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 />ing within the reservoir area. Upland-game hunting will amount <br />to about 2,100 man-days annually, a significant loss attribut- <br />able to the project. Waterfowl hunting, on the other hand, <br />will increase to about 9,800 man-days annually. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Additional lands <br /> <br /> <br />not acquired, although the Oklahoma Department of <br /> <br />Wildlife Conservat on recently acquired license to manage 12,400 ac (5, <br /> <br />018 ha) of inclden ally purchased project lands. The Department's plan <br /> <br />for development of these lands (1974) obviously attaches greater wildlife <br /> <br />potential than was projected in the pre-construction planning document, <br /> <br />viz: <br /> <br />The proposed ystone Public Hunting Area has great potential <br />for satisfyin much of the hunting, fishing and wildlife ori- <br />ented needs 0 north-central Oklahoma. <br /> <br />The area offe s its greatest potential for bobwhite quail and <br />deer manageme t. Development will be carried out with empha- <br />sis on these pecies. Efforts to enhance all other species <br />will be inclu ed in the program. <br /> <br />The proposed evelopment program is expected to provide the <br />following hun ing opportunity: <br /> <br /> <br />and Game Species - 7,000 mandays <br />Game Species - 1,000 mandays <br />ratory Bird Species - 2,000 mandays <br /> <br />The project-induce impacts on deer were accurately predicted for four of <br /> <br />the evaluated proj Three of the four had little or no effect on deer, <br /> <br />four studies are <br /> <br /> <br />losses to the local deer herd. These <br /> <br />while the fourth r <br /> <br />in the following section. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Okatibbee Lake. T~iS 3,800 ac (l,538ha) lake is surrounded by 7,150 ac <br /> <br />(2,894 ha) of land I acquired in fee. The Fish and Wildlife Service believed <br /> <br /> <br />that this land aCqtisition plan was adequate with proper management, to re- <br /> <br />place the wildlife resources destroyed by the permanent inundation (Gresh, <br /> <br />1964), viz: <br /> <br />48 <br />