. 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) /f/J? ADEQUACY AND PREDICTIVE VALUE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS AT CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESERVOIR PROJECTS SK35S-A7 FINAL REPORT Conducted for Office, Chief of Engineers, IJ.S. Army By Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C. Under Contract No. DACW31-79-C-0005 LIBRARY JUN 7 2010 Bureau of Reclamation Denver Coioiacc 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