Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-' ,-"t"-( <br />l /' u'::' <br /> <br />lilouth bass habitats and suggested a "no action" alternative. TowcE',L:, <br />the end of 1974, the Bureau of Reclamatioli engaG;ed fishery spccial"Lsts <br />from Arizona State University to study the small mouth bass fishel:y <br />ill the area. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~' <br /> <br />~_la Division <br /> <br />During 1974, the Bureau of Reclaraation, because of the energy <br />crisis and a shortage of funds for energy progrffius, diverted funds <br />v!hich ;1ad been scheduled for purchase of private lands 1tli'c,hin the <br />Cibola I~ational \Jildlife Refuge. Thus, purchase of a large 2,200 <br />acre parcel on the California side of the Refuge had to be cancelled. <br /> <br />A pwuping plant and water control structure for diverting <br />Colorrtdo River water into Cibola Lake at low river levels were con- <br />structed during the year and feasibility studies of developing Three <br />Fingers Lake and the marsh area north of Cibola Lake were initiat",d. <br /> <br />Im~erial Division <br /> <br />During 1974, the federal Fish and Uildlife Service and the <br />California Departr.lf>nt of Fish and Gam(' proposed that the Bureau of <br />Ileclamation develop a small seepage area called "\Jest Pond" into a <br />wildlife habitat area for the rare California Black RaiL \lest Pond <br />\vas formed Hhen the All Aiuerican Canal was constructed across a small <br />desert Hash about one-half mile west of Imperial Da,-n. The pond was <br />first fed by seepage from the Canal and later by seepage frrnn Senator <br />\'lash Reservoir upstream fror.! the pond. The proposal 1'las discussed ' <br />in the Hork Group, but because of the diverse views expressed by thu <br />various participants, no firm plan was agreed upon. It was decided <br />that the Fish and Wildlife Services' office in Phoenix would prepare <br />an Enviromaental Assessment report with the help of other agencies <br />and then bring the plan back to the Uork Group for further revievl. <br /> <br />LZGAL ISSUGS <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />lkw Rainbow Bridge Lawsuit <br /> <br />On September 3, 1974, a group of Navajo Indians opened a new <br />Rainbovl Bridge lawsuit by filing against the Department of the <br />Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and the rlational Park Service, in <br />the U.S. District Court for Utah. The plaintiffs were eight ~avajos <br />(including four medicine men), and three Chapters (local cOillfnunities) <br />of the I~avaj 0 I~ation. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />The Indians' complaint cited several claims for relief, most <br />of which had been raised previously in the original Rainbow Bridge <br />case, Friends of the Earth, et.al v. Armstron~. et al. However, <br />there is one neVi issue - a claimfur relTef w ich asl.s the Court t,Q <br />order the defendants to cease further major actions respecting <br />operation of Lake POVI811, including allovling the reservoir to rise <br /> <br />- 32 - <br />