Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />water users who may be interested in receiving Advanced Delivery water. The concept <br />may lose its urgency and importance to the Project implementation if Blythe Energy is <br />approved as a LCWSP water user. However, the Advanced Delivery concept can still <br />be beneficial to Project water users with Blythe Energy Project's participation in its <br />Project. <br /> <br />Colorado River Environmental Activities <br /> <br />Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program <br /> <br />Since my last report to the Board in January, we have made significant progress toward the <br />development of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP). As <br />you will recall, the LCR MSCP Steering Committee created a Coordinating Team (CT), comprised <br />of Steering Committee principals, agency staff, and representatives of the Technical and Facilitation <br />Consulting Teams. The charge to the group was to develop a consensus-based broad framework <br />outline which would be utilized in developing the comprehensive LCR MSCP by late-November <br />2004. The goal of the effort is to achieve consensus related to each of the components of the <br />comprehensive package. These primary LCR MSCP components include the following: <br /> <br />. Overall LCR MSCP conservation strategy; <br />. Covered projects, species, and habitats; <br />. Regulatory compliance needs (ESA, CESA, NEPA, and CEQA); <br />. Assurances, and "No Surprises" guarantees; <br />. LCR MSCP implementation, administration, and governance; and <br />. Funding and cost-sharing. <br /> <br />The CT met several times during January in two-day sessions, and each week, thus far, in <br />February. Much of the discussions have revolved around the draft Conservation Strategy originally <br />prepared by the three States. In late January, the States met with Reclamation and developed a <br />combined proposal which meets the needs of the federal and non-federal regulated agency <br />participants. This proposal was refined through discussions with agency staff and the Technical <br />Consulting Team (SAlC/Jones & Stokes). <br /> <br />The latest iteration of the combined States!Reclamation Proposal (proposal) was the subject <br />of an intensive two-day workshop held in Ontario, California on February 6-7, 2003. <br />Representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department ofFish <br />and Game (CDFG) were the target audience of the presentations and discussions. I have included <br />a copy of the draft Proposal and accompanying tables in your Board handout materials. <br /> <br />The following highlights some of the more important features of the latest draft of the <br />States' !Reclamation Proposal. It illustrates the assumptions that were utilized in developing the <br />Proposal, the species and habitats to be addressed, and the proposed restoration actions. <br /> <br />6 <br />