trips and overflights before and after the controlled flood. The LiDAR, topographic and bathymetric data were used to construct surface models that fully represent three-dimensional channel form in 6, 1 to 3 mile, long-term monitoring reaches. The results of the LiDAR and bathymetric surveys indicate that surface comparisons can detect changes of 0.25m or greater with a 95% level of confidence. Preliminary results indicate that the November 2004 controlled flood resulted in a net increase in the total volume of eddy sandbars in the first 42 miles of Grand Canyon. The total volume of eddy sandbars downstream from about river-mile 42 generally decreased as a result of the 2004 flood. Therefore, the amount of new sand prior to the 2004 controlled flood was sufficient to result in increases in sandbar volume in only the first 40 miles of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon. Future controlled floods require more sand to achieve increases in the total volume of eddy sandbars throughout all of Grand Canyon. Annual tributary inputs of sand much larger than one million metric tons occur, but are relatively rare. More sand could be achieved directly by augmentation from sand trapped in the reservoir impounded by Glen Canyon Dam (Lake Powell) or perhaps indirectly by following each large tributary input of sand with short-duration controlled floods. Frequent short-duration controlled floods under sand-enriched conditions could result in the downstream propagation of the gains in total eddy volume observed during the 2004 controlled-flood experiment.

20

References Brock, J. C., Sallenger, A. H., Krabill, W. B., Swift, R. N., & Wright, C. W., 2001, Recognition of fiducial surfaces in lidar surveys of coastal topography, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 67, 1245-1258. Byrnes, M R, Baker, J L and Li, F, 2002, Quantifying potential measurement errors associated with bathymetric change analysis, ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-50, US Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Calder, B. R., and L. A. Mayer, 2003, Automatic processing of high-rate, high-density multibeam echosounder data, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 4(6), 1048, doi:10.1029/2002GC000486. Doyle, D.R., 1994, Development of the National Spatial Reference System, National Geodetic Survey, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA, http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/develop_NSRS.html. Hazel Jr., J.E., M. Kaplinski, R. Parnell, M. Manone, and A. Dale, 1999, Topographic and bathymetric changes at thirty-three long-term study sites, in The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., 110, edited by R.H. Webb, J.C. Schmidt, G.R. Marzolf, and R.A. Valdez, pp. 161-184, AGU, Washington, D.C. Leopold, L.B., 1969, The rapids and the poolsGrand Canyon, in the Colorado River Region and John Wesley Powell, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 669, 131 p. Magirl, C. S., R. H. Webb, and P. G. Griffiths, 2005, Changes in the water surface profile of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, between 1923 and 2000, Water Resour. Res., 41, W05021, doi:10.1029/ 2003WR002519. Rubin, D.M., Topping, D. J., Schmidt, J. C., Hazel, J., Kaplinski, M., and Melis, T. S., 2002, Recent sediment studies refute Glen Canyon dam hypothesis. American Geophysical Union Transactions, EOS 83 (25), 273-278. Rubin, D.M., Chezar, H., Harney, J.N., Topping, D.J., Melis, T.S., and Sherwood, C.R., 2006, Underwater microscope for measuring spatial and temporal changes in bedsediment grain size, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1360, 15 pp. Rubin, D.M. and Topping, D.J., 2001, Quantifying the relative importance of flow regulation and grain-size regulation of suspended-sediment transport () and tracking changes in grain size on the bed (): Water Resources Research, 37, 133146. Rubin, D.M., 2004, A simple autocorrelation algorithm for determining grain size from digital images of sediment: Journal of Sedimentary Research, 74, 160-105.

21

Chezar, H., and Rubin, D., 2004, Underwater microscope system: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, patent number 6,680,795, January 20, 2004, 9 pp. Schmidt, J.C., P.E. Grams, and M.F. Leschin, 1999, Variation in the magnitude and style of deposition and erosion in three long (8-12 km) reaches as determined by photographic analysis, in The Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., 110, edited by R.H. Webb, J.C. Schmidt, G. R. Marzolf, and R.A. Valdez, pp. 185-203, AGU, Washington, D.C. Topping, D.J., Rubin, D.M., Nelson, J.M., Kinzel, P.J., III, and Corson, I.C., 2000, Colorado River Sediment Transport: pt 1: natural sediment supply limitation and the influence of Glen Canyon Dam, Water Resources Research, v. 36, p. 515-542. U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 2006, Colorado Mileage System [Spatial Database, GIS.BASE_GCMRC_Tenth Mile], 1st Revised Edition, accessed June 16, 2006, http://www.gcmrc.gov/products/ims/ims.htm U.S. Department of the Interior, 2002, Proposed experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam and removal of nonnative fish: environmental assessment: Salt Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 112 p., appendices. http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/ea/gc/PropExpReleasesEA-09-2002.pdf U.S. Geological Survey, Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center, 1999, Final report of the physical resources monitoring peer review panel, Ellen Wohl chairperson, November 1, 1999, 13 p., http://www.gcmrc.gov/files/pdf/pep_physical_resources_monitoring_peer_review _panel.pdf U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995, Operations of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement: Slat Lake City, Utah, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, 337 p., http://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/eis/gc/gcdOpsFEIS.html Webb, R.H., 1996, Grand Canyon, a century of change, Univ. of Ariz. Press, Tucson, AZ, 290 pp. Zilkoski, D.B., DOnofrio, J.D. and Frakes, S.J., 1997, Guidelines for Establishing GPSDerived Ellipsoid Heights (Standards: 2 cm and 5 cm), version 4.3, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NGS-58, National Geodetic Survey, Silver Springs, MD, USA, 22 p.

22