Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Research about Arizona;Nevada;Utah

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Arizona;Nevada;Utah.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2013

Nearshore thermal gradients of the Colorado River near the Little Colorado River confluence, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, 2010

Construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam has dramatically impacted the flow of the Colorado River through Glen, Marble, and Grand Canyons. Extremes in both streamflow and water temperature have been suppressed by controlled releases from the dam. Trapping of sediment in Lake Powell, the reservoir formed by Glen Canyon Dam, has also dramatically reduced the supply of suspended sediment entering the system. These changes have altered the riverine ecosystem and the habitat of native species, including fish such as the endangered humpback chub ( Gila cypha ). Most native fish are adapted to seasonally warm water, and the continuous relatively cold water released by the dam is one of the factors that is believed to limit humpback chub growth and survival. While average mainstem temperatures in the Colorado River are well documented, there is limited understanding of temperatures in the nearshore environments that fish typically occupy. Four nearshore geomorphic unit types were studied between the confluence of the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers and Lava Canyon in the summer and fall of 2010, for study periods of 10 to 27 days. Five to seven sites were studied during each interval. Persistent thermal gradients greater than the 0.2 °C accuracy of the instruments were not observed in any of the sampled shoreline environments. Temperature gradients between the shoreline and mainstem on the order of 4 °C, believed to be important to the habitat-seeking behavior of native or nonnative fishes, were not detected.

Arizona;Nevada;Utah↗
USGS2013

Evaluation of intake efficiencies and associated sediment-concentration errors in US D-77 bag-type and US D-96-type depth-integrating suspended-sediment samplers

Accurate measurements of suspended-sediment concentration require suspended-sediment samplers to operate isokinetically, within an intake-efficiency range of 1.0 ± 0.10, where intake efficiency is defined as the ratio of the velocity of the water through the sampler intake to the local ambient stream velocity. Local ambient stream velocity is defined as the velocity of the water in the river at the location of the nozzle, unaffected by the presence of the sampler. Results from Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project (FISP) laboratory experiments published in the early 1940s show that when the intake efficiency is less than 1.0, suspended-sediment samplers tend to oversample sediment relative to water, leading to potentially large positive biases in suspended-sediment concentration that are positively correlated with grain size. Conversely, these experiments show that, when the intake efficiency is greater than 1.0, suspended‑sediment samplers tend to undersample sediment relative to water, leading to smaller negative biases in suspended-sediment concentration that become slightly more negative as grain size increases. The majority of FISP sampler development and testing since the early 1990s has been conducted under highly uniform flow conditions via flume and slack-water tow tests, with relatively little work conducted under the greater levels of turbulence that exist in actual rivers. Additionally, all of this recent work has been focused on the hydraulic characteristics and intake efficiencies of these samplers, with no field investigations conducted on the accuracy of the suspended-sediment data collected with these samplers. When depth-integrating suspended-sediment samplers are deployed under the more nonuniform and turbulent conditions that exist in rivers, multiple factors may contribute to departures from isokinetic sampling, thus introducing errors into the suspended-sediment data collected by these samplers that may not be predictable on the basis of flume and tow tests alone. This study has three interrelated goals. First, the intake efficiencies of the older US D-77 bag-type and newer, FISP-approved US D-96-type1 depth-integrating suspended‑sediment samplers are evaluated at multiple cross‑sections under a range of actual-river conditions. The intake efficiencies measured in these actual-river tests are then compared to those previously measured in flume and tow tests. Second, other physical effects, mainly water temperature and the duration of sampling at a vertical, are examined to determine whether these effects can help explain observed differences in intake efficiency both between the two types of samplers and between the laboratory and field tests. Third, the signs and magnitudes of the likely errors in suspendedsand concentration in measurements made with both types of samplers are predicted based the intake efficiencies of these two types of depth-integrating samplers. Using the relative difference in isokinetic sampling observed between the US D-77 bag-type and D-96-type samplers during river tests, measured differences in suspended-sediment concentration in a variety of size classes were evaluated between paired equal-discharge-increment (EDI) and equal-width-increment (EWI) measurements made with these two types of samplers to determine whether these differences in concentration are consistent with the differences in concentrations expected on the basis of the 1940s FISP laboratory experiments. In addition, sequential single-vertical depth-integrated samples were collected (concurrent with velocity measurements) with the US D-96-type bag sampler and two different rigidcontainer samplers to evaluate whether the predicted errors in suspended-sand concentrations measured with the US D-96- type sampler are consistent with those expected on the basis of the 1940s FISP laboratory experiments. Results from our study indicate that the intake efficiency of the US D-96-type sampler is superior to that of the US D-77 bag-type sampler under actual-river conditions, with overall performance of the US D-96-type sampler being closer to, yet still typically below, the FISP-acceptable range of isokinetic operation. These results are in contrast to the results from FISP-conducted flume tests that showed that both the US D-77 bag-type and US D-96-type samplers sampled isokinetically in the laboratory. Results from our study indicate that the single largest problem with the behavior of both the US D-77 bag-type and the US D-96-type samplers under actual‑river conditions is that both samplers are prone to large time‑dependent decreases in intake efficiency as sampling duration increases. In the case of the US D-96-type sampler, this problem may be at least partially overcome by shortening the duration of sampling (or, instead, perhaps by a simple design improvement); in the case of the US D-77 bag-type sampler, although shortening the sampling duration improves the intake efficiency, it does not bring it into agreement with the FISP‑accepted range of isokinetic operation. The predicted errors in suspended-sand concentration in EDI or EWI measurements made with the US-96-type sampler are much smaller than those associated with EDI or EWI measurements made with the US D-77 bag-type sampler, especially when the results are corrected for the effects of water temperature and sampling duration. The bias in the concentration in each size class measured using the US D-77 bag-type relative to the concentration measured using the US D-96-type sampler behaves in a manner consistent with that expected on the basis of the observed differences in intake efficiency between the two samplers in conjunction with the results from the 1940s FISP laboratory experiments. In addition, the bias in the concentration in each size class measured using the US D-96‑type sampler relative to the concentration measured using the truly isokinetic rigid-container samplers is in excellent agreement with that predicted on the basis of the 1940s FISP laboratory experiments. Because suspended-sediment samplers can respond differently between laboratory and field conditions, actual-river tests such as those in this study should be conducted when models of suspended-sediment samplers are changed from one type to another during the course of long-term monitoring programs. Otherwise, potential large differences in the suspended-sediment data collected by different types of samplers would lead to large step changes in sediment loads that may be misinterpreted as real, when, in fact, they are associated with the change in suspended‑sediment sampling equipment.

Arizona;Nevada;Utah↗
USGS2012

Design and maintenance of a network for collecting high-resolution suspended-sediment data at remote locations on rivers, with examples from the Colorado River

Management of sand and finer sediment in fluvial settings has become increasingly important for reasons ranging from endangered-species habitat to transport of sediment-associated contaminants. In all rivers, some fraction of the suspended load is transported as washload, and some as suspended bed material. Typically, the washload is composed of silt-and-clay-size sediment, and the suspended bed material is composed of sand-size sediment. In most rivers, as a result of changes in the upstream supply of silt and clay, large, systematic changes in the concentration of the washload occur over time, independent of changes in water discharge. Recent work has shown that large, systematic, discharge-independent changes in the concentration of the suspended bed material are also present in many rivers. In bedrock canyon rivers, such as the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, changes in the upstream tributary supply of sand may cause large changes in the grain-size distribution of the bed sand, resulting in changes in both the concentration and grain-size distribution of the sand in suspension. Large discharge-independent changes in suspended-sand concentration coupled to discharge-independent changes in the grain-size distribution of the suspended sand are not unique to bedrock canyon rivers, but also occur in large alluvial rivers, such as the Mississippi River. These systematic changes in either suspended-silt-and-clay concentration or suspended-sand concentration may not be detectable by using conventional equal-discharge- or equal-width-increment measurements, which may be too infrequently collected relative to the time scale over which these changes in the sediment load are occurring. Furthermore, because large discharge-independent changes in both suspended-silt-and-clay and suspended-sand concentration are possible in many rivers, methods using water discharge as a proxy for suspended-sediment concentration (such as sediment rating curves) may not produce sufficiently accurate estimates of sediment loads. Finally, conventional suspended-sediment measurements are both labor and cost intensive and may not be possible at the resolution required to resolve discharge-independent changes in suspended-sediment concentration, especially in more remote locations. For these reasons, the U.S. Geological Survey has pursued the use of surrogate technologies (such as acoustic and laser diffraction) for providing higher-resolution measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size than are possible by using conventional suspended-sediment measurements alone. These factors prompted the U.S. Geological Survey's Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center to design and construct a network to automatically measure suspended-sediment transport at 15-minute intervals by using acoustic and laser-diffraction surrogate technologies at remote locations along the Colorado River within Marble and Grand Canyons in Grand Canyon National Park. Because of the remoteness of the Colorado River in this reach, this network also included the design of a broadband satellite-telemetry system to communicate with the instruments deployed at each station in this network. Although the sediment-transport monitoring network described in this report was developed for the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park, the design of this network can easily be adapted for use on other rivers, no matter how remote. In the Colorado River case-study example described in this report, suspended-sediment concentration and grain size are measured at five remote stations. At each of these stations, surrogate measurements of suspended-sediment concentration and grain size are made at 15-minute intervals using an array of different single-frequency acoustic-Doppler side-looking profilers. Laser-diffraction instruments are also used at two of these stations to measure both suspended-sediment concentrations and grain-size distributions. Cross-section calibrations of these instruments have been constructed and verified by using either equal-discharge-increment (EDI) or equal-width-increment (EWI) measurements of the velocity-weighted suspended-sediment concentration and grain-size distribution. The suspended-silt-and-clay concentration parts of these calibration relations have also included information from EDI- or EWI-calibrated samples collected by automatic pump samplers. Three of the monitoring stations are equipped with two-way satellite broadband telemetry systems that operate once a day to remotely monitor and program the instruments and download data. Data from these stations are typically downloaded twice per month; data from stations without satellite-telemetry systems are downloaded during site visits, which occur every 2 months or semiannually, depending on the remoteness of the site. Upon downloading and processing, suspended-silt-and-clay concentration, suspended-sand concentration, and suspended-sand median grain size are posted on the World Wide Web. Satellite telemetry in combination with the high-resolution sediment surrogate measurements can generate near-real-time suspended-sediment-concentration and grain-size data (limited only by the time required to download the instruments and process the data). The approach for measuring suspended-sediment concentration and grain size using this monitoring network is more practical, and can be done at a much lower cost and with higher temporal resolution, than any other method.

Arizona;Nevada;Utah↗
USGS2011

Abiotic & biotic responses of the Colorado River to controlled floods at Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, USA

Closure of Glen Canyon Dam reduced sand supply to the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park by about 94% while its operation has also eroded the park's sandbar habitats. Three controlled floods released from the dam since 1995 suggest that sandbars might be rebuilt and maintained, but only if repeated floods are timed to follow tributary sand deliveries below the dam. Monitoring data show that sandbars are dynamic and that their erosion after bar building is positively related with mean daily discharge and negatively related with tributary sand production after controlled floods. The March 2008 flood affected non-native rainbow trout abundance in the Lees Ferry tailwater, which supports a blue ribbon fishery. Downstream trout dispersal from the tailwater results in negative competitive interactions and predation on endangered humpback chub. Early survival rates of age-0 trout increased more than fourfold following the 2008 flood, and twofold in 2009, relative to prior years (2006-2007). Hatch-date analysis indicated that early survival rates were much higher for cohorts that emerged about 2 months after the 2008 flood relative to cohorts that emerged earlier that year. The 2009 survival data suggest that tailwater habitat improvements persisted for at least a year, but apparently decreased in 2010. Increased early survival rates for trout coincided with the increased availability of higher quality drifting food items after the 2008 flood owing to an increase in midges and black flies, preferred food items of rainbow trout. Repeated floods from the dam might sustainably rebuild and maintain sandbars if released when new tributary sand is available below the tailwater. Spring flooding might also sustain increased trout abundance and benefit the tailwater fishery, but also be a potential risk to humpback chub in Grand Canyon.

Arizona;Nevada;Utah↗