WSP04510

• File Number: 8220.128.J
• Description: Silt Project
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 1/1/1951
• Author: USDOI - BOR
• Title: Silt Project-Colorado - A Supplement to the Colorado River Storage Project Report - Part 2 of 2
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

o
~
~

I

ClliIPTER VI

OTHER PROJECT USES

"

Fish and Wildlife Consl:lrvatJ.on

The Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the project plan and
submitted a report, included in these substantiating materials, on the
project's probable effect on fish and wildlife. The service recognizes
that the project would be beneficial to fish and wildlife resources if
built and operated in conformitY-with the present plan. It reports
that additionul values could be derived from the project if a minirllum
flow of 5 second-feet were maintained from November 1 to May 1 and a
minimum flow of 15 second-feet were maintained during the remainder of
the year. Although releases of this quantity would be made from the
reservoir, they would be'diver~ed a' Short'distance dowostr.eam and would
not appear in lower Rifle Creek. The Bureau found that the cost of
increasing the Rifle Gap Reservoir capacity as require d to mnintain the
recommended flow would not be justified by the additional,benefits
received. The Fish and Wildlife Service included in its report certain
recommendations, with which the Bureau is in accord, regarding project
operation, the use of lands in the reservoir basin, and the administra-
tion of fish and wildlife resources. The road relocations contemplated
by the project would provide access to the reservoir.

:";
~~
';~
~:!"~
'''"...
~~

Recreation

f., report of the National Park Service, included in these substanti-
ating materials, recommends certain JIe asure s for recreation at Rifle
Gap Reservoir and evaluates the project's effect on recreation. The
report concludes that Rifle Gap Reservoir would create limited recre-
ational values of only local significance. AS a recrl:lational site the
reservoir would have to compete with many natural sites in the surround-
ing area which are lIlOre appealing. The costs required to develop Rifle
Gap Reservoir into a recreational s1 te would exceed benefi ts which could
be derived. Therefore no provision is made in the project plan f:lr
recreational facilities.

",;-:"

;.;,;.

Stream Pollution and Navigation

~~.~
'..;.-.~
I,,:'t;:
,"J>
:".t..;.~;
".-:
..

.'.;.

. .:.

Pollution problems do not exist on project streams and are not
expected with project development. The streams are not navigable.

;...;;.

",' -

48