land use, and resultant drainage problems. Even so, since there are very limited fishing opportunities in west Tennessee, the streams are still important.

Elsewhere in the State, many streams have been impounded by large reservoirs. These reservoirs provide good fishing of a different kind, but have eliminated many fishing streams in the process. This reduction in available fishing streams makes the remaining ones more valuable.

Hunting opportunities here again depend upon the adjacent land use. If the practices are such that there are suitable habitats, there we have farm game hunting opportunities. Those areas devoted to timber provide habitats for the upland forest game species; or where the lands are flooded, for waterfowl. Significant hunting opportunities have been lost in Tennessee as a result of destruction of wildlife habitat, which occurs when lands are drained and cleared and devoted to pasture or clean row crop-type agriculture, and this is happening. This has been particularly noticeable in the Obion-Forked Deer River bottoms in west Tennessee, where channelization is being accomplished by the Corps of Engineers.

This project was first authorized by Congress in 1948 and justified on the basis of drainage and flood control benefits. The initial project was justified largely on the basis of enhancement or agriculture on a relatively small portion of the total project acreage. Construction was initiated in the early 1960's. The Obion and Forked Deer Rivers comprise the primary drainage pattern for the northern half of west Tennessee, and the system includes approximately 470 miles of stream and old channel. About a third of that project has been completed.

The flood plain, prior to drainage and/or anticipated drainage, consisted of a wetland area totaling over 198,000 acres, composed of an expanse of overflow woodland and swamp, interwoven by old meandering river channels and scattered oxbows. Most of this habitat was classified as a moderate to high value for wildlife in a report on Tennessee wet lands by the Department of the Interior in 1954. The area has a rich tradition for fishing and hunting, and it is also recognized as being of national significance in regard to migratory waterfowl and the Mississippi flyway.

In order to evaluate the effects of the channelization project, habitat and thus basic wildlife and fisheries resource losses were determined by actual measurement of woodland clearing and estimates of other losses by a field inspection within a completed portion of the project.

It has been estimated that woodland acreage would be reduced by at least 70 percent and water areas by at least 95 percent. Land clearing has already progressed at a rate of at least 60 percent, and the end is not in sight. These lands are being cleared and devoted to row crops, primarily soybeans.

In order to determine the effects of this habitat loss on the potentials for recreational use, trip values as presented in Senate Document No. 97 were used. Calculations on the basis of activities and accepted trip values have all been compiled in table 1 which is on the back of the formal statement that indicates estimated annual potential fish and wildlife and related recreational resources, and the effects of the project.

62-365 0-71-pt. 3- 2

(NOTE. S. Doc. 97, 87th Congress, May 29, 1962, is entitled "Policies, Standards, and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation, and Review of Plans for Use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources." It was prepared under the direction of the Water Resources Council.)

Total annual fish, wildlife, and recreational losses as a result of the authorized project on the Obion and Forked Deer River basin would be 1,172,766 trips at a value of $2,235,593. Considering a 70-percent reduction in woodland acres and reduced productivity by 50 percent as a result of lowered water tables, the estimated annual economic loss on timber would amount to $1,774,560. The total annual losses then for these recreational resources and for the timber, amount to over $4 million, and this doesn't take into account some other losses resulting from reduction of woodland habitat through clearing rights-of-way and expenses associated with water control and water supply on State wildlife management areas along the river, which would total an estimated $1,781,000.

Now, there are other considerations that haven't been valued at all. These would include esthetics, water holding and purification capacity of the swamps and overflow areas, scientific values, and so forth.

Completion of the channel project will, in time, eliminate fish and wildlife resources by drainage and woodland conversion. Construction of main channels will be followed by extensive lateral drainage systems, and this is happening already.

We believe that the wetland resources of the Obion and Forked Deer River bottoms have significant tangible and intangible values for present and future generations. It is our opinion that these resources should be fully recognized and weighted against other indicated benefits of a project such as this. It is our thought that planning for future programs where all resources need to be considered should be done by a planning agency other than the agency doing actual construction work. This would help to eliminate biases in the planning

group.

We would also urge that land-use zoning be somehow utilized as an input requirement in the development of programs. For example, in the Obion-Forked Deer project, original plans indicated that woodlands in the large portion of the flood plain subject to flooding 1 year or more in 3, would not be cleared. They have been cleared and the areas devoted to agriculture. Flood damages in 1948 were $55,000; in 1965, $757,000; and in 1970, $2 million. It would appear that as land is cleared and devoted to high value cash crops the periodic anticipatedand I underscore that word-anticipated floods result in higher damages, thereby justifying additional flood control.

Our problems associated with the small watershed program under Public Law 566 are basically the same. They involve channelization and subsequent drainage and clearing of adjacent bottom land hardwood. While the channeling destroys the fishery habitat, the loss of wildlife habitat that occurs following drainage of areas adjacent to the streams is important when considered from an accumulative point of view. This is where we get nibbled to pieces. Each project has a little, and it is pretty hard to argue too much with the local people that this wildlife habitat is really important when they are dealing with flooding in some buildings that shouldn't have been built in the flood plains in the first place.

Although we have good working relations with the Soil Conservation Service, we still end up with streams channeled and lands drained and cleared. In the past, planning under Public Law 566 has been carried out with emphasis on engineering rather than consideration for ecological principles or environmental values. Although this is still the case, SCS engineers in Tennessee are more aware of our interest and have tried to incorporate some mitigating measures where possible. Even so, when mitigation measures are recommended there has been no assurance that the watershed district would decide to include these measures and to follow through with implementation and maintenance.

Our concern over the detrimental effects of the small watershed program was evidenced as far back as 1963 when Forrest Durand, then Director of the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission, appeared before the National Watershed Congress and pointed out the problems being brought on by channelization under Public Law 566. He made some good statements at that time about the use of public funds to destroy a public resource that is in high demand. He did acknowledge the value of watershed programs, but felt that they could be improved. Instead of getting rid of water through channeling, why not hold it where it falls, even if adjustments must be made in presently accepted benefit-cost ratios. Water resources, particularly streams, for purposes of this statement, belong to all, and any significant alteration. of streams should be done only after recognition of responsibility to the public needs and the concept of preservation, or enhancement of quality.

In connection with Public Law 566 changes, we would offer the following suggestions for consideration:

1. Provide flood control and sediment storage needs through more. effective land use and structural measures rather than channelization, even if benefit-cost ratio adjustments are necessary. Flood detention impoundments should be the first alternative for flood control. Where additional protection is needed, floodways should be used where possible.

2. Require 75 percent of needed critical area erosion control measures to be installed prior to expenditure of funds for structural measures. I believe now the requirement is 50 percent of the work. has to be planned.

3. Use Federal funds to acquire floodwater and sediment storage ponds and other major mitigation features. This would allow for public use of recreational benefits, particularly, since they may be greater as a result of now providing 100-year sediment storage and would allow for better future maintenance with Federal funds.

4. Require local funding of all channel work. We believe channel work should be used only as a last resort and even then excavation should be on one side only and should be confined to levels above the base flow line. Streambank vegetation should be maintained where possible.

5. Strengthen mitigation aspects of a project in such way as to require implementation of mitigation measures and future mainte

nance.

6. Establish base flow of streams impounded and provide for commitment of streamflow maintenance from structures.

We have encountered the problem of justifying projects on results of prior manmade abuses in the Public Law 566 program also. As an example, a Columbia, Tenn., subdivision was built largely on the flood plain of Little Bigby Creek a few years ago and greatest flood damage was concentrated there. As a result, channelization of about 15,000 feet of smallmouth-rock bass stream is considered justified by the watershed district, whose president happens to be a real estate developer. The project was recently authorized by Congress. Here again, some form of land-use zoning could have prevented possible destruction of a good fishing stream.

While we recognize the value of local participation in water resource planning, we do see a need for all elements of resource involvement to be adequately represented in the decisionmaking process at the very earliest stage of planning.

I agree with Mr. Yancey, too, that some sort of funding out of the project ought to be made available to the States. We get caught in trying to come up with answers on projects that are initiated by other agencies, and we really don't have the funds to do this without dropping some of our own ongoing programs.

We think, too, that consideration of even the smaller streams under Public Law 566 should include concerns for esthetics and other intangibles, as well as the more easily recognized and measured values. This may require development of new techniques, but if we don't get at it soon, it may be too late. The suggested moratorium on channeling until the current programs are evaluated by unbiased experts is a valid proposal and we support it.

I will close by saying again that Tennessee has experienced serious detrimental effects to fish and wildlife habitat as a result of channelization programs, and we appreciate the opportunity to present this statement.

I do have a few pictures I would like to pass around for you to look at. The top two pictures show a stream. It is the Crow Creek watershed. It heads up in Tennessee and it flows into Alabama. It is one watershed project. The Alabama portion has been channeled. The Tennessee portion has not. The top two pictures and I think you can tell the difference-show the stream in Tennessee as it is. The next three show the stream in Alabama, immediately across the line. Now it is all the same project.

We have been assured by the SCS people in Tennessee that it won't look like that. But it is all the same Public Law 566 project, and I think it is a good example of what happens.

Thank you very much.

Mr. REUSS. Thank you, Mr. Warvel, and without objection, these photographs will be received.

(Two of the photographs submitted by Mr. Warvel and his prepared statement follow:)