occur in the project area each year. Construction of the project would likely result in the elimination of deer in the reservoir site due to timber clearing and inundation of habitat. Upland game populations would also be reduced. However, creation of the proposed national wildlife refuge and operation of the reservoir as planned would provide substantial benefits to waterfowl and compensate for other wildlife losses. We are grateful to this committee for the consideration given to the concept of incorporating migratory waterfowl refuges in waterresource projects such as Columbus Bend. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act permits the expenditure of up to $28 million from project funds for land acquisition for the establishment of migratory waterfowl refuges at water resource projects across the Nation. The entire sum of $412,500 needed for acquisition of waterfowl refuge lands at the Columbus Bend project would be chargeable against this $28 million expenditure limitation. At present there is limited use of the project area by waterfowl, and no waterfowl hunting of consequence. Establishment of the refuge and operation of the reservoir as planned would result in waterfowl use of approximately 9 million duck-days and 3 million goosedays for a total of 12 million waterfowl-days annually. With establishment and management of the refuge, it is estimated that about 9,500 days of waterfowl hunting annually would be provided in the general vicinity of the project area. The benefits provided to waterfowl by the refuge here would also result in additional waterfowl hunting opportunities elsewhere in the central flyway. The refuge as now planned would total 14,395 acres of land and water. It would consist of 360 acres above the 235-foot contour, 1,035 acres below the 235-foot contour which would be acquired in fee title instead of flowage easement, and 13,000 acres acquired in fee title for other project purposes. Much of the 13,000 acres would be inundated by the reservoir. The difference between cost of fee title and flowage easement for the 1,035 acres would be $304,500. The cost of the 360 acres above the maximum flow line would be $108,000 for a total land cost of about $412,500 attributable to the establishment of the refuge. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act as amended by subsection 6(a) of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act provides authority for the inclusion of development facilities for fish and wildlife enhancement as a part of a water development project plan. The development costs for the national wildlife refuge at Columbus Bend Reservoir are estimated at $253,000 and these costs have now been included in project cost estimates. The development would include land rehabilitation measures on about 200 acres, soil and moisture treatment of land where needed, recreation facilities, refuge headquarters, posting, fencing, and construction of roads and trails. The 360 acres of refuge lands lying above the maximum flowage line of the reservoir would be intensively managed to produce waterfowl foods, principally browse for geese. The reservoir management plan would greatly facilitate the production of waterfowl food plants on land in the drawdown zone of the conservation pool and up to the maximum flowage line. A spring drawdown would permit production of food crops in the drawdown zone which would be flooded through the winter, making the food available to the waterfowl. These manipulations of the reservoir water level would greatly increase the productivity of the refuge. Crop depredations sometimes result when large open water bodies, suitable as resting areas for waterfowl, are created in localities where crops attractive as waterfowl foods are being grown. The development of suitable waterfowl food as a part of the refuge management at the Columbus Bend Reservoir would provide alternative food sources, thereby helping to minimize any possible depredation problem at this project. There has been a reduction over the years in the amount of winter habitat available for waterfowl along the Texas coast. This refuge would be a particularly valuable one in our national program for the management of our continental waterfowl resources. The project area is strategically located near the Eagle Lake-Lissie Prairie area which is famous for its concentration of wintering waterfowl, particularly the white-fronted goose. The proposed refuge would promote better distribution of waterfowl in the central flyway and would be expected to be used by birds from a wide area of the gulf coast. Peak wintering populations of about 100,000 ducks and 35,000 geese are expected on the refuge with its full development. This refuge would provide an extremely important wintering area for white-fronted, Canada, snow, and blue geese, and many species of ducks. The 14,395 acres proposed for this national wildlife refuge were included in a total of 780,000 acres of waterfowl land which this Bureau has estimated could be acquired throughout the Nation under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act in connection with Federal water development projects by the year 2000. This is in addition to the proposal for acquisition of 3,720,000 acres with "duck stamp" funds. Our Department has endorsed H.R. 162 with the recommended amendment. We believe that this project, as planned, provides outstanding opportunities for fish and wildlife conservation and development, and that establishment of the national wildlife refuge at this project would be a particularly effective addition to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. White. Mr. WHITE. You are welcome, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Baring. Mr. BARING. No questions. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Saylor. Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. White, you heard the testimony of the people who preceded you on the stand saying they expected to give licenses to people to dredge for gravel. In view of the fact that the dredges will be right in the middle of a national wildlife refuge, what effect will it have? Mr. WHITE. We would certainly want to see any dredging operations operated so they would not interfere with the management of our refuge for waterfowl purposes. I am certain such arrangements could be worked out. Mr. SAYLFR. I do not know how they could be worked out. It would depend entirely on where-first, you have included the entire 14,395 acres in your refuge. So wherever the gravel appears you would have to be subject to having a dredge put in there, except on this 300 acres above the waterline. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Saylor, we certainly would not want to have the dredges operating during the nesting season of the waterfowl or during the period of high concentration of birds, and I am sure that dredging operations could be halted at times when they would interfere. I would hope all of the dredging could be carried out during the early years of the project so we would not have that problem from then on. Mr. SAYLOR. Suppose it is not. Suppose the leases that are given to these people permit them to take out their sand and gravel as they have markets for it. Then what is your position? Mr. WHITE. We would still hope it could be done in an orderly manner under whatever regulations might be necessary from the Department of the Interior to protect our interest. Mr. SAYLOR. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. White of Texas. Mr. WHITE of Texas. No questions. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Reinecke. Mr. REINECKE. Mr. White, what effect do you feel the constant turbulence or sediment in the water caused by mining the gravel would have on the fish? Mr. WHITE. I am not sure, Mr. Congressman. This is another thing we are faced with in these dredging operations all the time in our normal activities. We report on permits that are issued by the Department of the Army for dredging activities under the waters, and we try to condition these permits and arrange the dredging in such a manner that it will not be carried out during critical spawning periods. We also assist the Department of the Army in locating areas to deposit dredge material other than gravel, waste material that is involved. We certainly hope to work out something that would keep the turbidity to a minimum. Of course, it would not be carried out over the entire reservoir area at one time. We do have a rather large reservoir, and gravel deposits would be under only certain portions of that. Mr. REINECKE. That is all. Mr. ROGERS. Just one question, Mr. White. Did you use the McBroom formula when you figured this out? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; this is the modified McBroom formula we have developed in recent years, which is a little more conservative than it was back in 1961 the first time we appeared with it. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. Mr. WHITE. Thank you, sir. Mr. ROGERS. The committee will stand adjourned until 9:45 in the morning. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee adjourned.) COLUMBUS BEND PROJECT, TEXAS TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1965 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION AND RECLAMATION AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:30 a.m. in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Walter Rogers (chairman of the subcommitte) presiding. Mr. ROGERS. The Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclamation will come to order for the further consideration of the pending business, which is H.R. 162 by Mr. Thompson of Texas, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct, operate, and maintain the Columbus Bend Project, Texas. The Chair has received quite a few communications on this matter in the form of telegrams and letters, and these are divided-I do not know how equally, I have not counted them yet-between those opposing the project and those supporting it. Without objection, these will be made a part of the file with proper reference being made to them in the record. Mr. HOSMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, will they be listed by for and against? Mr. ROGERS. Yes; that is what I meant by my request, that their position be shown. Mr. HOSMER. I withdraw my reservation. Mr. ROGERS. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The list follows:) For E. F. Gau, Austin, Tex. Mack Allen, Columbus, Tex. L. L. Hastedt, Columbus Insurance Agency, Columbus, Tex. Ernest H. Baumgart, president, New Ulm State Bank, New Ulm, Tex. Morris Hodges, Columbus, Tex. D. A. Thornton, vice president, Lakeside Irrigation Co., Inc., Eagle Lake, Tex. P. K. Shatto, Shatto Aviation, Columbus, Tex. John A. Hancher, Columbus, Tex. The El Seven Ranch, William N. Lehrer, Garwood, Tex. Garwood Irrigation Co., William K. Lehrer, Garwood, Tex. Charles D. Rutta, Columbus, Tex. Sam K. Seymour III, president, Chamber of Commerce, Columbus, Tex. Dr. C. I. Shult, Columbus, Tex. R. D. Wright, president, Security Bank & Trust Co., Wharton, Tex. B. C. Roberts, Jr., president, Wharton Bank & Trust Co., Wharton, Tex. Dee McElroy, vice president, Chamber of Commerce, Wharton, Tex. |