Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"" <br />L" <br />C'r':l <br /> <br />FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REPORT <br /> <br />Summary of Values <br /> <br />28. The Fish and Wildlife Service finds that construction of the Silt <br />Project would result in very slight losses to pre-project values and a <br />substantial increase in post-project values. A net annual benefit to <br />fish and wildlife in the amount of ~2,OlO would accrue to the project <br />as noW proposed by the sponsor. If the recommendations proposed by <br />the Service are adopted, an additional annual value of $2,325 would <br />result, thus producing a total net benefit to fish and wildlife in the <br />amount of $4,335 annually. <br /> <br />Views and Opinions of Cooperating Agencies <br /> <br />29. Colorado Game and Fish Conmission. - The Silt Irrigation Project <br />was discussed by Mr. G. N. Hunter, Colorado Game and Fish Conmission, <br />and Mr. R. A. Schmidt, Fish and Wildlife Service, on January 23, 1947. <br />Subsequently, a rough draft copy of the report was submitted to the <br />Colorado Game and Fish Conmission for review and comment on February 1, <br />1947. <br /> <br />)0. In their reply, dated February 26,1947, the Conmission stated, <br />"We find th9.t we are in accord with the general conclusions and recom- <br />mendations of this rejXlrt." <br /> <br />31. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. Region 4. - A rough draft copy of the <br />report was submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation, Region 4, and was <br />discussed by Mr. J. W. Cahoon, Head of Reports Section of that region, <br />and Mr. Braden Pillow, River Basin Studies, Region 2. The Bureau of <br />Reclamation concurred in our interpretation of the plan of development. <br /> <br />Conclusions ,and Recommendations <br /> <br />32. Inasmuch as this letter report is based on the sponsor's plan for <br />development of the Silt Project, Colorado, made prior to January 1, <br />1951, the Fish and Wildlife Service should be advised of any changes <br />in plans for structures or methods of operation, so that a modified <br />fish and wildlife report can be prepared. <br /> <br />33. The net effect of the project would be beneficial to wildlife <br />resources if the project were to be built and operated as proposed by <br />the sponsor. It is estimated that the net annual value would be $2,010. <br />Additional values could be derived from the project, however, if a <br />permanent stream flow were to be maintained below the Rifle Creek Dam. <br />An additional annual benefit of <i!>2,325 would accrue to the project if <br /> <br />-6- <br />