<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 />
|