|
<br />130
<br />
<br />1,,)1
<br />
<br />. '
<br />
<br />data if they are to serve as predictors of the responses of fish and macro-
<br />
<br />Recommendations for Research
<br />
<br />invertebrates to changes in streamflm"
<br />
<br />The following areas for additional research represent the ideas of a
<br />
<br />number of people and groups, such as Lord, Tubbering, and Althen (1975);
<br />McKell (1972a, 1972b); U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclama-
<br />tion (1975a); Neuho1d, Herrick, and Patten (1975); Stalnaker and Arnett.e
<br />(1976); Thorne (1973); Utah Water Research Laboratory and Utah Di'\7ision of
<br />Water Resources (1975); and U.S. Water Resources Council (1968, 1971):
<br />
<br />Lawrence (1974), who reviewed the political and legal aspects of
<br />
<br />streamflows in Colorado, noted that a particular deficiency regarding
<br />
<br />miniMum streamflows exists in the different laws which apply to federal,
<br />
<br />state, and local lands, He also pointed out that federal lands and devel-
<br />
<br />opment projects fall under the Wildlife Coordination Act, and that fish
<br />
<br />and wildlife considerations ar€ therefore mandatory, but only on a con-
<br />
<br />1, Improvement of western water laws to recognize nonconsumptive
<br />
<br />uses of water for fish, wildlife, and recreation. This study should in-
<br />
<br />clude how existing laws and policies affect administrative decisions con-
<br />
<br />cerning the management of water resources and the resulting effects on
<br />
<br />sultation basis, State and local lands have no such requirements, Others
<br />
<br />have also recommended that fish and wildlife values be considered in assess-
<br />
<br />j,ng instream water uses (Binns, 1972; Dewsnup, 1971). These considerations
<br />
<br />were also recommended for use of the Upper Colorado River (U,S. Department
<br />
<br />fish and wildlife, and ultimately, on society,
<br />The U.S. Water Resources Council (1971) recommended that the high qual-
<br />ity recreation, fish and wildlife, and the open space of the Upper Colo~ado
<br />River Basin be recognized as national assets that should be preserved and
<br />
<br />
<br />given special recognition in land- and water-use planning, Maay environ-
<br />
<br />mental problems in the Mountain West are truly regional and the resources
<br />
<br />
<br />are not limited to a specifiC political region. One recommendation was
<br />
<br />
<br />that existing institutional arrangements in the region be analyzed to
<br />
<br />
<br />determine if they adequately address environmental problems (Neuhold,
<br />
<br />
<br />Herrick, and Patten, 1975). Institutional and legal arrangements may
<br />
<br />need to be modified to provide greater flexibility for future uses of the
<br />
<br />
<br />water and land resources (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1971). Trelease
<br />
<br />
<br />(1976) pointed out that many current laws can be used to protect inst~eam
<br />
<br />uses if society insisted on their implementation by various federal and
<br />
<br />state agencies. He also stated that a law is a mechanism for getting
<br />
<br />of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1975a; U.S. Water Resources Council,
<br />
<br />1971; Neuhold, Herrick, and Patten, 1975), Ellis (1966) reviewed the legal
<br />
<br />considerations in regard to the recreational use of water and pointed
<br />
<br />out that a 1937 act provided that the Colorado River Water Conservation
<br />
<br />District maintain streamflows for fish life. Many western states pur-
<br />
<br />chase "conservation pools" in reservoirs to protect the sport fishery,
<br />
<br />and some st&tes have begun to establish minimum lake levels (e.g"
<br />
<br />Rhinehart, 1975). Although some effects of water level fluctuations and
<br />
<br />minimum conservation pools on fish and other aquatic organisms are known
<br />
<br />(Fraser, 1972a), agencies that manage fisheries in the Upper Colorado
<br />
<br />River do not have adequate information to make such recommendations, Some
<br />
<br />writers have expres~ed their ideas on the political aspects involving the
<br />
<br />multiple use of water (e.g., Dingell, 1972); others have suggested that
<br />
<br />standards be proposed to evaluate federal water programs (e.g., Cicchetti
<br />
<br />and coauthors, 1973).
<br />
<br />.
<br />..
<br />~
<br />.,
<br />-
<br />
<br />0::.
<br />
<br />r'
<br />..
<br />
<br />.
<br />..
<br />..
<br />
<br />...
<br />...
<br />..
<br />
<br />::
<br />
<br />...
<br />
<br />"
<br />~
<br />
|