OCR Text |
Show resource development projects. A number of issues brought to our attention involved the impact of other structural works on fish and wildlife migration patterns. These included the effect of range livestock fences and pipeline construction on the movement of wildlife. In addition, several of our studies pointed up the adverse impact that highway construction has on fish and wildlife movement patterns. Portions of key public land fish and wildlife habitat destroyed or modified by other land uses or land development practices should be replaced in kind or with substitute resource equivalents. Some resource uses and developments unavoidably destroy, while others improve, the habitat conditions. Still others destroy the habitat for some species, but improve it for others. This is a guideline for mitigation of the possible adverse effects of such activities as water project construction, highway construction, land clearing and brush killing, timber harvesting, overgrazing, and intensive recreation use. It provides a basis for both corrective action and for imposing operating constraints to minimize the degree of habitat destruction. Corrective action could involve allocation of nearby alternative areas as priority zones for wildlife protection supplemental revegetation projects, or interim artificial feeding and protection until permanent measures are installed. We are convinced that predator control programs should be eliminated or reduced on Federal public lands in furtherance of wildlife management objectives stated above. There are long standing programs of predator control that have substantially reduced and in some cases virtually eliminated certain species that are natural predators. While these programs may have been of some benefit to livestock operators in reducing cattle and sheep depredations by coyote, puma, cougar, and bear, they have upset important natural mechanisms for the population control of other species. As a result, some species, most notably deer, elk, and moose have increased in some localities to levels far above the capacity of the natural habitat to support them. Hunting has not always been sufficient to eliminate excesses. Habitat destruction and starvation have been the common results. Land Classification Recommendation 64: Public lands should be reviewed and key fish and wildlife habitat zones identified and formally designated for such dominant use. Areas so designated will, of course, include those in which endangered species are found and those in which critical habitat is provided. Formal commitment of specific areas where wildlife values will consistently receive dominant treatment in all re- 168 source decisions is an essential step in converting stated policy goals to operational form in the field. This is in accord with our concept of dominant use areas, in which other uses would be permitted as long as they are compatible with the dominant use. Such classifications may be for key big game wintering or summering areas, choice bird nesting or feeding areas, or important resting and cover zones for migratory songbirds. The areas would not, in all probability, coincide with the administrative boundaries of presently designated public land grazing or ranger districts, nor would they be as large. Different areas would no doubt be designated for different species, and the areas may overlap. Key fish zones may consist of entire stream systems, certain stretches of streams, or in some cases the whole watershed. Areas should be designated in close cooperation with state agencies under the coordination procedure we recommend. It follows that, once key fish and wildlife habitat areas have been identified, those lands should be retained in Federal ownership until changed conditions modify the emphasis and dominant use. Dominant use classification will assure continuity of public land programs which might be destroyed by disposal of such lands. Inasmuch as multiple use is still practicable and feasible, even in key fish and wildlife zones, we see no rationale for transferring such lands from Federal ownership either to state and local governments or to private owners. |