FLIP Chart 1 

- Process for indicating PEP review of issues - how will that be incorporated?

Goal 6 RIP Issue Paper

- Delete “the” in front of type of community to indicate preservation of a type of community. 

- Definition of “bare sand beach” community different from mesquite/acacia - 

will be defined

- “bare sand beach vegetation” = oxynomic

Flip Chart 2

- Does “bypasses” refer to total flow?

- Where will issue papers reside - in the SP?

- Last sentence - “level could vary” - does that mean it changes?

 —> that’s the hypothesis

 —> may be difficult to protect it where it is - it may thrive at a lower stage level

 - priority is the community, not the level

Stevens/Kearsley paper moves away from NHWZ/OHWZ verbiage - should we move to new terms?

- If this is adopted, make consistent throughout

Flip Chart 3

- We should be consistent in our terms throughout all our documents - support considering a change

- OHWZ/NHWZ shouldn’t be mixed with “bare sand beach”

Goal 6:

6.1 - Place - ignores valuable habitat below Separation Canyon - eliminate redlined note

- this only excludes what’s underwater

–> RIP vegetation still exists/persists even when under water

Flip Chart 4

 Conflict w/MSCP area - 1229?

 - no, similar goals

- We can’t impact Lake Mead levels

 - 96 flood did impact this area 

 RM 254

 - shouldn’t stop at Separation Canyon

- Vegetation is an artifact of lake levels and we control that

- Dynamic - current water level

 - No mandate to save this vegetation

- Are we implying that if LM is down , are we going to take a MA for the vegetation?

Flip Chart 5

- Aren’t we just including this in the pool of what we consider? - Not a mandate

- Attempt to address reality of LM fluctuations - define vegetation as above LM level

- Current CRE definition to west-most boundary of GRCA - or limit to above water level
- now this area is addressed by both MSCP and AMP

Flip Chart 6

6.3 - “no loss of area” - what is our ability to control this as it migrates? Would it be better to say” no

loss of species”

- I don’t see connection between area and movement - target is achievable - not stage-related

- p.8 - 

 - ok

- suggest “no loss of native plant or animal species” to sub. For “no loss of area”

- “Allow scouring of OHWZ”

6.2 nervous about 84 as low point

 Target will be a range

Flip Chart 7

Goal 8

- Missing eddy storage below 8000 cfs

 - eddies <8K, + eddies 8-25K

 8-25 = sandbars; 8K stored below low water level

 - Or - “eddies below 25K”

8-25K form backwaters 

Goal 9

9.2 - fishing policy purpose: 

 - current contracts up in a couple years - may include fishing as a marketed triop - also maybe “must

kill” policy

Flip Chart 8

9.3 - 8% slope - from where?

 Kearsley 92-96 - definition

- critical reaches - whence came the target?

 - Andre counted beaches in the critical reaches

- can we achieve?

 - they exist already - we know we can maintain

- Glen Canyon not in critical reaches - 

 Consider this (Kearsley didn’t consider)

- How much need is there?

Flip Chart 9

Goal 10

10.4: Regulation = system’s automatic capacity to fluctuate 

- add to Glossary

10.2 and 10.3 l- Define 2 sets of emergency criteria 

Goal 11

11.3 AMP wants to allow, provide, be good for - instead of the negative
Goal 12

12.5 effective tribal consultation

comment: change “govt to govt” to tribal

–> keep it “govt to govt”

Flip Chart 10

12.5 “traditional western scientific approach”?

- Distinction between scientific methods, independent of the observer - us more subjective approach

dep. on observer, tribe, ind. tribal values

12.6 footnote - “conduct monitoring and research activities”

12.7 comment - how does fin. exception fit in? May be releases exceeding ROD for fin. reasons -

what are results ?

- Example list, not mandated list.

Flip Chart 11

12.7 - Fin. exception criteria should not be experiment - can’t be planned for in an experimental

manner -

 —> it was moved here to consider in this context - if this can be done w/o jeopardizing our

goals/principles/ could provided funding for WAPA, an AMP fund source

- do HMF` power plant spikes will tell you what the impact would be

Flip Chart 12

12.8 - current - add fishing regs,” “among others”

further comments (including typos, corrections)

send to: mary@maryorton.com