Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />believes that adequate document review and consultation time needs to be factored into the process. <br />This is based upon USFWS' s strict interpretation of its Section 7 and Section 10 Handbooks. With <br />the new technical consulting team on board and up to speed, and with the release of the work plan <br />and schedule, the Steering Committee has requested a meeting with the USFWS Field Supervisor, <br />Mr. David Harlow, to discuss these issues. .The meeting has been scheduled for March 21, 2001, at <br />the Field Supervisor's office in Phoenix, Arizona. Coordination, staffing, and resource commitments <br />among USFWS Regions (1,2, and 6) will also be discussed. <br /> <br />Meeting with Boards of Palo Verde Irrigation District and Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage <br />District, February 20, 2001, Blythe, California <br /> <br />At the request of the Palo Verde Irrigation District, Mr. Harris and I, met with the Boards of <br />Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) and Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District (CVIDD) <br />to provide an overview of the current status of the MSCP and the potential for implementation of <br />conservation projects within PVID. Additionally, the CVIDD Board has indicated a desire to enter <br />into exploratory discussions associated with the sale of the entire district. The Boards were briefed <br />about the proposed MSCP Pilot Project Legislative package that is being developed which will <br />identify potential land acquisition opportunities within the MSCP planning area. After the <br />presentation, members of the Boards asked questions about the MSCP and potential impacts <br />associated with conservation action implementation in the Palo Verde Valley. Concern was <br />expressed about a potential need for buffer strips around habitat conservation parcels. There was <br />significant interest in how much water would be required, as well as the source of the water for <br />restoration projects. <br /> <br />Stat1ls of California Fully Protected Species Efforts <br /> <br />Since the last Board meeting, I can report that three separate bills have been introduced in <br />the California Assembly. These bills include A.B. 985 (Florez), 1561 (Hollingsworth), and 1598 <br />(Kelley). A copy of each of the bills has been inserted in your Board folder. <br /> <br />A.B. 985 (Florez) would require the Fish and Game Commission to list as "endangered" <br />species all mammals currently designated as "fully protected," with the exception of the Pacific right <br />whale and the southern sea otter. This bill does not address the birds or fish species that occupy <br />portions of the MSCP planning area along the lower Colorado River. It is the Board's understanding <br />that Assemblyman Florez has scheduled a meeting of the "Fully Protected Species Working Group" <br />for Thursday, March 15, 200 I, in Sacramento. I understand that several of the agencies' legislative <br />liaisons will be attending this meeting. <br /> <br />A.B 1598 (Hollingsworth) requires the Fish and Game Commission to include as "candidate" <br />species every species designated as "fully protected." The bill would require the Commission to <br />provide an opportunity for public review and input. A fonnal review process would be undertaken <br />if a species listing is challenged. The bill then requires the Commission to list all of the species as <br />endangered if no comments are received challenging the listing. This bill would repeal the statutory <br />designation of fully protected species and would make related changes. <br /> <br />Finally, A.B. 1561 (Kelley) makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the <br />Colorado River. Currently, the bill describes the purposes of the California Colorado River Water <br /> <br />6 <br />