Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · pp1909

Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century

Abstract

The Bureau of Reclamation developed an extensive plan for a network of dams, water tunnels, and hydropower plants in and around Grand Canyon, Arizona, in the 1940s through 1960s. The two largest of these planned dams were the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon Dams on the Colorado River. Though these dams were ultimately never built, Reclamation conducted extensive topographic, bathymetric, and subsurface exploration work at the sites proposed for these dams in the 1940s and 1950s. Resurveys of these dam sites were conducted between 1998 and 2021 to determine the changes in sediment storage at these dam sites caused by the upstream construction and operation of Glen Canyon Dam and by the recession of Lake Mead, the reservoir impounded by Hoover Dam. The resurveys of the Marble Canyon dam sites indicate that the post-1950s changes in sediment storage at these dam sites are broadly consistent with flux-based estimates of voluminous sand erosion from Marble Canyon since the 1963 closure of Glen Canyon Dam. These resurveys also suggest that the pre-dam longitudinal variation in sediment thickness over bedrock played a key role in determining the locations of the sand erosion induced by Glen Canyon Dam; more sand eroded from locations where more sand was present in the 1950s. The resurvey of the Bridge Canyon dam sites indicates that the Colorado River’s incision of the Lake Mead delta is regulated both by bed-sediment grain size and downstream hydraulic controls. Finally, analyses of bed-sediment thickness and sedimentological data at the dam sites, and observations of bed scour and gravel transport, suggest that sufficient bedrock was exposed to allow bedrock incision during commonly recurring pre-dam snowmelt floods that entrained small boulders into transport.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 35.47881199114212° to 37.15247440603024° latitude; -114.045291113912° to -111.13939827710723° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David J. Topping, Joseph E. Hazel, Matthew A. Kaplinski, Paul E. Grams. 2026-09-02. Resurvey of the Marble Canyon and Bridge Canyon dam sites in Grand Canyon National Park—Changes in sediment storage and evidence supporting the occurrence of bedrock incision through the mid-20th century. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1909

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

The eruptive behavior of distributed volcanism forming low shield edifices—A case study of Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field, U.S.A.

Distributed volcanic fields are present in various tectonic settings worldwide, and their characteristics reflect differing influences from magmatic and tectonic processes. In the southwestern United States alone, there are 37 Quaternary distributed volcanic fields. After the primary period of extensional tectonics in the southern Basin and Range 15–5 million years ago, the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field developed in southwestern Arizona between 4 and 1 million years ago. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists primarily of low relief shield volcanoes, a type of distributed volcanism with poorly understood temporal evolution. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field is less than 200 kilometers (km) from the Colorado Plateau, Gulf of California, and southern San Andreas Fault system. This work identifies and examines controls on the emplacement of the Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field by documenting shallow and surficial structures as well as eruption characteristics and style through time. The Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field consists of 21 volcanoes with a total of 33 vents over an area of about 770 square kilometers (km 2 ). The prominence of low relief shield volcanoes may be explained by ascent of basaltic magmas through thin Basin and Range crust, without much crustal contamination, and low viscosities common to mafic compositions. Typical eruption characteristics involve the construction of low relief shield volcanoes followed by Strombolian fissure eruptions at the summits or near-summit medial areas that produce scoria lapilli, which may weld to form agglomerate. The total lifetime erupted volume of about 4.3 cubic kilometers (km 3 ) represents an average eruptive flux of approximately 2x10 -3 km 3 per thousand years (k.y.). This erupted volume is low relative to Neogene basaltic intraplate distributed volcanic fields worldwide, which typically range from 10 -3 to 1 km 3 k.y. -1 . Sentinel-Arlington volcanic field eruptions were likely triggered by intermittent rejuvenation of transient magmatic zones that exist in thinned crust. Instantaneous flux from point sources feeding the lava flows is estimated to be on the order of 10 -1 to 10 cubic meters per second.

Arizona↗

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗

Distributed volcanic fields—Patterns, products, processes, and plumbing

Distributed volcanic fields—also referred to as “monogenetic fields” or simply “volcanic fields”—are found on every continent, on the seafloors, and in every tectonic setting on Earth. Yet, our understanding of what constitutes a distributed volcanic field, and our knowledge of the common products, spatiotemporal patterns in activity, and plumbing systems of these fields, are commonly poor and (or) debated. Here we provide an overview of the current understanding of distributed volcanic fields (DVFs) through review and compilation of published data, with an emphasis on understanding the characteristics of fields that are essential to prepare for future hazardous volcanic activity. Distributed fields can erupt restricted to variable magma compositions. Activity in these fields produces nearly all types of volcanoes, including scoria and spatter cones, maars, low shields, lava fields, stratovolcanoes, and calderas, but monogenetic volcanoes are the defining characteristic of DVFs. The number of vents and lifespans of DVFs vary greatly; vent numbers range from 2 to greater than 1,000, and fields can remain active for 150,000 to 10 million years. Some characteristics of DVFs appear field dependent. Although the volumes of single monogenetic eruptions within DVFs globally are variable (from less than 0.1 to a few cubic kilometers), each field may have a characteristic range in eruption volumes. Eruptions within distributed volcanic fields can have a random distribution and timing, but spatial and (or) temporal vent clustering and alignment are common, and eruptions may be time or volume predictable. Average eruption recurrence intervals in DVFs span over an order of magnitude, from less than 3 to greater than 100 thousand years. Exposures of the shallow portions of older systems reveal that many magma batches end their ascent before reaching the surface, with some dikes stopping within only meters of the surface. Petrologic insights into the deeper plumbing systems of DVF volcanoes indicate variable depths of magma crystallization and (or) stalling, and that magma transport and storage systems may be unique to a particular DVF and its underlying crustal structure. Both seismic and petrologic data for mafic DVF eruptions corroborate intrusions of magma into storage systems in the months to years before eruption, as well as variable ascent rates through the crust (days to weeks). Few distributed fields are closely monitored, as they erupt infrequently, but these observations imply that the amount of time available to install monitoring instrumentation after the first felt seismicity may be short, as precursory activity is frequently on the order of days to months for modern DVF eruptions. Satellite-based geodesy may provide useful warning in such cases. This chapter concludes with outstanding questions and areas for future research that will aid in our understanding and preparedness for future DVF eruptions.

Professional Paper↗