District Engineer
Corps of Engineers
Walla Walla, Washington 99362
Dear Colonel Connell:
I hope in this letter to further articulate the reasons why the Federal Government should acquire additional land to offset losses of big game winter range resulting from construction and operation of Dworshak Dam. Dworshak Reservoir, which extends over 50 miles up the North Fork of the Clearwater River, will ultimately inundate about 15,000 acres of wildlife habitat and seriously disrupt the movements of both elk and deer. Wildlife interests have been working for almost 20 years to determine the magnitude of wildlife losses, and to devise means by which these losses could be offset, at least to some extent.
As a result of this work, it was recommended that about 50,000 acres of land near the confluence of the Little North Fork and the main North Fork of the Clearwater River, known as the "Heezen Block," be managed for this purpose. This recommendation involved outright acquisition of some lands for browse production. It also envisioned agreements with Potlatch Forests, inc., and the Idaho State Land Board to permit management practices which would improve conditions for big game when this could be done without detriment to their major use of the land.
However, provisions of the Constitution of the State of Idaho prohibit management of State lands for less than maximum dollar return to the Endowment Fund. This means that State lands critical for browse production cannot be managed for this purpose as anticipated in the Memorandum of Agreement, dated July 22, 1965, covering State lands in the Heezen Block. Numerous other problems have arisen in attempting to effect the original proposal, and it has become clear that a different approach must be taken.
During meetings among our agencies and the Idaho Fish and Game Department, these matters have been discussed in some detail. In particular, the meeting on June 14, 1972, in Twin Falls, Idaho, with Senator Church and the Idaho Fish and Game Commission, clearly presented the problem. In effect, what appeared in 1965 to be a satisfactory solution to the problem of compensating for losses of big game winter range at Dworshak is simply not going to work out. Therefore, the Federal Government should either acquire in fee, or otherwise obtain exclusive wildlife management rights, on about 4,500 acres of key winter range in the area known as Smith Ridge. This is necessary because of the inability of the State Land Commission to legally permit management of its forest lands for both wildlife and other economic purposes.
The data previously forwarded to you in support of our loss mitigation recommendation indicated varying game loadings with and without Dworshak Reservoir over the period of analysis. These data indicated that intensive management could greatly reduce the number of acres required to support an individual elk. They are summarized as follows:
| Table 1 Results Expected With Wildlife Habitat Development Plan Net Increase In Elk Carrying Capacity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hard Core Lands | Project Lands | Agreement Lands | Total | |
| Elk | 459 | 183 | 273 | 915 |
The table above indicates that the 5,120 acres of hard core land, the project lands, and the management agreement lands probably would adequately offset losses resulting from the project. These figures were extremely conservative and tended to ignore many contingencies. The current data which we have assembled reflects that our earlier estimate should be revised with regard to carrying capacities, etc., as follows:
| Table 2 Results Expected With Wildlife Habitat Development Plan Net Increase In Elk Carrying Capacity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hard Core Lands | Project Lands | Agreement Lands | Total | |
| Elk | 459 | 183 | -156 | 476 |
Please note that we now estimate that the Agreement Lands would actually register a loss of elk. This would result from overuse of these lands by big game in the years immediately following reservoir filling. With no effective management measures, overuse will damage the range and reduce its carrying capacity. Acquisition and intensive management of the 4,000 acres of Smith Ridge lands would offset this loss and result in a net increase in elk carrying capacity amounting to about 230 animals. If 4,500 acres of Smith Ridge lands are acquired and managed, the net increase would approximate that shown in Table 1, or about 270 elk.
As you are aware, these lands are presently under lease to a private firm for kyanite mining. If, when the Corps obtains them, the State is unable to extinguish the mineral lease, we recommend it not be renewed when the present term expires.
In summary, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife supported the arrangement for offsetting loss of big game winter range as envisioned in the mid-1960's. It provided for Federal acquisition of 5,120 acres of land for intensive elk browse management plus Management Agreements on an additional 45,000 acres in the Heezen Block. Because the agreements were found to be inoperable, at least on Smith Ridge, it is now necessary that additional land be obtained specifically for wildlife management.
It is our judgment that full control of 4,500 acres on Smith Ridge are required, in addition to the 3,217 acres within the project takeline, plus the 5,120 acres of hard core land under intensive management to adequately compensate for big game losses caused by construction and operation of Dworshak Dam and Reservoir.
Return to the Main Report