Streamflow and sediment data collected to determine the effects of a controlled flood in March and April 1996 on the Colorado River between Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek, Arizona

Konieczki, A.D.; Graf, Julia B.; Carpenter, Michael C.

doi:10.3133/ofr97224

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Travel time of each high dam release has been removed, so that zero corresponds to the arrival time of the released flood peak. sediment concentration are reported by Konieczki et al [1997], grain-size analyses of the 1996 samples are reported by Topping et al [1999], and similar analyses of the 2000 samples are available electronically from http://www. gcmrc.gov/.…”

Section: Data Sources and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that discharge remained constant and there was no tributary flooding during the budget computation periods, the error associated with estimating sediment load over each flood is primarily that associated with estimating the suspended sediment concentrations. The 1996 samples and techniques for determining suspended sediment concentration are reported by Konieczki et al [1997], grain‐size analyses of the 1996 samples are reported by Topping et al [1999], and similar analyses of the 2000 samples are available electronically from http://www.gcmrc.gov/.…”

Section: Sediment Storage In the Postdam Rivermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of a dam on fine‐sediment storage in a canyon river

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Glen Canyon Dam has caused a fundamental change in the distribution of fine sediment storage in the 99-km reach of the Colorado River in Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. The two major storage sites for fine sediment (i.e., sand and finer material) in this canyon river are lateral recirculation eddies and the mainchannel bed. We use a combination of methods, including direct measurement of sediment storage change, measurements of sediment flux, and comparison of the grain size of sediment found in different storage sites relative to the supply and that in transport, in order to evaluate the change in both the volume and location of sediment storage. The analysis shows that the bed of the main channel was an important storage environment for fine sediment in the predam era. In years of large seasonal accumulation, approximately 50% of the fine sediment supplied to the reach from upstream sources was stored on the main-channel bed. In contrast, sediment budgets constructed for two short-duration, high experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam indicate that approximately 90% of the sediment discharge from the reach during each release was derived from eddy storage, rather than from sandy deposits on the main-channel bed. These results indicate that the majority of the fine sediment in Marble Canyon is now stored in eddies, even though they occupy a small percentage ($17%) of the total river area. Because of a 95% reduction in the supply of fine sediment to Marble Canyon, future high releases without significant input of tributary sediment will potentially erode sediment from long-term eddy storage, resulting in continued degradation in Marble Canyon.

show abstract

Section: Data Sources and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sediment Storage In the Postdam Rivermentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of a dam on fine‐sediment storage in a canyon river

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…it was generally presumed that such changes would have undesirable impacts on ecosystems. the concept was then progressively widened to consider limiting flow regimes rather than a single flow and to consider impacts on net sediment transport (Konieczki et al 1997), stream geomorphology (Gippel & stewardson 1995), water quality and the biological environment (Kimmerer 2002;Drake et al 2002), including the temporal availability of habitat (stalnaker et al 1996). the extension of this concept from fluvial to estuarine conditions is difficult for two reasons.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of the Snowy River Estuary to two environmental flows

McLean¹,

Hinwood²

2015

Proc. R. Soc. Vic.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Snowy River is a major river in south-eastern Australia, discharging to the Tasman Sea via a barrier estuary, with its entrance constricted by marine sands. Since the construction of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, river flows have not been sufficient to maintain the river channel. A program of environmental flow releases (EFR) is returning water to the river to restore the fluvial reaches and is now trialling flow regimes that may also benefit the estuarine reaches. This paper documents the response of the estuarine segments of the Snowy River to two EFRs; the release in 2010 was designed to scour the upper reaches of the Snowy River while the larger 2011 release was intended to extend the scouring downstream. For each release, the effects on the entrance morphology, tides and salinity through the flow peak and recovery are described. Each EFR caused minor increases in depth and very minor longshore movement of the entrance channel, although each EFR had been preceded by a larger fresh flow that would have scoured the channels. The small increase in fresh water inflow in the 2010 EFR pushed salinity contours seawards and steepened vertical salinity gradients. The larger inflow in the 2011 EFR purged the upper estuary of saltwater. After the peak flow, salinity recovery was rapid in the principal estuarine channels but took weeks where poorly connected wetlands could store fresh flood waters. Critical flows for scouring the entrance and purging salinity are estimated.

show abstract

“…Reach-average velocity was measured by recording the times at which a red fluorescent dye moved downstream past various measurement stations (Graf 1995 The average speed of the flood for the entire river length was 1.8 m/s, varying from -1.5 to 2.1 m/s in different subreaches that were tens of kilometers in length (Konieczki et al 1997). The test flood was one of seven high In contrast, velocity in the zones of flow separation and reattachment that determine the upstream and downstream ends of eddies was zero.…”

Section: Hydrologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11,No. 3 The average speed of the flood for the entire river length was 1.8 m/s, varying from ϳ1.5 to 2.1 m/s in different subreaches that were tens of kilometers in length (Konieczki et al 1997). However, velocities varied greatly over shorter distances.…”

Section: Ecological Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The 1996 Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon: Flow, Sediment Transport, and Geomorphic Change

Schmidt

Parnell

Grams

et al. 2001

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsJune0401 COLORADO RIVER ECOSYSTELk RESTR I 657 Abstract. The 1996 controlled flood released from Glen Canyon Dam into the Colorado River was a small magnitude, short duration event compared to pre-dam floods. The controlled flood was of lesser magnitude than a 1.25-yr recurrence, and only 10% of the predam spring snowmelt floods during the period 1922-1962 were of lower magnitude. The flood occurred unusually early: 36-38 d prior to any previous annual flood since 1922. The stage difference between the flood's peak and the recessional baseflow was smaller than in those pre-dam years of similar magnitude or annual volume. However, the controlled flood was large from the perspective of the post-dam flood regime. The flood had a recurrence of 5.1 yr for the period between 1963 and 1999 and a similar magnitude flood had not occurred in 10 yr. The sediment flux of the flood was small in relation to pre-dam floods, and the suspended sand concentration was within the historical variance for flows of similar magnitude.This flood reworked fine-grained deposits that are primarily composed of sand, but the flood caused much less reworking of coarser grained deposits. Scour primarily occurred in the offshore parts of eddies, in many eddy return-current channels, and in some parts of the main channel. Return-current channels constitute important nursery habitats for the native fishery when baseflows are low, because these channels become areas of stagnant and warmer water. The number and area of these backwaters increased greatly after the flood. Fluvial marshes were extensively scoured because these habitats occur in the low elevation centers of eddies where velocities during the flood were large. Riparian shrubs that were inundated along the banks were not scoured, however, because these shrubs occur where flood velocities were very low and where deposition of suspended sediment occurred. Some physical changes persisted for several years, but other changes, such as the area of newly formed backwaters decreased quickly. Thus, the lasting effect of this flood varied among different small-scale fluvial environments.

show abstract

Streamflow and sediment data collected to determine the effects of a controlled flood in March and April 1996 on the Colorado River between Lees Ferry and Diamond Creek, Arizona

Cited by 15 publications

References 3 publications

Influence of a dam on fine‐sediment storage in a canyon river

Influence of a dam on fine‐sediment storage in a canyon river

Response of the Snowy River Estuary to two environmental flows

The 1996 Controlled Flood in Grand Canyon: Flow, Sediment Transport, and Geomorphic Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About