Beaver Management. Widespread removal of beaver from trapping throughout the Great Basin in the 19th and 20th centuries (Xxxxxxxx 1991) likely impacted and contributed to Columbia spotted frog habitat fragmentation. The reduction of beaver populations has been noted as an important feature in the reduction of suitable habitat for Columbia spotted frogs (Reaser 1997, Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Throughout North America, beaver populations have rebounded as the result of harvest restrictions and re-introductions (Xxxxxxxx 1991, Xxxxxx and Xxxxx 2014). Similarly, beaver populations in Nevada have recovered dramatically since near extirpation during the fur trapping era of the early19th century. The Nevada beaver population in 2013-2014 was estimated to be 71,000, with sustained harvests over the last 40 years averaging 914 xxxxxxx annually (Xxxxxxxx and Woolstenhume 2014). Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx (2012) commented that beaver numbers in northern Nevada have increased significantly since the late 19th century, with animals moving to headwater streams in response to changing habitat conditions, to the point that by the 1940s, the State employed a full-time beaver trapper to handle the numerous depredation complaints. Riparian conditions on many northern Nevada streams have improved as the result of rotational livestock grazing and reduced grazing duration during the growing season (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2013). Xxxxxxx have apparently responded favorably to these improving riparian conditions that include increased availability of aspen and willows (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx 2012). The presence of beaver in central Nevada streams before Euro-American exploration and settlement has been questioned (Hall 1946, Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx 1979, Xxxxxx and Xxxxx 2014). However, whether or not they were present during this historic period, beaver were unaccounted for in the Toiyabe Mountains during an intensive 4-year survey from 1930- 1933 (Linsdale 1938). Twentieth century beaver management has resulted in contemporary thriving populations in the Toiyabe Mountains and other areas of central Nevada, as evidenced by the need for occasional depredation-based control by Nevada Department of Wildlife. Beaver are important in the creation of small pools with slow-moving water that function as habitat for frog reproduction and create wet xxxxxxx that provide foraging habitat and protective vegetation cover (Xxxxxx et al. 1988, Amish 0000, Xxxxxxxxxx et al. 2007, Xxxxxxx et al. 2007). In northeastern Nevada, 57 pe...
Beaver Management. Permittee agrees to create a management plan to, at a minimum, not deter dam building beaver activity except where it damages infrastructure, e.g. impairs irrigation control structures, inundates crossings, etc. When necessary, Permittee will work in conjunction with fisheries management personnel to physically breach dams during smolt outmigration, juvenile redistribution, and/or adult spawning periods, generally April to mid-June and November to January or provide alternate passage opportunities through or around the beaver dams. Time Frame: Within 5 years of permit issuance. Riparian Habitat Permittee agrees to take part in riparian planting projects where existing riparian habitat is less than site-potential along Parks Creek. No sites are currently planned however it is expected that sites will be identified as an outcome of Mid-Parks Creek Project. Post-alteration of diversion at W122.44445, 41.56325, Xxxxxxx’x POD, agree to work collaboratively with NMFS and CDFW on riparian enhancement projects in lower Mid- Parks Creek Time Frame: within 5 years, post-completion of POD change. Riparian management (e.g., promote aquatic vegetation growth) No activities are proposed except potentially as an outcome of Mid-Parks Creek Project. Channel Structure Improvement (e.g., instream LWD additions) No activities are proposed except potentially as an outcome of Mid-Parks Creek Project.
Beaver Management. Permittee will participate in a beaver management plan developed for the Mid- Shasta Reach.
Beaver Management. Two of the most common undesirable impacts to ranching activities that are caused by xxxxxxx include cutting of trees and flooding of properties or facilities important to the Routine Agricultural Activities that occur on the property. Potential non-lethal measures that may be considered to mitigate for unwanted tree cutting in critical locations include the installation of wire mesh cages or the application of paint and sand mix at the base of trees in need of protection. Where the construction of beaver dams has raised the water level to cause unwanted flooding of Enrolled Property infrastructure, Permittees should consider installation of pond levelers or Clemson levelers as described Chapter 9 of The Beaver Restoration Guidebook (Xxxxxxx et al. 2018). If it is determined that implementation of the measures described in the Beaver Restoration Guidebook would not alleviate the impacts to agricultural activities caused by beaver dam construction, then the Permittee is permitted to modify the structure and discourage future xxxxxxx from utilizing the site after NMFS and CDFW have assessed the situation and agree on the extent of dam modification.
Beaver Management. Beaver dams have existed in the past and future occurrences will not be discouraged as described in the AMM section of the Agreement.
