My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4000
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
4000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:28 PM
Creation date
5/20/2009 10:42:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
4000
Author
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Title
Report on Water For Energy in the Upper Colorado River Basin.
USFW Year
1974.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Water requirements at fishing lakes and fish hatcheries are based on <br />consumptive use. Additional quantities necessary for circulation, <br />aeration, and the like reenter the streams as return flow and are not <br />lost. Estimated consumptive uSe for the region in 1965 for fishery <br />purposes is shown in the following list. <br /> <br />State <br /> <br />Acre-Feet <br /> <br />Arizona <br />Colorado <br />New Mexico <br />Utah <br />Wyoming <br /> <br />564 <br />2,659 <br />224 <br />3,220 <br />30 <br /> <br />Total <br /> <br />6,697 <br /> <br />Fishery developments within the basin have expanded since 1965. The <br />1974 level of consumptive water use for these purposes is estimated <br />as some 18,000 acre-feet for facilities within the portions of the <br />five States concerned. <br /> <br />Although the effects would be less direct than upon the fishery <br />resources, the use of water for energy development is also expected to <br />affect the land-bas'ed wildlife resources within the basin. Expanded <br />energy production would require additional land for power sites and <br />transmission facilities and also result in a diverse array of socio- <br />economic impacts such as increased human populations, suburban growth, <br />allied service industries, expanded road networks, and the like. In <br />view of these possibilities, comparable 1965 reference information is <br />presented also for the wildlife resources. <br /> <br />Two-thirds of the region is in public ownership under Federal, State, <br />or local administration. Because of this preponderance of public <br />lands, large populations of forest and rangeland wildlife continue to <br />exist and provide abundant opportunity for hunting by residents and <br />nonresidents alike. Table 5 shows the land status within areas of <br />key habitat (defined as that part of a species' range that is limiting <br />or controlling of its numbers) for selected species of wildlife and <br />illustrates the relationship of wildlife to public lands. Of the <br />species inventoried only waterfowl use private land more extensively <br />than public land. <br /> <br />The relative importance of various plant types within key habitats for <br />selected wildlife species is shown in Table 6. For example, the two <br />types of vegetation that characterize winter habitat for mule deer-- <br />a zone of pinyon-juniper at higher levels and a zone of northern desert <br />shrub, predominantly sagebrush, at lower elevations. <br /> <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.