8020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , harvested per license sold (Prosser, Martin, Stroud, 1976.). Tbe available data suggested that the project had little or no sigaifi- cant adverse influence on deer in the surrounding counties. Either the project area was not supporting a deer harvest of the magnitude described, or adequate habitat was available outside the reservoir site to accommo- date an expanding deer herd and the steadily increasing hunting pressure. Council Grove Lake. Lands acquired for the Council Grove project included fee acquisition of a permanent pool area of 3,280 ac (1,327 ha) surrounded by an additional 2,700 ac (1,093 ha). Adverse impacts to the expanding deer herd were predicted to occur as a result of project construction (Gat- lin, 1963), viz: Populations of white-tailed deer are increasing throughout the State, and it is anticipated that, without the project, the bot- tomland habitat of the reservoir site and of the area which will receive flood protection downstream from the dam would become important to this species. Prairie-chicken populations will suffer from the loss of valu- able winter habitat in the bottomlands along the river, and white-tailed deer will not increase as could be expected witheut the project. Contrary to pre-construction predictions, deer tend to concentrate on the project management area during the winter months and utilize the available food sources and winter cover. According to local wildlife biologists with the KaD88S Forestry, Fish and Game Commission, the Council Grove pro- ject has probably had an overall beneficial impact on deer (Prosser, Mar- tin and Stroud, 1978). Carlyle Lake. This Illinois project permanently flooded 26,000 ac (10,522 ha) and included fee acquisition of an additional peripheral area of 10, 45