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

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 Tennessee Game and Fish Commission was set up by the Tennessee Legislature and given the following directives: "It is the duty of the commission to protect, propagate, increase and preserve the game, fish, fur-bearing animals and wildlife of the State."

In order to protect and preserve the fish and wildlife we must be concerned with the habitat of the various species. Streams and adjacent upland areas provide much of the fish and wildlife habitat of our State. According to a 1968

survey, 22 percent of Tennessee's fishermen prefer to fish in streams and 21 percent actually did so during 1967. A 1970 survey indicated that approximately 197,000 fishermen fished Tennessee's streams during the year for a total of 1,339,000 fishing trips. Warm-water streams which are most subject to channelization support 80 percent of the stream 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, land use, and resultant drainage problems. Some recovery is believed to have been made; however, few, if any, of these streams have recovered to the quality of unchannelized streams. Rechannelization in recent years has resulted in further deterioration. However, since other fishery resources are limited there, west Tennessee streams are still important. An estimated 9 percent of west Tennessee fishermen fished streams during 1967 but 13 percent of them prefer to fish in streams.

Elsewhere in the State, many streams have been inpounded by large reservoirs. These reservoirs do 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 opportunity in connection with streams will depend upon the adjacent land use. Those areas devoted to agricultural practices which result in suitable habitat will provide farm game opportunities, while those areas devoted to timber will provide habitat for upland forest game species or waterfowl, if subject to flooding. 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. 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.

The Obion-Forked Deer Rivers channelization project was first authorized by Congress in 1948 and justified on the basis on drainage and flood control benefits. It should be pointed out that the initial project was justified largely on the basis of enchancement of agriculture on a small portion of the total project acreage, and relatively few land holdings would be directly benefited. Construction was initiated in the early sixties. 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. Approximately one-third of the 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 (U.S.D.I., 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.

A report on the fish and wildlife resources of the Obion and Forked Deer River Basin in Tennessee (Barstow, 1970) indicates that prior to channelization there were approximately 218,000 acres of prime wildlife and fisheries habitat. A major component of this habitat was 198,000 acres of woodland/wetlands. These figures are considered to be conservative since the Fish and Wildlife Service had previously estimated that approximately 260,000 acres of high to moderate value wetlands were located in these bottoms.

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 the 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, as the clearing is still progressing and more large tracts are known to be scheduled for clearing. 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. As a result of calculations on the basis of activities and accepted trip values, information has been compiled on estimated annual potential fish, wildlife and related recreational resources and effects of the project and presented in table I. Please note that estimated losses occurring as a result of the corps' project are 73,000 trips and $110,000 for small game; 24,000 trips and $148,000 for big game; 123,000 trips and $27,000 for waterfowl; $9,500 for fur

bearers; 500,000 trips and $913,000 for fishing; and 450,000 trips and $225,000 general recreation.

In total then, 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 (50 percent) as a result of lowered water tables, the estimated annual economic loss would amount to approximately $1,774,560. Total annual losses then for general fish, wildlife, and recreational resources and for timber would amount to $4,010,153. This does not take into account some other losses resulting from reduction of woodland habitat through clearing rightsof-way and expenses associated with water control and water supply on State wildlife management areas, totaling $1,781,250. Other considerations that have not been valued would include aesthetics, water holding and purification capacity of swamps, and overflow areas, etc. The authorized Corps of Engineers' project for the Obion and Forked Deer River Basin has caused substantial damage to the wetland ecosystem of the Forked Deer and Obion Rivers and will continue to do more. 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.

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 and that these resources represent long-range potentials and products of land use of the bottoms. It is our opinion that these resources should be fully recognized and weighed 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 three, 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-$2,000,000. It would appear that as land is cleared and devoted to high value cash crops, the periodic 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 as those associated with the Corps of Engineers' project. They involve channelization and subsequent drainage and clearing of adjacent bottomland 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. There are at present some 66 small watershed projects under consideration in Tennessee. 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. Certain resources were being developed for private gain while other resources belonging to the public were being destroyed through a program being paid for by public funds. He recognized that watershed planning and development is the way and the answer to planning our land and water resources to meet the challenge of an ever-increasing population and the stepped-up demands of this population. It was further concluded that resources such as those contributing to hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities as indicated in short supply by Resources for the Future, Inc., publications, should receive adequate consideration in the planning process.

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. This is replacing the requirements for a percentage to be planned prior to construction.

3. Use Federal funds to acquire flood water 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. Stream bank vegetation should be maintained where possible.

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

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

We have encountered the problem of justifying projects on results of prior man-made 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. 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.

Barstow, C. J.:

LITERATURE CITED

1971, Impact of channelization on wetland habitat in the Obion-Forked Basin, Tenn. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 16 pp.

1970, Fish and wildlife resources, Obion-Forked Deer River Basin, Tenn. Unpublished Report, Tennessee Game & Fish Commission, 37 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior: 1954, The wetlands of Tennessee in relation to their wildlife value. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 23 pp.

ANNUAL FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES, WITHOUT PROJECT, WITH PROJECT NET LOSSES; OBION-FORKED DEER RIVERS, TENN.