Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Outstanding regulatory issues being discussed with CDFG and the California agencies <br />include the following: <br /> <br />. Ongoing discussions with CDFG related to CESA and CEQA compliance, and <br />compatibility with federal requirements under the ESA and NEP A; <br />. Mitigation in perpetuity vs. mitigation during the term of the permit; <br />. Fully mitigating California impacts within the broader context of the combined <br />conservation strategy mitigation package; and <br />. Addressing the California "fully-protected" species issues. <br /> <br />The CT and agency legal staff are continuing discussions with USFWS and CDFG related <br />issues related to re-initiation of ESA Section 7 consultation; the terms of the incidental take <br />authorizations under ESA and CESA, and the "No Surprises" guarantees under the Section ] 0 <br />Habitat Conservation Plan. <br /> <br />With respect to governance and implementation issues, the CT and legal staff are developing <br />a draft "Joint Participation Agreement" (JP A). The JP A identifies the funding and cost-sharing <br />relationships and obligations, program implementation responsibilities, program management and <br />administration, decision-making, adaptive management process. Additionally, the JPA describes <br />the proposed dispute resolution and appeals process. <br /> <br />Finally, the CT has recently initiated the discussions related to overall program <br />implementation funding and cost-sharing. Reclamation made an initial proposal that the LCR MSCP <br />should be cost-shared 50/50 between the federal and non-federal partners. This was a response to <br />the States original 70/30 proposal. The States will be meeting to continue developing a response to <br />the Reclamation proposal. <br /> <br />In summation, ] believe, overall, that States and Reclamation are yery pleased with the <br />progress that has been made through the Coordinating Team process. We seem to be very close to <br />general agreement on many of the very difficult issues related to the development and <br />implementation of the LCR MSCP. I would like to commend the technical and legal staff of many <br />of the California participating agencies. This has been a significant effort on the part of many of you <br />and your staff. <br /> <br />Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group Activities <br /> <br />A meeting of the Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) Adaptive Management Work Group was held <br />in Phoenix, Arizona, on January 28-29, 2003. The agenda for the meeting includes the following <br />items: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Rcview thc status of the proposed experimental flow releases from Glen Canyon Dam; <br />Discuss the status of non-native fish control efforts in the Grand Canyon reaches of the <br />mainstream; <br />Review the status of the proposed temperature control device for Glen Canyon Dam; <br />Continue to review overall Adaptive Management Program (AMP) information needs; <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />10 <br />