|
<br />"
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />",
<br />
<br />The presentation provided a detailed overview of the proposed alternative that is currently
<br />the focus of the Biological Assessment and the Habitat Conservation Plan, Additionally, pursuant
<br />to the requirements of NEP A and CEQA, the presentation provided a description of the three
<br />alternatives to the proposed action. These alternatives include the following: (I) No Action; (2)
<br />Listed-Species Only; and (3) Off-Site Conservation alternative, The primary elements of each
<br />alternative were described during the presentation,
<br />
<br />The No Action Alternative would maintain status quo conditions along the Lower Colorado
<br />River, In other words, as each new activity or action was proposed, project-specific environmental
<br />compliance and review would be required, This would result in less mitigation being implemented,
<br />and ESA consultation would only be required for federally listed species, More importantly, there
<br />would be no coordinated-comprehensive conservation strategy in place for the Lower Colorado
<br />River, nor would there be any requirement for monitoring, research, or adaptive management.
<br />Finally, this alternative would not provide the ability for the USFWS to issue incidental take
<br />authorization permits under Section 10 of the ESA,
<br />
<br />The Listed-Species Alternative reduces the number of covered species from 32 to 6 (i,e"
<br />Yuma clapper rail, southwestern willow flycatcher, desert tortoise, humpback chub, bonytail, and
<br />razorback sucker), This alternative would also reduce the potential mitigation requirements (e,g"
<br />no honey mesquite restoration would be required), This alternative could still allow the issuance of
<br />section I 0 incidental take authorizations, however the permit would be limited in scope
<br />corresponding to the reduced number of specics being covered,
<br />
<br />The Off-Site Mitigation Alternative would provide for the same total amount of mitigation
<br />(i.e" 8,132 acres of habitat restoration), but the mitigation would be implemented in locations off
<br />of the mainstream of the Lower Colorado River, Specifically, this alternative has identified suitable
<br />conservation sites along the lower Muddy and Virgin Rivers in Nevada, and the Bill Williams and
<br />lower Gila Rivers in Arizona, This alternative would provide for the same number of covered
<br />species and would allow the USFWS to issue incidental take authorizations under section 10 of the
<br />ESA,
<br />
<br />The meeting in Yuma was attended by approximately 10 members of the public, followed
<br />by approximately 15-20 in Blythe, and about 20 in Laughlin, There were questions or comments
<br />associated with potential impacts to recreaiional use along the river, recovery of covered species,
<br />water quality issues, and potential impacts to land development and land use, Comments are due
<br />on November 26,2003, and are to be submitted to Reclamation or lbe Metropolitan Water District
<br />of Southern California.
<br />
<br />Colorado River Pikeminnow
<br />
<br />Based upon direction provided at the last Board meeting, and subsequent discussions with
<br />LCR MSCP participants, and the state wildlife resource agencies in the three Lower Basin states,
<br />Board staff has prepared a draft response to the National Wildlife Federation's (NWF) proposal to
<br />
<br />6
<br />
|