counts on a single reservoir -- the Wheeler unit. Here, as on most new impound- 
ments, there was a spectacular initial response for which allowance must be made. 
Waterfowl are likely to be particularly attracted by the wealth of seeds and 
other food materials present on a lake bed prior to flooding. Unless good food 
resources are made available in such places during following seasons, a drastic 
drop in waterfowl patronage is sure to follow. Over 60,000 ducks and geese were 
reported wintering on Wheeler Lake in 1937-38, the first two years of flooding. 
In the next season the population dropped sharply -- only 2,000 were reported 
wintering on the reservoir. By the 194-5 season and following, substantial 
habitat improvements on the refuge part of the Wheeler Reservoir resulted in 
populations of more than 30,000 wintering ducks and geese. However, on the unim- 
proved remainder of the reservoir -- approximately two-thirds of the whole -~ 
only 200 to 300 waterfowl were present. This is an index of the extent to which 
large waterfowl populations now patronizing the TVA areas have been attracted by 
habitat improvement. Unless there had been effective capitalization of poten-~ 
tialities on the TVA reservoirs, there would be only a small fraction of the 
present extent of waterfowl use. 
In its initial stages, the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge served as a 
proving ground for coordinating waterfowl management with TVA's regional manage- 
ment. The aim of the refuge was to promote wildlife development without impeding 
other TVA functions and, in particular, malaria control activities. This neces- 
Sitated inter-agency coordination of land and water management in those areas 
where wildlife was to receive consideration. As a consequence, certain tracts 
were set aside for a combination of agricultural and wildlife purposes and many 
other activities were handled on a cooperative basis. 
From the first, serious coordination problems were apparent. TVA's use of 
water for its primary functions of flood control and hydroelectric power was 
inclined to be adverse to waterfowl welfare because of unfavorable timing of 
draw-downs and refloodings. Consequently, there often was inadequate water on 
refuge units when birds arrived in the fall. Some conflicts of this type undoubt— 
edly could have been avoided by specific planning while TVA was still in the 
blueprint stage. 
Coordinating Waterfowl Habitat Management 
with Malaria Control Operations 
The biggest coordination problem has been that of adjusting waterfowl habitat 
management to malaria control programs. In the TVA basin, the important waterfowl 
and malaria control areas invariably coincide. Consequently, cooperative field 
investigations were made by representatives of TVA (mainly by the Departments of 
Health and Safety and of Forestry Relations), U. S. Public Health Service, U. S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and U. S. Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine. 
The joint studies resulted in new techniques and served as a basis for integrating 
programs of waterfowl and fisheries management with malaria control operations. 
Also, they made it evident that some of the conflicts were more apparent than 
real and that there were several measures of mutual advantage for both malaria 
control and wildlife (Wiebe and Hess, 19)). 
