USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · pp1493

Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 to 1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

John C. Schmidt·Julia B. Graf
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Alluvial sand deposits along the Colorado River in Grand Canyon National Park are used as campsites and are substrate for vegetation. The largest and most numerous of these deposits are formed in zones of recirculating current that are created downstream from where the channel is constricted by debris fans at tributary mouths. Alluvial sand deposits are classified by location and form. Separation and reattachment deposits are downstream from constrictions within recirculation zones. Separation deposits are near the point of flow separation and typically mantle large debris fans. Reattachment deposits are near the point of flow reattachment and project upstream beneath much of the zone of recirculating current. Upper-pool deposits are upstream from a constriction and are associated with backwaters. Channel-margin deposits line the channel and have the form of terraces. Some are created in small recirculation zones. Reattachment and channel-margin deposits are largest and most numerous in wide reaches, although small channel-margin deposits are used as campsites in the narrow Muav Gorge. Separation deposits are more uniformly distributed throughout Grand Canyon National Park than are other types of deposits. In some narrow reaches where the number of alluvial sand deposits used as campsites is small, separation deposits are a high percentage of the total. During high flows, both separation and reattachment deposits are initially scoured but are subsequently redeposited during flow recession. Sand is also exchanged between the main channel and recirculation zones. The rate of recession of high flows can affect the elevation of alluvial deposits that are left exposed after a flood has passed. Fluctuating flows that follow a period of steady discharge cause initial erosion of separation and reattachment deposits. A part of this eroded sand is transported to the main channel. Therefore, sand is exchanged between the main channel and recirculation zones and redistributed within recirculation zones over a broad range of discharges. Comparison of aerial photographs and reinterpretation of published data concerning changes of alluvial sand deposits following recession of high flows in 1983 and 1984 indicate that sand was eroded from recirculation zones in narrow reaches. In wide reaches, however, aggradation in recirculation zones may have occurred. In narrow reaches, the decrease of reattachment deposits was greater than that of separation deposits. In all reaches, the percentage of separation deposits that maintained a constant area was greater than for other deposits. Separation deposits, therefore, appear to be the most stable of the deposit types. Fluctuating flows between October 1985 and January 1986, which followed the higher and steadier flows of 1983 to 1985, caused erosion throughout the park. For separation deposits, erosion was greatest at those sites where deposition from the 1983 high flows had been greatest. The existing pattern of low campsite availability in narrow reaches and high campsite availability in wide reaches was thus accentuated by the sequence of flows between 1983 and 1985.

Explore related subjects

Professional PaperReport

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

John C. Schmidt, Julia B. Graf. 1990. Aggradation and degradation of alluvial sand deposits, 1965 to 1986, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1493

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

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

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.

Arizona↗
USGS2026

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↗
USGS2026

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↗