Laserfiche WebLink
<br />N <br />L'? <br />M <br /> <br />FISH AND ViILDLIFE SmVICE REPORT <br /> <br />22. The 14 miles of additional canal to be constructed would increase <br />muskrat and mink habitat. However, 4.5 miles of stream habitat would <br />be lost through construction of Rifle Gap Reservoir, and it is not <br />likely that the shoreline of that impoundment would offer suitable <br />conditions to replace that loss. <br /> <br />23. The net result of the project insofar as fur anim3.ls are concerned <br />would be a slight gain in post-project over pre-project habitat. The <br />net benefit is estimated to amount to $250 annually. <br /> <br />24. Summary of pre-project and post-project values for wildlife. - Pre- <br />project values would remain largely unchanged under the proposed plan of <br />operation. Improved or increased habitat for pheasants, waterfowl, and <br />fur animals woold result in additional post-project values for these <br />animals amounting to a net gain of $1,275 annually. <br /> <br />Means of Mitigating Losses and Increasing Benefits <br /> <br />25. While at present Rifle Creek is considered as having litt Ie values <br />for wildlife or fishes below Rifle Gap, due to the generally turbid con- <br />dition of the stream, control of flood waters by Rifle Gap Dam should <br />remove this cause of low value. <br /> <br />26. It is believed that a stream with relatively high fishery value <br />could be maintained below Rifle Gap Dam by release of not less than <br />5 second-feet (approximately 300 acre-feet per month) at all times during <br />the period from November Ita May 1 each year and a release of not Ie ss <br />than 15 second-feet (appro:x:imatel,y 900 acre-feet per month) at all times <br />during the other six. months of each year. This would require about <br />7,200 acre-feet per year. The estim3.ted value to fish and wildlife <br />resulting from the maintenance of such a stream flow in the 6.5 miles <br />affected is $2,325 annually. This benefit would include $2,000 for <br />increased fish values and $325 for fur animal s. <br /> <br />27. No oth er means of mitigating-Ios ses or increasing benefit s are <br />awarent. Such fluctuation as would occur under the project plan would <br />not be subject to modification, and its effect has been allowed for by <br />basing benefits upon the average minimum pool. Since water would be <br />mainly released int 0 canals and pipe lines, operation of gates would <br />not be an important factor. Any change in rate and quantity of re- <br />leases into the stream channel should, of course, be accomplished <br />gradually over a period of hours. Coppice would not be a problem. <br />Pollution is not now a problem nor is it expected to increase in <br />future operations of the project. <br /> <br />-"'- <br />