Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />where there was relatiyely high initial suspended-sediment <br />transport, area-weighted deposition greatly exceeded area- <br />weighted erosion during the first 3 days of the "ood (Figure <br />Sa). The likelihood of area-weighted deposition exceeding <br />area-weighted erosion decreased arter day 4 (Figure 5b). <br />Area-weighted deposition never greatly exceeded area- <br />weighted erosion upslream from the LillIe Colorado River, <br />and a longer "ood may have been appropriate because <br />deposition rates were low. Although the data collected by <br />Andrews el 01. [this yolume] on which these conclusions are <br />based are rrom only 5 sites, logistical constraints may make <br />il prohibitive,Iy expensive for a larger number of sites to be <br />measured on a daily basis in fUlure studies. Thus, a different <br />research approach may be needed 10 make further progress <br />on this issue. <br /> <br />6.4. Variability in Ihe Magnilude of Aggradalion Among <br />Siles <br /> <br />Variability in the magnitude of sand-bar change will <br />force river managers Lo more precisely articulate their <br />criteria for detennining Ihe "success" of any res!OraLion <br />"ood. Large-scale measurements of sand-bar change made <br />by Kearsley el 01. [this volume], Hazel el 01. [this yolume], <br />Schmidl el 01. [this volume], and Thompson el 01. [1997] <br />demonstrate that every eddy in Grand Canyon did not <br />aggrade in the same proportion and that a few eddies <br />experienced net erosion. These measurements document <br />thatlhe processes measured by Alldrt!ws elal. [this volume] <br />occurred throughoul Grand Canyon, and that the different <br />concentrations of suspended sediment that occurred in <br />difrerent reaches [Topping el 01., this volume] with different <br />channel geometries [Wiele el aI., this yoIume] led to a wide <br />range of topographic pallerns in eddies throughout Grand <br />Canyon. <br />Net erosion occurred in some eddies. Kearsley el 01. [this <br />yoIume] found that 3 campsites were destroyed by the <br />flood, and Thompson el 01. [this yolume] identified another <br />3 sites that had been significantly eroded by the "nod. Hazel <br />et 01. [this volume. Table 2] estimated large standard errors <br />of mean bar change caused by the "ood. The high-elevation <br />part of 6 of the 35 sites that they surveyed decreased in area. <br />Schmidt el 01. [this volume] showed that the area of signif- <br />icant erosion exceeded the area of significant deposition at <br />several sites. <br />Thus. the average response of bars to the 1996 controlled <br />"ood was high.eleyation deposition in eddies, but there <br />were specific sites where large amounts of erosion <br />occurred. The distinction between average and site.specitic <br />response has led to revision of how scientists characterize <br />bar response to changes in dam operations. Kearsley el al. <br /> <br /> SCHMIDT 337 <br /> 2 <br />.s A <br />c <br />0 1.5 <br />'w <br />0 <br />W X <br />u <br />Q) 1:1 line <br />:E 0 X <br />C> <br />'Q; 0.5 <br />;: 0 0 0 <br />. <br />'" X 0 <br />Q) 0 <br />~ jl( <br /><t 0 (1}) <br /> 2 <br />E B 0 <br /> <br />g 1.5 <br />'w <br />e <br />w <br />"C <br />Q) <br />:E <br />C> <br />'~ 0.5 <br />, <br />'" <br />Q) <br />.0: <br /> <br />o <br />Cb <br />o <br /> <br />1:1 line <br /> <br /> <br />o <br />o <br /> <br />0.2 0.4 0,6 0,8 1 <br />Area-weighted Deposition (m) <br /> <br />1.2 <br /> <br />Figure 5. Graphs showing area-weighted deposition and area- <br />weighted erosion for each eddy measured by And~ws el a/. (this <br />volume] for each day ror (A) .he firs. 3 days of the "ood and (8) <br />the last 4 days of the nood. Crosses are for siles upstream from the <br />Little Colorado River and circles are for siles funher downstream. <br />Data above and below the I: 1 line indicate days and sites where <br />erosion exceeded deposition or vice versa. <br /> <br />[this volume, Figure 10], Hazel eI al. [this yoIume, Figure <br />2, 10], and Schmidl el 01. [this yolume, Figure 10, I I I <br />reponed changes in eddy bars by computing frequency <br />distributions as well as mean bar response, Managers will <br />haye to decide if their desired end state is an average reach <br />condition, an average reach response, or a desired change at <br />specific sites. <br /> <br />6.5, Longitudinal Pal/ems of Change in Eddy Bars <br /> <br />There is disagreement about whether the "ood caused <br />similar responses everywhere in Grand Canyon. or if there <br />was less deposition. and more evidence of sediment <br />starvation, in the upstream parts of the .river sysLem. <br />Andrews et 01, [this volume] argued Ihatlhe large volumes <br />of sand thai accumulated, and were evacuated, frum the 5 <br />eddies thatlhey measured demonstrate that there was surfi- <br /> <br /> <br />.1 <br />