Laserfiche WebLink
<br />c. Bureau of Mines.- The Regional Director, Region I I I, <br />Denver, Colo., commented that although no project site field examination <br />had been made by the Bureau, it appeared, that the proposed project wou Id <br />have no sign if i cant effect upon either the m i nera I 'resources or the <br />mi neral industry and that Reg i on III of the Bureau of MJ nes therefore <br />has no object i on to the inter i m report or the project as proposed. He <br />a I so offered ass i stance if any prob lems ar ise in the i r fie I d of <br />competence. <br /> <br /> <br />'~ <br /> <br />determ i ned that, overbank clear i ng through the rema i nder pf .the f I oo~way <br />would not be required under present conditions; however, the probl,ent: <br />of reduction in upstream channel capacities by reason 'of 'phreatophytic <br />growth and resu Itant aggr<:ldation wi II be studied in detai li~connection <br />with the comprehensive review survey of the Arkansas River Bas'in in <br />Colorado above John Martin Dam. <br /> <br />b. Bur'eau of Sport Fisheries and Wi Idl ife. Fish and Wi Idl iTe <br />Service.- Prior to completion of the draft of report, design detai Is <br />of the proposed fish i ng I ake were coord i nated 1'1 i th the Regi on,! I D i rec- <br />tor of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wi Idl ife, Region 2, Albuquerque, <br />N. Mi3x., and the Field Supervisor, Branch of River Basin Studies', Denver, <br />Colo. In connection with the studies and by authority of the'Fish and <br />Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S. C. 661 et <br />seq.l a letter report on the fishery feature was prepanld'by the <br />Reg iona I Director to accompany ih i s re port. I n summary, he' stated that <br />the fJshery resources of the Arkansas River are ,extreme Iyl imited and <br />that since fishing in the vicinity of Las Animas is inadequate to meet <br />eVEln the I oca I demand, such a lake wou Ids i gn if i cant I y improve the <br />resource. He related that the Colorado Department of Game and Fish <br />had estimated that the lake use wou Id approximate 3;650 man:"days <br />annua II y, ,and that the benef its assoc i atedw i th the U$e wou I d amount <br />to about $5,500 per year. The Regional Director attached to his report <br />a copy ofa letter from the Director of the Colorado Department of. Ga.me <br />and F ish stating that the Colorado Game and Fish Commiss ion had reviewed <br />the report and had expressed their concurrence. The Chief, Division <br />of Technical 5Elrvices, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wltdljfe, Reg,ion 2, <br />in comment I ng on the draft of. th I s report, was pleased to"note that <br />fish and wi 101 ife had been consI dered in project p lann i ng and expressed <br />his approvai of the report in general. The Field Supervisor, Branch' <br />of River Basin Studies, offered no additional comments other than <br />approval of inclusion of the fishing lake as a part of the project <br />plan. <br /> <br />d. U.S. Geoloqical Survev.- The Division Hydrologist, Water <br />Resources Division, Denver, Colo., transmitted a copy of coovnents' on. <br />the report draft prepared by the D i str ict Eng i neer ,Surface Water <br />Branch, and stated that he concurred in the recommendations. The Dis- <br />trict Engineer's comments called attention to seve~al discrepancies <br />in the draft of report with reference to ,stream oischarge records. <br />The report has been corrected as suggested. He al s6,6bseryed that the <br /> <br />39 <br /> <br />R 1/28/64 <br />