HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD 

FACT OR FICTION?

* For more information regarding specific issues please see the Table of Contents.

"To Be or Not To Be"

The Rodman Reservoir Controversy

A Review of Available Data

Submitted by:

Daniel E. Canfield Jr., Eric J. Schulz and Mark V. Hoyer

COMMENTS FROM THE AUTHORS

Why write "To Be or Not to Be" - The Rodman Reservoir Controversy? This is a question that we, as scientists, have pondered seriously for the last several months. Our efforts on this issue have diverted our attention from other ongoing scientific studies that we feel are also very important and slowed the publication of a number of scientific manuscripts. Since the release of the first draft of this report in September 1992, we have either been praised for writing an objective and fair report or we have been cursed for writing a biased, scientifically invalid document. Our working relationships with some of our academic and professional colleagues have been strengthened, but with others the relationships have been severely tested. Our reputations have also been attacked in the public arena. For example, David Godfrey, a spokesperson for the Florida Defenders of the Environment, was recently quoted in The Florida Times-Union (OUTDOORS SUNDAY - February 7, 1993) as calling the senior author of this report a "biostitute" or biologist/prostitute paid to do a study. So why write this report? We did it because we strongly believe "it was the right thing to do."

The Rodman Reservoir controversy is primarily a philosophical debate between a group that wishes to keep Rodman Reservoir and its associated biological community and a group that believes it would be best to remove the reservoir and reestablish the free-flowing Oklawaha River and its associated floodplain forest community. Thus, the essence of the debate is one of values! We do not believe that it is the proper role for science or scientists to advocate "value" judgments. We believe that science and scientists should inform the public and policy-makers of the facts and what the consequences of individual actions might be. It, however, is the role of society and its policy-makers to establish or affirm society's value judgments through the democratic process.

In the case of the Rodman Reservoir controversy, each side of the debate has invoked the name of science or scientists in order to add credibility to their arguments. We concur with Gray Bass, a fisheries biologist with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, that there probably is not now a purely professional answer to the Rodman Reservoir controversy. We however, strongly believe that there, have been deliberate campaigns of misinformation, designed to influence not only the value judgments of individual Floridians, but also Florida's policy-makers. Some individuals might argue that campaigns. of misinformation are common In today's politics and should be of no great concern as each side of an issue will mount them. We do not accept this rationalization!

Campaigns of misinformation have been taking place for over 20 years in the Rodman Reservoir controversy. Because of these campaigns, misinformation such as the number of species of fish in the Oklawaha River drainage basin has been entered erroneously into the scientific record (see Issue 3 of Fish Populations and the Fisheries of Rodman Reservoir). Such intentional and often personally-motivated misrepresentations of the facts have been accepted by some "scientists" as a justifiable means to achieve the noble end of a "natural," free-flowing Oklawaha River. We, as scientists, cannot let this stand because it is a bastardization of the scientific process and shall hurt future efforts to obtain knowledge for scientific research and for management of Florida's natural resources. The bastardization of the scientific process and the resultant devaluation of scientific information jeopardizes not only the role of science in policy making, but also the integrity of policy decisions themselves. Policy-makers recognize that they must have the facts. Consequently, we attempted to the best of our abilities in this report to fairly evaluate the facts as they exist. Because our analyses tend to refute the published and verbal statements of the proponents of restoration, some individuals concluded that we are "Supporters of Rodman Reservoir." As scientists, we do not support either side of the Rodman Controversy and as citizens, we do not accept the philosophy that "The Ends Justify the Means!"

Some of our scientific colleagues (many call themselves Conservation Biologists) strong supporters of restoration. From what we can glean from the writings and seminars of Conservation Biologists, they strongly believe that it should be the goal of Floridians to restore Florida's diverse ecosystems to the condition that existed prior to European colonization. We have no dispute with that stated goal; it is but one of many possible management objectives. It, however, is a "value judgment" to state that these systems are biologically more valuable than others. We also have strong disagreements with our colleagues when they try to connote that hypothetical concepts, that are currently being debated in the scientific community, represent theoretical advances (i.e., acceptance by the scientific community). Many of the arguments advanced in the Rodman Reservoir controversy are highly generalized. Generalized ideas, such as "it is good for the environment" or it is important to preserve the biological integrity of natural ecosystems," may be extremely stimulating, but they do not offer a shortcut to the truth, if they are based on loosely defined premises

The Rodman Reservoir controversy is no longer just a debate about what to do with a man-made reservoir. It has transcended that issue and become a controversy about how will we do "science" and establish public policy in Florida. It is about uncritical advocacy disguised as science, zealotry masquerading as principle, and fairness. More importantly, it is an issue about "who is telling the truth" and "due process."

We believe the Rodman Reservoir controversy has damaged both the scientific and democratic processes. So it is appropriate to ask what should be done now, given the present situation. We suggest, as one possible solution, that the Florida legislature consider an innovative conflict resolution technique developed by Susan Littell Canfield at the University of Florida. The approach known as TEAM -"Together for Environmental Assessment and Management," offers a mechanism to fairly blend scientific facts and opinion with public opinion. We present the TEAM approach below for consideration.

We recognize that many individuals will oppose implementing the TEAM approach because they believe that there has been enough debate and it is time to act! We, however, believe that most Floridians want a fair process and the best decision that can be reached based on the available scientific information. Each side of the Rodman Reservoir controversy "believes that they are "right." They, therefore, should not fear the decision that would be rendered by a "jury of their peers" that would be convened under the TEAM approach.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION............Page 1

PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES  Page 3

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES   Page 8

GENERAL ECOLOGY

FISH POPULATIONS AND FISHERIES OF RODMAN RESERVOIR

WILDLIFE POPULATIONS

ECONOMIC ISSUES Page 45

THE RODMAN RESERVOIR COMPLEX

RESTORING THE OKLAWAHA RIVER

CONCLUSIONS   Page 54

LITERATURE CITED  Page 56

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An environmental and economic analysis of the Rodman Reservoir controversy was done between August 1992 and January 1993 to evaluate the pros and cons on some of the major points of debate. This report presents a summary of the analysis with the hope that it can assist interested parties and policy-makers with evaluating the existing claims and counter-claims.

We realize that few citizens and policy-makers will have the time or inclination to completely read this report. We also understand that many readers will rely on the Executive Summary to weigh the value of this report. We, however, urge all readers, who remain confused by an individual issue after reading the Executive Summary, to read that section in this report entirely. It is difficult, if not impossible, to summarize all of the complicated points in the Rodman Reservoir controversy in one short statement.

This report includes historical information and new data, including new fisheries and wildlife data, collected in 1992 and 1993. Because proponents of restoration have written extensively and eloquently about their concerns, issues addressed in this report are introduced with the claims made by proponents of restoration. The supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, have produced comparatively little written material to make a case for Rodman Reservoir. Consequently, the available information for each issue was further analyzed to determine if a case could be made for Rodman Reservoir. The Rodman Reservoir controversy is complex and there are hundreds of issues that could be relevant to the ongoing debate. This report is divided into three sections, and within each section major issues of the controversy are addressed. The first section deals primarily with philosophical issues that directly impact how different individuals interpret information relevant to the controversy. The second section addresses the major environmental issues that have been raised by both sides and the third section addresses some of the more relevant economic concerns. 

The primary findings of this report are:

1. The Rodman Reservoir debate is primarily a philosophical debate between those who believe a free-flowing river and its associated floodplain forest are a more valuable ecosystem and those who believe a well-managed reservoir best meets the needs of not only fish and wildlife, but also the human community.
2. Rodman Reservoir is not a simple ecosystem. It includes floodplain forest, riverine habitat, a major transition zone, and a large area of aquatic habitat known as Rodman pool. Rodman Reservoir should, therefore, be thought of as a mosaic of interdependent terrestrial and aquatic habitats (The Rodman Reservoir Complex), not just another lake.
3. The Rodman Reservoir Complex supports an abundant and diverse flora and fauna and it has not eliminated the diverse flora and fauna of the Oklawaha River Valley. Rodman Reservoir also is not a "dying" water body that is destined for "biological senility" in our lifetime or the lifetime of our grandchildren. The Rodman Reservoir Complex will last hundreds of years with no management and longer if managed well.
4. The Rodman Reservoir Complex is unique among regional lakes because it can be a highly managed system for fish and wildlife. It is the, only large aquatic system in the region where conflicting uses such as water supply, swimming, recreational boating, and aesthetics for riparian homeowners, would not limit or preclude water level fluctuations for fish and wildlife management objectives. In times of drought, the large water supply provided by upstream springs would still permit water level fluctuations. Thus, the Rodman Reservoir Complex would continue to serve as a refuge for not only fish and wildlife, but also anglers.
5. Fish population estimates based on rotenone sampling from 18 different sampling dates between 1970 and 1992 showed that Rodman Reservoir has experienced major fluctuations in the abundance of fish, primarily in response to water level changes. There, however, is no evidence of a major decline in fish abundance since 1970. There also is no evidence that sportfish abundance is declining, or that "trash fish" are replacing sportfish.
6. The fish populations in Rodman Reservoir and the Oklawaha River (above and below the reservoir) were sampled in August 1992, using rotenone sampling in the reservoir and multiple-removal electrofishing techniques in the Oklawaha River. Based on these studies, Rodman Reservoir supported over 50 times the total fish biomass that could be supported in a restored 16 mile section of the Oklawaha River. Rodman Reservoir also supported more species of fish than the Oklawaha River.
7. A restored Oklawaha River cannot support as much fishing effort as Rodman Reservoir. The river also cannot produce as many fish as Rodman Reservoir, thus fishing in the Oklawaha River will never be as good as fishing in Rodman Reservoir.
8. Largemouth bass fishing effort has declined in Rodman Reservoir since the mid -1970s, but has remained relatively constant since the 1980s. Fishing effort at Rodman Reservoir in the 1980s compared very well with other "good" fishing lakes such as Lake Okeechobee. Largemouth bass fishing could be greatly improved if the reservoir were managed with well-timed water level fluctuations.
9. There is no evidence that the construction of Rodman Reservoir has eliminated any species of fish from the Oklawaha River drainage basin. There is some evidence that the dam may have impeded migratory fish runs of some species, but no major effects on the regional abundance of migratory fish species have been documented. Rodman Reservoir does not completely block migratory fish and there are methods available for enhancing the upstream movement of migratory fish if this is ever shown to be necessary.
10. Aquatic bird populations and populations of other birds associated with water were counted on Rodman Reservoir and the Oklawaha River in August 1992 and January 1993. Based on these surveys, Rodman Reservoir supported a larger number and more than twice the number of species of birds than the Oklawaha River. Destruction of Rodman Reservoir would not be beneficial to many of these birds, including endangered species and species of special concern (e.g., the bald eagle) because there is little excess suitable habitat available for the birds on regional lakes.
11. The construction of Rodman Reservoir has not eliminated the Oklawaha River's floodplain forest community and its unique fauna. Many miles of free-flowing river still exist
12. According to home range studies by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, a restored 16 mile section Oklawaha River cannot serve as a major habitat for wide ranging animals like the black bear or the Florida panther. Reestablishment of the 9000 acres of floodplain forest that were incorporated into the Rodman Reservoir Complex, if it could be done, could support approximately 1 bear and less than one panther. There is no evidence that the existing Rodman Reservoir Complex is not a suitable wildlife corridor for bear, panthers, and other wildlife
13. There is no evidence that removal of Rodman dam will establish migrations of the West Indian Manatee to upstream springs such as Silver Springs. Manatees were in Rodman Reservoir in the 1970s and early 1980s, but none of these animals traveled to Silver Springs. Manatees that passed through Buckman lock were observed feeding on hydrilla and other aquatic plants in Rodman Reservoir. Manatees have not been in Rodman Reservoir since the mid -1980s because their entrance has been discouraged by human intervention. Manatees can be safely moved through locks and Rodman Reservoir could become a major foraging site for manatees if they were once again allowed to enter the reservoir.
14. Operating and maintenance costs of the Rodman Reservoir Complex could exceed $1 million per year if the reservoir is managed as desired for carrying barge traffic. If the reservoir is managed for new objectives, costs will be substantially reduced below $1 million per year. The net operating costs of Buckman Lock and the Rodman dam compared to the costs of a restored river appear to be in the range of $265,000 to $338,000 per year.
15. Sport fishing at the Rodman Reservoir Complex contributes at least $7.2 million annually to the economy of Putnam County and it supports over 100 jobs. Revenues generated from sport fishing are more than sufficient to cover the operation of the Rodman Reservoir Complex.
16. Rodman Reservoir is a resource that services the recreational needs of groups other than anglers. Based on recreational-use surveys by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, only 57% of the use of Rodman Reservoir was fishing. The remaining 43% of recreational use constituted a wide diversity of activities including picnicking, sightseeing, camping, and hunting.
17. The Rodman Reservoir Complex is not used by just a handful of people. Visitation to Rodman Reservoir has varied from 168,600 visitor days in 1969 when the reservoir was first filled to a high of 484,000 visitor days in 1990. In 1992, 310,700 visitor days were recorded, which is more recreational use than all but 12 of Florida's 126 state parks. This use has occurred without the development of major recreational facilities.
18. Rodman Reservoir now generates a net economic gain relative to its operational costs. The costs of managing a restored Oklawaha River and the economic gains to be realized from increased numbers of tourists and anglers remain speculative. A restored Oklawaha River will cost taxpayers money, not only for restoration but also for management. The operation and maintenance of the Cross Florida Greenbelt will require a number of government employees for administration and field operations if current management recommendations, such as the creation of a new bureau in the Florida Department of Natural Resources, are adopted.
19. The cost estimates for restoring 16 miles of the Oklawaha River range from $7.4 million to over $27 million. The actual cost may be higher depending upon what is considered acceptable restoration.

We recommend that Rodman Reservoir be retained for now, the primary management objective being the enhancement of fish and wildlife populations. We suggest that the State of Florida should manage Rodman Reservoir as a recreational reservoir for at least the next 20 years, because 20 because years is adequate time, to not only evaluate the effects of intensive management on fish and wildlife populations given the life cycles of animals, but also to resolve questions related to the economic-ecological costs/benefits of keeping Rodman Reservoir.

Management of the reservoir should be entrusted to a single agency with individuals committed to the management objective of enhancing fish and wildlife populations. We further suggest that an objective evaluation of Reservoir Rodman and the Oklawaha River be completed over the next 20 years. This evaluation should be a coordinated study by all the agencies that are currently working in the Oklawaha River Valley (e.g., St. Johns River Water Management District, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and university researchers). If the Florida legislature instructs the groups to work together, few additional resources should be needed as each agency has ongoing studies that could produce the needed information in time or could redirect resources from projects that are ending to address new issues. After these studies, if compelling reasons emerge that support the need to remove Rodman Reservoir, the Florida Legislature could then decide to restore the Oklawaha River. There currently is no compelling biological/ecological reason to rush restoration at this time.

INTRODUCTION  Page 1

The Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC) was authorized on July 23, 1942 by Public Law 675 of the 77th Congress. Rodman Reservoir (Lake Oklawaha or Lake Ocklawaha) was created amidst much controversy in the fall of 1968 as part of the CFBC project. The construction of Rodman Reservoir was controversial because many individuals and environmental organizations, such as the Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc., were opposed to inundation of 16 miles of the Oklawaha River Valley. On November 26, 1991, the President of the United States signed legislation that de-authorized the CFBC, but this did not end the Rodman Reservoir controversy. Instead, it began an intense debate on the difficult question of whether to keep or destroy Rodman Reservoir.

Since the de-authorization of the Cross Florida Barge Canal, the debate concerning the future of Rodman Reservoir and the potential restoration of the Oklawaha River Valley has become extremely polarized. Proponents of restoration consider the reservoir to be an illegitimate offspring of the scenic Oklawaha River. They cite evidence suggesting Rodman Reservoir is harmful to the environment and that it would be cost effective to remove the dam. They further believe that the controversy cannot be satisfactorily resolved until Rodman Reservoir is removed and the free-flowing Oklawaha River with its associated floodplain forest is reestablished. Supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, cite evidence suggesting that the dam is beneficial to the environment and that it would be more cost effective to keep Rodman Reservoir. They see the reservoir, nurtured through management, as an economically valuable and important recreational resource for north Florida.

Both sides debate vigorously and they cite information obtained from numerous studies conducted on Rodman Reservoir and the Oklawaha River to defend their positions (e.g., Duchrow 1971; Duchrow and Starling 1972; U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976; Haller and Shireman 1984"; Estes et al. 1989). Both sides also claim that the other side is misleading the public and decision makers by spreading misinformation and making false claims to the press. Because it is difficult to determine what the "truth" is in the Rodman Reservoir debate, we conducted an independent analysis of the Rodman Reservoir controversy to determine, to the best of our ability, which pros and cons of the major points of the debate are substantiated by scientific evidence.

We present here a summary of our analysis to assist interested parties with evaluating the existing claims and counterclaims. We include historical information and new data collected by us and others in 1992 and 1993. It is important to note here: that the proponents of restoration have been well organized and well funded over the last 20 years. Consequently, they have written extensively and eloquently about their concerns. The supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, have been less well organized and they have produced comparatively little written material to make a case for Rodman Reservoir. Therefore, we introduce most issues in this report with the claims made by the proponents of restoration. Then, we examine the available information for each issue to determine if a scientifically-based case can be made for maintaining or removing Rodman Reservoir.

The Rodman Reservoir controversy is complex and there are hundreds of issues that could be relevant to the ongoing debate. This report deals only with the major issues and is not inclusive of all issues that have been raised concerning the Rodman Reservoir controversy. Because it is important to keep scientific issues separated from philosophical (e.g., individual or societal value judgments) and economic issues, this report is divided into three sections. Within each section, major issues of the controversy are addressed. The first section deals primarily with philosophical issues that directly impact how different individuals interpret information relevant to the controversy. The second section addresses the major environmental issues that have been raised by both sides and the third section addresses relevant economic concerns. We have numbered the issues within each section in this report to assist readers with finding information on issues that may concern them. The order of presentation is not intended to imply anything about the relative importance of the issues.

PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES Page 3

ISSUE 1. MAN VERSUS NATURE

Proponents of restoration and supporters of Rodman Reservoir interpret many of the environmental and economic issues in the Rodman Controversy differently because of opposing views on the role of humans in the environment. Many of the proponents of restoration believe that it should be the goal of society to maintain or restore the functioning of native ecosystems. They believe that this requires no intrusive or at least minimal human uses. Many supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, believe that humans can change native ecosystems and can manage the newly created ecosystems not only for the benefit of wildlife, but also for humans. They believe humans are an integral part of the environment and that human-created ecosystems, given rapid human population growth and its associated demands on natural resources, can have as much biological value as native ecosystems.

Early in human history, humans faced immense challenges to survive. The natural environment was often hostile and meeting the basic needs of life (e.g., food, water, and shelter) was often difficult Consequently, human populations throughout the world remained relatively small. Although it is nostalgic to believe that early humans lived in "harmony" with nature and did nothing to alter the .native environment, nothing is further from the truth. Nearly every culture, including the human communities that occupied Florida before the arrival of Europeans, used human creativity to alter the native environment to increase their chance for survival.

With the industrial revolution and technical advances in fields such as medicine, humans began to populate the earth in ever increasing numbers. Humans also achieved sufficient technology to radically alter the native environment in the United States, early societal concerns focused on the westward expansion and the "taming" of the wilderness. In Florida, the state sold large areas of land to private individuals for the purpose of "improving" the land and making "worthless swamps" productive for human uses such as agriculture. Growth and economic development were priorities for a young nation and a state that was nearly bankrupt

In the early 1900s, there were increased concerns about the rapid .exploitation of natural resources. Conservation movements developed and people such as Teddy Roosevelt helped establish national parks and forests. Organizations such as the U. S. Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, and state fish and game agencies were established to manage natural resources. These efforts, however, did not curb the loss of native ecosystems and calls went forth from men such as Aldo Leopold for the development of a new "land ethic" (Leopold 1949).

Leopold and his disciples called for the development of an "ecological ethic" that placed limitations on methods that humans had previously used in their struggle for existence (Leopold 1949). The new ecological ethic called for changing the role of humans from conquerors of the land community to plain members and citizens of the ecological community. This new ethic called for the development of an "Ecological Conscience" that recognized the rights of all plants, animals, and natural communities to exist.

The efforts of people like Leopold (1949) led to the development of a strong conservation movement in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. A fundamental debate soon began among conservationists in North America as to whether management for conservation should be directed solely towards restoring the biological community to its native condition (prior to European colonization) or towards accepting and managing the modified landscape and its associated biological community. By the 1980s, those individuals, whose conservation goal was primarily restoration of the biological community to its native condition and those individuals, who were concerned with issues like the extinction of species, began to unite under a new banner known as "Conservation Biology" (Soule and Wilcox 1980; Soule, 1986).

Leopold (1949) believed that humans were members of a larger biotic team and that conservation is a state of harmony between humans and the environment. Conservation biology has become the biology of scarcity and conservation biologists are consulted when an ecosystem, habitat, species, or population is subject to some kind of artificial limitation (Soule 1986). Today, some individuals associated with the conservation biology movement do not see humans as an integral pan of the environment because humans have the ability to radically change native ecosystems. Because of their concerns for what they perceive as detrimental cultural impacts, some of these individuals believe that native ecosystems have greater biological value than ecosystems that arise from human activities (Ewel et al. 1992). Consequently, proponents of restoration have stated that it is pointless to say that a "new ecosystem" of long-term biological value has been created at Rodman Reservoir.

ISSUE 2. NATURALISM VERSUS MANAGEMENT. Page 4

The belief that "Mother Nature Knows Best" has divided members of both the lay and scientific community into two basic groups. One group believes that humans are not omnipotent and that management of natural resources by humans has contributed to the "ecological mess" that they believe the planet is now experiencing. They call for "restoration of natural ecological processes" and the "preservation of natural ecological communities" to guarantee sustainable use for future generations. They, however, also believe that human uses of the resources should be either curtailed or minimized. The other group generally believes that humans can manage the environment not only for the long-term sustainability of human populations, but also for different ecological communities. Individuals, who believe in "intensive human" management of natural resources, include humans as an integral part of the environment. They recognize that unless someone figures out how to reduce population growth or convinces people to move out of areas like Florida, it is not going to be possible to reestablish the "native ecological communities" that existed prior to human settlement.

Although the philosophical debates between "Naturalists" and "Managers" can be intense and highly complicated, both groups in practice are managers. Why? Management in the larger context must be viewed as a continuum ranging from the decision to preserve to the decision to manage. In Florida, the debate often centers on what one calls "natural." There are a number of preserves in Florida, including Paynes Prairie State Preserve. The Florida Department of Natural Resources uses the writings of William Bartram, a naturalist who visited Florida in the 18th century, to guide resource management. The Florida DNR's goal is to recreate the conditions that existed in Florida before the pervasive influence of Europeans led to large scale changes in the environment. At Paynes Prairie State Preserve, the Florida DNR, however, must continually manage the preserve to keep it looking like what William Bartram may have seen. Why does the Florida DNR interrupt natural processes? Paynes Prairie, prior to Bartram's visit, was a lake. Natural processes drained the lake and a prairie formed. Paynes Prairie might have evolved into a forest, but natural processes created a second lake sometime after Bartram's visit and from that lake a second prairie evolved. Today, Florida's DNR intervenes and interrupts the natural processes that would drive today's Paynes Prairie to a forest because it is no longer possible to permit Paynes Prairie to become a lake.

It is important to note here that biological communities evolve and change over time. Change in nature is a normal process and it is good not bad. Biological communities respond to change with some species decreasing in abundance and others increasing in abundance. Only humans place value judgments on the changes that occur. Consequently, deciding that conditions that existed prior to the arrival of Europeans are the "natural" conditions is just as much a matter of opinion as deciding that present conditions should be deemed the "natural" conditions by humans in the year 2192.

ISSUE 3. THE CONSERVATION - PRESERVATION CONTROVERSY: CAN WE COMMUNICATE? Page 5

One of the biggest problems humans face is an inability to communicate effectively. In the heat of debate, we know with certainty what we think we are saying, but do we know what our opposition is hearing? Far too often, communication is ineffective because opposing groups do not use the same definitions for critical words. This is especially true in the Rodman Reservoir controversy. In establishing the Cross Florida Greenbelt, the Florida Legislature stated that it is the intent of the Legislature to conserve and protect the natural resources and scenic beauty of the Oklawaha River Valley. Proponents of restoration and supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, define the terms "conserve", "protect", and "natural" in different ways. They also have different interpretations of the words conservation, preservation, and restoration.

Conservation was defined by Aldo Leopold (1949) as a state of harmony between humans and the environment, but what does this mean? Webster's dictionary first defines conservation as the preservation and protection of something. Proponents of restoration use this definition to suggest the Oklawaha River should be restored to protect the natural ecological functioning of the Oklawaha River valley. The dictionary, however, also defines conservation as planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, and neglect. Unfortunately, it is unclear what constitutes exploitation, destruction, and neglect. Supporters of Rodman Reservoir claim that planned management of Rodman Reservoir and the surrounding lands would be the best approach to prevent the destruction and neglect of the biological community in the Oklawaha River valley.

The University Planning Team (1992), in proposing the management plan for the Cross Florida Greenbelt, defined conservation as the management of human uses of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. They suggested that management for conservation requires either restoration of the biological community to its native condition or acceptance and management of the modified biological community. Proponents of restoration believe that restoration of the biological community in the Oklawaha River valley to its condition prior to the construction of Rodman Reservoir constitutes the greatest benefit to present and future generations. Supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, believe management of the modified community that has developed in the area of Rodman Reservoir is in the best interest of present and future generations.

ISSUE 4. THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF FUNCTIONING ECOSYSTEMS. Page 6 

Maintenance of the biological integrity of functioning ecosystems is a new concept that is being heard nationwide. The concept involves terms such as biological diversity, biodiversity and biological integrity. Although these terms are finding widespread acceptance in both the lay and scientific communities, it is not clear that the precise meaning of the terms is understood. Generalized ideas such as these may be extremely stimulating, but they do not offer a shortcut to the truth if they are based on loosely defined premises (see Peters 1991).

The Management Plan for the Cross Florida Greenbelt states that the focus should be on the maintenance of the biological integrity of the functioning regional ecosystem (University -Planning Team 1992). They recommend against a reliance on a species-oriented approach to measuring biodiversity. They believe "species", in and of themselves, represent poor and unacceptable units for measuring and monitoring changes in Greenbelt biodiversity. They also suggest that the presence of endangered species should not be given any more importance than other native species. They assert that the full spectrum of biodiversity is the appropriate metric for assessing the biological integrity of ecosystems.

Unfortunately, it is unclear what is actually meant by the University Planning Team when they state that the full spectrum of biodiversity is the appropriate metric for assessing the biological integrity of ecosystems. For example, it is stated that it will often be important to - resuscitate species such as wire grass, gopher tortoises, or red-cockaded woodpeckers to restore the functioning ecosystem. However, eagles and ospreys at Rodman Reservoir are not considered important because it is believed they will do well in a restored river system. The rationale for this conclusion is that there is little justification for highlighting eagles and ospreys and maintaining their populations at artificially high levels because the goal should be the restoration of balanced indigenous populations and balanced biological communities. Yet, they assert that the former barge canal on the west coast of Florida needs to be preserved - because it is believed to be an important calving area for manatees. Is this not an attempt at maintaining manatee numbers at an artificially high level at the expense of a balanced indigenous population? -

The National Research Council (1992) recently reviewed the United States Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Environmental Mapping and Assessment Program (EMAP). A major purpose of EMAP is to assess trends in biodiversity and the effects of various environmental disturbances on the biological integrity of the Nation's environmental resources. The National Research Council (1992) criticized the program because ways of measuring biodiversity and the biological integrity of systems were not defined. The National Research Council recognized that interpretations of what constitutes biodiversity and biological integrity are capricious and highly individualistic.

The University Planning Team (1992) stated that the U. S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment defined the term biological diversity as the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur. For the supporters of Rodman Reservoir, the diverse "wildlife" at Rodman Reservoir (see Wildlife Population section) would more than satisfy the definition because there are so many species. The University Planning Team, however, further refined the Office of Technology Assessment's definition by stating that the native assemblages that constitute Florida's flora and fauna should be the focus of conservation efforts instead of "wildlife." If this definition of biodiversity is accepted, Rodman Reservoir must be removed because the biological community that is there now, although it may support a greater variety of living organisms, is not the "native community" that existed before the construction of Rodman Reservoir. This definition of biological diversity and how it is interpreted is the crux of the Rodman Reservoir controversy.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Page 8

GENERAL ECOLOGY

ISSUE 1. RODMAN RESERVOIR IS NOT AS COMPLEX AN ECOSYSTEM AS THE NATURAL 0KLAWAHA RIVER.

Proponents of restoration have stated that the natural climax community of the Oklawaha River valley is a floodplain forest (Ewel et al. 1992). They further state that the climax- community is typically more complex in its structure and biological interactions and contains more species of plants arid animals than earlier successional stages, such as the highly disturbed Rodman Reservoir area. They further claim that this is a basic ecological principle and one of the reasons why Rodman Reservoir should be destroyed and the inundated Oklawaha River floodplain restored. Supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, have argued that Rodman Reservoir supports more plants and animals than the natural Oklawaha River so it - should not be destroyed.

In the past, many ecologists once accepted the concept that climax communities are more diverse in terms of the number of species (species richness) than earlier disturbed successional stages. Now, however, that concept is not totally accepted as a binding ecological principle. Evidence from several field studies have shown that, in many instances, the total number of plants and animals supported in a given area declines with successional stage (Margalef 1963; Smith 1980). These declines occur because of the elimination of transition zones (ecotones) once the climax community is established.

Rodman Reservoir is not a simple ecosystem. Claims that Rodman Reservoir is a simple ecosystem seem to be based on the mistaken concept that the reservoir is entirely an open-water area. The area known as Rodman Reservoir includes 16 miles between Eureka and the Rodman dam. Near Eureka, the reservoir is still dominated by floodplain forest/riverine habitat. As one moves from the floodplain forested area towards the open-water pool area of Rodman Reservoir, there is a transition zone between the floodplain forest/riverine ecosystem and the open-water reservoir ecosystem. Along the margins of the Rodman Reservoir, there are transition zones between the aquatic ecosystem and the pond pine flatwoods, longleaf pine flatwoods, longleaf pine sandhill, sand pine scrub, slash pine flatwoods, mixed swamp, bayheads, xeric hammock, mesic hammock, hydric hammock, freshwater marsh and prairie ecosystems (U. S. Corps of Engineers 1976). Thus, Rodman Reservoir is not a simple reservoir, but a mosaic of interdependent biological communities. The waters and lands within the right-of-way corridor constitute a complex, which should be called the Rodman Reservoir complex.

Although Rodman Reservoir represents a major change in the once continuous climax floodplain forest of the Oklawaha River, floodplain forests still exist upstream and downstream of the Rodman pool. Thus, the Rodman Reservoir complex constitutes a major "ecotone." Because the "edge effect" associated with ecotones allows for an increased variety and density of plants and animals, the Rodman Reservoir complex now supports plants and animals (see issues on fisheries and wildlife) from not only the climax floodplain forest community, but also from the expanded aquatic community associated with the creation of the reservoir.

Harris and Hoctor (1992), authors of the University of Florida's Planning Team's Biological Issues Volume and proponents of restoration, have stated that it is generally accepted by conservation biologists (based on recent theoretical advances) that fragmentation and the creation of "edge effects," such as any associated with Rodman Reservoir, are the most serious threats to the conservation of biological diversity. This belief constitutes one of the major points of contention in the Rodman Reservoir controversy. It should be noted that the arguments of Harris and Hoctor (1992) are based primarily on hypothetical concepts rather than field studies from the area of Rodman Reservoir. Theoretical advances are great, but not if they are not supported by actual field data (Simberloff et al. 1992). Before it is assumed that the Rodman Reservoir complex constitutes a threat to biodiversity, additional studies should be done. It should then be determined which side of the Rodman Reservoir debate the evidence supports.

ISSUE 2. A BUILDUP OF ORGANIC MATTER AND DEBRIS ON THE BOTTOM WILL CONVERT RODMAN RESERVOIR INTO A SWAMP WITHIN 50 YEARS.  Page 9 

Proponents of restoration have correctly noted that shallow, nutrient-rich aquatic ecosystems like Rodman Reservoir gradually fill in with silt and decayed plants, becoming first marshes and finally evolving to climax forests (Ewel et al. 1992). Some proponents of restoration have implied that this process could take as little as 50 years (Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. 1970). The amount of time it takes to transform a water body to a terrestrial ecosystem, however, is generally extremely long. Reservoirs, because of their large watershed, typically fill in faster than natural lakes, but reservoirs have life expectancies measured in hundreds of years.

There have been no definitive studies of how fast Rodman Reservoir is filling in with sediments. We, therefore, estimated the sedimentation rate in Rodman Reservoir by calculating the difference in mean depth (standardized to a water level of 5.49 meters or 18 feet Mean Sea Level) estimated from depth profiles made in August, 1979 (Haller and Shireman 1984) and September 1992 (University of Florida, Mark Hoyer, unpublished data). The September transects were identical to those established by Haller and Shireman (1984) 13 years earlier. The mean depth of Rodman Reservoir in August 1979 was 2.36 meters. In September 1992, the mean depth of Rodman Reservoir was 2.11 meters. Therefore, the estimated sedimentation rate is 0.19 cm/year. Although this is a rough calculation of the long-term sedimentation rate at Rodman Reservoir, it is reasonable for Florida lakes. For example, Reddy and Graetz (1991) calculated that Lake Apopka, one of Florida's most eutrophic lakes, had a sedimentation rate of 1.15 cm/year.

Using the estimated sedimentation rate calculated for Rodman Reservoir, it would hypothetically take over 250 years to fill in half of the existing Rodman pool, assuming a water level of 5.49 meters Mean Sea Level. If the Lake Apopka sedimentation rate were used, it would take over 90 years to fill in half of the existing Rodman pool. Because management activities such as water level fluctuation and natural factors such as sediment compaction will decrease sediment buildup, Rodman Reservoir should remain a "lake-like" aquatic ecosystem for well over 250 years. From a comparative standpoint, it is clear that Rodman Reservoir will not become a "swamp" within 50 years because Lake Rousseau, a similar type reservoir on the Withlacoochee River, has been in existence for over 90 years and has not even come close to transforming into a "swamp."

ISSUE 3. RODMAN RESERVOIR IS A HIGHLY EUTROPHIC, DYING WATER BODY Page 10

Proponents of restoration have stated that the reservoir is eutrophic and that the "aging" process destines Rodman Reservoir for "biological senility" (Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. 1970). They have also stated that all that remains today is a shallow, weed-choked lake with a declining sport fishery (Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. 1992). Some individuals have also suggested that the lake will soon "die" because Rodman Reservoir experienced two major fish kills in the 1980s.

The terms "oligotrophic", "mesotrophic", and "eutrophic" were introduced into the aquatic sciences at the beginning of the 20th century to describe the general nutrient conditions and biological productivity of lakes (i.e., trophic status). Oligotrophic aquatic ecosystems were recognized as nutrient-poor, biologically unproductive systems whereas eutrophic systems were described as nutrient-rich, biologically productive aquatic ecosystems. Mesotrophic aquatic ecosystems were described as moderately rich in nutrients and moderately productive.

Since the 1960s, the term "eutrophic" has often been used by the press and other nonscientific groups to imply that an eutrophic lake is polluted and undesirable. This negative use of the word "eutrophic" is generally accepted by many people because eutrophic lakes are ' biologically productive and support extensive growths of either algae or large aquatic plants. Many people find these conditions undesirable compared to the clear-water, plant-free conditions of oligotrophic systems. It is important to note, however, that eutrophic lakes are not always polluted lakes and that eutrophic lakes occur naturally in many pans of the world including Florida (Canfield and Hoyer 1988a). Although the word "eutrophic" continues to be used by some individuals to connote a "dead lake", it is important to remember that eutrophic lakes are not always undesirable lakes because many eutrophic lakes support extensive fish and wildlife populations (Hoyer and Canfield 1990, 1992; Canfield and Hoyer 1992)

Rodman Reservoir is an eutrophic water body. It is naturally eutrophic because the waters of the Oklawaha River are naturally rich in nutrients. Why? A major source of water and nutrient inputs to Rodman Reservoir originates from Silver River, which is fed by Silver phosphorus and total nitrogen, the two primary nutrients used to classify the trophic status of Springs. Water quality sampling of the Silver River indicates the river is rich in total an aquatic ecosystem. Total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations in the Silver River averaged 42 and 1300 micro g/L, respectively, during August 1992.

Although Rodman Reservoir is eutrophic, the term "eutrophic" encompasses a broad range of conditions and it is important to recognize that Rodman Reservoir is not as eutrophic as many other natural Florida lakes. It is also not as eutrophic as some of Florida's best fishing lakes (e.g., Lake Okeechobee). Rodman Reservoir will ultimately make the transition from an open-water type of reservoir to a wetland ecosystem, but "biological senility" will not occur. Studies of eutrophic Florida lakes and marsh-like lakes have shown that these waters can be excellent habitat for fish and wildlife (Canfield and Hoyer 1992). Also, it is now recognized by ecologists that wetlands are some of the most productive biological systems for fish and wildlife, not "dead" systems as implied by the theory of "lake aging."

ISSUE 4. RODMAN RESERVOIR IS NOT A REGIONALLY IMPORTANT LAKE BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY LAKES IN THE AREA. Page 11

Proponents of restoration have argued that a free-flowing Oklawaha River is an unique ecosystem and that anglers wishing to fish lakes have over 200,000 acres of lakes within 30 miles of Rodman Reservoir (Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. 1992; Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 1992). Supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, argue that many of these lakes cannot provide the fishing, hunting, wildlife habitat, and public recreational access that Rodman Reservoir provides. It is true that there are many lakes near Rodman Reservoir. A large number of these lakes, however, are extremely small « 250 acres). Small lakes typically have limited public access because public boat ramps are few and shorelines are in private ownership. Access has also been limited in recent years because the long-term drought that has been affecting north Florida has reduced water levels. Also, nearly all these lakes lack the recreational facilities that are available at Rodman Reservoir.

Many of the small lakes in the Rodman Reservoir area are oligotrophic whereas Rodman Reservoir is eutrophic (Canfield and Hoyer 1988a). It is therefore not reasonable to compare these lakes to Rodman Reservoir when discussing the ability of these lakes to support fish and wildlife. Oligotrophic Florida lakes cannot support as much fish and wildlife as eutrophic Florida lakes (Hoyer and Canfield 1990; Canfield and Hoyer 1992). It is also important to note here that as the drought continues in north Florida and lakes levels decline, Rodman Reservoir becomes increasingly important as a refuge for aquatic birds (both local and migratory) and as a fishery resource for the region.

Milon et al. (1986) found that many anglers prefer Rodman Reservoir to other large lakes in the region because Rodman Reservoir has the ability to produce large numbers of sportfish (see also issues on fish populations and the fisheries of Rodman Reservoir). Thus, Rodman Reservoir takes pressure off the few regional lakes that are considered good substitute lakes by anglers by spreading out angling efforts. For example, Orange and Lochloosa lakes in Alachua County constitute two of north Florida's major fishing lakes that are considered by anglers to be good substitutes for Rodman Reservoir. These lakes, however, are heavily fished when water levels are high enough to allow access and there are concerns that fishing mortality due to angling is reaching the point where Orange and Lochloosa may not be able to support more fishing pressure without damaging the fisheries (Estes and Myers 1991). Fishing at these lakes in recent years has also been substantially curtailed because lower water levels have precluded access for many anglers.

Supporters of Rodman Reservoir have also noted that the reservoir is unique among regional lakes in that it can be an intensively managed ecosystem. Water levels in the reservoir can be maintained during periods of drought because of the sustained flow of water from Silver Springs. The water control structures also permit a lowering of water levels when required. Manipulation of water levels could enhance the fishery of Rodman Reservoir (Note: Rodman Reservoir has not been managed as managers would like with regard to water level manipulation because of the threat of litigation). This type of management, including an extreme drawdown of water levels, could be accomplished at Rodman Reservoir because there are few riparian land owners that would be inconvenienced by low water levels and facilities are available to provide fishing access during such periods of low water. It is also possible with the deauthorization of the Cross Florida Barge Canal to establish fish and wildlife management objectives as the primary management goals for Rodman Reservoir. Making fish and wildlife management the priority management goal is not something that can be done effectively on most Florida lakes because of intense development. It is also not possible on most large reservoirs in Florida or elsewhere in the United States because of competing uses (e.g., hydropower, commercial navigation, or flood control requirements). With intensive management, Rodman Reservoir can support an even more productive and diverse range of recreational opportunities than it now does.

FISH POPULATIONS AND THE FISHERIES OF RODMAN RESERVOIR 

ISSUE 1. THE FISH POPULATION OF RODMAN RESERVOIR IS DECLINING AND SPORTFISH HAVE BEEN REPLACED BY ROUGH FISH. Page 13

 One of the primary uses of Rodman Reservoir is sportfishing. Proponents of restoration speculated in the 1970s that Rodman Reservoir would have a "good" sportfish population for a few years, but that the fish population would ultimately decline and sportfish would be replaced by nondesirable fish called "rough fish" or "trash fish" (e.g., Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. 1970). The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission reported fish population and angler utilization data from Rodman Reservoir that indicated a declining fishery since 1971, but they also reported that it is possible to create an excellent largemouth bass fishery in Rodman Reservoir, if the reservoir were managed for sportfish (Estes et al. 1989).

We evaluated the status of the fish population in Rodman Reservoir by compiling all available fish population data, estimated by use of rotenone sampling, from seventeen dates between fall of 1970 and fall of 1987 (Duchrow 1971; Duchrow and Starling 1972; Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, unpublished data 1973, 1987; Haller and Shireman 1984). We also used rotenone sampling to assess the fish population of Rodman Reservoir in August of 1992 because the reservoir had not been sampled since fall of 1987.

The fish population of Rodman Reservoir has undergone major fluctuations since the 1970s, but there has been no major decline in the total fish population (Figure 1). There is no evidence of a decrease in the percent composition (by weight) of sportfish (Figure 2). As noted by Duchrow (1971), the total fish population (biomass) increased steadily during the first three years after the dam was closed because the fish population was expanding into its new unexploited habitat (Figure 1). For the next 20 years, the total fish population, however, fluctuated above and below an average of 117 kg/ha, with peak biomass values recorded in 1975 and 1981. Haller and Shireman (1984) also noted these years of peak biomass and they realized that these peaks occurred after periods of lake level fluctuation (Figure 1). This strongly suggests that the fish population in Rodman Reservoir can be managed at higher levels with water level fluctuations. The manipulation of water levels to enhance fish populations is accepted by fisheries managers. It has been used on other Florida lakes and reservoirs (Wegener and Williams 1974) and has been recommended for Rodman Reservoir (Estes et al. 1989).

The total fish biomass in Rodman Reservoir fluctuated from a low of 41 kg/ha in the fall of 1982 to a high of 255 kg/ha in the fall of 1975 (Figure 1). This large amount of variation in the fish population has been used to suggest that there is something wrong with Rodman Reservoir and that the fish population is unstable. All estimates of the total fish biomass for Rodman Reservoir, however, fall within the natural range expected for eutrophic Florida lakes (Figure 3; Canfield and Hoyer 1992). Rodman Reservoir, therefore, supports the total fish biomass that would be predicted by its trophic status. The large amount of variability is natural and therefore, is not a sign that the fish population will collapse.

Figure 1. Average total fish biomass (kg/ha) for Rodman Reservoir from 1970 to 1992 as estimated with rotenone sampling. Horizontal lines represent periods of water level fluctuation. (Page 14)

Figure 2. Percent composition of sportfish for Rodman Reservoir from 1970 to 1992. (Page 15)

Lake Trophic Status (Page 16)

Figure 3. Relation between lake trophic status and total biomass (kg/ha), as estimated with rotenone sampling for 60 Florida lakes (Data from Canfield and Hoyer 1992). Data for Rodman Reservoir from 1970 to 1992 are also plotted.

ISSUE 2. A RESTORED OKLAWAHA RIVER CAN SUPPORT AS MANY FISH AS RODMAN RESERVOIR.  Page 17

There have been very few fisheries studies of the Oklawaha River. Thus, the debate regarding which system (the restored river or the reservoir) can support more fish is contentious. Some individuals focus the debate on the total size of the fish populations whereas others focus the debate on how many species are present in each system. Other individuals, however, discuss the fisheries in terms of fishing success, catch, and effort.

We sampled the fish populations in the Oklawaha River at two sites between Eureka and Gores Landing (Above Pool) and two sites between the Rodman dam and the St. Johns River (Below Pool) in August 1992. The fish in the river sections were sampled with electrofishing and standing crop estimates were calculated according to the methods of Hoyer and Canfield (1991). The total fish standing crop in the river above Eureka averaged 82.4 kg/ha and the total fish standing crop in the river below Rodman Reservoir averaged 65.8 kg/ha, which were less than the average total fish standing crop (126.8 kg/ha) for the Rodman Reservoir in August 1992 (Table 1). Our estimates of total fish standing crop merely provide estimates of density. When our August 1992 total fish biomass estimates were expanded to the total area of available fishing habitat, Rodman Reservoir had over 50 times the total fish biomass that could be supported in a restored 16 mile section of the Oklawaha River (Table 1).

These findings suggest that Rodman Reservoir can support a higher biomass of fish than the natural river channel. We, however, only have a one-time estimate of fish biomass for the river. We, therefore, compared our estimates of total fish standing crop in the Oklawaha River to fish standing crops in other rivers to determine if our estimates were reasonable. Average total phosphorus concentrations at the Above Pool and Below Pool sites averaged 42 micro g/L and 31 micro g/L, respectively. Hoyer and Canfield (1991) reported a direct relation between total phosphorus concentrations and fish standing crops in North American rivers. When the values for the Oklawaha River are plotted with data from 79 other North American rivers, it is apparent that the fish standing crops in the Oklawaha River at the Above Pool and Below Pool sites are in the range that would be predicted from their phosphorus concentrations (Figure 4). Thus, the Oklawaha River, like most rivers in North America, will generally support a lower fish standing crop (given an equal trophic status) than either lakes or reservoirs.

Table 1. Average standing crop (kg/ha) by species in the Oklawaha River between Eureka and Gores Landing (Above Pool), between Rodman dam and St. Johns river (Below Pool), and in the Rodman pool (Pool). All samples were collected in August, 1992. (Page 18)

Figure 4. Relation between total fish standing crop (kg/ha) and total phosphorus (micro g/L) for 79 No American streams and the Oklawaha River in Florida between Eureka and Gores Landing (Above Pool) and between Rodman darn and St. Johns River (Below Pool) .(Page19)

ISSUE 3. THE OKLAWAHA RIVER SUPPORTS MORE SPECIES OF FISH THAN RODMAN RESERVOIR. Page 20

Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. (1989) has written that the Oklawaha River sustains approximately 110 species of fish, which is more than similar rivers in the Southeast This great array of species has been attributed to the antiquity of the river and to the wide variety of bottom sediment types, aquatic plants, and invertebrates. Proponents of restoration have used this information to imply that Rodman Reservoir has seriously degraded the fish fauna of the Oklawaha River. Supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, point out that the reservoir also has diverse sediment types, aquatic plants, and all types of fish are in the - reservoir.

Routine sampling by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has generally found more species of fish in the Rodman Reservoir complex than in the Oklawaha River. Our sampling of fish populations in the Oklawaha River and Rodman Reservoir yielded 37 fish species during August 1992 (table 1). Only 20 species of fish were collected from the - Oklawaha River while 28 species of fish were collected from Rodman Reservoir. Based on this sampling and other available information, routine sampling will most likely produce more species of fish in Rodman Reservoir than in the river. Thus, there is no strong quantitative evidence that the river supports more species of fish than the reservoir.

Hubbs and Allen (1943) studied the fishes of Silver Springs in the early 1940s. Based on fish collections made between 1929 and 1943, they documented the presence of 36 freshwater and marine species of fish. Nearly all of the species collected by Hubbs and Allen were also collected by us in August 1992. The only three species that Hubbs and Allen (1943) collected that we did not collect were the channel catfish, the southeastern starhead and the rainwater fish. If we assume that the fish fauna in Silver Springs and the Silver River are a useful index for assessing the fish fauna that would occur in the Oklawaha River, it seems that the fish community of the Oklawaha River, including Rodman Reservoir, is not that much different than that documented by Hubbs and Allen prior to the construction of Rodman dam.

To provide a better assessment of the fish community in the Oklawaha River, we examined the work of McLane (1955) who conducted a detailed 10-year study of the fishes of the St. Johns River system. McLane documented only 62 freshwater and marine species of fish in the Oklawaha River drainage basin. Four of the species were limited to the headwater lakes of the

Oklawaha River. Some documentations were based on the collection of only one individual (i.e., American shad and the Southern flounder). McLane also noted that many species were not abundant (i.e., striped bass and threadfm shad). Based on McLane's 10-year study, the total number of fish species in the Oklawaha River drainage basin is similar to that found in other Florida rivers.

Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. (1989) has written that the Oklawaha River sustains approximately 110 species of fish and the Cross-Florida Barge Canal Restudy Report stated that over 100 species of fish have been recorded from Rodman Reservoir or the Oklawaha River and its tributaries above the dam (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976). These estimates of fish species richness conflict with McLane's estimates of 62 fish species in the Oklawaha River prior to the construction of Rodman Reservoir. The scientific basis for the fish species richness numbers provided by the Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. and the Cross-Florida Barge Canal Restudy Report are unclear. The Florida Department of Natural Resources (1989) in its Florida Rivers Assessment book and Livingston (1991) in his Rivers of Florida book cite the presence of over 100 fish species, which could be taken as scientific support, but both of these documents cite the nonscientific publication put out by the Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. (1989) as their primary reference.

A review of the ichthyological records kept at the Florida Museum of Natural History on the University of Florida campus indicate that only 77 fish species have been collected from the Oklawaha River system (Carter Gilbert, Professor and Curator, University of Florida; personal communication). Of the 77 species recorded from the system, 4 species have restricted distributions and are unlikely to be of concern in the area of Rodman Reservoir. Eleven of the species recorded have been captured only in the lowermost section of the Oklawaha River near its confluence with the St. Johns River. Thus, the number of fish species actually recorded from the Oklawaha River system in the vicinity of Rodman Reservoir according to the records kept at the Florida Museum of Natural History is 62, which agrees with the number of species recorded by McLane (1955) prior to the construction of Rodman Reservoir. If this number of species is correct, there is no strong evidence that the construction of Rodman Reservoir has eliminated any species of fish from the Oklawaha River drainage basin.

Construction of Rodman Reservoir caused a shift from riverine habitat to a mixture of riverine and lake habitats in the area of the Rodman Reservoir complex. Proponents of restoration (e.g., Harris and Hoctor 1992) have suggested that the greater fish species richness found in the Rodman Reservoir complex versus the Oklawaha River is not a sign that "damage" has not been done. For example, proponents of restoration assume that Rodman Reservoir has displaced a number of listed fish species and that the overall increase in species richness in the reservoir has come in the form of very common lake-dwelling fish species at the expense of rare species, such as the dusky shiner (Notropis cunmingsae), the snail bullhead (Ameiurus brunneus), and the tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), that depend on the flowing waters of the Oklawaha River. The dusky shiner, the snail bullhead, and the tessellated darter, however, have recently been captured both below and above Rodman dam (Carter Gilbert, Professor and Curator, University of Florida; personal communication) suggesting that the construction of Rodman dam has not eliminated these species from the system. It should also be remembered that many of the species, like the tessellated darter, are known primarily from small creeks such as Orange Creek and would not necessarily have been captured with the methods incorporated in this study. Until there have been detailed studies of these rare and threatened species of fish in Rodman Reservoir and the Oklawaha River basin, it should not be concluded that these fish species have been displaced or reduced in numbers.

ISSUE 4. THE CREATION OF RODMAN RESERVOIR HAS BLOCKED THE MOVEMENTS OF MIGRATORY FISH. Page 22

Proponents of restoration have claimed that fish such as shad, striped bass, mullet, and eels once migrated up and down the free-flowing river to breed, but that the presence of Rodman Reservoir has severely impacted such migrations (e.g., Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. 1989; Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 1992). Supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, have noted that quantitative documentations regarding reductions in migrations are nonexistent, thus any loss in migration remains largely speculative.

Extensive spawning by American shad in the Oklawaha River has never been documented. Prior to 1975, there had been only one documented collection of American shad (a single specimen) in the Oklawaha River (i.e., McLane 1955). In 1975, it was reported that American shad had spawned in the tailrace (the area directly below the dam) of Rodman Reservoir (Dave Bowman, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Palatka, Florida; personal communication). Based on the available evidence, an alternative hypothesis would be that the construction of Rodman Reservoir and its associated tailrace may have encouraged rather than discouraged the spawning of American shad in the river.

Hubbs and Allen (1943) documented the presence of large numbers of threadfin shad in Silver Springs. They noted that the occurrence of this species was sporadic and they speculated that this species probably came from the St. Johns River. Threadfin shad, however, are still abundant in the Oklawaha River upstream of Silver Springs and in many of the headwater lakes. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the presence of Rodman dam has adversely affected this species. It is interesting to note here that Hubbs and Allen (1943) recorded that this species first appeared in 1933 and soon disappeared. Threadfin shad reappeared in 1941 when Hubbs and Allen recorded a massive die-off of threadfin shad that created a smelly nuisance.

Striped bass are found upstream of Rodman Reservoir, but extensive spawning by the striped bass in the Oklawaha River either before or after the construction of Rodman dam has not been documented. However, it has been speculated that striped bass traveled the Oklawaha to use springs like Silver Springs for thermal refuge in the summer (Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 1992). It is interesting to note that Hubbs and Allen (1943) never documented the presence of striped bass in Silver Springs prior to 1943. If we assume that - Silver Springs is an important thermal refuge and we assume that extensive migrations of striped bass occurred in the Oklawaha River prior to the construction of Rodman dam, why was the presence of this fish species not documented by Hubbs and Allen (1943)?

Fish like the mullet and eel do not breed in the Oklawaha River. There has been no documentation that mullet migrations have been blocked as mullet are found upstream of Rodman dam in both the Oklawaha River and Silver Springs. Eels are also found upstream of Rodman dam, but collections of eels in upstream lakes have declined since the mid 1970s (Estes et al. 1990). This could be evidence that Rodman dam is adversely affecting the migration of eels, but there is a major elver (young eels) fishery between the mouth of the Oklawaha River and Rodman dam (Dugan Whiteside, commercial eel wholesaler, Hastings, Florida; personal communication). The commercial fishery for elvers could be reducing adult eel numbers in upstream lakes, but other natural factors such as drought could be more important for determining the abundance of eels. Because detailed studies of eels in the Oklawaha drainage have not been conducted, any statement that attributes a reduction in this fish solely to the construction of Rodman Reservoir remains speculative.

Rodman Reservoir does not block all migratory fish. We have collected migratory species both in and above Rodman Reservoir during August 1992 (e.g., American eel). Striped mullet were not collected but were observed jumping in all areas including the upper Oklawaha, lower Oklawaha and Rodman Reservoir. These data and data provided by others (i.e. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976) suggest that migratory species are managing to circumnavigate Rodman Reservoir dam and reach upstream areas. Additional studies are needed before it can be stated unequivocally that the removal of Rodman Reservoir will restore major migratory runs of fish like the striped bass and shad. It is also important to note that there are alternatives available for helping fish around dams if it is ever documented that Rodman Reservoir is a major impediment to fish migration. These alternatives should be explored before the destruction of Rodman Reservoir is undertaken strictly in the name of restoring fish migrations (i.e., Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 1992).

ISSUE 5. FISHING WILL BE AS GOOD IN THE RESTORED RIVER AS IT IS IN RODMAN RESERVOIR. Page 23

Proponents of restoration often state that the Oklawaha River has long been famous for its lunker (large) largemouth bass and other species of gamefish such as crappie, shell crackers, and warmouth (e.g., Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. 1989). They imply that the destruction of Rodman Reservoir will not adversely affect fishing in the region because the river provides better fishing. Supporters of Rodman Reservoir, however, argue just as vehemently that the reservoir is a better place to fish and that more fishing takes place in the reservoir than in the river.

The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission attempted to determine the relative value of the fisheries in the river and reservoir as part of the Cross Florida Barge Canal Restudy Report (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976). In the fisheries study, the lower and upper Oklawaha River supported 930 angler-fishing hours/ha and 1,100 angler-fishing hours/ha, respectively. Rodman Reservoir supported only 95 angler-fishing hours/ha. This finding taken at face value suggests that the Oklawaha River is a better place to fish, but these types of numbers fail to account for the total area of fishable waters in the river and reservoir.

When the fishing effort is expanded to account for the area of fishable waters, Rodman Reservoir supported over 330,000 angler-fishing hours compared to a total effort in the river of approximately 124,000 angler-fishing hours. The actual fishing effort at Rodman Reservoir, however, must also include the fishing effort that takes place at the tailrace. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission estimated that the tailrace supported over 100,000 angler-fishing hours alone (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976). When the fishing effort at the tailrace is included with the effort at the reservoir, the total fishing effort at Rodman Reservoir exceeds 430,000 angler-fishing hours compared to the 124,000 angler-fishing hours expended on the river. It is important to note here that Rodman Reservoir is being compared against the entire Oklawaha River. If we assume the restoration of the Oklawaha River is eventually completed and fishing effort becomes similar to that measured in existing sections of the river, the restored 16 miles of Oklawaha River would support an estimated 60,000 angler-fishing hours. This would represent a net loss of 370,000 angler-fishing hours. This information supports the contention of supporters of Rodman Reservoir that more fishing takes place in the reservoir.

The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission estimated that the yields of largemouth bass from the lower and upper Oklawaha River were 60 fish/ha/yr and 74 fish/ha/yr, respectively (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976). The yields of bream (bluegills, shell crackers, redbellies, etc.) were approximately 500 fish/ha/yr and 700 fish/ha/yr in the lower and upper Oklawaha River, respectively. The yields of largemouth bass and bream in Rodman Reservoir during the same time period, however, were estimated at 15 fish/ha/yr and 29 fish/ha/yr, respectively. This type of information would again suggest that fishing is substantially better in the Oklawaha River, but this type of analysis fails to account for the total area of fishable waters.

During the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's study, Rodman Reservoir alone yielded over 50,000 largemouth bass and 100,000 bream to anglers. The estimated yield of fish from the Oklawaha River was 8,400 largemouth bass and 76,000 bream. Our sampling of the upper and lower Oklawaha River in August 1992 estimated the largemouth bass standing , crops at 4.7 kg/ha and 4.1 kg/ha, respectively (Table 1). The standing crops of bream for the upper and lower Oklawaha River were 15 kg/ha and 28 kg/ha, respectively. The largemouth bass and bream standing crops in Rodman Reservoir were estimated to be 5.6 kg/ha and 72 kg/ha, respectively. When the total largemouth bass and bream standing crops in the river and reservoir were expanded to the total area of fishable waters, Rodman Reservoir's largemouth bass standing crop was approximately 33 times greater than that found in the Oklawaha River and the standing crop of bream in Rodman Reservoir was over 131 times greater than the standing crop of bream in the Oklawaha River (Table 1). Because large amounts of fish are needed to support large numbers of anglers, the study in the mid 1970s by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and our 1992 study support the contention that Rodman Reservoir provides more sportfish to a larger number of anglers than the restored Oklawaha River could provide for the long term (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976).

ISSUE 6. THE LARGEMOUTH BASS POPULATION IN RODMAN RESERVOIR IS DECLINING WITH A RESULTING DECLINE IN ANGLER USE. Page 24

Proponents of restoration have stated that largemouth bass fishing has declined in the reservoir and fewer anglers are using the reservoir (Florida Defenders of the Environment Inc. 1992). The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission reported that the largemouth bass fishing effort in Rodman Reservoir between January 1975 and January 1976. was approximately 230,000 angler-fishing hours (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976). The Commission reported that the largemouth bass fishing efforts in Rodman Reservoir in 1987 and 1988 were 186,000 and 198,000 angler-fishing hours, respectively (Estes et al. 1989). These data provide strong support that fishing has declined, but supporters of Rodman Reservoir note that the largemouth bass fishing effort is still extremely high. It is also important to note here that different methods were used to conduct the creel census of the mid -1970s and the creels of 1987 and 1988. Thus, it can be argued that the numbers obtained may not be comparable and that fishing may not have declined as dramatically as indicated by the creels in 1987 and 1988.

Haller and Shireman (1984) reported largemouth bass fishing data for the period 1 October to 30 April between 1979 and 1983. They reported that largemouth bass fishing effort ranged from 58,000 angler-fishing hours (1981-82) to 114,000 angler-fishing hours (1980-81). Five years later, for the same time period in 1987 and 1988 and using the same methods, the largemouth bass fishing effort was estimated at 99,400 angler-fishing hours (Estes et al. 1989). Thus, there is no strong evidence that the angling effort for largemouth bass at Rodman Reservoir has declined since 1979.

The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission reported a total catch of largemouth bass in Rodman Reservoir of 52,000 in 1975 and a catch rate of 0.16 fish per angler-fishing hour (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1976). Haller and Shireman (1984) reported largemouth bass catches ranging from 12,000 to 32,000 fish/year. Catch rates during their study ranged from 0.21 to 0.29 fish/angler-fishing hour. Estes et al. (1989) reported a catch 11,600 largemouth bass and a catch rate of 0.11 fish/angler-fishing hour. This information again suggests largemouth bass fishing is declining in Rodman Reservoir.

We suggest after reviewing all the available data on angler-fishing effort, catch, and catch rates that there is evidence that fewer anglers are using Rodman Reservoir since the mid -1970s. It is important to note here, however, that the fishing effort at Rodman Reservoir in the 1980s compares very well with other Florida lakes (Table 2) and on an area basis is higher than some of Florida's best bass fishing lakes (e.g., Tohopekaliga, Jackson, Lochloosa and Orange Lake). It is also important to note here that the period of high largemouth bass catch and catch rates during the early 1980s coincided with the largest estimates of largemouth bass standing crop (Figure 5). This was also a time of large water level fluctuations (Figure 5). This strongly suggests that the manipulation of water levels in Rodman Reservoir is an important management tool for enhancing not only the fish population (see Figures 1 and 5), but also the 'fishery of Rodman Reservoir. Thus, the superior largemouth bass fishing of the mid -1970s could be returned if the reservoir was managed for largemouth bass and other sportfish (Estes et al. 1989).

Table 2. Largemouth bass angler-fishing effort at Rodman Reservoir and other Florida lakes. Data for other Florida lakes were compiled by Williams et al. (1985) from Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission annual reports. (Page 26)