Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Katherine A. Chapman

Publications and source records attributed to Katherine A. Chapman.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2026

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona↗
USGS2026

Continuous and high-resolution longitudinal profiles of the water surface and riverbed elevation for 282 miles of the Colorado River from Lees Ferry to Pearce Ferry, Arizona, 2021

Longitudinal profiles of water surface and riverbed elevations capture key geomorphic characteristics that can be affected by water infrastructure and natural processes. Continuous water surface profiles of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, a river influenced by two of the largest dams in the United States, have been measured infrequently. The water surface profile was first measured in 1923, 13 years before the completion of Hoover Dam, which impounded water into western Grand Canyon, and 40 years before the completion of Glen Canyon Dam, which affected streamflow and sediment supply for all of Grand Canyon. The water surface profile was next measured in 2000, 37 years after the completion of Glen Canyon Dam, although this profile did not include the segment affected by Hoover Dam. A continuous profile of riverbed elevations has never been published. Here, we present the first complete, coupled water surface and riverbed elevation profiles, collected in 2021 during a period of steady releases from Glen Canyon Dam. The profiles were constructed from positions and elevations measured by boat-based global navigation satellite systems and from bathymetry collected by multibeam sonar. Data collected by boat were supplemented by data from a photogrammetry-derived digital surface model that was created from concurrently collected aerial images. Independent measurements made by conventional total stations referenced to a common geodetic control network were used to evaluate accuracy of all measurements. The final water surface and riverbed elevation profiles improved the accuracy and precision reported for previous profiles. In this study, the mean absolute vertical accuracy of water surface elevations was 0.07 meter for 85 percent of river miles and 0.19 meter for 11 percent of river miles. For the remaining 4 percent of river miles, water surface elevations were interpolated between measured values. The profiles reported herein can be used for current assessment of Colorado River geomorphic conditions, quantification of changes in the river over time, and predictive modeling of river resources for potential future management scenarios.quantification of changes in the river over time, and predictive modeling of river resources for potential future management scenarios.

Arizona↗
USGS2024

Implementation of controlled floods for sediment management on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon under aridification

In addition to supplying water for agriculture, cities, and industry, the Colorado River traverses the Colorado Plateau, including several of the most unique and valued National Parks and Recreation Areas in the United States. Although the water needs of these landscapes were not considered at the time water allocations were first negotiated, these needs were recognized in subsequent legislation and policy. Management goals address a range of aquatic and riparian resources, including fine sediment (sand, silt, and clay) which, in Grand Canyon, is important for ecological, cultural, and recreational resources. Over ~30 years, stakeholders, resource managers, and scientists collectively developed operational strategies for sediment management to meet goals outlined by an adaptive management program. However, prolonged drought, or “aridification,” resulting in declining runoff and the lowest reservoir storage elevations in decades has challenged those strategies. The paradigm for sustainable sediment management relies on (1) sand accumulation on the bed of the Colorado River during periods of sediment-rich tributary floods from summer/fall thunderstorms, and (2) dam-released controlled (artificial) floods, referred to as High-Flow Experiments (HFEs), to redistribute the accumulated sand to rebuild eroded bar and floodplain deposits. The management protocol, which specifies narrowly defined sand accumulation periods and HFE implementation windows, is based on implementing HFEs in late fall during the period of greatest sediment enrichment, before higher winter releases for hydropower erode the accumulated sand from the riverbed. Low dam releases associated with drought, however, have changed the pattern of sand accumulation and low reservoir elevations have prevented HFE implementation in the defined window. An alternative strategy for HFE planning and implementation was tested opportunistically in April 2023 following lower-than-normal winter dam releases. We present findings from this HFE indicating that sand enrichment and sandbar building equaled or exceeded that of HFEs conducted under the established management protocol. These findings show that management goals for sediment under conditions of prolonged drought may be achievable but will likely require substantial changes in dam management strategies.

Arizona↗
USGS2020

Estimating the contribution of tributary sand inputs to controlled flood deposits for sandbar restoration using elemental tracers, Colorado River, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona

Completion of Glen Canyon Dam in 1963 resulted in complete elimination of sediment delivery from the upstream Colorado River basin to Grand Canyon and nearly complete control of spring snowmelt floods responsible for creating channel and bar morphology. Management of the river ecosystem in Grand Canyon National Park now relies on dam-release floods to redistribute tributary-derived sediment accumulated on the channel bed to higher-elevation sandbars. Here, we used multivariate mixing analysis of sediment elemental compositions to evaluate the extent to which flood deposits derive from tributary-supplied sand compared to reworked, relict predam sediment. The concentrations of seven major and trace elements (Fe, Ca, K, Ti, Rb, Sr, and Zr) were measured in very fine−, fine-, and medium-grained sand from flood deposits using X-ray fluorescence and interpreted using a Bayesian mixing model to characterize the proportion of sand originating from the Paria River, the only major tributary within the study reach. Flood deposits from the 2013 and 2014 controlled floods contained 69% ± 16% and 84% ± 20% Paria River−derived material, respectively, with substantial variation among sites. Based on a sand mass balance, we calculated that under decreasing storage conditions since 1963, ∼77%−83% of the annual Paria River sand flux needs to be retained within the mass of active sand stored in Marble Canyon each year to reach the observed concentration of Paria River sand at sample locations. This finding suggests that the use of controlled floods may continue to be effective for sandbar maintenance, provided sand inputs from the Paria River do not decline.

Arizona↗