Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />,., f... <br />" <br /> <br />projects from three separate fund sources, The delegation had an informative set of meetings with <br />Ms, Ann K1ee, Counselor to Secretary Norton, and congressional delegation members and staff from <br />Arizona, California, and Nevada. Since the trip, there has been a series oftelephone conference calls <br />among MSCP participants and legislative liaisons and lobbyists in support of the Pilot Project <br />efforts. Additionally, follow-up correspondence (included in the Board folder) was prepared by <br />Board staff, thanking the congressional delegation members and their staff for taking the time to <br />meet with us regarding the MSCP projects. A letter is also being prepared for Ms. K1ee, providing <br />her with some additional information and clarification associated with non-federal cost-sharing <br />during MSCP development. Finally, it is my understanding that the House of Representatives is <br />conducting markup and discussion of appropriations bills during the week of June 4-8, 2001, We <br />are optimistic that the House appropriations bills will include language addressing the funding needs <br />for the MSCP Pilot Projects, <br /> <br />Included in your handout folder is a copy of the Board's response letter to the USFWS <br />revised "string-of-pearls" document distributed to members of the MSCP Steering Committee at the <br />April 26, 2001 meeting. The rationale behind the Board's letter was to clarify the intent and <br />purposes of the "string-of-pearls" document from the perspective of the collaborative MSCP <br />development effort, Additionally, I had a meaningful discussion with Ms. Nancy Kaufman, the <br />USFWS Regional Director, regarding the draft "string-of-pearls," as well as the proposed MSCP <br />Pilot Projects effort. <br /> <br />Status of California Fully Protected Species Efforts <br /> <br />I can report that two of the three Assembly Bills regarding Fully Protected Species have <br />moved from committee, through the Assembly, and are now in the Senate for consideration. One <br />of the two which moved forward, A.S. 1561 (Kelley) is the proposed legislation specific to the <br />California Colorado River Water Use Plan and the MSCP. Representatives from various agencies <br />within the regulated cornmunity are meeting with members of the Senate and hope to develop <br />consensus language, <br /> <br />Status of Litigation in Defenders of Wildlife, et ar v. Norton, et ol. <br /> <br />The Plaintiffs (Defenders of Wildlife, et al.) filed a motion for summary judgement on <br />Friday, February 9,2001, with the Court. Apparently, the motion is requesting the Court to order <br />re-consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Section 7, by Reclamation on <br />its routine Lower Colorado River operations and maintenance activities, and evaluate impacts to <br />species and habitats in Mexico. On May 3'., the government filed, in the United States District Court <br />for The District of Columbia, its Memorandum in Support of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment <br />and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motionfor Summary Judgment. I have included in the Board folder <br />of copy of the government's motion. <br /> <br />Lower Colorado Water Supplv Proiect <br /> <br />On May 241" the MWD delivered its work product to the CRB staff, as scheduled. MWD's <br />investigation results were delivered in seven 3-inch binders showing the appropriate assessor maps. <br /> <br />4 <br />