Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />tional 21 projects and some wildlife data (generally limited in scope) <br />were available from an additional 11 projects. <br /> <br />CASE HISTORY STUDIES <br /> <br />To date, detailed studies of project-related impacts have been completed <br />for 10 specific projects, viz: John Redmond (Kansas); Clark Hill (Geor- <br />gia-South Carolina); Okatibbee ~ississippi); Council Grove (Kansas); <br />Carlyle (Illinois); Keystone (Oklahoma); East Lynn (West Virginia); Lake <br />Sharpe (South Dakota); Ice Harbor (Washington); and Littleville OKassa- <br />chusetts). <br /> <br />Although these projects have been considered to be among the most com- <br /> <br /> <br />pletely docymented Corps projects in the Nation, in terms of fish and <br /> <br /> <br />wildlife studies, comprehensive post~construction inventories of these <br /> <br /> <br />resources and adequate recreational use data had not been compiled at any <br /> <br /> <br />of them until the current st~y. <br /> <br />While some fisheries management has been fmplemented at all 10 projects <br />surveyed, the terrestrial and migratory wildlife communities at 4 out of <br />10 have received almost DO attention because of insufficient funding or <br />habitat suitable for terrestrial wildlife. In instances where management <br />:;J: <br />practices have been applied (substantial in a few situations), these pro- <br />grams have been subsidized by the state conservation agencies (Fish and <br />Wildlife Service in one instance) and not by the federal program respon- <br />sible for reservoir construction and operation. <br /> <br />Impacts on Deer <br /> <br />The accuracy of predicted fmpacts of project construction on fish and <br /> <br />43 <br />