. Evaluation of Planning for Fish & Wildlife FINAL REPORT Adequacy and Predictive Value of Recommendation’s at Corps Projects December 1983
Approved for Department of the Army Public Release: Office of the Chief of Engineers Distribution Unlimited Washington. D C 20314 ltBRMtt JUN o4. l984 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DENVER LIBRARY 92013381 ^2013301 UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM 1. R E P O R T NUM BER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
4. T IT L E (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT ft PERIOD COVERED Adequacy and Predictive Value of Fish and Wildlife Planning Recommendations at Corps of Engineers __ '-/pinal Reservoir Proiects 6. PERFORMING ORGT REPORT NUMBER
7. A U T H O R S 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERS Robert G. Martin, Norville S. Prosser and Gilbert C. Radonski DACW7 3-7 3-C-0040 DACW31-79-C-0005
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASK Sport Fishing Institute 4-— AREA ft WORK UNIT NUMBERS 108 13th Street, N.W. * Washington, D.C. 20005
!1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. R E P O R T D A T E Office, Chief of Engineers f December 1983 *j~ Washington, D.C. 20314 13. NUM BER O F PAG ES ' 1 97______14. M O N IT O R IN G A G EN CY NAM E ft ADDRESS^// different from Controlling Office) 15. S E C U R IT Y CLASS, (of this report)
Unclassified
15*. DECL ASSI FI CATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE
16. D IS T R IB U T IO N S T A T E M E N T (of thim Report)
Approved for public release
17. D IS T R IB U T IO N S T A T E M E N T (of the abstract entered in Block 20, if different from Report)
18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Copies are obtainable from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151 and DDC.
19. K E Y WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number) Mitigation land acquisition Impact predictions on angling General Plan Impact predictions on hunting Habitat improvement for fisheries Without the project predictions Habitat improvement for wildlife With the project predictions Fish & Wildlife community manipulation 20v ABSTRACT (GontRnie an revere» eixBs ft naceeaaey and. identify by block number) This report summarizes the information collected, analyzed and published in a series of 20 individual case-history reports which were designed to evaluate the adequacy and predictive efficacy of fish and wildlife planning at U.S. A m y Corps of Engineers (CE) reservoir project. Record searches were made at central data repositories at the Federal Record Center and National Archives and at 18 CE and Fish & Wildlife Service field offices to collect base line pre-project fish and wildlife resource information.
DD , FORM EDITION OF » MOV 65 IS OBSOLETE JAN 73 1473 UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) ___UNCLASSIFIED______S ECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEQWiati Data Entered)
State fish and wildlife agencies were interviewed to obtain appropriate post project data necessary to evaluate project impacts on both fish and wildlife resources. Adequate post-construction fish and wildlife data were available from only 14 of the 410 CE projects examined. Subcontracts for collection of post-impoundment wildlife data acquisition were negotiated with local investigators at five projects and fishery data at four project sites in order to provide the required complement of 20 projects with post-impoundment data for both fish and wildlife. Total annual angling man-day use at the 20 projects was estimated at some 2,316,437 days including 1,375,095 man-days in the reservoirs and 941,342 man- days in project tailwaters. Hunting man-day use estimates obtained from the 13 projects with usable quantitative data totaled 135,284 man-days, including 79,895 man-days for small game (59 percent), 18,968 man-days for big game (14 percent) and 36,421 for waterfowl (27 percent). The median post-project increase in angling man-days at project reservoirs was some nine times above without-the-project predicted levels expected from the free flowing streams they replaced. Post-project angling man-day use in project tailwaters exhibited a four-fold median increase. Comparison of with-the-project angling man-day use predictions contained in the FWS planning reports with post-project angler surveys indicated a strong tendency toward over-estimation of post-project man-day use within the reservoir proper and for under-estimation of angling man-day use in project tailwaters. Total post-project hunting man-day use estimates were higher than without-the- pro ject predictions contained in the FWS project planning reports at 11 of the 19 projects (58 percent) with sufficient data to permit comparison. Total hunting man-day use was higher than predicted by the FWS with the projects in place at 14 of the 18 projects (78 percent). The FWS planning reports particularly over-estimated the adverse impacts of project construction on big game and small game resources and post-hunting man-day use. Hunting man-day use, the principal parameter employed by the FWS and CE for evaluating project impacts on terrestrial wildlife, provided only a partial reflection of actual impacts of project construction on wildlife resources. A substantial portion of the increase noted for post-project hunting man-day use appeared to be attributable to improved hunter access to project lands as a result of public ownership which tended to mask actual adverse project impacts to wildlife habitat. Strategies involving habitat quality and/or wildlife density assessment would provide a more equitable assessment of project impacts. The currently used Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) represents a significant improvement over past practices and, with further refinement, should expedite more appropriate habitat evaluation procedures in the future. Mitigation recommendations contained in the FWS planning reports reflected extant state-of-the-art fish and wildlife management precepts, and, for the most part, appeared to be well conceived for mitigating fish and wildlife losses. These recommendations called for additional fee acquisition of lands, operation of appropriate lands by wildlife agencies under General Plan and license, habi tat manipulation and improvement, manipulation of fish and wildlife communities, special access development and studies to resolve new or continuing fish and wildlife-related deficiencies. A thorough discussion of each of the 45 FWS recommendations for fish and wildlife enhancement contained in the 20 FWS planning reports is included, along with a review of their ultimate disposition by the CE.
UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEfWhen Data Entered) SK35S-A7 /f/J? C onducted A DEQUACY AND PREDICTIVE VALUE OF FISHWILDLIFEPREDICTIVEOFANDANDDEQUACY VALUE LNIG RECOMMENDATIONSENGINEERSCORPSATOFPLANNING B y S U port
nder for F C O ishing ontract ffice RESERVOIRPROJECTS I ,C FINAL REPORTFINAL N nstitute hief o .
DACW31-79-C-0005 of E ,W ngineers ashington , IJ.S. , D.C. A
rmy Bureau of Reclamation Reclamation of Bureau U 7 2010 7 JUN evr Coioiacc Denver
LIBRARY LIBRARY CONTENTS
PAGE
CONTENTS i LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION -
Background — ------— _ _ _ _ Objectives Selection of Case History Study Projects Preliminary Screening ------Secondary Screening ------Tertiary Screening - - — -___ Projects Selected for Detailed Study — Legal Authority ...... Project Cooperators ------
STUDY FINDINGS
Adequacy of Mitigation Recommendations ...... 16 Mitigation Land Acquisition 18 Fee in Lieu of Easement 20 Separable Fee Lands ...... 21 Administration of Incidental Project Lands for Wildlife Purposes -- General Plan or Cooperative Agreement ------24 Habitat Improvements — Fisheries ------30 Fisheries Habitat Improvements Within Impoundments ...... 31 Fisheries Habitat Improvements Within Tail wa te rs...... 44 Fisheries Habitat Improvements Within Upstream Tributaries - 50 Fish Passage Recommendations ------__ 52 Habitat Improvements — Wildlife ------53 Physical Habitat Development ...... 55 Wildlife Management Funding 66 Fish and Wildlife Community Manipulation 71 Use of Supplemental Wildlife ...... 71 Use of Supplemental Fish (Hatcheries) ...... 75 Fish Community Eradication - - — - - — ______81 Development of Facilities and Policy Regulations to Accommodate Resource Use 85 Facilities Designed to Enhance Use 86 Regulations to Facilitate Use ...... 90 Follow-up Studies 94 Accuracy of Project Impact Predictions 96 FWS Planning Report Predictions of Angling Man-Day Use ______- 96 Post-Project Angling Man-Day Use ...... 101
'I Accuracy of Predictions Without-the-Project Conditions - - - 103 Accuracy of Predictions With-the-Project Conditions ------104 FWS Planning Report Predictions of Hunting Man-Day Use ----- 113 Total Hunting Man-Day Use Predictions ------n g Small Game Hunting Man-Day Use Predictions ------n s Big Game Hunting Man-Day Use Predictions------119 Waterfowl Hunting Man-Day Use Predictions ------121 Post-Project Hunting Man-Day Use ------— __ _ 123 Accuracy of Predictions Without-the-Project Conditions ---- 125 Accuracy of Predictions With-the-Project Conditions ------126
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION - ...... 131
LITERATURE C I T E D ...... - ...... 149
APPENDICES-...... i51
- ii - LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 The 120 Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects remaining after initial screening to eliminate older and smaller projects 152
2 Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects with reasonably adequate pre-construction data to allow both fish and wildlife planning evaluation 154
3 Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir projects with adequate pre-existing data available to allow evaluation pre-impoundment and post-impoundment fish and wildlife conditions (Category I) 156
4 Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects with adequate pre-impoundment fish and wildlife data and with post impoundment fisheries dataavailable (Category II) 157
5 Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects with adequate pre-impoundment fish and wildlife data and with adequate post-impoundment wildlife dataavailable (Category III) 158
6 Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects with adequate pre-impoundment fish and wildlife data but with inadequate post-impoundment data for either fisheries or wildlife (Category IV) 159
7 List of cooperators that supplied information used during preparation of 20 case-history evaluations 160
8 Summary of project authorizations and FWS report dates 166
9 Summary of lands inundated, and lands recommended for acquisition by agencies to accommodate mitigation requirements for 20 case-history projects 168
10 Dates of land requests for wildlife management and record of implementation of General Plans at study projects 170
11 Lands flooded, lands acquired in fee and lands managed for fish and wildlife under General Plan and license by state or federal wildlife agency at twenty U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects 171
12 List of fishery habitat improvement recommendations submitted by fish and wildlife agencies for each of the 20 study projects 172
- iii 13 Minimum flow requests and actual post-construction conditions at 20 CE reservoirs 14 Tailwater problem areas identified during the investigations of the 20 case-history projects 15 Summary of pre- and post-project land/water area relationship at 20 CE projects (fee aquisition area only)
16 List of wildlife habitat improvement recommendations submitted by fish and w ildlife agencies for each of the 20 study projects 17 Comparison of pre-project stream length with subsequent shoreline length at project reservoirs at summer conservation pool levels 18 Relationship of project lands retained in fee above normal conservation pool elevation with area of lands permanently inundated and lands subject to periodic flooding 19 CE policy in effect regarding extent of allowable fee land acquisition at 20 case-history projects
20 Project lands zoned for w ildlife management by CE (does not include lands granted to state and federal fish and w ildlife agencies under General Plan and license) 21 Summary of FWS planning report predictions of recreational fishing man-day use within project impact areas without the project, and with the project in place, assuming no implementation of mitigation recommendations 22 Comparison of FWS planning report prediction of post project recreational fishing man-day use with and without implementation of planning report recommenda tions
23 Estimated average annual number of angling man-days recorded by creel surveys conducted within project impact areas in post-impoundment years and percentage increase (decrease) over without-the-project angling man-day use predictions delineated in FWS planning reports
_ 1V - 24 Comparison of percentage differences in documented post-project angling man-day use estimates from FWS planning report predictions 184
25 Comparison of total hunting man-day use predicted by the FWS within the project impact area in post- construction years without-the-project and with-the- project in place, with and without implementation of FWS planning report mitigation recommendations 185
26 Comparison of small game hunting man-day use predicted by the FWS within the project impact area in post construction years without-the-project and with-the- project in place, with and without implementation of FWS planning mitigation recommendations (negative values in parentheses) 186
27 Comparison of big game hunting man-day use predicted by the FWS within the project impact area in post construction years without-the-project and with-the- project in place, with and without implementation of FWS planning report mitigation recommendations 187
28 Comparison of waterfowl hunting man-day use predicted by the FWS within the project impact area in post- construction years without-the-project and with-the- project in place with and without implementations of FWS planning mitigation recommendations 188
29 Average annual post-project hunting man-day use estimates and percentage change from FWS planning report without-the-project predictions (negative percentage changes in parentheses) 189
30 Percentage deviation of estimated post-project hunting man-day use occurrences from values predicted in FWS planning reports with the project in place (negative percentage values in parentheses) 190
v LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 1 Map of United States, showing locations of 20 Corps of Engineers study projects 191
- vi INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Federal programs designed to accomplish the development of water resources have wrought enormous changes to fish and wildlife communi ties and associated social use patterns. Such obvious alterations of physical systems have provoked largely intuitive generalizations
regarding the impacts of reservoir developments on natural resources.
However, the record enjoys few in-depth, objective studies of mitiga tion efficacy or systematic monitoring of actual fish and wildlife-
related impacts of reservoir projects. Conclusive evidence of the
impacts of water development projects on fish and wildlife resources
can only be realized through comprehensive on-site fish and wildlife
resource studies at existing projects and comparison of these data
against accurate measurements of these same resources made prior to
construction.
This informational deficiency became increasingly recognized by both
fish and wildlife and construction agencies during the environmental
awareness decade of the 1970's. For example, a 1970 review of fish and
wildlife planning at water development projects undertaken by the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), state fish and wildlife agencies, and many
national conservation organizations, produced a list of 169 recommended
corrective actions including the following, (1):
Study projects under construction and completed to determine if recommended fish and wildlife features are
- 1 - being provided, to evaluate results of previous recom mendations, and to provide basic data for future evalua tions and recommendations.
Concurrently, the effectiveness of fish and wildlife planning proced
ures and resultant decisions at water projects was a matter of growing
concern among the construction agencies. In 1974, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (CE) contracted with the Sport Fishing Institute (SFI) to
evaluate fish and wildlife planning for a representative sample of CE
reservoir projects.
OBJECTIVES
The contract specified an evaluation study of both the adequacy, and
the predictive value of fish and wildlife planning recommendations at
CE reservoir projects. Several tasks were involved in the evaluative
process as follows:
o Compile both pre- and post-construction data for each selected reservoir project.
o Compare, analyze and evaluate the predictive criteria (and their supportive data) with actual occurences.
o Evaluate and compare the data parameters used for predictions on each individual reservoir project and among projects that possess similar characteristics.
The overall objective of the study was to develop specific documented
information upon which to base reliable predictions regarding impacts
of CE reservoir construction and operation on fish and wildlife-related conditions.
The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase involved the
- 2 - screening and selection of CE reservoir projects for further evaluation. The second phase was the documentation of pre- and post-construction impacts on fish and wildlife at selected Corps reservoirs, followed by a comparison of the predictions with the actual occurrences at each of the selected study sites.
This report summarizes findings from that series of studies and reviews the results of the series of investigations concerning the adequacy and predictive value of fish and wildlife planning at 20 selected CE reservoir projects.
SELECTION OF CASE HISTORY STUDY PROJECTS
The 20 CE reservoir projects recommended by SFI personnel for detailed study during the second phase were evaluated and identified based upon four criteria which were established by the CE, viz:
o Study sites selected must include all major representa tive types of projects (flood control, hydroelectric, and multiple-use).
o Study sites must represent diverse environmental habi tats and geographical locations.
o Data on pre-construction fish and wildlife conditions for each reservoir must be available. Also, projects on which post-construction fish and wildlife data are available will be given preference, although special post-impoundment investigations may be recommended where desi rable.
o Predictive evaluations must have been made by the FWS on the influence of each reservoir on fish and wildlife resources.
Other factors considered in the eventual selection of study sites
- 3 - included the date of project construction, project size (extent of
habitat modifications), and proximity to other candidate projects
within specific CE administrative boundaries. All CE reservoir
projects which received over 5,000 recreation days of use annually, as
listed in the CE's "Summary Description of CY (Calender Year) 1973,
Annual Reports, Civil Works Recreation-Resource Management System
(RRMS)," (2), were considered as potential candidates for detailed
study under the second phase of the contract. A total of 407 projects
were included in the RRMS printout. In addition, three projects com
pleted after generation of the 1973 RRMS were added by SFI investi
gators, bringing to 410 the total number of projects reviewed at the outset of the study.
Preliminary Screening
The initial review of the 410 projects considered the age of each project as indicated by the first year of reservoir operation. It did not become mandatory for construction agencies to request comments and recommendations from federal and state wildlife agencies until passage of the 1946 amendment to the 1934 Act which, when amended for the final time in 1958, became the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. As the average delay between publication of fish and wildlife evaluation reports and reservoir completion was approximately six years, the 138
CE projects impounded prior to 1953 (1946 + six years delay) were eliminated from further consideration.
- 4 - The magnitude of the impact of each reservoir project on aquatic and terrestrial natural resources is related, in part, to the number of acres impounded. Projects which result in little new water acreage affect fish and wildlife resources to a much lesser degree than projects which result in significantly increased flooded areas. Con sidering this relationship, some 124 projects (primarily navigational locks and dams) with minimal new water area, were eliminated from further consideration. The remaining projects, those completed since
1953 which resulted in significant habitat modification totalled 148.
However, 28 of these projects were considered poor candidates because of adverse interacting factors of age and size in comparison with other projects in or near the same CE District. These 28 projects were therefore not subjected to further screening.
As a result of the preliminary screening process, 290 projects were
excluded and 120 were retained for further review (Table 1).
Secondary Screening
Second-level screening for the 120 projects which survived initial
review was essentially an appraisal of the depth of pre-construction
fish and wildlife data and predictive evaluations which were prepared
and provided by fish and wildlife agencies during the planning process
for each project. Recommendations as well as impact predictions,
prepared to guide mitigation and enhancement of fish and wildlife
resources, are presented in reports prepared by the FWS in cooperation
- 5 - with state agencies and submitted to the CE. On occasion, the National
Marine Fisheries Service is involved as well. Locating and acquiring
these pre-construction planning reports for 120 projects proved to be a
difficult mission.
No comprehensive collection of pre-impoundment reports has been main
tained by any of the affected agencies. The FWS and CE files (includ
ing the desired reports) are routinely transferred to the Federal
Records Center located in Suitland, Maryland, and then as appropriate, transferred to the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Only a few incidental documents on individual reservoir projects are maintained at
FWS or CE headquarters in Washington, D.C. The desired records stored at the Federal Records Center were not catalogued and were scattered at widely separated locations within that immense storage facility. The time necessary to conduct the painstaking search that would have been required to locate the desired documentation for each project at the
Center was considered prohibitive.
An alternative was to obtain copies of the desired reports from the various field offices of the FWS and CE. Project personnel knew that discussion of each of the candidate reservoir projects with as many knowledgeable field personnel as possible would add greatly to the study results. Therefore, it was decided to acquire pre-construction planning reports during personal visits to the field offices. Over several months, project personnel visited all six Regional FWS offices
- 6 - and selected Area offices. The FWS's National Reservoir Research
Program headquarters in Fayetteville, Arkansas was also visited for a review of their considerable files. Ten CE Division offices were visited.
After visiting 18 field offices, and corresponding with many addi tional FWS and CE field offices, a nearly complete library of the pertinent pre-impoundment predictive fish and w ild life data was assembled for the 120 reservoir projects.
The accumulated reports, documents, and correspondence for each reser voir project were reviewed to ascertain the extent to which the pre construction fish and wildlife resources were described and to deter mine the quality and comprehensiveness of the pre-impoundment predic tive information. Particular attention was paid to the relevancy of
discussion of expected resource loss or gain as a result of project
construction.
Following completion of this review, project personnel concluded that
the pre-impoundment information was su ffic ie n tly complete to permit
post-impoundment comparative studies for 78, or 65 percent, of the 120
project file s reviewed (Table 2). Pre-impoundment file s determined to
be inadequate were judged so due to incomplete treatment of the
subject, or because the presentation was so general in nature as to
preclude post-impoundment determination of their predictive value.
library
- 7 - JUIV 7 2010
Bureau of ReCicnk; • Denve, u.e Tertiary Screening
With 78 projects identified as possessing adequate pre-construction
data available, the next step was to determine which of those projects
had been subjected to fish and/or wildlife investigations since im
poundment. Post-impoundment investigations were required to allow
evaluation of the actual influence of reservoir development on fish and
wildlife resources within the impacted area, and thus permit appropri
ate comparisons with pre-impoundment projections. Available post
impoundment data are almost always the results of studies conducted by
state fish and wildlife agencies. Generally such studies are conducted
to guide the development of propitious resource management strategies
to manipulate fish and wildlife resources within the reservoir and/or
on contiguous project lands. To determine which projects had been the
objects of post-impoundment investigations and to determine the nature
of the resulting available data, questionnaires were mailed to each
fish and/or wildlife agency having management responsibility for one or
more of the 78 projects which survived secondary screening. A total of
35 state agencies were contacted during this survey.
These questionnaires were designed to elicit only the years for which
data were available, and did not seek, at this juncture, to obtain the
actual information. The fishery questionnaire requested responses pertaining to the recreational fishery, commercial fishery, fish com munity studies, and limnological investigations. Studies relating to
- 8 - reservoir and/or tailwaters were to be listed separately. The wildlife questionai re requested the years for which studies of the major game animal groups (big game, upland game, waterfowl, and furbearers) were available. The specific types of studies of interest, were those providing estimates of hunting pressure, and harvest rates, as well as economic assessments, and fish and wildlife population estimates. The cooperation extended by the state agencies in completing and returning the questionnaires was gratifying. Within three months, a 100 percent return of the questionnaires was realized.
Evaluation of the data provided by these questionnaires resulted in categorizing the 78 reservoirs having usable pre-impoundment data into four groups. These four categories of post-construction informaton availability were:
o Category I - projects with both fish and wildlife data available
o Category II - projects with only fish data available
o Category III - projects with only wildlife data avail able
o Category IV - projects with neither fish nor wildlife data available
Only 14 of the 78 projects (18%) qualified for inclusion in Category I.
These projects were widely distributed geographically, representing
seven CE Divisions and seven Districts. Table 3 lists the Category I
projects.
- 9 - Category II included 21 projects. Although 6 of the 21 reservoirs in
this second group were located in the Southwestern Division, a total of
8 Divisions was represented. To complete the post-impoundment fish and
wildlife information for Category II projects would require acquisition
of original wildlife data obtainable only through subcontract studies.
The projects classified in Category II are listed in Table 4.
Five Divisions and an equal number of Districts were represented by the
11 projects in Category III. To undertake post-impoundment fish and
wildlife evaluations would require acquisition of original fishery data
under subcontract. The Category III projects are listed in Table 5.
Category IV proved to contain the greatest number of projects with 32,
or 41 percent, of the 78 projects having adequate pre-impoundment data.
All CE Divisions except North Central and Missouri River were repre
sented in the list of projects in Category IV, as were 15 CE Districts.
Complete evaluation of Category IV projects would require obtaining
information relating to the recreational fish and wildlife-related use of each of these 32 projects, data available only by means of subcon tracted studies. Category IV reservoirs are listed in Table 6.
PROJECTS SELECTED FOR DETAILED STUDY
As noted, twenty projects were eventually selected for detailed study of fish and wildlife planning. This represents 26 percent of the 78 projects identified as possessing adequate pre-construction descrip-
- 10 - tions of adequate detail to satisfy contract objectives. Originally, the contract agenda was to investigate the planning efficacy for 15 CE projects, relying solely on projects with pre-existing information of adequate scope and detail. It became clear very early that 15 such projects did not exist, and in fact only 14 such projects (several in close proximity) could be identified. Project personnel recommended that 11 of those projects should be studied. To complete the comple ment of 15 projects, an early decision was made to review one compon ent, either the fishery or wildlife aspect, depending upon post
impoundment data availability, for an additional nine projects. The
nine projects selected included 5 from Category II with fishery data
available and 4 from Category III with wildlife data available.
In October, 1978, the study was expanded by the CE to provide for eval
uation of both fishery and wildlife components at twenty projects.
This additional work necessitated acquisition of original post
impoundment field data under subcontracts with local investigators to
describe the missing component at the nine projects which had been
selected earlier for partial analysis depending on data availability.
That is, post-impoundment wildlife data were acquired under subcontract
with local investigators at five sites and fishery data were acquired
at four projects.
The full roster of 20 projects included in the detailed studies
reflected wide geographic distribution. Insofar as practicable, the
- 11 - numerical apportionment of study projects within each of the 10 Divi
sions of the CE were made proportionally to Divisional distribution.
Figure 1 illustrates the general locations of the 20 case-history
projects.
Purposes for which reservoir projects were constructed vary widely, and
the evaluated projects adequately reflect this diversity. Nine differ
ent project purposes are represented in the 20 projects. Flood control was the most frèquently occurring authorized project purpose, appearing
in 19 of the 20 projects. Other project purposes in order of occur ence reflected in the list of projects investigated are as follows: hydropower (10), water supply (9), navigation (7), recreation (5), water conservation (3), water quality control (2), fish and wildlife
(2) and irrigation (1).
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Several federal statutes and developmental agency policies affect fish and wildlife planning directly by establishing procedural guidances as well as indirectly by modifying philosophical attitudes with which fish and wildlife negotiations are approached. Several of the key laws and policies which have had significant impact on fish and wildlife plan ning at CE projects are discussed briefly in the following section.
The Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534) as amended in 1954, recog nized the public recreational values associated with CE-constructed
- 12 - water development projects. This Act authorized the CE to construct and operate recreational facilities at their projects.
The basic legislative framework that mandates specific attention, and resolution as appropriate, of federal water development damages to fish and wildlife resources is the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(FWCA). The earliest precedent legislation was enacted in 1934. A second version was passed in 1946. The 1946 version was not dissimilar from the existing Act in terms of addressing mitigation and/or compensation.
The present Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (P.L. 85-624) was enacted in 1958, and was given its statutary title at that time. It authorized the implementation of measures for enhancing (in addition to mitigating or compensating for losses) fish and wildlife resources, and
it granted authority to allocate benefits and costs of fish and wild
life as a "purpose" of water resource development projects. The FWCA
authorized, under prescribed circumstances, the modification of
projects not then 60 percent completed. The FWCA does not simply
require the identification of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources. The value of this fundamental legislation is that it
requires preparation of a considered plan to reduce or compensate and
even enhance these resources.
The Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-72) requires
- 13 - that full consideration be given to opportunities for fish and wildlife
enhancement (as distinct from mitigation) in the investigation and
planning of any Federal navigation, flood control, reclamation, hydro
electric, or multiple purpose water resource project. P.L. 89-72
further specifies that benefits of a project that can be attributed to
fish and wildlife enhancement, as well as the costs of such enhance
ment, shall be taken into account in determining the economic benefits
of the project. The Act specifies that no facilities or project
modifications providing for fish and wildlife enhancement may be added
unless a non-Federal public body will administer the land and water
areas and cost share (or provide development) for all such additional
facilities or project modifications and bear all costs of operation,
maintenance and replacement.
Among the many internal CE policies of particular influence on fish and
wildlife administration which should be noted were the various policies
establishing the extent of allowable land acquisition and certain
policy changes to the Standard Fish and Wildlife License.
Acquisition of fee lands has been governed by four distinct policies which have evolved over the years (3), viz:
o Pre-1953; acquire any and all land required for opera tion.
o 1953-1962; acquire fee title to land only to the 5-year flood elevation.
o 1962-1971; acquire fee title to the maximum flowage line or to a 300 foot buffer zone measured horizontally from
- 14 - the top of the controlled storage pool, whichever is greater.
o 1971-present; acquire fee title to the maximum flowage line or to a 300 foot buffer zone measured horizontally from the top of the conservation pool, whichever is greater.
In 1977, the CE altered Condition 5 of the Standard License Agreement to allow states to use proceeds from sale of crops on licensed CE lands for habitat development and maintenance (4).
PROJECT COOPERATORS
This final report summarizes the highlights of information collected, analyzed and published in a series of 20 individual case-history reports (5). Some 2,002 pages of fish and wildlife planning documenta tion have been published in the 20 individual reports. Copies of the individual reports are obtainable from the National Technical Informa tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
Obviously, an undertaking of this magnitude required the cooperation and assistance of a large cadre of fish and wildlife and water devel opment experts. SFI personnel have held discussions with over 200 individual field personnel during the investigations. Cooperators were affiliated with state, federal and local agencies, universities, and
/ , consulting firms and several were private citizens. All cooperators are identified by affiliation and project in Table 7.
- 15 - STUDY FINDINGS
ADEQUACY OF MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) requires development agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) and the head of the appropriate state agency exercising administrative control over fish and wildlife resources whenever a body of water is proposed or authorized to be modified for any purpose. Following said consulta tion, the development agency must give full consideration to the report and recommendations of both the Secretary of Interior and the appropri ate state agency on the wildlife conservation aspects of such projects.
Further, the FWCA specifies that any reports and/or recommendations made by the Secretary of the Interior and appropriate state agency heads for preventing the loss of, or damage to, fish and wildlife resources shall be included as an integral part of any reports subse quently submitted to Congress by the agency of the federal government responsible for the project design and construction. Finally, the project plan shall include such justifiable means and measures for wildlife purposes as the reporting agency finds should be adopted to obtain maximum overall project benefits.
Twenty-four individual reports prepared by federal and state wildlife agencies covering the 20 projects were examined in detail for purposes of this study. The subject reports cover a publication period of just over a quarter century, 1946-1972. Eighteen of the twenty-four reports
- 16 - (75 percent) were prepared during the six year period, 1960-1965 (Table
8).
At this point, it is important to note, that when the 20 case-history project sites were evaluated by the FWS and state agencies, different methods were used to assess habitat losses and to develop land acquisi tion recommendations to mitigate or compensate for such losses, than are presently employed. Today, the FWS, in cooperation with state w ildlife and federal development agencies, employs a methodology known as the Habitat Evaluation Procedures or simply HEP (6). This procedure
is based on identification of habitat types within a proposed project
site and assigning a numerical value to each habitat type based on the
habitat's relative value for selected wildlife species.
The reports submitted for the 20 study projects contained 45 different types of mitigation/enhancement recommendations. Only two related to acquisition of mitigation lands. Thus, procedural changes relating to habitat assessment and land acquisition would not affect the remaining recommendations. Therefore, almost all recommendations formulated to accommodate fish and w ildlife impacts at the 20 studies would be as applicable today as they were when the 20 study projects were being
planned.
As noted, 45 different recommendations were identified from the 24 key planning reports prepared for the 20 projects. Some of the recommenda-
- 17 - tions were submitted for only one of the projects, while others appear ed in the planning documentation for almost every project.
Essentially, the recommended actions fall into six basic categories, viz:
o Acquisition of additional lands beyond those required for project purposes as identified by construction agency, the specific purpose being to offset project- associated wildlife losses.
o Operation of selected project lands by state or federal wildlife agencies under General Plan and license or other cooperative arrangement with the construction agency.
o Improvement of project lands and waters to increase carrying capacity of fish and wildlife communities.
o Planned, direct manipulation of fish and/or wildlife communities.
o Provision of facilities such as access to accommodate fish and wildlife-related utilization.
o Further studies of project resources to resolve new or continuing fish and wildlife-related deficiencies.
Mitigation Land Acquisition
Fish and wildlife agencies have long understood that terrestrial wild life communities do not simply move up the hillside to avoid a newly impounded lake, but rather encounter losses essentially commensurate with the carrying capacity of the habitat lost via inundation. If the displaced or diminished wildlife community is to be compensated, the lost wildlife habitat must be replaced. Since new land is not created, the wildlife-associated productivity, in terms of resources and use, of
- 18 - remaining lands must be upgraded. Alteration of land management prac tices can increase production of wildlife populations. Based upon this premise, wildlife agencies have frequently found the land acquisition plans formulated by the construction agency to realize primary project purposes (flood control, hydropower, etc.) to be inadequate to compen sate or replace terrestrial wildlife resources associated with habitat planned for inundation by the projects.
The extent to which the desired wildlife-associated services can be increased on a piece of land are dependent upon the amount of land available, its inherent capacity to respond to management, and the manpower and money invested in habitat development and improvement in public accessibility. At the lowest level of investment, wildlife productivity often can be increased by simply replacing private sector management (for the production of marketable goods) with public owner ship.
With increasing frequency over the last forty years, wildlife planning associated with major water development projects has included wildlife
agency requests for acquisition of specific fee lands for the single
purpose of providing a land base upon which to replace, to the extent
practicable, depleted wildlife resources.
Mitigation lands were requested at some point in the negotiation phase
at 13 of the 20 projects evaluated. Land acquisition requests specific
- 19 - for wi1dlife purposes fall into two basic categories, viz:
o Acquisition, in fee, of some portion of the lands plan ned to be acquired by the construction agency in flowage easement.
o Acquisition of additional fee lands beyond those planned for acquisition for primary project purposes by the construction agency.
Fee in Lieu of Easement
Acquisition of flowage easements on lands located above the 5-year flood frequency elevation, in lieu of fee title, typified many CE projects constructed prior to February 1962. Greater expanses of fee lands could then be acquired as a consequence of the adoption of the
"Joint Policies of the Department of the Interior and the Army Relative to Reservoir Project Lands" (7). Easement acquisition presented seriously limited opportunities for habitat and access development, compared to lands to which fee title was acquired. In fact, little evidence exists to indicate implementation of any mitigation actions on any lands other than those acquired in fee for the 20 cases examined.
At Deer Creek, J. Percy Priest, John Redmond, Keystone, and Okatibbee, the final position of wildlife agencies was to acquire additional lands in fee rather than as easements, as planned by the CE. At Deer Creek,
J. Percy Priest and Okatibbee, the request for higher estate acquisi tion was implemented incidentally when the CE's land acquisition policy was altered in 1962. The only request of this nature (fee in lieu of easement) never implemented by the CE was a relatively small section
[257 ha (635 ac)] of land at Keystone.
- 20 - At the John Redmond project in Kansas, the 1,376 ha (3,400 ac) of land requested in fee in lieu of easement to enlarge the Flint Hill National
Wildlife Refuge on project lands, was pursued successfully through the complex CE-established, 5-step justification procedure, and fee acquis ition was authorized by Congress in 1965. However, in 1970, the FWS requested that the CE not acquire the additional authorized lands, as wildlife needs at the refuge were being provided on the 7,487 ha
(18,500 ac) of incidental project lands already under license to the
FWS.
Separable Fee Lands
Additional lands, totally separate and distinct from lands originally intended for acquisition in some manner (fee or easement) by the CE to provide for project authorized purposes, were requested by federal and/or state wildlife agencies at some point in the planning negotia tions at 13 projects (Table 9). At Deer Creek, J. Percy Priest and
Okatibbee, as with the requests discussed earlier for higher estate acquisition (fee instead of easement), the more liberal land acquisi tion policy adopted by the CE in early 1962 accommodated the additional fee land request, leaving no land acquisition conflicts to resolve at these projects. At John Redmond the small additional tract [130 ha
(320 ac)] requested for fee acquisition beyond the much larger acreage requested for acquisition in fee in lieu of easement, was determined to be surplus to agency needs following Congressional authorizations
- 21 discussed previously.
At Allegheny, the U.S. Forest Service, FWS and Pennsylvania Game Com mission agreed that at a minimum, an area of 215 ha (532 ac) of fee
land would be required in addition to the construction agency's planned acquisition to mitigate wildlife losses. This recommendation was contained in a draft report circulated by the FWS in April 1961. The
CE objected to acquisition of the additional lands, noting simply that planned project features would provide adequate replacement for fish and wildlife resources. The CE further advised the wildlife agencies that additional Congressional authorization would be necessary to acquire the requested mitigation lands.
In the final Allegheny fish and wildlife planning report of May 9,
1961, the FWS completely capitulated to the CE regarding the requested area 215 ha (532 ac), by noting:
Since wildlife habitat losses are fairly small and the Corps insists it would need to hold public hearings and get Congressional authorization to acquire added lands, even for mitigation, we have deleted this recommenda tion...
Recommended fee acquisitions for wildlife mitigation were never com pletely resolved at the Council Grove, Dworshak, Eufaula, Keystone,
Lake Sharpe, Littleville, and Pat Mayse projects. Each of these cases presented unique circumstances except in the case of the three projects located in the Tulsa District of the CE's Southwestern Division. For those three projects (Council Grove, Eufaula, and Keystone) the
- 22 scenario of rejection was quite similar. In each case, the CE reviewed the man-day use figures expected to result from the acquisitions according to the wildlife agencies, multiplied those figures by daily monetary values deemed acceptable at the time (generally in the area of
$1.50/day) and concluded that the cost of acquisition, development, operation and maintenance was far greater than the benefits to be realized. The acquisition requests were, therefore, rejected on the basis of very low benefit/cost ratios. The acquisitions requested at these projects were: Council Grove, 293 ha (725 ac); Eufaula, 5,197 ha
(12,841 ac); and Keystone, 3,444 ha (8,510 ac) for a total area of
8,934 ha (22,076 ac) (Table 9).
Acquisition of fee land was authorized specifically for wildlife pur poses, in response to wildlife agency request, at only three study sites, and eventually acquired, in part, at two: Dworshak and Pat
Mayse (John Redmond lands authorized by Congress ultimately were refused by the FWS).
At Dworshak, 1,630 ha (4,018 ac) of critical winter range, primarily for Rocky Mountain elk, were acquired. A request for an additional
1,821 ha (4,500 ac) of winter range remains unresolved at the Dworshak project.
At Pat Mayse, the wildlife agencies requested acquisition of 486 ha
(1,200 ac) of forest habitat to complement other federal lands to be
- 23 - managed by the state under General Plan and license. Only 304 ha (750
ac) were sought from, and authorized by, Congress for acquisition at
Pat Mayse for wildlife mitigation.
Acquisition of mitigation lands was adversely affected by delays in
every case where such requests were submitted. In no instance were
mitigation land acquisition plans prosecuted concurrently with land
acquisition for other project needs. The timetable of separable lands
authorized for acquisition were as follows: Dworshak, impounded in
1971 and mitigation lands were partially acquired in 1978; John
Redmond, impounded in 1964 and acquisition of mitigation lands author
ized by Congress in 1965; and Pat Mayse, impounded in 1968 and acquisi
tion of mitigation lands authorized by Congress in 1968.
Administration of Incidental Project Lands for Wildlife Purposes — General Plan or Cooperative Agreement
Major water development projects are conceived, designed and built to
meet one or more development or protective objectives. The 20 projects
evaluated, were all authorized to accomplish at least two intended
purposes. The authorized project purposes and number of projects
constructed for each purpose were as follows: flood control (19),
hydropower (10), water supply (9), navigation (7), recreation (5),
water conservation (3), water quality control (2), irrigation (1) and
fish and wildlife (2). Table 8 presents the authorization information
for the 20 projects.
- 24 - Planned water storage above normal (summer) pool elevations, primarily for seasonal flood control purposes, as well as lands required for project administration, demand CE acquisition of lands located above conservation pool elevation at water development projects. The manner in which these lands are obtained (fee or leased) and administered, largely establishes their value for wildlife resources. The FWCA, in recognition of the potential value of public lands surrounding water development projects, establishes a procedure whereby such value can be realized by way of management by appropriate state or federal wildlife agencies, viz:
The use of such water, land or interests therein for wildlife conservation purposes shall be in accordance with general plans approved jointly (1) by the head of the particular department or agency exercising primary administration in each instance, (2) by the Secretary of the Interior, and (3) by the head of the agency exercis ing the administration of the wildlife resources of the particular State wherein the waters and areas lie. Such waters and other interests shall be made available, without cost for administration, by each State agency, if the management of the properties relate to the con servation of wildlife other than migratory birds, or by the Secretary of the Interior, for administration in such manner as he may deem advisable, where the particu lar properties have value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program.
The FWCA also clarifies that the appropriate state agency may manage project lands for migratory birds if the Department of Interior makes the necessary determination, viz:
...lands having value to the National Migratory Bird Management Program may, pursuant to general plans, be made available without cost directly to the State agency having control over wildlife resources, if it is jointly determined by the Secretary of the Interior and such State agency that this would be in the public interest.
- 25 - Development of a General Plan and license agreement to permit coopera ting wildlife agencies to manage project lands, was a standard recom mendation for essentially all 20 case-history projects. Reports prepared for two of the projects requested management of appropriate project lands for wildlife purposes by state management agencies but did not specifically refer to a General Plan. These two projects (Pine
Flat and Clark Hill) were designed prior to 1950, however.
The specific contents of General Plan recommendations varied widely among projects reviewed. In the case of eight projects, such recom mendations were phrased in general terms (Table 10). An example of such general recommendations was the following request for the Little- ville project:
...that project lands and waters be made available to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game for fish and wildlife management purposes in accordance with the General Plan.
In some instances, when no specific description of General Plan lands were presented, it was because the conservation agencies were not well informed regarding construction agency plans, as reflected in the following quote from the Red Rock Lake files:
We shall be glad to draft a General Plan document for review purposes as soon as you can provide us with a reservoir map on which your land acquisition boundary is delineated with suitable accuracy. We recognize that the map cannot be provided until your land acquisition negotiations are completed. To hasten review at field level, perhaps you could provide a map earlier on which an approximate taking line is marked. We could then draft a preliminary text and map for circulation and
- 26 - review by your office and the Iowa Commission in order to reach general agreement before the official document is drafted.
In the majority of instances, at some point in the negotiation phase,
very specific recommendations were provided with relation to wildlife management of project lands under the General Plan. For example, the
following recommendations which appeared in the 1959 report for the Ice
Harbor project:
...the General Plan appended to this report be executed to provide that the area designated in Exhibit A as River Mile 25 be made available to Washington Department of Game in accordance with Section 4 of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 48 Stat. 401 as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et.seq.
Federal lands are not managed under a General Plan for fish and wild
life at every study project. In fact, a standard General Plan and
license arrangement exists at only 14, or 70 percent of the study projects (Table 10). In addition, the specific needs of wildlife are
receiving attention entirely under cooperative arrangements with state wildlife agencies, in lieu of General Plan and license at the Dworshak and Ice Harbor projects. Additional lands at J. Percy Priest (beyond those managed directly under General Plan) are also being managed under cooperative arrangement with the state. These cooperative agreements were created to allow greater flexibility in the utilization of finan cial and technical resources involving both wildlife agencies in the respective states and the CE. Project lands at John Redmond (except for a small tract licensed to the state) are managed under Cooperative
Agreement as the Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge by the FWS.
- 27 - A special situation exists at the Allegheny Reservoir project. At this project, title to essentially all lands acquired in fee by the CE were transferred to the U.S. Forest Service and are managed by that agency as part of the continguous Allegheny National Forest.
Forest Service lands are interspersed with CE lands at the Pine Flat
Lake project. At Pine Flat, the Forest Service has jurisdiction over all project lands of potential value to wildlife. This situation has hindered formulation of a considered management strategy for protection and rehabilitation of wildlife resources such as would be possible under a General Plan with the appropriate state wildlife agency.
Assumption of management responsibility under General Plan and license tranfers funding responsibility for habitat development, as well as continuing operation and maintenance of related improvements to the licensee. This burden proved too great in the case of the East Lynn
Lake project where the state agency refused to participate in a General
Plan and license agreement based on the shortage of funds to carry out a development program. Consequently, the full potential of this essen tially unmanaged, but valuable, tract for wildlife remains only parti ally realized. Its value as habitat for wildlife can be expected to decline further in the absence of management, as natural vegetative succession proceeds and habitat diversity essential for wildlife diminishes.
- 28 - In the case of Littleville, available project lands are too limited to be of significant value to the state wildlife agency, and no coopera tive arrangement exists. Further, the water supply nature of the impoundment has caused local water supply interests to vigorously guard the undeveloped nature of project lands, to the exclusion of other uses including hunting.
The extent to which fee lands located above normal (summer) pool eleva tion have been allocated to wildlife agencies under General Plan for wildlife management purposes ranges from 0 to 86 percent. Collective ly, the 20 projects studied have permanently inundated 162,404 ha
(401,299 ac). The CE owns, in fee, some 159,181 ha (393,328 ac) of land surrounding these impoundments. Of those fee lands, some 66,730 ha (164,889 ac) are under some degree of management for wildlife
resources by state or federal wildlife agencies under General Plan and
license or other cooperative arrangements with the CE (Table 11).
CE land use policy incorporates land use zoning priorities which
assigns wildlife management objectives among the lowest public use
priorities on project holdings. In terms of outgranting incidental
project land to wildlife agencies, higher priorities were normally
allocated to the more intensive uses of land, such as recreation, even
including those undeveloped lands scheduled for some possible future
recreational development. The threat of some future "upgrading" of
- 29 - land classification to higher priority, instead of wildlife management,
was also a noted factor in retarding wildlife habitat development at
some projects.
Habitat Improvements
Major environmental perturbations necessarily are associated with the
creation of large water development projects including permanently
inundated terrestrial habitat, reservoir basins devoid of vegetative
cover, and water releases of altered chemical and physical character
istics and/or extended periods of reduced discharge. Such major
changes in habitat require direct management to maximize potential fish
and wildlife production and use. For these reasons, habitat develop mental features of wide diversity have been proposed by state and
federal fish and wildlife agencies to improve habitat for fish and wildlife resources in, on, and surrounding water development projects.
Habitat Improvements — Fisheries
Twenty-two different habitat-related recommendations were contained in the planning documents for the 20 case-history projects. Every project
studied had at least one habitat-related recommendation filed by the
state and federal fish and wildlife agencies. The majority of actions
recommended in the various reports were on behalf of post-impoundment
fisheries, with lesser numbers of suggested wildlife-related activi ties. Table 12 presents the 15 different recommendations which were provided to facilitate post-impoundment fishery resources. The
- 30 - fisheries-related recommendations fall into relatively distinct cate gories based upon habitat type affected, i.e., within the impoundment, at the dam (fish passage), downstream from the impoundment, and above the impoundment.
Fisheries Habitat Improvements Within Impoundments
Modification of the characteristics associated with reservoir habitat comprised the largest category of recommendations. Four of the eight
recommendations of this type collectively presented in the pertinent
reports were unique to a single project. The first such recommendation
supported construction of the largest impoundment (out of the three
options being considered) at Red Rock. In fact, this was the only
fishery-related recommendation provided for Red Rock. The recommended
option was eventually implemented by the CE, and from strictly an
angling-interest perspective, this was a prudent recommendation consid
ering that Lake Red Rock has filled rapidly with silt, with a 30
percent reduction in the conservation pool storage capacity between
1969 and 1979. This lost storage capacity subsequently persuaded the
CE, with FWS and state concurrence, to raise the operating level of the
conservation pool approximately one additional meter (3 ft).
A well-considered recommendation was provided in conjunction with the
Carlyle project, a recommendation which appeared in the documents for
no other project. This was a request that attention be given to the
control of reservoir shoreline erosion. The CE's terse response re-
- 31 - fleeted some misunderstanding, perhaps, but certainly embodied a non- receptive attitude toward this fish and wildlife agency concern, viz:
The plan of reservoir operation does not envisage rapid drawdowns which would accelerate bank erosion.
However, time has proven the concerns of the fish and wildlife agencies were well-founded, as wind-caused shoreline erosion has forced the CE to acquire additional lands at Carlyle and to place rip-rap along several particularly vulnerable shorelines.
Although reservoir construction schedules, power generation commitments and other primary project purposes control the timing of reservoir completion, certain fishery benefits can be realized if the timing of initial impoundment of the reservoir can be selected. For example, it is desireable to impound water after the spawning period of non-game fish, allowing the newly impounded "virgin" habitat to be stocked with desirable species. This is a practice commonly employed at smaller public fishing waters where black bass are usually stocked as the desired predator.
This well-predicated concept of manipulating the date of initial impoundment for fishery purposes was incorporated into the planning documents for Okatibbee and J. Percy Priest. The relevant pre construction recommendation relating to the J. Percy Priest project is presented below:
Initial Reservoir Impoundment. To favor establishment of a more valuable sport fishery, it is proposed that the reservoir be initially impounded during late autumn
- 32 - or winter. Impoundment of the reservoir during summer or late spring would encourage overpopulation by forage fish and other species of minor sport fishing value.
As noted in Table 10, J. Percy Priest was initially impounded in
December and Okatibbee was flooded in November, thereby essentially accommodating the recommendation of the fish and wildlife agencies.
Desirable species were stocked shortly following closure of the dams.
Unfortunately, no creel data are available to document the success of this initial planting at either project. In fact, inadequate data were available to determine the value of this practice at any of those projects which were initially filled at the preferred season, i.e.,
Council Grove, Lake Sharpe, Okatibbee, Ice Harbor, Clark Hill, and J.
Percy Priest.
The most frequently presented management recommendation formulated by
fish and wildlife agencies applicable to reservoir habitat improvement,
involved the preservation of timber or creation of other types of
potential fish cover within the permanent pools. Interesting from a
historical perspective, the initial reports for both projects planned
prior to 1955 that contained reference to flooded timber, recommended
that all timber within the permanent pools be removed prior to inunda
tion (Carlyle and Clark Hill). The Carlyle recommendation subsequently
was altered by the affected fish and wildlife agencies to provide for a
3,642 ha (9,000 ac) uncleared area in the upper reaches of the lake
basin. Fortunately, an unexpected rise in water levels at Clark Hill
hindered timber clearing so that considerable timber was left standing
- 33 - in the reservoir when it filled.
At several projects the fish and wildlife concerns simply did not oppose the timber clearing plans proposed by the CE. At Mississippi's
Okatibbee project, the CE proposed to clear all timber up to the top of the seasonal pool. This was not opposed by the respective state fish and wildlife agencies. Now, after several years of impoundment, Missis sippi Game and Fish Commission biologists consider that this was a serious oversight and have expressed that up to 400 ha (1,000 ac) of flooded standing timber in the 1,538 ha (3,800 ac) conservation pool would have benefitted the Okatibbee sport fishery.
As fishery managers began to more clearly recognize the value of inundated timbered areas in reservoir basins for attracting fish as well as fishermen, the concept began to appear in FWS planning docu ments. Reports for seven of the 20 study lakes included some type of recommendation to leave areas of standing timber in the reservoir basins. Reports for East Lynn, Council Grove, John Redmond, J. Percy
Priest and Keystone recommended leaving standing timber in small coves and out-of-the-way embayments. A typical recommendation of this type appeared in the East Lynn report, viz:
To provide fish attraction areas within the reservoir, timber should be allowed to remain standing in selected coves which are to be inundated. These areas should be chosen in cooperation with the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources.
The cover-related recommendation provided for Eufaula was more liberal,
- 34 - with a request by the fish and wildlife agencies to limit timber clear ing to only those areas where it was considered necessary following cooperative review between CE and state fishery personnel.
Generally, the timber protection recommendations for these projects were followed to some degree by the construction agency and the resulting fishery habitat contributes to each project's sport fishery.
However, current appraisals indicated inadequate areas of standing timber were retained in many of the study projects, including Keystone where artificial brush and timber devices are being installed.
The pre-project planning documents for Pat Mayse fish and wildlife contained the most specific recommendation discovered relating to saving standing timber for fishery purposes, viz:
That timber between elevation 423 and 454 feet within the reservoir basin be retained in the coves, along the shoreline, and in other shallow water areas to provide habitat and fish concentration areas.
The project timber clearing plan eventually formulated for the Pat
Mayse project necessarily responded to public health agency as well as fishery concerns, and the reservoir basin was flush-cleared to eleva tion 138.4 m (454 ft). However, timber in major coves and the entire upper end were not cleared. The upper one-third of the impoundment is comprised of dense stands of inundated standing timber.
At three projects, pre-construction reports sought artificial devices in lieu of retention of standing timber. These artificial fish
- 35 - attractors were proposed to be provided at project cost at Allegheny,
Beltzville and Deer Creek projects. The recommendation was later withdrawn at the Beltzville project, as a result of changes in project
operational plans which increased the planned lake level fluctuation.
The decision to withdraw the recommendation at Beltzville was provided to the CE by the FWS as follows:
Our conservation and development report on the project dated September 2, 1964, recommended construction of 95 fish attractors to which we attributed fishery benefits specifically related to these facilities. We under stand, however, that the project has been modified to include water-supply storage which when released will cause drawdown of the reservoir by about 15 feet at the end of the summer season. A drawdown of this magnitude would necessitate placing the attraction devices at a minimum depth of 19 feet in order to allow a minimum of four feet above the structures for boating safety. Since dissolved oxygen levels at 19 feet are expected to be inadequate at times for fish due to thermal stratifi cation, fish attractors established at such a depth would not accomplish the objective desired and fishery benefits related to these facilities would be neglig ible. Therefore, we recommend that fish attractors as specified in our report of September 2, 1964, be deleted from project plans.
This was an unfortunate concession to the boating interests, particu larly in light of subsequent zoning of significant areas as no-wake zones at several locations on the lake.
The requested fish attractor structures were not placed at the Alle gheny project by the construction agency. The justification for re jecting this request was not stated in the record for the project and is unknown. The only example encountered where the practice was successfully applied prior to impoundment was at Deer Creek where
- 36 - numerous fish attractors (brush piles and felled trees) were construct
ed during lake bed clearing operations. Trees and brush were also left
standing in some areas. Cost data for construction of artificial fish
attractor devices after impoundment are available from the J. Percy
Priest record. At J. Percy Priest, essentially the entire lake basin was cleared of timber during project construction with state wildlife
agency concurrence. After several years of operation, the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency initiated a program to construct underwater
structures. Eight such devices were installed through 1981 primarily
with the use of timber and brush at an estimated average cost (based on
the cost of similar devices at other Tennessee lakes) of $1,750 each.
One recommendation, of obvious merit from a fisheries perspective,
related to the size of the proposed permanent pool. As was noted
earlier, the state fish and wildlife agency requested favorable consid
eration for a large permanent pool at Red Rock. However, at Pine Flat
the concern was not for the size of the permanent pool but rather that
a permanent pool be mandated. Although the state and federal fish and
wildlife agencies were led to believe early-on that a permanent pool on
this irrigation project was planned, they belatedly learned from a
private citizen's group that, in fact, no conservation pool was contem
plated. The consequence was a vigorous protest action by the state
fish and wildlife agency to correct this obviously inadequate consider
ation for fish and wildlife resources at Pine Flat.
- 37 - The fish and wildlife agencies never have been successful in obtaining a guaranteed permanent conservation storage pool at Pine Flat due to prior appropriation of water rights to irrigation interests. However, due to the project's secondary responsibilities as a reregulatory structure for private upstream hydropower dams, a de facto miminum pool has been provided consistently.
The entire issue of water appropriation for agribusiness versus fish and wildlife is a very complex problem. No state fish and wildlife agency would, or should, agree to any major water development without provision for some conservation storage. At the current time, as contrasted to the 1940’s and 1950's, the likelihood of such a proposal being made by project sponsors would not be great.
For the 20 case-history projects, water level fluctuation concerns ran the gamut from the Pine Flat case with a planned fluctuation to the point of extinguishing all storage, to Ice Harbor which was not author ized for flood control and where water fluctuation was a non-issue.
The pre-construction reports for seven of the 20 case-history projects addressed this issue in the planning phase. The most common expression of concern was for a stabilized reservoir elevation during key spawning periods for desirable game fish. A typical recommendation of this type was submitted for East Lynn as follows:
That insofar as possible, operation of the dam should include plans for maintenance of a static water level during the smallmouth and largemouth bass spawning periods.
- 38 - Recommendations for this general purpose were submitted for Allegheny,
Carlyle, Clark Hill, East Lynn, and Okatibbee. In general, it has been found that at most projects studied, the CE has responded positively to this type of request within project operation limits necessitated to accommodate primary project purposes.
Many investigations by state fishery agencies have explored the rela tionship between water level fluctuation and fish reproduction at existing reservoir projects. An example was reported by the Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation at Keystone. This study concluded that largemouth bass production was adversely affected by spring water level fluctuations, viz:
The best years for production appear to be in 1965, '66, '71, and '72. No data was available for years 1967 and 1968. Reproduction was considered poor in 1969 and 1970. During the years of best production, lake levels remained fairly steady. In 1969 and '70 lake levels showed erratic changes in inflows and outflows during the spawning season. An 8-foot drop occurred in 1970 in the peak of the season.
From the data presented, it is apparent that water level fluctuation does have an effect on the production of largemouth bass in Keystone Reservoir. Drastic changes in water levels probably results in nest destruction or abandonment and high fry-fingerling mortality rates. Seasons with relatively stable water levels showed best production.
The degree to which water level fluctuation effects production is not exactly known but it must be somewhat considerable. However, other limiting factors involved may be: limited spawning habitat, wind action, and water quality.
The strength of apparent relationships between water level and abund-
- 39 - ance of young fish was also addressed in the Red Rock data, viz:
Statistical analysis of reservoir operations on the abundance of 0-age fish did not result in any conclusive findings; however, some generalizations are apparent. Strong year classes of bluegill, crappie and largemouth bass were recorded at Lake Rathbun in 1973, a year of high reservoir elevation, as were largemouth bass and bullhead at Lake Red Rock. Another high water year at Lake Red Rock, 1974, was very good for white bass, crappie, and bigmouth buffalo.
Near normal pool elevations of Lake Red Rock during 1972 appeared to be conducive for carp, river carpsucker and channel catfish reproduction since catches of 0-age fish of these species were significantly higher that year.
Water level manipulation strategies designed to improve fish and wild
life values have become increasingly sophisticated over the years. The
Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commssion has been in the vanguard with
respect to working with CE project operations personnel to develop
Storage manipulation plans for fish and wildlife purposes. The
Council Grove report contained documentation of the carefully consider
ed seasonal water elevation goals which have been cooperatively estab
lished by the Kansas agency and the CE to seek more favorable predator
fish production in Kansas reservoirs.
Normally the number of young predators, such as bass, which are produced in warmwater reservoirs are adequate to sustain the fishery at carrying capacity for the species, given favorable conditions of food production at all stages of the fish's life. The required food produc tion ranges from planktonic forms to prey fish, all of which are necessary at the correct time, in abundance, to maintain reasonable
- 40 - survival of predatory fish species. That is to say, the standing crop of predators is more directly related with overall system productivity and thus survival (based on predator-prey relationships) than to the number of predator fry produced by nesting adults.
Stable shorelines allow establishment of vegetative cover which resists wave-caused erosion (and resultant loss of water clarity) as well as attachment surface and autochthonous production of organic materials which combine to provide more favorable conditions for the production of primary food sources upon which juvenile predator and prey species rely. In this manner a stable, non-eroding shoreline is a key to the productivity of many species.
The Kansas efforts combine reservoir manipulation with shoreline stabi lization utilizing volunteer native vegetation, as well as by seeding exposed mud flats during dewatered periods. This is a highly justified management strategy, as is any practice which will prevent erosive loss
of shore materials and, thus, reduced water clarity and associated
primary production of basic plant life, a prime building block of
reservoir fisheries production.
At Beltzville, water level manipulation was recommended for a different
reason, and the same objective was noted as a secondary potential
benefit for the Allegheny pool manipulation request. That was the
prevention, by appropriate water level manipulation, of non-game fish
- 41 reproduction. The Beltzville planners' request was as follows:
Facilities for the continuing control of rough fish species, especially carp, would be desirable. This could, in part, be accomplished through reduction of the pool level at least two feet for a period of three to five days immediately following carp spawning. This operation would serve to destroy spawn through exposure to the air. The timing of this control technique is of extreme importance and should be undertaken when re quested by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission.
This recommendation, though appearing plausible, has rarely, if ever,
proven effective for the control of carp reproduction. The procedure
has not been implemented at either project for which its use was recom
mended, and at Beltzville, current opinion holds that the recommendaton
was poorly predicated, as carp, though present in the lake, certainly
constitute little threat to the sport fishery.
The final application of water level manipulation recorded during the
study occurred at the Carlyle project. Although not recommended in the
pre-construction period, a management strategy evolved whereby the pool was lowered 1.5 m (5 ft) during the winter and reflooded to normal pool elevation during the spring. This practice, which was implemented by the CE at state fish and wildlife agency request each winter from
1971-1977, was expected to concentrate the fish community, thereby allowing predator species to reduce populations of non-game species.
Many problems are associated with this practice, not the least of which is indiscriminate flushing of species from the lake during draining and the fact that winter feeding rates of predators are greatly depressed
(due to the poikilothermic nature of the species involved). The
- 42 - practice has been terminated at Carlyle due to new demands for naviga tional storage demands.
Potential water quality problems associated with mining and petroleum development sites within several project locations were treated in pre-construction reports by state and federal fish and wildlife agencies. All such potential problems were adequately resolved by the construction agency prior to reservoir inundation and no known water quality problems are known to be related to these facilities. Specific attention was given to oil and gas wells within the Allegheny and
Carlyle project sites and coal mine adits (mine shaft openings) were addressed at the East Lynn project.
Off site sources of contamination beyond the administrative control of the CE were mentioned in the Clark Hill report. Although not mentioned in pre-construction documentaton, off-project pollution became a real problem at John Redmond in 1967 where extensive fish kills within the reservoir pool were related to effluents from livestock feedlots locat ed above the reservoir. Subsequent state legislation in Kansas provided for more effective control of such wastes and the problem has not
recurred. A continuing problem exists at J. Percy Priest where enrich ment from upstream sources beyond control of the CE have created
increasing anoxic conditions which may be associated with occasional die-offs of large striped bass related to interactions of oxygen content, water temperatures and available forage. Water withdrawn to
- 43 - drive hydropower turbines at J. Percy Priest are occasionally of poor
quality as well.
In fact, water quality degradation within reservoir tailwaters have
been encountered at several projects. These special considerations
are addressed in the following section.
Fisheries Habitat Improvements Within Tailwaters
Four topics were addressed in fish and wildlife prepared planning
reports with regard to fishery resources associated with tailwater
habitat below the 20 study reservoirs, viz:
o Minimum water discharges.
o Special outlet designs and/or operational modifications to permit provision of water of desired physical and chemical characteristics.
o Physical modifications to downstream habitat.
o Provision of screening devices at irrigation diversions to prohibit loss of downstream fish communities.
Surprisingly, the subject of minimum releases was not mentioned in the
pre-construction fish and wildlife-related reports for Clark Hill, Ice
Harbor, J. Percy Priest or Lake Sharpe (Table 13). At several other
study projects the CE's planned water releases were deemed adequate by the fish and wildlife agencies and no increases were recommended, viz:
Allegheny, Deer Creek, Dworshak, Okatibbee, Red Rock, Carlyle, and
Litt1evilie. At one of these projects (Carlyle), the previously accepted CE-established water release is no longer considered adequate
- 44 - by the appropriate state fish and wildlife agency to sustain desired biotic communities. At Littleville, where fish and wildlife concerns requested that outflow equal inflow, an outside party (state legisla ture) intervened and obtained a minimum release of 5 cfs for water supply purposes.
Fish and wildlife agencies successfully negotiated increased downstream flows at three projects: Beaver (belatedly), Beltzville, and East Lynn
(Table 13). Minimum releases of lower than requested volumes are provided at Council Grove (30 percent of amount requested), John
Redmond (40 percent), and Pine Flat (25 percent). Pine Flat presented a most difficult set of institutional and legal constraints, which have historically threatened fisheries welfare. Water in California, as in many arid western states, is appropriated for municipal supplies or for commodity production. Legal appropriation of historical instream flows or a portion thereof, for fishery maintenance is an extremely difficult legal battle, even today.
Water is not released at several hydropower projects when power is not being generated, viz: Eufaula, J. Percy Priest and Keystone. The only available flows in the downstream channel at that time is from seepage through the dam and appurtenant structures. However, the amount of seepage from the Eufaula project (670 cfs) is more than three times the minimum flow requested by the FWS (200cfs). Except for modest water supply withdrawals, outflow equaled inflow minus evaporative loss at
- 45 - Pat Mayse, as the project was constructed with a morning glory surface
release structure.
Normal discharge patterns, and water quality have been affected in the
river systems immediately below every reservoir project evaluated by
this study. Water temperatures have been lowered in the tailwaters
below the majority of projects. Soluble gases have been increased at
some projects and decreased at others, and iron and manganese problems
have been created below a few dams.
Special outlet structures designed to modify or control water quality
characteristics were requested in association with nine of the
projects, as discussed below. Generally, the fish and wildlife
agencies were anxious to obtain waters of a particular temperature, or
with avoiding the loss of reservoir fish communities during periods of
water releases through the dam.
Beltzville and Dworshak were projects where outlet structures were
purposely designed and constructed to provide cold water for management
of coldwater species in response to fish and wildlife needs. However, the Dworshak multi-level facility was the only example where the temp erature selection capability was provided in direct response to state and federal fish and wildlife agency recommendations. The anadromous fishery resources below Dworshak, including the water supply needs of the world's largest steelhead hatchery, are serviced by cold water
- 46 releases from the project. The Beltzville multi-level discharge feature, which allows mixing of cool and oxygenated lake water, was chosen by CE personnel to accommodate public health service require ments. If the Beltzville project had been built with a bottom draw, as had been requested by the fish and wildife agencies, oxygen-deficient, cold water would have been provided during August, September and early
October. In some years, conditions would have been inadequate to support fish life during those months, had the bottom draw been instal led at Beltzville.
Multi-level towers have been provided coincidental to hydropower prod uction requirements and have benefited coldwater fisheries below Beav er, Pine Flat, and Lake Sharpe. Multi-level hydropower outlets have been employed to maintain a mixed cool water fishery in the Allegheny
River below the Allegheny project. The essential management goal was to maintain the pre-project fishery below Allegheny. The FWS argued for a coldwater fishery below Allegheny, in contrast to the state's wishes for the prevailing coolwater conditions.
Water quality problems have frequently occurred as a direct consequence of reservoir releases including documented cases at Okatibbee, Deer
Creek, East Lynn, Eufaula, J. Percy Priest, and (quite probably in the near future, when hydropower is implemented) at Pine Flat. The nature of these problems generally is associated with the depths at which waters are withdrawn. Water quality at deeper levels is affected by
- 47 - reservoir stratification. Under no circumstances should projects be designed to limit water releases from zones of potentially poor oxygen content, a condition which commonly occurs during summer stratifica tion. Associated with the anoxic conditions commonly encountered in hypolimnetic waters are reduced (soluble) iron and manganese, both potentially toxic to aquatic communities. Deer Creek, East Lynn and J.
Percy Priest all have occasional problems with insufficient dissolved oxygen in combination with high concentrations of iron and manganese.
Problems with oxygen deficiencies alone have been encountered below
Eufaula and Okatibbee.
Concern over outlet design was occasionally associated with anticipated losses of reservoir fish populations through the dams during periods of high flows. Through-the-dam losses of fish have been documented below
Allegheny, Pat Mayse, Dworshak, Deer Creek and J. Percy Priest. The losses were associated with a bottom release at Deer Creek, mid-water releases at J. Percy Priest, Allegheny and Dworshak, and a surface release at Pat Mayse. As clearly predicted by the FWS in pre-project documents for Deer Creek, water flowing through a structure at high velocity attracts fish and carries them from the reservoir. At Deer
Creek, the recurring losses were resolved only after the state termin ated stocking of fish to prevent further losses. The CE eventually modified discharge procedures so that several gates were partially opened rather than one gate fully opened, thereby reducing the velocity of discharges. A summary of tailwater problem areas associated with
- 48 - the 20-case history projects is presented in Table 14.
Habitat modification within stream channels and provision of screens on irrigation diversions were each discussed in the FWS reports for one project. The only irrigation project included in the list of 20 projects studied, was Pine Flat. Loss of fish via irrigation diversion was a subject of concern at Pine Flat, and fish and wildlife agencies recommended installation of adequate fish protection devices at appro priate places such as at the intakes to major diversion channels.
Although the follow-up documentation of the effectiveness of this recommendation was lacking, it would appear to be a valuable protective installation that would contribute to maintaining fish populations within rivers subject to irrigation diversion.
Channel modification below the CE study reservoirs has occurred as a consequence of planned "improvements" and as a result of channel damag ing flood water releases from certain reservoirs. Channel modification was opposed at Pat Mayse, however the work was deemed necessary to provide flood control and was implemented by the CE as planned. Damag ing channel capacity miscalculations (by CE) occurred at both the
Carlyle and the Okatibbee projects. At Carlyle, the channel capacity was miscalculated by a factor of 2.5 and as a consequence significant stream bank damage occurred prior to reduction of assumed channel capacity.
- 49 - Fisheries Habitat Improvement Within Upstream Tributaries
Improvement of habitat in rivers and streams flowing into the reser
voirs was a subject rarely treated in the reviewed project documents.
In fact, only two types of concerns for this habitat were expressed.
Upstream barrier devices were requested to prevent intrusion of lake
fishes into tributary streams at both J. Percy Priest and Pine Flat
projects. At J. Percy Priest, the preservation of existing small mill
dams was requested. Protection of the native stream fisheries from
intrusion by species harbored in the lake was mentioned as a benefit of
secondary importance. The primary value was in the concentration of
game fish and fishermen at the mill dams. The mill dams were saved, and do serve to limit the migration of lake fish populations into those
relatively small feeder streams. The value of these devices as migra tion barriers is unknown due to lack of follow-up studies, but it is believed highly unlikely they are of significant value.
A second barrier plan has developed at Pine Flat many years after lake
impoundment. The recreational fishery above Pine Flat is affected to some unknown degree by the intrusion of predaceous and competing non game species from the lake. This direct adverse influence was consid ered of sufficient importance to warrant consideration of an upstream migration barrier, and planning for the barrier proceeded during the
1970's. This device was not considered as a mitigation feature, but rather as an enhancement measure requiring 25 percent cost-sharing by a local cooperator as specified in the Federal Water Projects Recreation
- 50 - Act (P.L. 89-72). The cooperation between the CE and the state fish
and wildlife agencies regarding this action appeared to be adequate.
Despite the coordinated planning, this project feature has not been
constructed, due in part to the cost, but more directly due to
questions by the California Department of Fish and Game and others as
to the barrier's modest (at best) chance of improving the stream fish
ery. Consideration of other factors limiting the trout population,
such as water flows or the acreage of productive trout water in the
river, has more recently been given greater consideration. Also,
Sacramento squawfish, the key predator, and target of the barrier
proposal, populates the entire length of the Kings River including
upstream National Park waters within which, because of Park Service
policy, eradication would be prohibited.
An existing barrier problem exists at Dworshak. Kokanee salmon
comprise an important component of the Dworshak lake sport fishery, a
dividend of annual plants of kokanee fingerlings by the Idaho Depart
ment of Fish and Game. Natural reproduction could be established if
downed timber was removed from potential spawning streams. Kokanee
were not considered as a reservoir fish prior to project construction
and the stream blockage problem (located upstream from the project
purchase area) was not addressed in the pre-construction planning docu
ments.
- 51 - Fish Passage Recommendations
The engineering, biological and philosophical complexities of fish passage facilities can certainly not be adequately addressed in this report. Several observations should be made however, based on the findings of this investigation. Only one fish passage facility was provided in the 20 case-history projects, i.e. Ice Harbor, the lower most project on the Snake River. This facility has been reasonably successful in passing upstream migrant salmon and steelhead. However, as with all fish passage facilities on the Snake as well as other rivers in the Pacific Northwest, extreme problems have been associated with the downstream passage of juveniles. These passage difficulties have resulted in a program designed to trap juvenile fish and haul them around the Granite, Goose and McNary dams. The CE has been instrument al in developing and expediting the fish trapping and hauling program.
This elaborate hauling program has replaced the inefficient downstream passage facilities.
Although fish passage was originally planned at Dworshak, the problems were too great considering the height of the dam. The state and feder al fish and wildlife agencies were eventually forced to accept hatchery production of steelhead smolts in lieu of passage of adult spawners upstream into the North Fork of the Clearwater River. Based solely on numbers of returning adult steelhead, the Dworshak Hatchery has been relatively successful in maintaining historical levels of steelhead runs, although questions associated with the loss of wild genetic
- 52 strains as a consequence of reliance on hatcheries have not been resolved.
In contrast to the proceeding recommended design requests to facilitate movement of migratory species around dams, provision of a dam design which would prevent fish passage was recommended at the Pat Mayse dam.
The CE's original engineering plans for the dam were later judged by the fish and wildlife agencies as adequate to prevent encroachment of riverine species into Pat Mayse Lake. No special engineering was actually installed to accommodate this unique concern. Few dam designs would permit upstream passage of river fishes without special facili ties, and concern of this nature would rarely seem justified.
Habitat Improvements — Wildlife
A total of 146,081 ha (360,960 ac) of terrestrial habitat were perman ently inundated by the 20 projects at conservation pool elevation
(Table 15). The CE acquired, in fee, 159,180 ha (393,328 ac) of real estate above the limits of the 20 conservation pools. Therefore, only a little more than one unit of terrestrial habitat was converted to public ownership for each unit permanently flooded by the projects.
Land acquisition, while an essential ingredient in fish and wildlife mitigation, is not the sole solution. Wildlife values may readily and positively^respond to some degree merely from conversion of private lands to public ownership. Importantly, however, improvement of remain-
/
- 53 - ing habitat is almost always necessary to compensate for terrestrial wildlife losses associated with CE reservoir projects.
Obviously, in terms of terrestrial wildlife resources at the 20 study projects, at least a doubling of productivity on the newly acquired lands would be required to offset the losses associated with the inun dated habitat, assuming the wildlife values of those lands inundated would have remained static in the absence of the projects. Habitat development, involving increasing cover, food, water, and escape habi tat, etc., is essential to obtain some measure of compensation. The enhancement of habitat entails both short-term development costs, as well as continuing operations and maintenance expenses. It must also be recognized that some wildlife species may be eliminated because of irretrievable losses of unique habitat, regardless of expenditures in post-project years.
While fishery habitat enhancement recommendations (in the form of minimum flows, standing timber, selected discharge elevations, elimina tion of pollution, stable lake water levels during spawning season, bank erosion control and minimum conservation pools), appeared fre quently in pre-construction reports; corresponding wildlife-related habitat development recommendations were seldom proposed by state or federal fish and wildlife agencies. \
Frequently, the state fish and wildlife agency limited recommended
- 54 - mitigation assistance from the CE to a request for an opportunity to
develop some portion of project lands for wildlife purposes. As has
been fully described in prior sections, some 65,827 ha (162,257 ac) of
CE project lands are under license or other cooperative arrangement,
thereby permitting wildlife habitat development and management by state
or federal wildlife agencies.
Table 16 presents the wildlife-related assistance sought by fish and widlife agencies at each of the 20 projects. This summary reflects
that no habitat development assistance was sought by the state and
federal wildlife agencies on behalf of six projects or 30 percent of
the study sites, viz: Beaver, East Lynn, John Redmond, Littleville,
Okatibbee and Pine Flat.
At those projects where help was sought, two basic types of recommenda tions designed to involve the CE in wildlife improvements were docu mented i.e., physical habitat development (land treatment measures) and funding support.
Physical Habitat Development
Potential long-term benefits to wildlife provided by properly situated and managed subimpoundments may far exceed the sometimes substantial development expense. Subimpoundment habitat permits water level management to create attractive waterfowl resting and feeding areas during key migration periods, as well as satisfying habitat require-
- 55 - ments for resident waterfowl and many other wildlife species. Con struction agency assistance for subimpoundment habitat development was sought in pre-construction planning documents for Clark Hill, Deer
Creek and Allegheny.
At Clark Hill, initial planning considered creating a federal goose
refuge on project lands. The proposal had proponents as well as oppon ents within the FWS, but eventually the agency decided in favor of establishing a 12,440 ha (30,740 ac) refuge on the Georgia side of the proposed reservoir. During the 1946-1950 period of active refuge planning by the FWS, the CE was never prepared to provide actual take
line information. Instead the CE advised the FWS that they would
provide a map with the project boundaries demarcated when mapping for
purposes of land acquisition was completed. The FWS proceeded with
planning based on their best estimate of the eventual project bound
aries and identified six potential sites for construction of the desir
ed subimpoundment.
The FWS abruptly dropped their request for a federal refuge in 1950
when they learned that the CE timber clearing plan for the project had
been unilateraly altered to eliminate much of the previously planned
clearing. The FWS concluded that inadequate quantities of cultivatable
agricultural land between the reservoir and the fee boundary would be
available for the refuge.
- 56 - Prior to construction of the Deer Creek project in Ohio, waterfowl hunting in the area was limited due to lack of resting habitat, and the project was viewed by fish and wildlife agencies as providing an oppor tunity to attract migratory waterfowl. The FWS concluded that the Deer
Creek project would result in positive impacts of sufficient magnitude to be important in serving those objectives of the Mississippi Flyway
Waterfowl Plan concerned with distribution of hunting opportunities.
To that end, additional fee lands were requested as well as construc tion of a 24 ha (60 ac) subimpoundment. The subimpoundment would simply have required diking off a tributary stream located on project lands. The CE concurred in the plan, but the U.S. Bureau of the Budget recommended that authorization be deferred pending Interiors's review of policies concerning migratory waterfowl development features at federal water resource projects. In the end the "5-step" authorization spector was raised and authorization was never modified to provide for the desired subimpoundment.
Following abandonment of the subimpoundment plan, the FWS proposed as an alternative using highway construction borrow pits as small water- fowl ponds. This borrow pit habitat has not been developed for water- fowl by the state and only minimal waterfowl values are associated with the project.
At Allegheny, wood ducks were expected to suffer extensive habitat loss, and the reservoir was expected to provide minimal waterfowl
- 57 - benefits to migratory ducks without management practices designed to supply food plants. The FWS report suggested that partial mitigation could be obtained by developing subimpoundments above the five-year flood pool. The subimpoumdments were also expected to serve as sedi mentation reservoirs. Nine specific sites in New York totalling 810 ha (2,002 ac) were subsequently recommended for acquisition. Within two years the New York Department of Conservation discovered that development of the recommended subimpoundments was not feasible because of unfavorable composition of soils underlying the proposed sites.
In summary, for the 20 study projects no subimpoumdments that were requested in pre-construction planning documents to help offset adverse wildlife resources have been constructed.
Green tree subimpoundments have been developed at Carlyle and Eufaula by respective state fish and wildlife agencies. Subimpoundments are created by construction of levees, drainage ditches and water control structures and pumps. A total of 1,295 ha (3,200 ac) are included in the Carlyle subimpoundment area. Unfortunately, approximately 182 ha
(450 ac) of the mast-producing timber within the subimpoundment that was scheduled for management as "green tree" reservoirs were killed as a result of the CE's operation of the Carlyle project which resulted in prolonged flooding of the timber during 1973-1974.
- 58 - Project operations have also severely interfered with planned subim poundment development at Okatibbee. The Mississippi Game and Fish
Commission (MGFC) was unable to install subimpoundment habitat on project lands. According to MGFC staff, the failure to construct the necessary dikes and improvments prior to completion of the Okatibbee project, resulted in soil conditions in the proposed subimpoundment area which prohibit use of heavy machinery. As a consequence, only limited progress has been realized to date and the waterfowl management plans of the MGFC have gone largely unfulfilled.
Fish and wildlife agencies have recommended a variety of special pur pose forestry practices of the study projects. Cutting of timber was approved above permanent pool elevation in the Carlyle report. The
Clark Hill report recommended the complete timbering of all project lands up to an elevation 1.5 m (5 ft) above maximum power pool. At Pat
Mayse the fish and wildlife agencies recommended that existing timber and brush be retained on project lands surrounding the reservoir where retention of timber would not conflict with project operations.
At Allegheny, a heavily wooded project site, fish and wildlife planners did not recommend timber clearing but noted some direct value of the planned clearing of the reservoir periphery, viz:
Development of Allegheny reservoir will have both detri mental and beneficial effects on wildlife resources. The uni farm clearing of 950 acres of land on the reser voir periphery will provide the means by which good interspersion of wildlife habitat can be provided throughout a considerable length of the reservoir area.
- 59 - However, in order to maintain this cleared area in a state of high productivity, it should be kept in grasses and herbaceous vegetation insofar as possible. Main tained in this manner, this area would then exert a beneficial influence on forest game species of the surrounding area.
The most complex timbering recommendations encountered during the study involved the selective clearing of south-facing slopes on the "hard core" mitigation lands at Dworshak. These extensive cuts were careful ly planned cooperatively between the CE and the Idaho Department of
Fish and Game. The timber cuts were undertaken by the CE under contract with a private lumbering company. The purpose of this highly specialized timbering plan was to provide winter browse for Rocky
Mountain elk that move onto Dworshak lands during periods of severe winter weather.
In general, timber clearing recommendations have strived to realize or perpetuate habitat diversity. Tree plantings have been used in a similar fashion. Edge and strip plantings of old fields with selected shrub and~tree species is a common practice used by both the fish and widlife agencies and the CE. The purpose is to diversify habitat, and provide edge, and food resources.
Specific recommendations relating to waterfowl reproduction enhancement were contained in the planning reports for only two projects. At Ice
Harbor, the lake inundated gravel bars and islands that provided nest ing, resting and feeding habitat for geese. In fact, waterfowl were
- 60 - considered to be the most important wildlife group at the site, and most of the early fish and wildlife planning documents focused on the waterfowl question. An annual average of 66 goose nests were reported for the project site during pre-construction surveys. The estimated annual number of young produced was placed at 264. Both nesting and brooding habitat was expected to be lost as a consequence of the Ice
Harbor project and to mitigate this loss, the fish and wildlife agencies recommended development of a 178 ha (440 ac) site as a water- fowl management area. The site was not developed and goose production immediately dropped dramatically following project construction.
Subsequently, the CE has developed plans for more intensive management for geese and other waterfowl species as part of the comprehensive compensation plan for the lower Snake River.
At Beltzville, the state fish and wildlife agency sought special zoning to prohibit boats from selected shallow coves. They planned to use this protected habitat to establish a reproducing resident goose flock.
As was presented in the discussion of zoning, this request was not accepted by the CE and the waterfowl progam was necessarily dropped.
Fluctuating reservoir shorelines are not conducive to ground nesting waterfowl. As an example, at Keystone with a 10,530 ha (26,020 ac) conservation pool and 531 km (330 mi) (Table 17) of shoreline, local authorities estimated waterfowl production at approximately 15 birds per year. The problem frequently encountered is disruption of nesting
- 61 - by water level fluctuations. At John Redmond and the associated Flint
Hills National Wildlife Refuge, annual waterfowl production is estimat ed at approximately 50 mallards and 300 wood ducks and nesting is not encouraged due to the flooding problem.
Except for the intensive efforts (fenced and leveed ponds and nesting structures) to establish resident Canada geese flocks at J. Percy
Priest and Clark Hill, waterfowl production efforts on CE projects have been limited to erecting and maintaining wood duck nesting boxes.
Particularly excellent wood duck nesting and brooding results have been obtained at Carlyle and Okatibbee. Wood duck production for the
Okatibbee project was calculated as follows: 200 nesting boxes x 13 eggs/clutch x 50 percent hatch provide an estimated yearly production of 1,300 ducklings. The following presents the number of wood duck nesting devices that had been installed at the time each of the projects were investigated: Carlyle (300), Okatibbee (200), Clark Hill
(150), Red Rock (30), Pat Mayse (30), Council Grove (20), and Beaver
(unknown).
In addition to the waterfowl production question it must be noted that the reservoir projects studied have had an enormous impact on the
distribution of migratory waterfowl.
The Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge was established on 7,487 ha
(18,500 ac) of incidentally acquired project lands at the John Redmond
- 62 - project. This refuge is part of the FWS's system of refuges and is managed to provide feeding and resting habitat for migrating waterfowl.
Little waterfowl production occurs at Flint Hills National Wildlife
Refuge, yet feeding, resting and redistribution benefits realized are deemed by the FWS to warrent continued operation of this and several
other mid-continent refuges.
Like John Redmond, other reservoirs, particularly those surrounded by
agricultural lands, often provide many of the same benefits to migra
tory waterfowl, albeit of lesser magnitude. Provision of broad
expanses of water near agricultural crops and pastures in appropriately
identified situations may continue to serve some beneficial uses to the
nations's waterfowl resources beyond the simple redistribution of a
continental resource.
Without a doubt, one of the most important single actions that can be
undertaken to improve terrestrial wildlife habitat is the reduction of
livestock grazing on project lands where this is a problem. This
proved to be a particuarly neccessary action at the following five
study sites: Council Grove, Eufaula, Keystone, Pine Flat and Lake
Sharpe.
Fencing requirements were clearly recognized in the preconstruction
planning documents prepared by the fish and wildlife agencies for all
of the above projects but Pine Flat. The fish and wildlife planning
- 63 - reports for those four projects requested that selected wildlife lands be fenced by the CE at project cost. These recommendations were rejected by the CE in every case on the basis that fencing was a state responsibility. This was an unwarrented action on the part of the CE.
The CE must allow, where needed, construction of fencing, in associa tion with the phasing out of grazing leases, on lands intended for wildlife management at CE projects. Fencing as a tool would accomplish much by itself but is also the key to many land management activities designed to benefit wildlife.
Reappraisal of CE responsibility regarding fencing was reflected in pronouncements prepared by the Tulsa District in 1980, viz:
...The continued misuse of public lands results in the general degradation of existing vegetative cover and severely restricts the amount of habitat available to wildlife. Food sources, cover, and nesting areas are destroyed, and general aesthetics of the area are de graded...
*****
Boundary and interior fences will be used to improve grazing lease management, to improve control of wildlife management units, delineate public hunting areas, and control unauthorized vehicular access. Fences will not be constructed adjacent to existing residential areas unless direct benefits to project managment and/or adjacent landowners are received. Public access will be provided to permit continued public use... Boundary surveillance must be performed periodically from the land, water, or air to detect and prevent trespass and encroachent on public and flowage easement lands. Surveillance of project boundaries will be conducted by project personnel no less than annually and more fre quently in areas posing present or potential problems...
Contract personnel applaud the new policy recently ennunciated by the
- 64 - Tulsa District, acknowledging that the construction agency and project
sponsors should assume responsibility for fencing as a necessary and
legitimate project cost.
Although belated and still limited, fencing has been initiated at most
of the projects identified above and this activity should be aggres
sively prosecuted by direct contracts or by service agreements in lieu
of cash rental, as appropriate.
The jurisdictional problems of Pine Flat project lands, whereby such
lands are administered by the U.S. Forest Service, will continue to
prevent any reasonable efforts to compensate project caused wildlife
losses until project lands are removed from livestock grazing leases
and are fenced. Even the fledgling revegetation efforts attempted on
Pine Flat project lands were for naught when experimental hand planted
seedlings were destroyed by cattle grazing and trampling. Corrective
action must be taken to resolve this conflict between grazing uses and
mitigation responsibilities associated with this federal project.
A meritorious recommendation that should not be overlooked in project
planning relates to the salvage of surplus buildings on land acquired
for project construction. Such facilities can be extremely useful to
state or federal wildlife management agencies. A recommendation for
provision of such facilities for fish and wildlife agency use was
provided for Council Grove, Eufaula and J. Percy Priest, and accepted
- 65 - by the CE for both J. Percy Priest and Eufaula. Although the CE rejected the request at Council Grove because of the lateness in receiving the recommendation, they emphasized that consideration would have been given to the building tranfer recommendation provided a firm request had been made before the acquisition of project lands.
At Beltzville a belated, informal request was made for use of out buildings by the appropriate state wildlife agency. Fortunately, this almost happenstance suggestion was successful in obtaining important management facilities that would otherwise have been removed and destroyed.
Wildlife Management Funding
The case-history studies clearly documented the many funding problems which have been associated with sustained wildlife management on CE project lands. State management budgets are limited by hunting and fishing license sales income and federal aid apportionments (Pittman-
Robertson funds). Each state agency must make difficult decisions relative to the most effective and beneficial areas in which to invest limited labor and financial resources. Two primary handicaps affect the cost-effectiveness of wildlife management on public lands surround ing CE projects.
First, most of the lands acquired at existing CE projects are occasion ally flooded to accommodate flood protection committments for which
- 66 - most of the projects were constructed. Table 18 illustrates that 38
percent of all fee lands acquired by the CE at the 20 case-history
study lakes are within the 5-year flood frequency elevation. As was
clearly documented at Okatibbee, Council Grove, Red Rock, and several
other projects, the repeated flooding of these lands created great
handicaps with relation to wildlife habitat development. The document
ation of such problems was particularly graphic at Council Grove where
shrubs and trees planted by the state at considerable expense were
inundated and killed before they were able to become established.
Secondly, and a somewhat related problem, lands available for wildlife
management purposes around CE projects are frequently narrow strips
with few large blocks of land available. This creates special prob
lems, not only of equipment movement and access, but also because
certain wildlife species such as deer are difficult to manage effec
tively on such small tracts of land.
The amount of land acquired at the individual CE projects reflects CE
fee acquisition policies in force at the time of land acquisition.
Four separable acquisition policies can be identified (3), viz:
o Pre-1953; acquire any and all land required for opera tion.
o 1953-1962; acquire fee title to lands only to the 5-year flood level (Eisenhower policy).
o 1962-1971; acquire fee title to the maximum flowage line or to a 300 foot buffer zone measured horizontally from the top of the controlled storage pool, whichever is greater.
- 67 - o 1971-present; acquire fee title to the maximum flowage line or to a 300 foot buffer zone measured horizontally from the top of the conservation pool, whichever is greater.
Table 19 presents the acquisitional policy in effect when lands were acquired for each of the 20 study projects. Notably, lands were acquired for one-half of the study projects under the most restrictive policy (referred to as the Eisenhower policy) which limited fee aquisi- tion to the 5-year flood pool.
In summary, because of limited financial resources, frequent flooding, and difficult layout, state agencies have frequently concentrated habitat development programs on other lands within their borders, and have assigned lower priority to development of CE lands.
Having presented these problems, it should be quickly noted that truely effective programs have been developed at several of the projects, and with adquate labor and financial support, improved management programs could be implemented at every project studied. Project investigators were struck by the great potential for wildlife resource development which is presented by the nearly 1,592 km (615 mi ) of fee lands associated with the study projects.
A major funding breakthrough, associated with the CE's 1977 modifica tion of Condition 5 of the standard fish and wildife license agreement, has tremendously improved the wildlife potential associated with
- 68 - certain CE projects, particularly those located within agricultural areas. The policy change expanded the states' authority to use share- crop and agricultural agreements to provide food and/or habitat and for the development and conservation of fish and wildlife, forest and other
natural resources.
The best example of the great value of this change was the Red Rock
project where an average annual income of $180,000 was realized by the
Iowa Conservation Commission on project lands between 1976 and 1980.
There is a great opportunity for cooperative ventures between fish and
widlife agencies and the CE so that more effective and efficient use
can be made of pooled labor, equipment and financial resources. Such
cooperative programs were observed at several locations and are soundly
applauded by contract personnel. Notable examples included Carlyle and
Clark Hill.
Other than the new Condition 5 monies available at several projects,
funding assistance from the CE for wildlife habitat development has
been almost non-existent. However, during project planning, the state
fish and wildlife agencies generally only requested an opportunity to
manage selected tracts of CE land. CE funding of habitat development
was only requested at Eufaula, Beltzville, and belatedly, at Ice Harbor
as part of the compensation plan for the lower Snake River projects.
At Eufaula, the FWS requested the following assistance:
- 69 - That the wildlife management areas designated in Recommendation No. 3 above be developed initially at project expense to include provisions for clearing, shrub and tree planting, firebreaks, trails, head quarters buildings, fences, and surveying and marking of area boundaries according to detailed plans to be submitted by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conser vation.
The CE did not provide the requested developmental assistance. Due to
the lack of financial capability the state did not accept a license to
manage incidental Eufaula project lands until 1972, some eight years
after project completion. At Beltzville, the CE developed other rec
reational facilities (camping, picnicing, etc.) on the lake's north
side, and turned operational responsibilities for the facilities over
to the state. A similar approach to the wildlife mitigation features
was considered by the CE for wildlife lands at the project in 1964.
However, when the CE sought specific development plans from the conser
vation agencies setting forth development features desired for the mitigation lands, no such plans were forthcoming. In fact, the FWS
notified the CE that no specific plans had been developed for the
requested funding and the $16,600 request was based on prior exper
iences at similar facilities. In the final analysis, the CE did not
contribute to the development of wildlife features at Beltzville.
This was an unfortunate circumstance that must be avoided at future water development projects. The CE may fund appropriate wildlife habitat development as a legitimate project expense. On the state wildlife agencies' part, they must be prepared to provide the formal direction and guidance needed by the development agency when asked.
- 70 - Innovative development strategies were observed at several study projects. CE contribution to habitat development under Cooperative
Agreement by the Walla Walla and Nashville Districts was particularly noteworthy. Facility development from sharecrop leases, in lieu of cash rental, is being used with increasing frequency and affords excel lent opportunity for such habitat development needs as fencing and vegetative plantings.
Section (2c) of the FWCA provides a considerably strong rationale for continuing management by the CE of habitat improvements on federal lands surrounding blocks of habitat permanently inundated by reservoir construction. Appropriate institutional mechanisms, such as offset rental, Condition 5, and other innovative cooperative agreements, can and are being implemented in some CE Districts which offer great potential for improving wildlife resources on both CE administered lands as well as project lands licensed to state fish and wildlife agencies.
Fish and Wildlife Community Manipulation
Use of Supplemental Wildlife
Fish and wildlife technicians manipulate fish and wildlife communities directly, as well as indirectly, by means of influencing the composi tion and productivity of habitat. Application of population manipula
tion practices is more commonly applied to fisheries situations than to
- 71 wildlife, although direct supplementation of wildlife populations has
been employed as a measure to support higher levels of public use of
lands surrounding some CE impoundments. Stocking of pen-reared upland
game species has been deemed necessary as a direct consequence of
adversities associated with alternate land uses. For example, reprod
uctive success of ground-nesting wildlife is more susceptible to loss
on intermittently inundated flood storage lands than for other species.
Pheasants and quail are two species of particular susceptibility.
Flood storage may damage mast-producing hardwoods, thereby retarding
productivity of flood storage lands (depending on flood frequency) at
some of the projects.
Innovative funding programs have been developed to support "put-and- take" wildlife stocking programs. Sharecropping agreements on project lands have provided grain production which has been used by the
Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) to rear certain species of wildlife off-site for release on project lands. The PGC has utilized pen-reared pheasants to support the heavy hunting demand which is placed on the public lands associated with the Beltzville project. Local private cooperators have released rabbit and quail to help bolster the wildlife available for sport hunters on Beltzville lands.
Typical of many areas within the United States, particularly in the east, public lands and associated availability of public hunting oppor tunities are in short supply in southern Illinois. The availability of
- 72 - public hunting lands associated with the Carlyle project attracts a large number of hunters. However, the high frequency of flood water storage at Carlyle (fee lands limited to 5-year flood pool elevation) limits the natural production of upland game species. The Illinois
Department of Conservation has maximized the recreational hunting opportunities afforded at Carlyle by relying heavily upon "put-and- take" stocking of pheasants. The public demand is so great, that a quota system has to be used to insure hunter safety and to prevent overcrowding. Hundreds of hunters are turned away each year. Daily hunting permits were sold for $5.00 each in 1976. Rearing and delivery costs were estimated to average $4.50 per pheasant stocked while hunting permit receipts amounted to $2.37 for each pheasant stocked.
The Deer Creek project is within 48 km (30 mi) of Columbus, Ohio and
receives heavy hunting pressure. Conversion of private land to public
ownership and accelerated wildlife management activities have had a
clearly beneficial impact on pheasants. Although the indigenous
pheasant population has been substantially increased on remaining
project lands surrounding the impoundment, the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources considers that natural production is inadequate to
meet the hunting demands. Thus, additional pheasants are reared and
stocked and, in fact, support the bulk of the pheasant hunting.
Pheasant hunting at Deer Creek is by far the most popular recreational
hunting pursuit.
- 73 The only project where the utility of pen-reared and released game was
recommended as a partial, if short-term, solution to project-associated
impacts, was at Ice Harbor (in conjunction with the lower Snake River
Compensation Plan). Acquisition of off-project lands, and pheasant
stocking on these lands, was proposed as an immediate replacement of
wildlife losses pending development of Ice Harbor project lands. To
accommodate the required game birds, the wildlife agencies involved
with Ice Harbor mitigation negotiations requested construction of a
game bird farm. The Ice Harbor example points out another potential
application of the supplemental stocking of pen-reared wildlife. That
is, to replace wildlife populations on lands surrounding recently
inundated habitat on an interim basis until natural production
capabilities of remaining project lands have been increased via habitat
development.
However, it should be emphasized that the use of pen-reared pheasants
or other farm game species to provide "put-and-take" hunting is an
expensive management practice with limited applicability and/or hunter
appeal. With the possible exception of the Beltzville project, where
sharecrop production on project lands is used to partially offset farm
game production costs, state fish and wildlife agencies have borne the entire brunt of financing "put-and-take" farm game stocking programs.
Daily fees charged pheasant hunters usually have not been sufficent to recover rearing, and stocking cost. Application of revenues realized under the relatively new opportunities associated with recently
- 74 - liberalized Condition 5 of the standard license at projects located in agriculturally suitable areas, could be used to build and operate game rearing facilities and programs (4).
Use of Supplemental Fish (Hatcheries)
All other fish and wildlife manipulation recommendations at the 20 projects addressed fishery issues. Not the least of which was for fish hatchery construction. Reliance on hatchery production to overcome damages to fisheries has historically been associated with CE project- related impacts on anadromous fish species. Four of the 20 case- histories reviewed for this study were constructed on rivers used by migratory fish populations. At Clark Hill, which was completed in
1954, three pre-existing downstream structures on the Savannah River had effectively blocked historical migration of shad prior to construc tion of the project. At Pine Flat, which also was completed in 1954, once abundant Chinook salmon runs had been eliminated from the Kings
River in the early 1940's. The diversion of water for irrigation pur poses was the key factor in the loss of the Kings River salmon fishery.
No restoration plans for downstream anadromous fisheries were made at either Pine Flat or Clark Hill projects.
The only anadromous fisheries which were viable at the time of project construction among the 20 case-history projects were salmon and steel- head at Ice Harbor on the Snake River, and steel head at Dworshak on the
North Fork of the Clearwater River, a tributary to the Snake/Columbia
- 75 - system.
Hatchery facilities designed to replace losses of natural spawning habitat were eventually recommended for Ice Harbor. This recommenda tion was not provided during the pre-construction planning of the late
1950's, but rather in the 1972 comprehensive planning undertaken for four CE projects in the lower Snake River. Initial planning for anadromous fisheries mitigation questions at Ice Harbor (1950's) was handicapped by inadequate pre-construction data. No quantitative estimates of anadromous species runs in the Snake River system were available until construction of Ice Harbor and attendant fish passage facilities and counting stations. Annual counts of fish passing over
Ice Harbor in the 15-year period following impoundment, a period during which three additional upstream dams were constructed on the lower
Snake River, dramatically documented the rapid decline in Chinook salmon and steelhead trout runs associated with the newer upstream dams.
To compensate for the losses incurred by anadromous fish populations of the lower Snake River (for four CE projects) the wildlife agencies sought hatchery production of juvenile fish numbering 18,300 fall
Chinook, 58,700 spring and summer Chinook and 55,100 steelhead. The losses associated with Ice Harbor alone were difficult to ascertain, as many losses were cumulative in nature. However, Ice Harbor inundated
23 percent of the Snake River area flooded by the four projects.
- 76 - Continuing studies of resident fisheries in the then newly created
Snake River reservoirs led state and federal wildlife agencies to the conclusion that a net loss of resident (non-migratory) fishing oppor tunities also resulted from the four projects. As a consequence, hatchery trout were requested to be stocked off-site, in tributary or nearby streams.
At Dworshak, hatchery facilities were requested and constructed to replace lost potential reproduction for both resident fish and steel- head. An existing downstream dam built at Lewiston, Idaho in 1928, which was designed with inadequate fish passage facilities, had effectively curtailed salmon migration up the Clearwater River due to poor water flow conditions during key salmon migration months. Water flows were adequate to accommodate passage of steelhead, however. The
Lewiston dam did allow collection of quantitative data on adult steel- head upstream passage, data which were used to plan mitigation needs when Dworshak was built.
The requested hatchery at Dworshak was built. Although production of steelhead juveniles was erratic in the beginning years, procedures and equipment refinements have enable the Dworshak National Fish Hatchery to essentially meet the production goals which were established.
Dworshak was the only other project which projected a net loss of
- 77 - fishing opportunities for resident (non-migratory) species. To compen sate for this loss, federal and state wildlife agencies requested rearing facilities to replace the reproductive potential associated with the loss of spawning habitat for resident trout, and to provide fish for stocking upstream and downstream from the impoundment. The request was for 300,000 catchable size trout. Post-impoundment studies have indicated that fingerling fish have fared better in the Dworshak pool than have the stocked catchable trout. The hatchery is providing the desired finger!ings.
At Allegheny, the cool water releases which were requested by the FWS for the Allegheny River below the impoundment were expected to provide an opportunity for development of a trout fishery in place of the pre project smallmouth bass fishery. The FWS wanted a trout hatchery built to accommodate the envisioned new trout fishery. In a wholly separate action, Congress had previously authorized construction of a hatchery in the general project area. In relation to Allegheny project planning, the FWS only sought a hatchery water source from the lake and acquisi tion by the CE of a 16 ha (40 ac) site approximately 2.4 km (1.5 mi) below the dam for the proposed hatchery.
The state did not concur in the recommendations of the FWS regarding cool water releases and requested protection of the existing warmwater fishery of the tailwater below the Allegheny project. As a conse quence, the warmwater fishery of the tailwater was protected and trout
- 78 - were not requested for stocking of the river. A hatchery was built just below the Allegheny dam on project land (not at originally requested site). However, none of the reared fish have been stocked in the tailwater. In fact, fish produced at the FWS-operated facility are transported to stocking sites well outside the project impact area.
The only other fish production recommendation associated with the 20 case-history projects was for construction of a conduit through the dam at the Beaver project. The pipe was requested to provide a water supply in the event a hatchery was desired at some future date. The requested 45 cm (18 in) diameter pipe was installed by the CE at the requested lake elevation by the CE. No hatchery has been constructed at the site to date.
Water development projects may alter pre-construction habitat condi tions in both the impounded lake areas, as well as in the tailwaters with concurrent impacts on fish community structure. In the tailwaters of projects which experienced altered temperature regimes (Beaver and
Dworshak, as examples), introduced species must often be utilized to support the new recreational fisheries. Although both tailwaters currently support excellent recreational fisheries, this requirement places the added burden of increased fish production on the state wildlife agency involved. Similarly, the lentic habitat created by impoundments stimulates development of fish communities of different compositions than supported previously by the stream prior to impound-
- 79 - ment. Optimum utilization of non-game populations such as gizzard shad, which often expand dramatically in CE reservoir environments, requires innovative management strategies often involving introduction, on a regular basis, of piscivorous species such as striped bass or the striped bass x white bass hybrid. Production of these fish require substantial financial outlays for food, hatchery facilities and manpower.
The new impoundments create expanded fishing opportunities; opportuni ties that state fishery agencies generally have welcomed. However, associated with the added water base is the responsibility to properly manage this new habitat and the fish communities contained therein.
Otherwise, responsible agencies run the risk of engendering an irate constituency. At some CE projects (East Lynn) terrestrial wildlife administrators have refused to accept land management responsibilities of federal project lands because of limited availability of state funding sources. Although this has not yet occurred for fishery management programs, such a scenario is not beyond the scope of possibility.
Furthermore, project benefits and cost sharing arrangements with local sponsors are often predicated on fishing recreation benefits made possible only through state fishery agency activities. Thus, the absence of any requested production assistance by state fishery admini strators for fish species necessary for maintenance of reasonable fish
- 80 - communities in CE project-impacted waters, is somewhat subject to question. The federal responsibility in this basic mitigation vs.
enhancement question may be a subject of emerging debate. Future
negotiations may require a réévaluation of this issue as state fishery agencies face constantly tighter management budgets.
Fish Community Eradication
Fishery manipulations were addressed at six other projects, not supplemental fish releases, but rather reducing populations of preda ceous or competing species, thereby allowing greater opportunity for production of desirable recreational species.
Reduction of fish populations was addressed in two manners, viz:
o Chemical reclamation of streams located above dams prior to lake filling.
o Creation of seining areas along reservoir shores to facilitate removal of selected non-game fish popula tions, either for management purposes or as commercial fisheries.
Chemical reclamation of streams within and above lake sites was form ally recommended at two study lakes, Littleville and East Lynn. Lit- tleville was expected to support a trout fishery and the Massachusetts
Department of Fish and Game wanted to reduce competition between trout and non-game fish. The reclamation was carried out in 1965 as the lake was being filled. By 1966, the reservoir was already recontaminated with white suckers and by 1969 reservoir sampling produced 10 different
- 81 - species of non-game or less desirable species. Six years after im poundment, Littleville was withdrawn from reclaimed trout pond status.
Prior to construction of the East Lynn project, the existing stream habitat at the project site supported an unbalanced warmwater fishery.
Wildlife agencies recommended chemical treatment of tributary streams to remove non-game fish prior to impoundment. Treatment was recommend ed to occur immediately after gate closure. Approximately 56 km (35 mi) of streams, including the entire watershed within project boundar ies, were reclaimed in June 1971. The dam was closed in March 1972, however, a 40.5 ha (100 ac) holding pool which was constructed immed iately upstream from the dam was stocked with game fish in 1971. The initial stocking was highly successful. Young-of-the-year spotted bass, bluegill, black bullhead, yellow bullhead, and white suckers were not stocked but were recovered from the lake in August 1972. In fact, bullheads (primarily young-of-the-year black bullheads) comprised over
63 percent of the total fish biomass in 1972, the first year of impoundment. The erradication effort at East Lynn had a short-lived benefit, at best.
Chemical reclamation of feeder streams also was conducted at Pat Mayse although CE participation in the activity was not expected or recom mended. In November 1961, a reclamation project was attempted. The CE cooperated by installing a temporary fish barrier in the discharge basin to prevent native fish from re-entering the new lake from down-
- 82 - stream. Following the treatment, the reservoir was impounded and stocked with game fish. As in the other cases, the lake was rapidly
reinfested with several species of non-game fish. Hybrid predator fish have been heavily stocked and an excellent striped bass x white bass fishery exists. It is doubtful that non-game fish currently constitute a fishery management problem at Pat Mayse Lake.
Chemical reclamation also was conducted on the North Fork Clearwater
River above Dworshak Lake to control predaceous squawfish. A 1971 treatment of the drainage with squoxin, a piscicide specific to squaw fish, was only partially successful and the species had reestablished in significant populations by 1973.
At Pine Flat, construction of a barrier was recommended to prevent encroachment of squawfish from the lake upstream. The barrier was to be combined with erradication efforts. The barrier has not been con structed due to cost, opposition from whitewater enthusiasts, and because upstream tributaries penetrate national park waters where erradication is prohibited and thus provide a ready source of reinfest ation from upstream.
The final recommendation relating to fish removal was a request for creation or designation of cleared seining areas within several of the reservoir basins . This recommendation was submitted by state or feder al wildlife agencies at five projects or 25 percent of the study
- 83 - projects. Two uses were envisioned for the requested areas, viz:
o Provide debris-free areas for seining and/or netting by commercial fishermen.
o To permit seining operations to remove non-game species which compete with species important to the recreational fishery.
Selected seine areas were cleared as requested at Pat Mayse, and suit able shoreline areas, selected by the CE in cooperation with appropri ate state wildlife agencies, were designated as seining areas at the remaining four projects. The value of these cleared seining areas for the control of non-game species was not realized at any of the projects. In fact, the areas have not been used at any of the projects in which they were installed for non-game fish control (as opposed to commercial harvest), e.g., East Lynn, John Redmond or Keystone.
Commercial fishing is conducted at Eufaula where seining areas were also recommended and eventually designated by the CE in cooperation with the state. However, haul seines are not used for that purpose, gill and trammel nets are used instead. Commercial harvest averages only one percent of the standing crop of harvestable fish at Eufaula and this has had no measurable impact upon the fish community. Unex pected occurrences at two of the projects bear special mention. At Pat
Mayse, the cleared and graded seining areas were allowed to revegetate between the time they were cleared and the time the reservoir was impounded. As a consequence, haul seines can not be used on the areas.
- 84 - At Keystone, commercial fishing is prohibited due to the presence of
striped bass.
In summary, there has been no utilization of the recommended seining
areas at any of the projects studied. It should be noted that an
important commercial fishery has been reestablished at the Carlyle
project since 1978 after contamination with agricultural pesticides was
controlled. Trammel nets are used at Carlyle by as many as 200 fisher
men during the winter commercial fishing season to harvest carp,
buffalo, drum, carpsuckers, bowfin, and gar. Total commercial harvest
at Carlyle Lake averaged approximately 15.0 kg/ha (13.5 lb/ac) in 1978.
The successful commercial fishery at Carlyle has developed without
cleared seining areas. In related findings at Pat Mayse, studies
showed essentially no differences between net catches in the cleared
seining areas and in uncleared, regular shoreline areas.
Development of Facilities and Policy Regulations to Accommodate
Resource Use
As has been noted previously, the 20 study projects collectively
provide 159,180 ha (393,328 ac) or approximately 1,593 km^ (615 mi^) of
public fee lands above/the conservation (summer) pool elevations. The conservation pools collectively comprise an area of 162,404 ha (401,299 ac) or approximately 1,624 km (627 mi ) (Table 9). A variety of
special considerations and amenities have been recommended to facili tate use and enjoyment of the fish and wildlife resources which are
- 85 - associated with the public lands and waters created by the development projects.
Facilities Designed to Enhance Use
Three general types of physical improvements to attract and serve users at CE projects were recommended for the various projects.
o Access facilities to project lands and waters.
o Acquisition of fishing rights and provision of access to habitat located off-project.
o Project boundary survey, monumentation, and posting.
Since passage of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P.L. 78-534), provision of public access to lands and waters at CE water development projects has been established agency policy. The subject legislation authorizes the CE to construct, maintain and operate public use and recreational facilities at CE projects. Often, during project plan formulation, wildlife agencies considered provision of roads, boat ramps and rest areas at CE water development projects as a pro forma obligation of the development agency. In fact, the issue was not specifically mentioned during pre-construction negotiations for seven, or 35 percent, of the
20 study projects. The CE has, in fact, provided boat ramps and general access facilities at all of the projects studied. The access development plans of the CE were frequently accepted by the state and federal wildlife agencies without comment. The special needs of fish and wildlife-associated users were only occasionally mentioned by the
- 86 - wildlife agencies during project planning.
Project lands allocated to wildlife management are usually located in
the remote reaches of project holdings. Access to these areas were
frequently characterized as inadequate by state wildlife agencies
during the field trips conducted during this investigation (Okatibbee,
Ice harbor, Keystone, Pine Flat, as examples). The frequent flooding
associated with a great many of these areas create difficult develop
ment and maintenance problems for the administering agency. However,
access development assistance at project expense on lands to be
administered for wildlife, was requested from the CE by the FWS in only
one pre-construction planning report (Deer Creek).
A request for special consideration for access road construction
received considerable attention by the state and federal wildlife agencies in a FWS draft report for Allegheny. However, the FWS dropped this recommendation after the CE District voiced its intention to provide adequate access, viz:
Recommendation of access roads to provide partial miti gation for loss of hunting opportunities has been delet ed on the assurance of the Corps that such access has already been provided as a part of their road relocation plan.
Maintenance of existing local access roads within project boundaries was recommended at Eufaula as a means of providing access to both hunters and fishermen.
- 87 - Fishermen access facilities beyond those normally provided by the CE to the reservoir proper, include access to the tail race, the tailwater
and, in certain cases, to the tributaries above the lake. Special
access facil ities in the area of the tail race immediately below dams was noted in several planning reports including Deer Creek, Pat Mayse,
Beltzville, Okatibbee, Beaver, East Lynn, and Eufaula. Tail race access
has been provided at all of the projects. However, at several of the
projects the tail race access features were provided belatedly, some
following years of project operation.
Recognition of special access needs on remaining stream habitat was
noted in the Deer Creek and the Beltzville reports. The Beltzville
project inundated a popular trout stream, as did some of the other
projects studied. An internal memo located in the background informa
tion for the Beltzville project written by a Pennsylvania Fish Commis
sion biologist pointed out that the remaining trout fishery below
Beltzville could be lost as a public fishery as a result of stream
posting by contiguous private land owners. The memo went on to
recommend acquisition of public access to the remaining section of
Pohopoco Creek below the proposed dam. The recommendation was never
incorporated into the formal interagency planning documents for Beltz
ville and no particular access problem has developed below the dam
since project construction. However, at the Littleville project, the
exact scenario feared at Beltzville did occur, and public
- 88 - trout stocking in the Middle Branch of the Westfield River below
Littleville was terminated by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1973. No easement or access consideration for the
River below Littleville was noted in the pre-construction planning
report for the project.
Important fisheries have developed in upstream tributaries of many CE
impoundments which have been stocked with species that require riverine
habitat for spawning. At Red Rock and Council Grove, inadequate access
is provided to tributary waterways on project lands to take advantage of the spring spawning runs of white bass. With the increased use of transplanted species in CE reservoirs, including species which congre gate seasonally in tributaries, special access consideration may be warranted for tributary waters on project lands. No such consideration was apparent in the planning documents for any of the case-history project sites except in a somewhat related circumstance at J. Percy
Priest. At J. Percy Priest, rehabilitating and providing public access to two mill dams located on upstream tributary streams were requested by the FWS. Fish from the lake were expected to concentrate at the base of these barriers and attract fishermen. This recommendation was accommodated by the CE, and the areas proved to be popular with anglers in post-project years.
At projects where substantial areas of standing timber were left in the reservoir basin, as was requested by the FWS and subsequently imple-
- 89 - merited by the CE at the Pat Mayse project, special boating access within the timbered areas may be required. This concept was incorpora ted in the Pat Mayse recommendations, viz:
Timbered areas in a reservoir serve as concentration areas for fish; consequently, they are the most produc tive of fish and most heavily used sites for fishing. However, to provide fisherman access to these areas, boat access should be provided by clearing main passages and lateral channels which would penetrate the timbered areas.
Clearly marked boundaries between private lands and contiguous CE project lands not only benefits public use, but also helps to avoid encroachment by private interests onto the public domain. Proper survey and delineation of project boundaries also assist management agencies undertaking land management practices to improve wildlife habitat. Timely survey and marking of project boundaries has been the exception rather than the rule at the projects reviewed. The import ance of boundary marking should be stressed by state and federal wild life agencies and strongly recommended in all planning reports. Such was the case for only four of the projects reviewed during this invest
igation, viz: Red Rock, Pat Mayse, Keystone and Eufaula.
Regulations to Facilitate Use
In addition to construction or maintenance of physical facilities,
several policy or administrative recommendations to enhance public use were presented among the many reports examined, viz:
o Retention of public access to fee lands, including lands leased to second parties
- 90 - o Zoning of project lands and waters
o Limitations placed on boat motors
Recommendations to keep as much project land as possible open to free
fish and wildlife-associated use appeared almost on a pro forma basis
in fish and wildlife planning reports. Fee lands have, by and large, been open to free use except for limited project lands reserved by the
CE for safety, operation, and protection of public property. Unfortun ately, exceptions have occurred. At Littlevilie, the fish and wildlife planning report was careful to note the potential loss to wildlife interests if project lands were closed to hunting. The FWS report specifically recommended that project lands be open for public hunting.
However, acquisition of replacement lands, in the event that project lands were closed, was not recommended in the subject FWS report.
Subsequent closure of project lands to hunters, by the City of Spring- field, Massachusetts under the guise of protecting the watershed for water supply uses of the impoundment, resulted in an unmitigated loss of hunting opportunity on approximately 680 ha (1,680 ac).
Maintenance of appropriate public rights of access to outgranted lands
(lease arrangements) on CE projects should be reserved. This recom mendation was provided in the planning reports for four projects, viz:
Carlyle, Pine Flat, Clark Hill and Allegheny.
Application of well-conceived zoning plans can enhance the recreational
- 91 - enjoyment of fishermen, boating and water-oriented sports at CE reser voirs, particularly at smaller impoundments where opportunities for user conflicts more easily occur.
Zoning of CE impoundments to facilitate use, or reduce the possibility of conflicts among users with different interests, was recommended in the pre-construction planning documents submitted by state and federal fish and wildlife agencies for 6 out of 20 projects or 30 percent of the study sites, viz: East Lynn, Eufaula, 0. Percy Priest, Keystone,
Okatibbee, and in a somewhat different fashion, at Littleville, as discussed below. As noted, these recommendations all dealt with avoid ing user conflicts and were phrased in essentially the same language as presented in the following example which appeared in the FWS planning report for Eufaula:
That a zoning plan be developed for Eufaula reservoir to insure that adequate areas will be available for fishing and hunting and that the parties involved in developing the reservoir zoning plan include the Oklahoma Depart ment of Wildlife Conservation.
At Littleville, the smallest impoundment included in the 20 case- history projects, with a conservation pool of 111 ha (275 ac), fish and wildlife agencies recommended that motors on boats be limited in size to a maximum of 10 horsepower. This constituted the most direct attempt to reduce user conflicts and was not surprising, considering the small size of the impoundment. However, no zoning recommendations were provided by state fish and wildlife agencies at Beltzville with a
- 92 - surface area of 383 ha (947 ac), or at Deer Creek with a surface area
of 517 ha (1,277 ac). At Beltzville, the CE finally initiated discus
sions on this issue with the affected fish and wildlife agencies. The
CE noted the potential advantages to limiting the areas for high-speed
boating (skiing) on the Beltzville pool. As with all of the projects
for which recommendations for zoning were provided, as well as for many
for which such recommendations were lacking, the Beltzville impoundment
is zoned to reduce user conflicts.
In addition to the lands zoned for wildlife management under the
General Plan as discussed earlier, only one zoning recommendation for wildlife management purposes was discovered in the fish and wildlife agency reports. An original wildife objective of the Pennsylvania Game
Commission (PGC) for the Beltzville project was the development of new flocks of ducks and geese. The plan necessitated stocking pen-reared waterfowl into protected coves suitable to support nesting, to promote successful reproduction. The PGC requested consideration of zoning of selected small coves at Beltzville to prevent disturbance of these limited areas by intrusion of boats during the waterfowl nesting and
rearing season. This plan was an unqualified failure, due in large measure to opposition from boating enthusiasts. Their opposition prevented closure by the CE of the necessary cove habitat to boat travel. The planned waterfowl enhancement program was necessarily abandoned.
- 93 - In a related zoning matter not directly associated with wildlife agency recommendations, the CE has classified project lands for wildlife management purposes at 13 of the 20 case-history study sites (not including the lands managed by the CE in cooperation with state wild life agencies at Dworshak and Ice Harbor as presented in Table 8). The extent of project lands managed by CE personnel for wildlife, on the 20
CE study projects, as tabulated in CE documents (3), is presented in
Table 20.
Follow-up Studies
As was made abundantly clear over the course of these investigations, operational objectives, budgetary considerations, and institutional guidelines are constantly in a state of flux with relation to CE reser voir project facilities. This dynamic situation necessitates coopera tive assessment of situations affecting resource management objectives
and opportunities on a regular and systematic basis.
Probably more has been accomplished for wildlife resources at CE
projects as a consequence of continued investigation and post-construc
tion negotiations between affected agencies, than was incorporated into
projects during the pre-construction planning process. As opportuni
ties for improving fish and wildlife conditions develop, fish and wildlife agencies must be vigilant to take advantage of such opportuni
ties. Project funding for continued investigations were occasionally
sought by fish and wildlife agencies in pre-construction reports (Dwor-
- 94 - shak, East Lynn and recent reports for Ice Harbor)
It is imperative to foster continued interagency coordination and follow-up appraisals on a regular basis at every CE project. Many examples were uncovered where communications channels between opera tional field staffs were firmly established and coordinated programs of benefit to fish and wildlife concerns, and to the CE were being accom plished. Unfortunately, other cases were observed where interagency communications were essentially non-existent or limited to formal periodic exchanges of required written performance documents. Continu ing interagency coordination was specifically, and correctly, suggested in the planning documents only for the Allegheny project.
- 95 - ACCURACY OF PROJECT IMPACT PREDICTIONS
FWS Planning Report Predictions of Angling Man-day Use
The potential impacts of project construction on recreational fishing man-day use within the proposed project impact areas, as delineated by the FWS, were discussed in some measure in all twenty FWS planning reports. Seventeen of the FWS reports examined embodied usable predictions of recreational angling man-day use anticipated within the project impact area both without the project and with the project in place. These reports usually provided discrete projections of angling man-day use for both reservoirs and streams above the proposed dams and for the downstream tail water areas. Although not expressed specific ally in terms of angling man-days, reports for two additional projects contained information suitable for approximating relative angling usage under with and without-the-project conditions. These two reports
(Clark Hill and Pine Flat projects) were both prepared by the FWS in the late 1940's. At this point in time, project-associated fishery values were routinely assessed by the FWS on the basis of the monetary value of fish yields anticipated from the project impact area rather than angling man-day usage. The value of the potential fish yield was derived from the von Limbach curve, (as discussed in the Clark Hill case-history report) computed by plotting water surface acreage against the monetary value of the anticipated fish harvest.
Each of the FWS project reports examined which contained specific
- 96 - quantitative assessments of angling man-day use predicted a substantial increase in post-project angling man-day use over without-the-project conditions with the exception of the Dworshak project, located on the
North Fork of the Clearwater River in Idaho (Table 21). A decline of
52 percent in recreational fishing man-day use within the Dworshak project impact area was predicted by the FWS. In addition to reducing angling opportunity, construction of the Dworshak project was expected to effect substantial losses of spawning habitat for steelhead trout and Chinook salmon. Also, although an increase in angling man-day use was expected, the FWS report for the Ice Harbor project predicted that fishery habitat for both resident anadromous species (whitefish, white sturgeon, salmon, steelhead) would be adversely affected by project construction.
On the average, however, post-project angling man-day use was expected to increase some 15 times over without-the-project conditions within the total project impact areas (including both lakes and tailwaters).
The predicted median increase anticipated in post-project years was some 6.6 times higher) for the 19 projects containing usable predictive data.
Most of the predicted increase was attributed by the FWS to the sub stantial increase in angling expected to occur within the proposed reservoirs. Average fishing man-day use in the reservoirs was expected to increase some 47 times over without-the-project levels supported by
- 97 - the streams above the proposed dam sites. The median post-project
increase predicted was 842 percent (some 9.4 times greater than without-the-project projections).
The most substantial post-project increases in angling man-day use in waters above the dams were predicted for the Pat Mayse project (500- fold increase) and the East Lynn project (76 times higher), both located on relatively small unproductive streams which historically supported only minimal recreational angling opportunity.
The FWS predictions post-project of angling man-day use within project tailwaters was far less optimistic than for the reservoirs. An overall average increase of only 138 percent (median of 20 percent) was pre dicted by the FWS for the 17 projects in which predictions were made.
In fact, unless FWS recommended mitigation measures were implemented by the CE, post-project angling man-day use within project tailwaters was predicted to decline at six of the projects. A complete loss, or a decrease to insignificant levels, was predicted for the tailwater fisheries downstream from both the Beltzville and Pat Mayse projects.
For most projects, post-project angling man-day use predictions made by the FWS reflected incidental usage anticiapted as a result of project construction in accordance with extant CE planning parameters. Specif ic FWS recommendations designed to mitigate and/or enhance angling man-day use that involved specific man-day use increase projections
- 98 - were incorporated in only 8 of the 20 project reports examined (Table
2 2 ).
Recommendations for the development of supplemental access facilities to project waters was the single most frequent recommendation offered by the FWS. Increasing the number of lake angler access sites from 9, as proposed by the CE, to 40, as recommended by the FWS for the Alleg heny Lake project, was expected to more than double (135 percent in crease) the number of annual angler man-days supported by the lake.
Implementation of the FWS recommendations for the development of three additional lake access sites specifically designed for fishermen at the
East Lynn project was expected to increase angling man-day usage at the lake by 18 percent per year. The construction of a single angler access facility below the dam at the East Lynn project was expected to double angling man-day usage in the tail water. Construction of a fishing platform at the stilling basin of the Pat Mayse project was predicted by the FWS to provide an additional 1,000 angling man-days per year, assuming release of a sufficient attraction flow from the dam as recommended by the FWS.
Provision of special angler access facilities to two small dams on tributary streams to the J. Percy Priest lake was expected to add an additional 12,000 angling man-days.
Implementation of FWS recommendations for minimum instantaneous flows
- 99 - releases from the Keystone lake project [8.4 m^/sec (200 cfs)] was predicted to increase average annual tailwater angling man-day use by some 107 percent and 42 percent, resepectively, at these projects.
No post-project angling was expected to occur in the tailwaters of the
Pat Mayse project without implementation of FWS recommendations requir- o ing the establishment of a 0.22 m /sec (8 cfs) minimum instantaneous flow plus abandonment of CE plans to channelize a 3.2 km (2 mi) stretch of the tailwater located immediately below the dam. With implementa tion of these FWS recommendations, the project tailwater was expected to provide 5,400 angling man-days per year. Although provision for tailwater access was also recommended by the FWS for the Beltzville lake project, no specific angler man-day use premium was assigned for implementation of the recommendation.
Allocation of additional lake storage capacity recommended by the FWS for the Okatibbee project, to enable increasing downstream flows for pollution abatement, was expected to increase angling man-day use in the tailwater by 40 percent.
A substantial 49 percent increase in tailwater angling man-day use below the Allegheny Lake project over without-the-project conditions was predicted by the FWS from implementation of their recommendation that the temperature of the water released below the dam be regulated as close to 12.8°C (55°F) as possible. This temperature regime was
- 100 - expected to sustain an intensive trout fishery for an initial 72 km (45 mi) stretch below the dam without adversely affecting excellent small- mouth bass fishery in the remaining 32 km (20 mi) of the tailwater.
Adoption of appropriate lake zoning regulations recommended by the FWS at the Keystone Lake project to reserve areas for fishing was predicted to increase angling man-day use in the lake by 75 percent.
A modest 4 percent increase in post-project angling man-day use at
Beltzville Lake was predicted by the FWS by implementation of their recommendation for annual lake level manipulation designed to minimize carp spawning success.
Reservoir clearing recommendations made by the FWS for the Pat Mayse
Lake project were expected to increase angling man-day use at the lake by 50 percent. These recommendations called for selective retention of timber and brush in the reservoir basin coupled with clearing of boat lanes to facilitate adequate angler access.
Post-Project Angling Man-Day Use
Estimates of post-project recreational fishing man-day use within delineated project impact areas were obtained for each of the 20 projects evaluated. Angling man-day use estimates for four project lakes lacking historical data (Allegheny, Beltzville, Eufaula and Pat
Mayse projects) were derived from specially commissioned one-year creel
- 101 surveys conducted under terms of specifically authorized subcontracts negotiated by the Sport Fishing Institute with appropriate locally based investigators.
The creel survey at the Allegheny Lake project (Pennsylvania) was subcontracted with the Pennsylvania State University. The Pennsylvania
Fish Commission was awarded the subcontract for the creel survey con ducted at the Beltzville Lake project (Pennsylvania) and the Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation was awarded the contract for the creel survey conducted at the Eufaula lake project located in Oklahoma.
Creel survey activities at the Pat Mayse Lake project (Texas) were conducted under subcontract with Three B Enterprises, Dennison, Texas in cooperation with the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife.
Fishing man-day use estimates for the remaining 16 projects were extracted from extant published creel survey reports and/or other data furnished by state fish and wildlife agencies from states in which the projects were located.
Composite creel survey estimates of average annual recreational fishing man-day use at the twenty projects totalled some 2,316,437 angling man-days, including 1,375,437 man-days per year in the reservoirs and
941,342 man-days in project tail waters. These estimates of post project angling represented minimal values, as creel survey data extending over the entire tail water was available from only 5 projects
- 102 - (Table 23). Tailwater creel survey data for the remaining projects were collected only from the project tail race and/or the tailwater area
immediately below project dams.
Accuracy of Predictions Without-the-Project Conditions
The FWS planning reports correctly anticipated that post-project angl
ing man-day use generally would increase over without-the-project
conditions.
Project construction invariably increased the aggregate recreational
angling man-day use within the total project impact area at each
project (seven-fold median increase) over without-the-project man-day
use projections contained in the FWS planning reports. The greatest
overall increase over without-the-project conditions occurred at the
Pat Mayse project (post-project angling man-day use was 55 times
higher), and the smallest increase at the Allegheny project (only five
percent higher than the without-the-project estimates).
The median post-project increase in angling man-days at project reser
voirs was some nine times above predicted levels expected from the free
flowing streams they replaced. Post-project angling man-day use in
project tailwaters exhibited a four-fold median increase, ranging from
a low of only six percent registered for the Allegheny project tail-
water to more than a 29-fold increase at the East Lynn project and a
25-fold increase at the Eufaula Lake project.
- 103 - Accuracy of Predictions With-the-Project Conditions
With-the-project post-impoundment angling man-day use estimates
developed for the total project impact area (both the reservoir and tailwater) proved higher than FWS predictions at six projects (40
percent) and lower than predicted for the remaining ten projects (60 percent) which afforded adequate data for evaluation, (Table 24).
Substantial discrepancies from FWS Planning Report predictions were noted for the Dworshak and Carlyle projects, where post-project angling man-day use was some 7.3 and 5.8 times greater than predicted, and at the Allegheny and Council Grove projects in which post-project angling intensity was some 3.6 and 3.1 times below predicted levels.
Post-project creel survey information indicated less significant deviation from predicted values of total angling man-day use at the remaining projects. Higher than predicted angling man-day use was recorded at Keystone (2.6 times), Eufaula (2.5 times), Beaver (2.1 times), and John Redmond (only 66 percent higher). Less than predicted angling man-day use occurred at the remaining projects. The percentage decrease from predicted values amounted to 44 percent at Deer Creek, 40 percent at East Lynn, 39 percent at Red Rock, and only 18 percent at the Beltzville and Lake Sharpe projects.
More detailed analysis of the FWS predictive data for angling man-day use and subsequent post-project occurrences indicated a strong tendency
- 104 - in the FWS planning reports for overestimation of post-project angling man-day use within the reservoirs and underestimation of angling man- day use in the tailwaters. For example, post-project creel survey data indicated that angling man-day use was lower than predicted by the FWS planning reports for 11 of the 16 projects, (69 percent) which contain ed adequate data for evaluation. Average post-project angling man-day use at these 11 reservoirs was some 2.7 times less (63 percent lower) than predicted. The reduction was particularly significant at two of the projects, Allegheny (94 percent below FWS predicted levels) and Red
Rock (93 percent lower than predicted).
Post-project angling man-day use at project reservoirs was also sub stantially less than predicted at the Deer Creek (76 percent), Council
Grove (73 percent), John Redmond (69 percent), J. Percy Priest (63 percent), Pay Mayse (63 percent), Littleville (53 percent), and East
Lynn (46 percent).
The most significant underestimation of post-project angling pressure at project reservoirs by the FWS was registered for the Dworshak project. Post-project creel surveys conducted at Dworshak Lake indicated an average annual angling use some 5.4 times greater than predicted by the FWS project planning reports. Reservoir angling man-day use also was substantially higher than predicted for the
Carlyle project (187 percent), Eufaula (136 percent) and the Keystone project (112 percent).
- 105 - Conversely, estimated post-project angling man-day use at project
tailwaters was higher than predicted by the FWS for 12 of the 14
projects (86 percent) containing adequate data for evaluation. The
average increase over predicted values amounted to 591 percent (some
6.9 times higher than predicted) for the 12 projects. The largest
percentage deviation from predicted values occurred at the Dworshak
project in which documented post-project fishing man-day use was 21
times greater than predicted. This underestimation should be consid
ered minimal as the post-project creel survey data for the Dworshak
project was collected from only a portion of the tail water area during
limited summer periods and completely omitted a substantial but undocu
mented amount of angling effort for steel head which occurred in the
tailwater.
Tailwater angling man-day use was 10 times greater than FWS predicted
values at the Carlyle project, six times greater than predicted at the
Deer Creek and John Redmond projects, five times greater at Keystone and Red Rock projects and four times greater at the Eufaula and Beaver
Lake projects.
Although confirming creel survey data were not available to document the level of angling intensity, considerable angling activity undoubt edly occurred in the Littleville project tailwater, as the Massachu setts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife regularly stocked trout in the
- 106 - tailwater during the first few years following project construction.
However, due to posting of riparian lands all stocking within the tailwater was terminated after 1973.
Several factors can be identified as contributing to the apparent predisposition demonstrated in the FWS project planning reports for underestimating post-project angling man-day use in the tail waters and overestimating the level of post-project angling effort in the reservoirs.
As one example, the authors of the FWS planning reports possibly failed to forsee the considerable displacement of fish from reservoirs to tailwaters which transpired at several projects, usually during periods of high reservoir discharge. Such occurrences were documented at the
Deer Creek, Pat Mayse, and J. Percy Priest projects. Although often temporary in nature, the abnormally heavy concentration of fish in the tailwaters attracted large numbers of anglers during these occasions.
Positive documentation of the displacment from the reservoirs to the tailwater at these particular reservoirs was possible because the major species involved were all readily identifiable, unique recreational
fish species which had been introduced only in the reservoirs.
Saugeye, a hybrid between sauger and walleye, had been stocked as
fingerlings in Deer Creek reservoir by the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources. Creel and fish population sampling surveys conducted in the
- 107 - reservoir and tailwater indicated that the stocked saugeye vacated the reservoir en masse during periods of high reservoir discharge in late winter and early spring after achieving excellent growth during their previous summer and fall residency in the reservoir. Consequently, the bulk of the angler harvest of saugeye occurred in the tailwater.
A somewhat similar sequence of events occurred at the J. Percy Priest project involving striped bass introduced into the reservoir by the
Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency, and at the Pat Mayse project involving a striped bass x white bass hybrid stocked in the reservoir by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. However, the rate and volume of transmigration between the reservoir and tailwater exhibited by the fishes stocked in Pat Mayse and J. Percy Priest was not nearly as rapid nor complete as experienced by the saugeye at the Deer Creek project, and angler harvest of the stocked fish was more equally divid ed between the reservoir and tailwater.
Similar exchanges between the reservoir and tailwater involving other recreational fish species (black bass, crappie, etc.) occur routinely under similar circumstances, but are seldom identifiable because of their ubiquitous distribution in both reservoir and tailwater habitats and consequent difficulty in precise stock identification.
Other factors also abetted the proclivity of the FWS project planning reports to overemphasize the relative amplitude of post-project reser-
-108 - voir angling man-day use. Although the individual FWS planning reports seldom provided a sufficiently detailed account of the methodology employed in developing post-impoundment angling use projections, it appeared evident that the reports tended to identify larger than reasonable geographic areas as representing potential sources of anglers. Most of the reports referenced existing human populations residing within two hour travel time or within 100 miles of the lake as representing potential sources of anglers.
However, employment of smaller and more realistic areas of project influence would have been more appropriate. For example, creel survey data for the Pat Mayse project revealed that some 69.5 percent of all anglers interviewed resided within a 40 km (25 mi) of the project. An additional 21.5 percent resided between 40 to 161 km (26 to 100 mi) and only 9 percent to anglers interviewed resided more than 161 km (100 mi) from the project.
In some instances, it appeared that the often overly optimistic angling man-day use predictions at project reservoirs may have been further aggravated by failure to properly assess the potential level of reser voir productivity in post-impoundment years. The gross over-estimation of the extent of the post-project reservoir recreational fishery at the
Red Rock project by the FWS (93 percent less than predicted) may be attributed, in part, to the failure of the FWS to correctly account for the adverse impact on angling participation which should have been
- 109 - anticipated as a result of the extremely high sedimentation rate and
associated turbidity expected to occur in the reservoir. Most of the
current project-associated recreational fishery at the Red Rock project
currently is concentrated in the tailwater and upstream in the Des
Moines River above the project boundary.
The underestimation of post-project angling man-day use for Dworshak
reservoir (less than five times the amount actually recorded in post
impoundment years) was also partially attributable to the inability of
the FWS to properly assess potential reservoir productivity. The FWS
predicted that the average annual fishing pressure over the life of the
project in Dworshak Lake would average only 6,500 angling man-days per year. The extremely low post-project angling effort prediction
[approximately one man-day/ha (0.4 man-day/ac)] was attributed by the
FWS to occur as a result of the extreme water level fluctuation and
declining water levels expected within the littoral zone during the
critical fish growing season. Although water level fluctuation was
severe in most post-project years, angling man-day use was not
adversely affected. One of the major recreational fish species estab
lished in the reservoir, the kokanee, is primarily a pelagic plankton
feeder, and thus, it is only minimally affected by water level fluctua
tion occurring within the littoral zone of the reservoir.
Also, some of the discrepancies between FWS predicted angling man-day
use and observed post-impoundment occurrence values occurred incid-
- 110 - entally as a result of unforseen post-impoundment events which could not reasonably have been predicted. For example, the extremely low angling effort (less than 29,000 angling man-days) recorded during the one-year creel survey at Allegheny reservoir in 1979-80, was character ized as atypical by knowledgeable personnel of the Pennsylvania Fish
Commission. This creel survey was conducted during the height of the nationwide gasoline shortage crisis, and the lower than normal angling man-day use possibly reflected the general reduction in automobile travel which occurred during this period. However, even with accept ance of the unlikely assumption that fishing pressure has reduced by half because of reduced travel induced by the gasoline shortage, the
FWS prediction of 312,500 angling man-days per year represented a gross over estimation.
The lower than predicted angling man-day use (63 percent less) exper ienced at Pat Mayse reservoir also may have been affected to some extent by the gasoline shortage crisis as the creel survey was conduct ed during the height of the gasoline shortage. Unforseeable climatic variables also may have been responsible for the low rate of angler participation at the Pat Mayse project, particularly in the tailwater.
During the 1980-1981 creel survey period the project area experienced a total of 69 days with temperatures of over 37.8°C (100°F) and 126 consecutive days with no measureable rainfall. Little or no water was discharged from the reservoir during this extended drought period. As a result, angling man-day use in the tailwater was almost completely
- Ill eliminated. Although confirming creel survey data were lacking, reports from CE reservoir management personnel and local Texas Parks and Wildlife biologists indicated that the angling man-day use of the tail race was substantial in years of normal rainfall.
The accuracy of the FWS planning report predictions of post-project hunting and fishing man-day use obviously is dependent on the adequacy and accuracy of the original baseline assessments of potential fish and wildlife habitats and man-day use within project impact areas. Conse quently, the methodology employed for deriving such assessments assumes paramount importance. Unfortunately, the FWS project planning reports provided little or no insight as to the methodology and parameters involved in deriving either without-the-project or with-the-project predictions. This failure to include an adequate exposition of the strategies employed within the FWS project planning reports constitutes a major reporting flaw.
With few exceptions, it appeared that data contained in the FWS plan ning reports pertinent to fish and wildlife community status evolved primarily from cursory "windshield" investigations based primarily on information gleaned from interviews with local state fish and wildlife agency personnel and/or extant literature sources. Thus, in the final analysis, the quality of the FWS planning reports was dependent on the acumen and experience of local information sources, or the largely fortuitous occurrence of previously conducted state fish and wildlife
- 112 - agency investigations within project impact areas to satisfy unrelated objectives.
Essential pre-project field investigations specifically designed to provide adequate fish and wildlife resource information were rarely employed. A CE funded pre-project wildlife resource oriented investi gation conducted by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game for the
Dworshak project and a FWS sponsored pre-impoundment study of the
Allegheny River fish fauna for the Allegheny project were notable exceptions. Limited pre-impoundment stream creel survey information also was available from previous state and wildlife agency studies conducted at the Carlyle, Keystone, and Lake Sharpe project impact areas. This dearth of appropriate pre-project data emphasizes the need for development agencies to provide, at project expense, for scientifi cally designed and conducted pre-project investigations to establish a valid baseline data base.
FUS Planning Report Predictions of Hunting Man-Day Use
In most instances the use of the term "project impact area" in conjunc tion with terrestrial wildlife concerns was interpreted to include only lands located within the designated purchase boundary and/or those lands subject to permanent or periodic inundation. Areas outside the project purchase boundary, usually downstream from the dam, also were included within the designated project impact area in those instances where the FWS anticipated and specifically identified potential adverse
- 113 - effects resulting from project operation.
Hunting man-day use constituted the most frequently used parameter in the FWS planning reports prepared after the mid-1950's to measure the effects of project construction on wildlife resources within specified project impact areas. A few reports prepared in later years also acknowledged the influence of both hunter density and public versus private landowner relationships in assessing potential levels of hunt ing man-day use within project impact areas. Predictions of project impacts on wildlife resources contained in reports prepared in the late
1940's and early to mid-1950's usually were based on estimated values of the predicted harvest of various game species rather than hunting man-days. However, in the final analysis, it was apparent that these
FWS planning report man-day use and/or game harvest projections appro priately reflected the FWS planners evaluation of the potential quant ity and quality of available wildlife habitat within the project impact area.
Unfortunately, sequential steps in the FWS planning process involved the assessment of monetary values to the hunting man-day use and/or game harvest predictions for calculating overall wildlife resource project benefit/cost ratios. These arbitrarily assessed monetary values varied substantially over time and by species hunted. For the most part, the monetary value assessments utilized in the 1940's and
1950's relied heavily on nebulous and poorly substantiated estimates of
- 114 - hunter expenditures.
Assessments of hunting and/or fishing man-day monetary values in the
FWS reports prepared in the 1960's followed guidelines provided by the
Report of the Panel on Recreational Values on a Proposed Interim
Schedule of Values For Recreational Aspects of Fish and Wildlife, as approved by the Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources on October
18, 1960 (8), and by criteria presented in the Policies Standards and
Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans for Use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources prepared under the direction of the President's Water Resources Council (9). No specific monetary value was assessed at any time for wildlife habitat or wild life populations supported within the project impact areas.
The majority of the FWS planning reports contained specific numerical predictions of hunting man-day use or game harvested under without- the-project and with-the-project conditions for each of the major species groups hunted: small game, big game and waterfowl. Small game included all of the usual upland game species: bobwhite quail, pheasants, prairie chickens, ruffed grouse, mourning dove, cottontail rabbit, gray and fox squirrels, etc. Where mentioned, opossum, rac coons, and gray and red fox were included in the small game category.
Wild turkey was considered both as a big game species and as small game in various reports. For consistency in this report, the wild turkey was included in the small game category.
- 115 - White-tailed deer was by far the most common big game species listed in the FWS planning reports. Mule deer, elk and black bear were also
included in the big game category in the few instances they occurred.
The Dworshak project was the only project with significant elk popula tions. Mule deer were present within the project impact areas of the
Dworshak, Ice Harbor, Pine Flat and Lake Sharpe projects. Black-tailed deer were also present in the Pine Flat project impact area. Mention of huntable populations of black bear in the FWS planning reports was confined to the Allegheny, Beaver, and Dworshak projects.
Total Hunting Man-Day Use Predictions
A summary of FWS planning report predictions of project impacts on the total hunting man-day use without-the-project and with-the-project in place is presented in Table 25. Specific enumeration of hunting man- day use was available from 13 project planning reports. Other reports provided relative indications of hunting man-day use intensity expected under various regimes which were based on monetary values of game harvested from the project impact area.
Project construction was expected to adversely impact total hunting man-day use at 14 (70 percent) of the 20 projects unless FWS planning
report recommendations for mitigation were implemented by the CE. The severity of the predicted adverse impacts ranged from an estimated
reduction in hunting man-day use of 90 percent or greater at the Beaver
- 116 - and J. Percy Priest projects, to a decline of less than 25 percent at the East Lynn and Council Grove projects. The severe decline of hunt ing man-day use predicted for the Beaver Lake project was attributed to the substantial 74 percent net loss of terrestrial wildlife habitat within the project impact area. Lands for the Beaver project were purchased under the aegis of the restrictive "Eisenhower policy" which provided for fee purchase of project lands only to the 5-year flood pool elevation.
At the J. Percy Priest project, located near the rapidly expanding
Nashville, Tennessee metropolitan area, the rapid urbanization of lands contiguous to the project were expected to substantially limit hunting man-day use as a result of unfavorable land use and possible zoning changes.
The less severe reduction in hunting man-day use predicted for the East
Lynn project was attributed to the much lower (only 4 percent) net loss of terrestrial habitat expected to occur within the project impact area.
Greatly increased waterfowl hunting man-day use predicted by the FWS after project construction was expected to more than compensate for losses of small game and white-tailed deer hunting man-day use at three projects (John Redmond, Keystone, Lake Sharpe).
- 117 - The substantial 6.75-fold (513 percent) increase in post-project hunt
ing man-day use predicted in the FWS planning report for the Deer Creek
project and the slight (6 percent) increase at the Pat Mayse project
were attributed to the conversion of formerly posted lands held in
private ownership to public ownership. Although the amount of increase
was not quantified, the FWS planning report for the Red Rock project
also predicted an increase in post-project hunting man-day use as a
result of conversion of a significant area of private lands to public
ownership.
Implementation of the recommendations for mitigation contained in the
various FWS planning reports was expected to fully compensate or en
hance hunting man-day use over without-the-project levels for all of
the projects with the exception of the Dworshak, J. Percy Priest, and
Okatibbee projects. No mitigation recommendations were included in the
FWS planning reports for the Beaver, Pine Flat and Littleville
projects.
Small Game Hunting Man-Day Use Predictions
Predicted reductions in post-project hunting man-day use from without-
the-project levels for small game and big game (primarily white-tailed
deer) constitute the major portion of losses in hunting opportunity
predicted by the FWS planning reports. Only two projects were predict
ed to exhibit an increase in post-project hunting man-day use for small
game (Deer Creek and Red Rock projects) without implementation of
- 118 - recommended mitigation measures (Table 26).
Increased small game hunting in post-project years predicted for the
Deer Creek and Red Rock project was attributed by the FWS planning reports to the conversion of private lands to public ownership. A decline in hunting man-day use was predicted by the FWS at all remain ing projects, unless recommended mitigation measures were implemented, ranging from substantial declines of 90 percent at J. Percy Priest, 84 percent at Eufaula, 81 percent at Clark Hill, 79 percent at Okatibbee, to less significant declines expected at Council Grove (17 percent) and
East Lynn (16 percent).
Assuming implementation of FWS planning report recommendations, in creased post-project hunting man-day use over pre-project levels was predicted for four additional projects (Deer Creek, East Lynn, Pat
Mayse and John Redmond). The substantial (225 percent) increase predicted in post-project small game hunting use predicted for the John
Redmond project, was contingent upon the acquisition and development of a National Wildlife Refuge [7,487 ha (18,500 ac)] in conjunction with the project. Also, the FWS planning report prediction assumed that at least 40 percent of the refuge would be open for public hunting.
Big Game Hunting Man-Day Use Predictions
The FWS project planning reports predicted a decline in hunting man-day use in post-project years for white-tailed deer at every project which
- 119 - supported pre-impoundment big game populations unless mitigation recom mendations were implemented (Table 27). Catastrophic, 100 percent
losses were predicted for three projects (Eufaula, Keystone and Lake
Sharpe). Substantial post-project declines in big game hunting man-day
use were also predicted at Pat Mayse (83 percent), Okatibbee (79 per
cent) and Carlyle (67 percent) unless recommended mitigation was
implemented.
The predicted overall 19 percent decline in big game hunting man-day
use at the Dworshak project unless recommended mitigation was imple mented, involved a 15 percent decline in hunting man-day use for elk,
14 percent for mule deer and a 58 percent decline for white-tailed deer.
Implementation of FWS planning report recommendations was expected to
increase post-project hunting man-day use for white-tailed deer over without-the-project levels at three projects (East Lynn, Pat Mayse and
Red Rock) and man-days were expected to remain the same at Eufaula and
Keystone. The predicted increase at the East Lynn project was pre dicated on intensive habitat management of project lands by the West
Virginia Department of Natural Resources under a license to be negoti ated with the CE. The substantial (50 percent) increase predicted for white-tailed deer hunting participation at the Pat Mayse project was expected to result from the recommended acquisition of an additional
486 ha (1,200 ac) of privately owned lands outside the proposed project
- 120 - purchase boundary plus 3,440 ha (8,500 ac) of federally owned land located within the former Camp Maxey Military Reservation contiguous to the Pat Mayse project. The additional hunting use predicted at the Red
Rock project was attributed to improved hunter access resulting from conversion of privately owned lands to public ownership.
Waterfowl Hunting Man-Day Use Predictions
In marked contrast to frequent predictions of adverse impacts to small game and big game hunting engendered by project construction, the FWS planning reports generally predicted large increases in post-project waterfowl hunting man-day use at project reservoirs. In almost every case, the predicted increase in waterfowl hunting man-day use was expected as a result of increased incidental waterfowl use of the reservoirs as temporary resting sites during annual migration periods rather than from on-site waterfowl production.
Such incidental waterfowl usage was expected to provide for increased waterfowl hunting man-day use over without-the-project levels amounting to 2,504 percent at John Redmond, 1,000 percent at Pat Mayse, 346 percent at Eufaula, 250 percent at Keystone, 114 percent at Okatibbee, and 50 percent at the Council Grove project (Table 28), even without implementation of recommended mitigation measures .
Implementation of FWS planning report recommendations to provide for more intensive waterfowl management was expected to further increase
- 121 waterfowl hunting man-day use at several project reservoirs. Develop
ment of the Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge at the John Redmond
project, as proposed by the FWS, was expected to increase waterfowl
hunting man-day use approximately 12,771 percent over without-the-
project levels.
More than a thirteenfold increase (1,239 percent) in waterfowl hunting
man-day use over without-the-project estimates was predicted at the
Eufaula project by implementing FWS planning report recommendations for
the acquisition of additional lands [5,197 ha (12,841 ac)] and
application of intensive waterfowl management practices by the Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation.
Construction at project expenses and subsequent management by the Ohio
Department of Natural Resources of a 40 ha (60 ac) subimpoundment
recommended by the FWS planning report for the Deer Creek project was
predicted to increase waterfowl hunting man-day use by 1,329 percent
over without-the-project levels.
Intensive management of incidentally acquired project lands to be
licensed to the Mississippi Department of Natural Resources at the
Okatibbee project and by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department at the
Pat Mayse project was expected to increase post-project waterfowl
hunting man-day use substantially.
The Ice Harbor project located on the Snake River in Southwestern
- 122 - Washington, was the only project which was expected to adversely affect waterfowl resources. The permanent inundation of 13 islands in the
Snake River, historically used for nesting by Canada geese, was expect ed to eliminate the major source of waterfowl broods produced within the entire project impact area. Migratory use by both ducks and geese also was expected to be negatively impacted by project construction.
Only nominal changes in waterfowl hunting man-day use was expected as a result of project construction at the remaining projects.
Post-Project Hunting Man-Day Use
Descriptive data pertinent to post-project hunting man-day use conduct ed on project impact areas were obtained primarily from state fish and wildlife agencies and/or the FWS. With few exceptions the data reflec ted estimates derived from specific hunter surveys conducted on project lands managed by the state or federal agencies under license from the
CE. Hunting man-day use estimates for the Deer Creek and Allegheny projects represented "best estimates" rendered by state agency wildlife biologists closely associated with the projects, rather than empirical data collected from on-site surveys.
Post-project hunting man-day use estimates for five projects (Beaver,
Deer Creek, J. Percy Priest, Pine Flat and Red Rock) were derived from specially commissioned, one-year surveys conducted under terms of specifically authorized subcontracts negotiated by the Sport Fishing
- 123 - Institute. Subcontractors included the Arkansas Game and Fish Commis
sion (Beaver project), Ohio Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit (Deer
Creek project), Tennessee Technological University (J. Percy Priest
project), California State University at Fresno (Pine Flat project),
and the Iowa Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit (Red Rock).
Hunting on project lands of the Littleville project was prohibited by a
local ordinance enacted by the City of Springfield, Massachusetts to
protect the quality of water supply. This action followed shortly
after negotiation of a contract between the city and the United States
Government dated December 13, 1967, providing for muni ci pie water
supply storage at the project.
Usable estimates of average annual hunting man-day use for post-project
years were available from 13 projects (Table 29). Total hunting man-
day use on these projects averaged 135,284 man-days per year, including
79,895 man-days for small game (59 percent), 18,968 man-days for big
game (14 percent), and 36,421 man-days for waterfowl (27 percent).
In addition to the specific quantitative hunting man-day use estimates
available from these 13 projects, sufficient post-project hunting
man-day use information was available from an additional 5 projects to
make subjective judgements concerning the impacts of project construc t i o n on wildlife resources.
- 124 - Accuracy of Predictions of Without-the-Project Conditions
Post-project hunting man-day use supported within project impact areas after project construction was somewhat higher than the levels predict ed by the FWS without the project. Total post-project hunting man-day use estimates were higher than without-the-project predictions contain ed in the FWS project planning reports at 11 of the 19 projects (58 percent) with sufficient data to permit comparison, while these esti mates were lower for eight projects (Table 29). Hunting effort for big game species (almost entirely white-tailed deer) in post-project years was higher than without-the-project FWS planning report predictions at
12 of the 16 projects (75 percent) with applicable data (Table 30).
Hunting man-day use for waterfowl was greater than anticipated without-the-project at 12 of 17 projects (71 percent) and hunting effort for small game was higher at 10 of 17 projects (59 percent). In direct contrast, the FWS planning reports predicted substantial declines in post-project hunting man-day use at 68 percent of the projects if constructed without implementation of FWS recommendations
(Table 25).
The influence of public ownership of project lands in promoting greater than anticipated hunting participation than provided by formerly privately owned lands appeared to be a key factor in fostering post project hunting man-day use. Other contributory factors to greater than anticipated post-project hunting use registered on project land included the apparent inability of the FWS to forsee the success of
- 125 - subsequent wildlife restoration efforts achieved by intensive habitat management and stocking programs conducted on project lands by state wildlife agencies. Undoubtedly, however, the greater than predicted hunting effort realized in post-project years in some instances merely reflected inadequate pre-project assessment of habitat potential on the part of the FWS.
Accuracy of Predictions With-the-Project Conditions
The project impact areas supported considerably more hunting man-day use in post-project years than predicted by the FWS planning reports
(Table 30). Excluding the Littleville project, in which all hunting was prohibited as a potable watershed protection measure, hunting man-day use estimates of total hunting effort in post-project years were higher than predicted levels at 14 of the 17 projects (82 per cent).
It seems evident that the FWS planning reports particularly over estimated the adverse impacts of project construction on big game resources and post-project hunting man-day use. The FWS planning reports predicted that a complete loss of white-tailed deer hunting opportunity would occur within the project impact areas of three projects and substantial losses at all of the other projects, ranging from 16 percent to 94 percent. However, post-project hunting effort for big game (primarily white-tailed deer) was greater than predicted at all but three projects (Ice harbor, Pine Flat and Okatibbee).
- 126 - The predicted 100 percent decline in hunting effort for white-tailed deer at the Lake Sharpe, Keystone and Eufaula projects failed to mater ialize. In fact, post-project hunting man-day use increased by 150 percent at Eufaula, and 365 percent at Keystone, over without-the- project predicted values. The loss of critical bottomland habitat associated with construction of the Lake Sharpe project was expected to adversely affect the white-tailed and mule deer resource within a broad three county area as well as completely eliminating deer hunting opportunity within the immediate project area.
However, records maintained by the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks
Department indicated that the total number of deer harvested and hunter success rates in these contiguous counties were substantially higher in post-project years than prior to impoundment.
It seems apparent that the general resurgence in white-tailed deer abundance which occurred throughout the nation during the late 1950's and 1960's was responsible for masking precise impacts of project con struction within specific project sites. Local white-tailed deer populations obviously were affected adversely by the habitat destruc tion associated with project construction. Deer abundance apparently increased sufficiently in contiguous areas to maintain or increase deer hunting man-day use within the project impact areas.
- 127 - Post-project hunting man-day effort for small game also was higher than
predicted by the FWS planning reports at 82 percent of the projects.
Particularly large increases over predicted values were registered at the Pat Mayse project (487 percent), the Okatibbee project (362 per
cent), Keystone (233 percent), Carlyle (147 percent), and Deer Creek
(91 percent) (Table 30). Also, although no specific prediction of
hunting man-day use was made by the FWS for the Beltzville project,
post-project survey estimates made by the Pennsylvania Game Commission
(PGC) indicated that hunting man-day use for small game was exception ally high. The PGC survey estimate included a total of 16,315 hunting man-days per year for small game, which was some 1,992 percent higher than the FWS estimates of 780 hunting man-days for a total hunting man-day use for all game categories.
Several factors appeared to contribute to the propensity to underesti mate post-project hunting man-day use exhibited by the FWS planning reports. Intensive habitat improvement for small game resources on licensed project lands was particularly effective in increasing post project man-day use at the Pat Mayse, Keystone and Okatibbee projects.
Popular put-and-take stocking programs for ring-neck pheasant at the
Carlyle, Beltzville and Deer Creek projects also contributed substanti ally to higher than predicted post-project hunting man-day use.
Most of the FWS predictions of post-project hunting man-day use for waterfowl were in reasonable agreement with post-project estimates.
- 128 - Deviations between FWS predicted values and post-project survey esti mates were more evenly divided between underestimation (60 percent of the projects), overestimation (40 percent of the projects) than the small game and big game categories.
Data for the Carlyle project, which was based on estimates of water fowl-use days rather than hunting man-days use, indicated a substantial enhancement of waterfowl resources following project construction over predicted values. This occurrence may be attributed primarily to the development and intensive management of a series of waterfowl subim
poundments by the Illinois Department of Conservation subsequent to the
preparation and submission of the FWS planning report.
Post-project estimates of waterfowl hunting man-day use at the Keystone
project located in eastern Oklahoma were approximately 96 percent below
levels predicted by the FWS planning report. Considerations possibly
affecting this substantial discrepancy included extreme reservoir
fluctuation in early post-impoundment years which substantially inhib
ited the growth of prime waterfowl foods, such as smartweeds and
millet, and eliminated mast-producing trees growing in marginal lake
areas. It is also reasonable to assume that the construction of other
impoundments within the Central Flyway and within eastern Oklahoma, in
particular, may have served to dilute the number of waterfowl using the
Keystone project.
- 129 - The FWS prediction that construction of the Ice harbor project would drastically reduce nesting activities of Canada geese within the project impact area proved to be correct. Post-project observation indicated only 1 or 2 active nests remaining from the nearly 100 active nests noted within the area prior to project construction.
- 130 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
This report summarizes the information collected, analyzed and publish ed in a series of 20 individual case-history reports prepared by the
Sport Fishing Institute under contract to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, which were designed to evaluate the adequacy and predictive efficacy of fish and widlife planning at CE reservoir projects.
The projects selected for study included all major representative types of projects (flood control, hydroelectric and multiple use) and reflec ted diverse environmental habitats and geographic locations within the continental United States.
A total of 410 CE reservoir projects were screened during the project
selection process. The initial screening eliminated 138 projects which were planned and/or constructed prior to initiation of mandatory
requirements that construction agencies request comments and recom mendations from federal and state wildlife agencies pertaining to
projects having potential impacts on fish and wildlife resources. An
additional 124 projects, primarily single purpose navigational locks
and dams, were eliminated because their construction had little impact
on terrestrial wildlife habitat.
Exhaustive record searches, involving examination of central data
repositories at the Federal Record Center and National Archives plus 18
CE and FWS field offices, were conducted to locate and assemble a
- 131 - nearly complete library of available pre-project planning documents for
the remaining 120 projects. This assemblage of fish and wildlife
resource reports compiled by the Sport Fishing Institute represents a
valuable contribution of the contract study. However, key documents
for a considerable number of projects could not be located, apparently
reflecting the lack of an adequate data storage and retrieval system.
It is strongly recommended that the development and implementation of
an efficient storage and retrieval system for pertinent project- associated fish and wildlife resource data be given high priority by the CE.
Base line pre-project fish and wildlife resource information for 78 of the 120 projects were deemed minimally sufficient for evaluating project impacts on fish and wildlife resources assuming the availabil ity of adequate descriptive post-project fish and wildlife resource data. However, after thoroughly canvassing all pertinent federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, appropriate post-project data neces sary to evaluate project impacts on both fish and wildlife resource data were available from only 14 of these 78 projects (18 percent).
This dearth of post-project fish and wildlife resource information dramatizes the profound lack of post-impoundment documentation of project impacts of CE reservoir projects on fish and wildlife resources. In fact, the Sport Fishing Institute contract study represents the first concerted nationwide effort to evaluate the
- 132 - efficacy of fish and wildlife planning reports for assessing project
impacts on fish and wildlife resources since such reports became manda tory in 1946.
The FWS planning reports submitted for the 20 study projects contained
45 individual mitigation/enhancement recommendations. These recommend
ations reflected extant state-of-the-art fish and wildlife management
precepts, and, for the most part, appeared to be well conceived for
mitigating fish and wildlife losses. These composite project recom
mendations reiterated six major recurrent themes, viz:
1. Fee acquisition of lands beyond those required for project purposes as identified by construction agency (13 projects); and/or fee purchase in lieu of flooding easements (5 projects).
2. Operation of selected project lands by state or federal wildlife agencies under General Plan and license or other cooperative arrangement with the construction agency (essentially all 20 projects).
3. Improvement of project lands (14 projects) and waters (20 projects) to increase carrying capacity of fish and wildlife communities.
4. Planned, direct manipulation of fish (pre-impoundment stream reclamation, 2 projects; post-impoundment non game fish control, 5 projects; fish hatchery construc tion, 2 projects) and/or wildlife communities (farm game bird stocking, 4 projects).
5. Provision of special angler access facilities [tail- water access, (7 projects); reservoir access, (2 projects)]. Provision of special hunter access facili ties (2 projects); project boundary marking (4 pro jects), maintenance of public access to leased lands (4 projects); and zoning regulations to minimize user conflicts (6 projects).
6. Recommendations for further studies of project re sources to resolve new or continuing fish and
- 133 - wildlife-related deficiencies (4 projects).
The potential impacts of project construction on fish and wildlife
communities and recreational fishing and hunting man-day use within the
proposed project impact areas were discussed in some measure in the FWS
planning reports for all 20 projects. These reports usually provided
estimates (both without-the-project and with-the-project) of discrete
projections of hunting use within project impact areas as well as
angling man-day use for both reservoirs and streams above the proposed
dams and for the downstream tailwater areas. Each of the FWS project
reports examined, which contained specific quantitative assessments of
angling man-day use, predicted a substantial increase (median increase
of 560 percent) in post-project angling man-day use over without-the- project conditions with the exception of the Dworshak project. A decline of 52 percent in recreational fishing man-day use within the
Dworshak project impact area was predicted by the FWS.
In addition to reducing angling opportunity, construction of the
Dworshak project was expected to effect substantial losses of spawning habitat for steelhead trout and Chinook salmon. Also, although an increase in angling man-day use was expected, the FWS report for the
Ice Harbor project predicted that fishery habitat for both resident and anadromous species (whitefish, white sturgeon, salmon and steelhead) would be adversely affected by project construction.
Median fishing man-day use in the reservoirs was expected to increase
- 134 - 842 percent over without-the-project levels supported by the streams above the proposed dam sites. Post-project angling man-day use predictions for project tailwaters was far less optimistic than for the reservoirs. An overall median increase of 20 percent was predicted by the FWS for the 17 projects in which predictions were made. In fact, unless FWS recommended mitigation measures were implemented by the CE, post-project angling man-day use within project tailwaters was predict ed to decline at six of the projects. A complete loss, or a decrease to insignificant levels, was predicted for the tailwater fisheries downstream from two projects (Beltzville and Pat Mayse).
In contrast to the overall increase predicted for angling, project
construction was expected to adversely impact total hunting man-day use
at 14 (70 percent) of the 20 projects unless FWS planning report
recommendations for mitigation were implemented by the CE. Predicted
reductions in post-project hunting man-day use from without-the-project
levels for small game and big game (primarily white-tailed deer)
constituted the major portion of losses in hunting opportunity
predicted by the FWS planning reports. Only two projects were
predicted to exhibit an increase in post-project hunting man-day use
for small game without implementation of recommended mitigation. The
FWS project planning reports predicted a decline in hunting man-day use
in post-project years for white-tailed deer at every project which
supported pre-impoundment big game populations. Catastrophic, 100
percent losses were predicted for three projects, Eufaula, Keystone and
- 135 - Lake Sharpe.
On the other hand, large increases in post-project waterfowl hunting
man-day use were generally predicted at project reservoirs. In most
cases the predicted increase in waterfowl hunting man-day use was
expected as a result of increased incidental waterfowl use of the
reservoirs as temporary resting sites during annual migration periods
rather than from on-site waterfowl production.
The Ice Harbor project located on the Snake River in southwestern
Washington, was the only project which was expected to adversely affect waterfowl resources. The permanent inundation of 13 islands in the
Snake River, historically used for nesting by Canada geese, was expect ed to eliminate the major source of waterfwl broods contiguous to the project impact area.
Estimates of post-project recreational fishing man-day use were made at all 20 projects. Comparable numerical assessments of hunting man-day use were available from 13 projects. Sufficient quantitative hunting use data were available from 5 additional projects to permit subjective assessment of project impacts. For the most part, the estimates of fishing and hunting man-day use represented data collected during user surveys conducted by state fish and wildlife agencies. Angling man-day use estimates from four project reservoirs and hunting man-day use estimates at five project impact areas were derived from specially
- 136 - commissioned one-year surveys conducted under terms of specifically authorized subcontracts negotiated by the Sport Fishing Institute with appropriate locally based investigators.
Total annual angling man-day use at the 20 projects was estimated at some 2,316,437 days including 1,375,095 man-days in the reservoirs and
941,342 man-days in project tailwaters. Hunting man-day use estimates obtained from the 13 projects with usable quantitative data totaled
135,284 man-days, including 79,895 man-days for small game (59 per cent), 18,968 man-days for big game (14 percent) and 36,421 for water- fowl (27 percent).
The FWS planning reports correctly predicted that post-project angling man-day use generally would increase over without-the-project condi tions. Project construction invariably increased the aggregate recrea tional angling man-day use within the total project impact area at each project (seven-fold median increase) over without-the-project man-day use projections contained in the FWS planning reports.
The median post-project increase in angling man-days at project reser voirs was some nine times above predicted levels expected from the free flowing streams they replaced. Post-project angling man-day use in project tailwaters exhibited a four-fold median increase.
Total post-project hunting man-day use estimates were higher than
- 137 - without-the-project predictions contained in the FWS project planning
reports at 11 of the 19 projects (58 percent) with sufficient data to
permit comparison. Hunting effort for big game species (almost entire
ly white-tailed deer) in post-project years was higher than without-
the-project FWS planning report predictions at 12 of the 16 projects
(75 percent) with applicable data). Hunting man-day use for waterfowl
was greater than anticipated without-the-project at 12 of the projects
(71 percent) and hunting effort for small game was higher at 10 of 17
projects (59 percent).
Comparison of with-the-project angling man-day use predictions contain ed in the FWS planning reports with post-project angler surveys indi cated a strong tendency towards overestimation of post-project man-day use within the reservoir proper (post-project angling use was lower than predicted for 11 of 16 projects) and for underestimation of angl ing man-day use in project tail waters (post-project angling use was higher than predicted for 12 of 14 projects with usable data). Con trary to FWS planning report predictions of a 52 percent decline in angling man-day use with the Dworshak project, however, documented post-impoundment estimates indicated an increase of 159 percent over predicted values.
Several factors were identified as contributing to overestimating post-project angling man-day use in the reservoirs and underestimation of man-day use in the tailwaters including the apparent failure of the
- 138 - FWS to forsee the considerable displacement of fish from the reservoirs to tailwaters which occurred during periods of high reservoir dis charge. Other factors included the inability of the FWS to adequately predict post-impoundment reservoir productivity and the tendency to overestimate levels of potential fishing pressure by including larger than reasonable geographic areas as representing likely sources of anglers.
The poor FWS track record for the accuracy of post-project reservoir angling man-day use predictions emphasizes the need for improved pre dictive capability in this vital area of fish and wildlife planning.
Substantial progress has been achieved over the past decade in identi fying and integrating many of the environmental and socio-economic variables contributing to potential angling pressure intensity at water resource development projects. This data was primarily generated under the aegis of the recently terminated National Reservoir Research Pro gram of the FWS.
Although the quality of the information developed by this outstanding reservoir research effort represents a decided improvement over that previously available, a considerable amount of work yet remains to develop a reliable protocol useful for predicting potential angling intensity at water resource projects. Development of such an effective predictive protocol should be accorded the highest priority by fish and wildlife planners.
- 139 - Total hunting man-day use was higher than predicted levels at 14 of the
18 projects (78 percent). The FWS planning reports particularly over estimated the adverse impacts of project construction on big game resources and post-project hunting man-day use. The FWS planning reports predicted a complete loss of white-tailed deer hunting oppor tunity within the project impact areas of three projects and substan tial losses at all of the other projects, ranging from 16 percent to 94 percent. However, post-project hunting effort for big game (primarily white-tailed deer) was greater than predicted at all but three projects.
Post-project hunting man-day effort for small game also was higher than predicted by the FWS planning reports at 78 percent of the projects.
Several factors appeared to contribute to the propensity to under estimate post-project hunting man-day use exhibited by the FWS planning reports. Intensive habitat improvement for small game resources on licensed project lands was particularly effective in increasing post project man-day use at the Pat Mayse, Keystone and Okatibbee projects.
Put-and-take stocking programs for ring-neck pheasant at the Carlyle,
Beltzville and Deer Creek projects also contributed substantially to higher than predicted post-project hunting man-day use. In addition, the general decline of wildlife habitat on private lands due to agri cultural expansion and increased posting of private lands contributed to increased use of all public lands.
- 140 - The general resurgence in white-tailed deer abundance which occurred
throughout the nation during the late 1950's and 1960's was thought to
be responsible for masking precise impacts of project construction
within specific project sites. Local white-tailed deer populations
obviously were adversely affected by the habitat destruction associated
with project construction. However, the increased deer abundance in
contiguous areas was sufficient to maintain or increase deer hunting
man-day use within the project impact areas.
It should be emphasized that the accuracy of the FWS planning report
predictions of post-project hunting and fishing man-day use obviously
is dependent on the adequacy and accuracy of the original baseline
assessments of potential fish and wildlife habitats and man-day use within project impact areas. Consequently, the methodology employed
for deriving such assessments assumes paramount importance. Unfortun
ately, the FWS project planning reports provided little or no insight
as to the methodology and parameters involved in deriving either without-the-project or with-the-project predictions. This failure to
include an adequate exposition of the strategies employed within the
FWS project planning reports consititutes a major reporting flaw.
With few exceptions, it appeared that data contained in the FWS plan
ning reports pertinent to fish and wildlife community status evolved
primarily from "windshield" investigation based primarily on informa-
- 141 - tion gleaned from interviews with local state fish and wildlife agency personnel and/or extant literature sources. Thus, in the final analysis, the quality of the FWS planning reports was dependent on the acumen and experience of local information sources, or the largely fortuitous occurrence of previously conducted state fish and wildlife agency investigations conducted within project impact areas to satisfy unrelated objectives.
Also, fish and wildlife resource values catalogued in the FWS planning reports were monitized solely on the basis of ill-defined and widely fluctuating values assessed for man-day fishing and/or hunting use and/or harvest. No monetary value was assessed for fish and wildlife habitat or fish and wildlife communities supported within the project impact areas. The methodologies employed by the FWS for predicting both the scope of project impacts and monetary value assessment proved unsatisfactory.
Hunting man-day use, the principal parameter employed by the FWS and CE for evaluating project impacts on terrestrial wildlife, provides only a partial reflection of actual impacts of project construction on wild life resources. Although the precise level of hunting man-day use intensity is obviously affected by habitat quality and associated densities of wildlife game species, a substantial portion of the increase noted for post-project hunting man-day use appeared to be attributable to improved hunter access to project lands as a result of
- 142 - public ownership. Thus, sole reliance upon hunting man-day use
statistics for project impact assessment may tend to mask actual
adverse project impacts to wildlife habitat. Strategies involving
habitat quality and/or wildlife density assessment would provide a more
equitable assessment of project impacts.
The currently employed methodology for habitat assessment, the Habitat
Evaluation Procedures (HEP) represents a significant improvement over
past practices and, with further refinement, should expedite more
appropriate habitat evaluation procedures in the future.
Also, more realistic monetary assessments for fishing and hunting man-day use values could be achieved by utilizing prorated replacement
costs (provision of habitat, access, etc.) to provide equivalent
numbers of fishing and hunting man-days lost as a result of project construction, rather than relying on angler and/or hunter expenditures per man-day as employed in the past.
Project construction effected profound changes in local land/water
relationships with commensurate effects in pre-project fish and wild life communities within project impact areas. Prior to project con struction, the total area acquired in fee for the twenty projects
[321,585 ha (794,627 ac)] included 305,260 ha (754,286 ac) of land and only 16,326 ha (40,341 ac) of aquatic habitat (primarily free flowing streams) amounting to a land/water ratio of approximately 18.7:1.
- 143 - After project construction, the fee land/water ratio was tilted decidedly towards aquatic habitat. Only 159,180 ha (393,328 ac) of project fee land remained above lake summer conservation pool elevation
(a decline of some 48 percent from pre-project values), while overall aquatic habitat averaged a ten-fold increase over pre-project condi tions [from 16,326 ha (40,341 ac) to 162,404 ha (401,299 ac)].
While representing a bonanza for aquatic and wildlife communities asociated with lentic waters, impoundment of these free flowing streams
severely penalized lotic aquatic and terrestrial wildlife communities.
In addition to the average 48 percent reduction of terrestrial habitat
registered within the project impact areas following project construc tion, project lands remaining above the summer conservation pool area were often located in an extremely narrow peripheral band around the lake perimeter which severely restricted opportunities for optimum wildlife resource development.
Also, the quality of the terrestrial habitat remaining above the perm anent summer conservation pools was further compromised by temporary flooding. On the average, one-third of the fee land acquired above the summer conservation pool elevation was located within the 5-year flood pool and one-half within the maximum flood pool. Dworshak and Ice
Harbor were the only projects which did not experience flooding of peripheral lands, as flood storage was not authorized above summer conservation pool elevation at either project.
- 144 - All available terrestrial habitat owned in fee was subject to periodic
flooding at five projects. Land for these projects was purchased under
the aegis of the "Eisenhower Land Purchase Policy" which mandated fee
purchase of only those lands included within the 5-year flood pool, with lands remaining within the maximum flood pool secured by easement.
Although unequivocal cause and effect documentation was lacking to
specifically attribute culpability to project construction, conversion
of downstream bottomland wildlife habitat to agriculture was acceler
ated after construction of two projects which provided substantial downstream flood protection. In addition to the increased flood protection for the downstream flood plain afforded by project construc tion, sharply increasing prices of soy beans and other agricultural
crops plus the general nationwide increase in farmland prices which occurred concurrently with project construction, may have been equally
responsible for the increased rate of agricultural conversion noted in post-project years.
The loss of riparian and associated bottomland timber habitat within the reservoir basin was particularly adverse to indigenous wildlife communities, particularly waterfowl (primarily wood ducks), shorebirds,
furbearers and forest game species. A total of 1,727 km (1,074 mi) of
stream were inundated by the twenty reservoirs. The unique stream
riparian habitat lost as a result of project construction was only
- 145 - partially offset by the newly created lake riparian habitat provided along the 5,857 km (3,640 mi) shoreline length of the newly impounded reservoirs.
The value of the lake riparian habitat for wildlife varied considerably at the various projects. Although substantially different in vegeta tive cover and terrain from the original stream riparian habitat, habitat valuable to wildlife communities eventually developed on the shoreline of some projects with minimal water level fluctuation and sufficiently ample fee purchase area to prevent encroachment from intensive agricultural and housing development. However, at projects constructed under the aegis of the restrictive land purchase con straints imposed by the "Eisenhower Policy," intensive land development by contiguous private land owners considerably impaired the quality of the shoreline area for wildlife.
More substantial amounts of land were purchased under the more liberal policies adopted for reservoir projects authorized after 1962 following implementation of the "Joint Policies of the Departments of the Inter ior and the Army Relative to Reservoir Project Lands." This policy provided for fee purchase of the lands encompassed by the maximum flood pool plus a peripheral buffer strip extending 91 m (300 ft) horizontal ly.
However, even with the greater latitude provided by this policy, the CE
- 146 - strongly resisted requests from the FWS for purchasing lands specific
ally for wildlife resource mitigation and/or enhancement. Most of the
lands subsequently available for terrestrial wildlife resources devel
opment were located within authorized maximum flood pool elevations or were fortuitously acquired for other project purposes. Additional
lands were also acquired from willing sellers to block out purchase boundaries.
The additional publicly-owned terrestrial wildlife habitat provided by the more liberal land acquisition policy adopted after 1962 contributed greatly towards partially offsetting the documented losses of wildlife habitat engendered by project construction. Every effort should be maintained to preserve in perpetuity such continguous lands. Equally important to their preservation in public ownership, every effort should be made to insure that as much of these lands as possible are dedicated and managed for wildlife purposes.
With few exceptions, most of the habitat improvement and other fish and wildlife activities undertaken on project lands were conducted and financed by state and/or federal fish and wildlife agencies. The cost associated with these largely wildlife resource mitigation activities is more properly a project obligation. All such costs, including pre-construction fish and wildlife resource planning and associated investigations, should be accommodated by prior authorizing legisla tion.
- 147 - As an interim measure greater usage should be made of Condition 5 provisions to assist the state in recovering wildlife management costs.
Also, the CE would be well advised to initiate and/or increase wildlife habitat improvement efforts on all amenable CE-managed lands, particu larly lands currently dedicated for wildlife purposes. As a necessary first step, the CE should accelerate the adoption of fencing policies similar to those administered by the Tulsa District throughout all appropriate divisions and districts. The reduction of indiscriminate livestock grazing on project lands is one of the most cost effective single actions that can be undertaken to improve wildlife habitat.
Also, additional opportunities exist on many projects for conducting labor intensive wildlife cooperative habitat improvement ventures with appropriate state and federal agencies that would require minimal capital expenditures.
- 148 - LITERATURE CITED
(1) U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Joint Federal- State-Private Conservation Organizations. 1971. Action report, conservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife in the national water resources program. U.S. Dept, of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
(2) Army Corps of Engineers, Chief of Engineers, 1974. Summary descriptions CY 1973 annual reports civil works recreation- resource management systems (RRMS). U.S. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.
(3) Army Corps of Engineers, Chief of Engineers. 1982. Summary descriptions of CY 1981 annual report civil works recreation resource management systems (RRMS). Acquisition policy printout. U.S. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.
(4) Rees, Marvin W. 1977. Memo referencing ER 405-1-860 and ER 1130-2-400 regarding Condition 5, standard fish and wildlife license. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
(5) Sport Fishing Institute. 1976-1983. Case studies cited, compiled by Robert G. Martin, Norville S. Prosser, Gilbert C. Radonski and Richard H. Stroud. Study to evaluate the adequacy and predictive value of fish and wildlife planning recommenda tions at Corps of Engineers reservoir projects. Sport Fishing Institute for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Contract Nos. DACW73-74-C-0040 (1976-1979) and DACW31-79-C- 0005 (1981-1983): Allegheny Lake Project (1982), 150 pp. Beaver Lake Project (1981), 146 pp. Beltzville Lake Project (1981), 90 pp. Carlyle Lake Project (1978), 103 pp. Clark Hill Lake Project (1977), 64 pp. Council Grove Lake Project (1978), 69 pp. Deer Creek Lake Project (1983) Dworshak Lake Project (1981), 228 pp. East Lynn Lake Project (1979), 93 pp. Eufaula Lake Project (1982), 116 pp. Ice Harbor Lock and Dam Project (1977), 77 pp. John Redmond Lake Project (1976), 41 pp. J. Percy Priest Lake Project (1983) Keystone Lake Project (1979), 107 pp. Lake Sharpe Project (1976), 70 pp. Littleville Lake Project (1976), 29 pp. Okatibbee Lake Project (1979), 73 pp. Pat Mayse Lake Project (1983) Pine Flat Lake Project (1983) Red Rock Lake Project (1982), 121 pp.
- 149 - (6) U.S. Fish and Wil.dlife Service. 1980. Habitat evaluation proced ures (HEP), ESM 102, 103 and 104. U.S. Dept, of the Inte rior, Washington, D.C.
(7) Udall, Stewart L. and Stephen Ailes. 1962. Joint policy of the Departments of the Interior and of the Army relative to reservoir project lands. Published in the Federal Register, February 22, 1962
(8) Weicking, E.H. 1960. Report on the panel on recreational values of the Subcommittee on Evaluation Standards (Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources). May 24, 1960
(9) Anderson, Clinton P. 1962. Policies, standards and procedures in the formulation, evaluation, and review of plans for use and development of water and related land resources. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., May, 1962
- 150 - APPENDICES
- 151 - Table 1. — The 120 Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects remaining after initial screening to eliminate older and smaller projects
Division and Project Division and Project District name District name
Lower Mississippi Valley North Pacific (cont'd) New Orleans Lake O' the Pines (TX) Seattle Pend Oreille (ID) Texarkana (TX) Chief Joseph (WA) St Louis Carlyle (IL) Libby (MT) Shelbyville (IL) Rend (IL) Walla Walla Dworshak (ID) Vicksburg Arkabutla (MS) Ice Harbor (WA) Ouachita (LA) Lower Monumental (WA) Degray (AR) McNary (OR) Enid (MS) Grenada (MS) Ohio River Sardis (MS) Huntington Belleville (OH) Anthony Meldahl (OH) Missouri River Deer Creek (OH) Kansas Milford (KS) Dillon (OH) Perry (KS) East Lynn (WV) Pomme de Terre (MO) Fish Trap (KY) Rathbun (IA) Greenup (KY) Stockton (MO) Summersville Tuttle Creek (KS) Sutton (WV) Wilson (KS) Louisville Brookville (IN) Barren River (KY) Omaha Sharpe (SD) C.J. Brown (OH) Lewis and Clark (SD) Green River (KY) Oahe (SD) Monroe (IN) Nolin (KY) North Atlantic Rough River (KY) Baltimore Curwensville (PA) Nashville Barkley (KY) Foster Joseph Sayers (PA) Cheatham (TN) Philadelphia Beltzville (PA) Cordell Hull (TN) Dale Hollow (TN) North Central J. Percy Priest (TN) Rock Island Coralville (IA) Laurel River (KY) Red Rock (IA) Old Hickory (TN) St. Paul Eau Galle (WI) Pittsburgh Allegheny (PA) Shenango (PA) New England Colebrook (CT) Woodcock (PA) East Brimfield (MA) Hopkinton-Everett (NH) South Atlantic North Hartland (VT) Charleston W. Kerr Scott (NC) Littleville (MA) Mobile Allatoona (GA) West Hill (MA) Sidney Lanier (GA) Claiborne (AL) North Pacific George W. Andrews (GA) Portland Fall Creek (OR) Seminole (GA) Foster (OR) Millers Ferry (AL) Green Peter (OR) Okatibbee (MS) Hills Creek (OR) Walter F. George (GA) John Day (OR) The Dalles (WA)
152 Table 1. — The 120 Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects remaining after in itia l screening to eliminate older and smaller projects
Division and Project Division and Project D istrict name D is tric t name
South Atlantic (cont'd) Southwestern (cont'd) Savannah Clark H ill (GA) Little Rock Beaver (AR) Hartwell (GA) Bull shoals (AR) Wilmington John H. Kerr (VA) Dardanelle (AR) Philpott (VA) Greers Ferry (AR) Table Rock (MO) South P a cific Tulsa Broken Bow (OK) Sacramento Black Butte (CA) Council Grove (KS) Isabella (CA) Elk City (KS) New Hogan (CA) Eufaula (OK) Pine Flat (CA) John Redmond (KS) San Francisco Mendocino (CA) Keystone (OK) Marion (KS) Southwestern Millwood (AR) Fort Worth Bardwell (TX) Oologah (OK) Canyon (TX) Pat Mayse (TX) Lavon (TX) Pine Creek (OK) Lewisville (TX) Robert S. Kerr (OK) Navarro M ills (TX) Toronto (KS) Proctor (TX) Sam Rayburn (TX) Somerville (TX) S t ill house Hollow (TX) Waco (TX)
^These projects, though completed prior to 1953, were evaluated in direct response to requests made by fie ld personnel.
153 - Table 2. -- Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects with reasonably adequate pre-construction data to allow both fish and wildlife planninq evaluation 3
Division and Project District name
Lower Mississippi Valley New Orleans Texarkana (TX) St Louis Carlyle (IL) Shelbyville (IL) Rend (IL) Vicksburg Degray (AR) Ouachita (AR) Missouri River Kansas City Pomme De Terre (MO) Omaha Sharpe (SD) Lewis and Clark (SD) North Atlantic Bai timori Foster Joseph Sayers (PA) Philadelphia Beltzville (PA) North Central Rock Island Coral vil le (LA) Red Rock (LA)
New England Colebrook (CT) Hopkinton-Everett (NH) Littleville (MA) North Pacific Portland Fall Creek (OR) John Day (OR) Seattle Libby (MT) Walla Walla Dworshak (ID) Ice Harbor (WA) Little Goose (WA) Ohio River Huntington Anthony Meldahl (OH) Deer Creek (OH) East Lynn (WV) Fishtrap (DY) Louisville Brookville (IN) C.J. Brown (OH) Nolin (KY) Nashvi11e Cheatham (TN) Cordell Hull (TN) J. Percy Priest (TN) Laurel River (KY) Pittsburgh Allegheny (PA) Shenango (PA) Woodcock (PA) South Atlantic Charieston W. Kerr Scott (NC) Mobi1e Claiborne (AL) George W. Andrews (GA) Seminole (FL) Mi 1lers Ferry (AL) Okatibbee (MS) Walter F. George (GA) Savannah Clark Hill (GA) Hartwell (GA) Wilmi ngton John H. Kerr (VA)
154 Table 2. — Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects with reasonably adequate pre-construction data to allow both fish and wildlife planning evaluation (continued)
Division and Project District name
South Pacific Sacramento Black Butte (CA) New Hogan (CA) Pine Flat (CA) San Francisco Mendocino (CA)
Southwestern Fort Worth Bardwell (TX) Canyon (TX) Lavon (TX) Lewisville, (TX) Navarro Mills (TX) Proctor (TX) Sam Rayburn (TX) Somerville (TX) Stillhouse Hollow (TX) Waco (TX) Little Rock Beaver (AR) Bull Shoals (AR) Dardanelle (AR) Greers Ferry (AR) Table Rock (MO) Tulsa Broken Bow (OK) Council Grove (KS) Elk City (KS) Eufaula (OK) John Redmond (KS) Keystone (OK) Marion (KS) Millwood (AR) Oologah (OK) Pat Mayse (TX) Pine Creek (OK) Robert S. Kerr (OK) Toronto (KS)
155 - Table 3. — Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir projects with adequate pre-existing data available to allow evaluation of pre-impoundment and post-impoundment fish and wildlife conditions (Category I)
Division and Project District name
Lower Mississippi Valley St. Louis Shelbyville (IL) Carlyle (IL) Missouri River Omaha Sharpe (SD)
New England Littleville (MA)
North Pacific Walla Walla Dworshak (ID) Ice Harbor (WA)
Ohio River Huntington East Lynn (WV)
South Atlantic Mobile Okatibbee (MS) Savannah Clark Hill (GA)
Southwestern Tul sa Council Grove (KS) Elk City (KS) John Redmond (KS) Marion (KS) Keystone (OK)
- 156 - Table 4. -- Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects with adequate pre-impoundment fish and wildlife data and with post-impoundment fisheries data available (Category II)
Division and Project District name
Lower Mississippi Valley St. Louis Rend (IL)1 , Vicksburg Ouachita (AR)1
Missouri River Kansas City Pomme de Terre (MO)
North Central Rock Island Coral vil le (LA)J Red Rock (LA) 1
North Pacific Walla Walla Little Goose (WA)
Ohio River Huntington Deer Creek (OH) Fish Trap (KY) Louisville Noi in (KY) Nashville cneatnamCheatham (TN)* , Cordell Hull (TN)1 J. Percy Priest (TN)
South Atlantic Charleston W. Kerr Scott (NC) Savannah Hartwell (GA)1
South Pacific Sacramento Pi ne .FI at (CA)
Southwestern Little Rock Beaver (AR)1 , Bull Shoals (AR)1. Greers Ferry (AR)1 Table Rock (MO) Tulsa Broken Bow (OK) Toronto (KS)1
Limited post-impoundment wildlife information available.
157 Table 5. -- Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects with adequate pre-impoundment fish and wildlife data and with adequate post-impoundment wildlife data available (Category III)
Division and Project Di strict name
Missouri River Omaha Lewis & Clark (SD)*
North Atlantic Philadelphia Beltzville (PA)*
Ohio River Pittsburgh Allegheny (PA) Shenango (PA)*
South Atlantic Mobi1e Claiborne (AL) Millers Ferry (AL) Walter F. George (GA)*
Southwestern Tulsa Eufaula (OK)} Oologah (OK)1 , Pine Creek (0K)7 Pat Mayse (TX) 1
^Limited post-impoundment fisheries data available.
158 - Table 6. — Army Corps of Engineers reservoir projects with adequate pre-impoundment fish and wildlife data but with inadequate post-impound ment data for either fisheries or wildlife (Category IV)
Division and Project District name
Lower Mississippi Valley New Orleans Texarkana (TX)1 Vicksburg De Gray (AR)
North Atlantic Baltimore Foster Joseph Sayers (PA)
New England Colebrook River (CT)2 . Hopkinton-Everett (NH)1
North Pacific Portland John Day (OR) Fall Creek (OR) Seattle Libby (MT) 1,2
Ohio River Huntington Anthony Meldahl (KY) Nashville Laurel River (KY) Louisville Brookville (IN)« 1 C.J. Brown (OHr Pittsburgh Woodcock (PA)
South Atlantic Mobi1e Seminole (FL)1 George W. Andrews (GA) Wilmington John H. Kerr (VA) 2
South Pacific Sacramento Black Butte (CA)« New Hogan (CA) « San Francisco Mendocino (CA)
Southwestern Fort Worth Bardwel1 (TX)1 « Canyon (TX). Lavon (TX) 1 . Lewisville (TX)1 . Navarro Mills (TX); « Proctor (TX) . Sam Rayburn (TX)f^ Somerville (TX) 1 Still house Hollow (TX)1»2 Waco (TX) Little Rock Dardanelle (AR) Tulsa Millwood (AR) Robert S. Kerr (OK)
Limited post-impoundment wildlife data available.
2Limited post-impoundment fisheries data available.
159 Table 7. — List of cooperators that supplied information used during preparation of twenty case-history evaluations
CE study project Agency Individual cooperators
Allegheny U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Thomas W. Fleeger John J. Ewers Edward Smith James L. Purdy Michael Koryak
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ed Perry John K. Anderson
Pennsylvania Game Commission Glen W. Bowers Kenneth L. Hess William Shope
U.S. Forest Service Russell Hill Phillip 0. Weston
New York Oept. of Environmental Conservation Terry L. Moore James Pomeroy
Seneca Nation of Indians Barry Snyder
Wildlife Management Institute Gordon Robertson
Beaver Arkansas Game & Fish Commission Mitchell Rogers Bobby Conley Bill Keith Steve Wilson Andrew Hulsey
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service A1 Houser Dave Morais Robert Jenkins Curtis James
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Robert Anderson David Burrough Bob Durham Bill Mathis
Wildlife Management Institute Murray Walton
Beltzvi1 le U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Raymond Smith Joe Devlin Jeff Radley Wayne Freed Vince Hill
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Ed Perry
Pennsylvania Game Commission Nick Vukovich Jacob Serfuss, Jr. David Moyer Rickalon Hoopes Craig Billingsley Del Graff Table 7. — List of cooperators that supplied information used during preparation of twenty case-history evaluations (continued)
CE study project Agency Individual cooperators
Beltzville Wildlife Management Institute Gordon Robertson
Carlyle Illinois Department of Conservaton William Boyd Arnold Fritz Merrell Collins Floyd Kringer Tom Johnson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service John Powpowski Bruce Kline Maury Splettstaszer (Ret.)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Owen Dutt Dick Cameron Jay Gore Jerry Vaill A1 LeGrand
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Dr. Edwin Herricks
Illinois Natural History Survey Dr. Wendell Larrimore Dr. Frank Bell rose
Wildlife Management Institute Dr. Keith Harmon
Clark Hill U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service John Hester
Georgia Game & Fish Division John Crockford Terry Kile Don Johnson David Waller
South Carolina Dept, of Wildlife & Marine Resources Hampton Williams Robert Gooding
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers David Brady Tom Schulte
Wildlife Management Institute Leonard Foote
Council Grove Kansas Fish & Game Commission Bob Hartmann Don Dick Charles Howe Charles Swank Troy Schroeder
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service George Harrington
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buell Atkins Jim Randolph Cleon Linton
Wildlife Management Institute Murray T. Walton
Deer Creek U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ed Goodno
- 161 Table 7. -- List of cooperators that supplied information used during preparation of twenty case-history evaluations (continued)
CE study project Agency Individual cooperators
Deer Creek U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Charles Johnson
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Kenneth Cronnemeyer
Ohio Dept, of Natural Resources Ronald Schaefer Dr. Jonathan Bart Karen M. Cunningham David Watts David Graham
Wildlife Management Institute Gordon Robertson
Dworshak U.S. Army Corps of Engineers John McKern Dick Knowles Jerry Berry
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Richard Fisher George Harrington Wayne Olson
Idaho Dept, of Fish & Game Lloyd Oldenburg Walt Browne Ted Meske Stephen Pettit
Wildlife Management Institute William Morse
East Lynn U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ed Goodno Pat Kantley Mike White Ellis Smith
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service James McKevitt
West Virginia Dept, of Natural Resources Bert Pierce Steve Muth Grady Coda Ray Knotts James Rawson
Wildlife Management Institute Chester McConnell
Eufaula Oklahoma Dept, of Wildlife Conservation Dr. Charles Wallace Dr. Harold Namminga Greg Summers J. Fred Hietman Greg Wigtail Ken Bankwitz Byron Mosher Greg Duffy Bill Scherman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buell Atkins Jim Randolph Ben Carroll Jim Holderfield
- 162 - Table 7. -- List of cooperators that supplied information used during preparation of twenty case-history evaluations (continued)
CE study project Agency Individual cooperators
Eufaula U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sidney Wilkerson Ken Frazier
Wildlife Management Institute Murray Walton
Ice Harbor Washington Dept, of Game Reade Brown Cliff Millenback Wendell Oliver James Stout Bill Rees E.H. LeMeir
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Norvell Brown Charles Chambers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers John McKern
Wildlife Management Institute Wi11iam Morse
John Redmond Kansas Fish & Game Commission Richard S. Wetterstein Bob Hartmann Don Dick Johnny Ray Tom Gengerke
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Michael J. Long Sidney Wilkerson Bill Atkins Paul Hamilton Charles Bruner
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers William Nail on, Jr.
Wildlife Management Insitute Keith Harmon
J. Percy Priest U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Joe Cathey Jackie McKitrick Roger Deitrick Jim Dyer
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Ron Fox Hudson Nichols Earl Hayes Larry McGinn Bob Pugh Wayne Pollock Doug Pelren
Tennessee Technological University Dr. Bromfield Ridley Steven Bloemer
Wildlife Management Institute Chester McConnell
Keystone U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buell Atkins Guy Cabbiness Harry Clement
163 Table 7. — List of cooperators that supplied information used during preparation of twenty case-history evaluations (continued)
CE study project Agency Individual cooperators
Keystone U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wendell Jamison Loren Mason Cliff Hays William Budnick
Oklahoma Dept, of Wildlife Conservation Charles Wallace Byron Moser Kim Erickson Dave Combs Joe Hardridge John Lowery Jim Mense Greg Summers Thomas White
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Charles Scott
Wildlife Management Institute Murray Walton
Li tt1 evi lie Massachusetts Div. of Fisheries & Wildlife Colton H. Bridges Joe Bergin Leo M. Daly
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Melvin R. Evans Edwin H. Robinson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers V.L. Andreliunas
Okatibbee Mississippi Dept, of Wildlife Conservation Edsel Cliburn Dan Cotton Jack Herring John Shirley Lowry Townsend
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service John Hester Charles Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bill Pennington
Wildlife Management Institute Chester McConnell
Pat Mayse Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Phillip Durocher Hayden Haucke Bobby Alexander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buell Atkins John Carroll Jim Randolph Paul Grey
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sidney Wilkerson Susan Lauzon
Three B Enterprises Edward W. Bond
Wildlife Management Institute Murray Walton
164 Table 7. — List of cooperators that supplied information used during preparation of twenty case-history evaluations (continued)
CE study project Agency Individual cooperators
Pine Flat U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service James McKivett
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Joe Holmberg Charles Matlock Charles Parnell
California Dept, of Fish & Game Dennis Lee George Nokes
U.S. Forest Service Gary Lehnhausen Gordon Heebner
Kings River Conservation District Bradley Valentine
California State University David Chesemore Paul Dake Larry Martin John Thompson
Wildlife Management Institute William Morse Red Rock U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Frank Colins Charles Kennedy Terry Dowell Teresa Herrin
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Tom Nash Bruce Stebbings
Iowa Conservation Commission Jim Mayhew Richard Bishop Charles Kakac Don Bonneau Larry Mitzner Jim Bruce
Iowa Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit Lynn Braband Dr. Robert Dahlgren
Wildlife Management Institute Dr. Keith Harmon
.ake Sharpe South Dakota Dept, of Game, Fish & Parks Harvey H. Pietz Robert Hanten
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Fred June Gilbert Key Bruce Stebbings
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers David Billman
Wildlife Management Institute Dr. Keith Harmon
165 Table 8. — Summary of project authorizations and FWS report dates
______Authorization______Dates FWS reports Legislative vehicle Purpose Project submitted
Flood Control Act of 1936 Flood control, hydropower Allegheny (PA-NY) 1958, 1961 (P.L. 74-738) Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761) Flood Control Act of 1941 (P.L. 77-228)
Flood Control Act of 1954 Flood control, hydropower, Beaver (AR) 1951, 1960 (P.L. 83-780, Title 2) "other benefits" Flood Control Act of 1958 Municipal and industrial (P.L. 85-500) water supply
Flood Control Act of 1962 Navigation, flood control, Beltzville (PA) 1960, 1961, 1964 (P.L. 87-874) other purposes
Flood Control Act of 1938 Flood control, navigation, Carlyle (IL) 1954, 1962 (P.L. 75-761) water supply Flood Control Act of 1958 (Fish and wildlife added (P.L. 85-500) later)
Flood Control Act of 1944 Hydropower, flood control, Clark Hill (GA-SC) 1946 (P.L. 78-534 water supply
Flood Control Act of 1950 Flood control, water supply Council Grove (KS) 1959, 1961 (P.L. 81-516)
Flood Control Act of 1938 Flood control Deer Creek (OH) 1948, 1961, 1964 (P.L. 75-761) Flood control, "other 1962, Flood Control Act of 1962 Dworshak (ID) 1953, 1960, purposes" (navigation, 1973 (P.L. 87-874) 1968, 1970, hydropower, recreation)
Flood Control Act of 1938 Flood control East Lynn (WV) 1961, 1964, 1964 (P.L. 75-761)
River and Harbor Act of Flood control, hydropower, Eufaula (OK) 1950, 1962 1946 (P.L. 79-525) navigation, water conservation
River and Harbor Act of Water conservation, navigation Ice Harbor (WA) 1959 1945 (P.L. 79-14) irrigation, hydropower
Flood Control Act of 1950 Flood control, water conserva John Redmond (KS) 1961, 1963 (P.L. 81-516) tion, recreation, water c u n n i m Table 8. — Summary of project authorizations and FWS report dates (continued)
Dates FWS reports ______Authorization______Project submitted Legislative vehicle Purpose
J. Percy Priest (TN) 1961 River and Harbor Act of Flood control, hydropower 1946 (P.L. 79-525) Keystone (OK) 1961 Flood Control Act of 1938 Flood control, water supply, (P.L. 75-761) hydropower, navigation Flood Control Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-516) Rivers and Harbors Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-525) Lake Sharpe (SD) 1962 Flood Control Act of 1944 Hydropower, flood control, (P.L. 78-534) navigation, recreation Littleville (MA) 1961 Flood Control Act of 1958 Flood control, water supply (P.L. 85-500) Okatibbee (MS) 1962, 1964 Flood control Act of 1962 Flood control, water quality (P.L. 87-874) control, water supply, recreation Pat Mayse (TX) 1961, 1965 Flood Control Act of 1962 Flood control, municipal and (P.L. 87-874) industrial water supply, fish and wildlife Pine Flat (CA) 1947, 1949, 1964 Flood Control Act of 1944 Flood control, hydropower (P.L. 78-534) Red Rock (IA) 1953, 1960 Flood Control Act of 1938 Flood control, low flow (P.L. 75-761) augmentation Table 9. — Summary of lands Inundated, and lands recommended for acquisition by agencies to accommodate mitigation requirements for 20 case-history projects
Lands recommended Land covered1 for acquisition by conservation to mitigate 5 (summer) pool wildlife losses Lands acquired Project Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac Disposition of recommendation
Allegheny (PA-NY) 4,209 10,400 413 1,0212 None Wildlife agencies dropped this recommendation in subsequent planning reports
Beaver (AR) 11,077 27,370 None None --
Beltzville (PA) 359 888 None None —
Carlyle (IL) 10,292 25,430 Unspecified area None Essentially recommended blocking in or nearly surrounded tracts of land at flood pool elevation - Eisenhower policy in effect - not implemented
Clark H111 (GA-SC) 26,876 66,410 None None —
Council Grove (KS) 1,209 2,988 293 725 None Ce advised of "violdent local opposition" to earlier land acquisition for project purposes. CE denied request based on benefit/cost analysis: b/c = 0.14
Deer Creek (OH) 444 1,096 395 975 395 9753 See footnote
Dworshak (ID) 6,645 14,619 3,893 9,6204 1,630 4,028 Acquired under authority of original project authorization via land exchange with Bureau of Land Management
East Lynn (WV) 370 914 None None —
Eufaula (OK) 40,257 99,473 5,197 12,841 None CE opposed acquisition, required 5-step justifica tion which was never prosecuted Ice Harbor (WA) 2,175 5,375 None None
John Redmond (KS) 3,642 9,000 1,505 3,720 None Authority for acquisition given by Congress in 1965. FWS changed mind and recommended no acquisition in 1970
J. Percy Priest (TN) 5,476 13,530 263 650 263 6503 See footnote
Keystone (OK) 7,258 17,935 3,701 9,145 None CE noted dual acquisition would be required to accommodate request. Denied request on basis of benefit/cost analysis: b/c = 0.10
Lake Sharpe (SD) 14,245 35,200 1,077 2,660 None State conditionally endorsed if land acquired only from willing sellers. CE rejected willing seller stipulation as unfeasible and did not proceed Table 9. -- Summary of lands Inundated, and lands recommended for acquisition by agencies to accommodate mitigation requirements for 20 case-history projects (continued)
Lands recommended Land covered1 for acquisition by conservation to mitigate 5 (summer) pool wildlife losses Lands acquired Project Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac Disposition of recommendation
Littleville (MA) 107 264 243 600 None Independent request by state after submittal of planning report. No follow-up on request
Okatibbee (MS) 1,503 3,713 1,133 2,800 1,133 2,8003 See footnote
Pat Mayse (TX) 2,369 5,854 486 1,200 304 750 Purhased after receiving Congressional authority in 1968
Pine Flat (CA) 1,691 4,179 None None Red Rock (IA) 4,177 19,323 None None —
TOTAL 143,652 354,958 18,599 45,957 1,7913 4,4253 -- 2,376 5,870
Does not include water areas covered by conservation pools. ? Requested for construction of sub-impoundments.
^Incidentally accommodated by OOI/DOD Interagency Agreement on Land Acquisition adopted in February, 1962.
\ands requested for mitigation ranged from 10,522 ha (26,000 ac) to 1,059 ha (2,616 ac) over quarter century of negotiation, current requests total 3,893 ha (9,620 ac) including 1,630 ha (4,028 ac) acquired. 5 Doesn't include lands acquired but which were not recommended for aquisition to mitigate wildlife losses • Table 10. — Oates of land requests for wildlife management and record of implementation of General Plans at study projects
Date CE received request from fish and wildlife Date of initial agency from lands under Requested lands Date General Project impoundment General Plan clearly identified Plan signed
A11egheny April, 1966 August, 1958 No N.A. Beaver May, 1965 September, 1960 No December, 1965 Beltzville February, 1971 May, 1964 Yes January, 1971 Carlyle April, 1967 February, 1954 No May, 1967 Clark Hill December, 1951 N.A. No November, 1953 February, 1956 Council Grove October, 1964 March, 1963 Yes August, 1965 Deer Creek April, 1968 November, 1961 Yes January, 1970 Dworshak September, 1971 N.A.2 Yes N.A.3 East Lynn March, 1972 August, 1961 Yes N.A. Eufaula February, 1964 November, 1962 Yes January, 1973 Ice Harbor 3 November, 1961 May, 1959 Yes N.A. John Redmond September, 1964 November, 1961 Yes September, 1966^ J. Percy Priest December, 1967 April, 1961 Yes November, 1968 Keystone September, 1964 December, 1961 Yes October, 1972 Littleville September, 1964 November, 1961 No N.A. Okatibbee November, 1968 July, 1962 Yes August, 1969 Pat Mayse September, 1967 March, 1961 Yes November, 1971 Pine Flat February, 1954 N.A. N.A. N.A. Red Rock March, 1969 October, 1962 No May, 1967, 1968 1969, 1971 Lake Sharpe October, 1963 December, 1962 Yes June, 1973
N.A. - not applicable
*Fee lands transferred to U.S. Forest Service 2 Fee lands requested for wildlife management but not specifically sought by state wildlife agency under benerai Plan
agency"^ man39ed f°r wildlife under Cooperative Agreement between CE and appropriate state wildlife
4 In addition to General Plan agreement between CE and appropriate state wildlife agency, other project lands managed by Fish and Wildlife Service under Cooperative Agreement
170 Table 11 — Lands flooded, lands acquired in fee and lands managed for fish and wildlife under General Plan and license by state or federal wildlife agency at twenty U.S. Army Cdrps of Engineers projects
Fee lands managed for wildlife under Conservation Fee land above General Plan and license Percentage (summer) pool conservation pool Land Water fee land Project Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac under license
Allegheny (PA-NY) 4,877 12,050 1,073 2,6s!1 0 0 0 0 0.0 Beaver (AR) 11,421 28,220 3,974 9,820 2,339 5,780 11,421 28,220 58.9 Beltzville (PA) 383 947 1,081 2,670 171 422 0 0 15.8 Carlyle (IL) 10,522 26,000 4,516 11,159 3,310 8,180 3,035 7,500 73.3 Clark Hill (GA-SC) 28,329 70,000 34,138 84,353 11,523 28,473 1,860 4,597 34.1 Council Grove (KS) 1,327 3,280 1,093 2,700 622 1,538 445 1,100 57.0 Deer Creek (OH) 517 1,277 2,413 5,962 1,565 3,867« 0 0 64.9« Dworshak (ID) 6,644 16,417 13,161 32,521 10,118 25,000^ 0 0 76.9 L East Lynn (WV) 407 1,005 9,521 23,527 0 0 0 0 0.0 Eufaula (OK) 41,360 102,200 20,715 51,187 7,463 18,440 5,436 13,433 36.0« Ice Harbor (WA) 3,389 8,375 1,366 3,375 750 1,8522 0 0 54.9^ John Redmond (KS) 3,804 9,400 8,585 21,214 7,340 18,1373 745 1,841 85.5 J. Percy Priest (TN) 5,747 14,200 7,725 19,089 2,543 6,284* 0 0 32.9 Keystone (OK) 10,530 26,020 12,697 31,373 4,970 12,280« 1,303 3,220 39.1 Lake Sharpe (SD) 22,582 55,800 9,702 23,973 639 1,580* 0 0 6.6 Littleville (MA) 111 275 569 1,405 0 0 0 0 0.0 Okatibbee (MS) 1,538 3,800 2,896 7,155 2,015 4,980 128 316 69.6 Pat Mayse (TX) 2,425 5,993 5,819 14,378 2,895 7,154 471 1,163 49.8 Pine Flat (CA) 1,821 4,500 3,555 8,784 0 0 0 0 0.0 Red Rock (IA) 4,670 11,540 14,582 36,032 8,467 20,922 1,833 4,530 58.0
TOTALS (Average) 162,404 401,299 159,181 393,328 66,730 164,889 26,677 65,920 (41.5)
1yitle to an additional 4,616 ha (11,405 ac) was transferred to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) by Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This land is managed by U.S. Forest Service personnel in close cooperation with the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) under terms of an MOU. 2 Managed under cooperative agreement with state wildlife agency in lieu of license. 3 596 ha (1,472 ac) under license to state, remaining 7,489 ha (18,506 ac) managed under Cooperatiev Agreement by FWS. 4 Only 520 ha (1,284 ac) under license to state, remaining 2,024 ha (5,000 ac) managed cooperatively by state and CE under Memorandum of Agreement.
^Licensed to state under authority of P.L. 78-534, no General Plan in effect. Table 12. — List of fishery habitat improvement recommendations submitted by fish and wildlife agencies for each of the 20 study projects
Projects
Fishery management recommendations
Impoundment recommendations Timber clearing plan x XXX XX X X X Establish minimum pool X X Pollution control x X X X X Timing of initial impoundment X Prevent (control) shoreline erosion X Provide large area of storage X Fish attractors X Drawdown/fluctuation controls x XXX X X X X Fish passage Facilitate movement X X Prevent movement X Tailwater recommendations Special outlet design/discharge elevation XXX X XX X XX Omit channel modification X Install fish screens Minimum discharge rates X XX x XXX X X XX X x Tributary recommendations Improve spawning habitat X Table 13. -- Minimum flow requests and actual post-construction conditions at 20 CE reservoirs
Minimum flow requests ^ submitted by fish and Minimum flow wildlife agencies provided Project (second-ft) (second-ft) Comments
Allegheny (PA-NY) 500 500 FWS concurred with CE flow proposal
Beaver (AR) 30 see comment Seepage of 25 second ft. Release of 85-200 d.s.f. (minimum daily flow) during summer months depending on air temperature
Beltzville (PA) 352-50 50 Increased by CE from 35 sec. ft. to accommodate FWS
Carlyle (11) 502 50 50 sec. ft. currently considered inadequate by local fisheries personnel
Clark Hill (GA-SC) Not addressed 5,800-6,300 Required at Augusta, Georgia
Council Grove (KS) 15 5 CE planned for 10-12 cfs
Deer Creek (OH) 10+2 10 Although deeming more would be better, concurred with CE plan
Dworshak (ID) 2,000 1,000 Other release strategies adopted to facilitate steelhead fishing
East Lynn (WV) 10 10 CE adopted FWS recommendation
Eufaula (OK) 200 0 Seepage of 670 sec. ft. Other than seepage, water only released during power generation
Ice Harbor (WA) Not addressed 10,000
John Redmond (KS) 75 30 Minimum flow released at request of Environmental Protection Agency
J. Percy Priest (TN) Not addressed 0 Other than seepage, water only released when generating power Other than seepage, water only released when generating power Keystone (OK) 300 0
Lake Sharpe (SD)
Littleville (MA) Amount equal to inflow 5 Provided by state legislation for municipal water supply
Okatibbee (MS) 202 10-100 10 cfs November - March, 50 cfs April - June, 100 cfs July, August and September
Pat Mayse (TX) 8 0 Morning glory surface release provided, outlfow equals inflow (minus evaporation)
Pine Flat (CA) 250-100 25 Request lowered by fish and wildlife agencies over years - minimum flow agreement reached in 1964
Red Rock (IA) 3002 300 Downstream flow augmentation transferred to Saylorville due to loss of storage and to silt accumulation at Red Rock
^o es not include seepage through dam and appurtenant structures. 2 CE’s release plans "^Amount normally provided as seepage through dam and appurtenant structures Table 14. — Tailwater problem areas identified during the investigations of the 20 case history projects
Fish losses Inadequate Oxygen Toxic Project through dam discharge deficiencies elements (Fe, Mn)
Allegheny X Beaver Beltzville Carlyle X Clark Hill Council Grove X Deer Creek X X X Dworshak X East Lynn X X Eufaula X X Ice Harbor John Redmond X J. Percy Priest X X X Keystone X Littleville Okatibbee X Pine Flat X X1 Pat Mayse X Red Rock Lake Sharpe
^When hydropower generation is initiated. 890 846 382 222 179 705 830 630 1,302 2,400 4,212 1,993 4,268 2,250 1,004 3,647 1,023 1,850 1,605 4,461 3,220 4 ______48 32 22 16 34 29 36 63 30 42 46 16 31 66 53 70 44 25 74 80 (loss) (loss) (gain) 264 914 888 5,854 3,713 4,179 5,375 9,000 1,096 2,988 10,322 17,935 13,530 41,200 14,619 99,473 66,410 10,400 25,430 27,370 Net exchange Net 360,960 107 370 444 359 1,691 1,503 4,177 2,369 7,258 5,476 3,642 2,175 1,209 6,645 4,209 16,674 40,257 10,292 26,876 11,077 Ha Ha Ac Land Water 146,081 ______. . 1.0 3.10 1.90 2.40 2.00 1.20 5.10 2.30 0.43 1.30 2.00 0.50 0.40 1.21 4.70 0.82 2.80 0.43 0.35 0.22 23.40 atio1 atio1 Area change Percent R 275 947 3,800 5,993 4,500 9,400 1,005 1,277 8,375 3,280 11,540 14,200 55,800 26,020 16,417 70,000 26,000 12,050 28,220 401,299 102,200 111 407 517 383 1,821 1,538 2,425 4,670 5,747 3,804 3,389 1,327 6,644 4,877 10,530 22,582 41,360 10,522 11,421 28,329 162,404 Post-project area Post-project 1,405 7,155 8,784 3,375 5,962 2,700 2,670 9,820 2,651 14,378 36,032 31,373 23,973 19,089 21,214 51,187 32,521 23,527 11,159 84,353 393,328 Ha Ha Ac Ha 569 ______3,555 5,819 2,869 7,725 9,702 1,366 8,585 1,093 9,521 2,413 1,081 1,073 4,516 3,974 14,582 12,697 13,161 20,715 34,138 159,180 i i 4 6 3 8 19 38 40 49 76 55 39 26 20 64 42 60 44 125 146 152 269 Ratio Land Water 11 87 91 59 139 321 670 400 181 292 570 850 __ 1,220 8,085 3,000 1,798 2,727 3,590 1,650 40,341 14,600 Water 4 35 56 37 73 24 130 494 162 271 118 728 231 344 668 3,272 8,337 1,214 1,104 1,453 16,326 Pre-project area area Pre-project 1,669 8,750 5,688 7,058 3,558 12,963 10,868 20,232 46,342 65,173 32,619 30,214 49,308 24,441 47,140 36,589 13,051 37,190 754,286 150,660 150,763 Land Land 675 ______5,246 8,188 4,398 3,541 2,856 9,769 2,302 1,440 5,282 18,755 13,201 19,955 26,376 12,228 19,078 60,972 14,808 15,051 61,014 305,260 1,680 7,239 5,980 3,617 13,284 10,955 20,371 47,572 79,773 33,289 57,393 11,750 30,614 24,532 48,938 37,159 14,701 38,040 794,627 153,387 154,353 rea rea A a a Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac H Total acquisition acquisition Total TOTAL TOTAL 321,586 Priest (TN) (TN) Priest 13,472 terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the USFS and the Pennsylvania Game Commission Game Pennsylvania the and USFS the between Understanding of Memorandum a of terms Excludes additional 4,616 ha (11,405 ac) originally purchased by CE which was subsequently transferred to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for management under under management for (USFS) Service Forest U.S. to transferred subsequently area was water which by CE by divided area purchased *Land originally ac) (11,405 ha 4,616 Excludes additional able 15. Summary of pre- and post-project land/water area relationship at 20 CE projects (fee aquisition area only) area aquisition (fee projects CE 20 at relationship area land/water post-project and pre- of 15. able Summary Red Rock (IA) (IA) Rock Red 19,252 Pat Mayse (TX) (TX) Mayse Pat 8,244 Ice Harbor (WA) (WA) Harbor Ice 4,755 (SD) Sharpe Lake 32,284 (MA) Littleville (MS) Okatibbee 680 4,433 Keystone (OK) (OK) Keystone 23,227 Eufaula (OK) (OK) Eufaula (KS) 12,389 Redmond John 62,076 Percy J. East Lynn (WV) (WV) Lynn East 9,928 Council Grove (KS) (KS) 2,420 Grove Council Dworshak (ID) (ID) Dworshak 19,805 Deer Creek (OH) (OH) Creek Deer 2,930 Carlyle (IL) (IL) Carlyle 62,467 (GA-SC) Hill Clark 15,038 Beaver (AR) (AR) Beaver (PA) Beltzville 1,46.4 15,395 Allegheny (PA-NY)2 (PA-NY)2 5,949 Allegheny Project T
i i 175 (CA) Flat Pine 5,376 Table 16. - List of wildlife habitat improvement recommendations submitted by fish and wildlife agencies for each of the 20 study projects
Projects
Co/ q;
c o •V q j -V ^tr A r I? Qj Qj -O 3 O O r * Qj .<> C ^ ^ ^ ^ o I £ § C t Co ^ q j t Cr < j Qj 'Or $ C Wildlife management recommendations £ V? .c - 'V 'T OO c £ C j £ O Sub-impoundment construction X X X Selective timbering X X X Waterfowl nesting habitat X X Fencing X X Use of surplus buildings X X Fundinq/administration Development as project cost 0 & M as project cost Table 17. — Comparison of pre-project stream length with subsequent shoreline length at project reservoirs at summer conservation pool levels Post project Pre-project reservoi r stream shoreline Km Mi Km Mi Allegheny (PA-NY) 82 51 146 91 449 Beaver (AR) 225 140 722 Beltzville (PA) 11 7 32 20 Carlyle (IL) 76 47 88 55 Clark Hill (GA-SC) 179 111 1,706 1,060 Council Grove (KS) 55 34 64 40 Deer Creek (OH) 13 8 32 20 175 Dworshak (ID) 87 54 282 East Lynn (WV) 24 15 74 46 600 Eufaula (OK) 364 226 965 Ice Harbor (WA) 51 32 129 80 John Redmond (KS) 29 18 80 50 J. Percy Priest (TN) 137 85 343 213 Keystone (OK) 106 66 531 330 Lake Sharpe (SD) 137 85 322 200 Littleville (MA) 6 4 10 6 Okatibbee (MS) 14 9 45 28 Pat Mayse (TX) 37 23 108 67 Pine Flat (CA) 43 27 72 45 Red Rock (IA) 51 32 105 65 TOTAL 1,727 1,074 5,856 3,640 177 - Table 18. -- Relationship of project lands retained in fee above normal conservation pool elevation with area of lands permanently inundated and lands subject to periodic flooding Areas subject to Lands acquired in ______temporary flooding______Area remaining above flood pools______fee above 5-year Maximum 5-year frequency pool Maximum flood pool conservation pool frequency pool flood pool Project Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac Ha Ac % Ha Ac % Allegheny (PA-NY)1 1,073 2,651 427 1,055 1,073 2,651 646 1,596 60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Beaver (AR) 3,974 9,820 518 1,280 1,408 3,480 3,456 8,540 87 2,566 6,340 64 Beltzville (PA) 1,081 2,670 188 464 365 902 893 2,206 83 716 1,768 66 Carlyle (IL) 4,516 11,159 2,894 7,150 4,516 11,159 1,622 4,009 36 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clark Hill (GA-SC) 34,138 84,353 2,428 6,000 11,332 28,000 31,709 78,353 93 22,806 56,353 67 Council Grove (KS) 1,093 2,700 556 1,375 1,093 2,700 536 1,325 49 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deer Creek (0H)? 2,413 5,962 276 683 1,121 2,769 2,136 5,279 89 1,292 3,193 54 Dworshak (ID) 13,161 32,521 13,161 32,521 100 13,161 32,521 100 East Lynn (WV) 9,521 23,527 192 475 737 1,821 9,329 23,052 98 8,784 21,706 92 Eufaula (OK) ? 20,715 51,187 14,569 36,000 16,795 41,500 6,146 15,187 30 3,920 9,687 19 Ice Harbor (WAr 1,366 3,375 1,366 3,375 100 1,366 3,375 100 John Redmond (KS) 8,585 21,214 6,718 16,600 8,585 21,214 1,867 4,614 22 0.0 0.0 0.0 J. Percy Priest (TN) 7,725 19,089 1,837 4,540 4,460 11,020 5,886 14,549 76 3,266 8,069 42 Keystone (OK) 12,697 31,373 11,858 29,300 12,697 31,373 839 2,073 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake Sharpe (SD) 9,072 23,973 1,101 2,721 7,770 19,200 8,601 21,252 89 1,932 4,773 20 Littleville (MA) 569 1,405 45 111 95 235 524 1,294 92 473 1,170 83 Okatibbee (MS) 2,896 7,155 562 1,388 1,125 2,780 2,334 5,767 81 1,771 4,375 61 Pat Mayse (TX) 5,819 14,378 474 1,171 683 1,687 5,345 13,207 92 5,136 12,691 88 Pine Flat (CA) 3,555 8,784 546 1,350 595 1,470 3,009 7,434 85 2,960 7,314 83 Red Rock (IA) 14,582 36,032 14,582 36,032 14,582 36,032 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL (average) 159,178 393,328 59,771 147,695 89,030 219,9937 99,406 245,633 (62) 70,1489 173,335 (44) Data excludes an additional 4,616 ha (11,406 ac) purchased by the CE for the Allegheny Lake project which was subsequently transferred to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). This land is managed by the USFS personnel in close cooperation with the Pennsylvania Game commission (PGC) under terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the PGC and the USFS. 2 No flood storage provided above summer conservation pool. allowable fee land acquisition at 20 effect regarding extent of Table 19. — CE policy in case-history projects Maximum flood pool plus 91 m (300 ft) horizontal 5-year flood pool All lands required 1962-1971 1953-1962 Project pre-1953 Allegheny (PA-NY) Beaver (AR) x Beltzville (PA) Carlyle (IL) Clark Hill (GA-SC) Council Grove (KS) x Deer Creek (OH) x Oworshak (ID) x East Lynn (WV) Eufaula (OK) Ice Harbor (WA) John Redmond (KS) x J. Percy Priest (TN) Keystone (OK) Lake Sharpe (SD) Littleville (MA) X Okatibbee (MS) X Pat Mayse (TX) Pine Flat (CA) Red Rock (IA) 179 Table 20. — Project lands zoned for wildlife management by CE (does not include lands granted to state and federal fish and wildlife agencies under General Plan and license) Areas managed for wildlife by the CE Project Ha Ac Allegheny (PA-NY) 263 650 Beaver (AR) 423 1,046 Beltzville (PA) 0 0 Carlyle (IL) 894 2,210 Clark Hill (GA-SC) 36,721 90,737 Council Grove (KS) 39 96 Deer Creek (OH), 0 0 Dworshak (ID) 1 10,118 25,000 East Lynn (WV) 9,946 24,577 Eufaula (OK) . 0 0 Ice Harbor (WA)1 750 1,852 John Redmond (KS) 615 1,520 J. Percy Priest (TN) 2,631 6,500 Keystone (OK) 195 483 Lake Sharpe (SD) 300 741 Littleville (MA) 131 324 Okatibbee (MS) 0 0 Pat Mayse (TX) 4 10 Pine Flat (CA) 0 0 Red Rock (IA) 5,879 14,527 Managed by CE under cooperative agreement with appropriate state wildlife agency, these lands are included in the wildlife lands summary presented in Table 11. - 180 - Table 21. — Summary of FWS planning report predictions of recreational fishing man-day use within project impact areas without the project,and with the project in place, assuming no implementation of mitigation recommendations With project in place No. man-days No. man-days Percent change Tailwater Total Lake Tailwater Total Lake Tailwater Total Lake 122,100 141,900 132,500 195,000 327,500 569 60 131 Allegheny (PA-NY) 19,800 119 68,000 91,000 140,000 59,000 199,000 509 (13) Beaver (AR) 23,000 327 4,800 3,000 7,800 33,300 0.0* 33,300 594 (100) Beltzville (PA) 228 6,000 6,357 12,353 33,000 6,929 39,929 450 9 Carlyle (It) , 559 N.D. N.D. $28,835 N.D. N.D. $190,000 N.D. N.D. Clark Hill (GA-SC)1 687 49 488 Council Grove (KS) 6,743 7,313 10,863 53,035 10,863 63,898 3,642 116 1,879 Deer Creek (OH) 2,400 2,400 4,800 89,800 5,175 94,975 (52) (55) (52) Dworshak (ID) 13,500 2,000 15,500 6,500 900 7,400 100 550 34,200 500 34,700 7,500 400 6,209 East Lynn (WV) 450 793 12,000 2,000 14,000 113,000 12,000 125,000 842 500 Eufaula (OK) ? + h + 1,300 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Ice Harbor (WA) 2,309 (36) 162 John Redmond (KS) 3,520 38,520 41,770 84,800 24,630 109,430 2,202 1,208 2,072 J. Percy Priest (TN) 8,600 1,300 9,900 198,000 17,000 215,000 567 188 453 Keystone (OK) 12,000 5,000 17,000 80,000 14,000 94,000 N.D. N.D. 909 Lake Sharpe (SD) N.D. N.D. 11,000 N.D. N.D. 111,000 2,491 23 1,052 Littleville (MA) 1,042 1,458 2,500 27,000 1,791 28,791 4,235 (22) 657 Okatibbee (MS) 1,384 6,400 8,584 60,000 5,000 65,000 49,900 (100) 9,900 Pat Mayse (TX), 100 400 500 50,000 0 50,000 40 47 42 Pine Flat (CA) $13,600 $7,200 $20,800 $19,000 $10,600 $29,600 3,197 20 824 Red Rock (IA) 2,184 6,400 8,584 72,000 7,667 79,667 4,688 131 1,408 Average % change 842 559 Median % change 20 ^Insignificant N.D. (no data available in FWS reports) Represents monetary ($) values of recreational fishery. No angling man-day use data was contained in theses early FWS reports prepared in 1946 (Clark Hill project) and 1949 (Pine Flat project). 2The initial (1959) FWS planning report submitted to the CE prior to project construction for the Ice harbor project Jacked adequate predictive post-project quantitative angling man-day use data. However, narrative sections of the FWS report indicated that recreational fishing use was expected to increase in post-project years in both the lake and tailwater, although the lake would eliminate salmon spawning and rearing areas. Table 22. — Comparison of FWS planning report prediction of post-project recreational fishing man-day use with and without implementation of planning report recommendations Number of angling man-days Allegheny Beltzville East Lynn Eufaula J. Percy Priest Keystone Okatibbee Pat Mayse Lake Without 132,500 33,300 34,200 113,000 198,000 80,000 60,000 50,000 With 312,00c1* 34,5002* 40,2501* 113,000 210,0001* 140,0003 60,000 75,0004* % increase 135 4 18 0.0 6 75 0 50 Tailwater Without 195,000 0 500 12,000 17,000 14,000 5,000 0.0 With 289,6005 _ l.OOO1 17,0006 17 »OOO1 29,000 7,0007 6,4008 % increase 49 -- 100 42 0.0 107 40 -- Total project Without 327,500 33,300 34,700 125,000 215,000 94,000 65,000 50,000 With 601,600 34,500 41,250* 130,000 227,000 180,000 67,000 81,400 % increase 84 4 19 4 6 91 3 63 ♦Recommendations essentially implemented by CE ^Development of additional angler access facilities. ^Lake level manipulation to control carp spawning success. ¡¡Lake zoning to enhance boat angling. ^Selective retention of timber and brush in lake basin. ^Regulation of discharge temperature regimes in tailwater. yEstablishment of instantaneous minimum flow requirements for tailwaters. gAllocation of lake storage capacity to enable increasing volume of downstream Releases for pollution abatement. Includes 5,400 angling man-days/year attributable to establishment of a 0.22 ni /sec (cfs) minimum instantaneous flow and abandonment of CE plans to channelize a 3.2 km (2 mi) stretch of the tailwater, plus an additional 1,000 man-days/year from construction of a fishery platform for the tail race. Table 23. -- Estimated average annual number of angling man-days recorded by creel surveys conducted within project impact areas in post-impoundment years and percentage increase (decrease) over without-the-project angling man-day use predictions delineated in FWS planning reports No. years No. angling man-days Percentage change______Project surveyed Lake Tailwater Total Above dam Below dam Total +5 Allegheny (PA-NY) . 1 19,642 130,000 149,642 (-0.8) +6 +359 Beaver (AR) 16 172,000 245,900 417,900 648 262 -- 263 Beltzville (PA) 1 25,285 3,000 28,285 427 1,163 1,317 Carlyle (It) 4 3 94,722 80,278 175,000 1,479 -- Clark Hill (GA-SC) 11 202,000 N.D. 202,000 11 91 Council Grove (KS) 2 14,228 6,538 20,766 111 1,231 1,017 Deer Creek (OH). ^ 1 21,692 31,945 53,637 804 853 249 Dworshak (10) ’ 5 35,000 19,052 54,052 159 2,818 4,382 East Lynn (WV) 5 21,734 2,918 24,652 4,730 2,400 2,161 Eufaula (OK) , ? 1 266,506 50,002 316,508 2,121 -- Ice Harbor (WA)a ’j 3 15,046 6,738 21,784 1,057 302 371 John Redmond (KS) * 1 26,341 155,000 181,341 648 -- -- J. Percy Priest (TN) 8 77,500 N.D. 77,500 801 140 1,337 Keystone (OK) , 4 169,534 74,828 244,362 1,105 __ 765 Lake Sharpe (SOU 1 70,512 20,684 91,196 (100) 390 Littlevilie (MAT 3 12,256 0.0 12,256 1,076 Okatibbee (MS) 5 40,600 12,000 52,600 2,829 88 5,400 1,863Pat Mays e. UX r 1 27,700 N.D. 27,700 27,600 Pine Flat (CA) ’ 8 57,463 59,255 116,718 575 465 Red Rock (IA) 4 5,334 43,204 48,538 144 Total man-days 1,375,095 941,342 2,316,437 +615 Median percent change +804 +302 N.O. - Insufficient data available Vost-impoundment tailwater angling man-day use estimates restricted to tailrace and/or brief river stretch immediately below the dam except for the Allegheny, Beaver, Oworshak, Ice Harbor, Pine Flat, and John Redmond projects, where data apply to the entire or a substantial lengthof the stream occurring within the project impact area below the dam. ^Determination of percentage change in post-project angling man-day use was not possible because of the lack of predictive angling man-day use data in the FWS project planning reports. "^Includes only angling man-day use estimates for spring and fall runs of steelhead. A substantial, but unquantified, additional amount of summer angling for smallmouth bass, rainbow trout, and other resident fish species was known to have occurred in the tailwater. 4Angling man-day use was not routinely monitored in the tailwater. However, an estimated 85,000 angling man-days were estimated to have occurred in the spring of 1973 during a period of intense striped bass fishing. 5No tailwater fishing after 1973 as a result of posting of the stream bank by private landowners. A limited amount of fishing was provided in prior years by a put-and-take stocking program sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Game and Recreational Vehicles. 6Tailwater fishing was severely curtailed during year of creel survey (1980-1981) as a result of an unusually severe drought which eliminated discharge from the reservoir during periods of usual high fishing intensity. A considerable but undocumented amount of fishing was known to occur in the tailrace during years of normal rainfall. 7No specific quantitative prediction for without-the-project angling man-day use was made by the FWS. However, the 20,684 angler man-days registered in post-impoundment years was more than the 11,000 man-days predicted by the FWS for the entire project impact area. Table 24. — Comparison of percentage differences in documented post-project angling man-day use estimates from FWS planning report predictions Lake Tailwater Total project Higher than Lower than Higher than Lower than Higher than Lower than predicted predicted predicted predicted predicted predicted ( + ) (-) ( + ) (-) ( + ) (-) Allegheny (PA-NY) 941 33 70 Beaver (AR) 23 317 110 Beltzville (PA)2 271 (♦) 18 Carlyle (IL) 187 1,059 338 Clark Hill (GA-SÇ)3 - — — — -- — Council Grove (KS) 73 40 68 Deer Creek (OH) 76 511 44 Dworshak (ID) 438 2,017 630 East Lynn (WV) 461 192 40 Eufaula (OK) 136 317 153 Ice Harbor (WA)3 — — — — -- — John Redmond (KS) 69 529 66 J. Percy Priest (TN)2 631 ( + ) N.D. N.D. Keystone (OK) 112 434 160 Lake Sharpe (SD)3 - - — — — 18 Littleville (MA) 53 N.D. N.D. 57 Okatibbee (MS) 32 711 19 Pat Mayse (TX) 63 ( + ) 19 Pine Flat (CA)3 — — ------Red Rock (IA) 93 464 39 No. projects 5 11 12 2 6 10 Average (%) 179 63 591 37 243 41 Range (%) 23--438 27-94 71-1,059 33-100 66-630 18-70 N.D. - Insufficient data. *Data reflects predicted man-day use for project at which FWS recommendations were essentially implemented. 2 Tailwater creel survey data was not adequate to provide specific quantitative estimates of man-day use. However, the data suggested that post-project man-day use was greater than predicted by FWS planning reports. 3 Determination of percentage changes in post-project angling man-day use was not possible because of lack of predictive use data in FWS planning reports. Table 25. — Comparison of total hunting man-day use predicted by the FWS within the project impact area in post-construction years without-the-project and with-the-project in place, with and without implementation of FWS planning report mitigation recommendations (negative values in parentheses) Without- With the project the-project Without implementation With implementation Man-days Many-days % change Man-days % change Allegheny 5,169 2,811 (46) N.D. N.D. Beaver 11,000 1,000 (91) N.D. N.D. Beltzville 780 580 (26) 780 0.0 Carlyle2 N.D. N.D. (-) N.D. + Clark Hill2 N.D. N.D. (-) N.D. N.D. Council Grove 8,000 6,300 (21) N.D. 0.0 Deer Creek 760 4,660 513 25,280 3,226 2 Dworshak N.D. N.D. (-) N,.D. (-) East Lynn 15,000 12,600 ■ (16) 20,000 33 Eufaula 11,560 4,200 (64) 17,800 54 Ice Harbor1 N.D. N.D. (-) N.D. (-) J. Percy Priest 6,000 600 (90) 2,100 (65) John Redmond 3,335 7,360 121 39,060 1,071 Keystone 9,930 11,900 20 16,330 64 Lake Sharpe 5,700 9,900 74 N.D. + Littleville2 N.D. N.D. (-) N.D. N.D. Okatibbee 3,715 1,533 (59) 3,502 (6) Pat Mayse 1,600 1,700 6 10,400 550 Pine Flat2 N.D. N.D. (-) N.D. N.D. Red Rock N.D. 11,630 + N.D. + N.D. - Specific numerical man-day use data not available or not sufficient for . appropriate analysis. ^Partial mitigation expected with implementation of FWS recommendation. Although no quantitative hunting man-day use data were provided, these FWS planning reports contained sufficient narration description and/or monetary value estimates to indicate either positive or negative impacts expected as a result of project construction. 185 Table 26. -- Comparison of small game hunting man-day use predicted by the FWS within the project impact area in post-construction years without-the-project and th-the-project in place, with and without implementation of FWS planning mitigation recommendations (negative values in parentheses) Without- With-the-project the-project Without implementation With implementation Man-days Man-days % change Man-days % change Allegheny (PA-NY) 6,980 5,440 (22) N.D. (-) Carlyle (IL) 9,315 4,509 (52) N.D. (-) Clark Hill (GA-SC)1 $45,180 $8,380 (81) N.D. (-) Council Grove (KS) 7,000 5,800 (17) 7,000 0.0 Deer Creek (OH) 620 4,340 600 23,280 3,655 Dworshak (ID) N.D. N.D. (-) N.D. (-) East Lynn (WV) 13,500 11,340 (16) 15,840 17 Eufaula (OK) 10,800 1,700 (84) 10,100 (6) Ice Harbor (WA)^ 140 60 (57) N.D. (-) John Redmond (KS) 3,110 1,500 (52) 10,100' 225 J. Percy Priest (TN) 6,000 600 (90) 2,100 (65) Keystone (OK) 6,400 2,100 (67) 6,400 0.0 Okatibbee (MS) 2,500 527 (79) 1,190 (52) Pat Mayse (TX) 900 500 (44) 6,300 600 Pine Flat (CA) N.D. N.D. (-) N.D. (-) Red Rock (IA) N.D. 5,200 + N.D. + N.D. - Specific numerical man-day use data not available or pot sufficient for appropriate analysis. Plus and minus signs indicate a predicted, but unquantified increase (+) or decrease (-) over without-the-project man-day values. *Data presented as $ values of game harvested. 2 Data presented as numbers of animals harvested. 186 Table 27. — Comparison of big game hunting man-day use predicted by the FWS within the project impact area in post-construction years without-the-project and with- the-project in place, with and without implementation of FWS planning report miti gation recommendations (negative percentage values in parentheses) Wi thout With-the-project______the-project Without implementation With implementation Man-days Man-days % change Man-days % change Allegheny 2,439 839 (66) tl.D.1 (-) Carlyle3 6 2 (67) N.D. (-) 0.0 0.0 Council Grove 0 0 N.D. 0 N.D. 0.0 Deer Creek 0 0 N.D.1 N.D. Oworshak 103,950 84,050 (19)3 1,760 17 East Lynn 1,500 1,260 (-16) 200 0.0 Eufaula 200 0 (100) N.D.1 (-) Ice Harbor N.D. N.D. (-) 130 0.0 Keystone 130 0 (100) 198 (53) Okatibbee 425 88 (79) 2,400 300 Pat Mayse 600 100 (83) N.D. N.D. Pine Flat N.D. N.D. (-) 1,931 + Red Rock N.D. N.D. N.D. 0 (100) Take Sharpe 460 0 (100) N.D. - Specific numerical man-day use data not available or not sufficient for appropriate analysis. . Plus and minus signs indicate a predicted, but unquantified, increase ( ) or decrease (-) over without-the-project man-day values. Partial mitigation expected with implementation of FWS recommendation. ?Data presented as number of animals harvested. ^Includes estimated percent loss for elk (15 percent), mule deer (14 percent), and white-tailed deer (58 percent). 187 - Table 28. -- Comparison of waterfowl hunting man-day use predicted by the FWS within the project impact area in post-construction years without-the-project and with-the- project in place with and without implementation of FWS planning mitigation recommendations (negative percentage values in parentheses) Without ______With the project ----- _ the project Without implementationWith implementation Man-days Man-days % change Man-days% change N.D. + Carlyle1 4,739 9,460 100 N.D. + Clark H il l 1 2,200 17,300 686 N.D. + Council Grove 1,000 1,500 50 2,000 1,329 Deer Creek 140 320 129 N.D. 0.0 Dworshak N.D. N.D. 0.0 + N.D. + East Lynn N.D. N.D. 7,500 1,239 Eufaula 560 2,500 346 N.D. Ice Harbor N.D. N.D. (-) (-) 28,960 12,771 John Redmond 225 5,860 2,504 N.D. + Keystone 2,800 9,800 250 N.D. + Okatibbee 790 1,690 114 1,700 1,600 Pat Mayse 100 1,100 1,000 + N.D. + Red Rock N.D. 4,500 N.D. + Lake Sharpe 4,000 9,900 148 N.D. - Specific numerical man-day use data not available or not sufficie n t for appropriate analysis. Plus or minus signs indicate a predicted, but unquantified increase (+) or decrease (-) over without-the-project values. *Data expressed as monetary value of waterfowl use days. 188 - Table 29. — Average annual post-project hunting man-day use estimates and percentage change from FWS planning report without-the-project predictions (negative percentage changes in parentheses) Percentage change from Post-project occurrences (man-days) without-the-project predictions Small Big Small Big Total game game Waterfowl Total game game Waterfowl Allegheny (PA-NY) N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. + + + + Beaver (AR) N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. (-) N.D. N.D. N.D. Beltzville (PA) 17,315 16,315 400 600 2,120 + + + Carlyle (IL)1 + 20 183 672 Clark Hill (GA-SC) 27,260 15,790 9,450 2,020 + + + N.D. Council Grove (KS) 1,571 933 165 473 (80) (87) + (53) Deer Creek (OH) 10,218 8,311 1,562 345 1,244 1,240 + 146 Dworshak (ID) N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. (-) N.D. East Lynn (WV) 19,689 14,245 3,475 1,9692 33 6 132 + Eufaula (OK) 6,060 2,560 500 3,000 (48) (76) 150 436 Ice Harbor (WA) N.D. N.D. • 0 N.D. (-) (-) (-) (-) John Redmond (KS) 10,132 2,263 0 7,869 204 (27) 0.0 3,397 J. Percy Priest (TN) 3,759 3,339 0 420 (37) (44) N.D. + Keystone (OK) 7,945 6,990 605 350 (15) 9 365 (88) Lake Sharpe (SD)3 14,678 N.D. N.D. 14,678 184 N.D. + 267 Littleville (MA)4 N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. (-) (-) (-) (-) Okatibbee (MS) 2,868 2,437 75 356 (23) (3) (82) (45) Pat Mayse (TX) 5,276 2,934 1,069 1,273 330 226 78 1,173 Pine Flat (CA) N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. + + - + Red Rock (IA) 8,513 3,778 1,667 3,068 + + + + Total man-days 135,284 79,895 18,968 36,421 N.D. - Specific numerical man-day use data not available or not sufficent for appropriate analysis. Plus and minus signs indicate an estimated post-project increase (+) or decrease (-) from predicted values (subjective estimates were not sufficiently precise to permit numerical assessment). Carlyle estimates based on estimates of harvest of small game (9,315 without-the-project; 11,158 post-project) and big game (6 without-the-project; 17 post-project). Waterfowl estimates based on number of waterfowl-use days (1,033,980 without-the-project; 7,980,000 post-project). p Waterfowl man-day use included within estimates for miscellaneous category including waterfowl, raccoon, red fox, etc. 3 Data represents estimates of waterfowl hunting man-day use, only. Additional post-project hunting man-day use for small game and white-tailed deer hunting was known to occur, but was not quantified. ^Project lands subsequently closed to all hunting to protect municiple water supply watershed. 189 - Table 30. — Percentage deviation of estimated post-project hunting man-day use occurrences from values predicted in FWS planning reports with the project in place. (Negative percentage values in parentheses) Small Big Total game game Waterfowl Allegheny + + + + Beaver + + + N.D. Beltzville 2,885 + + + Carlyle1 + 147 750 +336 Clark Hill + + + N.D. Council Grove (75) (84) + (68) Deer Creek 199 91 + 8 Dworshak N.D. N.D. (-) N.D. East Lynn 59 6 132 N.D. Eufaula 44 51 + 20 Ice Harbor (-) (-) (-) (-) John Redmond 38 51 0.0 34 J.Percy Priest 263 + 0.0 + Keystone (33) 233 + (96) Littleville^ (-) (-) (-) (-) Okatibbee 85 362 (15) (62) Pat Mayse 210 487 969 7 Pine Flat + + - N.D. Red Rock N.D. (27) + (31) Lake Sharpe + N.D. N.D. 48 N.O. - Specific numerical man-day use data not available or not sufficient for appropriate analysis. Plus and minus signs indicate an estimated post-project increase (+) or decrease (-) from predicted values (subjective estimates were not sufficiently precise to permit numerical assessment). Carlyle estimates based on estimates of harvest of small game (9,315 with the the project, 1,518 post-project) and big game (6 without the project; 17 post-project). Waterfowl estimates based on number of waterfowl use days (1,033,908 without the project; 7,980,000 post-project). ^Project lands closed to all hunting to protect municiple water supply watershed. - 190 Figure 1. — Map of United States, showing locations of 20 Corps of Engineers study projects. *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984-0-429-654/362 - 191