Study of land use for recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement submitted to Office, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone
Information
Center
1,COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National technical Information Service
MAY 3 11977
1IF

AD-A034

STUDY OF LAND USE FOR RECREATION AND FISH
AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT CASE STUDIES
D.23.1 TO D.29.1 APPENDIX D. VOLUM-E IV

Coastal Zone Resources Corporation
Wilmington, North Carolina

May 1975

HD
205
C63
1975 M ERCE
7SeMce

Appendix D
v.4

Appendix D Volume IV

Appendix D Volume IV Volume IV
STUDY OF LAND USE FOR RECREATION AND
FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT

Case Studies
D231 to D291

Property of CSC Library

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

Submitted to
Office, Chief of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

By
Coastal Zone Resources Corporation
Wilmington,North Carolina

REPRODUCED BY
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161 MAY 1975

READ INSTRUCTIONS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

TITLE 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERI0D COVERED
Study of Land Use for Recreation and Fish And
Wildlife Enhancement Final rEPORT

APPENDIX D,VOLUME IV
CASE STUDIES D-23-1 TO D-29-1
6. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(S)

...........
COASTAL ZONE RESOURCES CORPORATION DA 3 75-C

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT PROJECT TASK
AREA & WORk UNIT NUMBERS
Coastal Zone Resources Corporation Directed by:
Wilmington., North Carolina Public Law 93-251

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of the Army May 75
Office of the Chief of Engineers; DAEN-CWO-R NUMBER OF, F
Washington, D.C. 20314 237
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS (IF DIFFERENT FROM CONTROLLING OFFICE) 15. SECURITY C-1

UNCLASSIFIED
DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Distribution Statem ent A

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, Of different from Report)

Is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

KEY WORDS (ContIvis, on reverse, aid* It necessary and identify by by block number)

LAND USE
RECREATION
FISH AND WILDLIFE

ABSTACT (Courthouse on reverse side if necessary and Identify by block number)
The report describes legislative authorities,. policy direction, and land use
practices-of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It identifies problems and
makes recommendations for improved management of project resources.

23. HARTWELL RESERVOIR

South Atlantic Division

Savannah District

South Carolina and Georgia

I. SETTING

A. Location

Hartwell Reservoir is located approximately 89 miles (mi) above
Augusta, Georgia on the Savannah River, Approximately 75% of the reser-
voir lies in South Carolina and 25% in GA. The reservoir is situated in the

mountain area of the Blue Ridge and the Piedmont Plateau. The setting
is essentially rural, however, development pressures in the form of
subdivisions and apartments are creating an urban situation around the

border of the reservoir (1).

Primary access to the area is provided by 1 85, which,spans the
reservoir approximately 15 mi north of the dam, connecting major metro-

politan areas in GA and SC. Encircling the reservoir and connecting to

1 85 are numerous primary and secondary roads (Figure D.23.1).

B. Authorization and Purpobes
The Hartwell project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of
1950 (PL 81-516). The project was originally authorized for flood
a
control and power.

C. Features

Around the reservoir the topography is rugged with slopes varying from
5% to over 25% in the upper,reaches of the reservoir. Peninsulas with
aThe Secretary of the Army has been authorized, since 1944, to.constructf
maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities at water
resource development projects. 16 U.S,.C. 460 d. Since 1946, the Army
Corps of Engineers has been required, when consistent with a project's
primary purposes, to make adequate provision fo the conservation,
maintenance, and management of wildlife resourcek. 16 U.S.C. 663(a).

D.23.1

Figure D.23.1.

CENTRAL
123 HARTWELL LAIKE
GEORGIA and
SOUTH CAROLINA
28 123
76 WESTMINISTER 76 CLEMSON
SENECA
se Seneca Marim- PENDLETON

S 0 H C 0 L I N

84 LEGEND
24 76

TOCCOA
CITIES-TOWNS

U.S. HIGHWAYS
4,
2 Portman
85 Shoals STATE ROADS
Marina
17 0
24
ANDERSO INTERSTATE
Tugaloo
State Park GA.- S.C. STATE LINE

85
Harbor
IA Uuht Marfna
Sadlers Creek
G E 0 R G State Park
17 Hart State Park

Har twell Marift STARR
51 @HARTWELL DAM
HARTWELL 29 181 1 0 1 2

29 77 187

Arregular shorelines, form numerous bays over the length of the reser-
.voir. In addition a number of islands are located in the reservoir W.

Soils in the upper reaches of the reservoir are moderately deep,
loamy and clayey soils, runoff is rapid and soil erosion is a hazard

when areas are cleared (2). In the lower reaches of the reservoirsoils

are deep, well drained,and have severely eroded surface layer s on.

moderately steep slopes (3).

Vegetation consists of cut-over mixed pine, and upland,hardwood

forests; bottomland hardwoods occur along the tributaries leading to the

lake.

Upstream from the dam, runoff is regulated over 2,088 square (sq)
mi of the Savannah River Basin (.41, Lake fluctuations are :influenced by
streamflow,.- power production demand, and regulated and required.releases
for flow maintenance below the dam. Excluding drought periods, the Corps
expects water levels to be at 660 feet mean sea level (ft msl) in May of
each year; from May through August, water levels will be within a few
feet of elevation 660 ft msl. From September through November, the lake
will recede from about elevation 655 to 645 ft msl. Rising lake levels

are encountered and controlled from December through April, until the
maximum power pool is reached in May. Periods of sustained heavy rain-
fall will cause the pool to rise above elevation 660 ft msl for short
periods of time. Corps data obtained through 1964 indicates that lake
levels above elevation 660, ft msl occur 9% of the time from May through

September (1).

Hydroelectric power is generated by four, 66,000 kilowatt units
which are capable of generating 453,000. kilowatt hours annually (5)..
Other project features are presented on Table D.23.1.

D.23.3

Table D.23.1. Resource Statistics, Hartwell Reservoir.

a
Date of Authorization May 17, 1950.
b
Rights in Land Acquired Between 1952 to present.
c
Date of Impoundment February, 1961
Date of Full Operation December, 1962 C.

Lake Size When Water Level is at:
Top of Flood Control Pool (665 ft msl) 61,400 acres a
a
Normal Pool Elevation (660 ft msl) 55,950 acres
Normal Minimum"Pool Elevation (649 ft,msl) 45,450 acres a
a,
Minimum Design Elevation (625 ft msl) .27,650 acres
a.
Water Fluctuation - Summer'Recreation Season 5 feet

Shoreline at Normal Pool 962 miles
Held in Fee Simple by Corps milesc
Land Area Managed by Corps

c
Total Land Acquired 80,159 acres

c
Fee Title in U. 77,883 acres
Easements 676 acresc

River Bottom 1,600 acres
Project Operation Lands 1,137 acres c
d
Manageable Resource Lands 22,396 acres

asavannah District. 1965. Hartwell Reservoir Savannah River, Georgia
and South Carolina, the master plan, public use and administrative
facilities design memorandum 22-B. Savannah, Georgia.,
bPersonal communication., November 1974. Savannah District, Real
Estate Division, Savannah, Georgia.
cRRMS. 1973.

dTotal Project Land minus (Land Flooded at Normal Pool + Project
operation Land + Easements).

D.23.4

II. LAND USE, RECREATION, AND FISH AND WILDLIFECONSIDERATIONS

A. Analytical Unit

There are six counties in GA and SC which border Lake Hartwell. In

1970 the population of the'se counties was over 254,087 and had an average
per capita income of $2,297. The greatest population increases, from

1960,to 1970, occurred irp Pickens and Anderson Counties, SC and in

Stephens County, GA. These counties are located around thenorthern
portion of the reservoir through which 1 85 passes. The counties
located around the southern portion of the reservoir have exhibited small
increases in population with Franklin County, GA declining in population
(Table D.23.2). Supporting growth and development on the SC side is a
complex transportation network which intersects with the main transporta-

tion arteries of U. S. 76, 1 85, and U. S. 29. This system provides
convenient routes for commuting lake residents. On the GA side of the
lake, development and growth are not as great; however, roads are just
as numerous but are of lesser quality than those in SC.

Communities affected by recreation and development around the

reservoir form a triangular analytical unit around the lake encompassing

the communities of Toccoa, Lavonia, and Hartwell, GA; and Starr, Anderson.,

Greenville, Easley, Liberty, Central, Pendleton, Clemson, Seneca, and

'Westminister, SC. Interstate 85 bisects this unit from Lavonia, GA to

Greenville, SC (Figure D.23.1). Consequently, the transportation system
combined with growth and development in the project area is effectively
changing the recreational usage around the reservoir from low intensity

use to high intensity use.

Flood control features of Hartwell Dam primarily affect Augusta,
GA and North Augusta and Hamburg, SC by regulating flows downstream to
the Clark Hill Dam. Other areas affected,.include 200,000 acres of
fertile lowland between Augusta and Savannah, GA (1). Hydroelectric

power generated at Hartwell Dam serves markets throughout..the southeast.

D.23,5

Table D.23.2. Population and Income of Counties Borderi .ng Hartwell 71
Reservoir.

Population Per Capita
County 1960 1970 Change Income

a
Stephens County, GA 18,391 20,331 +9% 2,,347
a
Franklin County, GA 13,274 12,784 -4% 2,059
a
Hart County, GA 15 15,814 +4% 2
.,229 031

b
Anderson County, SC 98,478 105,474 +7% 2,558
b
Pickens County, sc 40,030 58,956 +32% 2,486
b
Oconee County, SC 40,204 40,728 +2% 2,303

aU. S. Bureau of the Census. 1971. U. s. census of Population: '1970;
number of inhabitants: Ge*orgia. Washington, D. C.

bU. S. Bureau of the Census. i971. U. S. census: 1970; number of.'
inhabitants: South Carolina. Washington, D. C.

D..23.6
Nil

B. Ownershi

The Corps, in 1952, planned to acquire'101,500 acres for project
p

purposes; in 1955 this was revised downward to about 84,000 acres (4, 6).
Ultimately the Corps acquired 77,883 acres plus 676 acres in flowage
easements using the 665 ft msl contour line as a guide for acquisition
(1, 7). Consequently the Corps administers a narrow strip of land aver-
aging about 200 ft in'depth around the 962-mi shoreline. Approximately
50% of the Corps' boundary has been monumented (7). Lands contiguous to,
and surrounding Corps lands are private properties. Due to the lack of
well-defined boundaries many private owners' have encroached on Corps
properties resulting in property disputes with the Corps. There are no
significant state or local government-owned properties within the pkoj-

ect area.

C. Resource Management

1., Recreation

Within a 100 mi radius of Hartwell Lake the 1970 population was,

approximately 4-million and included the metropolitan areas in Asheville,
North Carolina, Greenville, Spartanburg, and Columbia, SC,.and Athens,
Atlanta, and Augusta, GA (7). Greenville, Spartanburg, and Athens are
within 1 hour's driving time of Lake Hartwell. Additionally, the

reservoir offers the closest water based recreation to these cities. The

other metropolitan areas are within 2 hour's driving timelof Hartwell
Lake via the interstate system; however, they are within shorter driving
times of other reservoirs which offer recreational opportunities.

Total investment of all Corps-related recreational development

through July 1974 has been $2,448,500, with $1,541,000 coming from
regular funds, $688,700 from 711 funds and $208,000 from 712 funds (9).

Within the project the Corps operates and administers 78 recrea-
tional areas which occupy 3,298 acres (7). These recreation areas
range in size from 1 acre to 30 acres. Fifteen of .the sites provide

D.23.7

space for tent and trailercamping. Twelve of the camping,areas-collect
a fee.of $2 per automobile from April 16 through September 30 '(10). All
other recreational areas are designated for day-use only; facilities

offered at these sites include camping sites for tents and trailers,
running water, picnic tables, stoves, boat ramps, comfort statiorisp
refuse containers, swimming areas, and parking lots. All sites visited
during the field study were well designed, located, and@maintained.
Directional signs for the visiting public were strategically placed.

site design incorporated controlled access, separation of day use and
overnight,facilities, and easy access to the,water from all campsites
or picnic areas. Site planning for new facilities are developed at.the
district office and sent to the project for implementation. Plan re7
'21
finements and modifications are performed on site by project personnel
(11). Project personnel.have also developed and maintain a dirt bike
trail. This trail is located below the dam and parallels an underground
pipeline easement. Conflicts between bikers and other visitors has been

eliminated as the trail is of sufficient distance from other recr e ation

grades and curves. This action alleviates the problem of bikers be-
areas. Project personnel alter the bike course annually.@by changing

coming bored with the course and keeps them in the area-authorized for

such use (11).

In 1973 total visitation at all the recreational areas was

4,624,213 with recreational day use recorded as 6,6,32,000. Day'use
exceeded the forecast made in 1965 by almost 3 million (1, 7). Reasons
for this unexpected increase are: (1).@easy'access from.large metropolitan
areas in GA and SC via 1 85, and (2) underestimation of private develop-
ment which has expanded supportive facilities and increased th6 permanent
and summer residents in the immediate vicinity. Subsequently, the
carrying capacity for the recreation areas has been exceeded, resulting
in destruction of vegetation and continual maintenance-problems *(9, 11).

D.23.8

To remedy this situation, project staff is planningoto close the most
abused areas after peak-ViSitation periods to allow vegetation to.become
reestablished and to repair facilities (11). Boating, water skiing, and
fishing activities account for 63% of all recreational activity (7). The
resultant high boating density is considered to be a serious problem by
project personnel (11).

There are 6 marinas (Table D.23.3) leased from the Corps which
occupy 199 acres. The marinas offer a variety of services to the
visiting public, which includes boat docking and 'storage, boat and motor
sales and repair, food servi.ces, baits and tackles, fuel, and campi ng
areas. In 1973 the concessions received 457,635 or 10% of the total
visitation reported for Lake Hartwell.(7).

During the field survey a large and a small marina were visited.
Observations made at both marinas revealed an unkempt appearance as
access roads were potholed and littered and.some areas had a heavy
growth of grass while other areas were bare and needed vegetation.
Buildings and docks needed painting or repair.

Both marinas had set aside areas for the disposal of junk boat

trailers and other large miscellaneous items. Project personnel felt
concessioners were operating substandard facilities and were not living

up to their lease agreements. Additionally, efforts instituted at the
project level to bring the concession facilities up to required standards
have not been supported by the Real Estate Divison (11). 'Consequently
the concessioners feel that project personnel have no real authority over
them and continue to operate substandard facilities.

Concessioners receive competition from development of similar
businesses on private land adjacent to the lake. Such competition
offers similar services except for boat mooring and water access.
Concessioners are also competing with facilities offered at.,state parks

D.23.9

Table D-23.3.outgrants for Recreation Commercial, Lake Hartwell. a

Rental Investment
Location Grantee Instrument Date Term Basis Annual.Rent Acreage To 1974 Planned Turn-
(yrs) Paid M W overs

Seneca G. F. Bitzer Lease 1964 25 Fixed + 3,005 36 -56,195 -N/Ab 2
% gross
Big Water Big Water, Corp. Lease 1973 30 Fixed 600 77 3,413 N/A 0
Hartwell Marina Hi-Dri Marina, Inc. Lease 1966 25 Fixed + 600 22 233,202@ N/A 2
% gross
North Lake Hartwell SaLne Lease 1967 5 Fixed 115 5. 7 N/A N/A 2

Portman Shoals Marina, Inc. Same Lease 1962 25 Fixed +
% gross 44.3 300,000 N/A I
Harbor Lights Marina, Inc. Same Lease 1965 30 Fixed +
gross 100 14.1 146,071 N/A 1

Total (current) 6 5,445 199.1 738,881

a
0 Personal communication, November 1974. Savannah District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Savannah, Georgia..
bNot available.

on properties leased from the Corps (12). The short-term.camping offered
by the Corps and state parks results in low use of1camping facilities at
the concession by short-term campers. Subsequently, to offset low use,
the concessioners allow long-term rentals of campsites re ulting in
s

temporary residents on.-concession grounds.

The fact that each concession operation except one has changed hands
at least once offers strong evidence of problems with the concession
outgrant program. The reasons may be: (1) poor selectionof concession
sites in the mas*ter.plan, (2) over estimates of,visitation which.en-
couraged excessive capital investment, (3) competition from facilities
built.upon, private land to serve-housing developments, and (4) incompe-
tent operators. The difficulty experienced in finding operators for
privately built service establishments may have made real estate officers
reluctant to enforce compliance from existing lessees.

There are no other federal agencies administering lands around Lake
Hartwell. However both state and local governments are leasing.Corps
lands around the lake for recreational purposes (Table D.23.4).-

Hart State Park, which occupies 147 acres, is located 2 mi north of
Hartwell, GA; Tugaloo State Park occupies 393 acres and is located 6 mi
from Lavonia, GA. Both parks are administered bythe Georgia Department

of.Natural Resources, Parks and Historic Division. Full recreational
facilities are offered at each park, including concessions and cottages
or trailers; these facilities are operated by the state. Tugaloo
State Park Also offers.hiking and miniature golf. 'In 1973. the two,parks
had a permanent staff of 10 employees and reported an attendance of
513,000 (13,7). SC.'administers..Sadler Creek State Park which occupies

394 acres and is located 4 mi north of Hartwell Dam. Visitation recorded
for 1973 was 110,692 (7). The -park offers swimming', picnicking.,
camping, and boat launch facilities and bath/change unit,(7).,

D.23.11

Table D. 23.4. Outgrants for Fish and Wildlife and Recreatio n Public Parks, Lake Hartwell. a

Rental Investment
Grantee Instrument Date Term Annual Rent Paid Acreage To 1974 Planned
(yrs)

State of South Carolina,
Dept.. of Parks, Recr4 & b
Tourism Lease. 1966 25 0 394.0, 32BF107 N/A
Stephens County, GA License 1962 25 0 9.2 5,845 N/A
State of Georqia
Div. of State Parks Lease 1965 50 0
393.0, 577,472 30,806
SteV!,ens County, GA Lease 1963 25 0 7,535 8,825
City of Anderson, SC Lease 1969 25 0 28.0 69,568

State of Georgia
Div. of State.Parks Lease 19618 25 .0 147.5 17,200 325,000

State of South Carolina,
Dept. of Wildlife Resources License 1965 25', 0 22.8 N/A N/A
State of Georgia,
Dept. of Natural Resources License 1962 25 0 N/A N/A

Total (current) 8 1,022.7 977,659 434f'199

a
Personal communication, November 1974 Savannah District, Real.Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Savannah, Georgia.
bNot available.

Stephens County, GA has two recreation areas underlicense from
the Corps. One park provides a boat launch ramp fo r lake access, the
other park provides picnic sites and a boA launching ramp. Reported

visitation for 1973 at both of these facilities was 40,320. Anderson
City, SC has leased a 24-acre recreation area which provides only boat
launching facilities and reported 180,600,visitors,in 1973 (7).

All state and local recreation areas were developed or partially
developed by the,@Corps prior to state and local administration..,.,In
1965 the Corps designated 14 areas for development by state and.local
government with Corps participation; to date six areas are under lease
or license by state or local governments as parks or access areas.-In
1973 state and local parks accounted for 18% of all visitation recorded

on Lake Hartwell.

There are 12 quasi-public organizations leasing 266 acres for
recreational use. The lease terms range from 2 to 25 years with all
lessors paying $1 annual rent (Table D.23.5). There are five.private
organizations leasing 29 acres from the Corps for recreational use.
Each lease is for a 20.-year term,with a total annual rent of..$3,165

(Table D.23.6).

2. Lake Resources

Both SC and GA have classified waters in Lake Hartwell as suitable

for swimming and water contact sports (14, 15). In GA there are.10
waste water treatment plants with a combined design flow of 5.6l,million
gallons per day (mgd) which discharge treated effluent into.:tributaries

which flow into Lake Hartwell (16). The number of waste water treatment

p
lants in SC which discharge treated effluent in Lake Hartwell is not
known. However there are 6 facilities, 5 in SC and I in GA, which with-
draw water from Lake Hartwell.for domestic and industrial use (14).

D.23.13

Table D-23.5.Outgrants for Recreation- Quasi-Public, Lake Hartwell. a

Rental Investment
Location Grantee Instrument Date Term Basis Current Annual Acreage To j974 Planned
(yrs) Rent M M M

Clemson University Lease- 1965 25 ---- N/Ab N/A
N.E. Ga. Girls Land Conference Lease 1965 10 ---- N/A N/A
Clemson University Lease 1965 25 N/A N/A
Toccoa Camp Fire Girls Lease 1965 10 N/A N/A
Ist Presbyterian Church Lease 1967 10 N/A N/A
Old 96 Girl Scout Lease 1968 10 ---- N/A NIA
Clemson University Lease 1969 10 N/A NIA
Henders on Senior Citizens Lease 1970 2c ---- N/A N/A
c
Knox Presbyterian Church Lease 1970 2 ---- N/A N/A
Colebrook Baptist Church Lease 5 N/A N/A

Devine Service Catholic Church Lease ----
1970 20 N/A NIA
Anderson-School District #5 Lease 1971 20 ----
N/A N/A
Totals (current) 12 12 266d

a
Personal communication, November 1974. Savannah District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Savannah, Georgia.
bNot available.

cTerms hive-been extended.

d
Total acreage only received from Savannah District.

_No Mimi -Elio

Table D. 23.6. Out grants for Grazing, Private Recreation, and Rights-of-Way, Lake Hartwell.a

Rental Investment
Purpose Grantee Outgrants In strument Date Term Annual Rent Paid Acreage To 1974 Planned
(yrs)

Grazing E. M. Reese 1 Lease 1974 1 40 9.2 N/Ab N/A
Grazing J. I. McGukin 1 Lease 1974 1 135 51.0- N/A N/A

Private
Recreation summary 5 Lease 20 3,165 29.0 N/A N/A
Power-Line Rights-of-Way 996 Easement --- 50 to N/A 740.0 N/A N/A
Indef.

Sewer-Line Rights-of-Way 17 Easement ---- 30-50 N/A 12.8 N/A N/A
Roads Rights-of-Way 70 Easement ---- so to N/A 555.2 N/A N/A
Indef.

Water-Line Rights-of-Way 103 Easement ---- 50 to N/A 358.2 N/A N/A
Indef.
In Railroad Rights-of-Way 4 Easement ---- so N/A 43.8 N/A N/A
Telephone Rights-of-Way 31 Easement 50 to N/A 23.4- N/A N/A
Indef.

Gas & Oil Rights-of-Way 9 Easement ---- 50 N/A 46.2 N/A N/A

Totals (current) 1,237 3,310 1,668.8

a
Personal communication, November 1974. Savannah District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Savannah, Georgia.
bNot av ailable.

Sport fishing is a major attraction on Lake Hartwell and accounts
for 36% of activity use (7)., Both GA and SC reciprocally honor fishing

licenses and creel limits for Lake Hartwell and the Savannah River (17).

Activities performed by-the, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine
Resources Department (SCWPIRD) include,trout and hybrid bass stocking,
survival and growth studies, creel censuses, and.a study of walleye
spawning and food habits (18). Of the seven reservoirs in SC,-Lake
Hartwell is ranked second in terms of total harvest (numbers and,weight)..
SCWMRD has estimated that 732,219 fish weighing,285.4.tons were hat-
vested from Lake Hartwell in 1971,'hA:ving a value of $1,506,000 or $24.55
per surface acre (18). Crappies, bluegill., and largemouth bass are the

most common sport fish taken with rainbow trout reported as being least

caught (18),

Below the dam rainbow trout ate stocked.on a put and take basis.
by both GA and SC (17). Temperatures for trout survival in the tailrace
are monitored and controlled by the Corps througWcontrolled releases
which keep the temperature at 70OF or below for a distance of 7 to 8 mi

downstream (11)'. Regarding downstream fisheries, the USF&WS recommended

in 1965 that "...the Corps should provide a minimum periodic flow below
the dam of at least one unit discharge for one hour,within any 48 hour
period, until other flow requirements that may be necessary for fish
protection are determined." (l)-. The Georgia Game and Fish Division
(GGFD),feel that present releases are not sufficient during low.power
use periods. At times there is no flow at all. To compensate for this

inadequacy the GGFD would like to see a constant,miriimum flow of 600

cubic feet per second (cfs). The GGFD also reported that due to bottom
discharges from the dam, dissolved oxygen (DO) was at times very low and
inadequate for trout survival, resulting in' troutcondentrations.around

'The Corps
the mouths of tributaries which have.@sufficient DO (17).

D.23.16

has-Pot supported tailrace fisheries due to the downstream
danger to fishermen by rapidly rising river levels during large re-
leases. To offset this danger, the Corps is installing a system to
warn downstream fishermen before large releases are made (11). Another
problem as reported by SCWMRD deals with drawdowns of Lake Hartwell for
Corps project purposes. Some drawdowns not coordinated with SC have
resulted in Walleye,kills (19). However water fluctuations.during the
spring of each year are minimized by the Corps /reportedly the level is
not lowered more than 6 inches aid in the reproduction,of bass.
and crappie (20), In the.past both the GA and SC fish and wildlife,
agencies worked together on.Lake Hartwell.through an advisory committee;
however, this committee is no longer active and most stocking,is per-
formed by each state without the other's knowledge (8, 17,19)@ The
Corps has recently hired a fisheries biologist to be quartered at the
Clark Hill project. One of his jobs will be to act as.liaison between
thetwo states and to attempt to resolve management problems and mis-
understandings (7).

Wildlife
Waterfowl usage of Lake Hartwell is@po6r; during migratory periods
mall numbers of waterfowl utilize the lake for resting. Thr-6e islands
were recognized by the'USF&WS in 1.965 as potential waterfowl management
areas and were so designated by the Co' s. The.islands are located.in
rp
SC,south ofthe Tugaloo and Seneca Rivers. The management p lan desig-
nated food planting to attract waterfowl (1). Plans were.institu'ted
by the Corps and shoreline.areas were cleared and planted. For reasons
unknown'the.progr@.:L-n was not successful and the-program has"been
dropped '(8)

Due to the narrow strip:of land,admi nis,tered by the Corps (200 ft),
wildlife management programs for big game species are not practical.
Sufficient land is available in some areas to allow management of small

D.23.17,

game species including controlled hunting. The'Corps has one wildlife
biologist,who directs and manages the wildlife program on,Hartwell. The
biologist spends 25% of his time on Hartwell and 75% on the Clark Hill
project where he is headquartered. Development of a Hartwell management
program by the wildlife biologist is in progress but presently more
attention is being directed toward Clark Hill where benefits,are more
pronounced.

4. Other Land Use

General land use categories of Corps properties in the 1965 master
plan were listed as recreational use areas, wildlife r,efuges.ahd-game
management area.s,.and forest lands. Presently the Corps administered
lands are primarily used for recreation.

Forestry practices have been implemented around Lake Hartwell by
the Corps. These practices do not'encompass timber harvesting as the
lands are.not of sufficient size for economical production. Instead,

the Corps plants hardwoods for mast production to attract and hold
small game,to offer shade at recreational area4 and for erosion control.
They remove infested and infected trees to keep insects and diseases

from spreading.

Agricultural practices on Corps land is limited to two grazing

leases totalling over 60 acres (Table D.23.6). Agricultural practices
have decreased around Lake Hartwell over the last 20 years but are still
significant onpropertids"contiguous to the Corps,xesulting in encroach-,

ments on Corps lands by livestock and fences. One recent problem,
resulting in d fish kill, was caused by insecticide sprayed over a
cotton field which founds its way into the lake (8).

other uses of,Corps properties concerning rights of way,dre listed
on Table D.23.6 while a summary of all Corps outgrants are shown on

Table D.23.7.

D.23.18

Table D.23.7.Summary of Outgrants, Lake Hartwell.

Purpose Number Annual Rent Acreage Investment to 1974

Fish.and Wildlife and
Recreation Public Parks 8 0 1,022.70 977,659
Recreation Quasi-Public 12 12 266.00 N/AA
Recreation Commercial 6 5,445 199.16 738,881
Grazing, Private Recreation, and
Rights-of-Way 1,237 3,310 .1,868.82 N/A

1,263 8,767 3,356.68 1,716,540

aNot available.

- - --------------

Archaeological surveys were performed prior to construction and 70

sites in or near the reservoir were indicated. These,sites were oc-

cupied by prehistoric peoples, beginning at least 5,000 years ago and
ending with the lower.:Cherokee who lost their lands after the American
Revolution. Six areas were selected as significant enough to justify
excavation and three were excavated (1). Seven notable historic sites
were indicated in:or around theproject area and are discussed within

the 1965 master plan
(1). Archaeological and historical facts of thei
project area are related to the public by informational,brochures and
visual displays which are located at the project manager's headquarters.

5. Resource Use Controls

Reservoir management responsibilities are delegated to three
sep ces: Real Estate Project Office, Hartwell-Powerplant
arate offi

Office, and Hartwell Lake@Office. The first office is responsible to

the Real Estate Division of the Savannah District for all real-estate

acquisitions. The second is responsible for power production and lake
level fluctuations, and the third office is responsible for non-power
related resources; both offices report to the Operations Division (Figure

D.23.2).

The Hartwell Lake Office is,responsible for park and natural resource
management and is staffed .(according to the Savannah District 'Organiza-
tion Chartl ashaving two resource managers, one supervisory park ranger#
one forester, sevenpark technicians, one administrative aid, one
biological technician, one clerk typist, and two,temporary clerk steno-
graphers. Maintenance personnel include 17 permanent and 2 temporary
employees..,.The organization chart received from the field office
indicated a total.of.30 permanentemployees versus the 31 permanent and
3 temporary employees shown by the Savannah District. Additionally, a
proposed organization chart submitted by the field office to the district
in July 1974 called for 51 permanent and 28 seasonal and temporary

D.23-20

Figure D.23.2. Recr-tio,@Resource Manmgemnt Interrelationships' Sdvannah Di.t@ict.

D STRICT EN GINEER

n -e-1 --t-te Division operations Division
S.Pv Civil Fnq GS-15 Realty Office, Supvr Civil Eng GS-14
7T

Planning Branch F-...i,,. Branch management & Disposal Branch FT--,@--,tin Branch c-Res Mgmt Branch
Spu Civil Eng GS-14 1, Eg G Supy ---It, Spec ..-13 Supv Realty Spec GS-1 Q.tda. R-Pl- GS-12
Sup Civ- rng GS-'l 3 Civi I Civil Eng Tech GS-7
Re

I Bio GS-9
I Bi. GS -7
I Se GS-5 [Purchasi Branch
I Cl:rk :Steno GS -3 I.-r.. Development Branch '51
I I ivi ivi,
C Ik Typist GS- 3 S.PV C I Eg @GS- @3 Realty SP-3-tio, S-12 GS-13
1 Cl-rk GS-2

Manage@ent
Section Cond-- & Resettl-t Sect F.-t-11 -k. Ire, ield Ili--,
Supv Realty Spec General Atty GS-12
Recreational Planning Sect Envi- ital Resotirces Sect
Supv Civil ing GS-13 SupV Civil Bag GS-13
1 Civil Eng GS-12 IBi. GS I
1 Landscape Arch GS 12 :1 Eviron Spec GS:12 tvraaippa! Branch Claims, Reloc Local-Coup Sect
1 CMI GS: I IP@ys scientist GS-91 GS-13 General Atty GS-12 artwell PowerFlant Field Offic
I ).t"-E"qRec Plnr GS-9 1Phys Be i.-C. Tech GS-8
2 Outdoor Rec PInr GS-7 1Civil Enq Tech GS@5
I Civil Eng Tech G6-1 IStudent Trainee GS-3
& Control Branch section
'l.- - !-2L -
ru,-T.Ity Spec Gs-12 Lly Spec Acti-4 Chief

Urban Studies Section Economic Evaluation Sect tel!.@.,l Estate
S v i@il E.g GS-13- SupV Economist GS-13 f,ic
up C
3 Civil Eng GS-12 I Eco-i:t GS-11 Supv Realty Spec GS-Ij2
I C.-nity Pl- GS-12 1 EPo.omi t GS-9
2 E-n,--.t GS-9 I Eeonomist GS-5
GS-6 1 Eng Aid GS-3
GS :5
no Gs 4
i.t GS-3
;@3

employees; emphasis was placed on increasing the projects recreational
and biological staffing.

The greatest area of growth around the lake has been concentrated
within 0.5 mi of Lake Hartwell in SC paralleling 1 85 (21). This area
has experienced development of recreation related businesses, apartments,
and subdivisions. Such development has occurred in the'absence of zoning
and building regulations and ha'
s created public service.problems for
Anderson County, SC (.21)@.

To exercise lake shore management the Corps has, in accordance
with ER 1130-2-406, instituted a plan that provides guidance
for the protection of desirable environmental characteristics and for
shoreline restoration where degradation has resulted from private-exclu-
sive use. The object is to minimize private exclusive use of public pro-
perty and to maximize benefits to the general public. Regarding the
plan, four basic shoreline classifications were authorized: (1) limited
development areas, (2) public recreation areas, (3) protected lakeshore
areas, and (4) prohibited access areas (22). on Lake Hartwell three of
the cl assifications were implemented and included, limited development
areas (which are equal to 50% of the lakeshore), public recreation areas
(which equal 30% of the lakeshore), andprotected lakeshore areas (equal
to 20% of the lakeshore). Essentially the areas and the.amount selected.
for each classification were areas that existed at the time of implementa-
tion and fell naturally into the classification system (8). The lake
shore management program not only safeguards, to some degree, the lake's'
integrity but influences development and land value's and reduced manage-
ment problems by indicating clear zones of applicable policies reducing
orps and private landowners and reducing the number oi
conflicts between C

applications of permits.

On 18 June 1974, a,public meeting was held by the Corps at Anderson,
SC regarding implementation of the iakeshore management plan.at Hartwell
Lake. The majority of cormnents received at, tl@:a meeting Were submitted'by

D.23.22

adjacent landowners who expressed objections to and or recommended for

.changes to the proposed plan because they felt the plan would interfere..
with or limit their exclusive use and,enjoyment of the public lands and
waters adjacent to their properties. Since completion of the project,
lands adjacent to or near the lake have increased in value.-The Corps
paidan average of $40 per acre for lands purchased in the early 1950's
(6). In 1966 an undeveloped lot was valued at.$4,500; in 1970 the same
-lot was valued at $15,000. At present 0.25-acre lots sell from $8,00 0
to $20,000 with the price dependent upon lot location with respect to the
lake, the. Corps lake-shore restrictions, and subdivision restrictions
imposed by the developer (11). Presently there are over 300 platted sub-
divisions adjacent to Corps properties in both GA and SC, with some having

40 by 40,ft lots (11).

Development adjacent to the lake has degraded aesthetic qualities.

Private owners close to.the. water demand a view of and access to the

lake, which has resulted in construction of 2,671 docks and the reduction.

of lakeshore vegetation (6). At present, 50% of the boundary has been
surveyed and monumented.@ The survey revealed a number of permanent
structures on Corps lands.@ To solve this encroachment problem the Real
Estate..Division.is considering either leasing or selling the properties
to the parties.in violation (11).

Enforcement of federal regulations applicable to the Corps is
performed by the supervisory ranger and five park technicians. This
staff patrols 962 mi of shoreline and 80,000 acres of land and water
which attracted over four million visitors in.1973. All rangers are
headquarteredat the project field office and patrol the reservoir in
radio equipped vehicles. Respor@se timelto areas of disturbance is
hinderedIby the lack of staf f. To offset these deficiencies the park

manager has proposed to increase the ranger force to 18 permanent and 8
seasonal employees (8). Additionally, reaction time is delayed because

D.23.23

ranger substations are not located at strategic points-around the lake

nor do they have patrol boats.. The majority of park technicians have.
been hired locally and are familiar on a personal bAsis@with many of the
,residents around Lake@Hartwell. The practice of hiring local-people for
resource enforcement@is a paractice not utilized by state resource
agencies as the practice encourages ranger leniency toward violators
who are personel acqdain
tances.

Boat and water safety regulations are enforced,with.peribdic
inspections by the U. S. Coast Guard. Game and fish laws applicableto
GA and SC are enforced by designated conservation officers.

Mosquito control operations are performed by the Corps biological
technicians with peak periods of operation occurring during the winter
months. Also included in this operation is aquatic plant control'which

is instituted when deemed necessary (1).

D.23.24

III. FINDINGS AND KEY PROBLEM AREAS

A. Recreation

1. In addition to the 78 recreational areas operated by the.
Corps, four concessions and six state and 6ommu Inity parks are under
lease from the Corps. All are easily accessible and are evenly spaced

around the 962mi of shoreline managed by the Corps.

2. All recreation area site plans are developed at the district
office and sent to the' project for implementation. Plan refinements
and modifications are performed on -site by pro ject personnel

3. All-recreational areas visited were well designed, located,

and@maintained. Directional signs for the visiting public were
strategically placed.

4. Boating, water skiing, and fishing activities account for 63%
of the recreational use. The resultant high boating density is con-
sidered.to be a serious problem by project pe rsonnel...

5. The 1973 visitation rate (6,632,600) exceeded the 1965 ford

cast by almost 3 million. Reasons for the unexpected increase are:
(1) easy access from large metropolitan areas in GA and SC via 1 85,
and (2) expanded supportive service facilities and subdivisions which

,allow easy access to the lake.

6. Anumber of recreation areas are,over-used. The project
staff plans to close selective over-used areas after the peak visitation
period to allow vegetation reestablishment and to perform major,

maintenance.

B. Fish and Wildlife

1. The 1965 master plan stated reservoir lands were suited.for
wildlife refuges and game management are", forestry', and reIcreational

use. To date, recreational development has been emphasized.

D.23.25

2. Waterfowl management has been attempted o three islands
n

in the reservoir; however, this program has not proved successful

and has been terminated.

3. Recommendations of the USF&WS regarding fisheries in the,
reservoir and the tailrace were followed bythe Corps. However, follow-
up checks on discharges and the tailrace fishery have not been performed.
The GGFD feels that a minimum constant flow of 600 cfs downstream will,
improve the cold water fisheries.

4. Fishing is considered to be,good in the reservoir by both the
GGFD and SCWMRD. This fact is illustrated by the high fishing activity
recorded on the lake and the high percentage of visitors who fish.@

.5. GA and SC conduct fish stocking programs on.the reservoir but
the programs are not coordinated. SC conducts creel.censuses but the
data are not readily available to GA. A coordinating councilf estab-
lished to improve communication between.the two states and.the Corps,

was ineffectual and.subsequently dissolved.

C. Corps and,Contiguous Land Use

1. The only land management conducted by the Corps is for recrea-

tional development. Such development was and is hindered by the narrow'
strip of Corps land, resulting in small recreational areas which..
rapidly become overcrowded during peak visitation periods. Subdivision
development has increased the values of lands needed for recreational

expansion.

2. At present,there are no zoning,or building restrictions re-
quired by the counties and development appeara to maximize speculative

interests.

D.23.26

3. Private development has added to the Corps' manage
ment problems.
Land owners close to the water demand not only access to but a view of
the water, requiring landscaping and dock construction which degrade
aesthetic values.

4. Concessions leased from the Corps compete with surrounding
business developments which offer all services to the public excep,t
boat mooring-

Leases were issued for six state and local parks prior to
initiation of the cost-sharing provision of the 710 program but no
additional park leases have since been executed.

.6. Property values have increased dramatically since acquisition.
The Corps paid approximately $40 per acre; at present 0.25-acre lot.s
areselling for $8,000 to $20,000. The prices paid are dependent upon
subdivision restrictions and lake accessibility.

7. To safeguard the lake's integrity, reduce the number of Applica-.
tions for-permits, and influence development of contiguous lands the
Corps has instituted a shoreline management plan which designates 50%
of the shoreline for limited.development, 30% for public recreation,
and 20%. as protected shoreline..

D. Real Estate Programs and Practices

1. Survey and monumentaticn ofthe project's boundaries were not
performed during'o.r immediately after acquisition. At present, 50% of
the boundary has been surveyed and monumented. The survey revealed a
number of permanent structures on Corps lands. To solve this encroach-
ment, problem the Real tstate Division is considering either leasing or
selliag the properties to the parties in violation.

2. In many areas,project personnel feel that the concessioners
are operating substandard facilities and are not meeting their

D.23.27

lease agreements. Efforts instituted at the project level to bring the
concession facilities up to standards have not been.supported by
district real estate personnel. Consequently the concessioners feel that
project personnel do not have real authority over them and continue to
operate substandard facilities.

3. The fact that each concession operation has changed hands at
least once offers strong evidence of problems with the concession out-
grant program. The-reasons may be:\ (1)4poor selection of concession
sites in the master plan, (2) over estimates of-visitation which encouraged

excessive capital.investment, (3) competition from facilities built upon
private land to serve housing developments, and (4) incompetent operators.
The-difficulty experienced in finding operators for pri.vately-built
service establishments may make real estate officers reluctant to enforce
compliance from;existing lessees.

E. Corps Organization

1. The resource manager has proposed a reorgan ization which would

increase the ranger section from sixto 19 permanent employees and in-
-forestry section from two to. se,, ien permanent employees.
crease the'bi6

2. Ranger reactio4 time is delayed because ranger substations are
not located at strategic points around the lake nor do they have patrol

boats.

.3. The existing practice of hiring local people,for enforcement

ances.
may encourage leniency toward violators who are personal acquaint

4. The Corps wildlife and fisheries biologists stat ioned at
Clark Hill are recent additions; their responsibilities include acting
as laisiort between the respective states, the.Clark,Hill and Hartwell
projects, and the district.

D.23.28

F. Environmental Problems

Lake Hartwell water is classified by both GA and SC as suitable
for recreation use and is utilized by some communities for water supply
and for the dumping of treated domestic wastes. Water quality may be
Arl degraded through increases in uncontrolled development which would increase,
the discharge of domestic waste and urban runoff.

D.23.29

IV. REFERENCES

1. Savannah District. 1965. Hartwell Reservoir, Savannah River,
Georgia and South Carolina, the masterplan, public use and administra-
tive facilities, design memo Irandum 22-B. Savannah, Georgia

2. Craddock, G.' ,R. and C. M. El le'rbe. 1965 General soil mapof Anderson
County South Carolina. Soil,Map Leaflet 4-. Clemson University,
Clemson, South Carolina..

3. Craddock, G. R., and C. M. Ellerbe.' 1968. General soil map of
Pickens County South Carolina. Soil Map Leaflet 39. Clemson
University, Clemson, South Carolin a.

4. Savannah District.. 1952. Definite project report, Hartwell Reservoir,
Savannah River,'Georgia and South Carolina, Vol. I of III. Savannah,
Georgia.

5., Savannah District. 1972. Hartwell Lake, Georgia.and South Carolina..
Information brochure. Savannah, Georgia.

6. Savannah District. 1,955. Design memorandum XVI, Hartwell Reservoir,
te memorandum.
Savannah River, Georgia and South Ca rolina. Real Esta
Savannah, Georgia.

7. Recreation-Resource Management System (RRMS). 1973. 1973 annual
report (Lake Hartwell)'.. Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.@C.

8. Savannah District. 1972. Savannah National Recreation Area,
feasibility report, Volume 2 of@2. Savannah, Georgia.

9. Savannah District, Engineering Division, Program Development Branch.
1974. Supplemental information, recreation,construction, Hartwell
Lake. Savannah, Georgia.

10. Savannah District. 1974. Information pamphlet, Lake Hartwell,
Savannah*, Georgia.

11. Personal ccmmunication,,28 September 1974. Field personnel,
Savannah-District, Lake Hartwell, Ha rtwell, Georgia..

12. Personal communication, 9 September 1974. Letter from High-Dri
Marina, Inc.,.Laka Hartwell to Savannah District, Real Estate
Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Savannah, Georgia-

D.23.30

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Historic Sites
Division. 1973. Inspection tour of the northeast Georgia State,
.Parks, Parks and Recreation Sub-Committee of the House of.Representa-
tives Recreation Committee. Atlanta, Georgia.

14. South Carolina Water Resources Commission. 1971. Water use in
South Carolina 1970. Columbia, South Carolina.

15. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division. 1973. Water use classifications and water quality
criteria for the State of Georgia. Atlanta, Georgia.

16. Georgia Department of Natural.Resources, Environmental Protection
Division. 1972. Georgia municipal and industrial wa stewater
treatement facilities associated with reservoirs. Atlanta, Georgia.

17. Personal communication, 26 August 1974. Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division. Atlanta, Georgia.

18. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. 1971.
Job progress report (supplement). Columbia, South Carolina.,

19. Personal communication, August 1974. South Carolina Wildlife and
Marine Resources.Department, Columbia, South Carolina.

.20. South Atlantic Division, Engineering Division. 1971. Water,
resources development in South Carolina. Atlanta, Georgia.

21. Personal communication, August 1974. South Carolina Appalachian
Council of Governments, Greenville, South,Carolina.

.22. Office%@ Chief of Engineers., 1974. No. 327..30 Lakeshore management
at civil works projects. Washington, D. C.

D.23.31

24. ALAMO LAKE

South Pacific Division

Los Angeles District

Arizona

I. SETTING

A. Location

Alamo Lake is located on the Bill Williams River on the border.of-
Yuma and Mohave Counties, Arizona. Access is provided by a paved road
that extends 38 miles (mi) north@from U. S. 60 at Wenden-and by a graded'

dirt road that extends 32 mi west from U. S. 93 near Congress (Figure

D.24.1). Wenden is the nearest town to the reservoir; the Phoenix
metropolitan area is located approximately 148 mi southeast of the
project.

B. Authorization and Purposes
The Alamo Lake project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of
1944 (PL 78-534) (1). The project was originally authorized for flood.
control, water conservation, and power development (2) a,b

C. Features

Alamo Lake is situated in the upper reaches of the Sonoran Dese rt.
The,damsite lies in a steeply-sloped canyon between the Rawhide and
Buckskin Mountain Ranges; the Artillery.Mountains@border the north side
of the project near where the Bill Williams River is formed by the con-.
fluence of the Sandly and Santa Maria Rivers. The remaining project land

a
The Secretary of the Army has.been authorized, since _1944, to construct,
maintain,.and operate public park and recreational facilities at water
resource development projects. 16 U.S.C. 46Ud. Since 1946, the Army
corps of 'Engineers-has been required, when consistent with a project's
primary purposes, to make adequate provision for the conservationt
maintenance, and management of wildlife resources..'16 U.S.C. 663(a),.
bPower development is a future.proj bct purpose (2).

D.24-.l

Figure D
.24.1.
ALAMO DAM
WENDEN 'ARIZONA

LEGEND

[@JCORPS.BOUNDARY
PARK' BOUNDARY
GRADED ROAD

PAVED ROAD TO SIGNAL

A'V rAl

------ A it I A RIVER

TO CONGRESS

TO WENDEN
0 4000

Feet

is characterized by rolling terrain dissected by numerous arroyos. Eleva-

tions within the project boundary range from a little less than 1000

feetmean sea level (ft msl) to about 1400 ft msl. Soils of the area

have a low humic content, a high soluble salt content, are interspersed
by coarse to fine rock fragments, and are frequently underlain by layers-,
of hardpan (3). Upland vegetation is dominated by saguaro, barrel,
prickly pear cactus, creosote bush, mesquite, ocotillo, bur sage palo

verde, salt bush, and tamarisk.M. Cattails dominate the lowland com-
munities along the shoreline and.are most abundant north of Alamo

Crossing. Cottonwoods, with an understory of mesquite and creosote

bush, have become-established in the channel beds,,of some intermittent

streams and rivers.

Streamflow in the Bill Williams, Sandy, and Santa Maria Rivers is

intermittent and normally occurs during and immediately after major rain
storms. Streamflows, on rare occasions, may be produced by rapid snow
melts in the mountains within the reservoir's 4,770 s mi drainagearea..
q
Streamflow velocities are often great because channel beds are-entrenched,,
have steep gradients, are underlain by impervious soil formations, and
have fan-shaped collecting systems (1).

The reservoir is operated for flood control from 1,235 ft msl'@to

1,046 ft msl and for recreation from 1,046 ft msl to 990 ft msl. A

maximum of 7,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), of water is discharged when
the rese:rvoir is at 1,235,ft msl to 1,174 ft msl. Releases are restricted
to a maximum of 2,00 0 cfs when'@h6 reservoir is at 1,174 ft.msl to 1,046

ft msl, and to 10 cfs when the pool is below 1,046 ft msl (the latter
.,discharge is maintained to satisfy@downstream water rights). When at
1,046 ft msl the reservoir has a-length of about 2.5 mi and a maximum
width of 0.5 mi. Records indicating maximum, mininium, and average
monthly pool elevations were not,included in the project master plan

D.24.3

a
and were not obtained from other sources

other project features are shown in Table D.24.1.

a
The master plan referred to in this report is a draft provided by the
district office; the final master plan had not,been completed at the
time of our visit-,

D.24.4

Table D.24.1. Resource Statistics, Alamo Lake.
a
Date of Authorization
b
Rights in Land Acquired Between 1948 1969
c
Date of Impoundment ..July, 1968
c
Date of Full Operation July, 1968

Lake Size When Water.Level is at:

a
Spillway Elevation (1,235 ft msl) 13,300 acres
a
Normal Pool Elevation (1,046 ft msl) 500 acres
d
Normal Minimum Pool Elevation (990 ft msl') N/A
Mini mum Design Elevation NAe
Water Fluctuation - Summer Recreation Season 2 feet b
C
Shoreline at Normal Pool 9 miles

c
.Held in Fee Simple by Corps 9 miles

Land Area Managed,by Corps
Total Land in Project 22,856 acrts c
Fee Title in U. S. 22,856 acres c
Project Op eration Lands 9 acres c
f
Manageable Resource.Lands 22,347 acres

aLos Angeles District. 1974. Master plan for Alamo Lake (dkaft)..- Los
Angeles, California.

b
Personal communication, November 1974. Los Angeles District, Los
Angeles., California.
CRRMSi 1973.
dNot avai lable.
eNot applicable

f
Total Project Land minus.(Land Flcoded at Normal Pool + Project
Operation Landl.

D.24.5

II. LAND USE, RECREATION, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSIDERATIONS

A. Analytical Unit
Lands in the project vicinity.were in the past and are presently
utilized for mineral prospecting, shaft type mining, and
cattle grazing. Virtually no commercial, residential, or industrial
development has occurred in response to the reservoir's presence. The
project draws about 95% of its recreational clientele from the Phoenix
metropolitan area with most of-the remaining 5% originating from local
@areas (4).. Populations in Mohave, Yuma, and Maricopa (Phoenix area)
Counties increased substantially between 1960 and 19701and are noted in

Table D.24.2.

B. OwnersUp

(a) Corps
RRMS 1973 data indicate that 22,586 acres have been acquired by the
Corps for the Alamo Lake project (5). A drawing provided by the district's
Real Estate Division, however, implies that 19,603.4 acres have been
acquired (7). No explanation for the discrepancy was obtained.

The drawing provided by the Real Estate Division also indicates that
4,714 acres have been acquired in fee title by the Corps, 14@,889 acres
have been transferred to the Corps from public domain, and that the trans-
fer of an additional 3,488.6 acres of public domain land (presently under
urisdiction) is pending a settlement of grazing rights (7, 8).. The
PI-M j
latter acreage is divided into numerous parcels, several of which lie
contiguous to the reservoir (7). Proj ect boun dari-es have not been monu-
mented (7).

(b) Other

Lands contiguous to the.project boundary'were.identified as being

held by BLM. Data showing locations of BLM land, acreage held, and

number and size of private inholdings (if any) was not obtained.

D.24.6

Table-D.24.2. Populations of Mohave, Yuma,, and Maricopa Counties,Arizona,
1960-1970.a

Population Percent
County 1960 .1970 Chanige

Mohave 7,736 25,857 234.2

Ttuna 46,235 60,827 31.6

Maricopa 663,5110 9.0,522 45.8

a
U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1971. U. S. Census of population: 1970;
numbex.of inhabitants: Arizona. 'Washin'ton, D. C.
9

D'.24.7

C'. Resource Management

1. Recreation
Recreation facilities have been developed at one site at Alam.o.
Lake. The facilities were built by the Corps using an estimated
$1,520,000 of project funds (1). Construction of the facilities was

completed in 1968 and the facilities were initially managed by the
Corps,(l). operation and maintenance of the facilities was delegated
to the Arizona State Parks Board (ASPB) in 1969 by means of a 25-year

lease (1). The lease.involves 4,893 acres (Table D.24.3) and the area

has since.been named Alamo Lake State Park (1). The ASPB has expended
$242,931 for operation And maintenance since the effective lease date

and has requested a $97,600 budget for 1975-1976 (1, 10). Total monies
spent.for capital investments by the ASPB were not obtained.

Recreation facilities provided at Alamo Lake.State Park in 1973:
included an amphitheater, 12 picnic sites with shelters, 25 tent.
campsites, 24 trailer campsites, 2 bath and/or change houses, 1 boat
launching ramp with 1 launching lane,'4 parking lot's with spaces for

166 cars and 50 car-trailers,,an,.overlook structure, several natur al

trails, and a visitor contact station that contains interpretive
geologic, historic, and wildlife displays built by ASPB (5, 1).

Visitation at the s;.te in 1973, based on direct counts.by theASPB, was
41,051 a V1
sitation in 1969, for com]@ari.son,,. was 16,812, and in 1972,
thepeak visitation year, 43,925 (1, 11). The gasoline shortage is

thought to be a major cause of the recent visitationdecline (4).

Visitation at the reservoir is greatest in the spring. March,

April, and May accounted for 19%, 21%, and 15%, respectively., of,the

total reservoir attendance from 1969..to 1973 (1). In contrast, June,
July, and August accounted for. only 6%, 4%, and 3%, respectively @1).
ASPB and Corps personnel indicated that weatherconditions Are ideal

a
RRMS 1973 data indicate that visitation in 1973 was 42,000. The
reason for the difference was not obtained.

D.24.8

Table D.24.3. Outgrants for Fish and Wildlife and Recreation Public Parks, Alamo Lake.a

Rental Annual Investment
Grantee Tnstrument Date Term Acreage to 1974 P 1 ar@me
Rental
(yrs) Paid

State of. Arizona, Lease 1969 25 0 4,893 N 330,900
Parks Board
State of Arizona, Game License 1970 0 -22,85e N/A. N/A
&7Fish Commission

d
Totals 2 27,749 330,900

a
Personal@communication, Nowmber 1974. Los Angeles District, Real Estate Division, Management and
Disposal Branch, Los Angeles, California.
bNot available.

c
Includes-all projectland and water owned in fee by the Corps; overlaps with Arizona State Parks
Board outgrant.
dincludes overlapping 0 f leases.

and fishing is excellent during the spring thus accounting'f.or the high
visitation rates recorded during this period (12, 11, 4).

The ASPB charges $0.50 per carload for use of day facilities,
$1.50 for use of the tent camping area, and $2.25 for use of trailer
campsites (11). The fees are charged throughout the year and are col-
lected at the visitor contact station (11). Fees collected from.August

1972 through July 1973 amounted to $13,696 (4).

Data collected from direct counts by the ASPB from'.Augutt 1972
through July 1973 found that 80% of all reservoir visitors utilized
overnight facilities (4). However, RRMS data indicate that only 29%
of reservoir visitors utilize overnight facilities (5). Corps personnel,
did not provide an explanation for the discrepancy. overnight facili-
ties are heavily utilized because most of the reservoir's recreation
clientele travel long distances to reach the project (4, 11, 12).

ASPB personnel stated that many of the existing facilities have
been poorly designed, located, andjconstructed, and-consequently detract

from the quality of the visitor's recreation experience (11).4 Noted
examples were: (1) the visitor contact. station is not located near the
,park entrance and since several roads intersect with the main thorough-
fare prior to teaching the station, visitor confusion has resulted
(2) The swim beach is located at.the end of a wash. During flash floods

the area receives a tremendous influx.of debris and.is hazardous for

public use. (3) The launchingramp presently in operation does,not have
sufficient pitch and hinders use during high water periods. Asecond

-inel towards the
launching ramp had been constructed by,dredging a char

shoreline. Wind and wave action caused the.channel to fill with

able. (4) Recreational. facili-
sediment and rendered the ramp inoper

ties-have been located beyond the 50-year flood line at about 1,255 ft
msl to 1,2.50 ft msl. At recreation pool elevation, the reservoir is a

D.24.10

long distance from the facilities rendering visitor use inconvenient.
(5) many of the public service facilities have been custom designed and
built, making replacement and repair difficult. (6) A well for domestic

water has been drilled in the reservoir and its pump located on a plat-
form just above the recreation pool; potable water could have been
obtained from a nearby upland source. (7) Electrical hook-ups have been

placed on the wrong side of trailer pads for camper-trailer use. (8)

Water spigots have been built directly over the electrical hook-ups in

the trailer camping area, creating safety hazards. (9) Living quarters

for park rangers have been located between day and overnight use areas

and detract from the visitor's aesthetic view of the project. The latter
three problems resulted from developing recreation facilities in an area
formerly used for mobile-home housing of damsite construction crews (4,

RRMS 1973 data indicate that picnic site, campsite, and launch ramp

deficiencies exist at Alamo Lake (5). The project master plan also
states that "Attendance has warranted the updating and addition of
recreational facilities to satisfy the present and future demands (1)."

The Corps plans to construct in the near future 30 camp and picnic

sites, a boat launching ramp, a sewage dump station, and impro-ements

in the exi3ting camp areas (1). The estimated cost of construction is
$330,900 and will require cost-sharing under the Code 710 program (1).
The project master plan indicates that the ASPB has verbally agreed to
share costs (1). ASPB personnel informed us, however, that the Arizona
Attorney General has expressed opposition to the Code 710 program

because (1) land ownership would remain with the Corps, (2) the state
would not be reimbursed if'the project or lease were terminated, and

(3) Corps administrative costs are excessive (11). ASPB personnel
also felt that the Corps has largely ignored their input regarding
recreation planning at Alamo Lake (11). One ASPB official stated "The

D.24.11

Corps tells us what we want for our recreation program (11)." The
alleged slighting of the state by the Corps has further increased the

ASPBI,s reluctance to match funds (11).

Although the project master plan indicates that visitation pressures
have warranted additional facility development, it does not provide

supportive data clearly showing why existing facilities fail to meet

demands, nor does the plan identify Corps recreation objectives.
District personnel have also stated, in contrast to the project master
plan, that is is their philosophy to build additional recreation facili-

ties at Alamo Lake to increase visitation (12).

The project master plan notes that the Arizona Outdoor Recreation
Coordinating Commission (AORCC) has indicated that recreation facili-

ties in the state are inadequate (1). According to the master plan,

the AORCC recommends that facilities be improved or increased at

projects developed in remote areas, such as Alamo Lale, to help reduce
deficiencies (1). The master plan fails to explicitly show how
recreation planning at Alamo Lake will help alleviate the facility

shortage.

The ASPB has requested the Corps to raise the recreation pool 20 ft
(to 1,066 ft msl) to provide greater recreation potential and minimize

possible water use conflicts should visitation increase (1, 11).

Raising the pool level to 1,066 ft msl would resuit in an increase in
the lakc's recrear4on pool length from 2.5 mi to 3.5 mi, its maximum

width from 0.5 mi to 0.6 mi, its shoreline length from 8.9 mi to 20.2 mi,

and its water surface area from 500 acres to 1100 acres (1). The Corps

noted that raising the pool elevation to 1,070 ft msl would be more

feasible from a hydrologic staiL'IpOint (1). A confirme:1 decision to

raise the pool level has not yet been made by the Corps (12).

D.24.12

No commercial concessions have been constructed at Alamo Lake

though the Corps and ASPB encourage their development (1). An indepen-

dent concessioner is presently in operation about 6 road mi southeast

of the project. The concessioner's clientele includes reservoir visi-

tors and local ranchers. Services provided include food, fuel, and a

game room.

No private recreation facilities, such as boat docks and storage

sheds, have been built at Alamo Lake. The shoreline, therefore, has a

natural appearance.

Four other water-oriented recreation areas have been established

within about 100 mi of Alamo Lake: Lake Havasu, Parker Dam and Buck-

skin Mountain State Parks on the Colorado River, and Lake Carl Pleasant.
All four are intensively used and provide recreational facilities
similar to those at Alamo Lake (1). Alamo Lake has excellent potential
for being maintained as a low-intensity use recreation area because of
its remoteness, aesthetic setting, and the presence of the afore-

mentioned, high-intensity use recreation areas. The Corps -master plan

does not address this possibility.

2. Lake Resources

The Arizona Public Health Department (APHD) has classified the
reservoir waters suitable for full body contact, partial body contact,

warm-water fisheries, aquatic life, wildlife, and agricultural uses

(13). APHD is unable to monitor water quality at the reservoir, except
on a complaint basis, because of inadequate staffing @13). Some water

quality and limnologi,-: paramsters are regiilarly monitored by the
Arizona Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) in conjunction with their

fisheries management program. Monitoring by the AGFC indicates that

alkalinity, chloride, calcium, and fluoride values are relatively high

(14, 16).

D.24.13

Corps personnel indicated that water circulation in the reservoir
is poor and, during high temperature periods, encourages growth of
aquatic weeds (possibly coontail) along areas of the shoreline. The
weeds, where present, are unsightly, and make usage of the shoreline
difficult for fishing, swimming, boating, boat launching, and boat

mooring (11).

ASPB personnel stated that'the reservoir receives a tremendous

influx of sediment during flash floods and if left uncontrolled would

cause the reservoir to rapidly fill (4). The Corps master plan also
recognizes the sedimentation problem and notes that 200,000 acre-feet

have been reserved for sediment accumulation over a 100-year period (1).

The master plan does not indicate that dredging or other control
measures will be implemented.

The Corps has leased all project lands (22,856 acres) to the
AGFC for wildlife and fisherias management (Table D.24.3.). The Corps
initially contemplated leasing only the 17,963 acres of project land not
included in the outgrant to the ASPB (15). However, the AGFC requested
that the 4,893 acres outgranted to the ASPB also be included, stating

that "there would be no conflict in purpose, use, and mana.@ement between

the Arizona State Parks Board and the Arizoiia Game and Fish Department
(14)." The Corps consented to the request and as yet thie have been no
conflicts between tI.e two agencies (15, 12).

Fisheiv management at Alamo Lake is designed for compatible
warm-water species that do not present potential overcrowding and
stunting problems (16). Managed gama species are the largemouth bass,

redear sunfish, and channel catfish. The latter two species were
stacked in 1969 and 1974, respectively (14).a
aThe AGFC initially contemplated using rotenone shortly after iinpound-
mant and prior to any initial stocking in order to eradicate
ur.desirable fish species, such as carp, bullheads, and suckers, from
the reservoir and its drainage area (16). The eradication program
was never implemented (17). Reasons were not obtained.

D.24.14

The AGFC implied that during impoundment the Corps left a sub-
stantial amount of natural vegetation and other debris on the reservoir

floor, thus providing favorable spawning and nursery habitat for
reservoir fish (14, 16). The AGFC periodically monitors reservoir fish
populations by means of reconnaissance surveys, such as electro-shocking
and creel censuses (14, 17). Results indicate that game fish reproduc-
tion has been excellent but desirable weights for various classes of

largemouth bass have not been attained (14, 17). A forage species,
such as the plains red shiners, may soon be introduced to promote bass
growth (14).

The reservoir fish population is estimated at 300 to 500 pounds
per acre (14). Operation of the reservoir for other project purposes
has apparently not had adverse effects on the fishery fesource (14, 17).
A beneficial carp die-off was experienced in 1973 but causes of the kill

are unknown (17).

3. Wildlife

The wildlife management plan implemented by the AGFC at Alamo Lake

has essentially involved only the establishment of a waterfowl rest area
near the recreation pool headwaters (14). The AGFC has been reluctant

to expand its wildlife management program because a Corps withdrawal
order concerning 3,488.6 acres of BLM land is pending grazing juris-

diction settlements (8, 14).

A population of about 45C wild burrows inhabit the upland biotic

communities in the project vicinity (4). The burros are prote:;ted by
the federal Wild Horse and Burro Act and by the State of Arizona's
Livestock Sanitary Board (11). Burros heavily graze native vegetation

and are considered-a nuisance by local residents (4). The animals are
fairly easy to see, however, and provide an aesthetic experience for
many viEitors not accustomed to observing wildlife. Other game species

D.24.15

present in the Alamo Lake vicinity include mule deer, bighorn sheep,
jack and cottontail rabbits, Gamble's Quail, White-winged and Mourning
Doves, Mallards, Pintails, Redheads, Shovelers, Green-winged Teal, Ring-

necked Ducks, and Canada Geese-(8). Hunting is permitted on certain
areas of the project and is regulated by the AGFC (17).

4. Other Land Use

(a) Forestry
Extensive timber management practices have not been necessary
at Alamo Lake because climatic conditions have prevented establishment

of substantial tree cover. Trees have been planted by ASPB to provide
additional shade and improve the aesthetic appearance at some recreation
areas. Intensive grazing pressures by herbivorous mammals have fre-

quently hindered development of planted trees and future planting may be
require fencing (4).

(b) Grazing

BLM lands contiguous to the reservoir are leased through

annual permits to private individuals for livestock grazing. Permit

fees are based on the cost of raising livestock on private land.

Boundary lines are marked and fenced on many tracts which are repeatedly

leased. Fences are also constructed in areas where livestock grazing

is prohibited for selected periods to allow vegetative recuperation.
Fencing materials are supplied by the BLM but permittees must provide

the labor necessary for fence construction (18).

BLM. and Corps personnel were contacted to determine the

current status and use of 3,488.6 acres of pro3ect land subject tu the

withdrawal of BLM jurisdiction (see Ownership section). Neither agency

was able to provide a clarifying explanation. It is not known

if these lands are subject to the same administrative and land-use

D.24.16

practices as BLM lands located contiguous to the project.

5. Resource Use Controls

The Engineering, Construction-Operations, and Real Estate Divisions

are primarily responsible for planning and management of Alamo Lake's rec-

reation resources at the district level (Figure D.24.2 ). on site Corps

personnel consist of two dam tenders whose respon3ibilities are
essentially restricted to management of reservoir pool levels. The Los
Angeles District has no on-project park rangers; such personnel have not

been needed because the district has delegated management of all on-
site recreation programs to other agencies (12).

On-site recreation management at Alamo Lake is performed by ASPB

personnel. Staffing presently consists of five permanent employees:
one park supervisor, one park ranger, and three ranger assistants (11,

4). Staffing is quantitatively sufficient to perform management
responsibilities; no data on education backgrounds were obtained.

D.24.17

Fiqure El.-14.2. Recreation-Resource Mariagement Inter iF@Iationships - J@@ Anqc]@@ Lr,qin,2er L1i,rt1,-t
L Em,Int-Lim

Ln-lineering DIV1.110n 1,zil L,111, .-n Const uLt on-Operatic,1- DiviS,01
Supv Civil Lriq GE-15 k, I ,@- 14 Supv Civil Erigr
;,I ly lCeL

DeS.In Branch Frogram Developm@@nt Branch -.ju1%-1L-n Naviqation Branch
Supv Ci-1 En-i 11 S-14 F @p, Civil Fr,g G!- I @.up- Rcalty :,Ic, 12 Supv Civil Eng Gs- I

Hydro cigy and Hydraulics Branch Water Resources Branch Apfjrai@al Branch Con, luction Branch
Supv hydr E:nq GS-13 Supv Civil Eng cs-1 4 '-pv APP@ G-- - I Supv .--ivil Eng GS-13

Envixon 'esourCes Branch mg.J n.j 1 1 @@[,-,sa I Branch
-;,jpv -and-i,e ,.r. 6@1- 1 S,,,V Rc-11.y -p- GF-12

F,1 rininy in,] I Elramh Opera ions Branch
---@ct lor, 1.1arining Section Supv Re.@lty -.r"l Supv Hyd Eng GS-13
E-14 -Z-1. . Sup, (Avil L.0 C'S - , -,
I Lr, 19-11 1 biol I
I- 1 1, Arc n 1 2 ('Lvi I Eric; I
r I I Frig I Phys @Clel@tlst I !kl.m 1,1,, Area
-,@..q T@ch G:, - 7 1 C I v, I I -g F'.--r.i
F
i-o , 3 @pc- ArCh (,S-7
I E-01
t GS-5 i c)
L1.,9 'Itch GS-3 I o I

I C v @q Tech [email protected]
F
F Fl..n
r "."
,upv Fl@ I t

Figure D.23.2a Organization Chart - Hartwell WRDP

HARTWELL LAKE

John L. Leroy Manager
Park Manager GS-12

1 Park Manager GS-11
1 Supv Park Ranger GS-9
1 Forester (V) GS-9
5 Park Technician GS-7
1 Admin Aid GS-7
1 Biological Tech (Insects) GS-6
1 Park Technician GS-5
1 Park Technician GS-4
2 Clerk-Steno (Temp)(V) GS-4
1 Clerk-Typist GS-3

1 Constr & Maint Foreman S-10
I Constr & Maint Foreman S-8
1 Auto Mechanic W-10
1 Engr Equip Operator W-10
1 Preventive Maint Worker W-9
I Carpenter W-9
1 Engr Equip Operator W-8
1 Automotive Wcrker W-6
1 Launch Operator w-7
2 Motor Vehicle Operator W-7
I Pumping Station Opr (Temp) w-7
1 Carpenter Helper W-5,
1 Motor Vehicle Operator w-5
5 Laborer (1 Temp) w-3

D.24.18a

III. KEY FINDINGS

A. Recreation

1. Existing recreation facilities have been designed and built by

the Corps. The ASPB has been granted a 4,893-acre lease to operate

these facilities.

2. Existing facilities, however, have been poorly designed,

located, and constructed, and detract from a quality recreation ex-

perience.

3. Development of additional recreational facilities is being

planned to meet present and future visitation demands. Development of
these facilities will depend on cost-sharing under the Code 710 program.

4. ASPB personnel feel that the Corps largely ignored their input
regarding recreaticn planning at Alamo Lake., One park official statad
"The Corps tells us what we want for our recreation pro'gram." -As a.
consequence of this relationship, ASPB has exp:ressed reluctance to share
the cost of developing future recreation facilities. The Arizona

Attorney General has also expressed opposition to cost share because
(1) land ownership would remain with the Corps, (2) the state would not
ba reimbursed if the project or lease is terminated, and (3) Corps

administrative costs are excessive.

B. Fish and Wildlife
1. The total project acreage has been leased to th,.! AGFC for fish

and wildlife management. This outgrant overlaps the lease given to the
ASPB but no ::onflicts have resulted or are antic1pated.

2. Wilalife management at Alamo Lake has not been intensive and
has focused primarily on waterfcwl. The AGFC 'ias been reluctant tc
expand its wildlife management program because a Corps wi-thdrawal order
concerning 3,489 acres of BLM land is pending grazing jurisdiction

settlements.

D.24.19

3. The AGFC's fishery:management program at Alamo Lake is designed

for compatible warm-water species that do not present potential over-

population and stunting problems. Reservoir fish populations are

periodically monitored by means of reconnaissance surveys, such as

electro-shocking and creel censuses. Monitoring indicates that game

fish reproduction has been excellent but desirable weights of various

classes of largemouth bass have not been attained. The reservoir

fishery population is estimated at 300 to 500pQunds per acre. Opera-

tion of the reservoir for other project purposes has apparently not had

adverse affects on the reservoir fishery.

C. Corps and Contiguous Land Use

1. Project lands are surrounded by public domain lands. Virtually
no industrial, commercial, or residential development has resulted from

the reservoir's presence. The closest urban development is located

38 mi south of the project.

2. Corps boundaries are not monumented, but encroachment problems

have been negligible.

3. Development of private recreational facilities, such as boat

docks, has not occurred and the reservoir shoreline is aesthetically

pleasing.

4. Alamo Lake has excellent potential for being maintained as a

low-intensity use recreation area because of its remoteness, aesthetic

setting, and the presence of sufficient high-intensity use, water-

oriented, recreation fac.ilities on the nearby Colorado River. This

possibility was not addreE-ned in the Corps master plan.

D. Corps Organization

The Los Angeles District does not ha-ie a ranger program.
Rangers have not been needed because the district has turned over opera-
tion of all reserjoir recreat_@on programs to other agenc'-es.

D.24.20

IV. REFERENCES

I. Los Angeles District. ND. Master plan for Alamo Lake (draft).
Los Angeles, California.
2. Personal communication, January 1975. Office, Chief of Engineers,
Attorney Council Office, Washington, D. C.
3. Shreve, F., and I. L. Wiggins. 1964. Vegetation and flora of the
Sonoran Desert. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

4. Personal communication, November 1974. Arizona State Parks Board,
Alamo Lake, Arizona.

5. Recreation-Resource Management System (RRMS). 1973. 1973 annual
report (Alamo Lake). Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C.

6. Personal communication, November 1974. Los Angeles District, Real
Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Los Angeles,
California.

7. Los Angeles District, Real Estate Division. 13 may 1974. Explora-
tion for mineral content, civil case no. 69-101, Phoenix. Drawing
No. 50-M-11 (drawing shows project boundary, tracts of land
acquired, and dates of acquisition). Los Angeles, California.

8. A. Wayne Smith and Associates. 1974. Mas:%--er plan for Alamo Lake.
Tempe, Arizona.

9. Personal communication, November 1974. Les Angeles District,
Construction-Operations Division, Operations Branch, Los Angeles,
California.

10. Arizona State Parks Board. (1974?). Summary of expenditures and
budget requests. Phoenix, Ari@:ona.

11. Personal communication, November 1974. Arizona State Parks Board,
Phoenix, Arizona.

12. Personal communication, 1 November 1974. Los Anaeles District,
Engineering Division, Environmental Resources Branch, Los Angeles,
California.

13. Personal communication, November 1974. Arizona Public Health
Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

14. Personal communication, November 1974. Arizona GarrLa and Fish
Commission, Phoenix, Arizona.

15. Arizona Game and Fish Commission. ND. Draft letter from Arizona
Game and Fish Commission Director to David Reichardt in the Los
Angeles Real Estate Division. Phoenix, Arizona.

D.24.211

16. Arizona Game and Fish Commission. 1968. Fisheries management plan,
Alamo Reservoir. Phoenix, Arizona.

17. Personal communication, January 1975. Arizona Game and Fish Commis-
sion, Yuma, Arizona.

18. Personal communication, January 1975. Bureau of Land Management,
Phoenix, Arizona.

D.24.22

25. LAKE ISABELLA

South Pacific Division

Sacramento Division

California

1. SETTING

A. Location

Lake Isabella is located on the Kern River in Kern County at the

southern end of the Central Valley of California and is about 45 miles

(mi) northeast of Bakersfield. The lake is situated in the Kern River

Valley on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada at an elevation of

2,600 feet mean sea level (ft msl) and is bordered by steep mountain

slopes which rise to 6,500 ft msl (1).

Primary access to Lake Isabella is provided by U. S. 178 and CA

155. Additionally U. S. 178, CA 155, and Kern 1930 circle the
lake. County highway 1930 parallels the north shore of the lake and
interchanges with U. S. 178 at the eastern end of the lake and CA 155

on the west side of the lake (Figure D.25.1).

B. Authorization and Purposes

The Isabella project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of
1944 (PL 78-534). The project was originally authorized for flood
control and storage for irrigation water supply.a

C. Features

Lake Isabella's primary tributary is the Kein River which is a
clear, cold mountain stream and flows in a eoutherly direction through
the rese-voir. The South Fork Kern River is a secondary tributary
'The Secretary of the Army has been authorized, since 1944 to construct,
maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities at water
resource development projects. 16 U.S.C. 460d. Since 1946, the Army
Corps of Engineers has been required, when consistent with a project's
primary purposes, to make adequate provision for the =onservation,
maintenance, and management of wildlife resources. 16 U.S.C. 663(a).

D.25.1

ro FLIRVIE*
KERNVILLE M Figure D.25.1.
ISABELLA RESERVOIR
KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

LEGEND
CORPS CLAIMED PROPERTIES

GROSS POOL
F/ -Kern Couniy Airport NORMAL POOL
WOFFOR MINIMUM POOL
HEIGHT
BOREL CANAL

U.S. HIGHWAY
<> STATE ROAD

COUNTY ROAD

....... SOUTH FORK KERN R

:4
PASS
,8orel Canal LK
TO 'NAM
OIAIE
MINIMUM POOL NORMAL POOL""""@:::- . GROSS POOL 178 and

2000 0 20 00 6000
.............
FEET
Maini

178
Auxilary oai,L
178

LAKEISASELLA
f-ro BAKERSFiFLO

which enters the east side of the lake. The drainage area of the water-
shed above the dam is 2,093 square (sq) mi. At normal recreation pool

elevation (2,564 ft msl) the lake contains 198,000 acre-ft (1). Other

project features are presented in Table D.25.1.

Kern River Valley is essentially an alluvial pocket underlain by
granite rock. Soils along the flat alluvial river area are excessively

drained. In the more elevated alluvial areas, soils are well drained

and moderately coarse (2).

Typical vegetation of the rocky slopes and canyons includes digger
pine, oak, juniper, and shrubs. The most conspicuous vegetation
bordering the river bottom includes cottonwood, willow, rabbitbrush,

sedges, and water-tolerant grasses. Ground cover is characterized by
various species of annual grasses, forbs, and a few species of perennial

grasses (1).

D.25.3

Table D.25.1. Resource Statistics, Lake Isabella.

Date of Authorization 1944 a
b
Rights in Land Acquired Between 1949 to 1969
Date of Impoundment December,'1952 c
Date of Full Operation April,1954 C

Lake Size When Water Level is at:
Spillway Elevation (2,605 ft msl) 11,400 acres a
Normal Pool Elevation (2,564 ft msl) 6,520 acres a
Normal Minimum Pool Elevation (2,522 ft msl) 1,850 acres a
minimum Design Elevation NAd
Water Fluctuation - Summer Recreation Season 42 feet a

Shoreline at Normal Pool 30 miles
Held in Fee Simple by Corps 30 miles c

Land Area Managed by Corps

Total Land in Project 16,000 acres
Fee Title in U. S. 15,200 acresc
Easements 800 acres C
Project Operation Lands 500 acres c
Manageable Resource Lands 8,180 acres e

aSacramento District. 1967. Design memorandum No. 3, Isabella Reservoir,
Kern River, California, Master Plan. Sacramento, California.

b
Sacramento District. 1969. Realty Pontrol file sLiwinary, Isabella
Reservoir. Sacramento, California.

CRRMS. 1973.

dNot available.

eTotal Project Land minus (Land Flooded at Normal Pool + Project
Operational Lands + Easements).

D.25.4

II. LAND USE, RECREATION, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSIDERATIONS

A. Analytical Unit

Damaging stream flows are minimized or eliminated in the downstream

channels of the Kern River and its distributaries to the Buena Vista and

Tulare Lakebed areas. Agricultural areas which depend on the Kern River
flow for irrigation extend into the San Joaquin Valley 40 mi southwest of

Lake Isabella (1).

The 350 sq mi Kern River Valley area is dependent on the tourist

trade associated with Lake Isabella. Within the valley, communities

most affected by the lake are those that overlook the lake such as
Kernville, Wofford Heights, and Lake Isabella. Communities near the

lake such as Bodfish, Miracle Hot Springs, Onyx, and Waldon are econom-

ically influenced by the project.

Growth in the valley has accelerated since completion of the lake
in 1954. In 1950 the area had a population of 1000 and about 10 busi-
inesses (3). Today the area has a population of about 5,900 and has

approximately 350 businesses (4, 5).

The annual visitation rate from 1965 to 1972 at Lake isabella has

averaged 1.5 million visitors; 1973 visitation was 860,OCO (6). It is
estimated that visitors to Kern County annually spend $50 million and
that a major portion of these monies are generateJ in the Kern Piver

Valley (7). Seventy-one percent of all visitors to the lake come from
southern California which has a population of 10 million and includes

the counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, and

Riverside. From this area 55% of all visitors come from Los Angeles

County while Kern County accounts for 29% of the lake visitors (2, 8).

Completion of the Sherman Park Winter Sports Area and the trans-

formation of U. S. 178 into an expressway connecting the interstate

D.25.5

system at Bakersfield is anticipated to boost the visitation rate and
the economy of the area.

B. Ownership

The take line used for acquiring project properties was the 2,617

ft msl contour line; however, exceptions exist as some properties were

acquired above the take line. The Corps administers the lake and a
narrow strip of land between the lake and the highway circumventing the
lake. Approximately 13% of the 61 mi boundary has been monumented (9).
The BLM administers lands contiguous to Corps properties on the southwest

side of the lake.. Around the rest of the lake and adjacent to Corps
properties are private lands. Bordering these properties is the Sequoia
National Forest which is administered by the USFS. There are no signifi-
cant state or county holdings within the project area.

C. Resource Management

1. Recreation

Total investment in recreational development by the Corps since

1964 has been $1,300,600 (10). The Corps presently operates seven class

A recreational areas which occupy 218 acres. A $2.50 fee is charged per

vehicle from May through August at five of the seven sites @6, 11).

Revenue derived from these fees exceeds the cost of collection (ccIlec-

tion cost is derived by calculating the actual time spent collecting

fees) 0). Facilities provided at the fee sites include picnic tables,

stoves, comfort stations, running water, rafuse containers, and boat

laiuich areas. Other recreational areas are provided by the Corps but
offer little in the way of facilities and are designated as day-use areas.

Due to the magnitude of lake fluctuations most all recreational facili-

ties are located on the west and southwest bank where lake levels are

more stable. However, if the lake pool reaches 110,000 acre-ft (or less)

lake access is restricted. This is due to extreme distances frore. access

D. 2. 5. 6

areas to navigable waters and because the Borel Canal, which lies off-

shore from the access areas, becomes exposed creating a safety hazard

to swimmers and boaters (2, 11, 12).

In 1962 the Committees on Public Works and the House of Representa-
tives authorized the Corps to perform a feasibility study on enlarging
Lake Isabella. Kern County also proposed the establishment of a 120,000
to 150, 000 acre-f t minimum pool and to modif y operational procedures F or the

lake during the recreation season (2). Instituting these 'proposals would

reduce lake fluctuations, minimize uncontrolled shoreline use, eliminate
inconvenient access, and stabilize the economy of the area by reducing

recreation use patterns (2). Implementation of the proposal is dependent
upon satisfying requirements for downstream water withdrawals (10).

Road access to all but one recreation area is uncontrolled and

results in: (1) over-use during peak visitation periods, (2) difficulty

in obtaining accurate visitation figures, (3) increased erosion and de-

struction of natural vegetation, and (4) inefficient enforcemant of

regulations.

A load factor of 3.6 is used in determining or calculating the

visitation rate from traffic counter data. This figure represents the

highest load factor cbtained during the recreation season at the most
heavily used recreation area at the project. Load factors determined
during the survey ranged from 3.1 to 3.6 during the summer season and

2.0 to 2.7 during the winter season (10). Greatest percentage of .
activitv use on the lake in 1973 was fishing (77%), camping (43%), and
swimming (28%) (6). Peak periods of visitation occur in May and
August and probably coincide with the spawning peak of sport fishes (11).

Three commercial marinas, which occupy 75 acres, are leased from

the Corps by two concessioners (Table D.25.2). A marina is located on

the south and southwest banks where lake levels insure boal:ing access

D.25.7

Table D.25.2. Outgrants for Recreation -- Commercial, Lake Isabella. a

Rentai Annual Investment
Lccati.on Grantee Instrument Date Term Basis Rent Paid Acreage To 1974 Planned Turnovem
Original (yrs)
Current
Scottyu marina b J. Srott Lease 1971 10 Fixed 2,945 5 2 136,658 NjAc 0
+ Graduated

Kern Valley Marina Strickland and Lease I S7 1 10 Fixed 3,027 22 44,772 N/A 1
SWaZtZ + Graduated

Yarn Valley Golf N/A Lease 1971 7.2 5% of Gross 550 220 N/A N/A 0
Cour.--c

CD
Totals 3 6,522 295 181,430

apersonal conununication, 4 November 1974. Sacramenm District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Sacramento, California.
b Scottys Marina operates two marinas at 23 acres and 29 acres, the 23 acre marina was purchased from Strickland and Swartz.

c
Not available.

throughout the year. The third marina is located on the west bank near
Wofford Heights and closes during the winter months because of low lake
levels which inhibit access to the main body of the lake. Facilities

provided by the marinas include boat docks and mooring spaces, baits and

tackle, boat rentals, fuel and food services. All three marinas conduct

their businesses on floating platforms which fluctuate with lake levels.

Parking and storage areas account for the bulk of all acreage leased.

Additional support for business is provided by the Corps as all marinas

occupy portions of day-use facilities which are close to Corps camping

areas.

The USFS, Cannell Meadow District, Kernville, administers 508,000

acres in the Sequoia National Forest. This district operates 14 camping

areas which occupy 147 acres and one day-use area. Thirteen of the sites

are located north of Lake Isabella along the Kern River. one campsite is

located east of Lake Isabella on the South Fork Kern River. Visitation

recorded for 1973 was 1.25 million and was determined by on-site counts

and magnetic loop automatic counters. Fees charged for camping ranged

from $1 to $2. All fees collected are tran3mitted to the U. S. Treasury

which subsequently returns 25% to the county with.Ln wai-ch they were

collected. Operation and maintenance of these recreation areas is the

responsibility of six permanent USFS employees (12). Duri--.g peak visita-
tion periods campers who can not find a desirable location on Lake

IsFbella overflow into the USFS recreation areas (12;.

Major probler@,s associated with management of the USFS recreation

areas are solid waste and sewage disposal, fee compliance, and enforce-

menc of regulations (12). Additi3nally, there are four USFS camping areas

south of Lake Isabella on the Kern River off of U. S. 178. These areas

are administered by the USFS Greenhorn District in Bakersfield, CA (13).

Approx_@,mately $250,000 has been budgeted by the State of CA,
Department of NavigELtion and Ocean Development, for development of

D.25.9

boating facilities at Lake Isabella. This is the only agency that is

currently participating in the Corps 711 program at Lake Isabella (9).

The Corps has estimated that state and local governments have invested

approximately $412,000 for capital improvements since recreation develop-

ment began in 1954 (9).

In 1954, Kern County leased all Corps lands around the reservoir

(except project operation land) and assumed responsibility for recreation

development and management on Lake Isabella. In 1964, the county re-

linquished recreational responsibility for the western half of the lake.

This action initiated the Corps' active development and management of

recreational facilities on the lake. In 1971 the county relinquished

control of recreation on the eastern half of the reservoir. Presently

the county has under lease one small park, a boat inspection station, a

warning light complex for boaters, and the 220 acre Kern valley Golf

Course which is subleased (Tables D.25.3 and D.25.4 ) (2). From 1954 to

1971 Kern County invested $151,930 on capital improvements for recreation

around the lake; since 1971 the county has invested an additional $12,990

for capital improvements (14).

Kern County is not participating Ln the Corps 710 program. Reasons

given by Kern County for non-participation are (1) lack of sufficient
time necessary to respond to a Corps inquiry regarding the 710 program,
(2) inability to recapture investments should the county decide to

withdraw from the agreement after recreational develr@pment, and (3) the

people in the Grec.ter Los Angeles Area benefit more from inve3tments at

Lake Isabella than do the people of Kern County. In contrast to this

situavion, Kern County is participating in the Soil and Moisture Ccnserva-

tion program administered by the Bureau of Reclamation (BurRec) for

development 3f Lake Woolomes. Regarding this program. the BurRec will

match county improvements up to $100,000 and has granted $75,000 to the

D.25.10

Table U-25.3. OutaranLs for Fish and W41dlife -and Recreation -- Public Parks, Lake Isabella. a

Rental Annual Investment
Crantee Instrument Date Term Rent Paid Acreage to 1974 illined
(Yrs)
Kern Co., California Lease 1971 10 0 26 12,990b N/A

a Personal communication, 4 November 1974, Sacramento District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Sacramento, California.
b
Personal communication, 8 NovenLher 1974. Kern rounty, Department of P.3rks and Recreation. Bakersfield, California.

Table D.25.4. Outcjrant.sfox Agriculture and Grazing, Rights-of-Way, and Miscellaneous Purposes, Lake Isabella. a

Rental Investment
Purpose Grantee Outgrants Instrument Date Term Annual Rent Acreage to 1974 Planned
(yrs) Paid
Riqhts-of-Way Summary 26 Easements, Term 225 238.0 N/A b N/A
Licenses,
Consent
Others Summary 3 Lease and Term 155 0.5 N/A N/A
License
Trap Shoot and Kernv--lle Lions Lease 1971 5 Fixed + % gross 90.0 N/A N/A
Rifle Range Club
Agricultural ano Rudnick EstateL Lease 1973 5 1,958 1,000.0 N/A N/A
Grazing Trust
Agricultural and W. Kissack Lease 1974 4.5 10,833 751.0 N/A N/A
Grazing W. Kissack Lease 1973 5 2,161 819.0 N/A N/A
Agricultural and W. Jonghin - Lease 1974 5 20 40.0 N/A N/A
hi Grazing W. Jonghi-n - Lease 1973 5 1,867 1,241.0 N/A N/A
W. Jonghin - Lease 1974 5 225 225.0 N/A N/A
Agricultural and A. W. Petersen - Lease 1973 5 787 197.0 N/A N/A
Grazing
Agricultural and A. Brown - Lease 1974 4.5 528 251.0 N/A N/A
Z;razing

Totals 38 18,858 4,852.5 N/A N/A

aPersonal commun,Lation, 4 November 1@04. Sacramento Distr.L,;t, Real Estate iji,yisioii, Management and Disposal Branch, Sacramento, California.
bNot available.

county over a 5-year period. Additionally Kern County looks on Lake

Woolomes as an attraction that will serve visitors from outside of the

county (15).

Three quasi-public recreation areas, which occupy 27 acres, are per-
mitted to the U.S. Air Force (Table D.25.5) (15) . These areas are fenced and

are occupied by numerous mobile homes of various sizes and ages. They

are easily visible from primary roadways and present an unkempt appearance.
Additionally a KOA Campground is located adjacent to Corps land on the
south side of the reservoir. During the peak recreation season the KOA
receives overflow visitation from the Corps recreational area.

2. Lake Resources

The California State Department of Water Resources monitors the

chemical quality of outflow from Lake Isabella on a semiannual basis.

The Corps monitors outflow temperatures on a weekly basis (16). Release

waters currently meet water quality standards of the state for the Kern
River and are expected to continue to meet these standards (16).

Water fluctuations on the lake are large and pose fishing resource

problems (18). In April, the lake is approximately 2,1-22 ft m3l (30,000

acre-ft) and is receiving runoff water from snow melt. Consequently, from

April to June or July the lake may rise 83.5 ft. At the end of this
period the lake begins to recede as releases are made for flood control
and irrigation purposes. This action continuF!s until Septamzer when the

lake level has dropped back to the April elevatioi, (2).

Lake Isabella supports one of the fineLt warm water fisheries in
California. Principal game fish include white crappie, black crappie,
la@rgemouth bass, bluegill, brown bullhead, white catfish, rainbow trout,

and brown trout.

Warm water fish were stocked upon completion of the lake and are
Op
now self sustaining. Trout are maintained in the lake by theii: movement

D.25.13

a
Table D.25.5. Outgrants for Recreation -- Quasi-Public, Lake Isabella .

Rental
Grantee Instrument Date Term Basis Current Annual Acreage to 1974 Planned
(yrs) Rent

b
U.S. Air Force P erm i t 1973 5 0 0 19 N/A NIA

U.S. Air Force Permit 1970 5 0 0 2 N/A N/A

Totals 3 0 23 N/A N/A

aPersonal communication, 4 November 1974. Sacramento District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Sacramento, California.

bNot available.

from upstream areas and stocking which supplements natural reproduction
is performed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (2).

Downstream flows are adequate because an agreement between the CDFG

and downstream users require a maintenance flow in the Kern River between

Lake Isabella and the point downstream where water from the Borel power
plant is returned to the Kern River (2).

Fishery problems associated with the lake are: (1) insufficient
cover for growth of juvenile fish, (2) extreme winter drawdowns resulting
in fish kills, (3) large fluctuations.in lake levels which prevents
effective manipulation of the shoreline for spawning (17).

The USF&WS recommended (1) the Corps make provision for periodic
evaluation of the fishery and to implement any corrective resource
management measures deemed necessary to insure high fishery values, (2)
development and implementation of any program for fishery management be

coordinated between the CDFG and USF&WS. Corrective fishery management
measures put forth by the USF&WS included: (1) vegetation retention
along the shoreline and areas that are periodically submerged, (2)
providing fish shelters, (3) rough fish controls, (4) maintenance of
stable lake levels during the major fish spawning period (April 1 to

June 30) (1). These recommendat ions were incorporated into the Corps
1967 Master Plan. However, only the last recommendation has been im-

plemented.

3. Wildlife

Game species around the reservoir include a small herd of mule
deer, the Mourning Dcve (moderate numbers), California Quail, Chukar,

and cottontail rabbit. Waterfowl. such as the Mallard and Cinnamon Teal,

nest around the lake, while the Canvasback and Redhead utilize the

reservoir during migratory periods. Other wildlife include the Zaccoon,
opossum, bobcat, coyote, badger, aray fox, weasel, and skunk and a variety

D. 2 5.1.5

of nongame birds (1). Huntin� is not intensive but is allowed on about
10% of the Corps land in areas designated by Kern County.

In 1956 the USF&WS indicated that 3,730 acres of lands were suitable

for wildlife management. This acreage is located on the east side of the

lake and is bisected by the South Fork Kern River. The USF&WS stated that

development of this wildlife area would require minimizing livestock

grazing and agricultural practices. Once these controls were implemented
natural vegetation would be allowed to recover and food plots and cover
vegetation would be established. The USF&WS feels that such development
would increase upland game bird populations and benefit waterfowl (1).

In 1967 the Corps designated 3,400 acres of the area described by the

USF&WS as a proposed wildlife area that would ultimately be developed (1).

To date the Corps has not instituted development but continues to lease
these properties for grazing and agricultural purposes (18).

4. Other Land Use

(a) Agricultural and Grazing
Agricultural and grazing lands leased from the Corps occupy

4,260 acres. These lands are located on the east side of the lake and

are bisected by the South Fork Kern River. These properties are regularly
or irregualarly inundated. Of the 4,260 acres leased, 3,257 acres are

outgranted to the original land owners who have the first right for lease

renewal.

(b) Development
Adjacent to Corps properties are a number of private holdings.

These properties lie vacant and unfenced which protude into the narrow

belt of project lands, separating one parcel of Corps property from
another. This division of CorpF lands renders management difficult.
Consequently visitors to the lake utilize private properties for camping
and offroad vehicles (1W. The Corps has flowage easements over some of

these properties which restrict development. Other undeveloped properties

D.25-16

contiguous to Corps lands have declined in value (from $2,000 per acre
to $400 to $500 per acre) due to the development costs required to con-
trol domestic wastes and runoff to meet requirements deemed necessary by

the State of CA (20).

County Airport 13 is operated by Kern County and is leased from

the Corps. The airport is located on the northeast bank of the
reservoir and is situated below the spillway elevation resulting in periodic

inundation.

A minor concession which occupies 90 acres on the northeast side of
the lake is leased to the Kernville Lions Club which operates a trap shoot
and a pistol and rifle range (Table D.25.4 ). Other land uses relating
to rights of ways are shown on Table D.25.4. A summary of Corps outgrants

is shown on Table D.25.6.

The area around Lake Isabella contains a number of aboriginal sites.

They are indicated by organic refuse, chips of obsidian and chert,
artifacts and large boulders with mortar pits qround in them. Historically,
Kernville was founded during the 1855 gold rush and was known as "Whiskey

Flats" (1).

5. Resource Use Controls

At the district level, the Environmental Planninq, Project opera-
tions, and Management and Disposal Sections are directly responsible for
recreation and resource management at Lake Isabella. Each section is
under a separate division, resulting in segregated activities which may
conflict with each other or may conflict at the pr3ject level. Recom-
mendations originating from each section must pass throuqh "layers" of
supervisory civil engineers which are less than adequately trained to

evaluate Yesource management proposals (Figure D.25.2

D.25.17

Table D.25.6. Summary of Outgrants, Lake Isabella.

Purpose Number Annual Rent (s) Acreage Investment to
1974

Recreation - Public Parks 1. 0 26 12,990
Recreation - Quasi-Public 3 0 23 N/A a
Recreation - Commercial 3 6,522 295 181,430

P,ights-of-Way, Agricultaral
and Grazing, Rifle Range,
and Miscellaneous 38 18,858 4,853 N/A

Totals 45 25,380 5,196 194,420

a
Not available.

Figure D.25.2. Recreation-Reeources Masiaqement Interr@lation!,hjps - Sa@ramr-ritc, District.

DISTRICT ENGlNEE.R

Engineering D_ivislorz Constru,ti n-Oper.)tons Divi.-Ion - Re.11 @LaLe Division
SupV Civil Eng GS-15 -'upv C71vil Fnq 5 Pealty officer GS-14
L

Water Resources Planning B anch Construct?on Scanch Planning,& Control Branch
Supv Civii Eng GS-14 Supv Civil Enq GE-14 Supv kealty SpeC

EnvIronmental lanning Section Strvi---@ Brancr, Appraisal Branch
Supv Environ Res Plnr GF-13 Supv Gen Clerk 65-7 @,upv Appr GS-13
2 Environ Res PInr W-1 2
I Math Stat GS-IR
I Civil Eng GS-11
1 Economist GS-11 Ot,erat ions Branch Acquisition Branch
2 Envican Res Pinr GS-11
I Environ Res Plnr GS--9 S.pv Civil Enq GS-13 Supv Realty Spec OS-13
I Eng Draftsman GS-7
2 Outdoor Rer Plnr (I Temp@GS-7
I Civil E- Tech GS-6
I Enviror, Res Pln, GS-5 Project Operatiolls Cectio Management Disposal Branch
I cl@rk-Typlst GS-3
Sur,v Civil L:nQ rS -1 -1 Supv Realty Spec G---I
1 Liurdnnr Re:- Nni ;b- I I
I Electrowc Tech C-S-11
I Park Ranger GS-7
1 Equip qpec GS-7
I 1.abo@:er (Temp) WG-2 Management Section
Realty Spec GS-11
T I Mgmt AgrOn GS-11.
I Realty Spec r",;-] I
I Realty Spec GS-9
Ila Lake Area Field Of fice 1 Realty Clerk GS-4
E-

Disposal Section
Realty Spec GS-!I
1 Realty Spec GS-9

At the project level the Project/Park Manager is a GS-11 who has

been promoted through the ranks. At present, Project/Park Managers are
not required to have any formal training or education. All rangers

working under the park manager are required to be formally educated in

the natural or social sciences with preference given to applicants
trained in recreation and resource management (9).

The primary activities of Park Rangers include patrolling recreation

areas, visitor control, and inspection of lands and structures outgranted

by the Corps. The Rangers also patrol project lands to detect encroach-
ments, fires, unauthorized use or construction, vandalism, and pollution
problems. In about 12 instances, contiguous private residential land-

owners have incorporated Corps lands into their yards. Enforcement pro-
cedures apparently have not been instituted at the project or district

level to corrent these violations (11).

Corps rangers have little opportunity for promotion beyond a GS-9

within the Sacramento District. Therefore park and resource management
professionals in this district leave the Corps after gaining a few years

experience (9).

Enforcement of Corps regulations by project personnel has nct been

aggressive. Management personnel now feel that the rangers have acquired

sufficient experience to implement an effective enforcement program (9).
Project personnel feel that mcore.adequate enforcement would drastically

reduce problems associated with off-road vehicles and overcrowded areas

(11).

Kern County is responsible for boat inspection and boating safety
on the lake. In this respect they operate a boat inspection station,

and a warning light system which warns boaters of dangerous wind con-

ditions on the lake.

D.25.20

III. KEY FINDINGS

A. Recreation

1. In 1954, Kern County assumed responsibility for recreation
management and development on properties leased from the Corps. In 1964,

the county withdrew from its lease agreement on the western half of the

reservoir. In 1971, (except for the operation and maintenance of one
small park, a boat inspection station, and a warning-light complex) the

county withdrew from its lease agreement on the eastern half of the

reservoir.

2. Fluctuations in pool levels inhibit water-oriented recreational
activities. The Corps is considering a proposal to increase the minimum

recreation pool from 30,000 acre-ft (present volume) to 120,000 acre-ft

to provide a larger and stabler recreation pool. Implementation of the

proposal is dependent upon satisfying requirements for downstream water

withdrawals.

3. Road access to all but one recreation area is uncontrolled and

results in: (1) over-use during peak visitation periods, (2) difficulty

in obtaining accurate visitation figures, (?) increased erosion and de-

struction of natural vegetation, and (4) inefficieLt enforcement of

regulations.

4. Reasons for the lack of local government response to cost-
sharing opportuniti-Ls under the 710 program are: (1) lack of monies and
(2) inadequate time for local government personnel tc prepare expressions

of interest.

5. Revenue derived from camping fees exceeds the cost of collection
(collection costs are derived by calculating the actual time spent col-

lecting fees).

6. During peak visitation periods, overflow visitors extend into

USFS recreation areas along the Kern River and a KOA Campground contiguous
with project land.

D.25.21

7. Between 1965 and 1972, annual visitation has averaged 1.5
million; 1973 visitation was 860,000. Approximately 55% of all visitors
come from Los Angeles County. The economy of the Kern River Valley is
totally dependent on the tourist trade associated with Lake Isabella.
Completion of the expressway connecting Lake Isabella with the inter-

state system at Bakersfield is expected to increase visitation and

further boost the Kern River Valley economy.

8. Enforcement of Corps regulations by project personnel has not
been aggressive. Management personnel now feel that the rangers have
acquired sufficient experience to implement an effective enforceinent
program. Project personnel feel that more adequate enforcement would
drastically reduce problems associated with off-road vehicles and over-

crowded areas.

B. Fish and Wildlife

1. Lake Isabella is one of the most productive bodies of water in

CA for warm water fishes. Fishing is the major attraction at Lake

Isabella.

2. The Corps Design Memorandum No. 3 (1967) recognizes fish and

wildlife needs as: (1) maintaining the pool level as stable as possible
during the spawning season from March to June, (2) establishing fish
shelters, and (3) establishing a 3,400 acre wildlife management area to

provide an area for hunting and field-dog trials. OnlNY the first of

these needs hes been met. During the winter months extreme drawdowns

have cauEed fish kills.

3. Small game hunting is allowed around the reservoir in areas

designated by Kern County, but hunting is not intensive.

4. At the project level, a program is underway (in cooperation
with a youth organization) to build and establish wood duck boxes on

the east side of the lake.

D.25.72

C. Cor2s and Contiguous Land Use

1. Since impoundment of the Kern River, the surrounding communities
have changed from a rural agricultural economy with a population of ap-
proximately 1,000 to a recreational and tourist based economy with a
population of 5,900. Land values have increased, second homes have been

established, and the population of retired residents has increased as

a result of lake construction and development.

2. Approximately 13% of the boundary has been monumented. In about
12 instances, contiguous private residential landowners have incorporated

Corps lands into their yards. Enforcement procedures apparently have not
been instituted at the project or district level to correct these viola-

tions.

3. The California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development,
the only agency presently involved in the Corps cost-sharing program,
has budgeted monies to develop boating facilities at Lake Isabella. The
governor's office has directed state agencies to coordinate with the
Corps for futuredevelopment at Lake Isabella and other Corps lakes.

4. Kern County does not participate in the Corps 710 program be-
cause they feel investment in permanent facilities could not be recaptured

if the county later decided to withdraw from the program. However, Kern
County is participating in a cost-sharing and matching-fund prograr. with

the BurRec fo_- recreational development at Lake Woolomes.

D. Real Estate Programs and Practices

1. The lands initially acquired for project purposes were thcse
lands dee-med necessary for flood control. Lands were not specifically
acquired for recreational and fish and wildlife purposes.

D. 25.23

2. While the Corps has recognized that a wildlife management

program could be performed over approximately 3,400 acres, it has not
acted to initiate such a program but continues to lease properties
designated as proposed wildlife areas.

E. Corps Organization
1. At the project level the Project/Park Manager is a GS-11 who has

been promoted through the ranks. At present, Project/Park Manager's

are not required to have any formal training or education. All rangers

working under him are required to be formally educated in the natural

or social sciences with preference given to applicants trained in

recreation and resource management.

2. Compared to the Corps, the USFS's Cannell Meadows District has

half the permanent staff, twice as many developed facilities, a cw-.
parable visitation rate, yet issues about twice as many citations.
Additionally, the USFS district recreation areas are adequately main-

tained.

D.25.24

IV. REFERENCES

1. Sacramento District. 1967. Isabella Reservoir, Kern River,
California, master plan, design memorandum no. 3. Sacramento,
California.

2. Sacramento District. 1973. Preliminary environmental statement,
Isabella Lake, Kern County, California. Sacramento, California.

3. Personal communication, 7 November 1974. Kern River Valley Chamber
of Commerce, Lake Isabella, California.

4. Kern County Board of Trade. ND. information phamphlet. Bakers-
field, California.

5. Kern County Planning Commission. 1974. Kern County population by
census tracts, U. S. censuses 1960 and 1970 and Kern County Planning
Commission projections for 1980, 1990, and 2000. Kern County
Planning Commission, Bakersfield, California.

6. Recreation-Resource Management Sysrems fRRMS). 1973. 197@ annual
report (Lake Isabella). office, Chief of Engineers, Washington,
D. C.

7. Kern County Board of Trade. 14 March 1974. News release.
Bakersfield, California.

8. Personal communication, 4 November 1974. Sacramento District,
Engineering Division, Water Resources Planning Branch, Environmental
Planning Section, Sacramento,'California.

9. Personal communication, 7 November 1974. Sacramento District, Con-
struction-Operatior, Division, operations Branch, Project Operations
Se::tion, Sacramento, California.

10. Personal communication, 27 November 1974. Sacramento District,
Engineering Division, Water Resources Planning Branch, Environmental
Planning Section, Sacramento, California.

11. Personal communication, 7 November 1974. Field personnel, Sacra-
mento District, Lake Isabella, California.

12. Junell, B. 1973. Notes: Southern California Edison's application
for relicensing and EIS on the Borel Project. Sacramento District,
Sacramento, California.

D.25.25

13. Personal communication, November 1974. U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Sequoia National Forest, Cannell
Meadow District, Porterville, California.

14. u. s. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1973. Recrea-
tional facilities on the Sequoia National Forest. Porterville,
California.

15. Personal communication, 8 November 1974. Kern County, Department
of Parks and Recreation. Bakersfield, California.

16. Sacramento District. 1974. Report of compliance inspection
outgrants. Real Estate Division. Sacramento, California.

17. Sacramento District. 1973. Isabella Reservoir, Kern River Basin,
California, water quality data. Sacramento, California.

18. Personal communication, 8 November 1974. California Department of
Fish and Game, Kernville, California.

19. Sacramento District. 1974. Statement of district reviewing
appraiser, appraisal report, agricultural outleases, Isabella Lake,
Kern County, California. Sacramento, California.

20. Personal communication, 9 November 1974. Cliff Hewitt and Co.,
General Real Estate, Lake Isabella, California.

D.25.26

26. TABLE ROCK DAM AND RESERVOIR

Southwestern Division

Little Rock District

Missouri and Arkansas

I. SETTING

A. Location

Table Rock Lake straddles the Arkansas-Missouri State Line. The

main body of the lake lies in Barry, Stone, and Taney Counties in the

southwestern section of MO with 3 arms extending into Carroll and Boone

Counties in the northwestern corner of AR. The central section and

western extremity of the lake which are located in MO, are situated

within the bounds of Cassville unit of the Mark Twain National Forest.

The two largest communities in the immediate vicinity of the lake

are Branson (1970 population: 2,175) and Hollister (1970 population:

906). Thesa two communities are situated on Lake Taneycomc about 7

miles (mi) to the east-northeast of the damsite in Taney Covnty. The

small town of Galena (1970 population: 391) is located on the James
River arm. Springfield, with a population of 120,096, is situated on

the James River 35 mi north of Galena. Severai settlements of fewer

than 300 people lie close to the lake; these communities include Cape
Fair, Shell Knob, Mano, Eagle Rock, Thompson, Lampe, Viola, and Golden

in MO and Beaver an& Buscb in AR.

Regional access to Table Rock is afforded via U. S. 60, 62, and

S5. U. S. 62 and 65 parallel the southern and eastern shores re-
spectively, and U. S. 60 passes through the region coming closest to

the project at Busch. An intricate net of state and county roads
within the triangle formed by these U. S. highways provides ezce-llent
access to nearly all sections of the lakeshore (Figure D.26.1).

D.26.1

Figure DL26.1. 13
TABLE ROCK RESERVOIR GA
MISSOURI -ARKANSAS

LEGEND

U. S HIGHWAYS
STATE ROADS
CITIES-TOWNS
........ STATE BOUNDARY ..................... r
COUNTY LINES
PUBLIC USE AREAS (CORPS)
PUBLIC USE AREAS (USFS)
/-A#AF9 TWAIN hATIONAL 19 FOREST
,3
3
L 499
TAAWYCONO

BRANSON

ISO
r12 36
MOLE RM
0 HOLLWM

z TA
ROARING RIVER So Rocit
27 SrArE FA Sid"

112 N

will a iw" .......... ...... ..... ............. .....
ARKANSAS

EUREKA
SPRINGS 62

OMMILLE

LIS 02

GREEN FOREST

B. Authorization and PuK2oses
Table Rock Dam and Reservoir were authorized by the Flood Control

Act of 1938 (PL 75-761), as modified by the Flood Control Act of 1941
(PL 77-228). The project was originally authorized for flood control
and generation of hydroelectric power.a

C. Features

Table Rock Dam and Reservoir is one in a chain of four projects

on the White River. Upstream is Beaver Lake, and downstream are Lake

Taneycomo and Bull Shoals. Norfork Lake, situated on a tributary which

flows into the White River, straddles the state line to the east.

The shoreline is 745 mi long at normal pool increasing to 857 mi

at flood control pool. The lake floods the dendritic valleys of

several streams (the White, King, and James Rivers) and about 40 small-

to mediwa-sized creeks. The shoreline is highly irregular and serpen-

tine in shape.

There are no islands of significant size. The shores consist

of very high bluffs in many places, and topography is moderate to

steep elsewhere.

The waters of Table Rock Lake are clear and very deep reaching 252

feet (ft) above the streambed at the dam. The lake contains many

large trees which were not removed prior to flooding and which present
a na7jigation hazard during periods of low water levels. Private devel@
opment j:i many cases is very close to the shoreline.

The conservation pool is kept at 915 feet above mean sea level
(ft msl), although fluctuations of up to 12 ft do occur during the

recreation season iTable D.26.1).
aThe Secretary of the Army has been authorized, since 1944, to construct,
maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities at water
resource development jprojects. 16 U.S.C. 460d. Since 1M6, the Corps
has been required, when consistent with a project's primary@purposesl
to make adequate provision for the conservation, maintenance, and
management of wildlife resources. 16 U.S.C. 663(a).

D.26.3

Table D.26-1. Resource Statistics, Table Rock Dam and Reservoir. a

Date of Authorization 1941

Rights in Land Acquired Between 1953-1960
Date of Impoundment November, 1958

Date of Full Operation May, 1960

Lake Size When Water Level is at:

Spillway Elevation (931 ft msl) 52.,300 acres
Normal Pool Elevation (915 ft msl) 43,100 acres
Minimum Design (846 msl) 16,300 acres b

Water Fluctuation - Summer Recreation
Season 12 ft

Shoreline at N ormal Pool 745 miles

Held in Fee Simple by Corps 745 miles

Land Area Managed by Corps

Total Land in Project 60,694 acres

Fee Title In U. S. 57,745 acres

Easements to Flood 2,949 acres

Project Operation Lands 340 acres
Manageable Resource Lands 14,305 acres C

aPersonal communication, October 1974 - January 1975. Little Rock
District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch,
Little Rock, Arkansas.

bBottom of power pool.

cTotal project land minus (land flooded at normal pool + project
operation lands + easements).

D.26.4

II. LAND USE, RECREATION, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSIDERATIONS

A. Analytical Unit
The analytical unit is roughly delineated by an intricate system
of highways and political boundaries. The line of delimitation to the

east and north is U. S. 65 and MO 265, 76,and 248. To the west the

delineation follows MO 173, 76, and 39, and Barry M and F. South of

the project the line follows AR 23, the AR-MO State Line, and AR 14.
Beyond the analytical unit, land uses have little or no effect upon
the project. On the other hand, the effects of the project upon the
region can be seen for many miles beyond the analytical unit in the
form of: bait and tackle shops; boating sales, supplies, and service;

restaurants and gift shops; and motels and resorts along highways
radiating from the project (Figure D.26.1).

B. Ownershi12
1. Corps
The project area at Table Rock includes 60,694 acres. The Corps
holds 57,745 acres in fee simple and 2,949 acres in flowage easements.
The largest Corps-owned parcel is situated at the damsite. This par-
cel includes 340 acres for dam operation and hydroelectric power
production. Project lands were acquired up tc the )39 ft msl isoline.
Of the 900+ mi of property line, 396.6 mi (44%) have been contracted
for monumentation since efforts were begun in 1968. Less.than 20% of
the work, however, has currently been completed (1, 2). The average
depth of land between the normal pool shoreline and the Corps property

line is less than 100 ft.

2. Other Federal Agencies
The USFS's Cassville District of the Mark Twain National Forest
is situated in soutnwestern MO. All of Table Rock Lake lying witnin

Barry County is surrounded by the checkerboard property pattern
within the forest boundary. In the westernmost part of Stone County,

D.26.5

a substantial portion of the lake also lies within the NF. The

James River Arm from Cape Fair north, the main pool extending east

from Indian Point Recreation Area, and all parts of the lake in AR, lie

beyond the NF boundary.

3. State Government

Neither MO nor AR owns land at Table Rock Lake. The closest

state property is situated at Roaring River State Park in Barry County,

MO. This facility is about 3 mi from Eagle Rock which abuts Corps
property located on the Roaring River Arm of Table Rock Lake.

4. Private

Virtually all of the land lying contiguous to Corps property at
the 936 ft msl isoline is held by the private sector. Most development
can be considered residential in nature, consisting primarily of second

and retirement homes situated in 278 subdivisions.

C. Resource Management

1. Recreation

a. Corps

The Corps operates 19 public use areas at Table Rozk Lake.
Twelve of these were leased to local units oi government for deFelop-

ment, maintenance, and operation after dam conpletion in August 1958.

Facilities at these "public access areas" were designed for local day
use and to accommodate commercial marina operations. All non-
commercial facilities were installed by the Corps at federal expense.

It was expected that municipal and county governments would be able

to sublease commercial sites to concessioners who would operate the
area. Rent income would help defray the cost of maintaining the
facilities. As the magnitude and character of use and the composition
of governing boards changed municipal and county governing boards found
that they were unable to finance qualified personnel and ec-,uipment to

D.26.6

manage and maintain the recreation areas properly. Hence, in 1968 all

leases were terminated. In 1973, the Corps called together the mayors
and county judges in the Table Rock vicinity to discuss the local
operation of park facilities in their respective areas. District and
project personnel were responding to OCE directives describing changes
to bring the Code 710 program into conformance with the cost-sharing
principals of PL 89-72. Corps officials hoped that newly authorized
authority to equally share the cost of expanding and improving facilities

would encourage the local governments to again operate and maintain the
recreation areas. There was no positive response to the Corps' proposal.
The group decided that the Corps can do the best job of running the

recreation facilities (3).

The 19 Corps park sites are well designed. Eighteen sites
have public launching ramps. Each has a public picnic grourd, camp-

grounds, drinking water and comfort stations. Some have concessioner

operated cafes or snack bars, full service marinas, concrete swim

beaches, automated laundries, change houses, group shelters, showers.
trailer dump stations, and electrical hookups. A summary of visitation

statistics for Table Rock Lake is presented in Table D.26.2.

The largest of the Corps parks have manned gates. Eight are
manned by retirees or retired couples employed through personal ser-
vices contracts. These people do not collect money: fees are submitted
prior to entrance by placing $2 in a brown envelope and inserting it
into a slotted box. This process is used to meet Corps regulations
which are interpreted as preventing fee collection by other than uni-
formed, salaried Corps personnel. Five campgrounds are manned by
temporary Corps erkployees who collect fees and six of the parks are
not manned at all. These facilities are visited by roving fee
coilectors. It -'s estimated that $80,000 was collected during 1974

E.. 26.7

Table D.26.2. Summary of Visitation Data for Table Rock Dam and Reservoir. a
Total Recreation Days at b
Parks Maintained by Corps of Engineers 1,585,537
Parks Maintained by Other Agencies 362,528

Dam, Appurtenant Works, Overlook,
Powerhouse, etc. 753,659

Unimproved Access Points 3,053,066

TOTAL 50754,790
Total Activity Days c

Fishing from Rental Boats 142,571

Fishingfrom Private Boats 2,138,559
Fishing from Bank 570,282

TOTAL FISHING 2,851,412

Hunting

Hunting Upland Game 68,756

Hunting Waterfowl 8,066

TOTAL HUNTING 76,822

Boating - Total number of activity days 884,576

Water Skiing - Total number of activity days 428,332
Swimming - Total number of activity days 1,468,173
Picnicking Total nuirber of activity days 454,824
Sightseeing Total number of activity days 1,601,950
other - Total number of activity days 308,214
Camping - Total number of activity days 664,660

TOTAL ACTIVITY DAYS - ALL ACTIVITIES 8,738,963
aLittle Rock Districti 1973. Summary of statistical data, Table Rock
Lake. Table Rock Dam and Reservoir, Branson, Missouri.

Recreation Day: A standard unit of use consisting of a visit by one in-
dividual to a recreation site or a area for recreation purposes during all
or any reasonable portion of a 24-hour period.

D.26.8

Table D.26.2 (Continued)

cActivity Day: A measure of recreation use by one person on one facility
or area for one day or part of a day. one person may exert more than
one activity day per day. The activity day is probably most useful for
apportioning total use to single uses and for sizing various parts of a
given recreation development.

D.26.9

which is higher than that collected in the previous 2-3 years (1).

corps campgrounds have been occupied an average of 150% of
design capacity on summer holiday weekends. on some weekends, the load
has reached 200%. Signs of physical site deterioration are beginning to
appear as some plant species are dying because of root zone compaction.
The large number of campers also overload the parks' internal road sys-
tems and sanitation facilities. Corps rangers are called upon to re-
solve altercations and maintain order. During periods of extreme over-
use, congestion is great, policing is a problem, sanitation problems
develop, and staff effectiveness decreases substantially (1).

The design of the campgrounds does permit blocking access and
the number of camping parties could be limited to the number of desig-
nated campsites but district policy does not authorize such closing.

Physical deterioration appears greater than that caused by
visitor overuse. Many trees were killed during the extended flood of

1973 and others have become diseased. To correct the situation, the

mDC has prepared and is implementing a Recreational Forest and Vege-

tation Management Plan. Dead trees are removed, d7anag(-.d trees are
repaired, and new trees (some mature specimens with balled roots) that
are more flood and compaction resistant are planted (4). Cars is also

exercised to use species that yield mast. All costs incurred by the
MDC are fully rei:-ibursed by the Corps.

The plan was approved in July 1973 and operations began in

fall 1973. In Lhe first year more than 100 acres have been treated.

It is expected that tAe program will progressively treat all Corps pub-

lic use areas.

Until recent years, camping squatters were a problem at parks.
Some campers moved in for periods as long as 90 days using Corps public

D.26.10

use areas as summer resorts. A $1 fee was established several years

ago but this did not alleviate the problem. when a $2 fee and 14-day
limit were imposed,'the problem began to subside. Corps policy had

to be amended further last year, however, to ensure that campers would

not move from one site to another after the 14-day limit was reached.
New stipulations requiring campers to leave the campgrounds completely
for at least 24 hour periods prior to returning were instituted. This
new policy appears to have solved camper squatter problems (1).

Twelve of the Corps public use areas have commercial dock
concessions leased by the Corps. These include rental slips, launching
service, boats for rent, motors for rent, and service and repair of
boating equipment (Table D.26.3). The impact of attendant land uses
outside Corps public use areas has not been severe. It is believed
that ccmmercial concessions in most Corps parks which sell groceries,
bait, tackle, and other items to campers, fishermen, and picnickers is
a reason for the light impact (5).

The private campground construction boom at Table Rock Lake
may be a solution to over-crowded conditions at Corps public use areas.
There are now several hundred developed campsites available at com-
mercial establishments. The MDPR will capitalize on this new supply of
campsites. Beginning in 1975 officers at Table Rock State Park will
turn away campers when facilities are filled and suggest the use of
alternate public or private campsites in the general vicinity. The
Corps is nct considering a comparable policy (1, 3).

b. U. S. Forest Service

The USFS owns and operates two parks at Table Rock Lake.
The Shell Knob facility has picnic grounds, a campground, drinking
water, and a comfort station. Also included at the site is a public

D.26,11

Table D. 26.3 . Outgrants for Recreation Commercial, Table Rock Dam and Reservoir. a

Location Grantee Instrument Rental Annual Acreage Investment Turnovers
Date'j Term Basis@' Rent Paid to 1974 Planned
(yrs)
Baxter Baxter Boat Lease 1970 15 Fixed + 1,767 5.9 164,460 NA 0
Dock, Inc. % gross
Big M Big M Dock & Lease - 1970 2114 Fixed 500 5. 5' 74,000 NA 0
-Marina, Inc.
Cape Fair Flood, Lease 1970 191, Fixed + 644 3.4 101,000 NA 0
Packett, & % gross
Shoemocker
Cricket Ray Read Lease 1970 18 3/4 Fixed 300 3.0 55,000 NA 2
Creek
Eagle Chas. Ryter Lease 1970 20@ Fixed + 620 6.0 78,105 NA 1
Rock % gross

Highway E. P. Reed
13 R. P. Powers Lease 1970 18 1/,S Fixed + 4,130 10.0 674,100 NA 0
Indian Allendale 3 % gross
Point Enterprises,Inc. Lease 1970 16 /4 Fixed + 2,617 4.4 274,330 NA I
Long R. A. & J@ K. % gross
Creek Anderson Lease 1970 18@ Fixed 400 3.5 70,000 NA 0

Viola J. A. & J. L.
Wakeland Lease 1970 34 Fixed 500 4.2 70,750 NA 0
Indiaui J. A. Sampson Lease 1970 16 3/4 f._@ixed
Point 340 8 57,000 NA 0
Lakeside
Hideaway S. Chamberlain Lease- 1970 5 Fixed 100 .2 1,000 NA 0
Marina
Cw,ipbell Campbell Point Lease 1970 1911 Fixed + 1,643 4@6 115,800 NA 0
Pcipt Boat Dock, Inc. qross

Table D-26.3 (Continued)

Location Grantee Instrument Rental Annual Acreage Investment Turnovers
Date'J Term Basis Rent Paid to 1974 Planned
(yrs) M M M

Indian Indian Point Lease 1970 215 /6 Fixed + 2,610 9.9 82,700 N/A 1
Point Landing % gross
Marina Marina

Totals 13 16,171 68.6 1,818,245

a
Peisonal communication, October 1974 January 1975. Little Rock District Real Estate Division, Management
and Disposal Branch, Little Rock, Arkansas.
b
All Corps leases began in 1970. Origi "nal leases were granted by the respective counties; and the
public use areas were outgranted to them for administration. The Corps assumed responsibility
for management on 1 January 1970 and honored the unexpired term of the county leases
cRent for major leases (defined as a concession with capital investment of $75,000 or more) is
computed on a fixed minimum plus % of gross income; rent for minor leases (defined as a concession
with capital investment of less than $75,000) is computed on a fixed amount per year that reflects
capital investment
dNot available.

swimming beach. Big Bay Park (31 acres) includes 25 picnic tables
and 54 campsites. In addition to swimming facilities there are a
public launching ramp, drinking water, and a comfort station. The USFS
maintains other recreational facilities within its jurisdictional
bounds in the vicinity of Table Rock Lake, but these are not within
the analytical unit and generally not associated with the lake.

c. State

The Corps leases 506 acres to the Missouri Division of Parks

and Recreation (MDPR) for a 25-year term with option to renew for 25

years to operate Table Rock State Park. The park is located to the

north and south of the damsite. The lands to the north are used for

maintenance and storage and for the resident engineer's temporary
office complex through mutual agreement with the Corps until permanent
facilities are completed in 1976 (1). The park propar is located to

the south of the dam with an effective use acreage of 469 acres (3)

(Table D.26.4).

There are 194 campsites at the state park, 40 of which have
been added during the past year along with new restrooms a Twenty-
one of the sites are serviced by electricity and sewage lines. Fees

collected for use in 1973 by MDPR were $4,250 (3).

In addition to a superintendent and an assistant who

resides on location, there are three f-all-time maintenance personnel
hired at the park. During the summer 11 additional employees are hired

aRRMS data indicate that there were 288 family campsites.

D.26.14

Table D.26.4. Outgrants for Fish and Wildlife and Recreation Public Parks, Table Rock Dam and Reservoir. a

Rental Investment
Grantee Instrument Date Term knnual Rept Paid Acreage To 1974 Plann@d
(yrs) ($)
State of Missouri b
Dept. of Conservation Leace 1962 25 0 51,300 0 N/A

State of Missouri
Dept. of Consexqation Lease 1957 25c 0 211 N/A N/A

State of Missouri
Dept. of Natural d
Resources Lease 1957 25 0 506 N/A N/A

Totals 3 0 52,017

aPersonal communication, October 1974 Jauiuary 1975. Little Rock District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Little
Ln Rock, Arkansas.

bNot available.

cWith option to renew for 25 years.
dEffective park acreage = 469 acres; iLhe balance is being temporarily used by Corps resident engineers for administration purposes.

ePersonal communication, December 1974 - January 1975. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation,
Jefferson City, Missouri. Staff indicated that it would be very difficult to give an indication of investments to 1974 because of the
diffuse nature of its capital impro-,Yement expenditure records

with National Youth Corps funds and 4 are hired with MDPR funds. MDPR

statistics indicate that there were 898,772 visitors in 1973 based on
a count factor of 3.5 per vehicle. a

Sewage is treated on the-south side of the damsite via a two-

stage lagoon system that produces effluent at secondary treatment levels
which is owned and operated by MDPR. The Corps is building a new visitors
center next to the state park. This facility will be tied into this
sewage system through a working agreement with the MDPR. The treatment

system is presently being redesigned and brought up to tertiary stage

treatment standards. Solid wastes at the state park are removed by an
MDPR packer truck to a sanitary landfill which is operated by a private

contractor.

On summer holiday weekends and when weather is exceptionally
good, all campsites are filled. MDPR maintains an overflow area which
will all3w for a maximum park capacity of 229 campers. As a result of
the large number of privately owned campgrounds cropping up In the Table
Rock Lake area, MDPR believes that it will be able to limit the number
of camping units to the number of campsites'beginning 'with the com)Lrg
year (4).

W)PR leases the right to operate a private marina to a private
operator. Here there are 55 slips which are rented on a seasonal bas4s.
Boats are available for rent,
and boating supplies, tackle, and bait are
sold. The concessioner has been operating the facility at the state park
for 12 yeExs on a 5-year renewal contractual basis (4). A,public boat
launching area is located next to the concession.

There has been a policing problem at the state park.
MDPR
has asked -che Corps for permission to close one of the two entrances
to the park to control access to the park and to alleviate problems
in fee cclIection. Currently, it is necessary for rangers to visit
aRRMS 1973 data indicate that there were 333,000 visitors.

D.26.16

each site every day to collect fees. Two of the reasons for the Corps

not reacting positively to the request to close one of the access roads

have been based on the pressures of the commercial establishments on MO
165 and the concessioner who operates the marina in the state park. (1).

Corps contractural stipulations, indicating that monies taken
in above the cost of state park operation expenses must be returned to
the Corps, have limited the ability of MDPR to make needed capital
improvements at Table Rock State Park. The park is among the most

heavily used recreation facilities in MO and since park facilities are

inadequate to meet demands, MDPR wishes to see the Ccrps change its

policy on fee collection so that capital improvement funding may be

included as legitimate expenditures derived from use fee income.

The Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism (ADPT) does
not own or operate parks on the two arms of Tabip Rock Lake which

extend into AR. ADPT has no plans at this time to construct 2acilities

because the Corps is doing a good job in meeting lake-oriented

recreational needs at Table Rock." Additionally, they feel that the
northwest part of AR is already "over parked" (6).

d. Private

Silver Dollar City is located above the Table Rock Lake
shore at Indian Ridge. This frontier theme facility is one of th@
prime commercial recreation attractions in the Ozarks. Associated
with Silver Dollar City is Marvel Cave the country's third largest
cavern. The complex is famous for its annual fall craft shows. The
facility is jammed with visitors all summer long.

The Silver Dollar City complex covers an extensive part of
Indian Point. The campground has 110 fully equipped sites offering
electriclity, water, sewerage, picnic tables, fireplaces, a general

D.26.17

store, playgrounds, laundry facilities, and evening family programs.
Parking lots are situated in tiers on both sides of Indian Ridge. The
complex is so expansive that trams are used to transport visitors from
parking areas and campgrounds to the main attractions.

The 2-week fall craft festival attracts an estimated 125,000

visitors per year. Marvel Cave attracted 424,942 visitors in 1973.
Total complex visitation counts for Silver Dollar City were reported

as 1,061,063 in 1973.

Another of the top tourist attractions of the Ozarks is
situated in the vicinity of Table Rock Lake. The Shepherd of the Hills

Farm and Outdoor Theatre which depict Harold Bell Wrights's novel of
the 1880's entitled "Shepherd of the Hills" is currently attracting an

attendance of about 150,000 per year. Some of the other commercial

recreation attractions in the area include mountain music theatres,

restaurants serving special local foods, and gift and craft shops.

One of the growing attractions is mutton Hollow situated on MO 76

West of Cape Fair. Mutton Hollow is a restored town of the 1880's

with numerous shops and native craftsmen who perform for the visitors
and sell their wares. Rides through the Ozark Hills in rugged terrain,

with breakfast and lunches being served along the trail at an old

fashioned inn, are also offered at Mutton hollow. The Passion Play

depicting the life of Christ is located about 12 iri to the west of
the lake. This outdoor drama is world famous and attracts a large
number of peopla when in session.

There are 121 resorts located at Table Rock- These offer facili-

ties ranging from motel-type accommodations to cabins with full house-

keeping facilities. Swimming beaches, boats for hire, boat launching
facilities (leased by the Corps) and other featurer@ such as swimming

pools, miniature golf, and family centered programs are normally found

at these resorts (Tables D.26.2 and D.26.5). Development

D.26.18

'Cable D.26.5. Outgrants for Easements and Rescrts, -Table Rock Dam and Reservoir.

Rental Investment
Purpose Grantee Outgrants Instrument Date Term Annual Rent Acreage To 1974 Planned
(yrs) Paid M

Rights-of-Way Summary '.%4 Licenses ---- 5-Perpetual 1,075 333.9 N/Ab N/A
Resortsc Summary 121 Leases ---- 5-25 13,748 117.7 36,044 N/A
Totals 385 14, W2-3 75-1.6 36,044+

aReal Estate Division, Little Rock District.
bN/A mears not available.

c
Leases for small parcels of Corps land separating private land upon which major recreation facilities are located and the shoreline where the
operator constructs a boating facility to complement his operation.

on private lands contiguous to the reservoir is summarized in Table

D.26.6.

2. Lake Resources

During the spring floods of 1973 the lake rose almost 30 feet after

a 2-year low. The lake reached its capacity just as rains subsided in

early May 1973. Serious flooding problems downstream were averted by
the control of the discharge entering the Lake Taneycomo section of the
White River. During the several months which were required to release
the floodwaters, large losses of timber and substantial bank erosion

caused by high waters were recorded. The public campgrounds maintained
by the Corps, USFS, and MDPR were in large part under water until late

summer 1973 (7).

There was a marked decrease in camping visitation at Table Rock in

1973 because of the high waters. Apparently the impending fuel crisis

was not a significant factor because gasoline shortages were not yet

severly pronounced near the end of the recreation season.

State and federal fishery officials realized that cold water
releases through Table Rock dam would convert the character of habitat

in Lake Taneycomo, a narrow hydroelectric impoundment, built in 1913

that heads at the Table Rock tailrace, into an environment that wculd

support trout. Therefore a hatchery was constructed by the MDC on

Corps lands.

MDC operates a continuous stocking program for trout at Table Rock
Lake and Lake Taneycomo. At the Shepherd of the Hills Hatchery on the
white River just below the damsite, approximately 22,000 steelhead and
237,000 rainbow trout were released into Lake Taneycomo in 1973. The
hatchery is a tourist attraction. Last year 301,061 people visited

the facility (8).

It was not until 1.970 that the cause of periodic kill@% of trout

in Lake Taneycomo were traced to the very low dissolved oxygen content

D,416.20

Table D,26.6. Summary of Development on Private Lands Contiguous
to Table Rock Dam and Reservoir. a

Number of vacation resorts, cottages, camps, lodges, motels
and similar acco=odations located on private property
adjoining Government ownership providing overnight
accommodations. 293

Number of accommodations available in above establishments 10,391

Number of restaurants, cafes, etc., on property adjoining
Government ownership. 112

Number of subdivisions adjoining Government ownership: 284

a. Total number of lots in subdivisions. 18,543

b. Number of lots developed. 6,721

Number of real estate transfers in counties in which lake
is located. $ 9,571

Assessed valuation of all taxable property in counties
in which lake is located. (List by county) $127,033,341

aLittle Rock District. 1973. Summary of statistical data, Table Rock
Lake. Table Rock Dam and Reservoir, Branson, Missouri.

D.26.21

of the water released from Table Rock. Lake water stratifies during

the summer and the hypolimnion becames essentially anaerobic.

The MDC lists discharges from the City of Springfield and Neosho
as particularly serious problems causing "...increased algal growths
and deteriorating water conditions throughout the lower portion of the

basin" (9). The James River arm is the focus for intensive subdivision

and commercial recreation development. Also, the Missouri Clean Water

Commission lists the status of abatement for six of nine industrial

plans discharging effluents into the James River System as unsatisfactory

(10).

In addition, six major sewage treatment plants discharge effluent
into stream courses within the analytical unit. All subject wastes

to some form of-secondary treatment and they currently meet AR and MO

mutual-agreement standards for secondary treatment plants (1, 11).

State officials agree that pollution problems will have to be faced in
the near future. This judgement is confirmed by increasing populations
of "plankton-type algae" (12)- in the James River Arm of Table Rock

Lake.

The dam does not have a multi-strata release system so non-stirface

waters can only be released from the 140 ft level. The first approach

taken to increase oxygen supply was to all-.)w for surface discharge from

Table Rock Lake, but this was only a temporary measure because varying

lake surface levels could not be depended upon. By 1971 an oxygen
injection system was developed. This air compressor operation proved

to be a ligh maintenance and management problem to the Corps. By the

time low oxygen readings again became critical in the fall of 1973,
a liquid oxygen system was in operation. Through the use of this sys-
tem oxygen is injected into the water until December when normal lake
tarnover again began -'_-o meet downstream needs% The liquid oxygen

D.26.22

injection system consists of an 11,000 gallon holding tank and vaporizer
for converting the oxygen from a liquid to a gaseous state before releases
into the water. At the height of critical oxygen deficiency, liquid
oxygen tank trucks arrive at the site at 4-hour intervals to keep the
system in operation (7).

The water in Table Rock Lake is relatively clean and usually very
clear. Major inflow from the White River is released through the Beaver
Project in Arkansas and is of high quality and partially accounts for

clear-water conditions in the headwaters of the lake.

The James River arm, however, is a source of concern. The MDC

reports that: "The principal tributaries of the James River that had

serious pollution problems were Wilson Creek, South Creek, and Finley
Creek... (and.) without better sewage treatment or abatement of discharges
we may expect continuing deterioration of water quality in the James

River" (9).

Fishing at the lake normally is very popular. During warm weather
months anglers can always be seen on the lake during the daylight hours.
There are also a number of bass clubs headquartered at Table Rock Lake
which hold contests almost weekly throughout the spring, summer, and

fall (8).

Good fishing usually tapers off when there ar2 high water conditions
at the lake. During 1973, for instance, when Table Rock Lake was filled
to its capacity, fishing was very poor until waters began to recede in
May. There is an abundance of large-mouth bass, spotted bass, walleye
catfish, and sunfish. White bass and crappie are also important

species (8, 13).

3. Wildlife

waterfowl apparently are on the increase at Table Rock Lake. The

D.26.2 3

population potential of the lake is hampered drastically, however, by
the lack of crops for food in the vicinity of the lake. The small amount

of feed is due to the small amount of land which exists between the

water line and the Corps property line where private residential and com-

mercial resort development has dominated the scene. This situation has

hindered MDC's wildlife management program at the lake (8).

The Corps licenses approximately 51,300 acres of land and water

above the damsite to MDC for conservation and enhancement of fish and'

wildlife. The responsibilities under this license consist of providing
food plots for wildlife and patrolling the area. Land which is,avail-
able and suitable for growing crops is limited. During high water periods
land areas are cut drastically and planting of crops is severely limited.
For instance, MDr_ reported that it was only able to develop 12 food 2lots
of about I acre each during the high water conditions in 1973 (8). MDC

also has 211 acres of Corps licensed land and water immediately down-

stream from the damsite. The purpose of this area is to develop and

manage hatchery and rublic access areas (14).

In recent years hunters have reported that they have seen more deer
than ever before in the vicinity of the project. Deer can be seen
grazing around t@,e project office at the damsite during the middle of
the day. Populations of squirrels, rabbits, and Turkeys appear to be
stable (81. Hunting accounted for 76,822 activity days in 1973 (Table

D.26.2).

4. Other Land Use

Land use next to Corps property primarily consists of single-
family second and retirement home development. There are some 278 sub-

divisions lying contiguous to Corps lands (1). The largest subdivision
in development stage is on Holiday Island in the White River Arm of AR

where there are 5,000 lots subdivided on a 6,000 acre tract (11). Homes

D.26.24

at Table Rock are generally very well kept ranging from medium to large
in size and from average ($30,000) to high ($100,000) in cost. Other
subdivisions range from fully developed to totally undeveloped while
quality of plat design ranges from poor to good. Many subdivisions are
laid out on a grid pattern totally disregarding the topographical
features in the area. A few have been very carefully designed using the
highest standards for residential subdivisions (1).

The Corps has outgranted 52,537 acres of 57,745 acres of land held
in fee simple title (91%) to other entities. The largest acreage has
been outgranted to agencies of the State of Missouri for fish and wild-
life and public recreation purposes (52,017 acres or 99% of all out-
granted lands). Of this amount, however, 43,100 acres are under water at

the conservation pool elevation (Table D.26.7). Some more or less

regularly inundated lands do have fish and wildlife values. The level

plots can be planted while exposed thereby enhancing the shallow water
fish habitat formed when the water rises again (15). Outgranting
permanently inundated land to a state agency seemed peculiar but was not
questioned.

5. Resource Use Controls

As of 1973 the Corps had active permits outstanding for 496 indi-

vidual private floating docks and 440 commercial docks; outgrants for

132 docks had also been let to resort owners and commercial concessioners

(Table D.26.8). The number of boats served by these docks, stationed

more or less permanently at the lake, was estimated to be 5,043.

In some coves the boat docks have been spaced at less than 40 ft
intervals along the entire shoreline. Such concentrations of docks
make it nearly impossible for fishermen to cast into the shallow areas

near the shore (13).

D.26.25

Table D.26.7- Summary of Outgrants, Table Rock Lake.

Purpose Number Annual Rent Acreage investment to 1974

Fish and Wildlife and Recreation
Public Parks 3 0 52,017 N

Recreation -- Commercial 13 16,172 68.6 1,818,245

Easements and Resorts 385 14,823 451.6 36,044
Totals 401 30,995 52,537.P 1,854,289

aNot available.
bThis figure varieq drastically from the Manageable Resource Lands figure in Table D.26.1 because Fish and Wildlife Management licenses to the
State of Missouri include areas inundated by the normal pool.

Table D.26.8. Boat Dock and Access Facilities at Table Rock Dam and
Facility Reservoir in 1973. a Number Capacity
(No. of Boats)

FLOATING

Private Docks (individual owners) 496 980

Community Docks (2 or more owners) 440 11989

Boat w/cabin docks (limited resort lease
included) 120 536
Commercial Boat Docks: - 458
Rental boats

Dry storage - 0

Stored boats - 905

Mooring buoys or bank tie-up - 175

TOTAL 1,056 5,043

ACCESS

Launching Lanes in Parks 84
Severed Roads Used for Launching (Lanes) 65
Rights-of-Way for Launching Complexes 75
Tramways 22

a
Little Rock District. 1973. Summary of statistical data, Table Rock
Lake. Table Rock Dam and Rese:.-voir, Branson, Missour-'.

D.26.27

The Corps has drafted a lakeshore management plan for the lake.

in accord with the instructions contained in ER 1130-2-406, the shore-

lands have been classified according to their natural and scenic quality,
their physical limitations (such as exposure to strong prevailing winds),
and existing uses. Thirteen percent of the shoreline was proposed for
boat docks. One of the goals of the plan by 1980 is to have all private
boats moored in approved public areas. The reason for the goal is clear:

break the pattern of continuous docks serving only one household so that
the general public can enjoy the publicly owned shoreland. This pro-
vision of the lakeshore management plan has been explicitly addressed
by the District Engineer:

Docks may remain in their present location for the lifetime
of the owner if they are properly maintained. If the deck is
sold, it would have to be moved to an approved location or re-
moved from the lake. Permits which are not in effect on existing
docks that are located in areas which will be prohibited in the
future will not be transferred to new owners according to the
lakeshore management regulation which has been published in the
Federal Register on May 30, 1974. (11).

Among recommendations made by project personnel over the signature
of the Resident Engineer was a proposal that maJor subdivisions provide
boat storage on private land with only launching facilities, including
landing docks, to serve the owners cf the boats stored/built on public

land.

Project personnel distributed a dock zoning questionnaire to 258
visitors selected at random from lists of persons submitting -ritten

suggestions in the past. on the basis of 128 returns, 59% owred boats,

but only 3% owned a boat dock; 44% thought boat dock permits should be
perpetual; 58% felt present docks did not appreciably despoil r-he

T). 26.28

beauty of the lake and shoreline; and 12% suggested zoning for docks

(16).

The MDC has strongly supported the provisions of the lakeshore
management plan and field officers point to long-term problems they feel
have been caused by excessive numbers of docks at Lake Taneycomo and

Lake-of-the-Ozarks (15).

Hearings have been held on the proposed lakeshore management plan.
The proposals to phase out individual docks in highly developed areas
were sharply attacked. The docks are thought of as property rights to
be bought and sold as part of property adjoining federal land. It was
estimated by a person active in the real estate business that the
existence of a landscaping outgrant and a floating dock permit added
$4,000 to the worth of lots fronting on Corps property (17). Further,
property owners contended that they have paid the value when purchasing
developed lots from others and any doubt about transfer of the dock to
a new owner as part of the real estate would be viewed as a cash loss.

The management plan proposals were currently under review by the
district staff and field personnel were fearful the proposals would be

weakened (1).

The Missouri Boating Commission (MBC) is responsible for policing
and patrolling the lake. This responsibility pertains to buoy location,
maintaining wake and no wake areas, and general policing of traffic.
rhe MBC has five men and a captain with six patrol boats stationed at

Table Rock. In addition, two recovery and rescue boats have been
assigned and stationed permanently at the lake. As of September 1974,
the MBC recorded 5 drownings, 5 boating collisions with damages ranging
fron $50 to $3,000 to both docks and boats, 4 sinkings, and I fatility

caused by lightening (18).

D.26.29

There are several diving schools at Table Rock Lake due to the

depth and clearness of the water. Some of the schools teach novices in
swimming pools onshore before they are allowed to enter the lake, while

others hold initial classes-in the lake itself. Most fatalities at

Table Rock Lake are attributed to the drowning of scuba divers. Many

bodies have never been recovered because of the depth of the lake.
Depths at the damsite reach 252 ft and there are many snags and other

obstructive hazards underwater that-tend to ensnarl divers. Periodically

bodies of divers who have-drowned from 30 days to 3-years ago break
loose, float to the top, and are recovered (18).

Boat operators-on Table RockLake are required to keep their boats

out of buoyed swimming areas. According to MBC patrolmen, the major
problem is keeping swimmers out of boating areas. Some accidents have
occurred at boat launching sites where children have been injured or
drowned as a result of being hit by boats in heavy traffic conditions.

The MBC estimates that there are over 5,000 active boats on the lake on

holiday weekends (19)'.

The MBC has suggested that bridges crossing Table Rock Lake be
equipped with navigation lights and that these lights should be placed
on the bridge piers to avoid collisions at night. The MBC also
recommends that all power lines entering the lake should be marked and

that all other man-made obstructions where navigation is heavy shoule

be lighted. The MBC has approached the Corps and the Missouri State

Highway Commission on this matter, but neither has responded. There are

lights on the bridges at the Lake-of-the-Ozarks and there ais plans to
place lights on bridges which are now under construction at the Pomme de
Terre Lake. Table Rock Lake has a number of bass clubs which hold night

fishing tournaments d-cring the spring, summer, and fall months. The
MEC is concerned about heavy traffic and the safety of boaterZ who par--

ticipate _'n these night events (18).

D.26.30

The U. S. Coast Guard provides a negligible policing service at

Table Rock Lake. Periodically, boarding teams from the Second Coast

Guard District fly into the lake area to make spot checks on boaters
and to inspect their equipment. The U. S. Navy has also participated in
deep water body recovery and dam maintenance operations at Table Rock
Lake. The Navy is called in because it has sophisticated television
equipment to search for bodies and sunken vessels in very deep water

and to find leaks in the dam (1, 16).

Probably the largest threat to the lake resource is the Holiday
Island subdivision in Carroll County, AR near the community of Beaver

where a developer has subdivided a 6,000 acre tract into 5,000 lots.
The development is surrounded totally by Corps property. This very

large development lacks plans for public water or sewer systems. Each
lot will have its own septic tank and well. Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology (APCE) has taken a strong interest in this
new subdivision and is now requiring the developers tc design public

water and sewer systems to be submitted to the APCE for approval.

Approximately 500 lots have been sold tc date and about 100 hava been

developed (11) .

Holiday Island is in a relatively early stage of development and
can be modified to ensure that pollution problems will not develop.
Nearly all subdivisions at Table Rock Lake are served by individual
wells and septic tanks. There are only six public sewage! treatment
systems in operation at the lake, and these serve only a minor fractica
of the commercial establishments and dwellings. Because of the relative
unsophistication of the local units of government .1.n the vicinity of the
project, the prospects of developing water and sanitary systems to serve
compact development are not good. The largest sewage treatment plant is

located at Kimberling City on the northshore at MO 13. The only system

D.26.31

which presents potential problems for Table Rock Lake is at Silver

Dollar City. The Corps project staff estimates that serious effluent
problems will develop at this popular attraction during the ensuing

summer as visitation increases (1).

Although there are no land-use controls exercised in Taney County;
the recreation-oriented commercial development that has taken place
across MO 165 from the state'park is not substantial. Presently there

are two motels, three restaurants, two general stores, and two private
campgrounds in the vicinity.

None of the three counties in MO or two counties in AR exercise land-

use controls which would affect private development in the vicinity of

Table Rock Lake; the aesthetic and natural beauty of the lake is degraded

and placed in jeopardy by homes and the large number of boat docks along
the shore where land is steepest the natural features of the lake are
encroached upon most severely. The Lakes Country Regional Planning Com-

mission (LCRPC) in Republic, MO has assisted the Taney County Planning
and Zoning Commission to prepare an ordinance titled Zoning Ordez and
Subdivision Regulation. This work was completed on 15 January 1974,
with financial aid from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development through its 701 community planning assistance program. There
has been a substantial amount cf local opposition to the adoption of the
land-use controls ordinance, and the regulations have not been passed by
the Taney County Judges. The LCRPC has had a difficult time in working
with its respective 10 counties in southwestern MO. Opposition has been
so great that a number of counties have given up their membership and
have withdrawn their support from the LCRPC. In light of thiE experience,

it is predicted that none of the five counties in both MO and AR or any
of the municipalities in the vicinity of Table Rock will be applying

Substantial land-use controls in areas contiguous to the -3roject in the

near future.

D.25.32

Encroachment on Corps property has been a problem since 1960.
Monumentation is only 20% complete. Priority is given to those areas

where encroachment is most severe (14). The Corps holds a deed of record
for the lands it owns. Local surveyers, however, have a difficult time
determining which is Corps land and which is privately held land, but
they do provide warranty deeds based on their work. Upon this warranty,
title insurance is issued to prospective property owners. Conflicts
often arise after sales transactions are completed when the Corps comes
to the realization that property has been sold in conflict with its
recorded deed descriptions. In some localities along the lakeshore, the

Corps has had to resort to painting trees to indicate where it believes
Corps property begins. Corners of buildings and supporting poles of

storage sheds have been painted where encroachment has taken place.
The monumentation process has been very slow over the years. Expecta-
tions for completion of the work are uncertain because of the undependable

annual funding (1, 14).

The most significant encroachment problem has to do with the place-
ment of mobile homes on Corps property. The owners of these residences

are able to move their mobile homes onto Corps land a-rid rerlain there

undetected for long periods of time. It is very difficult to prove
whether encroachment is done on purpose or by accident. The advantage

to mobile home owners is that the structures can be moved onto and off

Corps property inexpensively, If violations are eventually detected by

the Corps, the residences can be moved with little trouble and the low
value investments and improvements on.the property can be left without
substantial loss (1, 14). A 1971 report by the Little Rock District

indicated that fcur encroachment violations involving.unauthorized

buildings were to be resolved by disposing affected project lands to
building owners (19). Additionally, three other unauthorized buildinq
encroachments were to be resolved by issuing easements or permits (19).

D.26.33

Another problem presented by lack of monumentation is tree cutting
for providing vistas of the lake. Until two years ago the Corps policy

at Table Rock was to allow for clear cutting from residences to the lake

and to plant grass and shrubbery in place of the trees. At that time,
however, the policy was changed, and clearing permits were limited to

allowing for meandering paths only. The stipulation was that paths
would be allowed, but only if they meandered to the point where a clear
view of private property could not be had along the path from the lake.
Because of this policy change there is confusion on the part of private
landholders. Clear cutting still continues since only some individuals
are adhering to the' new policy (1, 14).

There are 56 Corps employees in the Table Rock Resident Office at

Branson. Eight personnel (16 temporary) are loaated in the Ranger and
surveillance Section, 19 (4 temporary) serve in the Preventive Mainten-
ance Section, 2 are situated in Engineering and Contract Support Branch,
20 are assigned to the Hydro-Power Branch, and 5 (1 temporary) serve in

the Administrative Branch. All personnel axe responsible to the resident

engineer. The Ranger and Surveillance Section is short on manpower.
Several additional rangers are needed on a permanent basis to patrcl
Corps public use areas during the winter months and to monitor develop-
ment alorg the lake shore. In 1973, the staff began patrolling the
shoreline on a regular 3-month basis with the aid of a helicopter to
check.docks and encroachments. More people are needed, however, to

adequately patrol the 745-mi shoreline and 900+ mi of Corps property
line. Figure D.26.2 shows the recreation resource management inter-

relationships at the Little Rock District.

D.26.34

Figure D.26.2. Recreation-Re source Management Interrelationships - Little Rock Engineer District.

DISTRICT ENGINEER

Construction-Operation s DiviEion Engineering Division Real Estate Division

Supv Civil Eng GS-14 Supv Civil Eng GS-15 Realty Officer GS-13
_-7- -_ - T_ T
Recreation & Resource Management Planning & Reports Branch Management & Disposal Branch
Branch
Supv Civil Eng GS-13 SuPv Rgn Economist G.3-14 Supv Realty Spec GS - 12
2 Realty Spec GS-11
I Forester GS-11
3 Realty Spec GS-9
1 Realty Spec GS-7
1 Realty Clerk-Steno GS-5
Resource Section Environmental Resources Sectio n 1 Clerk-Typist (T) GS-2
Supv Outdoor Rec Plnr GS-12 Supv civil Eng GS-13
I Outdoor Rec Plnr GS-11 I Suov Civil Eng GS-12
I Biologist GS-11 1 Outdoor Rec Pinr GS-12 EncroaChment Section
I Outdoor Rec Plnr GS-9 1 Ecologist GS-11
I Biologist GE-11 Realty Spec GS-11
I Landscape Arch GS-11
2 Civil Eng GS-11
Parks Facilities Section 2 Outdoor Rec P3nr GS-9
I Sanitary Erig GS-9
Supv Civil Eng GS-12 3 Outdoor Rec P)nr GS-7
I Outdoor Rec Plnr GS-11
I Civil Eng GS-11
I Outcloor Rpc Plnr GS-9
I Carta Tech GS-9
I Carta 7ech GS-6 Planning Section
2 Park Kanaqer Trainee GS-5 I Civil Eng GS-12
2 Civil Eng GS-11
I Civil Eng GS-9
I Eng Draftsman GS-5 Table Rock Lake Area
I Eng Aid (Temp) GS-3 Field Office

III. KEY FINDINGS

A. Recreation

1. The Corps operates 19 public use areas at Table Rock Lake

(1,286 acres); 17 in MO and 2 in AR. All public use areas have picnic
facilities, campsites, drinking water, and comfort stations. All but
one public use area have public launching ramps. Some areas include
concrete swimming beaches, laundromats, change houses, group shelters,

showers, trailer dumping stations, and electrical hookups. Corps rec-

reational facilities are well maintained and clean.

2. Twelve developed public use areas were outgranted to local

governments for operation in 1958. By 1968 all local governments re-
quested cancellation of their leases. In 1973, the Corps queried local
governments to determine interest in sharing the cost of upgrading
facilities at the public use areas. The response was negative.

3. Fees for camping in Class A campgrounds are collected by roving

rangers, by rangers at main gates, and by the honor system. The latter
process is used where nonuniformed, contracted employees are stationed

at entrance stations.

4. Charging $2 per camper day, limiting stays to 14 days, and

requiring that equipment be removed from a campground for a period of
at least 24 hours has alleviated a severe squatter problem.

5. There has been an average of 50% more camping units in Corps

campgrounds than there are campsites on summer holiday weekends. Pre-
sent district policy does not permit closing a campground when all sites
are occupied. During heavy use periods, congestion is great, policing

is a problem, and sanitation facilities are overloaded.

6. The MDC has initiated a recreational forest and vegetation

management plan for Ta*!--)Ie Rock public recreation areas. All costs arc

D,26.36

fully reimbursed by the Corps. Table Rock State Park is operated by
MDPR on 506 acres outgranted by the Corps. The park is one of the
heaviest used in the state; 898,711 visitors were recorded in 1973.
There are 194 campsites - 21 are serviced by electricity and sewage.
Beginning with the 1975 season, MDPR will refuse entry when all sites
are filled. Campers will be referred to Corps and commercial campgrounds.
A marina where 55 rental boat slips, boat rentals and motor service,
groceries, and fishing supplies are offered is operated by a concessioner
operating under a third-party lease contract.

7. The MDPR has requested permission to permanently close one of

two park entrances to effect complete control of access. The Corps has

not concurred.

8. There is an independent and franchised campground boom at Table
Rock Lake. At least 30 commercial campgrounds are now in operation in
the area and 10 are in stages of development. The increased supply of

campsites may ease pressure at Corps and state campgrounds.

9. There are 121 resorts located at Table Ro,-k Lake. These offer

facilities ranging from motel-type acco-,Tmodations to cabins with full
housekeeping facilities. All depend upon permits granting access to

the lake across Corps land.

10. Silver Dollar City, the Passion Play, Mutton Hollow, and the
Shepherd of the Hills drama are large commer,.@ial recreation attractions.
Silver Dollar City is a multi-million dollar plant, associated with
Marvel Cave, contiguous to Corps property. All have had a high degree
of influence on the project particularly in visitation rates at public

use areas.

B. Fish and Wildlife

1. The MDC manages 51,300 acres under license from the Corps. At
normal pool elevatIon (915 ft msl) 43,100 acres of the licensed land is

under water.

D.26.37

2. The MDC operates Shepherd of the Hills Hatchery and a public

access area on the White River just below the dam on 211 acres of land
and water outgranted'by the Corps. A continuous trout stocking program

is carried on below the dam on the White River.

3. Trout fish kills attributed to low oxygen levels in Lake Taney-
como were first noticed in 1970. The Corps now operates a system of

oxygen injectionto insure that water released from the dam contains
sufficient dissolved oxygen to support fish life.in Lake Taneycomo.

4. Bass Clubs are popular on the lake and tournaments are held

almost weekly in season.

5. Waterfowl populations are apparently increasing despite the
dearth of land available for wildlife crop cultivation.

6. The white-tailed deer population is increasing on the project
area. Upland game populations of squirrels, rabbits, and turkeys appear
to be static. Conservation officers report that coyotes, bobcats, and

other predators are common in the lake basin.

C. Corps and Contiguous Land Use

1. Corps project operation lands occupied 340 acres at tha damsite
and 946 acres developed as public use areas. The Corps plans to con-
struct a multi-purpose building to house project operations and a visitor

center next to Table Rock Lake State Park.

2. Intensive residential and report land use can be seen in nearly

all sections of the lake where there is road access to the vicinity of

the shoreline. Concentrations of floating docks permitted by the Corps

are serious threats to the scenic beauty of the lake. The goal of the
Corps' proposed shoreline management plar, is to shift all boats now
moored at individual docks to community docks located at strategic

intervals along the shore by 1980.

D.26.38

3. Private housing development clustered around public use areas

makes control of access very difficult. In some areas, internal cir-
culation roads have been constructed adjacent to commercial and resi-
dential development.

4. No local government has adopted zoning, building codes, or
subdivision regulation ordinances to guide new growth and to protect

property investments and lake resources.

5. The Corps has identified 278 subdivisions platted on land
adjacent to federal property. Approximately 2,000 lots have been de-
veloped. The largest subdivision (5,000 lots) is Holiday Island located
on the White River Arm in AR. This 6,000 acre development is fringed by
Corps property. AR is requiring the developer to install a sewage
collection system and treatment plant before further development occurs.

About 500 lots have been sold to date and 100 have been developed.

6. Most residences reflect substantial investments. They have

been blailt for retirement or second homes although some recent con-
struction, particularly near Branson, MO is for permanent, working-aged
families. Quality of subdivision design ranges from poor to good. many
are laid out in grid patterns with little or no regard for the

typically steep topography of the lake area. A few plats have been very

carefully designed using high planning and engineering standards.

D. Real Estate Programs and Practices
1. Encroachment has been severe, particularly with mobile homes.
Insufficient enforcement staff prevents continuing inspection, and en-
croachments may remain undetected for long periods. The economic con-
sequences to the owner are low and the Corps is unable to extract civil
or criminal penalties because boundary monumentation is often lacking.

D.26.39

2. Less than 20% of Corps; property has been monumented. When
present work is completed, 53.2% of the exterior Corps property line
will have been surveyed.

3. Local surveyors have provided warrenty deeds upon which title
insurance is issued. The surveys often conflict with Corps deed des-
criptions.

4. The Corps issues leases to 121 resorts to permit construction
of docks and related facilities provided that the docks be used only
by the resort owners and their guests.

E. Corps Organization
1. The Table Rock Resident Engineer office has a staff of 56 per-

sonnel but more are needed. The area which appears to need more man-
power to accomplish its assigned tasks is the Ranger and Surveillance

Section. Because of the personnel shortage, reconnaissance of the lake

must be limited to a 2 to 3 month cycle. A helicopter has been emplo.yed
during the past year to facilitate inspections.

2. The resident engineer organization iurther decentralizes
administration of project resources. The resident engineer has respon-

sibility for Corps project management and resource supervision within

a watershed unit. The unit managed from Table Rock Lake includes Lake
Taneycomo. In addition to patrol and facility inspec-cion on Table Rock

Lake, Ranger and Surveillance and Preventive Maintenance Section per-

sonnel also conduct similar work on Lake Taneycomo under authority of

Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899.

4. The proposed shoreline management plans for Table Rock and
Taneycomo were drafted by the resident engineer staff with guidance

from the district. This process indicates a high degree of autonomy

for the resident engineers.

D.26.40

F. Environmental Problems

1. There are six sewage treatment plants which inject effluent
into the lake. There have been no serious problems to date. The
largest plant is at the Silver Dollar City complex. The resident
Corps staff believes that serious problems may develop in the next
year or two because of the increasing visitation to the attraction.

D.26.41

IV. REFERENCES

1. Personal communication, 31 October 1974. Field personnel, Little
Rock District, Table Rock Dam and Reservoir, Branson, Missouri.

2. Little Rock District. November 1957. Master plan for reservoir
development and management at Table Rock Lake, Missouri and Arkansas.
Little Rock, Arkansas.

3. Personal communication, 12 September 1974. Missouri Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Jefferson City,
Missouri.

4. Burkel, D. L. 1973. Vegetation management plan for Table Rock
Parks. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

5. Little Rock District. June 1974. Table Rock Lake, Branson,
Missouri. Memorandum from the District Enqineer. Little Rock,
Arkansas.

6. Personal communication, 25 September 1974. Arkansas Department of
Parks and Tourism, Little Rock, Arkansas.

7. Personal communication, 24 September 1974, Little Rock District,
Engineering Division, Planning and Reports Branch.. Environmental
Resources Section, Little Rock, Arkansas.

8. Personal communication, 12 September 1974. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Wildlife and Fisheries Divisions, Jefferson City,
Missouri.

9. Ryck, F. M., Jr. 1974. Missouri stream pollution survey. Misscuri
Department of Conse rvation, Jefferson City, Missouri.

10. Missouri Clean Water Commission. 1973. Water quality: James, Elk,
Spring River Basins. Jefferson City, Missouri.

11. Personal communication, 25 September 1974. Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology, Water Division, Little Rock,
Arkansas.

12. Personal communicetion, 1 November 1974. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Fish and Game Research Center, Columbia, Missouri.

C.26.42

13. Personal communication, 25 September 1974. Arkansas Fisheries
Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas.

14. Personal communication, October 1974 - January 1975. Little Rock
District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch,
Little Rock, Arkansas.

15. Personal communication, 30 October 1974. Missouri Conservation
Department. Branson, Missouri.

16. Table Rock Project Office. ND. Summary of dock zoning
questionnaire. Branson, Missouri.

17. Personal communication, 30 October 1974. Tom Crain Realtor,
Branson, Missouri.

18. Personal communication, 12 September 1974. Missouri Boating Com-
mission. Jefferson City, Missouri.

19. Little Rock District. 1971. Report on utilization of civil works
lands and facilities; engineering form 3871. Little Rock.
Arkansas.

D.26.43

27. EUFAULA LAKE

Southwest Division

Tulsa District

Oklahoma

I. SETTING

A. Location

Eufaula Lake and Dam are located in east central Oklahoma on the

Canadian River about 27 miles (mi) west of the confluence of the

Arkansas and Canadian Rivers, The arms of the lake expand generally to

the west 35 mi from the dam; however, other branches extend northwest up
the North Canadian and Deep Fork Canadian Rivers, west up the Canadian
River, and southwest up Gaines Creek. The maximum width of each arm is
about 3 mi making an irregular lake area of 102,500 acres (1) at the

normal pool elevation of 585 ft mean sea level (msl) (2). The lake has

a shoreline of 600 mi that lies principally in McIntosh and Haskell
Counties and involves minor portions of Latimer, Muskogee, Okmulgee, and
Pittsburg Counties.

Access to the lake is good from three U. S. highways, two limited
access highways, and three state highways that surround and transect the

lake. Interstate 40 is the main east-west artery through the state
connecting Oklahoma City, 97 mi west of the lake, and Fort Smith,
Arkansas, 77 mi east of the lake. The "Indian Nation Turnpike" and U. S.
75 combine along the western region of the lake connecting Tulsa (58 mi
north), Okmulgee (12 mi northwest), and Henryetta (9 mi northwest) tc
the lake. Along the southern region of the lake, U. S. 270 passes east-
west through McAlester and Haileyville-Hartshorne, 6 and 5 mi south of
the lake respectively. Combining along the eastern region of the lake,

D.27.1

OK 2 and 71 connect many smaller towns and communities to the lake.

Serving as the major routes to recreation access points around the lake,

U. S. 69 traverses from northeast to southwest and OK 9 traverses

from east to west through the project. These routes cross the arms of
the lake in six locations and cross each other in the city of Eufaula.
Three airstrips exist within the project boundary at Arrowhead and

Fountainhead State Parks and one just west of Highway 9 Landing, a
public use area (Figure D.27.1).

B. Authorization and Purposes

Eufaula Lake,@ formerly Eufaula Dam and Reservoir, was authorized

by Congress in 1946 (PL 79-525). The statute established the
Comprehensive Plan of Development of the Arkansas River-Basin for
"flood control, hydroelectric power, navigation, and other uses" (1).

As a unit of the Arkansas River Basin Plan, Eufaula has flood control

and hydroelectric power as primary authorized purposes.(2). The 1973

RRMS reports the project is currently managed for flood control, power,
recreation, and wildlife (3).a

C. Features

The lake lies on the western flank of the Ouachita Highlands in

the southwest tip of "Green Country" and the northwest part of
"Kiamichi Country", two of six regions used by the Oklahoma Department

of Tourism and Recreation (4). The topography varies from flat
prairie and gently rolling valley to lands bordered by steep hilly

aThe Secretary of.the Army has been authorized, since 1944, to con-
struct, maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities
at water resource development projects. 16 U.S.C. 460d. Since 1946,
the Army Corps of Engineers has been required, when consistent with a
project's primary purposes, to make adequate provision for the con-
servation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources.
16 U.S.C. 663(a)'.

D.271,2

HL @HES CO
SO,-- HENRYETTA
CANADIAN NcWTOSH co
RIVER 75 62 TO TULSA
PITTSBURG CO MUSKOGEE

volkA
NORTH
41 FORK
+ 9 CANADIAN
RIVER

OKMULGEE CO

*,p MWALE9TER FLA 0,
LAKE WILL cl
ROCK c'.
McALESTER 1/ 40
c, rRAWES I I
COON
c,
ARROWHE
STATE
PFACEME PARK No, r,
c,

IMUSKOGEE CO
mtlNTosm
NAILEYVILLE c@p CID
FOUNTAI HEAD
HARTS14ORNE EUFAULA STATE PARK
69

cr
- . - - - - __ I - CARA C. r To MUSKOGEE
AIRES R
LONGTO N
c,
Figure D. 27. 1. 1
LAKE EUFAULA DUTCHESS Ce
OKLAHOMA

LEGEND MUD c,

CITIES-TOWNS
iNTERSTATE HIGHWAY I- PITTSBURC CO DA
__F_ -_ - - SIT
STATE ROAD
U.S. HIGHWAY 2
STATE PARKS I AIIRUR 1 1 WARNER
AIRSTRIP Co HASKELL
0 2 4 CID
2
MILES PORUM TO FORT SMITH

terrain. Oak-hickory forests with occasional prairie areas are

characteristic of the southern and northeastern region around the
lake. Included in the oal@-hickory forest are: blackjack oak, post
oak, red oak, black oak, chinquapin oak, black hickory, and winged
elm, with a ground cover of sassafras, bluestem, cedar, huckleberry,
hazelnut, and bloodroot. Tall-grass prairie, consisting of sage,
prairie beardgra.ss, Indian grass, and switchgrass, is found on the
west central and northwestern region around the lake (1).

The geological resources of the lake region include: limestones,

marls, sandstones, shale, and.some granite (2). Large rock out-

croppings of unusual formations occur on the high plateaus and hills

surrounding the lake, and sandy soils, characteristic of severe bank

sloughing, surround the lake shoreline (2).

Eufaula Dam controls the runoff from the Canadian River Basin

(47,522 square mi) where relatively heav-y winter snowfall in the

western portion of the basin, and local high intensity summer thunder-

storms in the central and eastern portions of the basin, are conducive

to severe flooding (2). The average annual snowfall is 6.3 inches.

The average annual rainfall is 37.4 inches, 63.5% occurring during

April through September. These conditions have established an

average yearly runoff, for the period January 1923 to December 1972. of

2,772.9 acre-ft (2). The project has a storage capacity of 3,848,000

acre-ft of which 1,470,000 acre-ft is flood control storage with the

remainder allocated for power, water supply, and accumulated sediment

storage (5).

The project consists of an earth-fill embankment, combined

spillway and outlet works, and power house with three 35,000 kiloaatt
generators (2). Flood storage and programmed release of water reSUlL

in varying pool levels throughout the year. By releasing a constwt

D.27.4

volume, downstream flooding is reduced and year-round navigation is

possible. The powerhouse is a peaking plant which produces power when
demands are high. The generated power is marketed by the Southwestern
Power Administration (2). Refer to Table D.27.1 for further project

features.

D. 2 5

Table D.27.1. Resource Statistics, Fufaula Lake.

Date of Authorization 1946 a

Rights in Land Acquired Between 1957 - 1963 b

Date of Impoundment February, 1964 c

Date of Full Operation September, 1964 c

Lake Size When Water Level is at:

Maximum Pool Elevation (597 ft msl) 143,000 acres d
Normal Power Pool Elevation (585 ft msl) 102,500 acres d
Normal Minimum Pool Elevation N/A e
Minimum Design Elevation (565 ft msl) 48,000 acres f

Water Fluctuation - Summer Recreation Season 10 feet a

Shoreline at Normal pool 600 miles c

Held in Fee Simple by Corps 600 miles c

Land Area Managed by Corps

Total Land in Project 183,859 acres d

Fee Tit in U.S. 153,967 acres d

Easeent 29,892 acres d

Project Operations Land 150 acres d

Manageable Resource Lands 51,317 acres g

a Tulsa District. 1974. Draft plan of the updated master plan
Fufaula Lake, Oklahoma. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

b Personal communication, 23 october 1974. Tulsa District, Real Estate
Division, Acquistion Branch, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

c RRMS. 1973.

d Tulsa District. 1973. Appendix A, project resource management
plan to design memorandum no. 12 B, master plan for Eufaula Lake.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

e Not available.

f Tulsa District. 1972. Eufaula Lake, Oklahoma. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

g Total Project Land minus (Land Flooded at Normal Power Pool + Project
Operation Land + Flowage Easements).
D.27.6

II. LAND USE, RECREATION, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSIDERATIONS

A. Analy@ical Unit
A 10 mi zone around the lake includes all the major highway
arteries that lead to the lake and delineates that portion of the
surrounding counties most directly influenced by the lake. Major
portions of McIntosh and Pittsburg Counties and lesser portions of
Haskell, Latimer, Muckogee, and Okmulgee Counties are directly in-
fluenced by the lake and directly affect the lake itself (Figure

D.27.1).

The total population of McIntosh, Pittsburg, Haskell, and

Okmulgee Counties in 1970 was 94,929, showing only a 2.3% increase
over the 1960 population. McIntosh and Pittsburg Counties are ex-
pected to increase in population only 1.4% from 1970 to 1985; the
population of Haskell and Okmulgee Counties is expected to decrease

2.8% from 1970 to 1985. Therefore the above counties are expected to

remain relatively stable in population, with those counties most
closely associated with the lake slightly increasing in population and
those counties less influenced by the lake decreasing slightly in
population (2).

Agriculture and livestock production are the predominant types

of employment in the counties surrounding the lake; there is no em-
ployment in industrial sectors. The 1970 per capita income for those

counties surrounding the lake is relatively low compared to the state
averag e. Per capita income for McIntosh County was $1,506 and for
Pittsburg $3,432 (Pittsburg County includes McAlester, the largest
urban center within the 10 mi zone around the lake, with a population
of 18,802 in 1970',. Per capita incomes for the other counties were:
Haskell $1,363, Latimer $1,815, Muskogee $2,958, and Okmulgee

$2,507 (2).

D. 27.7

The closest standard metropolitan statistical areas to the lake
are Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Tulsa, with a population of 475,264 in
1970, has a 6.2% increase in population from 1960 to 1970 and is ex-
pected to-increase 22.4% from 1970 to 1985. The population of
Oklahoma City, 641,801 in-1970, has increased 9.1% from 1960 to 1970

and is expected to increase 28.1% from 1970 to 1985 (2).

An estimated 90% of the visitors to the Eufaula Lake project are
from the counties in and around the project, the remainder come pri-
marily from Oklahoma City 97 mi west of the lake. With the exception

of Thunderbird Lake (BuRec) just outside Oklahoma City, Lake Eufaula
provides the closest major recreation area for Oklahoma City resi-

dents. Because several similar recreation lakes and/or reservoirs

are closer to Tulsa (58 mi north of the lake) and Muskogee (31 mi

northeast of the lake), these residents do not make extensive use of

Eufaula Lake (2).

B. Ownershi2

1. Corps

The project consists of 153,967 a,@res acquired in fee, of which

51,467 acres are above the normal power pool elevation, and 29,893

acres of flowage easement (Table D.27.1). The fee take-line was at

elevation 597 ft,msl, which is 2 ft above normal power pool and the
5-year flood frequency elevation (1). Flowage easements were acquired
to the 600 ft msl or 50-year flood frequency elevation, whichever

was highest (1). The fee lands cost on the average $100 per acre

and the flowage easements cost on the average $72 per acre (based

on acreages acquired through June 1974) (6).

2. State Government and Private

The Oklahoma Lake Redevelopment Authority (OLRA) owns 548 acres

at Fountainhead'State Park and 257 acres at Arrowhead State Park (7).

D.27.6

This land was acquired for construction of lodges and cabins within
the land leased from the Corps for development of the state parks (7).

The region around Eufaula Lake is privately owned and pre-
dominantly rural although the land contiguous the project boundary
has 136 subdivisions platted (8).

C. Resource Management

1. Recreation

At Eufaula Lake 10,563 acres of land are allocated for intensive

recreation of which 5,507 acres will be developed by the Corps at 36

public use areas (2) and 5,055.9 acres will be developed by the OLRA
at two state parks (Table D.27.2). The Corps has invested (as of
31 December 1973) $2,609,900 for recreation facilities at 25 developed
and 4 partially developed public use areas (9), with 7 additional
areas scheduled for future development (2). Future public use areas
will require cost-sharing although the ability of communities and

counties within the Eufaula Lake region to cost-share is considered
doubtful (2). Completed and partially completed areas may be ex-
panded or completed without cost-sharing through 1980 (2). At the
36 public use areas, approximately 22% of the acreage is held in
reserve for future development and approximately 66% of the acreage

is alloca-Ced for general open space (2).

The Corps manages 24 of the developed public use areas which

range from 5 to 575 acres (3) and include a total of 370 picnic
tables, 244 camping spaces, and 28 lighted boat ramps. Of these
Corps managed areas, 21 have picnic tables, 18 have camping spaces?
19 have lighted boat ramps and 4 have commercial concessions (2).
User fees, ranging from $1 to $3 per site per night, were charged at
five public camping areas in 1974 (10); fees were collected at 10
additional camping areas for 13 days in June of 1973 (3). User fees

D.27.9

Table D - 2 7. 2. Outgrants for Fish and Wildlife and Recreation -- Public Parks, Eufaula Lake. a

Rental Annual Investment
Grantee Instrument Date Term Rent Acreage to 1974 Planned
(yrs) Paid ($) ($)

City of Eufaula Lease 1965 50 0 111.0 N/Ab N/A

Zklahoma Lake
Redevelopment
Authority Lease 1963 50 0 5,055.9 N/A N/A
Oklahoma Dept.
of Wildlife
Conservation License 1973 25 0 31,873.0 N/A N/A

Totals 3 0 37.,039.9

tj
aTulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1974. Selected dump of outgrant master, Eufaula Lake.
0 Tulsa, Oklahoma.
bNot available.

AIN -M M M M M M M M

are collected by roving rangers during the heaviest recreation season
(June through August) and are currently charged at the larger, heavily
used, camping areas (10).

The condition of the Corps managed areas and facilities was
excellent and adequately managed for prevention of facility and land-
scape deterioration. Careful Corps selection of contractors for
maintenance activities has resulted in adequate compliance with

mowing and trash removal contracts at Eufaula Lake (9).

The OLRA has developed two state parks and lodges at Eufaula

Lake: Fountainhead and Arrowhead State Parks. Fountainhead State Park

consists of 2,853 acres leased from the Corps and 548 acres of state-
owned land; Arrowhead State Park consists of 2,203 acres leased from
the Corps and 257 acres of state-owned land. A lodge and single-
family cabins have been constructed on state purchased lands at each
park (3, 7). Facilities at both state parks include: a 'Lodge, cabins,
golf course, airstrip, swimming beach, riding stable, Lndividual
campsites, camping trailer facilities, boat ramp, marina, and grocery
store (1). Third party concessions operate the marina at each state

park.

OLRA maintenance and operation costs for fiscal 1974 were:

$143,867 at Fountainhead State Park (with a staff of 22 permanent
and 8 temporary employees) and $132,489 at Arrowhead State Park (with
20 permanent and 10 temporary employees) (11, 12). The condition of
state recreation facilities and public use areas was good, although
not as good as the condition of the Corps-managed areas.

One Corps developed area (111 acres) is leased to the city of
Eufaula for usa as a city rark and fairqrounds (Table D.27.2). A
third p&xty commercial campground exists on the area along with
picnic tables, boat ramps, and fair booths and buildings (1). The

D.27.11

area is poorly maintained and abused as indicated by the unmown picnic

areas and broken picnic tables. The city has requested termination

of the lease and the project engineer has indicated he would accept
management responsibilities for the area to prevent further
deterioration of the Corps investment (10). However, the Tulsa Dis-
trict favors retention of the lease agreement to reduce the Corps'

management load (10).

The lease agreements for the four concession areas at Eufaula

Lake (Table:D.27.3) require a fixed payment or a combination of fixed

plus graduated.scale payment based on the percent of gross fixed

assets plus a percent of concession profits. This arrangement has

worked well throughout the district and particularly at Eufaula Lake

where only two concessions have changed hands during 10 years of
project operations (9). The concessions were clean and well main-

tained and they reportedly provided adequate services for the clientele

using the lake (10).

Limited interest has been shown by quasi-public orgAnizations for

development of group recreation areas at Eufaula Lake. There are only

two 25-year leases for two scouting groups on a total of 59 acres

(Table D.27.4). Development at the sites include all-weather roads,

tent platforms, restrooms, ara water supplies (1).

The closeness of the large number of subdivisions situated around

the project boundary encourages water related recreation as indicated
by the granting of 363 dock permits (8). The Eufaula Lakeshore

Management Plan and the Tulsa District recommend limiting to 475 the

total number of.do-zk facilities at the project due to a lack of
personnel to administer and regulate these facilities (8, 9).

D.27.12

Table D.27.3. Outgrants for Recreation Commercial, Eufaula Lake. a

Location Grantee Instrument Rental Annual Investment Turn-
Date Term Basis Rent Paid Acreage to 1974 Planned overs
(yrs) M mp M
Belle Starr Belle Starr Lease 1964 10 Fixed 915 18.2 66,099 N/Ac 0
Park Marina
Porum Landing Henderson Lease 1970 41/3 Fixed Soo 10.3 62,753 N/A 1
Damsite Nabors Lease 1970 20 1/2 Fixed+ 1,200 16.1 175,188 N/A 0
(South) Graduated
Highway 9 A. Walker Lease 1970 20 1/6 Fixed+ 3,799 12.4 184,904 N/A 1
Marina Graduated

Totals (Current) 4 6,414 57.0 488,944

aTulsa District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch. 1974. Commercial outgrant lease
agreemenLs, Eufaula Lake. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
bpersonal communication, 20 November 1974. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division, Management and
Disposal Branch, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

cNot available.

Table D.27..4. Outgrants for Recreation -- Quasi-Public, Eufaula Lake. a

Rental Current Investment
Grantee Instrument Date Term (yrs) Basis Annual Acreage to 1974 Planned
Rent $ $
Boy Scouts of Lease 1964 25 NA b 0 36.0 N/Ac N/A
America

Red Council Laase 1965 25 NA 0 23.0 N/A N/A

Totals 2 0 59.0

aTulsa District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch. 1974. Selected dump of outgrant
master, Eufaula Lake. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

b
Not applicable.

C
Not available.

The lake shore management plan will limit dock facilities by
establishing areas that can support dock facilities and recommending
removal and/or phasing out of those existing facilities which occur in

areas not conducive for docks. The establishment of docking areas is

based on nearness to existing and future public use areas, depth of
the water, exposure of facilities to detrimental wind and wave action,

access, and the relation these facilities will have on existing
aesthetic quality (8). By restricting lake access and the number of
dock facilities, the Corps is attempting to discourage shoreline
development (2).

Visitation at Corps-managed areas was 4.5 million in 1973 (3) and
was adequately handled by the public use areas and recreation facilities
provided. However, some of the smaller areas are more intensively used

than larger areas more capable of accommodating visitor pressure. For
example, the public use area at Highway 9 Landing (215 acres) received
an estimated 464,400 visitors in 1973 while Gaines Creek public use
area (575 acres) received only an estimated 7,600 visitors (3). The
Highway 9 Landing is directly adjacent to OK 9 which traverses the

lake while the Gaines Creek area has poor access. Although access to
recreational areas was good from state and federal highways, several
county secondary access roads, were unpaved dirt and gravel roads.
Much of the unpaved county road mileage is scheduled for paving and

upgrading (10).

Visitation at the public use area managed by the city of Eufaula

was estimated as 333,570-in 1973 (3). Fountainhead and Arrowhead

State Parks received an estimated 355,820 and 268,610 visitors respec-
tively in fiscal 1973 (11, 12).

D.27.15

2. Lake Resources

The water quality in Eufaula Reservoir is good in the lower reaches,
although the water in the upper reaches of the three major arms is poor.

The waters of the Canadian River, the North Canadian River east of

Oklahoma City, and the lower part of the Deep Fork River-do not meet
accepted state standards for municipal or domestic use (-13). High
mineral content, primarily sodium chloride from runoff of oil well

waste, degrade these streams. Also natural salt formations occur up-

stream on the North Canadian and Canadian Rivers, providing a source
of high mineral concentration when the river flows are reduced. The

reservoir improves the water quality generally by mixing high flow,

good quality waters with waters of low flow and poor quality (13).

Waste water from the municipal and industrial waste-disposal
plants concentrated at Oklahoma City contribute to the turbidity and
degradation of Eufaula Lake tributaries; lake water is brownish to
reddish in color (13). However, sewage treatment by surrounding

towns and communities is considered good to adequate with most dis-
posal by septic tank. Sewage disposal is not a current or anticipated
problem at the project. Under contract, the Corps- vault units are

periodically emptied and the sewage deposited in nearby municipal

treatment plants where secondary treatment is provided (2).

Due to the high mineral content, no waters from the 'Lake are cur-
rently utilized for irrigation (10). The further upstream from the dam
the less suitable for irrigation the waters become. The only tributary
with waters suitable for irrigation is Deep Fork River which is rated

only fair (13).

The U. S. Public Health Service considers waters suitable for
municipal use that do not exceed 500 parts per million dissolved solids

D.27.16

(13). Waters in the lower third of the reservoir are rated good for

municipal use but the remainder of the reservoir is rated only fair to
poor (13). Currently 11 water supplies are taken from the reservoir:
two by Haskell County, two by Pittsburg County, one by Muskagee County,

three by local towns, and three by private water supply companies. In

addition, about 200 domestic users around the lake have obtained water

withdrawal permits from the state and pipeline easements from the
corps (9).

Three daily water sampling stations are operated at the Eufaula
project: one upstream, one downstream, and one at the dam (13). In
addition, seven periodic water sampling stations are spaced along the
arms and tributary rivers of the lake where monthly samples are
collected (13); monthly 'tailwater samples are also taken (2).

Discharge at the Eufaula Dam is approximately 18,000 gallons per
day, but may amount to 100,000 cubic ft per second'in the Canadian
River below the dam during flood conditions (2). Power pool elevation

may vary between 565 and 585 ft msl but usually fluctuates between
577 and 587 ft ms]. (2). Pool fluctuations created by flood'Control
regulation, coupled with wind and wave action, cause z;evere erosion of
the sandy soil shoreline. Hardwood losses and pool encroachment on
adjoining private subdivisions has resulted from this erosion (2, 10).
Tree removal and rip-rap installation at public use areas are necessary
for visitor safety and prevention of recreation facility deterioration

(10).

The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (CDWC), Fish
Division conducted extensive lake and fishery studies in 1972 when
poor fishirLg followed 5 years of excellent fishing. The report con-
cluded that primary food production was limiting because of:
"fluctuating water levels, excessive water turbidity, the types of

D.27.17

bottom substrates, and lengthy periods of deep water anoxic conditions

in summer" (14). Further, there was a lack of desirable game fish

habitat that resulted in an imbalance between game fish and rough fish.

Fish management programs were subsequently begun by biologists in the

Central Region of the Fish Division in 1973 (14). Good coordination

with the Corps has occurred during the first year of the management
program, especially concerning the regulation of pool elevations during

spawning periods (15).

Fish Division management techniques scheduled through 1978 include:

establishment of feeding areas, introduction of game fish, introduction

of forage fish, and selective fish kills. Rough fishes are currently
too large to be preyed upon by game species; therefore, threadfin shad
and menidia fingerlings are being stocked. Game fish introductions
include largemouth bass, striped bass, and walleye. The 5-year manage-
ment plan is estimated to cost $661,305 of totally state appropriated

funds (14).

Much of the area inundated by the reservoir was not cleared to

reduce initial development costs and to enhance fish nutrients and
habitat. The standing snags detract from the aesthetics of the lake

and present a hazard to boaters (2).

3. Wildlife

The ODWC has the authority and responsibility to preserve,

manage, and regulate all resident fish aid wildlife at Eufaula Lake

(16). The USF&WS and the ODWC are responsible for conservation and

managemerft of all migratory birds at the project. As landowner, the
Corps is responsible for compatible land use practices and wildlife

habitat development to restore, improve, and preserve fish and wild-

life (16).

D.27.18

The ODWC has a license for 16,000 acres of land and 15,873 acres
of water (Table D.27.2) at the project, although the ODWC has not yet
augmented existing management programs and practices (10). The area
to be managed is called the Eufaula Game Management Area and consists
of five units located at: Deep Fork, Mill Creek, Dutchess Creek,
Longtown Creek, and Gaines Creek (17). Most of the wildlife habitat
in all five units has limited carrying capacity caused by livestock
overgrazing (17).

The Corps issues interim agriculture and grazing leases for

those lands designated for wildlife habitat (and scheduled to be

managed by the ODWC) (Table D.27.5). In fact, the majority of agri-
culture and grazing outgrants are for lands designated for wildlife
management (9). The counties of McIntosh, Pittsburg, Latimer, and
Okmulgee received a total of $16,474 from the Corps for grazing leases
on the Eufaula project during fiscal 1974 (18); this is 32% of the
total receipts generated by the project for these counties (18).

Management techniques scheduled by the ODWC include: construction
of dams, dikes, and levees for waterfowl ponds; installation of fences,

signs, and boundary markers for delineation of wildlife areas and
contiguous grazed private property; and herbaceous seed plantings and
vegetation control for reestablishment of wildlife habitat (17). The
management of the five units is scheduled from 1974 through 1979 at an
estimated cost of $154,900 for development and maintenance (17).

Federal aid for development and operations at the game management area

is $22,149 during fiscal 1975 (19).

The Corps manages IS units for wildlife on 17,059 acres at

Eufaula Lake (16). -However, 13 of the units include public use areas
which comprise approximately one-half of the acreage allotted for
wildlife (16). The public use areas are regarded as wildlife

D.27.19

Table D.27.5. Outgrants for Agriculture, Grazing, and Right-of-Way Purposes, Eufaula Lake. a

Purpose Grantee Outgrants Instrument Rental 1973 Acreage Investment
Date Term Rent Paid to 1974 Planned
(yrs)
Agriculture Summary 13 Lease 1974 5 20,423 3,065.0 N/Ab N/A
Grazing Siumnary 116 Lease 1974 1 or 51,606 20,445.0 N/A N/A
5
Right-of- Swumary 231 Easement 1961 to 5 to 739 2,561.1 N/A N/A
Way 1973 Perpe-
tual

Totals 360 72,768 26,071.1

a
Tulsa District, Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch. 1974. Selected dump of outgrant
master, Eufaula Lake. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
bNot available.

sanctuaries by the district because they are interspersed among the
game and wildlife management areas and because hunting is not allowed

(2).

Overgrazing of the game and wildlife management areas currently
limits food and cover plants (16). The Corps recognizes this problem
and suggests altering grazing leases so that cattle stocking rates and
grazing periods are stipulated (16). Tree planting and plowing
around old fields (for fire prevention) are management techniques
currently followed by the Corps at wildlife management areas (10).

4. Other Land Use

The fee land acquisition policy for Eufaula Lake resulted in only
a narrow border of land above normal pool elevation around much of the
lake. The land contiguous to the project has 136 platted subdivisions
which vary from major subdivisions to mobile home parks (values from
$1,000 to $93,000) (8). The majority of these subdivisions are for

seasonal occupancy and are situated overlooking the lake; they are

also visible from the 2ake disrupting the scenic quality of the land-

scape (2).

The counties encompassing and surrounding Eufaula Lake are in r-wo
OK planning districts: the Eastern Oklahoma Devalopment District which
includes McIntosh, Okmulgee, and Muskogee Counties; and the Kiamichi
Economic Development District which includes Pittsburg, Haskell, and
Latimer Counties (20). These districts have proposed land use, open
space, and housing plars but lack manpower and direct police power to

implement these plans (20).

Absence of strict zoning practices and coordinated land use plans

is evidenced by the diverse mixture of housing and land use practices
on the land surrounding the project. Real estate advertisements,

D.27.21

many of which offer tracts of land for small down-payments and small
monthly payments, were prevalent in the counties around the lake (10).
Encroachment onto project lands results from improper private real
estate advertisements (10) and insufficient Corps boundary marking

(43% currently marked) (3). Where encroachments are detected, the

Corps works with the landowner to eliminate the problem although some
violators have been prosecuted (9).

The production of livestock and agricultural crops has historically

been a basic source of income for the region surrounding Eufaula Lake.

Recently the number of farms and acres planted for food crops has de-

creased but farm size has increased. The increase in beef cattle pro-

duction is coupled with increased forest removal for pasture and in-

creased feed crop production. The high demand for lands suitable for

grazing and agriculture at Eufaula Lake is evidenced by the 13 agri-

culture leases on 3,065 acres and the 116 grazing leases on 20,445

acres (Table D.27.5). Table D.27.6 summarizes all outgrants on

Eufaula Lake.

Currently, representatives from the Corps, Oklahoma Department of

Agriculture, Forestry Division, and the USFS are preparing a resource

protection and environmental improvement program (2). Vegetative

management of public use areas should create a situation tolerant to

inundation by flood waters, beneficial to wildlife, and capable of

stabilizing shoreline soils (2). Removal of dead trees and planting

of water-tolerant plants has occurred at Corps-managed public use

areas (10).

The land ac@,ruisition polic@r allowed for the purchase or sub-
ordination of mineral rights at the project (1). However, the Eufaula

Lake region is attractive for coal gasification plants due to the
underlying strata of shale coal and the readily available water

supply (2).

D.27.22

--m- -= =-- =- -=--= - =-

Table D.27.6. Summary of Outgrants, Eufaula Lake.

Purpose Number Annual Rent Acreage Investment to 1974

a
Recreation - Quasi 2 0 59.0 N/A
Public

Recreation - Commercial 4 6,413 57.0 488,944

Fish and Wildlife and 3 0 37,039.9 N/A
Recreation - Public Parks

Agriculture, Grazing, and 360 72,768 26,071.1 N/A
Right-of-Way

Totals 369 79,182 63,226.0b

aNot available.
bTotal exceeds Manageable Resource Lands (Table D.27.1) because some land reported as outgranted for
fish and wildlife purposes is currently also reported as being outgranted for agriculture and grazing
purposes.

Archeological resources of the Eufaula Lake region were appraised

in 1948 and 1950 by The Smithsonian Institution in cooperation with the
University of Oklahoma. The region contains 118 known archeological
sites including prehistoric Indian and historic Creek Nation sites.

The lake has inundated 38 of these sites and shoreline erosion

threatens 24 others. Lack of state funding in lieu of priority proj-

ects restricts excavation of these sites; however, a site examination

by the Oklahoma Historic Society will precede future major Corps con-
struction projects (2).

5. Resource Use Controls

The resident engineer, GS-12, supervises the operations at Eufaula
Lake and Lake Wister, a small Corps flood control project about 40 mi

southeast of the Eufaula Resident Office. There are three sections

(powerhouse, administrative, and reservoir management) at Eufaula with

a total staff of 51 full-time and 12 temporary employees. At Lake
Wister a separate project manager, GS-9 park manager, supervises proj-
ect operations with one temporary and five full-time employees (21).

The Reservoir Management Section is headed by the assistant

resident engineer, GS-11 park manager, and has a staff of 4 full-time

park rangers (designated park managers by the district), 11 temporary

trainee park rangers (designated park technicians by the district),

and 34 supportive personnel. This section is responsible for all
project operations @-md for maintenance outside the powerhouse (21).

In the District Operations Division, the Reservoir Branch mainly
supervises project operation and maintenance in conjunction with the

Office Operations Branch (22). The Management and Disposal Branch,

Real Estate Division is directly responsible for the outgrants at

Eufaula Lake. Inspections of outgrants are made by the projecL park

ranger force; the district `Ls responsible for policy changes and

D.27.24

outgrant cancellations (22). The Planning, Program Development, and

Design Branches of the Engineering Division are directly responsible
for project development including the establishment of sites for
public use areas and wildlife management lands. The Environmental
Resources Section, Planning Branch develops land use allocations for
recreation, wildlife, and natural areas at the project in relation to
anticipated environmental impacts (21). Refer to Figure D.27.2 for
interrelationships of recreation-resource management affecting Eufaula

Lake.

D.27.25

i'j"i 7 . 2 . R-C T @c' t I c, RE --1 Marlaq q- t I ri L @E r E- I @t L et

L DISTRICT 1:111:,1111,L11

Enqjn",ing Division Real. Estate Division Operations Division
Supv Civil Enq GS-15 Supv Realty Spec GS-13 Supv Civil Eng GS-14

Program Development Branch Appraisal RTarich Hydro-P wer Branch

Supv Civil Eng GS-13 SupV Appraispr C. Supv Electrical Enq GS-13

Planning Brancn Plannng a d Control Branch Office Operations Branch -
'@Upv civil E@14 GS-14 Realty Officer G_'-.1 3 Supv Civil Eng GS-12
2 Civil Eng GS-11
1 Outdoor Rec PInr GS-9
I Civil Eng Tech GS-9
1 Gen Clerk GS-7
Environmental Resources Section Acguisit@on BranO, 1 Civil Eng Clerk GS-7
Supv Outdoor Rec Plnr GS-13 Supv R@alty Spe,- GS-11 1 Park Mqr GE-5
1 Supv 09cdoor Rec Plnr GS-12 2 Prog Clerk GS-5
I Bioloq@st GS-12 5 Park Tech (Temp) GS-4
I ".UPV Civil Eng GS-12 I Clerk-Steno GS-3
I Archeologist GS-11 Management and Disposal branch 1 Clerk-Typist GS-3
2 Landscape Arch GS-1
2 Civil Enq GS-11 Supv Realty Spec GS-13
2 Bioloqist GS-9
1 Civil Eng T@cr, GS-9 Reservoir Branch
1-Civil Eng GS-7
1 Carto Te, h GS-7 Realty Mana ement Soction Supv Civil Eng GS-13
I Carto Tech GS-6 I Biologist GS-12
I 61010giSt (Terfip) us- S Sup@ Realt5 Spec GS-12 2 Civil Eng (IV) GS-12
I 1-ul. Aid (Temp) GS-4 I Realty Spec M GS-11 3 Civil Eng GS-11
I @_ivil Eng 7-c?. Tcmp) GS-6 5 R@alty Spec GS-9 I Park Mgr GS-9
I Clerk.-Srenu GS-4 I Realty Clerk Nypinq) GS-4 I Park Mqr GS-7
I Clerk-Sten,, GS-3 I Realty CIeLk (Steno) GS-4 I Clerk-Steno GS-4
2 Clerk-Steno GS-3 I Eng Draftsman (Temp) GS-4
1. Clerk-Typist GS-.3
H
H

Lufaula Area l'ield Office

III. KEY FINDINGS

A. Recreation

1. Recreation is not an authorized project purpose; however,
extensive public use and access areas have been established. The Corps

has developed 21 recreation areas on 5,165 acres and operates and main-

tains 20, four of which have commercial concession leases. One area

(111 acres) is outgranted to the city of Eufaula. The OLRA has de-
veloped two lodges with associated facilities on 5,056 acres leased
from the Corps plus additional lands owned in fee by the state.

2. Planning for public use areas has resulted in the designation

of large tracts for development of intensive recreation facilities

where access is limited and smaller tracts for less intensive develop-

ment where access is good. The areas with the best access receive

the greatest use, occasionally to the point of overcrowding, while
areas with restricted access receive only limited use. Public use
areas were developed to accommodate an estimated 10 million visitors
during the tenth year of operation; visitation estimates for. 1973,
the ninth year of operation, were 4.5 million.

3. The maintenance at Corps-managed areas was excellent but
maintenance at the state parks was poor. The area leased to the city
of Eufaula was poorly maintained and Corps-constructed facilities were

deteriorating.

4. The city of Eufaula has found operation and maintenace oi the
leased area financially burdensome and has requested termination of
the agreement. The resident engineer would accept the operation and
maintenance of the area; however, district policy favors the outgrant

arrangement.

D.27.27

5. The facilities and aesthetic characteristics provided at
Eufaula Lake' are not unique to the state; six other flood control lakes

are built on tributary rivers of the Arkansas River. However, Eufaula

Lake is the most accessible major recreation lake to Oklahoma City, the

largest urban center in the state.

B. Fish and Wildlife

1. The Corps has assumed direct responsibility for the project's

wildlife and timber resources. The ODWC has a license for wildlife

management on 31,873 acres of project land but is not managing the area
currently due to funding shortages. The ODWC, Fish Division, manages
the reservoir fishery.

2. Corps wildlife management practices include tree planting and

plowing around old fields (for fire prevention). These practices have
improved wildlife habitat at the project.

3. The 31,873 acres of land licensed to ODWC is grazed under

interim leases issued by the Corps. This collateral land use is
inconsistent with the master plan. Both habitat and wildlife species
suffer since carrying capacity is not defined.

4. Many forested areas on the various arms of the lake werE not

cleared to provide fish nutrients and habitat after reservoir con-

struction.

5. After 5 years of excellent fishing, fish production

suddenly dropped off. Extensive fishery studies conducted by the
ODWC, Fish Division, revealed that primary food production was
limited because of the timing of water fluctuations, excessive tur-

bidity, bottom substrate composition, and lengthy periods of deep

water anoxic conditions in the summer. Management techniques by the
Fish Division and better cooperation from the Corps (concerning the

D.27.28

timing of pool fluctuations during fish spawning seasons) are im-

proving fish production.

C. Corps and Contiguous Land Use

1. The land acquisition policy at the Eufaula Lake project was
not sufficient to maintain an aesthetic appearance around the lake.
A small fringe of property was acquired surrounding the lake with some

larger supplemental tracts acquired for recreation area development.
Flowage easements were obtained on private lands contiguous to Corps
property thus buffering project lands. However, encroachment onto
easement acreage is occurring and the Corps is prosecuting offenders.

2. One hundred thirty-six subdivisions and trailer parks are
built on private lands abutting the Corps' boundary. These develop-
ments offer views of and are visible from the lake. The possibility

for increased numbers of housing subdivisions, which will reduce the
aesthetic quality of the lake, is immediate as evidenced by the
numerous real estate advertisements offering property around the lake.

3. The Corps has drafted a Lakeshore Management Plan for Eufaula
Lake that covers fee-owned lands withi 5n the project. The establish-
ment of floating facilities by private landowners will be restricted.
The plan delineates all project lands for: project management, in-
tensive recreation, low density recreation, natural areas, and wild-

life management. The plan should limit subdivision development on
contiguous lands by restricting lake access.

4. Regional economic development districts have proposed land
use, open space, and housing plans. However, these districts lack
adequate staff and police power to implement the proposed plans. The
diverse mixture of housing and land use praztices on land surrounding
the project reflect the absence of both strict zoning practices and

coordinated land use planninS by the local governments.

D.27.29

5. Water supply and irrigation are not authorized project pur-

poses at Eufaula Lake. However, waters from the lake are currently

withdrawn by 11 public water suppliers and 200 private households
and irrigation potential is suggested in regional water resources

appraisals.

D. Real E6tate Programs and Practices

1. Lands designated for wildlife management are currently out-
granted for agriculture and grazing purposes. overgrazing has cuased
a reduction of carrying capacity and deterioration of wildlife habitat

on Corps-m.anaged lands and lands licensed to the,ODWC for wildlife

management. To guard against continued abuse of lands outgranted for
agriculture and grazing purposes, future leases will contain limitations
of crop harvests and restrictions on grazing periods.

2. Counties surrounding the lake support the Corps' agriculture
and grazing program since they receive 75% of the revenue derived from

these activities.

3. Increasing demands by private land owners for shoreline

recreation facility permits are restricted by compliance with the

Lakeshore Management Plan.

E. CoK2s Organization
1. There are not enough Corps personnel with biological expertise

to establish the specific needs for wildlife enhancement, to allocate

carrying capacity between domestic animals and wildlife, to contribute

to the management plans followed by ODWC, and to redeem Corps respon-

sibility for wildlife enhancement on project lands.

2. Planning for recreation and wildlife is done by personnel in

the Environmental Re-sources Section, Planning Branch, Engineering
Division. The section is staffed with three biologists (GS-9, GS-12),

D.27.30

two outdoor recreation planners, two landscape architects, five civil
engineers, one archeologist, and seven supportive personnel. The
section chief is a GS-13 outdoor recreation planner.

3. Management of recreation and wildlife resources is primarily
in the Reservoir Branch,'Operations Division, The staff is composed

mostly of civil engineers. The branch has two park managers and one

biologist. Grades range from GS-7 to GS-13; the biologist is a GS-12.

4. Decisions relative to Corps outgrants are made in the manage-

ment and Disposal Branch, Real Estate Division. Although inspections

and field decisions are made by park rangers at the project, can-
cellations of lease agreements are made by the district.

5. Supervision of Eufaula Lake and Wister Lake is by the resident

engineer, GS-12, stationed at Eufaula Lake. At Eufaula Lake, the

assistant resident manager is a GS-11 park manager who heads Reservoir

Management; at Wister Lake, a smaller reservoir project, the project

manager is a GS-9 park manager.

6. Management at Eufaula Lake is accomplished primarily by park
rangers identified as park managers and park technicians in the dis-
trict organization charts. Four full-time rangers (GS-5 to GS-11)
supervise 11 trainee park rangers (GS-4).

7. The Ranger Trainee Program has successfully developed per-

sonnel to serve as recreation-resources managers.

F. Environmental Problems

1. Natural salt deposits and brine from oil well waste drain
into the tributary river s of Eufaula Lake causing a high mineral con-
tent in the water. Although the waters of the lake are vlassified as
poor for water supply and have too high a mineral content for irri-
gation; 11 town and community water supplies and over 200 private

households remove water from the lake.

D.27.31

2. Turbidity of th6 water in the lake detracts from the aesthetic
quality of the project and seriously reduces fish spawning success.

Primarily the result of wind and wave action on the shallow lake

bottom, turbidity is also increased by waste waters from municipal and
industrial waste-disposal plants (concentrated at Oklahoma City) that
flow into lake tributary rivers.

3. During periods of severe flood control, the pool inundates
parts of the public use areas where hardwoods are killed and excessive
shoreline is eroded. After the pool recedes, removal of dead trees
and replacement of landscape present additional maintenance duties.

D.27.32

IV. REFERENCES

1. Tulsa District. 1973. Appendix A, project resource management
plan to design memorandum no 12B, master plan for Eufaula Lake.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

2. Tulsa District. 1974. Draft plan of the updated master plan,
Eufaula Lake, Oklahoma. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

3. Recreation-Resource Management System (RRMS). 1973. 1973 annual
report (Eufaula Lake). Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington,
D. C.

4. The Lake Eufaula Association. 1973. Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma's
gentle giant. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

5. Tulsa District. 1972. Eufaula Lake, Oklahoma. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

6. Personal communication, 23 October 1974. Tulsa District, Real
Estate Division, Acquisition Branch, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

7. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, Division of State
Parks. 1973. 1972 report on Oklahoma's twenty-seven (27) state
parks and twenty-four (24) recreational areas. Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.

8. Tulsa District. 1974. Civil works recreation-resource management
system transcript (part VII), narrative report, Eufaula Lake.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

9. Personal communication, October-November 1974. Tulsa District,
Real Estate Division, Management and Disposal Branch, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.

10. Personal communication, 24 October 1974. Field personnel, Tulsa
District, Eufaula Lake, Eufaula, Oklahoma.

11. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, Division of State
Parks. 1974. Annual management plan, Fountainhead State Park.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

12. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, Division of State
Parks. 1974. Annual management plan, Arrowhead State Park.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

D.27.33

13. Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 1971. Appraisal of the water
and related land resources of Oklahoma. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

14. Oklahoma Department of wildlife Conservation, Fisheries Division.
1972. Eufaula Lake study, abstract and recommended management
plan. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

15. Personal communication, 23 October 1974. Field personnel, Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation, Fish Division, Central Region,
Holdenville, Oklahoma.

16. Tulsa District, Engineering Division, Planning Branch, Environ-
mental Resources Section. 1974. Appendix D, fish and wildlife
management plan to design memorandum no. 12B, master plan for
Eufaula Lake (draft). Tulsa, Oklahoma.

17. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Game Division.
1973. Program narrative development (Eufaula Game Management
Area). Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

18. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Game Division. ND.
Draft interdepartmental report concerning grazing leases on state
wildlife lands (Table 3). Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

19. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Game Division.
1974. Federal aid development and operations work plan (Eufaula
Public Hunting Area). Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

20. Oklahoma Office of Community Affairs and Planning. 1973.
Directory 1973-74, sub-state planning districts in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

21. Tulsa District. 1974. District organization chart. Tulsa,
Oklahoma.

22. Personal communication, 22 October 1974. Tulsa District,
Operations Division, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

D.27.34

28. ROBERT S. KERR LOCK AND DAM AND RESERVOIR

Southwest Division

Tulsa District

Oklahoma

I. SETTING

A. Location

The Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam are located in eastern Oklahoma on

river mile (mi) 395.4 of the Arkansas River (1) about 20 mi west of the

OK-Arkansas border and 165 mi east of Oklahoma City. The reservoir
extends generally west-northwest from the dam 37 mi into portions of

Sequoyah, Muskogee, LeFlore, and Haskell Counties (1). Arms of the

reservoir from an irregular 250 mi shoreline (2) and extend up the
tributaries of: Sanbois Creek, Little Sanbois Creek, Canadian River,

Dirty Creek, Illinois River, Vian Creek, Little Vian Creek, and Little

Sallisaw Creek.

Access to the lake is good along the northern region of the pro-
ject where U. S. 64-OK 1 and 1 40 parallel the river valley and cross
the project at two locations in the upper reaches of the reservoir.
Interstate 40 is the major east-west transportation route through the
state and connects Oklahoma City and Fort Smith to the project. Sallisaw,

Vian, Gore, and Webbers Falls are local towns situated along U. S.

64-OK 1 with direct access to the project (Figure D.28.1).

Connecting the towns of Stigler and Keota to the southern region

of the project OK 9 continues 20 mi west to the Eufaula Lake project.
As the major route for access to many public use areas, U. S. 59 extends
north-south across the eastern region of the project and crosses the

D.28.1

0 0 TO TENKILLER
STATF PARK

WESIME 0 11
FALLS
DAN SITE
1011
TO 82

vm
WE= so Figure D.28.1.
TO Ls 40 ROBERT S. KERR
LANOMA
CITY 0'." SALLISAW OKLAHOMA

L E G E N D

CITIES - TOWNS

To WILDLIFE SANCTUARY
FORT SMITH BOUNDARY
SEQWVAN NATIONAL
WILDLIFE "FUSE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY
TANANA -0- STATE ROAD
ROBERT S KERR
LOCK VAN U-S. HIGHWAY

OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF
CONSERVATION
,-%I C, SAUSSOP
STAR
0
I MILES
d COWLINGTON
TO $TKILER Zi 0',
EUFAULA LAKE 9
KEOTA

Arkansas River just east of the lock and dam. Access to most public
use areas from these major transportation arteries is via graded dirt
and graveled secondary county roads.

Three railroads service the region around the project and commercial
air transportation is available at Tulsa (84 mi northwest from the dam)

and Fort Smith.

B" Authorization and Purposes
The Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam and Reservoir project, formerly
designated as Lock and Dam No. 15, was authorized as a major unit in
the multipurpose plan for development of the lower Arkansas River Basin
by Congress in 1946 (PL 79-758). Authorized project purposes are
hydroelectric power and navigation (2). The 1973 RRMS reports the
project is managed for navigation, power, recreation, and wildlife (3) .

C. Features

The reservoir extends through the moderately flat Arkansas River
Valley and lies on the border between Green Country and Kiamichi
Country, two of six state divisions of the Oklahoma Department of Tourism
and Recreation (ODTR) (4, 51. The topography is mostly flat, although
some mountainous areas occur east of the reservoir (1). Forested hills

extend north and south from the project shoreline and are predominantly
covered with post oak, blackjack oak, and hickory (1).

The drainage basin upstream from the lock and dam includes 147,756

aThe Secretary of the Army has been authorized, since 1944, to con-
struct, maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities
at water resource development projects. 16 U.S.C. 460d. Since
1946, the Army Corps of Engineers has been required, when consistant
with a project's primary purposes, to make adequate provision for the
conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife resources.
16 U.S.C. 663 (a).

P. 28. 3

square mi of northeastern and north-central OK and annually deposits 11

million tons of naturally suspended sediments in the Kerr Reservoir (1).

Maintenance dredging maintains the channel at elevation 455 feet mean sea

level (fts msl) (1). Navigation channel maintenance is required along

the entire Arkansas River navigation project which extends upstream from

the mouth of the Arkansas River to Tulsa. There are four upstream

locks and dams on the Arkansas River between the Kerr Dam and Tulsa;

additionally there are 10 upstream flood control dams on tributary ri-
vers and streams supplying the Arkansas River. The total project from

Fort Smith to Tulsa is called the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navi-

gation System.

The navigation-power pool at 460 ft msl forms an irregular reser-
voir of 42,000 acres with a storage capacity of 493,600 acre-ft'(2).

The navigation channel has a minimum depth of 9 ft and a minimum width

of 250 ft, although the reservoir varies fran 0 ft to 43 ft deep overall

(1). The project is not operated for flood control (1).

The principal project features are: an earth-fill dam with 18 water
release gates j44 ft by 50 ft), a single lift navigation lock (110 ft

by 600 ft) with a normal lift of 40 ft, and four 27,500 kilowatt gen-

erators (2). Refer to Table D.28.1 for additional project features.

D.28.4

Table D.28.1. Resource Statistics, Robert S. Kerr.

a
Date of Authorization 1946
Rights in Land-Acquired Between 1964 - 1970 b
Date of Impoundment November, 1970c
Date of Full Operation December, 1970c

Lake Size When Water Level is at:
Maximum Pool (479.8 ft ms1)a 60,235 acresd
Normal Power Pool (460 ft msl) 42,000 acresd
e
Normal Minimum Pool Elevation NA
minimum Design Elevation 37,500 acresa
Water Fluctuation - Summer Recreation Season 2 feeta
Shoreline at Normal Pool 250 milesc
Held in Fee Simple by Corps 250 milesC

Land Area Managed by Corps
Total Land in Project 65,706 acresd
Fee Title in U. S. 56,720 acres d
Easements to Flood 2,251 acres d
Riverbed 6,735 acres d
Project Operation Lands 472 acresd
e
Manageable Resource Lands 20,983 acres

aTulsa District. 1965. Lock and Dam No. 15, Robert S. Kerr, design
memorandum no. 4B, master plan. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

b
Personal communication, 23 October 1975. Tulsa District, Real
Estate Division, Acquisition Branch, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

cRRMS. 1973.

dTulsa District. 1973. Report on utilization of civil works lands
and facilities (Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam, Sallisaw, Oklahoma).
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

D.28.5

Table D.28.1 (Continued).

e
.Not applicable.
fTotal Project Lands minus (Land Flooded at 'Normal Power Pool +
Project Operation Lands + Easements).

D.28.6

II. LAND USE, RECREATION, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSIDERATIONS

A. Analytic Unit

Portions of Sequoyah, Muskogee, LeFlore, and Haskell Counties,
which surround the Kerr projects, directly affect and are influenced by

the reservoir. A 10 mi zone around the reservoir includes all the

major transportation arteries which traverse the region and connect

the surrounding towns and communities to the project.

Sallisaw is the largest town (1970 population: 4,824) in the 10

mi zone around the lake and it receives extensive tourist business due

to closeness of east-west transportation routes (6). The other towns
around the project region are also located at major highway routes and
interchanges (Figure D.28.1). The small Towns of Keota, Tamaha, and
Webbers Falls are located on the shore adjacent the navigation channel

and import and export bulk materials.

The region is predominantly rural with farming and beef production

primary occupations. mineral resources in the region are actively
exploited and include: oil, gas, coal, glass sand, crushed aggregate,

lime, and pottery clay. (6).

The recreation facilities at the Kerr Reservoir are used predomi-
nantly by people within the 10 mi zone. Urban populations, located at
Fort Smith, Muskogee (40 mi northwest of the lake), and to a lesser
extent Tulsa, contribute to the visitor pressures at the project. Public
use areas were designed to accomodate visitor pressures within a 50
mi zone around the project (2).

Two Oklahoma Sub-state Planning Districts (Regions Two and Three)
border the major portion of the Kerr project. Region Two (Eastern
Oklahoma Economic Development District) includes Sequoyah and Muskogee

D.28.7

Counties; Region Three (Kiamichi Economic Development District) in-
cludes Haskell and LeFlore Counties. Water supply available for recreation

is prevalent in both regions, however, income for t he rural populace

seems to limit recreation attendance and the degree of participation in

recreational activities. (6).

Attendance at water related facilities in Region Three increased

85% between 1965 and 1970, but the attendance growth at water related
facilities in Region Two increased only half the growth of Region
Three. Although the population growth rates are equal, the per capita
personal income increased 66% from 1960 to 1968 for Region Two, while

the per capita personal income for Region Three during the same time

span increased 107%. Region Three has realized greater increases in
economic stability (per capita personal income) due to its association

with the Ozark Regional Development Program; however, both regions are
considerably below the average state per capita personal income (6).

B. ownership

1. corps

The Corps acquired 56,720 acres in fee title and 2,251 acres in
flowage easement at the Kerr project. With the addition of 6,735 acres
of navigational servitude (original river channel), the total project is
65,706 acres (Table D.28.1). The guideline for land acquisition was the
463 ft msl contour or the envelope curve of backwater effects after 50
years of sedimentation, whichever was higher. This provided a minimum
horizontal distance of 300 ft from the normal pool elevation (460 ft
msl) except where flowage easements were purchased (1). The fee lands
cost $207 per acre on the average and the flowage easement cost averaged
$179 per acre based on acreages acquired through June 1974 (7).

There are 21,455 acres of usable land above the normal navigation-

D.28.8

power pool that have been allocated for: project operations (472 acres),
public use, wildlife management, and nonzoned (natural) areas (8).

2. Municipal

The Towns of Webbers Falls, Tamaha, and Keota border the reser-

voir shoreline (Figure D.28.1). Two commercial ports exist along the
reservoir, Sierra Coal near Webbers Falls and Port Carl Albert on Sans

Bois Creek near Keota (9). Increased navigation on the Arkansas River
has directly influenced the growth of these two ports.

C. Resource Management

1. Recreation

At the Kerr project, 4,252 acres at 11 public use areas have been

developed by the Corps including a 2-acre overlook, a visitor center at

the lock, and nine water-oriented recreation areas ranging from 64 to
1,774 acres (3). There is a boat launching ramp at each of the nine
areas; picnicking is at eight areas with a total of 215 sites; camping
is at six areas with a total of 217 sites; and group camping is at five
areas (3). The Corps manages 10 of these public use areas and the
USF&WS manages the 133-acre public use area developed within the
Sequoyah National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) at Vian Creek; this area has

24 picnic sites and 1 boat launching ramp (3). The Corps investment,
for recreation facilities developed through December 1973 was $1,408,000

(10).

One other Kerr Reservoir public use area is developed and managed
as a city park by the City of Webbers Falls (2). This 8-acre park (3)
is adjacent to the town and includes a surfaced access road, parking
area, and boat launching ramp permitted from the Corps (2). The Town of
Tamaha has requested the development of an adjacent recreation area,
but the Corps has delayed action because of foreseeable financial

D.28.9

problems with maintenance (11).

Th'e master plan designates four commercial concession sites at

public use areas around the reservoir but currently only one operation
(located on 28 acres at Applegate Cove) has been established (Table
D.28.2). The concessioner uses paved access roads, a boat launching

ramp, and rest rooms developed by the Corps and provide sales, services,

and rentals on boats, motors, boat storage, and related boating equip-

ment (10). The concessioner has developed-boat storage facilities,
service docks, sewage disposal systems, and camper facilities at an

estimated cost through December 1973 of $107,039 (10).

Corps-managed facilities and public use areas were effectively
maintained for prevention of facility and landscape deterioration.
Bidders for trash removal and mowing contracts at the project are thor-
oughly investigated by,the district (10). Contract compliance is
good as evidenced by the clean and orderly condition of the public use
areas. The public area at Vian Creek receives extensive use by hunters
and fishermen and is poorly maintained by the USF$WS (11).

User fees are collected at five public use areas by roving rangers.
The basic camping fee is $2 per night with an additional $0.50 charge
for electrical hookup. The largest public use area, Sallisaw Creek
(1,774 acres), does not require a user fee (11).

In 1973 an estimated 680,700 visitors used the Kerr Reservoir
facilities (3) which was below the expected visitation rate of one
million (1). Unusually rainy weather throughout the year contributed
to a lower visitation rate than in 1972 although the public use areas
at Kerr Reservoir were not inundated by flood waters (11). The
visitation at the Sequoyah NWR in 1973 was estimated at 72,100 (3).
Because of the exceptionally good trout fishing on the Illinois

D.28.10

Table D. 28.2. Outqrants for Recreation Commercial, Robert S. Kerr. a

Rental Annual Investnent
Location Grantee Instrument Date Term Basis Rent Paid Acreage to 1974 Planned Turn-
(yrs) ($) ($) (4) over
Applegate Barnes,Barnes Lease 1972 20 Fixed + 652 28.0 107,039 N/Ab 0
Cove Shartel, & Shartel Graduated

apersonal communication, Actober-November 1974. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division, Management and
Disposal Branch, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
bNot available.

River, the small public use area (64 acres) located th ere receives

overuse from fishermen using the river access (11)

Four areas comprising 69 acres are designated for quasi-public use
at the project but none are currently leased. There was no acreage

designated for nonprofit membership agencies or private recreation groups

at the project (1).

2. Lake Resources

Sediment retention, by the Kerr and upstream dams, has replaced

a muddy stream fishery of mostly nongame fish species with a less turbid
reservoir fishery that supports a variety of game fish species. In
the Kerr Reservoir the annual sediment load was 95 million tons prior

to construction of the Webbers Falls Lock and Dam (immediately up-

stream from the Kerr Reservoir on the Arkansas River); the current

Kerr Reservoir sediment load is 11 million tons annually. Currently

waters from the reservoir are not used for water supply or irrigation

(1).

Because the reservoir is shallow (average depth 10 ft) except in

the river channel, wind and wave action over the large water surface
cause considerable shifting of reservoir bottom materials and erosion

alona the shoreline. In addition coal dust- from two coals loading
ports along the reservoir combine with silt and restrict phytoplankton
production. Shoreline erosion due to pool fluctuations will be min-
imal since periodic power generation drawdowns are only 2 f t (1) - I
Management of the reservoir fishery is the responsibility of the
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), Fish Division (12).
The reservoir lies in the Northeast Region of the Fish Division which
have offices in Muskogee. Fish production in the reservoir and partic-
ularly in the Illinois River is good with an estimated 1.2 million

D.28.12

pounds of sport fish harvested in 1973 (9). The reservoir has warm

temperatures conductive for the production of walleye, largemouth
bass, and crappie with an estimated carrying capacity of 600-800
pounds of fish per acre (12). Clear, cold waters in the Illinois
River provide habitat for trout released from the ODWC's hatchery lo-
cated on the river below the Tenkiller Ferry Dam (12). Although sport
fishing is extensive in the reservoir, commercial fishing is not

allowed (9, 11).

Techniques employed at the reservoir for fish habitat improvement
include: rip-rap installation and dike construction to reduce erosion
and turbidity, restrictions on floating facilities in coves where
good fishhabitat exists, and improvement or abandonment of back roads

to avoid excessive sedimentation. The ODWC has stocked the reservoir

with largemouth bass, channel catfish, and walleye. In addition,
striped bass stocked in Keystone Lake (a Corps flood control project

upstream from Kerr Reservoir) have become established in the Kerr

Reservoir (13). Cooperation between ODWC and the Corps has been good
concerning pool levels during spawning periods (13). One problem
in the reservoir is the growth of Eurasion watermilfoil encouraged by
the stable warm water levels; growth has not yet affected navigation
or fish populations but close inspection is warranted by the ODWC and

the Corps (13).

3. Wildlife

The USF&WS has license for 20,800 acres of land and water at

the Kerr project for the Sequoyah NWR (Table D.28.3). The ODWC is
scheduled to license 1,609 acres of land for wildlife managment at
the project. There are an additional 10,790 acres of project lands
managed by the Corps for wildlife (12).

D.28.13

a
Table D.28.3 Outgrants for Fish and Wildlife and Recreation -- Public Parks, Robert S. Kerr.
Rental Annual Investment
Rental Acreage to 1974 Planned
Grantee Instrument ryaEe Te rm Paid
(Yrs) ($) ($) ($)
U.S. Dept. License 1970 Indef. 0 j0,800-0 N/Ab N/A
of Interior

aTulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1974. Selected dump of outgrant master
Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
bNot available.

The Sequoyah NWR was established, through cooperative agreement
between the USF&WS and the Corps, as mitigation for waterfowl habitat
lost during project construction (2). Sharecropping has provided abun-
dant waterfowl food that is extensively used; the estimated maximum

numbers of ducks and geese present in 1973 were 258,500 and 4,535 respec-
tively (9).

Fishing is allowed on the reservoir waters within the refuge and
hunting is allowed on 9,760 acres at three areas (43% of the refuge)
(2). Areas closed to hunting are designed to provide waterfowl resting
and feeding areas. Hunting and fishing are allowed elsewhere on the
project excluding recreation areas, project operation areas, and an
additional 70 acres of land near Applegate Cove designated for the
"Acres of Wildlife" program of the ODWC (2).

The land requested by the ODWC for the proposed Robert S. Kerr Game
Management Area includes many islands within the reservoir that provide

good goose habitat. The ODWC has submitted management programs to the

Corps which include: fence and road construction, boundary marking,
sharecropping of grains for goose food, and hunting blind construction.

Fishing will be allowed throughout the year on the management area and

hunting will be allowed on a first come first served basis. The pro-
jected first year development cost at the management area is $18,000

(14).

The Corps is preparing a management program for Corps-managed
wildlife lands at the Kerr project which will include: habitat
plantings, boundary marking, nature trail construction, vegetation and
pest control, and half the services of a GS-9 wildlife biologist. Four
management units east of the Sequoyah NWR are proposed in the plan at
an initial cost of $384,000. Wildlife to be managed includes mostly
game animals (gray and fox squirrels, cottontail rabbits, Bobwhites,
white-tailed deer, other furbearers, and waterfowl). Hunting is

D.28.15

currently allowed on these areas and will be continued after initia-
tion of the management pian (12).

Currently those lands designated for wildlife management (in the
master plan) or licensed to the ODWC are interimly outgranted for agri-
culture and grazing purposes (8). Some cases of overgrazing exist and

the potential for extensive overgrazing is great; therefore, the Corps

is revising leases to incorporate limitations on stocking rates,

grazing periods, and cancellations of leases on overgrazed areas (12).

Agricultural leases are considered a management tool for wildlife be-

cause normally 40% of the harvest is left standing in the field for

wildlife food (12).

4. Other Land Use

The land acquisition policy for the Kerr project generated a narrow

border of land around the reservoir shoreline. Land contiguous to the
project boundary is privately owned and used mostly for agric ulture,
grazing, and timber. Subdivision development, including mobile homes on
individually owned lots, exists around the project but to a limited

degree (9). However, construction of the project is relatively recent
and future development is expected (9). Currently the project exists
in a predominantly rural and aesth atic setting.

Two State planning districts encompassing the Kerr project have
proposed land use, open space, and housing plans but lack the manpower
and direct influence to implement the plans (16). The Kerr project is
considered an integral part of these plans but without strict zoning
practices and land use plans, the project could receive extensive devel-

opment uncomplimentary to the aesthetics of the lake.

Agriculture and grazing leases on project lands generated $7,922 in
1973 (Table D.28.4). The majority of the leases occurred on lands within
Sequoyah and Haskell Counties; 75% of the revenue from Corps agriculture

D.28.16

Table D-28.4. Outgrants for Agriculture and Grazing Purposes, Robert S. Kerr. a
Annual Investment
Rental Rental
Purpose Grantee Outgrants Instrument Date Term, Paid Acreage to 1974 Planned
(yrs) ($) ($) ($)
Agriculture G. Haraway 1 Lease 1972 4 138 165-0 N/Ab N/A
R. Harkey 1 Lease 1970 4.25 165 1.15.0 N/A N/A
C. K. Hudson, Jr. 1 Lease 1973 2 70 19-0 N/A N/A
H. J. Matthews 1 Lease 1970 4.25 600 121.9 N/A N/A
.J. 1. Matthews 1 Lease 1973 2 100 18.0 N/A N/A
B. R. Pearson 1 Lease 1970 5 335 55.0 N/A N/A
W. Pearson 1 Lease 1970 4.25 700 150-0 N/A N/A
1973 N/A N/A
Go E. E. Peaster 1 Lease 2 325 60.0
1973 N/A N/A
C. E. Sloan 1 Lease 2 63 10*0
A. Speck 1 Lease 1970 4-25 40 40.0 N/A N/A
C. S. Uptergrove 1 Lease 1970 4.25 310 177.0 N/A N/A
F. Wood, 111 1 Lease 1970 4.25 200 40.0 N/A N/A
E. J. Terrill 1 Lease 1974 1 650 115.0 N/A N/A

Grazing Summary 37 Lease 1970-1974 1-4.25 4,226 1,539.8 N/A N/A

Totals 50 7,922 2,625.7 N/A N/A

aTulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1974. Selected dump of outgrant master,
Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

bNot available.

and grazing outgrants is returned to the counties (15). Table D.28.5
summarizes outgrants at the Robert S. Kerr project.

Although the surface area at the project was acquired in fee, the
mineral right s were subordinated with the Corps' right to restrict

exploration and drilling in certain areas (1). As a result, sand, gravel,
and minerals can be removed from approximately 6,735 acres at the project
(2). In particular the mineral rights on about 900 acres of coal along

San Bois Creek were not acquired and shaft mining for coal at depths from

500 to 1,200 ft below the surface may result (2).

The Kerr project is located in a region once occupied by the "Mound

Builders," a prehistoric culture characterized by huge burial mounds.
Before project construction in 1958, the University of Oklahoma in
cooperation with the NPS conducted a preliminary appraisal of the

archeological resources of the project (1). The resident engineer re-
ports tentative plans for incorporation of prehistoric displays at

recreation areas (11).

D.28.18

Table D.28.5. Summary of Outgrants, Robert S. Kerr.

Purpose Number Annual Rent Acreage Investment to 1974

Fish and Wildlife and
Recreation Public Parks 1 0 20,800.0 N/Aa
Recreation Commercial 1 652 28.0 107,039
Agriculture and Grazing 50 7,922 2,625.7 N/A
Totals 52 8,574 23,453.7b 107,039

aNot available.

bTotal exceeds Manageable Resource Lands (Table D.28.1) because some land reported as outgranted
for fish and wildlife purposes is currently also reported as outgranted for agricultural and
grazing purposes.

5. Resource Use Controls

Direct supervision of the Robert S. Kerr project is from the resident

offices at the project. The resident engineer, a GS-13 supervisory civil

engineer, has direct responsibilities for the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas

River Navigation System and has a total staff of 163. The powerhouse and

lock and dam offices are separate from the reservoir management, adminis-
tration, and navigation maintenance offices at the project (17). The

assistant resident engineer, a GS-12 supervisory civil engineer, manages
the Navigation maintenance Section which is responsible for navigation
channel maintenance and field engineering of contracted work along the
six pools of the navigation system (17,18). This section will be reduced
when river channelization and contracted work are complete since field
engineers will no longer be needed and the channel will require only peri-

odic maintenance (11) .

A GS-11 park manager supervises the Reservoir Management Section

which is divided into two parts and is responsible for recreation and

resource management at six projects on the OK portion of the Arkansas

River. The portion of the section that includes supervision of the

recreation pools of the Robert S. Kerr, W. D. Mayo, and the Ok portion of

River Pool Number 13 is comprized of: 5 park managers (GS-5, GS-7, and
Gs-9 park rangers), 5 temporary park technicians (GS-4 park ranger

trainees), and 14 permanent and 7 temporary workmen and laborers(17).

In the Operations Division at the district level the Resezvoir

Branch provides most of the supervision for field operations at the Kerr
Reservoir project; the office operations Branch also assists with
supervisory responsibilities (18), Although inspections of project out-
grants are made by project park rangers, the Management and Disposal
Branch, Real Estate Division is directly responsible for securing and

D.28.20

revoking outgrant agreements (18).

Plans for project resource development, including recreation and

wildlife management areas were developed by the Planning and Program
Development Branches of the Engineering Division. Within the Planning
Branch, the Arkansas River Planning Section developed the lock and dam
system on the Arkansas River in conjunction with the Little Rock District
and the Environmental Resources Section planned land use allocations and
recreational development and studied environmental impacts at the project.
Refer to Figure D.28.2 for district staffing.

D.28.21

-urc. Mjn.@q u,ni. li,teri-JaLLun-hips TuLrd F,i-iineor Dl- I], I

EN,Mkk

Er,911-ring Div]-L'11, Fed) Lstat@ Divz@,Ion Cqxvration@ Division
SUF,v Civil rz,q cl-15 Sul-v Re.lty -,;p-, GE -13 Supv Civil Fnq GS-14
F- --T T- -1
PI-Ilam POv@10pmenL Branch Br,nrl. A Franch Hydro-Power Branch
,u1v Livil Fi,i GS-13 qUpV CIVIL Lng ur
-V , Pp I G,-'- 1 j SuPv Electrical Eng GS-11

Ndi,nirq and -r,r'Llol brancti Havigatio Branch
Azkdnsds River Viaraiing zect,j, Ej.viion:menfal !.-,L,.,n Realty Uf1 ICIL G:,- 13 Supv CIL'] I Cnq GS-13
'.UPv @ IV il Eriq GS-13 Suriv Outdoor R,r ilar GS - I I
', Civil Enq flfz- 12 1 Suy,v r-tdoo@ @,c pjj,r Gs- 1 11
2 Civil Eriq G@-l I i bj,)J@q3 @@t r!:- 12
I %:,vil F-r-j Teen r..q - 7 1 SUI-V Civil Eng GS-@,, Acquisit.a. blanch Office OperaLLuns Branch
I Enq rirdttLman GS-4 I Archeolc-4i@,t - I -
I --1ork-St-,.O ;S- 2 L.ndscaj- ArLn rf:- I I -U,,v Fealty C;pec GZ-11 SuPv Civil E:nq CS-12
I Civil 2 Civil Eng GS-11
Enq Gs-ij
:1 r-i-logist I Outdoor kec Plnr GS-9
I , V I I Lr,q Tef I, I Civil Enq Tech G--9
Civil Enq G.- 7 L!jna9tMejiL and DisposdL branch L Gen Clerk G.S-7
I CdrLu Tech rf,-7 I Civil Frio :lerk GS-7
I Cart. Tech G@-, Supv Re.lty Spec CS-13 L Park Mgr Gs-@
I biologist (Tem I I r,.- 2 Prog Clerk G-q-r
I Bi-l Aid (Ternri GS-4 5 Park Tech (Temp) GS-4
I Civil Enq 'leci, jl@p) G5-4 I Clerk-Steno CIS - 3
1 Clerk-Steno GS-4 Realty Management Section 1 Clerk-Tylist CS-1
1 Llvrk-c@r,nn G-S-3
Supv R,dlty Spec GS-12
I Fealty Spec (V) GS-11
5 Pealty Spec GS-9 Reservoir BrAnch
I Realty Cl@rk (Typing) GS-4
I Rt.lty Clerk (Steno) GS-4 SUPV Clv,l Eno GF. - I 'I
-e Clerk-St,ti. GS-3 BiologIS7 rs- 1 .1
Civil Lnj ilv, G-L'
3 Civil Enq C@-- I j
I Park Mqr Gr-9
1 Park Mgr W-7
I Clerk-SLern GS-4
H
H H
@E-
H

Yerr Ar@a rield 1 Enq Draftsman (Temp) GS-4
I Clerk-Typist
F If-

III. KEY FINDINGS

A. Recreation

1. Although recreation is xiot an authorized project purpose, the

Corps has developed 11 public use areas on 4,252 acres. The Corps
operates and maintains 10 of these areas, and the USF&WS operates and
maintains one area within the boundary of the Sequoyah NWR. The Town of
Webbers Falls has a permit for construction of a boat ramp on an 8-acre
parcel of Corps land adjacent to the town. There is a 28-acre commerical

concession incooperated as part of the recreation area at Applegate Cove.

2. The 11 public use areas are generally adequate for short-run
visitor pressures but some small recreation areas are occasionally
overcrowded. Visitation for 1973 was 680,700 compared to the planning

estimate for 1973 of one million.

3. The facilities and grounds managed by the Corps were in
excellent condition, however the public use area developed by the Corps
and managed by the USF&WS was in poor condition.

4. Access to the project area is good from major highway networks
around the region, but most direct access to public use areas is from
unpaved secondary county roads. The roads within the public use areas
are paved and well maintained.

B. Fish and Wildlife

1. The Robert S. Kerr Reservoir has replaced a muddy stream fishery
of mostly nongame species with a less turbid reservoir fishery that sup-
ports diverse game fish species. No commercial fishing is allowed on the

reservoir but sport fishing is excellent.

2. Management of-fish and wildlife resources is primarily the
responsibility of the ODWC and the UFS&WS. There are 20,800 acres of

D.28.23

land and water licensed to the USF&WS for the Sequoyah NWR. The ODWC is

expected to manage 1,609 acres of land for wildlife when funds become

available. Until then, the land is interimly outgranted for agriculture

and grazing.

3. Good cooperation between the ODWC, the USF&WS, and the Corps
has occurred concerning pool regulation during the waterfowl nesting and

fishing spawning seasons.

C. Corps and Contiguous Land Use

1. The land acquired at the Robert S. Kerr project will not be
sufficient to maintain aesthetic quality around the complete boundary. The

major land acquisition was for wildlife management and recreation areas.
only a narrow border of project land around the reservoir was acquired

between these major areas.

2. The master plan delineates four areas comprising 69 acres for

quasi-public organizations, although these lands are not currently out-
granted. No project lands were designated for nonprofit membership agen-
cies or private recreation groups.

3. Plans for forest, range, and wildlife management are being
prepared by the Corps to guide land and water management of Corps

property.

4. Two commercial ports within the project boundary benefit from

increased river transport provided by the project.

5. Land contiguous to the project is private agricultural land
which provided good potential for real estate speculation. Because the
project is relatively new the development of subdivisions, including mobile
home parks, is minimal.

D.28.24

D. Real Estate Programs and Practices

1. Rigid investigation of bidders for contracted maintenance on
Cofps property has resulted in excellent compliance with contract speci-

fications,

2. By limiting access across Corps property to the lake, the Corps
reduces incentive for private recreation development around the project

boundary.

E. Corps Organization

1. At the project, there are no Corps personnel with the biologi-
cal expertise to allocate range carrying capacity for domestic animals
and wildlife, to contribute to the management plans and programs of the
ODWC, and to coordinate Corps responsibility for fish and wildlife en-
hancement on project lands.

2. Planning for recreation and wildlife enhancement is accomplished
by persOnnel in the Environmental.Resources Section, Planning Branch,
Engineering Division. This section is staffed with three biologists

(GS-9 and GS-12) two outdoor recreation planners, two landscape archi-

tects, five civil engineers, one archeologist, and seven supportive
personnel. The section chief is a GS-13, outdoor recreation planner.

3. The Reservoir Branch, operations Division is primarily re-
sponsible for management of recreation'and wildlife resources. The
staff is composed mostly of civil engineers but contains two park

managers and one biologist.

4. Corps outgrants are managed in the Management and Disposal

Branch, Real Estate Division. Although inspections and field decisions

are made by park rangers at the project, lease cancellations are made

by the district.

5. The resident engineer (GS-13) stationed at the Robert S. Kerr

D.28.25

Resident Office has responsibility for reservoir management at six

projects, navigation at five projects, and power production at two
projects along the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.
The total program involves navigation from Fort Smith, AR to'Tulsa,OK

and employs 163 people.

6. The assistant resident engineer (GS-12) supervises navigation
channelization and contracted work along the system. Separate
staffs are located at each lock and dam and powerhouse. A GS-11 park

manager supervises the Reservoir Management Section of the system.

7. The staff at Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam and Reservoir includes

lock, powerhouse, marine fleet, engineering, and reservoir management

personnel. There are permanent and temporary recreation and resource

management personnel assigned duties at the Robert S. Kerr project, the

W. D. Mayo project, and the OK portion of River Pool Number 13.

8. Inspection and patrol of Corps recreation areas and real
estate outgrants are accomplished by the five permanent park rangers

and five temporary park ranger trainees. Identified by the district as

park managers and park technicians, the park rangers have grades of

GS-5 to GS-9 and the trainees are GS-4.

9. The Park Ranger Trainee Program is successfully placing
qualified personnel as recreation resource manager in the district.

F. Environmental Problems

1. Turbid water and shoreline erosion (caused by wind and wave

action in the relatively shallow pool and along the extensive shore-

line) are degrading the reservoir's aesthetic quality.

2. Large amounts of sediment from the Arkansas River and its

tributaries are deposited in the riverbed of the pool, necessitating

maintenance dredging which disrupts fish and wildlife and requires
project acreage for dredged material disposal.

D.28.26

IV. REFERENCES

Tulsa District. 1965. Lock and Dam No. 15, Robert S. Kerr,
Arkansas River,@Oklahoma, design memoxandum, no@ 4B master plan.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

2. Tulsa District. 1973. Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam and Reservoir;
Arkansas River,'Oklahoma; appendix A project'resource management plan
to design memorandum no. 4B master plan. Tuls4a,..Oklahoma.

3. Recreation-Resource Management System CRRMS). 1973. 1973 annual
report (Robert S. Kerr Lock axid,DAm and Reservoir), office, Chief
of Engineers. Washington, D. C.

4. Oklahoma De 'a Green
partment of Tourism and Parks. ND. Oklahoma
Country. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

5. Oklahoma Department of Tourism and.Parks. ND. Oklahoma's Kiamichi
Country. Norman, Oklahoma.

.6. Oklahoma Industrial Development and Park Department, Division of.Parks
and Recreationi 1972. Oklahoma's outdoor recreation. Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.

7. Personal communication, 23 October 1974. Tulsa District, Real Estate
Division, Acquisition Branch, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

8. Tulsa District. 1973. Report on utilization of civil works, lands,
and facilities (Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam, Sallisaw, Oklahoma).
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

9. Tulsa District.. 1974. Civil works recreation-resource management.
system transcript (part VII), narrative report Robert S. Kerr Lock
and Dam and Reservoir. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

10. Personal communication, October-November 1974. Tulsa District,,Real.
Estate Division Management.and Disposal Branch, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

11. Personal cownunication, 25 October 1974, Field personnel, Tulsa
District, Robert S. Kerr Lock.and Dam and Reservoir,...Sallisawl
Oklahoma.

12. Tulsa District, EngineeringDivision, Planning Branch, Environmental

D.28.27

Resources Section. 1974. Appendix D, fish and wildlife management
plan to design memorandum no. 4B, master plan for Robert. S. Kerr
Lock and Dam (draftl. Tulsa, Oklahoma,

13. Personal communication, 5 November 1974. Field personnel, Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation, Fish Division, Northeast ReQion,
Muskoqee, Oklahoma.

14. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. ND. Preliminary
project plans; development and operations (Robert S. Kerr Game
Management Area). Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

15. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1974. Selected dump of out-
grant master, Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

16. Oklahoma Office of Community Affairs and Planning. 1973. Directory
1973-74, sub-state planning districts in Oklahoma. Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.

17. Tulsa District. 1974. District organization chart. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

18. Personal communication, 22 October 1974. Tulsa District, Operations
Division, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

D.28.28

..29. DENISON:DAM LAKE TEXO14A

Southwestern Division

Tulsa District

Okl ah-o ma and Texas

I. SETTING

A. Location

Denison Dam Lake Texoma is located on the Red River in Bryan,
Johnston, Marshall, and Love Counties, Oklahoma, and Grayson and Cooke
Counties, Texas, about 726 miles (mi) upstream from the mouth of the
river. The dam,-is about 15 mi southwest of Durant, OK and about 5 mi
northwest of Denison, TX (1). There are two major arms of the,lake
the Washita arm which extends 45 mi northward from the dam and the Red

River arm which extends 6.0 mi westward from the dam.

Even though the immediate area is considered rural (2) trans-
portational routes have opened the area by lowering driving time from,
major urban areas. Until the early to mid -sixtie s, Access to Lake
Texoma was primarily by state routes (primary and rural) and a few
federal:highways. Access to the.western portion of the lake has been
enhanced by the completion of 1 85, a north-south, rotte-6onnecting
Oklahoma City and the Dallas/Ft. Worth,area. Recent upgrading of 1,.75./
69, and a kour-lane divided section between,Sherman, TX, and Durant,-OK,
has:enhanced access to the eastern portion of the lake. This route,
provides access from the Tulsa, OK area and the Dallas/Sherman, TX
area. Direct lake access is provided by numerous hard and dirt sur-.
faced roads which criss-cross in east-Yest and north-south directions
(3). The general.location of the lake is shown in Figure D.29.1.

The area has a rich hist6ry,with numerous sites associated with
the Choctaw Indians, French, and Spanish expeditions, and coach and
trade routes of the early west'(4).

D.29.1

78
TISHOMING
ARDMOREi@@_ JOHNSTON C
Okla. WMA ATOK@.@TY.
LIake Murray Cumberland BRYAN CTY.
Slate Park 70 Tishaft 90 Oil Field
NWRn Cry. Figure D. 29. 1.
0 K L H 0 A TEXOMA LAKE (Denison Dam)
MADILL TEXAS-OKLAHOMA
CARTER CTY CUMBERLAN 78
-Livi-FTY7
70 LEGEND
LEBANON REM Citiel-Towns
32 KINGSTO 70 TO Wildlife MOF10910MOnt Area
DURANT
Texoma St. Par
77
P M Nat'l. )NI'ldl-ife Refuge
8
MARIETTA CALERA State Park

U. of Okla.
OkI& WmA Biological ........ 75 Oil Field
Station
35
Dike
Okla. MA Dom

State Border (Texas-Oklo)
Denison Dom
Eisenhower t. Park Corps Properties
Red iver
POTTSBORO

zi DENISON

Hagerman NWR
Red River
75
T E x A S
WHITESBORO qJ1
SHERMAN 1 0 1 2 3
GAINESVILLE MILES
82
TO DALLAS.

B. Authorizatioh,and Purposes

Lake Texoma was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938
(PL 75-761). The statute authorized the project.for flood control and.
a
hydroelectric power (1).

C. Features

The general topography in the vicinity of Lake Texoma is rolling
to hilly with occasional escarpments. Elevations vary ,from about 850

feet (ft) in Marshall County, OK, to.about 500 ft at the base of the
dam (1). Most -of the lake shore on the OK side is gently rolling with

a few steep embankments while the lake shore on the TX side is
generally steeper with some isolated rocky cliffs.

Lake Texoma controls runoff from a drainage area of 33,783 square
mi and has a total storage capacity of 5,382,000 acre-ft with specific
increments for flood control, power, and sedimentation reserve (5).
The main dam rises.16.5 ft above the original streambed. The emergency.

spillway is at elevation 640 ft mean sea level (msl) and is located,.,

immediately southwest'of the dam. The outlet works consist of eight
conduits, each 20 ft in diameter. Five of theseare for@power genera-

tion and three are for flood control (6).

Normal pool elevation (average recreation and power pool) is.617
ft msl. Recently, proposals have been made which would raise this
level to 620 ft msl (1). Even though the minimum drawdown level is.,.
540 ft msl, pool elevation during the summer months is within the 617

to 618-ft msl range. In 1956, however, the pool elevation was below
610 ft msl for most of the year and below 600 ft msl during most of the

summer season P).
aThe Secretary of the Army has been authorized since 1944, to construct,
maintain, and operate public park and recreational facilities at water
resource development projects. 16 U.S.C. 460d. Since 11946, the Army
Corps'-of Engineers has been required, when consistent with a project's
primary purposes, to make adequate provision for the conservation,
maintenance, and management of wildlife resources. 16 U.S.C. 663(d).

D.29.3

General resource information is provided in.Table D.29.1.

D.29.4

Table D.29.1. Resource Statistics, Lake Texoma (Denison Dam).

a
Date of Authorization 1938
b
Rights in Land Acquired Between 19.38-1943

c
Date of Impoundment July, 1942
c
Date of Full Operation July, 1944

Lake Size When Water Le vel is at:
Spillway elevation (640 ft msi) 140,000 acre'sa
d
Normal Pool Elevation (617 ft msll 89,000 acres
Normal.Minimum Pool Elevation (.540 ft msll N/Ae
Minimum Design Elevation N/A
a
Water Fluctuation - Summer Recreation Season 5 eet

C
Shoreline at Normal Pool 580 miles

c
Held in Fee Simple by Corps 580 miles

Land Area Managed by Corps
d
Total Land in Project 194,350 acres
(194,392),c
d
fee Title in U. S. .193,859 acres
(193,904)c
Easements 491 acres d
)c
(488
d
Project operation Lands @-2,700 acres
(15) c
f
Manageable.Resource Lands 77,859 acres

a
,Tulsa District. 1973. Survey report on Denison Dam (Lake Texoma)
restudy. Vol. 4, Appendix IV. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
bTulsa District. 1971.* Plates for the master plan, Denison Dam.
Tulsa, Oklahoma..

cRRMS. 103.

d
Tulsa District 1973. Master plan, appendix.A: project resource
management plan, Lake Texoma. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

e
Not available.
fTotal Project Land 1194,:30 acres) minus Land Flooded at Normal Pool
(89,000 acres) minus Land in Easement (491 acres) minus Project..
operations Land (2i7OO acres).

D.29.5

II. LAND USE, RECREATION, AND FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSIDERATIONS

A. Analytical Unit

Although the impact of the authorized purposes of Lake Texoma
affect a considerable area (power for the southwest and flood control

for a four-state area), the utilization of the lake for recreation is

most significant (2). The fact that attendance has increased from
500,000 in 1946 to 10,299,806 in 1971 accentuates this significance.

The market-use area for Lake Texoma is more extensive than.for

most other reservoirs in the area. This is due to the early date.of
impoundment and'its early popularity. The proximity of the Oklahoma
City metropolitan area (approximately 100 mi north) and the Dallas/
Fort Worth metropolitan area (approximately 65 mi south) affords Lake
Texoma a large number of iDotential visitors; Within a 100 to 150 mi

radius there was a 1970 population of 1,795,287 persons (7). During

1969, 36% of the visitors to Lake Texoma traveled over 100 mi while

an equal amount traveled from 0 to 25 mi (1). -The tremendous improve-

ment in highways since 1960 in the two states has significantly de-
creased travel time and resulted in a wider area of recreational

influence.

The impact area can be considered in terms of the seven.counties

contiguous to Lake Texoma (2). From 1940 to 1950 this area experienced
a 15.'8% decline in population, but during the 1960 to 1570 period the
population increased 6.5%. The.recent increase is due in a large.part
to the increased population of.Gidyson County, TX, where the Sherman/
Denison area is experiencing significant economic growth. Accompanying

this recent growth is a significant increase in the value of real
estate in the surrounding seven-county area. In 1950, total real.
est-ate'valu6 in these counties was $120,524,000; by 1970. this had

D.29.6

jumped to $290, 63.6,000. Even higher increases were noted in total.'.,
bank deposits which increased from $76,600,000 in 1950 to $298,4451000,.

by 1970 (2).

Any number.of induced economic benefits have been attributed1to

I
Lake Texoma and its annual 9million@plus visitors. The University of
Oklahoma has attributed the following effects in the seven-county area
solely to the existence of the lake: the population has increased.by
9,915; total personal income has increased $129 million; the labor
force has increased by 1,848 and there have been 1,768 new jobs
created; bank deposits are $21.4 million more than there would bewith-.

out the lake; and retail sales in area stores have increased $204

million (2).

The total number of subdivisions of secondary and primary homes

would probably not have existed were it not for the lake. Immediately
around the lake thereare over 70 subdivisions of various sizes. Aerial
photographs of district recreation sites taken in 1967 indicate that

over half of these subdivisions are located around established Corps

recreation sites (8). A majority of the subdivisions, approximately 40,
are,located on the south shore in TX within approximately 15 mi of the
Denison/Sherman metropolitan area. on-site personnel indicated that a
100 ft by 100 ft lot can cost up to $10,000 dependingon closeness to

the 'shore (3).

A direct impact of the lake.is the presence of 23 concessioners
around the lake, the largest of which are located on the.south shore
(9). Most of the concessi.oners have marinas with public and private
slips and associated sales.and services. There are estimates that'

boat owners add, in boat stall rentals alone, about $50,,000 each month

to the local economy (7).

D.29.7

-In addition to the above impacts which are more closely associated
with recreation, the two primary project purposes, flood control.and
power, have contributed significantly to the area. It has been esti-
mated that the savings due.to.flood prevention have approached $30
mi:llion. Additionally,the project has provided.area.residents with
nearly $18million worth.of electricity (2).

B. Ownership

1. Corps
The project consists of 193,859 acres of fee land and 491 acres
of flowage easement (5).. Most all land was acquired prior to 1 January
1943 (11). RRMS 1973 data indicatethat-about 30%.of the boundary has

been marked.

Ingeneral, the take line is a blocked perimeter that encompasses,
the 640 ft:msl mark. For the most part, mineral rights were not ac-
quired; however, in the 1950's numerous claims were filed by the owners
of rights which resulted in a.court-established time limitation for
the filing of claims. -This limitation has ended, and all.mineral
rights not so claimed are subject to project operation (5).

As can be noted.from Table D.29.2,.numerous discrepancies occur

within the acreages of.various.land use classifications. From two,-,

conservation pool (617
sources, both 1973, the total land.area above

ft msl) varies over 230 acres. Summing the acreages of the major land
use categories-from different sources gives differing totals. This
may be the result of the inclusion of water acreage in some categories
(i.e., fish and wildlife). or from collateral land uses (i.e., wildlife

and recreation).

A significa nt portion (over 128,000 acres) of the project land is
outgranted for various pur poses (Table D.29.3).

D.29.8

Table D. 29. 2. Comparison of Acreage and Land Use at Lake Texoma (Denison Dam) from Several Recent Sources.

Land Use Acres a Acres b Acres c Acres d

Total land above conservation pool 105,095 104,859 - -----
Operation and maintenance 11000 2,700 is ------ -
Public recreation (total) 16,852 4,365 12,988 ------
state and local leased 2,553 2,165 29023, 2,594
Corps recreation area 2F200 10,965 ------
Wildlife management (total) 52,765 ----- ------
Federal and State licensed 31,982 29,130 60,711 540009
Agriculture and grazing (total) 58,379 ----- ----- 55,427
13,357
Aqricultural@lease 14,294 -----
Grazing lease 44,085 ----- 42,070
tottage and club sites (total) 356 348 276
Cottage sites (leased) ----- 27 .25
Club sites (leased) 311 - ----- 251
Quasi-Public sites 6,406 2,317 ----- 2,317

'Tulsa District. 1973., Survey report on Denison Dam (Lake Texoma),restudy. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

b
Tulsa District. 1973. Master Plan, appendiX A: project resource management plan. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

c
RY44S. 1973.
dTu.Isa _District, Real Esta .te Division. 1914. Computer dunp of outgrant conditions. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Table D.29.3. Summary of Outgrants, Lake@ Texoma (Denison Dam).

Purpose Number Annual Rent Acreage Investment to 1974
M.

a
Fish & Wildlife 6 54,009.0 N/A
Recreation
Public Parks. 7. 0 2?594.2 N/A
Recreation
Quasi-Public 22 587 2'1316.6 N/A
Recreation
Commercial 24 35,650 [email protected] 2,729,764

Recreation
Private 38 4,400 275.8 N/A
Agriculture 26 44,066 13,356.4 N/A
Grazing 179 101,457 @42,070.1 N/A
Right of Way 242 17,713 1,091.4 N/A
other' 57 @9,336 11-103.8 NZA

Totals 601 213,209 128,113.9 2,729,764

aNot available.

The Corps has designated within the project area four homesite.
areas (cottage,s,ites).. The homesite areas in TX are Elm Ridge (26

Cottage sites) and Mill Creek (151 sites); the areas in OK are Caney.

Creek (133 sites),and Sand Point (157 sites) (10, 11, 12, 13, 14). Of the
447 sites, approximately 318 were indicated by the Corps as being dis-.
.Posed and 22 are'indicated as being leased,. of the remaining Ill
cottage sites, 15.are slated 'for sale with a total appraised market,

value of $20,035 (15

Under Executive Order 1,1508, about 30 additional tracts of land
amounting to 101POOO acres are being considered for disposal by the.

General services Ad ministration (1). Real Estate Division final owner-
ship maps (10) indicate that 864.4 Acres of land have already been dis-',

posed. Conversely, the 1973 Project Resource Management Plan states
that all acquired project land is necessary for project operations,
public use, and wildlife management.

2. Other Federal.Agencies
No other federal agencies own land of any significance within the
project or in the.imm'edia,te vicinity of the lake.

3. state government
The State of,.OK,owns tw6tracts.of land adjacent to outgranted
Corps-owned land. The oklaholma.Tourism:and Recreation'Department (OTRDI),
formerly the Oklahoma' Department..of Planning and Resources, purchased
approximately 200'acres of land adjacent to land they leased from the
Corps for Lake Texoma State Park (1). The'Oklahoma. Department of
Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) has purchased 4,682 Acres of land-adjacent
to land licensed from.the Corps at the Hickory Creek Management Unit

(16).

OK issued revenue bonds in 1954 for construction of lodges and
cabins at several state parks. Lake T6xoma State Park was included.,

D.29.11

but it was the,only state park which was.under lease arrangements with
the Corps (17). Discussion with personnel who were with the Oklahoma
State Parks Division (OSPD) at that time indicated that the state pur-

chased for a nominal fee land from the Corps on which the lodge and
cabins were constructed. This purchase transpired because it was not
legal for the state to expend revenue bond monies for construction on
lands not owned by the state (18). District personnel indicated the

state does not own lands within the area leased to the state for Texoma
State Park @iq).

4. Coun ty, Municipal, Special District
No county, municipality, or special district owns land within the
project area. Afew small towns, such as Tishomingo and Lebanon,, OK,

have annexed land immediately adjacent to the Corps boundary.

5. Private
Most lands.contiguous to the project are'In private ownership, but
there are some instances of private land holdings within the project

boundary. These tracts are islands of land surrounded by Corps-owned
land. other areas of private ownership within the project boundary are
embodied in numerous cottage sites located in four different areas.

The most significant private tract is on Preston Point in TX,
approximately 5 milwest of the dam. According.to district maps, at
least six subdivisions are located in this area of approximately 450
acres (8). A majority of the over 70 subdivisions located around'the
lake (all adjacent to the Corps project boundary) are in.Grayson
County, TX within 15 mi of the damsite.

Of the 447 Corps cottage sites, approximately 70% (316).are indi-
cated as being disposed. The district retained the flowage easement,

where it existed., but sold the land it acquired in fee simple.' The

D.29.12

sites range in size from'less than an acre to over acres. Approxi
mately 84% of the cottage sites available on the TX side have been soldl@
whereas approximately 61% of thoseon the OK side have, been disposed.

C. Resource Management

1. Recreation

The district administered public-use activities after impoundment
was completed in 1944; however, in.1946, a cooperative.agreem6nt be-
tween the National Park Service (NPS), Department of the Interior and'
the Chief of Engineers transferred recreational responsibility to the

NPS. This agreement was cancelled.in 1949 and the district reassumed

control control-of-recreational activities (1).

There are a total of 51 public recreation sites around the 580

shoreline miles of Lake Texoma. Included in the total are Texoma State

Park in OK, Eisenhower State Park in TX, and two sites which are leased
for municipal parks, one in TX and one in OK. The remaining 47 sites
are managed by the Corps, although two are-indicated as being un-

developed.

Most of the Corps' recreation sites are well developed, having boat
ramps, water systems", swimming beaches, picnic tables and shelters,
grills, fireplaces, trash receptaclesi and toilet facilities. Trailer
dump stations are available.in areas catering to trailers. Site
maintenance was good and thedistrict has a contract with one company
for refuse collection, sanitary facility maintenance, and mowing (3Y.,
Service has been,very good and thecondition of the Corps public recre-

ation sites reflected conscientious work.

At several sites retail stores an
d trailer parks have been es-
tablished adjacent to Corps recreation sites. 'Most of this develop-
ment was in a declining state of,,repair.

D.29.13

In association with many of the public recreation areas are com-

mercial recreation sites (Table D.29.4). Concessions at Lake Texoma
appear to be profitable. Eleven of the 23 existing concessioners'have
been operating, since 1-951. The concessions visited were very well kept
and-jarge investments in docking and.related facilities have been made.'
The district@ is"now computing rent according to the graduated rental
system. Leases executed more recently (1970 and 1971) are generally
for a 10-year period. [email protected] of the shorter-termed leases on the
concessioner and his investment-return factors, particularly with.1 or
2 years of decreased visitation, are not known. Concessions on the TX
side are probably more profitable than.those on the OK side. From

1971 to 1973.visitation at the TX concession sites increased 226,800

while visitation at OK sites increased only 18,700.

None@6f the Cor ps-maintained recreation sites.on the TX side have

swimming beaches due to topography and sloughing problems. Most are
developed for, boating and fishing with 14 of the 17 acres (excluding
the Damsite and Overlook),having concessioners while 12 of the-141.have
marinas. Visitation at the TX sites,has increased approximately
680,000 between 1971 and 1973 and all sites except the Overlook and
Pleasure Bay sites have additional facilities planned. Swimming
beaches and.change houses are planned for 13 of the sites and several
additions include more camping and picnicking facilities (no class A
campgrounds p@anned), trailer dump stations, a few boat sanitary dump
stations, playground e(taipment, and.additional roads (5)..

of the 27 Corps recreation siteson the OK side, there are 11 con-

cessioners, 9of which have marinas (5). Real Estate Division data,

presentedin Table D.29.4, indicate that there are 10 concessioners
operating in OK.@ Avadlable facilities are similar to those on the TX
side, although-at least. two sites have buoyed swimming beaches. Visi-
tation at.the OK sites increased by 27,400,between 1971 and 1973. Of

D.29.14

Table D.29.4. Outgrants, for Recreation Coumercial, Lake Texoma (Denison Dam).a

Rental Investment
Location Grantee Instrument Date Term Basis Annual Acreage to 1974 Planned Turn-
Cyrsl Rent overs
Paid M
Alberta Cr. Reid, Fixed + 656.55 25.0- 81,775. NIP 0
(Marshall, OK Z. M. Lea 16 gradu-
se 1970
ated

Arrowhead D.- G.
(Marshall, OK) Enterprises Lease 1971 10 Fixed 360.00 2.6 97,237 N/A 1
Big Mineral Meark, Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) H_& B. Lease 1949 25 1% 609. 11 09.0 73,107 N/A 3
Bridge View Whitaker,. Fixed +
(Marshall, OK) D. W. Lease 1970 10 gradu- 1,247.52 21.4 81,957 N/A 1
ated

Cedar Bayou Victa. Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) Corp. Lease 1950 25 it 495.19 79.0 132,336- N/A I
Cedar Point Drannon, Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) T. E. tkase 1970 11 gradu- 1,886.56 110,567 N/A 0
ated

Cumberland Cove Rigsby C. E. Fixed +
(Marshall, OX) et al. Lease 1971 10 gradu- 450.00 70.5 129,455 N/A 0
ated
Damite Ogles, W. Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) et al. Lease 1960 25 2.32% 1,274.58 0.1 38,527 N/A 1
Flowing wells
(Grayson, TX) Thomas, J. D. Lease 1971 A Fixed 190.00 10.5 20,891 N/A 0,
Grandpappy Point Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) Parsons, D.:W. Lease 1950 25 1% 2,780.28 144.0 245,095 N/A I
Hickory Creek Fixed +
(Love, Or) Jeong, P. Lease 1951 25 1% 824.35 56,873 @N/A 1
Highport Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) Loe, C. D. Jr.. Lease 1950 25 1% 14,721.47 256.7 357,955 N/A 0
Little Glasses Fixed4
(Marshall, OX) @Anderson, L. W. Lease 1972 26 gradu- 1,170.92 73.0 105,100 N/A 0
atied

Table D.29.4 (continued)
Location Rental Investment
Grantee Instrument Date Term Basis Annual Acreage to 1974 Planned Turn-
(yrs) Rent overs
Paid
Hill Creek Kupiec Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) C. S. Lease
195o 25 1% 3,001.22 49.0 148,969. H/A 2

Newberry Creek
(Bryan, OK) McCoy, J. F. Lease 1970 0 Fixed 615,0Q 3.1.0 55,302 N/A
Paradise Cove Chambers,
Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) W. V. Lease 1960 20 li .247.00 19.5 12,500, N/A 13

Pleasure Bay Pleasure Bay, Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) Inc. Lease 1951 25 1% 139.93 0.6 26,509 N/A 5

Preston Bend Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) Stagner, B. Lease
1970 10 gradu- 900.00 32.3 147,401 N/A 0
ated

Preston Fish Fixed +
Camp (Grayson, Metzler, gradu-
TX) C. J. Lease 1970 20- ated 600.00- 21.0 79,545 N/A
.0

Rock Cove Camp Hyands,
(Bryan, OK) Fixed +
F. P. Jr. Lease 195 10 25 1% 217.23 20.0 29,263 N/A 0
Rock Creek Camp Florence,
Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) L. E. Lease 1950 25 1% 694.78 '134..0 70,275 N/A
Soldier Creek Mooney & Fixed +
(Marshall, OK) Guild Lease 1950 25 1% 1,358.19 93.7 283,831 N/A 6
Walnut Creek Dempsey, Fixed +
(Grayson, TX) C. F6 Lease 1950, .25 1% 649.04 21. 14 79,252 N/A 3
Willow Springs Willow Springs Fixed +
(Bryan, OK) Res. Lease 1950 25 li 500..00 31 .3 266,042 N/A 0

Texas
subtotals 14 Outgrants 28,249.76 897.1 1,542,929 N/A

Oklahoma
subtotals 10 Outgrants
7,399.76 399.5 1,186,835 N/A

Total-Commercial
Recreation 24 Outgrants 1,1296.6 2,729,764 N/A

a
Personal communication, 15 November 1974. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
b Not available.

the existing Ok,public recreation sites, three have no planned
facility additions due to siltation in the upper'areas of the Washita
and Red River Arms of the lake. The remaining areas have planned
additions even-though development at two areas is conditional due to
siltation in the Washita Arm (5). Planned additions for OK sites are
basically the same as those for TX sites, although three sites will be
upgraded to class A camping (5).

Three are no new public recreation sites planned by the Corps and
two of the sites, initially planned in 1960, Preston Point (OK) and
Washita Point M), have not been developed (20). A 1967 design
memorandum indicated development of these sites would require cost-
sharing under PL 89"72 and that the estimated costs of developing,these,
sites ranked second and fourth among the other 43 sites (21).

The 1973 Project Resource Management Plan indicated there were
two areas in which a $1 per day user fee wasassessed -.Burns Run (east)
and Preston Bend. The 1967 design memorandum designated 12 sites as

fee areas, while RRMS 1973 data indicate fees were collected at 28 sites.
Total fees collected 'in 1973 were $10,537 and cost of collection was

$7,142 (22)_

Data comparisons of percentage activity use for 1966 (1) and 1973
(22) indicate a change invisitor use of Lake Texoma. The percentage
of those fishing decreased from 60 to 58%, swimming decreased from 29
to 10%, and campingidecreased from 12 to 9%. Conversely,, boating in-@
creased from 5 to 11%, sightseeing increased from [email protected]%, and
picnicking increased slightly from 5 to 6%. -A'compar.is on of 1971 and
1973 visitation.tends to support the reported visitor changes'though
some discrepancies exist, presumably due to differential site pre-
ferences., In terms of boating, Little Glasses and Highport Resorts

how
(large marinas) s ed significant increases in visitation, while

D.29.17

GrandpappyResort (also large marina) showed a decrease in visitation.
The largest.camping area, Burns Run, showed a slight decrease in visi-

tation while other camping areas, such as Preston Fishing Camp, Roads
End, and Buncombe Creek showed slight increases. It is interesting to
note that the TX public recreation sites are developed more for boating
while the OK sites are developed more for camping.

RRMS 1973 data indicate the presence of the following private
recreation facilities at Lake Texoma:-505 individual docks,,6 community-
private docks, 44 other.floating facilities,,and 730 non-transit trailers.

1n.addition to the Corps' operation of 47 public recreation sites
around Lake Texoma, there are leases for 22 quasi-public recreation sites,
16 private recreation sites, and 22 leased cottage sites (9).

The 22 quasi-public recreation areas, developed as group camping

areas, include 2,316.6 acres;.however, the 1973,.Project Resources
Management Plan indicates 19 quasi-public sites totalling 2,417.5,acres.
Tabular summarieslor the quasi-public sites are included in Table D.
29.5. Those quasi-public sites observed were fenced and locked. The

leases ate for a nominal rental fee of $11, except for two VFW Gate City

Post sites.for $400 and $175 (9).. The VFW sites are not included in

the 1973 Project Resource Management Plans' discussion of quasi-public
sites. The terms of the'leases are generally for 25 years and most

will expire between 1976 and 1984 (9).

The original master plan designated sites for which long-term
leases were.to'be granted to individuals and clubs (5). As.shown in
Table D.29.6, there are 16 leases for private club recreation with a

cumulative acreage of 250.7 (9). Several of these sites have private
marinas with associated facilities. The largest private boat club (32
acres) is adjacent to the Caney Creek Homesite Area in OK. Lease terms
are generally 20 years and most leases will terminate between 1975 and

D.29.18

Table D..29.5-Ougrants for Recreation Quasi-Public, Lake Texoma (Denison Dam).a

Rental investment
Location Grantee Instrument Date Term Basis Current Annual Acreage to 1974 Planned
(yrs) Rent

Grayson,TX Dept. of
Air Force Lease .1948 Indef. --- 0 100.0 N A N/A
Grayson,,TX Dept. of
Air Force Lease 1956 Indef. 350.0 N/A N/A

Grayson,TX Area V TX
Assoc. Lease 1965 15 --- 0 N/A N/A

Grayson,TX Austin College Lease 1970 10 Fixed
Annual 28.71 N/A N/A
Gray.pon,TX Boies orphan Fixed
Home Lease 1966 15 Annual 1 56.0 N/A N/A
Gray ,son,TX Boy Scouts Fixed
of Am. Lease 1952 25 Annual 250.0 N/A N/A

Grayson,TX Cross Timbers Lease 1967 25 Fixed 1 150.0 N/A N/A
Annual

Grayson,TX Dallas Boys
Home Lease 1966 25 0 126.0 N/A
Grayson,TX Episcopal Rec. Fixed
Ctr. Lease 1957 25 Annual 1 50.0 N/A N/A

Grayson,TX Girl Scouts, Pixed
Dallas Lease 1-951 25 Annual 49.7 N/A N/A
'Marshall,OK -Methodist Ch. Fixed
Ox Lease 1958 25 Annual 1 162.0 N/A N/A.
Grayson,TX Methodist Ch. Fixed
TX Lease 1954 25 Annual 1 65.0 N/A N/A
Marshall,OK Oklahoma Univ.. Lease 19,54 25
0 307.16 N/A N/A
MarshallOK Okla. City
Diocese Lease 1959 25 0 95.01 N/A N/A

Table [email protected] (Continued)

Rental Investment
Location Grantee Instrument Date Term Basis 'Current,Annual Acreage to,1974 Planned
(yrs) Rent.. M

Grayson,TX Presby. of Fixed
Trinity Lease 1951 25 Annual 1 38.0 N/A N/A
Bryan,OK Presbyterian Fixed
Ch. Lease 1951 25 Annual 1 50.0 N@A N/A
Grayson,TX Sherman Cp.fire
Girls Lease 1954 25 0 75.0 N/A N/A

Grayson,TX Straight Arrow Fixed
Club Lease 1962 25 Annual, 1 58.5 N/A N/A
Grayson,TX Tex. Baptist ---
Bible Lease 1954 25 0 56.0 N/A N/A

Grayson,TX TX St. College Fixed
Women Lease 1953 25 Annual 1 N/A N/A.

C:F:ayson,TX VFW Gate City Fixed
Post Lease 1961 20 Annual 400 33.1 N/A N/A

Grayson TX VFW Gate City Fixed
Post Lease 1959 20 Annual 175 16.0 N/A N/A.
Texassubtotal 18, Oui-grantg 585 1,702.0

Oklahoma subtotal: 4 Outgrants 2 614.6
Total quasi-public 22 Outgrants 587 2,316.6

a Tulsa Districti Real Estate Division. 1974. Com&ter dump of outgrant conditions. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
b Not available.

MA,

Table D.29.& Outgrants for Recreation Private, Like Texoma (Denison Dam). a

Rental. Investment
Location Grantee Instrument Date Term Annual Rent Paid' Acreage to 1974 Planned
(yrs)

clubSites
Grayson,TX Am. Legion b
Post 164 Lease 1�60 .20 400 25.0 N/A N/A
Gray&on,TX Am. Legion
Post 62 Lease 1956 20 250 17.0 N/A N/A
GraysonTX BPOE Lodge Lease 1960 20 240 11.7 N/A N/A
tv GraysonTX Bryant Boat Club Lease 1960 20 300 10.6 N/A N/A
Bryan, OK Camp Sandy Pt. Inc. Lease
1961 20 60 3.9 N/A N/A
Grayson, TX- Cee Bee Rec. Club @Lease 1967 20 230 11.0 N/A N/A
Marshall OK Champlin Emp. Rec. Lease 1962 20 100 11.0 N/A N/A
GraysonTX flitex, Inc. Lease 1956. 20, 250 18.0 N/A N/A
Bryan,OK Lakeview
Lodge, Inc. Lease 1962 20 50 2.8 N/A N/A
Grayson, TX Line Material Co. I Lease 1956 20 15.0 N/A N/A
Grayson,TX Lukehaven Rec. Club Lease 1961 20 85 3.4 N/A N/A
-Marshall, OK Sooner Boat Club Lease 1956 201. 200 32.0 N/A N/A
Grayson, TX Tanana Rod/Gun Club Lease 1960 20 300 6.2 N/A N/A
Graysom TX Texins Association Lease 1960 31 450 .38.0 N/A N/A
Grayson, TX Texins Association Lease 1960 31 ISO 13.0 @N/A N/A
Grayson, rk Texoma Estates,
Inc. 240 32.1 N/A N/A
Lease 1956 20
Texas subt.otals .12 Outgrants 3,090 201.0
Oklahoma sub-
totals 4'Outgrants 410 4 9.7
Total Club Sites 16 Outgrants 3,500 250.7

@Table D.29.6 (Continued)

Rental Investment
Location Grantee In.strument: -Date', Term Annual Rent Paid Acreage to 1974 Planned
(yrs) M
Cottage Sites

Bryan,OK Baxter, Mel
et al.. Lease 1955 25 40
0.8 N/A N/A
Marshall,OK Boiles, C. L. Lease 1958 @20 70 1.3 N/A N/A
Grayson,TX Burns, C. Lease 1949, 25 so N/A N/A
MarshallOK Castonl- J. Lease 1950 25 70
1.8 NIA N/A

Grayson, TX Clark, R. E. Lease 1956 25 40
1.3 N/A N/A
GrIayson,TX Hilton,-C. T. Lease 1952 25 60 2.4 N/A N/A
tj Grayson,TX 46ward, G..et al. Lease 1952 25
60 1.9 N/A N/A
Grayson,TX Jones,.B. L. Lease 1958 20 45 0.8 N/A N/A
Graysonju Kaffenberger,
0. A. Lease 1955 25 25 0.8 N/A N/A
Ma.rshall,OX Kelsey, R. C. Lease 1951 25 50 1.7
N/A N/A
Grayson,TX Kickirillo, T. Lease 1950
25 25 1.4 N/A N/A
Marshall,OK Higuel, J. S. Lease 1955 25 50 1.8 N/A N/A
Grayson,TX Murrell, S. A. Lease 1954 25 50 1.4 N/A N/A
Grayson,TX Paternostro, C..j. 'Lease
1953 25. 10 0.3 N/A N/A
Grayson,TX Ra@isey, J. L. Lease 195.2 25 10 0.3 N/A N/A
Grayson,TX Ramsey, J. L. Lease 1952 25 50 0.3 N/A N/A
crayson,.Tx Sassin, F. Lease 1957 20 30
0.8 N/A N/A
Grayson,TX Stewart, W. L. Lease 19.50 25 60 1.0 N/A N/A
Bryan,OK Story, B.
Grayson,TX Sullivan, F. L.ease 11�54 25 25 0.5 N/A N/A
et al. Lease 1955 25 40 1.8
N/A N/A

M Ilia M-M

-able 1).2?.b (0,n"-Inued)

Rental Investment
Location Grantee Instrument Date Term Annual Rent Paid Acreage to 1974 Planned
(yrs) M
Cottage Sites

Grayson,TX Whitehead_
W. R. Jr. Lease 1955 25 is 0.5 N/A N/A
Grayson'TX Woods, S. T. Lease 1956 25 25 1.0 N/A N/A

Texas sub-
totals 16 Outgrants 595 17.2

Oklahoma
subtotals 6 Outgrants 305 7.9

to
Total-Cottage
Sites 22 Outgrants 900 -25.1

Total Private
Recreation 38 Outgrants 4,400 275.8

a
Tulsa, District, Real Estate Division. 1974. Computer dump of outgrant conditions. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
bNot available.

1980. Rental for the 16 private club recreationsites totals

$3,500 (9).

Four Areas around LakeTexoma are designated as Corps-managed
h6mesite areas: Elm Ridge, "Mill Creek, Caney Creek, and Sand Point.

As shown in Table D.29.6, rental for 22 leased cottage sites is $900

.for a.total acreage of 25.1 acres (9).

Two areas have been leased to states for the operation of state
parks. Data'on these areas arepresented in Table D.29.7. Real Es-

tate Division records sh6w-that 1,709.1 acres have been leased to OK,
whereas the 1973 Project Resource Management Plan indicates 1,988
acre s in thi's category. Tho'same sources show leases of 423.1 acres
and 415 acres, respectively, to TX (5, 9).

The OtRD has two leases on Lake Texoma: 1,579.1 acres for 50 years

'(beginning 1 October 1951 and terminating on 30 September 2001) and
130 acres for 25 years.(beginning on 5 June 1951 and terminating on

4 June 1976) (9).

State revenue bond monies were used to construct lodges in various
state parks including Tex6ma, where the lodge,cost $1,849,752 to con-
struct. Operation of the Texoma Lodge was originally to be under a
lease to a private operator but the bidder withdrew before the lodge
opened and the state assumed operation (17).

Facilities available at Texoma State Park include: a 104-room

lodge and 96 cabins; three playgrounds with picnic and camping areas;
13-building youth camp; trailer facilities (63 with full service) and
a dump station; eight combination shower/comfort stations;,an airstrip;

a nine-hole golf course; a full service marina; and acafe, grocery

store, and gas station facilities (23). The latter five facilities are
operated under lease from the State of OK (24). According to the
state's Annual Management Plans, which are submitted to the district,

D,29.24

Table D.29.7. Outgrants for Fish and Wildlife and Recreation Public Parks, Lake Texoma (Denison Dam).a

Rental Investment
Location. Grantee Instrument Date Term Annual Rent Acreage to 1974 Planne(
Fish & Wildlife (yrs) Paid
Texas Game &
b
Grayson, TX Fish Comm. License 1966, 20 0 N/A N/A
Grayson, TX Dept. of Interior License 1946 Indef. 0 11,429.0 N/A N/A
Undesignated, OK Dept. of Interior License 1946 Indef. 0 13,450.0 N/A N/A
Undesignated, OK Dept. of Interior License 1957 Indef. 0 3,170.0 N/A N/A
Love, OK 'OK Dept. of Wild- License 1969 25 0 22,027.0 N/A N/A
life

Love, OK OY. Game & Fish
Dept. License 1952 50 0 3,915.0- N/A N/A
Texas subtotals 2 Outgrants 11,447.0

Okla1ioma
subtotals 4 Outgrants 42,562.6
Total Fish & Wildlife 6 Outgrants 5400091.0

Recreation-Public Parks

Marshall, OK OK Plan. Res. Lease 1951 50 0 1,579.1 N/A. N/A

Marshall, OK QYv State of Lease 1951 25 0 130.0 N/A N/A
Grayson, TX Texas St. Parks Lease 50 0 423.11 N/A, N/A
Johnston, OK Tishomingo, City of Lease 1968 10 0 45.0 N/A N/A
Johnston, OX Tishomingo,, City ofc Lease 1971 25 0 312.0 N/A N/A
d
Grayson, TX Whitesboro, City of Lease 1956 25 0 105.0 N/A N/A
Texas subtotals 2 Outgrants 528.1
Oklahoma subtotals 5 Outgrants 2,M6.1

Total Park and
Recreation 7 Outgrants 2,594.2

Table D-29.7 (Continued)

aTulsa District- Real Estate Division. 1974. Computer dump of outgrant conditions. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
b
Not available.

c
Indicated in 1973 Project Resource management Plan as being a license for a city airport.
dIndicated by recent communication as being turned over to concessioner by City of Whiteshoro.

planned expenditures for capital improvements and operation and main-

tenance were: fiscal year (FY) 1972, $134,269 (25); FY 19.73,. $108,17.4
(26); and FY 1974, $157,614 (27). Actual total.expenditures for Texoma
State Park in FY 1973, however, were $39,896..84,,while.total revenue

was $65,992.15 (28).

The state has plans to expend $299iOOO in new-facilities,and to
upgrade existing facilities at Texoma State Park over the_next.5@years
(29). The park is now in need of landscaping and-facility maintenance.
Attendance at the state park decreased by 55,165-from-1972-to.1973-and
declines were registered in the number of campers and picnickers,while

attendance remained constant for visitors with trailers. Net income

for the Texoma Lodge decreased'from $98,576,in 1970 to $7,845.14 in
1973 (28). About 35 mi west of Lake Texoma is Lake Murry State Park in

Love and Carter Counties. The entire area (approximately 24 ,700 acres)
is under state ownership and the development is similar t6..that At

Texoma State Park (28).

Oklahoma's 1972 Outdoor Recreation Plan projects that demand for
outdoor recreation in"the 10-county area (State Region 4) will increase,
but gradually, and that the demand will be expressed toward-regional-,

type facilities (30).
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TP'W.D) has a lease for a

state park on 423.1 acres at Lake Texoma. The lease-is for 50 years
beginning on 1 May 1954 (9). The park.(Eisenhower State Park) is
characterized by rugged shoreline and deep voves but the.area is well
maintained. Facilities available include a trailer park (full services
available), camping areas, screened shelters, restroom and shower
facilities, boat ramps, a mini-bike area, and a full service marina (31).
The boat facility is a private marine, operated by a concessioner, with
175 moorings.

D.29.27

There is only one access road into the Eisenhower Park and A $1
per vehicle per day entrance fee is collected by state park staff at
the headquarters building. An annual entrance fee permit.can.be pur-
chased for $12. Facility-use,fees are: campsite $1 per site per
night for,eadh vehicle; c ampsites (including trailer sites) - $1.75
withfull service and $1.50 for water plus electricity or just electricity
.(31). The char ging of entrance fees, which was begun in FY 1967, had
some impact on visitation (32); visitation decreased from 184,500 1
in
1967 to ll�,900 in 1969 but increased to 137,500 in 1971 (5). RRMS

1973 data indicate that,visitation in 1973 was 170.,900. The entrance
fee also affected the concession marina and some customers were lost'
The concessioner now buys annual entrance tees for his patrons and the
cost is added to slip rental (32). During 1969-1970, the state expended
$29,565 for Eisen hower State Park and $14,715 were generated from
entrance fees (33). For the 1972-1973 period,,the state expended
$57,549 and $@1,681 were generated from entrance fees (34). No new
facilities are planned for 1975.

'There are two areas leased to municipalities as park sites (Table

.D.29.7) and both are not welImaintained. The City of Whitesboro, TX
leases 105 acres under a 25 year term beginning on 1 January 1956 (9).
Full operation of this area has recently beenturned over to a private
concessioher 35). The City of Tishomingo has two leases: 45 acres
for 10 years beginning on I January 1968, and'312 acres for 25 years

beginning on.1 July 1972 (9). Both areas are indicated as being leased
for park and recreation purposes'in the Real Estate Division's 1974
outgrant master, but the 312 acre site is reported in the 1973 Project

ResbutcesManagement Plan as a license for a city airport.

D.29.28

2. Lake Resources
Recreational fishing is important at Lake Texoma. Native species
include channel catfish, flathead catfish, white crappie, large-mouth
bass, Kentucky bass, and white bass. Management of these species is
handled by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC), the

TDPW, and the USF&WS. The ODWC has stocked about 61206,655 fish con-
sisting of 10 species; they have also introduced striped bass and wall-
eye and are continuing to stock striped bass. Commercial fishing was
allowed in the past but it was halted by the ODWC because of the
potential negative impact on the striped bass stocking program (36).

The Holdenville State Fish Hatchery, operated by the ODWC, is
located approximately 5 mi northeast of the Washita Arm of Lake Texoma.
The hatchery raises a variety of fish but currently stocks Lake Texoma
with striped bass only. This program began in 1965 and striped bass

success in Lake Texoma has been good (37).

The TDPW has been granted a license for 18 acres of land for the
North Central Fishery Station,.the regional headquarters for fish and
wildlife programs for a 14-county region (Table D.29.7). The station
does not have a stocking program in effect but plans to introduce

Florida bass to Lake Texoma in the future. Most of the work conducted

by the seven-man staff is concerned with fisheries research and water

quality monitoring (38).

Since there are no county-wide sewer systems in operation in the

lake area, sewage disposal is by septic tanks or oxidation ponds...
While water supply is generally by well, some homes acquire water
directly from the lake for non-consumptivd use.

Lake Texoma water quality is within acceptable standards for con-

tact sports, and municipal and industrial uses (36). However, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has characterized lake waters as

'D.29.29

poor quality (1). Lake wateris used for irrigation during extreme
droughts, for supplementary municipal and industrial water supply
for Denison, TX., and as an emergency domestic supply for other towns.

The water.does not meet the U. S. Public Health Service's minimum C-

standards for potable water (1). Since January 1974, 15 licenses have
been issued for irrigation and Denison has used 9 billion gallons of
water as a su pplementary water supply (3).

The process of eutrophication is being accelerated by the addition
of nutrients from agricultural, industrial,.and domestic sources in the
vicinity of the lake and at upstream sites (3 6). The effect of water

quality on fishing in Lake Texoma is not entirely known, even though

the North Central Fishery Station is involved in water quality monitor-

ing of the lake (36). Several dead fish were observed around the small

coves at Texoma,State Park and below the damsite during the field visit.

Both the Red River and Washita Arms contribute large amounts of silt,
clay, and dissolved minerals to the reservoir. The salinity content of

Lake Texoma is increasing but the effects have not been thoroughly
studied (36).' Although the Wildlife Plan reported no problems with

aquatic vegetation (36), a survey undertaken as part of arecreation
study indicated the general public was aware of aquatic vegetation:.

problems and associated it with the dumping of sewage from boats (7).

Other effects which might be attributable to declining water quality
could be the reduction in three public use activities in the lake from.
1966 (1) to 1973 (22): swimming reduced from 29 to 10%; fishing re-

duced from 60 to 58%; and waterskiing reduced from 7 to 3%.

3. Wildlife

The responsibility for fish.and wildlife resources at Lake Texoma
rests with OK and TX, regardless of ownership of the'land (36). The
USF&WS has responsibilities for migratory water fowl and wildlife habitat

improvement., As indicated in Table;D.29.7, the state and federal

D. 29, 30

agencies have beengranted licenses for a total of 54,009 acres for

fish and wildlife management.

There are two national wildlife refuges on the lake; Hagerman NWR@
in Grayson County, TX'has 11,429 acres and Tishomingo NWR in OK has

16,620 acres. Both refuges have public hunting areas (Hagerman open
for doves only) and are primarily concerned with migratory waterfowl.
Both refuges were well.maintained and operated, but the managers com-
plained of low operat ing budgets and difficultie s in obtaining sufficient

funds.

Hagerman NWR in.cludes about 3,000 acres of marsh and water and

about 8,000 acres.of upland habitat and farmland. Approximately 600
acres of land are cultivated by refuge,personnel-and neighboring
farmers on a sharecrop basis (39). In-1965 the refuge entered into 37
6 to 9 month grazing leases and currently about 7,000 acres aregrazed
(40). About 230 acres were sharecropped in 1965 with the provision.that
.25% of the crop,be left in the field for wildlife (41). There are three
full-time personnel at Hagerman NWR.(40). Several oil wells are in
operation in wetland as well as in upland areas within the refuge.

The Tishomingo NWR, on the Washita Arm of the lake,. includes
13,450 acres which were leased in 1946. In 1957, 3,170 acres were
added, from Corps project land as a hunting management unit (9). During
the summer. of 1970,.approximately 580 acres were cultivated, mostly in
wheat,'by refuge personnel and there.was no indication of share-
cropping (42). Operation and,maintenance funds for FY 1971 were pro-
4rammed at $8,428 and $3,750 of the total was to be expended.,for
ma naging hunter activity (42). Currently there are seven full-time
personnel. The hunting management unit is zoned for goose, duck,'and

deer hunting during the respective seasons. At normal ool there are
p
approximately 4,000 acres,of Lake'Texoma water within,the refuge (43).

D.29.31

The water is shallow and during periods of low flow an arm of the lake,
p
may become cut off from the Washita River. Siltation problems.als.o.
exist in the area.

The TbPW requested that approximately 7,600 acres on the upper Red
Ri ver Armin.Cooke County be:1,icensed to the state but the state has
not taken action to consummate such a license (1).

The ODWC has two outgrants totaling 25,942 Acres at Lake Texoma
for fish and wildlife management.(9). Departmental reports indicate
that the state recognizes three principal areas at Lake Texoma:,
Tishomingo Wildlife Management Unit, Texoma Public Hunting Area, arid.

Hickory Creek Public Hunting Area (45). Department program reports
indicate that the department entered into a cooperative agreemen with

USF&WS in 1958 by which 3,160 acres of the hunting management unit at

Tishomingo NWR (not included in above acreage) were transferred to the
ODWC (44). A management plan for the Tishomingo Wildlife Management

unit was prepared by the department and USF&WS in 1960, and the ODWC,
funds the program, The,5-year management plan projects an expenditure
by the state of $110,500 (44).

Project reports from the ODWC include three areas (20,190 acres)

in the Texomd Public Hunting Area: Washita Ann, 10,171 acres in
Johnston and Marshall Counties; Love Valley, 7,746 acres'in Love County;
and Fobb Bottom, 2,273 acres in Marshall County (46). Washita.Arm
Public Hunting Unit is adjacent and west of the state-managed
Tishomingo*Wildlife management Unit. The area is within the Corps proj-

ect lands but the Real Estate Division outgrant master does not indi-.
cate that,this is the number of acres outgranted in Johnson County

(see Table D.29.7).

Adjoining the Love Valley unit to the west is the Hickory Creek
Public Hunting Area for,which the state reports it has a 50-year license

D.29.32

from the Corps-for 3,655 acres (16): however, the Corps indicates that.
the outgranted area is 3,915 acres (Table D.29.7). One ODWC report
states that it, has purchased 4,209 acres as an addition to the Hickory
Creek Unit (44)',.wh6re another department report indicated 4,,682 acres

were purchased,for this unit (16).

Withinthe Texoma Public Hunting Area (licensed to ODWC by the Corps),
there are 4,334 acres.leased for agriculture and.15,856 acres for grazing.
(46). Additionally,. the department sharecrops7approximately,3,500 acres
and 40% of the crops is left forwildlife. Five-year plans (1974"1979)
indicate expected state expenditures of $262,800 for the Texoma Public
Hunting Ar.ea,(47) and $193,.20 0 for the Hickory Creek Public Hunting
Area (16).

Of particular interest is the degree and condition of grazing.in
wildlife areas managed by ODWC under license.from the Corps. Valid

Corps grazing permits existed within the area lic ensed to ODWC for
wildlife purposes prior to the effective date of the state's license in
1969. The state (47) and the Corps (5) have recognized that much of
the area is overgrazed thereby seriously reducing benefits to wildlife.
The ODWC has requested the Corps not to renew grazing leases on areas
within thestate's' wildlife units (46). This would, in effect, cancel
the transfer of 75% of the funds the Corps receives from the leases
being. paid to the counties. Nonrene,;ial of 'grazing leases in Love County,
for example (all of.the Corps land in Love County is under a@state,
license for wildlife), would.delete (at current rates) $6,591.50 from
Love County revenues (49). other counties which would be similarly

affected are Marshall and Johnston. The state intends to lease a

limited number of acres'within their licensed area for controlled

grazing but revenues generated 1.4ould,go to the state.

The University of Oklahoma.has established A biological station

near the town,of Willis on Lake Texoma. In addition to state-owned

D.29.33

land, the uniVersity.has,ei lease for 307.6 acres of Corps-owned land
(see Table D.29.5). The university has conducted numerous studies:and

research programs concerning Lake Texoma.

The Corps identified eight wildlife management units totalling
54,136.6 acres in its draft wildlife plan other uses of land
(36).

included in the wildlife units are agriculture, grazing, and quasi-
public development (36). Additionally, the wildlife plan identities

the islands in Lake Texoma as natural areas. The two largest islands,
Treasure Island and North Island, haveminimal development for recrea-
tion and are also included in-the public recreation site inventory.

4. Other Land Use

The most notable effect caused by the Corps not being able to
acquire mineral rights is the Cumberland Oil Field in the Washita Arm of

the lake just below the Tishomingo NWR. Numerous oil wells are in

operation on project lands and through engineering considerations,. the
district has assisted in the Cumberland operation. The district con-

structed two dikes to protect the low-lying area from flooding. One
dike, approximately 1 mi in length, runs northeast to.southwest along

the south bank of the field. The dike located to the northeast of the

field is approximately 3 mi long and runs northwest to southeast.

Additionally, the district cut a new river channel,.known as Cumberland
Cut, which diverts water away from the oil fielff.

In addition to the Cumberland Oil Field there are two other areas

within project lands which have concentrations of oil wells. one area
is approximately 3 mi northeast of Texoma State Park where there are

seven wells in the lake - all visible when crossing-the U. S. 70 bridge.
The second area is.in and around the Hag4rman NWR. No spills, of
significance have occurred but an explosion and fire at one of'the rigs
on Hagerman NWR, though.ca using little damage, caused much concern (40).

D.29.34

A large amount of the pro ect land at Lake Texoma is outgranted
j,
to agricultural and grazing interests. The district's draft wildlife,
plan reports that 60%.of the project land.(62, 994 acres) is under such
leases (36). Real Estate outgrant masters for 1974, however, indicate
that the total is approximately 52% or 55,426 acres (see'Table D.29.8).
Furthermore, the draft wildlife plan states that 70% of this outgranted
acreage is either overgrazed or in poor range condition, 15% is in very
poor condition, and that 15% can be considered in fair to good range
condition. The district, in its "Instructions for the Management of
Land Leased forlAgricultural and Grazing Purposes" (50),'does not
specify a definition for heavy, moderate, orlow grazing nor does it
indicate that there is a maximum number of animal units which would be
a
allowed to graze. The instructions specify that "... the maximum

number of animal units at any one time shall not be greater than one-
fourth of the animal unit months as shown in the lease." No specifi-

cation of animal unit months was observed in the review of two contracts

for agricultural and grazing purposes (51, 52).

As Table D.29.8 indicates, there is considerably more acreage
leased for grazing than for agricultural purposes. Rental for grazing
and agricultural leases is usually by competitive bid and there is a
wi,de range in the dollar peracre rental (from $0.08 to@$13.76 per acre)
(9). of the monies received from these leases, 75% is returned to the
county in which the outgranted lands,lie. According to the data in
Table D.29.81 Cooke and Grayson Counties, TX would receive an average
of approximate ly $14,000 each, while Johnston and Marshall Counties, OK

would receive $2,762 and $44,610 respective ly.

a
An animal unit'is-defined as one mature cow or equivalent, and a n
animal unit month as, the forage necessary to feed one.animal unit
for one month.

D.29A5

a
Table D.29.8.Outgrants for Agriculture, Grazing, Right of Way, and Other, Lake Texoma. (Denison bam)

Rental investment
Location Outgrants Instrument Term Annual Rent Paid: Acreage to-,-1974 Planned
(yrs)

Agriculture
b
Cooke, TX. 6 Lease ---- ---- .11,863 2,839.8 N/A N/A
Grayson, TX 2 Lease 6,240 1,171.7 N/A N/A
Bryan, OK I Lease ---- ---- 613 120.0 NIA N/A
Johnston, OK 6 Lease ---- 2,385 1,008.6 N/A N/A
Love, OK 4 Lease ---- 1,555 629.0 N/A N/A
Marshall, OK 6 Lease --- ---- N/A
15,000 3,803.8 N/A
Undesignated, OK 1 Lease ---- ---- 6,410 3,784.3 N/A N/A
Texas subtotal 8 18,103 4,011.5
Oklahoma subtotal 18 -25,963 9,344.9
Total Agricultural 26 44,066 13,356.4

Grazing
Cooke, TX 13 Lease ---- ---- 6,1993 3,676.4 N/A N/A
Grayson, TX. 35 Lease ---- ---- 11,008 5,267.0 N/A N/A
Undesignated, TX 2 Lease ---- ---- 755 533.0 N/A N/A
Bryan, OK 24 Lease 24,433 7,713.0 N/A N/A
Johnston, OK 7 Lease ---- ---- 1,298 1,871.0 N/A N/A
Love, OK 26 Lease ---- ---- 10,211 N/A N/A

Table D.29.8 (Continued)

Rental Investment
Location Outgrants Instrument Date Term Annual Rent Paid 'Acreage to 1974 Planned
(yrs)

Marshall, OK 70 Lease ---- ---- 44,480 17,163.5 N/A N/A
Undesignated, oK 2 Lease 2,279 960.0 N/A N/A
Texas subtotal 74 43,189 17,189.4

Oklahoma subtotal 105 58,268 24,880.7
Total-Grazing 179 101,457 42,070.1

Right of Way

Texas 123 9,661 468.1
Oklahoma 119 8,052 623.3
Total-Right of Way 242 17,713 1,091.4

Other

Texas 28 5,087 5,264.2
Oklahoma 29 4,249 5,839.6
Total-Other 57 9,336 11,103.8

aTulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1974. Computer dump of outgrant condition. Tulsa, Oklahoma-

b
Not available.

The district is currently in the process of determining whether

or not to raise the normal pool level from 617 ft msl to 620 ft msl and
raising the minimal drawdown level from 590 ft msl to 605 ft msl. This
would, in effect, increase the surface acreage of the lake at.normal

pool from 88,800 acres to 94'300 acres (1).. Several studies have been

conducted in an effort to determine the impact of raising the lake level.
A University of,Tulsa study concluded that the impact of the valuable
terrestrial habitats,would be devastating and that major portions of
the two national wildlife refuges' would be inundated (53). A study by
Oklahoma State University concluded that the water level should be
maintained-at a higher levelf,citing increased visitation, recreational
opportunities, and better operating conditions for marinas as expected
impacts (7). The district has not made a decision as to the course of

action it will follow.

5. Resource Use Controls

At the district level, 'responsibilities for the resources of Lake
Texoma. are within three divisions. and their branches: Engineering Divi-
sion (Planning Branch), Operations Division (Reservoir Branch), and the
Real Estate Division (Management,and Disposal Branch). The relationship
of these units and authorized staffing levels are shown in F igure
D.29.2. These staff members, primarily those in the Engineering and
operations Division, have major responsibility for,, resource planning,
and management at Lake Texoma. as well as at 19 other reservoirs within

the Tulsa District.

There are 62 personnel at Lake Texoma in four sections: Resident

Office, Powerhouse Section, Administrative Section, and Reservoir
Management Section. Within the latter Section, headed by a supervisory
civil engineer (GS-11), are seven park managers (one GS-9, one GS-7,

and one GS-5), a realty clerk (GS-4), and a-facility maintenance

D.29.38

Figure D.29.2. Recreation- Resource Manageinexir Interrelationships Tulsa Engineer D@strlc;t.

DISTRICT ENGINEER

Engineering Division Real Estate Division Operations Division
Supv Civil Eng GS-15 Supv Realty Spec GS@13 Supv Civil.Eng GSI-14

Program Development Branch Planning Branch Appraisal Branch Hydro-Power Branch
Supv civil Eng GS-13 Supv Civil Eng GS-14 Supv Appraiser GS713 Supv Electrical Eng GS-13

Pla ning and Control Branch Office Operations IBranch
ID Red River Planning Section Environmental Resources section Realty Officer GS Supv civil Fng GS-12
L, - - --- . 2 Civil Eng GS-11
ID SupV Civil Eng GS-13 Supv outdoor Rec Plnr GS-13 I Outdoor Rec Pinr GS-9
I Geologist GS-12 I Supv Outdoor Rec Plnr GS-12 1 Civil Eng Tech GS-9
6 Civil Eng GS-12 1 Biologist GS"12 1 Gen Clerk GS-7
2 Civil Eng GS-11 1 Supv, C-4vil Eng GS-12 Acquisit on Branch I Civil Eng Clerk GS-7
2 Civil Enging Tech GS-7 1 Archeologist GS-11 Supv Realty Spec GS-13 1 Park Mar GS-5
1 Biologi t GS75 2 Landscape Arch GS-11 2 Prog Clerk GS-5
2 Civil Eng GS-11 5 Park Tech (Temp) GS-4
2 Biologist GS-4 I Clerk-Stenc, GS-3
1 Civil Eng Tech GS-9 I Clerk-Typist GS-3
I Civil Eng GS-7 Mana. ement and Disposal Branch
I Carto Tech GS-7 Supv Realty Spec GS-13
I Ca@ito Tech GS-6
I Biologist (Temp) GS-5 Reservoir Branch
J biol Aid (Temp) GS-4
I Civil Engrg Tech (Temp) GS-4 Supv Civil Eng GS-13
I Clerk-Steno GS-4 Realty management Section I Biologist GS-12
I Clerk-Stenc, GS-3 Supv Realty Spec GS-12 2 Civil Eng (IV) GS-12
IRealty Spec (V) GS-11 3 Civil Eng GS-11
5Realty Spec GS-9 1 Park .14gr GS-9
I Park Mgr GS-7
1Realty Clerk (Typing) GS-41 1 Clerk-Steno GS-4
1Realty Clerk (Steno) GS-4 I Eng Draftsman (Temp) GS-4
2Clerk-Steno GS-3 I Clerk-Typist GS-3

Denison Area Field Office

superintendent (GS-9) who directs 32 maintenance/e4uipment operators.
During the summer season, 28 park technicians (temporary! and.12

laborers (temporary) are added to the staff (54).

Although the district organization chart indicates the presence of
park managers at the lake, other reports refer to these.staff members
as park rangers. The primary activities of the park, rangers include
inspection of areas.under lease, license, permit or concession contract.
This inspection includes private buildings..building constructions by
private or commercial leases, And recreation facilities. The rangers
also patrol project land to detect encroachments, fires, unauthorized

use or construction,vandalism, pollution problems, and theft. No en-

croachment or trespass violations of significance have occurred on the

LakevTexoma project (5). Patrol of the lake is also the rangers' duty,

and they may issue citations and assist officials in enforcingfederal@

state, and local laws.

The draft wildlife plan has as one of its*stated objectives to
place a full- time wildlife biologist, at the lake to supervise the
operation, maintenance, and development of the proposed plan" (36).
Until such 6 position is approved, the.wildlife plan recommends that

implementation be carried out by the existing staff of park managers and

park rangers.

Responsibility for fish and wildlife management resides with the

ODWC and the TDPW. Jurisdictional boundaries, particularly on the water,
are difficult to determine and there was once a proposal to positioft a

buoy-line tojndicate the TX-OK border. This proposal has been dis-
regarded due to its impracticality. At one time the respective states
issued a joint fishing license but presently,the states issue separate
licenses which are valid only in the issuing state (3).

D.29.40

Efforts by the.district to implement planned additional recrea
tional faciliti,es have not been successful due to the requirements of
cost-sharing. No commitments.by nonfederal bodies have been offered

[email protected]

III. KEY FINDINGS

A. Recreation

I. The Corps operates and maintains 47 public recreation sites,

two of which are
undeveloped'. Most of thpse.sites observed were well
kept but had some development.adjacent to Corps property. Development
consisted of homes, trailer parks, stores, bait shops, and boat storage:
many of these facilities were in a declining state or repair. Nineteen

Corps recreation sites are located in TX and 29 are located in OK.

2. in the last 3 years, visitation has increased substantially at
TX sites and nominally at OK sites. Planned facility additions to
existing sites include swimming beaches at 13, of the TX sites and class

A camping areas at three of the OK sites.

3. Twenty-two quasi-public leases are extant, half of which are

located on Preston,Peninsula in Grayson County, TX. Most of the quasi-
public sites observed were fenced and locked. Total rent received from
all quasi-public sites was $585; lease rental, when charged, 'is a

nominal $1 fee except for two leases to VFW for which the rent,totals
$575. The 1973 Project Resource management Plan does not include the
VFW leases in discussions of quasi-public areas.

4. Concessions at Lake Texoma appear to be profitable. Eleven of
the 23 existing concessioners have been operating since,1951.@ The
concessions observed were very well kept and large investments in
docking.and related facilities have been made. The district is now

computingrent according to the graduated rental system. Leases
executed more recently (1970 and 1971) are generally for a 10-year
period. The effects of the shorter-term leases on the concessioner
and his inv estment-return factors, particularly with 1 or 2 yea rs de-

creased visitation, are not known. Concession on the TX side are

D-29.42

probably more profitable than those.on the OK side. Fran 1971 to 1973

visitation at the TX-concessioner recreation sites increased 226,800
while visitation.at Ok sites increased only 18,700.

5. Four areas around the lake are designated as Cokps-managed
homesite areas (termed cottage sites in other district reports): Elm
Ridge, Mill Creek, Caney Creek,@and Sand Point. Of the 447 sites
available, approximately 70%,have.beentdisposed and only 4% are leased
for private recreation. The exact status and origin of the homesite
areas is inadequately addressed in district reports; in all the material
furnished by the'district,,only one report mentioned cottage.sites and
this report stated how many were1eased. Private club sites have also
been leased.and most,have.been developed as private marinas. The
largest private, @boat club (32 acres) is adjacent to the daney'Creek

homesite area.

6. Lake Texoma State Park in OK appeared in need of landscape'and
facility maintenance:. The area has had heavy use but visitation has
recently declined; netincome for Texama Lodge alone decreased over
$90,000 in 3 years. -The state has planned to expend $299,000 over.the
next 5 years for new facilities and,upgrading existing facilities.

7. Eisenhower State Parkin TX was very well maintained. The
existence of only one controlled.access road-facilitates maintenance

and park control. Assessmen
t of a $1 per vehicle per day entrance fee,
which began in'.FY 1967i caused a decrease in numbers of visitors

visitation in 1973 was almost what it was in..1967. 'The entrance.fee

.also caused the marina concessioner to lose somelcustomers, but not to

go out of'business.

8. Two areas are leased to cities for parks. These sites are in

a state of ill repair.

D.29.;43

9. The district contracts one company for refuse collection,,
sanitary c ntenance, and mowing; Service'has been very satis-
fa ility mai
factory and the condition of Corps recreation sites reflected consc.ien-

tious work.

Alarge discrepancy exists in reported acreage for public
recreation two 1973 district re'
ports state 16,852@acres and 4,365
acres, respectively, whereas RRMS data reports 12,998 acres. Effective
planning and management of recreation areas, particularly public recre-
ation areas, is most difficult with a conflicting data base.

B. Fish and Wildlife

1. The range for licensed acreage designated for wildlife manage-
ment is from 29,130 acres, as given in the 1973 Project Resource manage-

ment Plan, to 54,009 acres, as indicated in Real Estate Division 1974
outgrant masters. The differences cannot be explained by the existence
of new licenses-as there have been none since 1969. Comparison of,the,
above acreage totals to the additional eight wildlife management units
discussed in the 1974 draft wildlife plan (54,136 acres) indicates

that between 83,000 and 108,000 acres are maintained as wildlife
habitat. Double counting of areas used for several purposes and the
inclusion of water acreage probably accounts for the high totals.

2. The two national wildlife refuges are well maintained and
operated. Both refuge managers complained of low ol@erating budgets and,
difficulties in obtaining sufficient.funds. About 3,160 acres in

Tishomingo NWR have.,been transferred to the ODWC..

3. At normal pool there are approximately 4,000 acres of shallow
water within Tishomingo NWR. During periods of low'flow this small
area becomes separated from the lake proper. Siltation problems exisil-

in the western area of the refuge.

D.29.44

4. Currently, the ODWC is stocking the lake with striped bass

and walleye. The introduction of striped bass has been most success-
ful. Commercial fishing has been halted, however, due to its possible
negative impact on striped bass populations. The TDPW does not have a
stocking program but has plans to introduce Florida bass. They do not
anticipate competition problems between the Florida and striped bass.

5. The TDPW is rather passive about fishing and wildlife manage-
ment at Texoma. Its only outgrant (18 acres) is for a regional fishery
research station. The ODWC has developed a more comprehensive program

including wildlife and fisheries management, and public hunting areas.

6. Responsibility for fish and wildli:@e management resides with
the ODWC and the TDPW. Jurisdictional boundaries, particularly on the
water, are difficult to determine (a proposal to establish a buoy-
line along the TX-OK border was found impractical). At one time the
respective states issued a joint fishing license but now the states
issue separate licenses which are valid only in the issuing state.

C. Corps and Contiguous Land Use
1. Any number of induced economic benefits have been attributed
to Lake Texoma and its annual 9 million plus visitors. The University
of Oklahoma has attributed the following effects in the surrounding
seven-county area directly to the lake in its 24-year life: the popu-
lation increased by 9,915; total personal income increased by $129

million; the labor force increased by 1,848; 1,768 new jobs were
created; bank deposits increased by $21.4 million; and retail sales

increased by $204 million.

2. There are a few isolated tracts of privately-owned land within
the project boundary which were not acquired because they were above
the take line. The most significant of these tracts is on Preston
Peninsula in TX, approximately 5 mi west of the damsite. There are
approximately six subdivisions within this 450 acre tract.

D.29.45

3. There are over 70 subdivision developments of various sizes

around Lake Texoma. At least half of these-are located adjacent to
Corps public,recreation@areas. Most of the subdivisions are in Grayson
County, TX within 15 mi of the Denison/Sherman, TX urban area. Proximity.,
to the lake, the availability of private marinas and clubs, and nearess
to an urban area make house and trailer sites attractive for buyers and

investors. Demand for homes-on the TX side of the lake will Probably
increase because of continued growth in the Denison/Sherman area.

4. The district is considering a proposal to raise the normal

pool level from 617 ft msl to 620 ft msl. Should the level be raised
to the proposed 620 ft msl level, there would be an.additionai'water
surface of 5,500 acres and marina sites would be positively affected
by deeper water. Although the new level would add water for recreation
use it would decrease the total acreage of project land an equivalent
amount.. Additionally,,raising and maintaining the water level would
reduce the width of Corps*-owned land and thereby encourage private
development near the water's edge.

5. of significant concern to OK counties around Lake Texoma is
the recent (1969). licensing of Corps project lands to the ODWC. the

concern focuses on the loss of revenue to the counties which will re-

sult from a departmental decision to request nonrenewal of.grazing,
leases. Overgrazing on designated wildlife areas is acknowledged by
the Corps and.1the,-state. The Corps, by allowing the areas to'be.over-
grazed, and the state, by seeking wildlife management.authority 20
years after the project was completed, have complicated the situation.

6. District efforts to implement planned addi tional recreational

facilities have not been successful due to the requirements of cost-
sharing. No commitments by nonfederal bodies have been offered.

D.29.46

D. Real Estate Programs and Practices

1. According to Real.Estate Division records, the town of
Tishomingo has two areas leased for public park purposes. However,
the 1973 Resource Management Plan states that one of these (the 312

acre site) is under a license agreement-for use as@a city airport.

2.. Quantitative discussions are absent in district reports con-
cerning the amount of'project.lanid which ha s.been or is slated for
disposal. The potentialimpact I and,cIonflicts of project land disposal
are apparent. The 197.3,.Reso'urce.Management Plan states that all lands
are necessary for project purposes but, according to the 1973 survey
report, 10,000 acres (approximately 10% of the total project area) are:
being considered for disposal by the General services Administration-
Equally ellusive is the nature of the development and disposal of
cottage sites on Corps.landg.

3. Personnel whovere with the OSPD at the time of lodge and cabin

construction at Texoma State Park indicated that the,state purchased

la,nds from the district. The Real Estate Division had no records'of

such a transaction,and maintained that all the land in Texoma State

Park was un der a Corps ownership.

4. The district was unable to acquire mineral rights at the.time
of land acquisition., 'Consequently, several areas,within"the,project
boundary are in oil production by'private companies. Two large dikes
and a new river channel were engineered as part of the initial project-
to,keep the CumberlandOil Field (on Corps property) from becoming

inundated.

E. Corps Organization

.1. The major responsibility for recreation and wildlife planning
andimanagement appears to be within,the Engineering Division, Planning

D.29.47

Branch, Environmental Resources Section. The Reservoir Branch of the
Operations.Division is composed primarily of [email protected] only
two park managers and one biologist.

2. The project staff contains no wildlife biologist although such
a position is recommended. The duties of the wildlife biologist would
be to implement the Corps prepared wildlife management plan which is

now in draft form.

s.there are seven park

Texoma but other district reports state there,are.
3. The district organization chart indicate

managers at Lake.

seven park rangers.

F. Environmental Problems

1. Water quality at Lake Texoma is considered poor by EPA and

does not.meet the U. S. Public Health Service's minimum standards for

potable water. Water is used for irrigation in times of drought and
as a suppl eme' ntary water supply b municipalAie� and industries in,
y
Denison, TX.. Since January, 15 licenses have been issued for irrigation

and Denison has used 9 billion gallons of water as a supplementary

water supply.

2. The process of eutrophication is being accelerated by the
addition of nutrients from agricultural, industrial, and domestic
sources in the vicinity of the lake and upstream. Several dead fish

were observed.around the small coves in Texoma State Park and below

the damsite.

3. Since there are no county-wide sewer system in operation in
the lake area, sew.age disposal is by septic tanks or oxidation ponds.
While water supply is.generally by well, some homes acquire water
directly from the lake for nonconsumptive us e.

D.29.48

4. Although.the'Corps' wildlife plan stated that there were no

problems associated with aquatic'.vegetation, another study stated that
the general public was aware of aquatic vege@ation problems and assoc-,
iated the problem with sewage being dumped from boats.

5. A reduction in swimming, fishing, and waterskiing between,
1966 and 1973 may be attributable to declining water quality.

6. There have been no oil spills within the project area. An ex-
plosion and fire at one rig on Hagerman NWR caused much concern, but

little damage.

7. Raising the normal pool'elevation would inundate largeportions
of both national wildlife refuges.

@D.29.49
%

IV. REFERENCES

1. Tulsa District. 1973. Survey report on Denison Dam (Lake Texoma)
restudy.. Vol. 4, Appendix IV. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

2. University of Oklahoma, Bureau for Business and Economic Research.
1972. The impact of Denison Reservoir on surrounding counties.
Norman, Oklahoma.

3. Personal communication, 24 October 1974. Park Ranger, Lake Texoma,
Denison, Texas.

4. Tulsa District. ND. Historical assessment for the Denison Dam
(Lake Texoma) restudy. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

5. Tulsa District. 1973. Master Plan, appendix A: project resource
management plan, Lake Texoma. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

6. Tulsa District. 1971. Lake Texoma project brochure. Tulsa,
Oklahoma.

7. Oklahoma State University. 1972. Recreation study and assessment
of pool elevation effects on recreation visitation at Lake Texoma.
Stillwater, Oklahoma.

8. Tulsa District. 1971. Plates for the master plan, Denison Dam.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

9. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1974. Computer dump of
outgrant conditions. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

10. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1946. Final ownership maps.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

11. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1958. Final ownership map,
Elm Ridge Homesites. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

12. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1972. Final ownership maps,
Mill Creek Homesites. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

13. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1971. Final ownership maps,
Caney Creek Homesites. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

1.4. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1971. Final ownership maps,
Sand Point Homesites. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

D.29.50

15. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1974. Appraisal of cottage
sites. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

16. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 1973. Program
narrative development, Hickory Creek Public Hunting area. Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.

17. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department. ND. History of the
development of the Division of Lodges. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

18. Personal communication, 27 October 1974. Oklahoma Office of Com-
munity Affairs and Planning, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

19. Personal communication, 22 October 1974. Tulsa District, Operations
Division and Real Estate Division, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

20. Tulsa District. 1960. Denison Dam and Lake Texoma, design
memorandum no. 3C. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

21. Tulsa District. 1967. Denison Dam and Lake Texoma, design
memorandum no. 3C, supplement no. 4. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

22. Recreation-Resources Management System (RRMS). 1973. 1973 annual
report (Lake Texoma). Office, Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C.

23. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, Division of State
Parks. 1973. 1972 report on Oklahoma's twenty-seven (27) state
parks and twenty-four (24) recreation areas. Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.

24. Personal communication, 21 October 1974. Oklahoma Tourism and
Recreation Department, Division of State Parks, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.

25. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, Divison of State Parks.
1971. Annual management plan, Lake Texoma. State Park, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.

26. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, Division of State
Parks. 1972. Annual management plan, Lake Texoma State Park.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

27. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, Division of State Parks.
1973. Annual management plan, Lake Texoma State Park. Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.

D.29.51

28. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department. 1973. Activity report
of the Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Commission and Oklahoma
Tourism and Recreation Department from November 1, 1972 to
November 1, 1973. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

29. Oklahoma Tourism and Recreation Department, Division of State Parks.
1974. Five year plan for development. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

30. Oklahoma Industrial Development and Park Department, Division of
Parks and Recreation. 1972. Oklahoma's outdoor recreation.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

31. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. ND. Parks information.
Austin, Texas.

32. Personal communication, 25 October 1974. Field personnel, Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department, Lake Texoma, Denison, Texas.

33. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1970. Annual report.
Austin, Texas.

34. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1973. Annual report.
Austin, Texas.

35. Personal communication, 21 October 1974. Tulsa District, Real
Estate Division, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

3G. Tulsa District. 1974. Master plan, draft appendix D: wildlife
plan. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

37. Personal communication, 24 October 1974. Field personnel, Oklahoma
Department of Wildlife Conservation, Fish Hatchery, Holdenville,
Oklahoma.

38. Personal communication, 24 October 1974. Field personnel, Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department, Lake Texoma, North Central Fishery
Station, Denison, Texas.

39. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1973. Hagerman National
Wildlife Refuge brochure. Washington, D. C.

40. Personal communication, 24 October 1974. Hagerman National Wild-
life Refuge, Lake Texoma, Denison, Texas.

D.29.52

41. Tulsa District, Real Estate Division. 1965. Report of compliance
inspection, Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

42. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1970. Work plan, Tishomingo
National Wildlife Refuge. Tishomingo, Oklahoma.

43. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1969. Tishomingo National Wild-
life Refuge brochure. Washington, D. C.

44. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 1973. Program
narrative development (Tishomingo wildlife Management Unit).
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

45. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 1973. Public hunt-
ing lands of Oklahoma. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

46. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 1969. Project
statement, Texoma Public Hunting Area. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

47. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 1973. Program
narrative development, Texoma Public Hunting Area. Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.

48. Personal communication, 23 October 1974. Oklahoma Department of
Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

49. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. ND. Draft inter-
departmental report concerning grazing leases on state wildlife
lands (Table 2). Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

50. Tulsa District. ND. Instructions for the management of land
leased for agricultural and grazing purposes. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

51 Tulsa District. 1970. Contract No. DACW56-1-70-302 for grazing
purposes. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

52. Tulsa District. 1973. Contract No. DACW56-1-73-006 for agricul-
tural and grazing purposes. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

53. University of Tulsa. 1971. Biological -inventory and environmental
studies relating to Lake Texoma. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

54. Tulsa District. 1974. Tulsa district organizational chart.
Tulsa, Oklahoma.

D.29.53

FROM NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE

An Inexpensive Economical Sole r Heating System for Homes Analysis of Large Scale Non-Coal Underground Mining
N76-27671 /PAT 59 p PC$4.50/MF$3.00 Methods
PB-234 555/PAT E-81 p PC$13.75/MF$3.00
Viking 1: Early Results
N76-28296/PAT 76 p PC$2.00/MF$3.00 Who's Who In the Interagency Energy/Environment R and D
Energy Fact Book 1976, Chapters 1 through 21 Program
ADA-028 284/PAT 432 p PC$11.75/MF$3.00 PB-256 977/PAT 35 p PC$4.00/MF$3.00
Security Analysis and Enhancements of Computer Operating Local Area Personal Income, 1969-1974. Volume 2: Central
Systems and Northeastern States
PB-257 087/PAT 70 p PC$4.50/MF$3.00 PB-254 056/PAT 578 p PC$13.75/MF$3.00

Evaluation of the Air-to-Air Heat Pump for Residential Space Feasibility of Considerably Expanded Use of Western Coal
Conditioning by Midwestern and Eastern Utilities in the Period 1976
PB-255652/PAT 293 p PC$9.25/MF$3.00 and Beyond
PB-256 048/PAT 61 p PC$4.50/MF$3.00
Monitoring Groundwater Quality: Monitoring Methodology
PB-256 068/PAT 169 p PC$6.75/MF$3.00 Availability of Potential Coal Supply Through 1985 by
Quality Characteristics
An Air Force Guide to Software Documentation Requirements PB-256 680/PAT 121 p PC$5.50/MF$3.00
ADA-027 051/PAT 178 p PC$7.50/MFS3.00

The Production of Oil from Intermountain West Tar Sands Rot-Plate Solar Collector Handbook: A Survey of Principles,
Deposits Technical Date and Evaluation Results
PB-256 516/ PAT 98 p PC$5.00/MF$3.00 UCID-17086/ PAT 96 p PC$5.00/MF$3.00

or your order will be manually filled, inSUT- You may also piece your order by tele-
iOWTOORDER ing a delay. You can opt for airmail delivery phone or if you have an NTIS Deposit Ac-
for $2.00 North American continent; $3.00 count or an American Express card order
outside North American continent charge per through TELEX. The order desk number is
When you indicate the method of pay- item. Just check the Airmail Service box. If (703) 557-4650 and the TELEX number is
nent, please note if a purchase order is not you're really pressed for time, call the NTIS 89-9405.
iccompanied by payment. you will be billed Rush Handling Service (703)557-4700. For a Thank you for your interest in NTIS. We
in additional $5.00 ship and bill charge. And $10.00 charge per item, your order will be appreciate your order.
ilease include the card expiration date when airmailed within 48 hours. Or. you can pick
ising American Express. up your order in the Washington Informa-
tion Center & Bookstore or at our Springfield
Normal delivery time takes three to five Operations Center within 24 hours for a
%eeks. It is vital that you order by number $6.00 per item charge.

-------------------------------------------
vIETHOD OF PAYMENT
Charge my NTIS deposit account no.
Purchase order no. NAME-
Check enclosed for S
Bill me. Add $5.00 per order and sign below. (Not avail- ADDRESS
able outside North American continent.)
Charge to my American Express Card account number
I I I I , I I I I _1 I _1 I I I CITY. ST TE. ZIP--
Card expiration date Quan it@
@,ignaltire Item Number Paper COPY Microfiche Unit Price* TOW Price-
Airni,ol Ser%icc,, requc%ted (PC) (MF)

Clip and mail to.

National Technical Information Service
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE All prices subject to change. The prices Stab Total
Spirinjrfield. Va. 22161 above are accurate as of 3/7 17 Additional Charge
(7031 557-4650 TELEX 89-9405 Foreign Pr,ce,, on Request. Enter Grand Total

DATE DUE

GAYLORD No 2333 pRltjTED IN u s A

3 15668 14106 8850