|
<br />." .... I'" .-,
<br />1~":.,
<br />
<br />Lake Havasu,
<br />(2) protection of the quality of lake water
<br />from increases in pollution resulting
<br />from the land transfer, and
<br />(3) maintenance of existing rights of Cali-
<br />fornia agencies concerning operation of
<br />the lake.
<br />
<br />As of the end of 1971, negotiations between
<br />the Indians and the Department of the Inte-
<br />rior were continuing,
<br />
<br />Cibolo National Wildlife Refuge
<br />
<br />Cibola National Wildlife Refuge was creat-
<br />ed by Executive Order in 1964 as mitigation
<br />for the fish and wildlife losses caused by the
<br />Lower Colorado River Management Pro-
<br />gram. However, there is still a large acreage
<br />of state and privately owned lands within the
<br />refuge boundaries which have not been ac-
<br />quired due to a lack of federal funds.
<br />California's September 1970 state policy
<br />re ort recommended that the acquisition of
<br />the remaining private an s WIt In t e re -
<br />uge be implemented on a timely basis. At a
<br />November 17, 1971, meeting of the
<br />LCRMPCC, the Bureau of Reclamation re-
<br />ported on actual and planned land acquisi-
<br />tion for the refuge as follows:
<br />Acquired, Fiscal Years
<br />1965 through 1969 """"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 870 acres
<br />Acquired, Fiscal Year 1970-71 """",,,,,, 755 acres
<br />Scheduled Acquisition, Fiscal Year
<br />1971-72""",,,,,,,,,,,,,.........,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 470 acres
<br />Future Acquisition
<br />(Four or, five Additional Years) ...... 5,070 acres
<br />
<br />At the end of Fiscal Year 1971-72, $1,346,000
<br />will have been spent for acquisition of pri-
<br />vate land within the refuge.
<br />
<br />California Environmental Impact Statement
<br />Guidelines
<br />
<br />The Board's staff reviewed a December 13,
<br />1971, Resources Agency draft of "Interim
<br />Guidelines for the Preparation and Evalua-
<br />tion of Environmental Impact Statements
<br />Under the California Environmental Q!!al-
<br />ity Act of 1970," The guidelines were re-
<br />quired by the Environmental Q!!ality Act of
<br />
<br />36
<br />
<br />1970, Chapter 1433, Statutes of 1970 (A.B.
<br />2045) ,
<br />The proposed guidelines were intended to
<br />apply to projects which could have a "signifi-
<br />cant effect" on the environment and includ-
<br />ed a simplified procedure for determining
<br />whether or not a project could have a signifi-
<br />cant effect on the environment. An environ-
<br />mental impact statement would be required
<br />if it is determined that a project could possi-
<br />bly have a significant effect on the environ-
<br />ment,
<br />It is anticipated that the Board will use the
<br />guidelines in evaluating projects and pro-
<br />grams along the Colorado River in Cali-
<br />fornia,
<br />
<br />California Protected Waterwoys Plan
<br />
<br />The 1970 Annual Report listed the Board's
<br />major comments on a November 1970 draft
<br />report prepared by a special Resources
<br />Agency Staff entitled "California Protected
<br />"
<br />
<br />
<br />sources Agency presented its final report,
<br />"California Protected Waterways Plan (Ini-
<br />tial Elements)" to Governor Reagan and the
<br />State Legislature. The report recommended
<br />that:
<br />"The State Resources Agency should assume re-
<br />sponsibility for developing detailed protected wa-
<br />terway management plans for individual
<br />waterways possessed of extraordinary scenic, fish-
<br />ery, wildlife or outdoor recreation values, Several
<br />waterways should be chosen from the list of 'Priori-
<br />ty Action Waterways' in this report and manage-
<br />ment plans for them completed in two years (by
<br />1973)."
<br />"The Resources Agency should utili1.e recent en-
<br />vironmental legislation , , , to serve as 'interim plan-
<br />ning controls' to help avoid losing opportunities for
<br />waterways protection during the planning peri-
<br />ods,"
<br />
<br />The Colorado River (Topock Gorge and
<br />Parker Dam down to Imperial Dam) was
<br />listed as a priority action waterway. It is sig-
<br />nificant that in the final report priority ac-
<br />tion waterways were only recommended for
<br />detailed study and analysis whereas in the
<br />draft report, waterways were recommended
<br />for adoption as controlled waterways.
<br />
|