prohibits channelization or alteration of the streams listed in act 398. Federal channelization plans exist on some of these streams, but these are now being held in abeyance.

The Louisiana legislation resulted from mounting public concern and a new awareness of stream and woodland values.

Stream channelization accelerates the loss of bottom-land hardwoods and marshes. Therefore, in 1960, the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission initiated a land purchase program to preserve a few remnant tracts of these irreplaceable types of wildlife habitat. A total of 116,000 acres of bottom-land hardwoods have been purchased along with 56,000 acres of marshland. The individual tracts contain many miles of natural bayous which are now protected against channelization. By this time, most of these would have been converted to drainage channels had it not been for State acquisition. It should be mentioned that, while this program was initiated through the use of State funds only, we have been fortunate in recent years in having cost sharing by the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation at the 50-percent level.

The overall value of Louisiana's fish and wildlife resources, and the need for maintaining these assets, have rarely been adequately considered in federally financed water projects. From the standpoint of economics and recreation, fish and wildlife is extremely important. The annual values are as follows: Sport fishing, $105 million; sport hunting, $78 million; fur bearers, $7 million; and commercial fishing, $125 million. While this $315 million accounts for the total identifiable annual worth of our fish and wildlife resources, no measure of the benefits derived by the nonconsumptive users is available.

Although the State's population is only 3,643,000 people, approximately 1,140,000 fish for sport, 400,000 hunt various game birds and animals, and we estimate that the State's waters are used by some 200,000 small boats. The sport fishermen made 23 million trips in 1970, while the State's hunters pursued their sport for a total of 6.5 million days. It is further estimated that approximately 50,000 people derive all or a large part of their livelihood from the commercial fishing industry. This serves to demonstrate why the fish and wildlife resources should be afforded every measure of protection.

The size and variety of our fish and wildlife populations are controlled by the quantity and quality of the habitat in which they exist. When a loss in habitat occurs, a corresponding decrease in numbers of fish, birds, and animals follows in the area affected. Each stream and each tract of timberland produces so much wildlife, and when one of these areas is destroyed as a result of channelization, then the State's fish and wildlife resources are reduced proportionately. The capability of many streams and woodland areas to continue to produce bumper crops of fish and wildlife in Louisiana, has been destroyed as a side effect of channelization.

EXTENT OF PAST CHANNELIZATION

The flood control, drainage, and navigation program carried out by the Federal agencies has been quite extensive in Louisiana. There has been a total of 2,401 miles of channel work (snagging, clearing, or channelizing) accomplished by Federal agencies, on streams (Corps of Engineers and Soil Conservation Service) in our State. Of this total, 1,605 miles has occurred in the river-bottom flood plains, 318 miles in the marsh, and 107 miles in the upland stream areas.

The channelization of our natural streams has brought about excavation of thousands of miles of new laterals. This in turn has resulted in thousands of acres of permanent or semipermanent water areas being drained or adversely affected, and significant losses of bottom-land hardwood habitat.

EFFECTS OF CHANNELIZATION ON FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES River-bottom flood plain

Channelization of streams within our major flood plains and the subsequent elimination of bottom-land hardwoods, have resulted in tremendous adverse changes in fish population composition, in number and pounds of fish, crawfish, turtles, frogs, and the multitude of birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles native to such an ecosystem. The average flood-plain bayou now maintains a standing crop of about 130 pounds of fish per acre. Channelization normally brings about a 90-percent reduction in pounds of fish per acre in one of these bayous and destroys its value to the sport and commercial fisherman.

These water disposal projects accelerate runoff thereby increasing the load of sediment and the turbidity not only in the channels, but also in the lake or stream

that is the downstream recipient. Sediment laden waters also carry an increased burden of chemicals—insecticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers-into our lakes and streams. The virtual elimination of out-of-bank-flooding greatly reduces the natural biodegradation process necessary to hasten the recovery of polluted waters. Other adverse changes are: removal of natural cover, destruction of spawning sites, increased water temperatures, reduction in benthic organisms. While channelization of natural streams has an adverse impact upon the aquatic life of the stream itself, the laterals that hurry the water from the fields to the main channel are oftentimes even more destructive to fish and wildlife. They cut through ridges, sloughs, and backwater lakes. These backwater lakes support an average of 397 pounds of fish per acre (Lambou, 1958). The swamp crawfish makes a significant contribution to the food of game fish. The wetting and drying cycle necessary for basic energy conversion is disrupted by channelization.

One particular river flood plain watershed project in Louisiana is worthy of special note. While the watershed work plan is entitled "Watershed Protection, Flood Prevention, Drainage, and Fish and Wildlife Improvement," it follows the same pattern common to other similar flood plain water disposal projects and is essentially a channelized operation. After careful analysis of this work plan, technicians of our commission have concluded that it would have an extremely detrimental affect on fish and wildlife in the watershed area and downstream. In contrast to the implications of the work plan title and document, it was estimated that if carried out the program would result in a loss of 2,900 deer, 26,000 gray and fox squirrels, 2,600 wood ducks and mallards, countless thousands of song birds, and large numbers of other forest game animals. Additionally, game fish would be reduced by 45 percent and commercial fish by 95 percent in the watershed. While the work plan for the watershed implies that wildlife will be taken care of, certainly the reverse is true. This example emphasizes the need for a complete biological examination being made of each project and the preparation of a detailed total impact statement for consideration by those who approve such projects.

While direct loss of wildlife habitat from channelization projects is often considerable from the physical destruction wrought by canals and spoil banks, in many cases a far greater loss occurs from alteration of land uses associated with the project. A common problem in the flood plain is accelerated loss of bottom land and hardwoods, which results in an irreplaceable reduction in forest game habitat. Flood plain hardwoods in Louisiana are being cleared at a rate of 125,000 acres per year; and, if this continues at current level, the entire region will be cleared in 20 years. Originally, these hardwoods occupied 10,100,000 acres in the State, but by 1968 only 50 percent remained in timber.

For each 1,000 acres of hardwood forest destroyed, the habitat of 50 deer is removed; then a potential annual harvest of 17 animals and 425 hunting efforts is lost. A corresponding decrease in squirrel populations takes place. The average 1,000 acres of mixed bottom land hardwoods produces a fall population of about 2,400 squirrels. From this an annual bag of 956 squirrels can be realized during 530 man-days of hunting recreation. This also represents destruction of habitat of five pairs of local wood ducks and wintering habitat of 100 migrant waterfowl.

LOUISIANA GULF COAST MARSHES

Louisiana's coastal marsh zone occupies 4.5 million acres. Marine fisheries production ranges from 800 million to 1.2 billion pounds annually, or 20 to 23 percent of the total U.S. production. This includes 50 million pounds of shrimp and 13 million pounds of oyster meat. The Louisiana marsh is of international importance to migratory waterfowl. It is used annually for wintering and transient purposes by 10 to 12 million ducks and geese. This region has made Louisiana the number one fur-producing State in the Union.

Channelizing by Federal agencies in the coastal marshes has largely been for navigational purposes. Giant canals have been excavated extending from cities in south Louisiana across the marshes to the Gulf of Mexico. Needless to say, these channels, while accomplishing the project objectives from the navigational standpoint, have had and are having a disastrous effect on fish and wildlife resources in the localities where they have been constructed. The marshes of Louisiana are highly unstable and their very existence hangs in a delicate ecological balance. Each form of marsh life has relatively narrow tolerance limits; and when conditions are altered redically by man's activities, that particular plant of type of marine life will simply disappear. It may or may not be replaced by another form of plant or animal life.

The adverse changes to fish, wildlife, and plant communities brought about by channelization in the marsh area are usually numerous. These are caused by: 1. Direct physical destruction of the area of marsh excavated plus adjacent marsh covered by spoil.

2. Great increases in salinity ranges within and sometimes miles on each side of an excavated channel.

3. Excessive drainage of fresh water during periods of rainfall and low tide in channelized area.

4. Excessive salt water intrusion during periods of high tide and drought. 5. Interception of over the marsh flows of water which disrupt normal water movements and tidal currents.

6. Acceleration of marsh erosion from wave wash and elimination of many plant_communities that are instrumental in holding marshland together. 7. Increased turbidity which reduces waterfowl food production.

8. Increased siltation which smothers oysters and other sessile marine organisms.

Louisiana's land mass is now shrinking at a rate of 10,000 acres per year as a result of coastal marsh erosion. Channelization has been one of the factors contributing toward this land loss. This has reduced the amount of irreplaceable habitat for virtually all forms of marsh wildlife. Much of this loss could have been avoided had marsh ecology been adequately considered, and more concern been given toward maintaining the State's fish and wildlife resources.

UPLAND REGION

This region is characterized by large numbers of creeks and small rivers flowing through rolling hill country covered largely by pine or pine and mixed hardwoods. Channelization in upland areas of the State drastically affects the ecology of natural streams. Studies by Commission biologists of a typical small upland stream in southwest Louisiana (Six Mile Creek) reveal a standing crop of 158 pounds of fish per stream mile. There were 52 available spotted bass included in this poundage. It is estimated that a reduction of 90 percent in fish populations would occur in this stream in the event it is channelized. The destruction of shoal and riffle areas, the displacement of woody cover, excavation of the stream channel so reduces the benthic organisms that carrying capacity for fish would be greatly reduced. Available evidence indicates that these changes would be largely irreversible.

Wildlife habitat destruction caused by channelization in the uplands takes the form of destruction of habitat by the channels and associated spoil. Some land clearing is required for equipment used in servicing the channel. Natural stream bank cover is eliminated. In the habitat requirements for many forms of wildlife, covered stream banks, and edges are key areas. Destruction of this type has an effect, not only on permanent local residents, but has a far-reaching effect on wildlife throughout the area.

FUTURE PLANS FOR CHANNELIZATION IN LOUISIANA

The following is based upon the best information that has been obtained by Commission personnel from Federal agencies engaged in channelization activities in Louisiana:

Presently the Corps of Engineers has authorized projects that will result in 1,128 miles of streams being channelized or cleared and snagged.

The status of the watershed program (Public Law 83-566) in Louisiana shows that 71 applications for watershed assistance have been received covering 8,179,525 acres. Louisiana is comprised of 31,054,000 acres. The land area occupies 28,345,000 acres, and watershed applications cover 28 percent of this total.

Early this year, the Commission was requested to review 19 watershed projects and evaluate the effects on fish and wildlife in connection with Soil Conservation Service memorandum 108. This review revealed that over 500 miles of natural streams would be channelized. In addition to this, there would be 375 miles of channel excavation for new laterals. The projects would drain 7,767 acres of permanent water areas and 29,396 acres of semipermanent water areas. Furthermore, vast acreages of bottom land hardwoods would be lost form accelerated land clearing. Drastic reduction of fish and wildlife will occur in several of the watersheds.

The rapidly expanding channelization programs are of much concern to those interested in the remaining natural streams and associated resources in Louisiana. Following are several recommendations for alleviating this problem somewhat:

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Federal agencies should be required to provide more consideration for fish and wildlife and their associated values in connection with future water development projects than has been shown in the past.

2. A review of the impact of existing water projects on fish and wildlife should be conducted, and wherever possible, damages should be corrected at Federal

expense.

3. Mitigation of future projects should be at the 100 percent level and its cost calculated in cost-benefit ratios.

4. Each project should be carefully analyzed and detailed reports prepared outlining the specific numerical effects (plus or minus) that the project will have on individual species of fish and wildlife and its habitat.

5. The total impact should be evaluated, directly as well as indirectly, outside as well as inside of the project area, and a detailed statement should be included within the sponsoring agency's final report for review by the approving authority. 6. It should be required that fish and wildlife enhancement measures, mentioned in project statements and authorized by Congress, be carried out.

7. When State game departments are requested to furnish information on Federal construction projects, the State agency should be funded in advance to cover the expense of gathering this information.'

8. A project should not be approved that would result in the elimination or serious reduction of habitat of a rare or endangered species or a stream protected by State law, or a type of wildlife habitat that is on the verge of being eliminated altogether.

Mr. REUSS. If it is all right with Mr. Gude and Mr. Steiger, we will hear from the whole panel. But on the other hand, if you gentlemen have to leave early, I will be delighted to have you examine Mr. Yancey now.

Mr. GUDE. Just one question, Mr. Chairman. As usual, I have got another committee that meets at 10:30, but hopefully our meeting will be short and I can come back.

Mr. REUSS. Then take all the time you want.

Mr. GUDE. Just one question. I know that in our hearings with regard to powerplant siting, one of the contentions that has been raised in regard to the thermal effects which powerplants create in streams is that while it is true that there is an effect on the biology and the ecology, what you lose on one hand you gain on the other; while the population of one fish variety might decrease, another could increase. In other words, the contention is made that all elements being considered, there is no net degradation or damage.

In the overall view of the several projects you have described and with which you are familiar, would you make a similar argumentthat the biology has been damaged on one hand, but enhanced on the other; that new species which are just as valuable sportswise and commercially replace the ones which are destroyed?

Mr. YANCEY. You do get some replacement in connection with channelization in a marsh area. If you dredge a channel down through a fresh marsh area and you convert it to a brackish or salt marsh, you get brackish or salt water species of marine fish that will move into that area, and they are occupying space that was formerly occupied by freshwater fish population. But in upland channelization or a river bottom flood plain, it is all loss and no replacement.

Channelization in a marsh may result in the loss of a fresh marsh plant community that is actually responsible for holding a land mass in place. When the plants die from increased salinities and salt water intrusion, the peaty soil may wash away and just simply convert a land mass to an open water area. So here you are losing wildlife

habitat, and to a certain degree you are replacing it temporarily with a fishery habitat. But in the long term the overall loss is going to be probably at the hundred-percent level as far as loss of wildlife is concerned in that area; and as these water areas tend to deepen then they become less valuable as fish nursery grounds.

You get some replacement under some circumstances, and then in other circumstances it is all loss and no replacement. It just depends on the type of project you are talking about and the type of area that the project is being constructed in.

Mr. GUDE. So, in the estuarine areas it is more likely to be a total loss of the wetland?

Mr. YANCEY. Of the land area, you could experience partial or total loss. In the uplands, where channelization results in clearing bottomland hardwoods, you would be losing forest game populations altogether. You would be losing deer, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and all of the forest game birds and animals. This may be replaced somewhat by a farm game-type population-doves, quail, et cetera― but we have found generally that in the type of land use that follows land clearing, the production of wildlife on those lands is practically nil.

Mr. GUDE. You mean it is practically a 100-percent loss?

Mr. YANCEY. Yes; practically 100 percent. You get virtually no replacement there. The only place you get substantial replacement is down in the marsh country where you convert a fresh-water situation to a brackish or salt water situation, and you get a replacement of the fresh water fish with a population of salt water fish.

Mr. GUDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REUSS. Mr. McCloskey, did you want to ask some questions of Mr. Yancey?

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. No; I will wait, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REUSS. All right, fine. We will hear next from Mr. Harold Warvel, assistant director, Tennessee Game and Fish Commission.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD WARVEL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
TENNESSEE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION

Mr. WARVEL. Mr. Chairman, I am Harold Warvel, assistant director of the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission. It is my privilege to submit this statement on behalf of the commission.

The commission is charged with the duty to protect, propagate, increase, and preserve the game, fish, fur-bearing animals, and wildlife of the State.

In order to do this, we have got to concern ourselves with the habitat of the various species because this is, after all, what controls the population levels of the species. Streams and adjacent upland areas provide much of the fish and wildlife habitat of our State.

I have included some figures in the prepared statement, but I won't read them all now. Suffice it to say that warm water streams which are the subject to channelization do support a great many fishing trips.

Middle and east Tennessee provide the bulk of quality stream fishing, primarily because of past channelization in west Tennessee. It is estimated that over 90 percent of west Tennessee streams have been channeled since World War I. This is due largely to soil characteristics,