United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION UPPER COLORADO REGIONAL OFFICE P.O. BOX 11568 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84147

IN REPLY REFER TO: DEC 1 3 1989 UC-410

Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Technical Team Meeting Participants Subject: Glen Canyon Environmental Studies - November 14 & 15, 1989, Technical Team Meeting Notes

Enclosed for your information is the meeting synopsis fram the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GOES) Technical Team meetings which were held November 14 & 15, 1989, in Tempe, Arizona. These notes reflect the general areas of discussion, and are not meant to reflect the verbatim discussion. As always, we maintain the actual tape recordings of the meetings in the GOES Flagstaff Office.

Thank you for your continued participation in the GOES program.

Sincerely,

/Gel-j1)a4CC David L. Wegner GOES Program Manager

Enclosure MEETING SUMMARY

Meeting: Glen Canyon Environmental Studies: Environmental and Economic Team Meeting

Date/Location: November 14-15, 1989, ASU Community Services Building, 200 North Curry Road, Tempe, AZ

Purpose: This was the fifth meeting in 1989 (previous meetings were held Jan. 9-12, Feb. 16-17, March 20-21, June 15-16) of both the Economic and Environmental Teams (32 people were present on Nov. 14 and 37 people were present on Nov. 15) to update, review, discuss, and come to closure on technical or scientific aspects of the Phase II program of the GCES.

Attendees: See Attachment 1

Agenda: Nov. 14: Discussion of the EIS and GCES, discussion of October 6-9, 1989 low flow test, activities completed since the June technical meeting, and coordination team summaries. Nov 15: Presentation of Draft Research Integration Plan, required research flows, discussion of protocol for identification and review of research proposals, organization of the GCES Team, Geographical Information System discussions, assignments, and summary.

Maior Issues Discussed/Authors Response/Action Taken:

Members of the Environmental and Economic Teams met with the Program Manager and Senior Scientist to review the Phase II program of the Glen Canyon Environmental Studies. Following are the key items of the agenda, a summary of the discussions and concerns, and description of the action to be taken. Cassette tape recordings of the meetings were taken and are archived in the GCES/Flagstaff office. The summary notes presented here do not reflect verbatim comments. If changes are necessary, please contact the GCES Program Manager.

Introduction and Objectives: Nov. 15, 1989

Dave Wegner began the meeting by having all members introduce themselves, then by reviewing the agenda. He stated that the GCES is now under a new office (called the Studies Office and New Initiatives) in the Upper Colorado Regional Office. The objective of this meeting was to identify the technical aspects, discuss the timing of the GCES and EIS, and to discuss the draft integrated research plan. The EIS (public scoping sessions and involvement, selection of preferred alternatives, and final EIS document) has been scheduled as a 24- month process, as published in the Federal Register (Vol. 24, No. 207, Friday, October 27, 1989). The group then discussed the separate and parallel track that the GCES technical studies will 1 undertake in the next two years.

Discussion of the October 6-9 Low Flow Test

Dave gave an overview of the October 5,000 cfs Low Flow Test: over 40 personnel involved in the field work and logistics, the work was preformed during this time frame to duplicate photography done in October 1984 at 5,000 cfs, and that prior to the four days there was field work in preparation for the test (establishing a new gage below the dam, installation of cable cars at three gages in , placement of grids on five beaches, permit requests, etc.). The major objectives of the low flow tests were aerial photography, collection of data on ecosystem response, and angler access above Lee's Ferry.

Duncan Patten then discussed the low flow test. Pre- and post- flow responses were just as important as information collected during the constant 5,000 cfs; information was collected on flow and equilibrium rates; we learned much about logistical needs (i.e., man power needs were underestimated); and that the interdisciplinary work and cooperation were noteworthy.

Julie Graf (USGS) discussed the rhodomine dye study. The design of this study focused on the need of the researchers to know how a "slug" of water moves through the Grand Canyon system. Julie reviewed the methods used to insert the dye and how it was tracked through the system. A preliminary finding was that a slug of water moves very slowly (about one mile per hour in the Lee's Ferry reach) and that two cycles of fluctuations moved through the mass between Lee's Ferry and the Grand Canyon gages, slightly increasing the velocity of the mass. Due to the slower than estimated movement, the volume of dye inserted at Glen Canyon Dam was insufficient for the slug to be tracked at the National and Diamond Creek gages. Bedload measurements were taken at the gaging stations (during GCES Phase I the majority of samples were suspended sediments with some bedload); however USGS is working to refine the techniques to make the data collected more understandable. Bedload movement was significant at the National Canyon gage (300 samples taken) and bedload rating curves will be developed with error bands. Sonic sounders can measure bed form movement in three dimensions and make estimates of sediment waves and bedload more accurate.

Bob Hart (USGS) discussed the objectives of the streamf low discharge, velocity, streambed configuration, productivity, nutrient loads, and bedload measurements taken by USGS personnel (two at four gages, and four at the National gage). Additional personnel would been have useful as the crews worked 14 hour days. Nutrient samples and major ions are being analyzed in Denver and results will be available in 1-2 months.

Dennis Kubly (AGF) discussed the major objectives of the aquatic

2 work during the test: look at organic/nutrient loading, spawning bars (suitability and access by rainbow trout at 5,000 cfs -- however originally a range of flows was to be considered), and field checking the bathymetric map of the tailwater for future use. The sediment is "coarse" for trout with larger gravel by the dam and finer material in the lower end.

Mike Yard (GCES) discussed the Glen Canyon Dam tailwater map. Objectives were to field check a photo-interpreted map of the tailwater drawn from 1984 photography, compile additional data to enhance the map, preform an initial bathymetric analysis (cross- sectional profiles, depth, and channel width), establish transect lines which can be remeasured in the future, and develop a qualitative descriptive scale of substrate composition (results: silt (0.2%), sand (40%), gravel (17%), cobbles [1"-6"] (24%, 5%, 8%), boulders (6%)). Changes have occurred in the tailwater within the last five years, with both degradation and aggradation. Of the original 21 backwaters in 1984, 52% were absent, 29% were altered, and 19% remained similar. Three new backwaters were observed.

Michael Welsh (HBRS) discussed the angler access above Three Mile Bar at 5,000 cfs. During the three days of observation there were 296 attempts (2/3 upstream and 1/3 downstream), approximately 87% were successful (81% had "clean" runs). Twenty-five boats never made it past the constriction, and of the 23 boats with "unclean" runs, 19 hit props, 4 stopped and pulled boats over the bar, and 4 were stopped by rocks. Additional observations will be made in November over fluctuating and lower flow levels.

Larry Stevens (NPS) discussed the objectives of the beach microhabitat/erosion studies. He described the selection of beaches, methods, and preliminary results. Overall, erosion rates were greater in the <28,000 cfs zone and under a fluctuating versus a non-fluctuating discharge regime; greater loss of sediments on riverward side of sites, at upstream sites, and of sand versus silt; sediment was transported in waves perpendicular to current direction to return channel on low gradient sites; sediment desiccation rate varied by particle size and stage; and beach morphology did not completely stabilize during the study. Also, there was a lag-time between river and bank-stored water table which varied with proximity to channel and substrate; bank-stored water table subsided through the study; bank-stored water maintained a consistently higher temperature and higher alkalinity as compared to the river; bank- stored water responded to daily temperature fluctuation; and return channel water varied according to degree of isolation from the mainstem.

Frank Baucom (FWS) stated that water samples were also collected from the Paria River. 3 Dave Wegner (GCES) discussed the aerial and video photography. Aerial lpholtography was collected from Glen Canyon Dam to Piercse Ferry in Lake Mead and up the to Cameron. Video coverage was obtained of the Lee's Ferry tailwater area, the Little Colorado River (from the confluence to Grand Falls), and of the Paria River from the mouth to Highway 89. The video imagery will be used in the GCES video data base.

Ed Chang (Western) discussed the impact of the low flow test. During summer to winter the peak load is switched. The June estimate ($92,000) was based on the move of on-peak to off-peak and the need to purchase other power. The actual cost was $64,000 due to an interchange of power with Hoover. Ed stated that the 5,000 cfs steady flows were a deviation from normal operations. Ed gave a hand-out covering the costs.

LUNCH BREAK

Activities Completed Since Last Technical Team Meetings

Dave Wegner discussed the new organization of the GCES Program and the EIS program under the Colorado River Studies and Initiatives Office under the direction of Steve Robinson. GCES will be separate but parallel to the EIS. An Executive Review Committee and an EIS Workgroup (or Oversight Committee) will also be involved. The writing of the EIS documents will be done by BOR in Denver.

A discussion ensued on the EIS program. The Environmental Team did not suggest a two year program, that the interim flows suggested by some agencies may have pushed this schedule. A concern was voiced that politics was driving the science. A letter will be sent to all cooperating agencies inviting their cooperation in the EIS program. Scoping sessions are the place for agencies, groups, and individuals to voice concern over the two year timeframe -- not the GCES Technical Meetings.

Reed Harris (BOR) discussed the Biological Opinion and work plans. Seven conservation measures have been formulated by a working group composed of members from NPS, FWS, AGF, and BOR. BOR will implement the measures now and the Biological Opinion will be given in two years. A Biological Assessment will be developed by the lead agency (BOR), given to FWS to review, and then FWS will deliver a Biological Opinion within 90 days. This will then be incorporated into the EIS. The cost of the Biological Assessment will be about $1.5 Million. The Coordination Act Report (funded by BOR but developed by FWS) will be drafted and available for incorporation into the EIS.

Mark Wieringa (Western) discussed the impact of the EIS on the marketing criteria. Ken Maxey will direct and be aided by scoping process and environmental specialists. All agencies are

4 invited to cooperate in this effort. A 24-36 month process is planned, however there is no end point identified as of yet. This EIS will involve all CRSP and other associated projects. It is unknown what the overlap will be between the Western EIS and the Glen Canyon Dam EIS.

Mike Roluti (BOR) discussed the economic group power modeling efforts and the protocol for review of the results. A hand-out reviewed the meetings, major agenda items, scope of study (three methods will be used [ELFIN, EGEAS, Single Thermal Alternative Approach] and a "prototype" study will represent typical power systems within CRSP marketing area, the relative impact of various types of proposed operational changes, and results on system impacts due to hydropower operation changes. Results will show modeling capabilities and be detailed enough for the study teams to select most appropriate method(s) for the Phase II studies. A draft of the prototype study report and time schedule was reviewed. Future meetings and preparations were outlined.

Richard Bishop (HBRS) discussed non-use valuation: resources have some value, or some future use, whether they are used or not as mankind has a benevolence towards nature as he/she has a stake in it (John Krutilla, former GCES-NAS committee member, is the main author of this theory). Rich then reviewed each agencies response to this topic. New fishing regulations at Lee's Ferry (two fish and new slot limit) and introduction of cutthroat trout will necessitate additional recreation analysis.

Dave Wegner reviewed the GCES river trips: Integration Trip (July); Congressional Trip (August); Beach Surveying, Gage Installation, Cable Car Installation, Radiotelemetry Test, Beach Studies (August); Archeology (October), and Beach Rehabilitation (Nov.-Dec.)

END OF MEETING

Draft Integrated Research Plan: Nov. 15, 1989

Duncan Patten presented several charts in reviewing the draft Integrated Research Plan (IRP) showing the dam dependent variables, natural processes, and anthropogenic variables. A "spaghetti" chart showed why we need to know some esoteric processes in order to understand main GCES study topics of trout, beach stability, and humpback chubs. Duncan reviewed hypotheses and the need of complete answers to understand responses of resources. An attempt was made to design the plan around potential operations which could be alternatives suggested in the EIS process.

Duncan Patten handed out the "draft" research flow proposal for review.

5 A long discussion ensued about the EIS timing, IRP proposed scheduled flows, proposed interim flows, and the definition of "normal" operations. There is a need to replicate the controlling variables as without comparative analysis, only random data or "interesting" information results. By reducing the independent variable it is possible to test hypotheses. There is a strong need to define "normal flows" for the EIS. Duncan encouraged everyone to challenge or concur with the IRP, that nothing is set in concrete. Costs are likely to double without controlled flows. Peter Rowlands encouraged everyone to give Duncan written comments. Comments are due by Dec. 8.

Western representatives discussed the automatic generation control and the need to have flexibility to meet emergencies.

Geographic Information System

Michael Pucherelli (BOR) presented information on the GIS. It can have several layers of information which can be looked at spatially, but a base map (pseudo-map) is needed upon which to compare changes. There is a time frame problem if 260 River Miles are going to be entered as data entry can take about two years. However, GIS is a tool for decision makers as it can contain information on flows, study sites, and attributes. Twenty-one river miles can be done in 1.5 years depending on the number of data layers. GIS can be compatible. Within BOR, the GIS and ARCINFO is the state of the art and considered to be the best system. It can incorporated USGS info, ASCII data base (if it is geographically oriented). However, if USGS maps are input there can be 40 ft. errors in locations. A two foot contour interval would be more useful and accurate.

Tying the GIS to a monitoring program, rather than the two year EIS process was suggested to be more feasible. The GIS system takes vector and raster information to yield pixel comparisons. An ARCINFO system uses vector format and has better resolution. The cost of ARCINFO: $10,000 buys a license and is PC driven with the capability of connecting with an IBM mainframe.

Western uses a CAD system; USGS uses ARCINFO (which can vary resolution between sites, however a commitment is necessary to maintain the data base over time and not lose data due to version changes); FWS supports long-term commitment for data base management; AGF uses ARCINFO on Prime and PC; and NPS uses SAGIS (using vector format converted to raster (pixel) and GRASS systems (public software).

Dan Kimball (NPS) stated that GIS has bogged down two EIS projects he has worked on -- that it never go up and running as a tool for decision-making. GIS is applicable to monitoring.

A GIS meeting has been scheduled for January 17, 1990 in Denver

6 at the BOR offices (Bldg 56, Room 2610) to further discuss and resolve the GIS and its application to GCES, monitoring, and the EIS process. Representatives from the technical study group will participate.

Protocol for Identification and Review of Research Proposals

Dave Wegner stated that there is not enough time for RFP's to be constructed for Phase II studies of the GCES. Most of the work will necessarily have to be done in-house with some specialized expertise from outside the agencies. Unless a proposal (unsolicited) is right on target, it will not be used.

Duncan Patten stated that a big fishery biologist and a geomorphologist are needed on the Integration Team. Also, Duncan needs staff support and additional RFP's can be written to obtain literature searches and analysis. There is a need to add studies funded outside of GCES to the schedule. A list of the unsolicited proposals was requested (see Attachment 2).

Dave expressed the need for a smaller, working team made up of people from the agencies (Integration Team) and the need for a protocol of research review.

The question was raised as to who will be ensuring that NEPA is being followed. Answer: The EIS Oversight Committee. A concern was raised that a smaller group cannot work outside of the larger group. A need for an organizational chart and who is involved was requested.

Information should be sent out to all Economic and Environmental Team members prior to the next meeting. The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for March 8-9, 1990 at a time and place to be determined.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

7 Attachment 1: Attendees of the Nov. 14-15, 1989 Environmental and Economic Team Meetings Nov. 14, 1989: Name Agency/Group, Address, Phone

Julie Graf USGS, 300 West Congress, WRD FB-44, Tucson, AZ 85701, (602) 670-6246, FTS 762-6246

Bob Hart USGS, 2255 North Gemini Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86001, (602) 527-7137, FTS 765-7137

Frank Baucom FWS, 3616 W. Thomas Road, Suite 6, Phoenix, AZ 85019, (602) 261-4720

Dave Cohen Arizona Flycasters/Trout Unlimited, 702 E. Indian School, Phoenix, AZ 85014, (602) 274-5455

Larry Stevens NPS, P.O. Box 1315, Flagstaff, AZ 86002, (602) 774-4923

Nancy Brian GCES/Flagstaff, P.O. Box 1811, Flagstaff, AZ 86002, (602) 527-7363, FTS 765-7363

Kirsten Tinning AGF, 310 Lake Mary Road, Flagstaff, AZ 86001, (602) 774-5045

Bob Williams BOR, 125 South State St., Salt Lake City, UT 84147, (801) 524-6087, FTS 588-6087

Reed Harris BOR, Same address as above, (801) 524-5498, FTS 588-5498

Richard Angelos Colorado River Board, 107 So. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA, 213-620-4480

Tim Henley Az Dept. Water Resources, 15 South 15th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85007, (602) 542-1960

Jerry Zimmerman Upper Colo. River Comm., 355 South 4th East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111, (801) 531-1158

Spreck Rosekrans Environmental Defense Fund, 5655 College Ave, Suite 304, Oakland, CA 94618, (415) 658-8008

Michael Roluti BOR, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225, (303) 236-1058

Tom Strekal BOR, P.O. Box 640, Carson City, NV 89702, (702) 3436

8 William Davis Consultant, CREDA, 2124 W. Comstock, Chandler, AZ 85224, (602) 963-0382

John Allum PRPA/CREDA, Timberline & Horsetooth Roads, Ft. Collins, CO 80525, (303) 226-4600

Ed Chang WAPA/SLC, 257 East 200 South, Salt Lake City, UT, (801) 524-6378

Mark Wieringa WAPA, P.O. Box 3402, Golden, CO 80228, (303) 231- 7968

Jerry Mitchell NPS, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, AZ 86023, (602) 638-7753

Peter G. Rowlands NPS, Address same as above, (602) 638-7787

Rick Precek Plains Electric, P.O. Box 6551, Albuquerque, NM 87197, (505) 889-7207

Phil House WAPA, P.O. Box 3402, Golden, CO 80401, (303) 231- 7694

Bob Fullenton WAPA, Address same as above, (303) 231-1545

Duncan Patten GCES/Senior Scientist, Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, (602) 965-2975

David Wegner GCES/Program Manager, P.O. Box 1811, Flagstaff, AZ 86002, (602) 527-7363

Michael Yard GCES/Flagstaff, Address same as above, (602) 527- 7364

Debra Bills USFWS/Phoenix, 3616 West Thomas #6, Phoenix, AZ 85281, (602) 261-4720

Dennis Kubly AGF, 2222 West Greenway, Phoenix, AZ 85023, (602) 942-3000

Richard Bishop HBRS, 2112 Regent, Madison, WI 53705, (608) 238- 7473

Mike Welsh HBRS, 4513 Vernon Blvd, Madison, WI 53705, (608) 231-1011

Randy Peterson BOR, P.O. Box 11568, Salt Lake City, UT 84147, (801) 524-5571

9 November 15, 1989 (In addition to the attendees listed previously): Name Agency/Group, Address, Phone Dan Kimball NPS, Water Resources Division, Denver, CO, FTS 327-2813 Chuck Wood NPS, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Page, AZ, FTS 761-3150 Mike Thero Tr-Sate G&T/CREDA, Denver, CO, (303)452-6111 Mike Pucherelli BOR, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, CO 80225, FTS 776-4300 Kenton Grua Grand Canyon River Guides, P.O. Box 1934, Flagstaff, AZ 86002, (602) 774-1526 Lew Steiger Grand Canyon River Guides, Address and phone same as above Laura B. Hall BOR/ASI, Denver, CO (303) 236-4301, FTS 776-4301 Lloyd Griener WAPA/SLC, 257 East 200 South, Salt Lake City, UT, (801) 524-5399 Gary Carpenter Zane Grey/Trout Unlimited/Desert Flycasters, Tempe, AZ, (602) 838-4454

10 ATTACHMENT 2

PROPOSALS

Name: Stephen E. Lee Affiliation: Dept. of Geology, Arizona State University Date: April 18, 1988 Cost: Title: The Effects of Glen Canyon Dam on the Stability of Rapids in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon, Arizona Objective: Further research on the effects of Glen Canyon Dam upon rapids in the Grand Canyon.

Name: Marie E. Davis Affiliation: Davis 2 Date: June 16, 1988 Cost: $2,848 Title: Soil Stratigraphy on Quaternary Terraces in Eastern Grand Canyon Objective: Examine the soils on Quaternary landforms in eastern Grand Canyon. Name: Terry Boyle Affiliation: National Park Service Date: April 21, 1989 Cost: Title: Determination of the Ecological Importance of Eddies in the Grand Canyon of the Colorado Objective: Extension of research into the ecological significance of eddies that were begun on smaller, first to third order streams.

Name: Bryan Brown Affiliation: Consulting Ecologist Date: June 1989 Cost: $6,209.50 Title: Avian Density Along The Colorado River In Grand Canyon: FY89 Monitoring Proposal Obiective: To add to the long-term data base on avian density and diversity, and to compare that information to historic data.

Name: Dr. Victor R. Baker Affiliation: Dept. of Geosciences, University of Arizona Date: June 8, 1989 Cost: $121,703.28 Title: The Role of Floods in the Grand Canyon Riverine Environment Objective: To understand the role of large floods in the geomorphology of the Grand Canyon and the impact of the dam in removing this element of the fluvial system. Also, to explore the possibilities of operational opportunities to mitigate potentially adverse effects of the present regimen.

Name: Alan D. Howard Affiliation: Dept. of Env. Sciences, Univ. of Virginia Name: Jon C. Schmidt Affiliation: Departments of Geology and Geography Date: August 14, 1989 Cost: $10,000 Title: Sediment Budget Of The Colorado River In The Grand Canyon Using Depth Soundings, 1976-84 Objective: Utilize existing data sets of depth-sounding records to assess average amounts and patterns of bed scour and fill within the canyon

Name: Robert H. Webb Affiliation: U.S. Geological Survey Date: August 23, 1989 Cost: $39,400 Title: Documentation of Long-Term Environmental Change Along The Colorado River In Grand Canyon: Repeat Photography Of The Historical Photographs Of Robert B. Stanton And Others Objective: To document changes in sand deposits and riparian vegetation, and to determine the recurrence of tributary flow events.

Name: Richard Hereford Affiliation: U.S. Geological Survey Date: September 21, 1989 Cost: $16,700 Title: Surficial Geology of Archaeologic Sites in the Unkar-Cardenas Creek Area, Grand Canyon National Park: Proposal for a Pilot Study Objective: To develop the geologic/geomorphic history of sites from occupation until present.