Laserfiche WebLink
<br />TOPPING ET AL: COLORADO RIVER SEDIMENT TRANSPORT, I <br /> <br />527 <br /> <br />10 <br />9 FlOOD ",0", WATER-SURFACE STAGE <br />PEAK ___ MEAN BED STAGE <br />· I .--...--- MINIMUM BED STAGE <br />~ ....0-.- 1948-1a58 MEAN BED STAGE <br />~ ~ . A x... n CN.S.& MEAN BED STAGE) <br />: . .~.~(:{ ,.X"~. :"+,,nIMINIMUMBEDSTAGE) <br /> <br /> <br />5 O-O-{}..Q.-Q..o- q MIN. BED ~ 2.2'); .^-.Q'Q-2'i2-{}.-o--o <br />" ELEVATION Y ~ <br /> <br />3 t <br /> <br />2 i. -l '.I..I..I.. <br />1 !.! '. <br /> <br />o <br />., <br />-2 .,x",x",x"X")("M...X" . oX <br />x..~___~..X-'M.-M"K ~ Xi ." Ii()( ~ ~ .)Ii <br />-3 -+- -+- +..+ . .-....:.+.:...:..".0.......+...+.000.+..0..+ <br />+-. ...+-........+._+.. .+' "+-.+--.......,+. <br />.. <br /> <br />I <br />w <br />'" <br />-= <br />'" <br />~ <br />-' <br />lC <br />-= <br />o <br />.... <br />-= <br />w <br />'" <br />~ <br />'" <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />75 <br />50 <br />, <br />25 <br />o <br /> <br />~ ~ ~ ~ _ Jun ~ ~g Ssp ~ b ~ <br /> <br /> 200 <br />w <br />" 180 <br />z <br />w <br />a: 160 <br />a: <br />::> <br />8 140 <br />c 120 <br />~ <br />" 100 <br />! 80 <br />-= <br />9 60 <br />c <br />i!l 40 <br />~ 20 <br />a: <br />0 <br />z 0 <br /> <br />~ SAND-OEPLET1QN EVENTS <br />---0... DECAEASING-CQNCENTRATION INCONCLUSIVE EVENTS <br />----.- SAND-ENHANCEMENT EVENTS <br />_.. -.6,... INCAEASING-CONCENTRATlON INCONCLUSIVE EVENTS <br />... -x-.. - n (total number 01 the 4 rypes of sand-8l4lPIY events) <br /> <br /> <br />X-"X- <br />._~...x..-x"- <br /> <br />J8I1 <br /> <br />Fob <br /> <br />... Ap' May <br /> <br />b) <br /> <br />;,.. <br />.Jo4=..M..M...X'"..x...~..X:..)(..)(_.~ '->;:'''X''':lo'.. . <br />Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Noy D8C <br /> <br />50 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Figure 6, (oontinued) <br /> <br />Lees Ferry gage annual technical file, 1945) and caused ap- <br />proximately 10 m of channel narrowing (Figure 7c). Because of <br />these externally foreed changes in geometry, the bed-stage <br />data from the upper cableway were analyred in four segments: <br />(1) from August 3,1921, through April 8, 1923, (2) from April <br />10, 1923, through July 31, 1929, (3) from August 2, 1929, <br />through December 7, 1944, and (4) from January 10, 1945, <br />through February 7, 1959. To ensure that only natural long- <br />term trends were detected in this analysis, the period after <br />completion of the cofferdam at the Glen Canyon Dam site on <br />February 11, 1959 [Maron, 1989], was not included. Though <br />the effect of the oofferdam was probably smaU at the upper <br />cableway during 1959-1962, by trapping some of the upstream <br />supply of sediment, the oofferdam may have slightly enhanced <br />the soour at the upper cableway (Figure 6b) [see Pembenon, <br />1976]. <br />From August 2, 1929, through February 7, 1959, and as <br />observed at the Orand Canyon cableway, the trend in bed stage <br />at the upper Lees Ferry cableway was slightly, but significantly, <br />negative (Figure 7b). Trends in mean bed stage from August 3, <br />1921, through April 8, 1923, and from April 10, 1923, through <br />July 31, 1929, are not significant at either the 5% or 10% level, <br />however. From August 2. 1929. through December 7, 19.\.\. the <br /> <br />bed at the upper cableway sooured at a rate of 2.5 cm/yr; this <br />trend is significant at the 1.6 X 10-' level. From January 10, <br />1945, through February 7,1959, the bed sooured at a rate of3.0 <br />cm/yr; this trend is significant at the 3.9 X 10-4 level. Thus, <br />given the approximate 120-m width of the channel at the upper <br />cableway, about 3.0 m' more sediment was eroded from this <br />cross section than was supplied to it each year during 1929- <br />1944, and about 3.6 m2 more sediment was eroded from this <br />cross section than was supplied to it each year during 1945- <br />1958. From August 2, 1929, through February 7, 1959, the <br />I5-min discharge of water at tbe Lees Ferry gage increased by <br />only 10%, and the 15-min water-surface stage increased by <br />only 3% (L. E. Vierra and D. J. Topping, unpublished data, <br />1999). Thus long.term changes in either discharge or stage can <br />be ruled out as the cause of the 1929-1958 erosion. Further- <br />more. because the August 2, 1929, to February 7, 1959, stage. <br />discharge relationship was effectively oonstant (Figure 7d), the <br />1929-1958 decrease in the amount of sediment at the upper <br />cableway suggests that Glen Canyon, like Grand Canyon, was <br />supply-limited with respect to fine sediment. However, the <br />previous analyses (shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6) suggest that <br />the degree of sediment supply limitation in Glen Canyon was <br />much less than in Grand Canyon. <br />