WSP09412 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.~ i-" 0 ~ 1. J t.. j.. the final report was completed in October. California commented on the report through LCRCG, Some of the report's recommendations, with the California comments thereon, are as follows: I. The LCRMPCC should coordinate the Program's multipurpose activities. California fully endorsed this recommendation. 2. Further studies should be made of methods to con- trol salinity in the lower Colorado River. California commented that the Bureau of Reclamation has a separate Colorado River Salinity Control Program and that salinity problems are not part of the Low- er Colorado River Management Program. 3. Vegetative management should be followed instead of clean clearing. California endorsed this recom- mendation with the stipulation that adequate flood protection be maintained. 4. "All former Indian land not required for manage- ment purposes should be returned to the tribes." The report stated that it was understood that these lands included the "Yuma Island" area in the Yuma Division and the lands on the California side of Lake Havasu which were acquired from the Che- mehuevi Indian Reservation, California opposed ll.;;, I \,.\,.v......'..d.\tion. pending in. estigatioR ef transfer conditions and proposed use of such land. 5. Any further dredging in Topock Gorge should be delayed pending a complete reanalysis of the situa- tion, California concurred, but recommended that a realistic schedule of future studies be developed. 6. Secretarial Order 2915, defining the interface be- tween operations ofthe Burcau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Land Management on the lower Col- orado River, should be interpreted or revised. The Task Force implied that operations of established water users could he seriously impaired by failure to do so. California objected to the implications that operations under Secretarial Order 2915 could im- pair established water rights. Other recommendations in the report related to technical aspects of river manage- ment rather than policies, and require fur- ther study. Yuma Division During the year, the Bureau of Reclama- tion transmitted to California a draft copy on an environmental statement on the Lower Colorado River Management Plan-Yuma Division, The LCRCG prepared comments on the draft for the Secretary for Resources, 34 some of which are summarized: I. The environmental statement lacked an adequate description of the environment of the area in its present state or as modified by the project, 2. The statement did not contain enough information to determine if the project would have any signifi- cant effects on water quality. 3. The wildlife mitigation proposal for California was indefinite in many respects, might not be capable of being implemented, and presented no considera- tion of alternatives, Since the Yuma Indians claimed ownership of Yuma Island, the major land area proposed for mitigation, the proposal is in doubt, Also during 1971, the Bureau of Reclama- tion began deepening Mittry Lake within the Yuma Division by means of a dredge for the purpose of enhancing the fishing and recrea- tional capabilities. Dredging was about 60 percent complete at the end of 1971. Parker Division The original river management plan of the Bureau of Reclamation for the lower portion of the Parker DivisIOn was [Q dredge (he en- tire 21 miles of unchannelized river, Howev- er, the Bureau's Task Force recommended that alternative plans be considered, The al- ternatives would require dredging either 9.3 or 11.8 miles of river and use of bank-line stabilization for the remainder. Only 7,000 or 9,000 acre-feet per year would be salvaged under the two new proposals, as compared with 24,000 acre-feet per year under the original plan. The alternatives are less expen- sive, however, and are said to cause consider- ably less detrimental environmental effects. Estimated costs would be $6.2 million or $8.2 million for the new proposals, as compared with $10.0 million, the revised cost estimate for the original plan. At the close of 1971, the proposals were being analyzed by the LCRMPCC Work Group and were being considered by the Colorado River Indian Tribes. Trespa.. Abatement Program California's September 1970 report listed one of the State's objectives to be that federal