22 



Land Planning Report 



Studies on a number of national forests show that 

 beaver are of great value in watershed control. Beaver 

 dams create small ponds and lakes, impounding and 

 conserving the water. An instance in which this pro- 

 duced measurable economic value was noted on the 

 Gunnison Forest in Colorado. In 1924, the water 

 supply for the Minnesota Reservoir ran low and suffici- 

 ent water was not available for late irrigation. Four- 

 teen large beaver ponds on the streams above were 

 tapped, filling the reservoir. This supply, which had 

 been stored by the beaver, practically saved the fruit 

 crop on every orchard dependent upon this irrigation 

 project for water. The fruit growers valued this 

 emergency water supply at $15,000, an average of more 

 than $1,000 for each of the dams tapped. 



Control and Regidation of the Beaver Necessary: Beaver 

 are responsible, however, for considerable damage to 

 some irrigation projects, by diverting the flow from 

 ditches and flooding fields. Damage also occurs by 

 the flooding of roads, trails, and railroad embankments. 

 Under such conditions, careful control is necessary. 



Forage conditions may be improved by beaver dams 

 which check the flow of rapid streams, spreading out 

 the water and resulting in greater production of willows 

 and succulent grasses. The beaver population must 

 be regulated, however, since natural increase in numbers 

 frequently results in shortage of aspen and other beaver 

 feed. Cases are on record where shortage of food has 

 resulted in wholesale migration of beaver to other 

 watersheds. In other cases, unregulated trapping of 

 beaver has also resulted in virtual elimination of the 

 species on certain streams. The result of either forced 

 migration or destruction by man are the same. The 

 dams are washed out, erosion occurs, stream flow tends 

 to revert to alternating floods and low stages. The 

 solution to such problems involves maintenance of the 

 beaver population on each stream at such a level that 

 the maximum benefits will accrue without undue dam- 

 age to other uses, and within the limits of available 

 feed. This may be accomplished by regulated trapping. 



Beaver dams on cold, rapidly flowing streams usually 

 improve fishing conditions by providing deep back- 

 waters, suitable spawning grounds, and increased feed. 

 On the contrary, the results of beaver dams on sluggish 

 streams may be detrimental to game fish. For example, 

 water in the dams may reach a higher temperature 

 than can be tolerated by the fish, or decaying vegetable 

 matter may create an undesirable habitat. 



Use of Water Areas: That the protection and propa- 

 gation of wildlife species can be properly coordinated 

 with other land uses is further indicated in the relation- 

 ship of the use of water areas by waterfowl to the use 

 by recreationists and domestic livestock. On some of 

 the lakes on national forest areas where feed conditions 

 are suitable to resting and breeding grounds for migra- 



tory birds, the shore line generally used for nesting 

 purposes is also occupied by fishermen. Notable in- 

 stances have occurred where, due to increase in recrea- 

 tional use, migratory birds have been deprived of the 

 nesting grounds along the shores of the lakes. This 

 situation may be easily corrected by the prohibition 

 of fishing on those portions of the lake shore best 

 adapted to waterfowl use, and the posting of such areas 

 against trespass. 



The same situation applies where many of these lakes 

 afi'ord the only available watering place for domestic 

 livestock. If the livestock is allowed to concentrate 

 around the shores, the lakes are no longer valuable for 

 wildlife purposes except as resting grounds. If, how- 

 ever, the livestock is definitely restricted to watering 

 at certain portions of the lake, the needs of both are 

 met. 



Conclusions: The foregoing discussion and examples 

 of the possibilities and limitations of the association 

 and production of wildlife with other land uses point 

 to a number of conclusions. 



1. Wildlife production may be definitely coordinated 

 with all other land uses on the national forests. 



2. Many biological relationships, basic to complete 

 coordination, remain to be investigated. 



3. Coordination must be applied locally. Dominant 

 use may vary within regions, national forests, drainages, 

 or smaller units. 



4. Sustained production of wildlife implies regulated 

 use, necessary to control populations within available 

 food supplies, and, in varying degree, within other land 

 use requirements. 



5. Adjustments between uses, involving priority 

 ratings, must be expressed in integrated plans for 

 management of wildlife and other national forest 

 resources. 



Areas Suitable Only for Refuges 



Since the refuge idea must be fitted into the proper 

 place in the management plan as a whole, permanent 

 dedication of any area to a wildlife refuge has been 

 found undesirable on the national forests, except as a 

 means of perpetuating an almost extinct species or 

 where the area will serve no other useful purpose. 

 A refuge may provide excellent cover for breeding or 

 other purposes when established, but, because of 

 changing biological relationships, may not be satisfac- 

 tory for that purpose on a permanent basis. The 

 system of management must be sufficiently flexible 

 to permit the closing of areas to hunting and fishing, 

 and the establishment of other restrictive measures 

 when and where conditions justify such action. It will 

 probably always be necessary to reserve certain areas 

 to meet the purpose contemplated by the refuge idea, 

 but in the absence of complete management plans for 



