FLIP CHARTS - MARCH 14, 2001

Flip Chart 1

Goal 8 - MO 8.3 - Place:

(1) Split: 8-25K - “Beachfront property” below 8K TO AHC

 to target the level for monitoring

Goal 6 - Place - drop “as it fluctuates 

(2) due to HD drops” - to mean “Full pool” OKAY AS IS

(3) Goal 6.2 - Comment - remove “to 1984 levels” TO AHC

MO 9.5 - switch order of attribute and element TO AHC

 (4) - Place - clarify TO AHC

Flip Chart 2

9.5 - Comment - Incompatible with types of beaches in 9.3

(6) types of beaches in 9.3

RESPONSES

(1) ROD allows to 5K - how long this affect 8K?

- We used 8-265 for margins - for eddies, we felt clear distinction didn’t exist

- Wait to IN phase - split it out then 

- We split everything out with biomass, not necessary to monitor

8-25 being eroded by water’s edge, doesn’t happen below 8000

Flip Chart 3

(1) continued

- Does Goal 9 - camping beaches - address this? No. 

- If Matt it should be separated, we should follow his advice.

(2) Whether our program overlaps pool of Lake Mead - MSCP folks concerned - governede by

court decree - can’t manage LM for SWWF habitat

- habitat exposed is important, we don’t want to write it off

- recognize overlapping management - effects flow from GCD can have on habitat 

use black/white/grey format?

Flip Chart 4

(2) continued 
- Don’t want to limit - support current language

- MSCP - amend GCPA to take out the overlap between the 2 programs.

- Recognize overlaps in this document

- Up to 1229 - full pool, considering to go to Separation, not GCD

- current language recognizes flexibility

OKAY AS IS

Flip Chart 5

(3) Attempt to provide a bottom limit - 

target still TBD

- Agree - discomfort with ambiguous target - 1984 there because we feel we know what that was,

and it is within reason

- “target is at or above 1984"

- 1984 is still an IN - 

- Put 1984 in Target Level

- What is high end of range

- “A Guide for IN development “ instead of “the target is”

Flip Chart 6

- Question is - What is acceptable for scouring? AHC felt 1984 was acceptable - 

- 1984 is qual. level - hasn’t been quantified - until quantified, not a target yet

- Why not to level of natural variability?

- MOs aren’t fixed - we can revisit. Discomfort going beyond 1984 - more scouring than we’re

likely to achieve in AMP for a long time.

- 93K in same range as pre-dam

Flip Chart 7

(5) TO AHC

- “CRE” within GRCA” and GLCA - Place for MO 9.5 

- Glen Canyon has attributes of wilderness, too

- Hualapai Tribe - leave it to the Park 

- If they are managing for the attribute - should be included

- Separate MO for GLCA?

(6) Wilderness experience ...lack of management - manage for a type of experience for recreational

users - jetties, stabilizing walls, etc. - not natural character - beaches are.

Flip Chart 8

Targets will be ranges.

A. IN - what native fish need to survive

Goal 12 - Navajo Nation should not be consulted on Navajo Nation land - 
LCR - should be given consent.

Should be consulted on resources outside of Navajo Nation land

Boundary - 1934 Act 

N. bound of LCR, south bank of mainstem

“CRE exclusive of tribal lands”

no - Hopi will want to address issues on Navajo Nation land

Flip Chart 9

Goal 12

Goal pt. to indicate difference between “consent” and “consultation” - difficulty with boundary

disputes

- focus on how to manage resources

- Sovereign rights must be protected

- Disputed area - edge of river to 1/4 mile from river - rim vs. river

- 1888 San Juan to Colo. River

- Also 1906, 24, 34, Executive Orders and Acts

- Navajo Nation will not stand in way of AMP

- AMP should be sensitive - no work on NN or Hopi Land without permission

AHC COMMENTS ON ABOVE

MO 8.3 - spilt “at some place” to below 5,000 cfs 

between 5,000 and 25,000 cfs

MO 8.2 - Change “place” to from 5,000 to 25,000 cfs

MO 8.1 - Change “place” to below 5,000 cfs

MO 9.5 change “at some place” to 2: 

- CRE in Grand Canyon NP

- CRE below GCD in Glen Canyon NRA