Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00203 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />concerned that assumptions associated with this estimate may be incorrect and may overstate how much <br />conservation actually needs to be implemented through the MSCP. The MSCP Program Subcommittee <br />is meeting with the Technical Consulting Team to further clarify and better understand the background <br />assumptions utilized to develop the potential long-term program costs. The Board staff believe that there <br />will be significant discussion, and quite probably modification, of the proposed budget and implementation <br />costs associated with long-term MSCP implementation. <br /> <br />Also, the draft conservation plan identifies the amount of mainstream Colorado River that will bc <br />necessary in order to implement and maintain site-specific habitat restoration and species conservation <br />projects, Collectively, the draft plan estimates that approximately 350,000 acre-feet of mainstream <br />diversion may be required annually. after full build-out of al\ of the suggested projects is accomplished, <br />Of this amount, approximately 207,000 acre-feet of diversion would be required within Arizona, 116,000 <br />acre-feet of diversion within California, and about 28,000 acre-feet (AF) of diversion within Nevada, Of <br />the diversion amounts, approximately 129,000 AF would be consumptively used in Arizona, about 70,000 <br />AF of consumptive use in California, and about 18,000 AF consumptively use in Nevada, for a total <br />consumptive use of 217 ,GGG AF, <br /> <br />California Fully Prolecled Species Issues <br /> <br />As you are aware, the California Fish and Game Code lists 37 species offish and wildlife as Fully <br />Protected Species (FPS), By definition, fully protected species status prohibits the "take" of these species <br />except for scientific, educational or management purposes. Therefore, under existing law, Incidental Take <br />Permits cannot be issued, by the California Department of Fish and Game, to agencies or individuals for <br />lawful projects that may result in incidental take of fully protected species. <br /> <br />, Legislation is needed and required to change the current Fish and Game Code to provide for <br />issuance of incidental take o(FPS, The regulated community (water agencies, developers, etc,) support <br />such a legislative modification of the Fish and Game Code. However, many in the environmental <br />community do not, The environmental and conservation community are advocating more broad-based <br />amendments to Fish and Game statutes involving the California Endangered Species Act and Natural <br />Community Conservation Planning Act. They would like to see specific changes that address species <br />recovery plans and funding to the Department ofFish and Game for development of the recovery plans, <br />Negotiations to resolve these disparate positions are ongoing, <br /> <br />Assemblyman Florez has introduced AB 985 (included in the Board folder) that would change the <br />Fish and Game Code to allow Individual Take Permits to be issued for FPS, AB 985 was scheduled for <br />hearing by the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee on January 8, 2002, The hearing was <br />convened by Senator Shelia KueW, Committee Chairperson. Assemblyman Florez informed the committee <br />that he did not have enough votes, in the Assembly, for passage of AB 985 and requested that the hearing <br />of his bill be deferred until the next committee meeting, Assemblyman Florez' request was granted and <br />the bill was not considered at the hearing, ' <br /> <br />9 <br />