Laserfiche WebLink
<br />332 SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS OF GEOMORPHIC STUDIES <br /> <br />/ --.~ <br /> <br />:....;.--- + - - _ :- ~. -. :- - +. - - - '1'- - "- <br />--. +.' -----...::.-^ ___~'-j!(_~~~~~'_o-.. <br /> <br />4 5 6 7 8 <br />Day of Flood <br /> <br />E <br />c:: <br />o <br />.'" <br />u; <br />o <br />0- <br />OJ <br />o <br />-0 <br />OJ <br />.E <br />Ol <br />'Qi <br />;: <br />o <br />'" <br /><V <br />~ <br /> <br />1.5 <br /> <br />Above LeR <br />- --+-- Eminence <br /> <br />Below LeA <br />- .... - Crash <br /> <br />-. - - Sail Mine <br /> <br />. O. . Carbon <br /> <br />A <br /> <br />-\ <br />- 0 <br />\ - -. ~ ~ <br />l. <br />".- <br /> <br />0.5 <br /> <br />-.- - -- <br />.--.- ~ - - <br />~ <br /> <br />~ - Saddle <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />- - <br /> <br />--~ ---0- <br />- - - . . . . <br />- . <br /> <br />o <br />2 <br /> <br />E <br />c:: <br />o <br />'u; <br />e <br />w <br />-0 <br /><V <br />10 <br />Ol <br />'Qi <br />;: <br />o <br />'" <br />OJ <br />~ <br /> <br />B <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 2. Graphs showing area.weighted (A) deposition and (B) erosion in 5 eddies at different limes during the flood. calculated <br />from the data of Andrews et oJ. [thiS volume] <br /> <br />1.5 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />, -+ ~ <br />:.-- -, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~+- <br />:-..' - +. <br /> <br />o. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br /> <br />o <br />1 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />because the change in thickness of the emire eddy was <br />much less than the change in thickness at high eleyation. <br />Within 2 weeks, Broud" et al. [this volume] observed that <br />backwaters created by the flood were no longer available as <br />potential rearing habitat for native fishes. <br /> <br />6. SCIENTIFIC AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES THAT <br />ARISE BECAUSE OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS <br /> <br />6./. Mainstem SedimeTlt Trampon. Computation o/Sedi- <br />ment Budgets, and Ihe TIming of Restoralioll Floods <br /> <br />Analysis of the suspended.sedimenl measurements <br />demonstrates that some of the fundamental ideas under- <br />pinning management in Grand Canyon may need to he <br />revised. One such idea is that the average annual rate of <br />sediment delivery from the Paria River, Little Colorado <br />River, and smaller tributaries downstream from Glen <br />Canyon Dam exceeds the transport capacity or Ihe <br />Colorado River in those years when releases from the dam <br /> <br />are not unusually large and that accumulating sand can be <br />stored on the bed for a number of years. To reach this idea, <br />Howard and Dolan [1981] analyzed sediment-transport <br />data for the Colorado River and iLs major tributaries for <br />1947-1970, assuming unifonn sedimem-deIivery rates from <br />ungaged lributaries and that measurement uncertainty was <br />not significant. Pemberton [1987J and E. D. Andrews [cited <br />by Smillie el a/.. 1993] calculated transport relations from <br />'sand-transport data collected by the Geological Survey in <br />1983.1985, and 1986 [Garretlelal.. I 993J. These relalions <br />were used by Ralldle el a/. [1993] to calculate that the bed <br />and banks of the Colorado River had accumulated sediment <br />belween 1965 and 1982, because the mass of sediment <br />entering Grand Canyon had exceeded the mass exported <br />downstream. Smillie e/ al. 11993] calculated mass balances <br />for ditTerent operational scenarios and suggested that sand <br />accumulates in the river when tributary inflows are at least <br />average and there are not wide daily fluctuations in <br />discharge. Based on lhese findings, the Glen Canyon Dam <br />EIS 1 US Departlllen/ of Ihe IIl/erior, 1995, fig. Ill-IS I <br />propused Ihat Beach/Habitat.Building Flows, such as the <br /> <br />