BLM LIBHAHY
88006594
/
nECEIVED
Dur cf Land Manacrm*>nt
&
;.::,°?. MAR2 2 1976
t/-i jt
'-•A STATE C,f%
RENO, NEVADA ^
^
%
*
BEAVER DAM INTENSIVE INVENTORY
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
CALIENTE PLANNING UNIT
LAS VEGAS DISTRICT
B.L.M.
FEBRUARY, 1976
merit
Federal Center
i 25
tf- ,6 3i 3 3 73 35) •■ -^oeWi^
."3
13 ^
Intensive Inventory and Analysis
Beaver Dam N5-WHA-T24
1975
Revised By:
Denise P. Meridith
District Wildlife Specialist
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas, Nevada
With Assistance From and in Cooperation With
Norm Raymond
Fish and Game Agent
Nevada Department of Fish and Game
Da
i^l^
///■5/7C.
Da>te
Concurred B,y-:~""NDF
Regiojwl Supervisor
Approved By: BLM
District Manager
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
II. General Description 2
A. Vegetation 2
B. Climate 2
C. Topography 3
D. Soils 3
E. Wildlife - - - 4
F. Wild Horses 6
III. Wildlife Population Conditions 8
A. Mule Deer 8
B. Mountain Lions 9
C. Small Game 10
D. Other Wildlife — - 11
IV. Wildlife Harvest 12
V. Habitat Requirements 14
VI. Wildlif Habitat Conditions - 15
A. Present Situation 15
B. Potential for Habitat Improvements 23
VII. Other Problems and Possible Solutions 25
1-
Introduction
The Beaver Dam Wildlife Habitat Area (N5-WHA-T24) is located in
Lincoln County, Nevada and includes 627, of the Nevada Department
of Fish and Game Management Unit No. 24 (see maps #1 and #2).
National resource lands total about 616,000 acres, private lands
about 17,000 acres and the Beaver Dam State Park covers 2,000
acres.
A wide variety of wildlife resides in the area: over 300 species
of birds, over 50 of mammals, over 15 of reptiles and amphibians,
and several species of fish. Two inventories and habitat manage-
ment plans should be completed for the area. At a later date,
an inventory and HMP will be completed for the aquatic habitat
in this WHA (Beaver Dam, Clover, Cottonwood, Pine and Ash Creeks).
This inventory and its accompanying HMP deal with terrestrial
wildlife habitat. It is an update of the inventory completed by
Lewis Myers in 1971. The inventory includes a general description
of the WHA, wildlife population conditions, harvest and habitat
requirements and a discussion of the present condition of wild-
life habitat, management problems and possible solutions.
Map No. 1
B.L.M. ADMINISTRATION
NEVADA
N5JWHA-T24
BEAVER
DAM
rrwnii
I matt l
Eatjc ■ Clill
±j?j£ J
DLN \
(^ADOW VAUtYlCAMKilOUND
MouguiO t
Bud. Min ,|
-2-
II. General Description
A. Vegetation
Most of the Beaver Dam area supports a dense juniper-pinyon
woodland with sagebrush and cliffrose understories . Cliff-
rose and bitterbrush are only locally abundant, seldom ex-
ceeding 10 percent of the composition, and they are typi-
cally over-utilized, decadent, unproductive plants. Most
of the area lacks a good variety of browse species. Typical
stands contain an over-abundance of sagebrush, plentiful
yellow-top rabbitbrush, and a tract to 10 percent of cliff-
rose. Bitterbrush replaces cliffrose at higher elevations.
Middle elevations support an apparent Pur shia- Cowan ia hy-
bridized complex. Serviceberry grows with cliffrose-
bitterbrush primarily in the Barclay summer allotment, locally
on the south slope of the Sawmill Range, and in Pennsylvania
Canyon.
Browse mixtures, containing clif frose-bitterbrush, service-
berry, silk tassel, sagebrush, manzanita, rabbitbrush, Gambel's
oak, and Gregg's snowbrush occur primarily in burned areas
on the south slope of the Sawmill Range. Burns north of
the Sawmill Range typically revert to unproductive sagebrush
stands.
Forbs are conspicuously absent from most areas, chaining and
seeding areas being the commonest exceptions. Many chainings
and seedings have reverted to dense sagebrush-rabbitbrush
stands through dncontrolled livestock use. A great variety
of native forbs exists, though densities are quite low.
Important native species include, but are not limited to:
Eriogonum spp, Lomatium sp, Perife temon spp, Phlox spp,
Emphorbia sp, Sphaeralcea spp, Erigeron sp, Balsamortiiza sp,
and Trifolium sp.
Grasses are only locally abundant, being restricted primarily
to chainings and seedings. Residual stands of blue grams,
needle and thread, Nevada bluegrass, Indian rice grass, and
galleta suggest quality bunch grasses were once important
constituents of plant cover.
B. Climate
Precipitation varies with altitude from 8.8 inches at
Caliente to 14 inches in the highest mountains. Most of the
area falls within the 10-inch precipitation zone. Most pre-
-3-
cipitation occurs as rainfall. Snow pack, seldom exceeds one
foot. The highest peaks may maintain winter snow packs of
3-4 feet. The following chart shows the monthly distribution
of precipitation in Caliente.
(inches)
Month
Av. Prec.
Jan
.86
Feb
.80
Mar
.92
Apr
.74
May
.51
June
.38
Month
Av. Prec.
July
.84
Aug
1.06
Sept
.53
Oct
.85
Nov
.63
Dec
.99
Jan
30°
Feb
35.7°
Mar
43.6°
Apr
52.5°
May
60.5°
June
68.2
U. S. Department of Commerce, 1960
Droughts sometimes occur and annual precipitation in Caliente
may be only 4-5 inches (507o of normal).
Mean yearly temperature at Caliente is 53.0°F., with extremes
of from below 0° in winter to over 100° in summer. Average
monthly temperatures at Caliente:
July 76.0°
Aug 74.0°
Sept 66.1°
Oct 54.1°
Nov 41.7°
Dec 33.4°
High winds and temperatures contribute to high evaporation
rates (50-70 inches/year). Humidity is very low, dropping
below 15% during the summer months.
C. Topography
Topography is characterized by a large rolling to flat high-
land sloping from about 5,000 feet on the west to 6,000 feet
on the east. The southern portion is rough and mountainous
(Sawmill Range), sloping southward from peaks about 7,000
feet high, to the flat Tule Desert, only 3,600 feet high.
D. Soils
Soils of the area are lithosols and browns, both shallow and
weakly developed. Both soils are products more of geologic
erosion than of envrionmental and soil forming factors. Soils
are relatively unproductive, being suitable mostly for range-
-4-
land. Bare soil sites, devoid of vegetative cover are not
uncommon in climax situations. Parent materials are ig-
neous, being mostly acidic rhyolite.
E. Wildlife
The following species occur in the Beaver Dam Wildlife
Habitat Area:
Species Lists Follows:
A. Birds (refer to N-5 District Bird List)
Bird species, totalling 326, have been listed in
the District Bird List. Most probably can be found
in the T-24 habitat area with aquatic and gallina-
ceous species being the commonest exceptions.
B. Mammals:
1. Muledeer (common)
2. Bighorn (rare, may wander into Meadow Valley Wash)
3. Cougar (widespread in small numbers)
4. Bobcat (common)
5. Coyote (common)
6. Kit fox (fairly common, foothills, desert)
7. Grey fox (common, brushy-rocky)
8. Badger (fairly common, dry hills, valleys)
9. Spotted skunk (brushy, rocky)
10. Striped skunk (near water)
11. Long- tailed weasel (not found in very dry areas)
12. Ring-tailed cat (cliffs, canyons, attics)
13. Raccoon (usually near water)
14. Big free-tailed bat (uncommon)
15. Mexican free-tailed bat (common, caves, buildings)
16. Pallid bat (common, moist areas)
17. Long-eared bat (common, caves, buildings)
*18. Spotted bat
19. Hoary bat (common, trees, shrubs)
20. Red bat (very uncommon, fringe species)
21. Big brown bat (common, buildings)
22. Western pipistrelle (common, wet areas)
23. Silvery-haired bat (forrested, wet areas)
24. Small -footed myotis (common)
25. Hairy-winged myotis (forrested, wet areas)
26. Little brown myotis (very common, wet areas)
27. Townsend ground squirrel (common, valleys)
28. Rock squirrel (common, rocky)
* endangered status in the State of Nevada
-5-
29. Antelope ground squirrel (common, -widespread)
30. Least chipmunk (common, sage, pinyon- juniper)
31. Say chipmunk
32. Cliff chipmunk (common, pinyon- juniper)
33' Botta pocket gopher
34. Little pocket mouse (pinyon- juniper)
35. Great Basin pocket mouse (sage, juniper- piny on)
36. Long- tailed pocket mouse (valleys)
37« Ord Kangaroo rat (sandy sagebrush)
38. Merriam kangaroo rat (valleys)
39* Beaver (streams)
kO. Northern kangaroo mouse (common, sandy)
Ul. Southern kangaroo mouse (common, sandy)
k2. Western harvest mouse (grassy)
U3. Canyon mouse (rocky)
kk. Deer mouse (very common, ubiquitous)
k1?, Pinyon mouse (rocky pinyon- juniper)
k6. Desert wood rat (very common, rocky scrub)
k"J , Bushy- tailed wood rat (very common, rocks, caves)
U8. Meadow mouse (common, dense grass)
49. Sagebrush vole (uncommon, sagebrush)
50. House mouse (common, habitatious )
51. Porcupine (uncommon)
52. Black- tailed jackrabbit (common, shrubby)
53* Nuttall cottontail (common, shrubby, woodlands)
5^. Audubon cottontail (common, shrubby)
C. Birds - See Las Vegas District Bird Checklist
D. Amphibians and Reptiles
1. Great Basin spadefoot toad
2. Western toad
3. Southwestern toad (headwaters of Colorado System)
k. Red-spotted toad (possible southern part of area)
5. Leopard frog
6. Bullfrog (introduced)
7. Banded gecko (rocky, desert to woodland)
8. Zebra- tailed lizard (open areas)
9. Leopard lizard (open)
10. Collared lizard (rocky)
11. Desert spiny lizard
12. Western fence lizard (variable habitat)
13. Sagebrush lizard (sagebrush, manzanita, woodlands)
Ik. Side-blotched lizard (variable habitat)
15. Desert horned lizard (washes, flats)
16. Western skink (variable habitat)
-6-
17. Western whip tail (open aspects;
*18„ Do.^rt Tortoise (southern part of P. U.J
L9C Ringneck snake
10. Red racer
21 Striped whipsnake
22. Wc lern yell< w-b>_l J ied racer
23. W tern paten -nosed snake
24. Cpher snakt
" ". California I. i n^ snake
(• . T..)ng-no^eci ake
27. Western ga.i.er nakf
?A . Western gr-mnr snake
29. : i gVi t snak(
3D. Jreaf Basi. i^Ltlesnake
31. Sidewinder (possibly southern part of area)
32. '.oeckled mttlesn-iit (.possibly southern part of area)
g0 Fish.s
1. Rainbow trout (iut oduced, Clover Ci „ , Beaver Dam Cr.)
2. Mountain suckt-r .Clover Cr0^
3. Suckled dace i.e".vei Da\, or. i
h0 ' irgin River s ; e aacr (Ge-iver Dam Cr.N
Wi Id llorj;* s
Wild horses occupy m«>M of the Re..ver Liarr. WHA. The horse
inventories conduct ci in 1974 revealed between 275 and J80
ai.imals:
Rabbit, Sheep, Miller Sprint. jO-60
Oakwells 15-20
South Mosie 10-1."
Empy Wash 15-20
Two seeding* 14-23
Ash Spring 5-10
Sam's Camp Spring 4-6
Gordon Spring 4-6
East Pass 10-15
Pine Canyon Dam 10-12
Ella Spring 20-25
Carson and Johnson Spring 15-20
Bitter Creek 12-15
Fife Spring 5-10
Pine, Cottonwood ar.d A ,h Spring 50-70
Sheep Spring 10-12
Buckboard 15-20
Etna 6-8
Rarp <?t-flt-iis in flip <5f->it-o nf NairaAa
-7-
Horses can make heavy demands on the habitat of an area:
they each consume up to 15 gallons of water per day and
utilize 12-14 AUMs (animal unit months) of forage. This
pressure is all compounded by the fact that horse use is
yearlong.
Some competition between horses and deer is apparent on
deer yearlong range and on crucial deer winter habitat on
Little Mountain. The exact extent of competition for forage
is not known because of the lack of information on wild
horse food habits. But horses are known to utilize the
following plants:
Delicious sagebrush
Bitterbrush
Desert almond
Indian ricegrass
Needle-and- thread grass
Galleta grass
4-wing saltbush
White sage
More research is needed to determine food habits, horse
seasonal use, and methods of relieving horse/wildlife compe-
tition.
-7-
Horses can make heavy demands on the habitat of an area:
they each consume up to 15 gallons of water per day and
utilize 12-14 AUMs (animal unit months) of forage. This
pressure is all compounded by the fact that horse use is
yearlong.
Some competition between horses and deer is apparent on
deer yearlong range and on crucial deer winter habitat on
Little Mountain. The exact extent of competition for forage
is not known because of the lack of information on wild
horse food habits. But horses are known to utilize the
following plants:
Delicious sagebrush
Bitterbrush
Desert almond
Indian ricegrass
Needle-and- thread grass
Galleta grass
4-wing saltbush
White sage
More research is needed to determine food habits, horse
seasonal use, and methods of relieving horse/wildlife compe-
tition.
-8-
III. Population Conditions
A. Mule Deer
1. Present Numbers
The Beaver Dam wildlife habitat area (T24) contains
approximately 68 percent of the muledeer habitat within
Nevada Department of Fish and Game management area
no. 24. NDF&G conducts no formal herd studies due to
low muledeer densities and lack of well defined season-
al range use patterns.
The Beaver Dam habitat area is recognized as a fairly
intact muledeer herd or management unit. Its 840 square
miles of deer habitat (68 percent of Area 24) supports
a minimum established population which varies from about
800 deer to 8,000 deer in a "boom or bust" fashion.
Herd level may be influenced by irregular winter migra-
tions from the adjacent Dixie National Forest Lands in
Utah. NDF&G files note deer influx from Utah during
the 1959 hunting season.
Analysis of harvest offers the only present opportunity
for estimating minimum deer numbers. In 1959 - 1,152
deer were harvested in Area 24 (NDF&G files) under
"either sex" regulations with light hunter pressure
(10 hunter days/sq. mile of less). This would repre-
sent approximately 10 percent of the population, for a
minimum total of 11,500 deer, or about 10 deer per
square mile of habitat (1,240 miles of habitat in
Area 24).
During the late 1960's harvest dropped sharply to about
60 animals under "bucks only" regulations with light hunt-
ing pressure. This represents about 4 percent of the
herd, which computes to be about 1,500 deer, or about
1 deer per square mile. Using this same method of cal-
culation, a buck only harvest of 96 animals in 1973
would indicate a present population of 2,400 deer or about
2 deer per square mile.
2. Herd Composition and Productivity
Herd composition data is too fragmentary for conclusion.
The population today seems to be stable. But because
-9-
of low elevations (no good summer habitat) and varia-
tions in precipitation, the types and amounts of forage,
and in turn, herd productivity, fluctuates greatly.
3. Potential Carrying Capacity and Numbers
Range condition data is not available for the period
during which deer numbers were high. It is not known
to what degree "hunting pressure" influenced harvest
during the early 1950' s through early 1960's. Doubt-
less, this 10-year period was a productive period for
deer.
Average harvest for the period 1956-1965 was 709 deer
(buck harvest doubled for 1964 B.O. hunt). Assuming
this represented 10 percent of the population, a mini-
mum 7,000 deer inhabited Area 24, of which about 4,700
(5 deer/mi^) inhabited the Beaver Dam habitat area.
This would seem a reasonable potential carrying capacity
for this arid area.
B. Mountain Lion
1. Present Numbers, Population Trend
This area of the Lincoln County has a resident popula-
tion of mountain lions. No formal surveys have been
conducted to determine population trend. Harvest trend
(which increases and decreases with changing snow condi-
tions and hunting pressures) is generally not believed
to be an indication of population trend. The population
of lions seems to be stable or slightly increasing at
the moment, but there is a great need for research
programs to determine populations, distributions, trends
and the effect of hunting.
2„ Potential Carrying Capacity
The carrying capacity of the habitat for mountain lions
is directly proportional to the carrying capacity of the
area for mule deer. If forage and water conditions can
be improved in order to increase the numbers of deer
(the main diet of the lion) and cover destruction and
poaching or harassment of lions is kept to a minimum,
this WHA can support a much larger population of lions
than it now does.
-10-
C. Small Game
1. Present Numbers, Population Trends
The major small game species in the Beaver Dam WHA
include Gambel ' s quail, chukar partridge, waterfowl,
mourning dove, and cottontial rabbits.
Table #1 shows adult/young ratios and average broods of
Gambel 's quail in Lincoln County. Quail production
seems to be improving and if good precipitation is
received for the next two years population should continue
to increase.
Chukar have been planted in Lincoln County since the
30fs; in 1973, 1250 birds were released at Elgin,
Clover Creek and other sites in Lincoln County. Pre-
sent populations, however, are very low and there is
no open season in Lincoln County.
Low numbers of rabbits, mourning doves, and waterfowl
occur on private, irrigated lands and along Clover
Creek and Meadow Valley Wash. Table #2 shows that rabbit
densities have decreased drastically in the past 2
years. Little information is available on population
trends for the other species. But their populations
seem to fluctuate with changes in annual precipitation
and the resulting forage.
Table #1 Gambel's Quail - Population Data - Lincoln County
Total
Birds
Year
Sampled
Adult
Young
Adult /Young
Ave. Brood
1965
618
117
501
100/428
12
1966
3,783
516
3,267
100/633
9.6
1967
1,628
237
1,391
100/587
11.0
1968
6,504
1,088
5,404
100/496
11.8 (178)
1969
639
101
538
100/532
11.5 (41)
1971
247
51
196
100/393
8 (9)
1972
612
149
453
100/304
•
7.6
1973
625
97
528
100/540
12.9
1974
1,644
327
1,317
100/403
8.7
Table #2 Cottontail and Pigmy Rabbits Population - Lincoln County
Year Rabbit/Mile
1967 1.27
1968 2.27
1969 1.2
1970 1.7
1971 2.1
1972 .37
1973 .58
■ 11-
2. Potential Carrying Capacity
All of the above mentioned species have sustained
much larger populations in the past than they do now.
In 1968, nearly 18,000 Gambel's Quail were harvested.
In 1969, 2.27 rabbits/mile were surveyed. In 1970,
over 9,000 doves were taken. (See Tables #4, 2, 5).
With improvement of food, water and protection of cover
in this habitat area, there seems to be no reason why
the area cannot support much more small game that it
presently does.
D. Other Wildlife
1. Present Numbers, Population Trends
Little data is available on numbers or trends of popu-
lations of furbearers or non-game species in the
Beaver Dam WHA. The productivity of furbearers and
birds of prey is dependent on the population trends of
prey species like deer, rodents, reptiles and insects.
The productivity of these prey species, in turn, is
dependent on precipitation and forage conditions. As
climatic and forage conditions fluctuate in the habi-
tat area (droughts are common), the population's of
furbearers and non-game species can be expected to rise
and fall.
There are several protected, rare or endangered species
present in the area. Peregrine falcons (classified
"endangered" by the Federal government) have been sighted
in the Clover Mountains. Prairie falcons, golden eagles
and other raptors (protected by the State) may also pass
through the area. Desert tortoises (classified "rare"
by the State) may be found in the very southern section
of the WHA. Finally the spotted bat (classified "en-
dangered" by the State) might possibly exist in the
Clover Mountain area. Cooperative research with
Nevada Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to determine distribution and
trend of these animals.
2. Potential Carrying Capacity
With improvements in forage and water availability and
protection of cover, potential for increasing the
populations of furbearers, songbirds, rodents and rep-
tiles is high. But more research is needed to determine
population trends and distribution of these species.
12-
IV. Wildlife Harvest
Tables 3-7 list the harvest statistics of the last eight years
for mule deer in Beaver Dam Management Area 24 and for other
major game species (Gambel's quail, mourning dove, cottontail
rabbits and mountain lions) in Lincoln County. Table 8 is a
summary of furbearers harvest in Lincoln County in 1973-4.
I-1
(— '
t— '
i—1
M
t—1
h- '
h-1
I—1
t— '
i— '
H- '
t— '
h<
VO
VO
vo
vO
vO
<X>
VO
vO
vO
vO
vO
vO
vO
fD
-vl
^J
^J
-^1
ON
On
o>
on
on
o>
ON
ON
Ov
pg
U>
N>
i—1
O
vo
00
•^J
on
Ln
4>
to
N3
M
rl
ro
vo
00
Ui
LO
ON
ON
u>
vyi
^j
ON
o
Ul
4>
o
ON
Ul
O
VO
o o o o o
ro
o o
I-1 U> W -p-
O I— ' O O i— ■ On vo
N> Ui O O
vo ON vO OJ O -P-
a
H
n
O
ON
ON
00
o
rr
■^J
i—1
(jO
n
to
Ln
ON
Ln
i— »
►-• fO hO OJ IO
O »vl LO O O
OOOOOOOOOOvOOU)4>|n>
I— ' U> U> Ln
OOOOOOOOONONJi-'i-'
I?
rt 0)
H
CO
cr
i—1
rt>
<-o
O
rt)
rt)
n
PC
to
<
rt)
en
rt
03
3
to
00
rt)
3
n>
3
rr
>
H
rt>
to
IO
4>
p" tO (-O (jj 4>
vOOOv_nU>ONON<_0-P-UlO-P*l— 'IjO
•PsOLn-P*OOiUl»-'tj0aNN50N|-i
to t— ■ I-1 tO N3
to -P- Ln O O v£>
c o
O rr
?r to
en t— ■
Ui Ln Co IO -P» |tO
O 4> LO O "^1
N3 I— ' I— ' h-» i-j (jO Ln -^J ON I— ' |LO
h-'4>ON^>00Ln|>O(J0i_iON00ON
rop»p,(sjp»p»p»Ln00Ovouj|.p»
ONvOLoi-'vOLnrooLoLoOOh-'
i-1 ro ro ro |Ln
oo4>oroaN.p«'.p»vo-Psroujm
o
to
rr
a>
o
a4
rr
to
p-
3
ft)
P-
Pi
p,
o
3
fD
rt>
>-{
0)
00
i-{
rt)
rr
e
ON
ro 4>- o u> ro ro ro
oo
ro
Table
4 Gambel's Quail
Harvest -
■ Lincoln County
Kill/
Total
Kill/
Hunter
Year
Harvest
Hunter
Days
Hunters
Days
1965
2,873
6.9
2.5
416
1,118
1966
4,004
8.2
2.6
484
1,540
1967
12,660
12.2
3.5
1,032
3,600
1968
17,979
13.9
3.8
1,287
4,641
1969
14,858
11.3
3.0
13,011
4,918
1970
6,270
6.3
2.2
990
2,760
1971
2,745
6.1
2.4
450
1,110
1972
1,792
2.9
1.3
598
1,285
1973
7,373
7.2
3.2
1,022
2,242
Table
5 Dove
Harvest -
■ Lincoln County
Total
Kill/
Kill/
Tot #
Tot #
Year
Harvest
Hunter
Hunter Days
Hunters
Days
1965
2,795
12.6
4.8
221
572
1966
2,189
11.0
3.0
198
726
1967
7,980
15.4
3.9
516
2,016
1968
1969
8,255
12.9
3.8
637
2,158
1970
9,495
14.0
4.8
675
1,980
1971
4,400
9.5
2.7
465
1,635
1972
7,293
13.3
3.3
545
2,197
1973
11,449
13.6
5.1
840
2,203
Table 6
Harvest
Cottontail and
Pigmy-
Rabbits
- Lincoln
County
Year
Total Kill
Kill/Hunter
Day
K/H
Hunters
L Days
1965
1,027
0.9
3.5
286
1,040
1966
14,096
1.3
5.6
264
11,022
1967
5,916
1.7
7.4
792
3,420
1968
6,201
1.7
7.4
832
3,653
1969
97,011
1.5
8.3
1,170
6,136
1970
6,945
1.6
6.7
1,035
4,185
1971
4,680
1.4
5.8
795
3,255
1972
3,128
1.1
4.2
737
2,661
1973
1,271
0.8
2.3
542
1,435
Table 7 Mountain Lion Harvest - Lincoln County
Year Total
1969 10
1970 11
1971 7
1972 10
1973
Table 8 Fur Harvest - Lincoln County, 1973-4
Gray Fox 207
Raccoon 2
Bobeat 134
Coyote 386
Badger 27
Striped Skunk 12
Spotted Skunk 9
Ring-tail cat 15
14-
V. Habitat Requirements
Table 9 is a summary of the habitat requirements of the major
wildlife species in the Beaver Dam Habitat Area.
en
CQ
-p
s
•H
CD
K
-P
cd
-P
•H
ON
0)
H
■3
EH
U
C ft
O -H
$3 d
M
a
<l>
1 '
h
d
a)
£
-p
cd
>
~~M/N
H -P -P
>> bD
DHOO.H
U cd CM >
43
CQ
CO
3
CD
^3 p CU
(D h CQ
c4
H
im
0)
-P
h
p 43 U O
u u a> u
P m fttH
cd
-p
CQ
CQ
CU
o
•H
•H
-P
■P
a
o
d
43
CQ
O
a
fl
CD -P -H <H
ft
o
a1 -p
P
CD
a
•H
bo-p a -h
u
CQ
M
CQ
^
(fl'H 3d
CQ
CU
CU
•
O
S3
UJ
MP 'T U
cd
o
a
K
Ch
•H
aj
-*rs
"2 X ?
CU
3 -O o •»
H
- CU S CQ
CU
-P
H
•JoSfl
-p
CQ
CQ
H
J-_ -H fH
•H
•H
-P
0)
0T f> H O
-P En H «h
CQ
P
43
O
h
CQ
O1 -P
CD
-P CU cd
cd
CQ
CQ
•H IQ g Vl
u
CU
•
C
43 CQ O
bD
a
ffi
•H
CD
60
cd
fn
o
pq
43 ^FL fn^
mo ^ la
p LT\ CU H
fc
CD
H
?H
CD
-P
CD
,Q CU
-P
•H
CQ
•H
CQ
-P
H
CU -H
CQ
d
43
O
P
S £
£>
a1 -p
CD
CO
f-i
CQ
CQ
•H CU
o
CU
•
53
43 CQ
CH
a
P3
•H
,£"^
CQ ITS
g 43 O^.
43 CO OJ OJ
M
CU d 1 H
bO Pi OJ i
2
CD
•H
cd 43 H ON
-P
CQ
?H
CQ ?-H
•H
-P
ft
CU CQ CQ
P"
CQ
O
Z
CQ
•n-P 43 CQ
O1 43
CD
CD
•-a -P fn g}
\.-H O M
CQ
Ji
CQ
ft
CU
O
c
CQ
Ph 43 <H bO
0
CH
•H
cd
£3 -P
cd cd
•H -P
Sh -H
ft^
•H 43
u
•H v£>
cd i
d -d"
a
CQ H
CQ d
cd d
M
o
CD
S3
CD
CQ
rH
CQ
d
cd
d
U
•H
bO <+h
CQ
C H
O cd
>> 3
S3 S3
bD <4H ft cd
ft
O
u
V
-p
O co
43
£g
O CQ
P.
bD
S3
•H
Sh
d
d
CQ
CQ
cd
Sh
bD
-p
cd
CD
43
o
CD
S3
CD
H
CU d
CQ d
S3 -H
O ^ 'H <h
CQ
CQ
cd
U
bO
t
$3
o
•H
-p
od
-p
CD
bD
CD
>
•\ CQ
CQ X
-P
CD O
bD CD
d CQ
CU S3
CO -H
o
CD
c
CD
-P CQ CQ O H
Cd 43 CQ CD d
<u S-i cd cq d
Xi O H S3 -H
o "w bD -h tp.
bD O
-p
H
cd
CQ
CQ
CQ
H
o
a
CQ
CD
•H
o
CO
CQ
H d
CQ
Sh CU
P
<D H
a
CU -H
o
d O
•H
o
g
CU O
CD
H d
.C
5 °
S
^> H
cd cd
CQ
•H
H
H -P H
-3- P P
^ cd
g
•H Sh CU
<u d o
OJ o V
O
cd Q 43
f> -H H
U -P CD
<H
a^i
O cd o
« S3 cd
cd o cd
J2 CU Sh
?H
CU
.a M
cu a
d H bD
-P
• tq
43 <
cd
a
s
o
^
ON
cd
a
CQ
cd
P
>>
CU H
H
t—
H
a '
cd
ON
•H
a j-
-p
H
cd
p — ^
•H
-d
CQ H
>
S3
CU
•H
?
CU
Sh
R
CQ
CQ
cd
■n
•» CO
•
Sh
CD
43
CQ ^
-3-
bD
CD
CQ
+^> CQ
-P
?
g
o d
cd
-d
CD H
H
CD
S3
H
CQ rH
LTN
Xi
O
d
S3 O
ON
CJ
ft 43
•H a
H
S3
O
CQ
H
CQ
CU
CQ
S
cd
d
•s CQ
u
CQ
CU
43
CQ X
•v
bD -P
CU
CQ
-P CQ
a
-P
O
>
g
o d
•H
cd
CU
"2
CU H
CNl
CD
CQ
S3
H
CQ rH
x:
$3
O
d
C O
•\
o
•H
ft 43
•h a
S3
on
on
t-
ON
S3
O
-P
cd
-P
CO
OJ
CO
ON
-P
u
cu
43
•H
CU
P
bD
>
cd
•H
G
ft
0}
(Q
O
fi
CU
P 1-3
0"-^-H
ft Ph !h
CU
t3
CU
CU
a
cu
•p
<u
P.
Ph
x
CO
X
cu
bD
aj
CO
•"3 -P -P
-^ CU 3
Ph bD O
CU
*>&
co a o
p cd o
H -H p
X P
CO
cu cd •>
bDftd
Ph
2
cd -h O
CO P -H
o
bO
P
•H -P
-p
Sh CO C
o
0 X! CU
p
T) -PH
C 3
0
CU o o
p
CU
HBO
cd
H
X P
rQ
cd P co
CO
cd
fn CU
-P
rH
•H g C
P
■H
CO B CU
cd
cd
CU 0 XI
H
>
t3 co ps
Ph
CO
•h ca
^
7} S
h
xi
~ cu
Ph
cd bO
co cd
•v
O CO
d
P
3
cu *>
X!
T3 CU
DQ
p co
0
Ph fn
-p
Ph
CU
P
CU
-P CO
CO X
CO CO
X X!
CO CO
co a3
cu
e e
a box
CU O fn
p co w cd cu X) x
o1 co o E -P cu -P
h 3 -P bO '
P P -h cd cd
cu tiO X co co
ca
-p
cd o
v cu
CJ co
P
o
%x
•H cd
Ph o
CO
CO
CO
p
cd
cd
cu
p
•H
-p CO
bU
X>
•H CU
•H
p CO
cd
X!
O1 CO
§
Ph
co cd
cd
0 P
Sh
ro
S bO
bD
fr
CO
P
co cd
P
P
CO cu
CU
cd
Cd Ph
X
cu
cu
a >?
CU +3
CO
o
-p
CO
P
O P
H
cd
•H
(U
- *Ef
O
•h cd
cd
-P
2,
CO
cd riq
>>
fcfc
2
CO
O1
CO
1 °
E?
^
P
i
CO
cd
C0 "H
s
cd
cu P
P
cu
h
P P
o
CO O
ro
o
0
bD
bD ft
CO
H
cd
cd 2
o cd
co
P
o
en
CO
CO
cd
<u
P
CO
-p CO
bO
-p
•H CU
o
p CO
cd
CU
a1 co
£
s
ca cd
cu P
P
•H
ottontails, m
jackrabbits g
bD
p
cd XI
cu cu co co
H ft co p
-P cd P
co >» P x cu co
•h <-\ bD P bD -P
xi X cu cu cd o
-p o s -p co cu cu
•H O -P P CO P
• M U -H p P -H
fH PlPPP-H ft
X
CO
gg
CU
-p
cd P
(U CO P
ft CO cu
cd X
Sh O
H MO
X CU -H
•H
cd
CO Xi -P
CO CO
a e
bOX
cu cu
^J o bD p bD co
co -p cu o S
P -P P -H O -
cu -H -H P P cu cd -h cd o1
ftroftP<X«iOPcoco
p
cd
cu
co X ft
CO CO
cd P S cu co
P P r-j bD -P
box X cd o
+? -p o co cu
H H -H P CO
cd cd P P P
CO CO Ph X «H
CU CO CO
P ca -p
P cd o
■H M CU
CO
o
o
p
cd
B
•H
ft
CO
■p
<u
•H
p
o
<U CQ^~-
H CJ X CO
H -H P -P
cd B P cd
e-=- e x
CO
CO CO
P - cu
cd co •* P
•H CU CO O
X H P >
•H -H O -H
XI +J -P P
ft ft ft p
cu cd cd
f-l P o
I
15-
VI. Wildlife Habitat Condition
A. Present Situation
1 . Mule Deer
a. Food
Mule deer habitat generally recognized as "summer
range" does not occur in the study area. Good
muledeer summer range is typically high eleva-
tion country with an abundance of lush herbaceous and
broadleaved forage.
McColm (1968) observed summer range in Nevada is
generally found above 7,500 feet in elevation. The
vast majority of Beaver Dam deer habitat is between
5,000 and 6,000 feet in elevation. The highest ele-
vations of the Beaver Dam (6,000 to 7,000 feet in
the Sawmill Range), are marginal as summer deer
range.
The situation, then, is one of muledeer inhabiting
a winter range area yearlong. The highest elevations
may, during exceptionally good moisture years, provide
summer range only of a marginal, inferior nature.
See Map #3.
Condition of muledeer forage in the Beaver Dam WHA
can be described on an allotment basis. (See Map
#4 for outline of allotments).
(1) Pennsylvania Allotment
Condition is good. Nearly all has been burned in
recent years. Much of the southern part is
chaparral, containing good quantities of cliff-
rose and serviceberry. Higher elevations, contain
adequate quanitites of Martin's ceanothus. Forbs
and grasses are largely lacking except in Sawmill
Canyon, where most deer and small animal use now
occurs.
(2) Cottonwood Allotment
North-central area in poor condition due to ex-
cessive cattle use. Cattle concentrate in this
I V
■16-
portion of the allotment. Bitterbrush, service-
berry, and snowberry are excessively hedged by
stock.
Northeastern portion in good condition due to
burn 10-20 years old and light stock use. South-
ern two-thirds unburned and in overall good con-
dition due to light stock use. Cottonwood Canyon
contains adequate quantities of serviceberry ,
Gambel's oak, and willow.
Herbaceous vegetation is generally inadequate in
amount, varying from a trace to 5 percent „
The Heaton-Lytle (474) and Henri (551) chainings
are in very poor condition. Composition is pre-
dominately sagebrush and young juniper-pinyon.
(3) Sheep Flat Allotment
The northern portion consists of numerous large
crested wheat seedings. These are mostly in good
condition.
Small chainings between Sheep and Fife Springs are
in horrible condition. Sagebrush and young
juniper-pinyon predominate. Bitterbrush and
cliffrose are not present.
Forage conditions are poor in general throughout
the central portion of the allotment, from Fife
Spring through Sheep Spring. Cattle use has been
excessive, resulting in elimination of palatable
browse, forb, and grass species.
The higher elevations of the Sawmill Range are
in good condition, though composition is only
fair. Forbs range from 2-4 percent and include
lupine, columbine, phlox and others. Serviceberry
and sagebrush are plentiful. Bitterbrush occurs
only in traces. Most browse is chaparral, including
oak, and manzanita. Ponderosa pine provides the
aspect. (See Photo #1). Grasses do not exceed
2-4 percent, and include Nevada bluegrass.
(4) Barclay Allotment
The southern slope is a huge burn or series of
burns. (See Photo #2). Winter forage conditions
-17-
are good. Bitterbrush and cliffrose is adequate
for increased muledeer use. Serviceberry , sage-
brush, rabbitbrush, shrubby buckwheat, and silk
tassel are abundant. Deer make significant use
of silk tassel during winter in this area. Low
quality shrubs are abundant, and include manzanita,
squawbush, and live oak.
Forb and grass composition is low, each varying
from trace to 2 percent of the composition.
The Simkins chaining (See Photo #3) completed
during 1970 vastly improved 3,500 acres. Elimi-
nation of much juniper pinyon woodland has made
tremendous release effect on bitterbrush, service-
berry, etc. Seeded crested wheat has relieved stock
pressure on browse and improved spring forage
conditions for muledeer. Forbs, including clover,
rangeland alfalfa, and small burnet will improve
summer forage conditions for wildlife.
The northern portion of the Barclay contains
the Beaver Dam chaining project. In 1956 - 1,200
acres were one-way chained and seeded to crested
wheat, intermediate wheat, western wheatgrass
and yellow clover.
Spring-summer forage conditions are good. A great
variety of grasses and forbs exists, totaling about
20 percent of the cover. Most browse is sagebrush
and rabbitbrush. Cliffrose is 3-5 percent of the
composition. Use is not excessive so quantity
must be sufficient, A greater variety of browse
species is desirable.
(5) Enterprise Allotment
The northern pasture is in good condition on a
yearlong basis. Between 1957-64 -3,760 acres
were sprayed or chained, and seeded to crested
wheat. A large crested wheat stand is circum-
scribed by a chained juniper-pinyon area which con-
tains a very good stand (15-20 percent) of desert
bitterbrush, sagebrush, grasses, and forbs.
The middle pasture is in poor condition. Juniper-
pinyon encroachment has reduced composition of
-18-
cliffrose, grasses and forbs. Cliffrose compo-
sition is fair, probably 5-10 percent over most
of the area. Excessive stock utilization has
left an inadequate quantity of browse for mule-
deer. Herbaceous vegetation is inadequate.
The southern pasture provides more than adequate
quantities of forage. The south Enterprise
chaining was completed in 1959. Eight hundred
acres were chained one way and aerial seeded
to crested wheat. Cliffrose and bitterbrush com-
position is about 20 percent, ad in combination
with other shrubs provides more than adequate
quantities of browse for muledeer. A good variety
of native perennial grasses and annual forbs total
about 20 percent of the cover, and are more than
adequate in quantity for spring- summer use.
The Staheli chaining completed in 1970 has greatly
improved forage on 3,000 acres. Bitterbrush,
fourwing saltbush, ephedra, clover, rangeland
alfalfa, and small burnet were included in a seed
mixture in addition to crested wheat, wildrye,
and smooth browse. Prior to chaining this area
was almost entirely unproductive forage.
(6) Haypress (Amaru) Allotment
Forage is inadequate in quantity and quality.
Existing cliffrose (trace to 10 percent) is
largely unavailable and unproductive. Cliffrose
reproduction is not present „ Decadent plants
produce little viable seed. Most of the allotment
is 9(4) Juos Pimo Artr with understory consisting
of nearly all sagebrush.
An experimental BLM 200 acre spraying project
greatly reduced sagebrush (50-60 percent), has
greatly increased herbaceous forage, and revitalized
decadent cliffrose plants by stimulating leader
growth from dormant lateral buds. These cliff-
rose plants were greatly improved in availability
and productivity with only 0„2 percent spray
mortality.
(7) Crossroads (Cannon)
Most of this allotment (about 90 percent) is in
poor condition due to heavy stock use. Vast stands
of nearly pure sagebrush cover most of the area.
Forage is inadequate for most types of wildlife.
19-
Good local stands of cliffrose occur in the north-
eastern and southwestern portions of the allotment,
The Kurt-Cannon and Cave Springs chainings provide
ample quantities of forage on about 1,300 acres
(about 10 percent of the allotment) „ A good
variety of perennial grasses (12-20 percent)
is available. Forbs are conspicuously absent,
Bitterbrush and cliffrose are ample in quantity
(10-14 percent). Other highly palatable browse
species are absent,,
(8) Oakwells Allotment
Most of this allotment contains good stands of
cliffrose and bitterbrush (5-15 percent), though
it is badly overbrowsed, primarily by cattle.
Exceptions are the extreme northwestern and north-
eastern corners of the allotment, which both con-
tain excellent cliffrose and bitterbrush stands
which are lightly utilized by stock.
Adequate forage is not available for muledeer over
most of the allotment area.
(9) Buckboard Spring Allotment
Most of the allotment provides inadequate forage
for muledeer with type consisting of dense
juniper-pinyon largely lacking in under story.
An area 600-800 acres in size north of Little Mtn.
and another 600 acres in the south-central portion
of the allotment both provide good forage for
. muledeer.
Cliffrose and bitterbrush stands comprise 15-30
percent of the cover. Other shrubs include sage-
brush, ephedra and horsebrush. Grasses (cheat-
grass, bluegrama, squirrel tail) comprise 2-4
percent of cover in the southern area, and 10-15
percent in the northern (Little Mtn.) area.
Forbs, including mallow and penstemon are only
trace in occurrence.
Stock use is very light. Shrubs form indicates
past heavy muledeer use has occurred. Muledeer
use this area primarily as winter range.
-20=
(10) Little Mtrio Allotment
Stock use has been very light in northern
half of allotment, where most muledeer winter
use occurs. Forage conditions are fair. Cliff-
rose comprises about 2-4 percent of cover, and
reproduction is present. Cliffrose displays
a muledeer-induced form indicating heavy use
in past years.
An exceptional browse area extends a few hundred
acres into this allotment from the Buckboard
Spring and Oak Wells allotments.
Browse quantity is adequate for present rate of
muledeer use. Increases in herd level would
necessitate production of additional forage.
(11) Sheep Spring Allotment
Overall condition fair. Clif frose-desert bitter-
brush composition good (5-15 percent) throughout
most of the allotment. Utilization by stock light
except Sheep Spring area, particularly 2 miles
north and 2-3 miles east, where utilization is
excessive.
Grasses and forbs inadequate though good local
stands (5-10 percent cover) of blue grama sod
can be found.
(12) Uvada Allotment
The west one-half is in good condition. Bitter-
brush and cliffrose composition is about 6-8 per-
cent. A variety of good perennial grass species
persist as about 6 percent of composition. Forbs,
consisting mostly of lupine and penstemon comprise
about 4 percent of the cover. Higher elevation
makes this a fairly productive area.
The Uvada chaining, 439 acres in size, contains
a dense stand of sagebrush. A variety of peren-
nial grasses (15 percent) plus about 7 percent
bitterbrush make it fairly good spring- summer
muledeer habitat.
21-
The Uvada seeding, 790 acres in size, harbors
a dense growth of crested wheat (86 percent cover)
plus a few (5 percent) forbs. Browse, except for
a small quantity of sagebrush (5 percent) is
non-existing. This area would be suited to
late winter-early spring muledeer use, though
quite poor for the summer- fall periods.
(13) Clover Creek - Mustang Flat
Forage surveys show sagebrush to be the dominant
vegetation in this allotment (composes over 407o
of the ground cover in most sections). Pinyon-
juniper stands make up to 30%. Rabbitbrush and
cliff rose are also present in small amounts.
There's a relatively good variety of grasses -
Hilaria, ricegrass, squirreltail, cheatgrass,
blue grama - composing 3-25% of the ground cover.
As in many parts of the area, forbs are very scarce,
These 22,600+ acres receive yearlong cattle use
and some winter deer use.
b. Water
Water resources are extremely limited in this semi-
arid region. During summer and fall months deer
seem to congregate in the vicinity of water. Live-
stock and wild horses also congregate near water.
Excessive grazing pressure depletes forage resources
within the livestock service area of waters. High
deer mortality, particularly among young-of-the-year,
may occur during this time„
Approximately 140,000 acres of the muledeer habitat is
situated within a one-mile radius of water. Approxi-
mately 73 percent (386,000) of the muledeer habitat
is greater than one mile from a known water source.
Normally, deer winter range snow conditions preclude
a need for free water „ The Beaver Dam area receives
very little rainfall, but normally snow is available
and utilized throughout late winter. During dry
springs succulent vegetation may be lacking.
Many of the known waters include livestock well facili-
ties which provide water on a temporary, seasonal basis,
plus small reservoirs (see photo #4) which are dependent
upon ample summer showers. Undiscovered waters doubt-
less occur, particularly in major drainages of the
Sawmill Range.
■22-
c. Cover
Cover as juniper-pinyon and chaparral is more than
adequate. Old chaining projects left no intake wood-
land stands, though one way chaining left adequate slash
for cover.
Recent chainings (1969-70) have left numerous wooded
sidehills, draws, and rocky areas.
d. Living Space
Space is not considered a limiting factor.
2. Small Game and Non-Game Habitat
a. Food
The best habitat for small and non-game animals is
located along Meadow Valley Wash and along Clover
Creek. (See Map #3). Gambel's quail, mourning
dove, chukar, waterfowl, songbirds, reptiles and
amphibians are concentrated in these areas. These
small animals utilize the seeds, fruits and/or vege-
tative parts of grasses, forbs, yucca, pine, cottonwood,
willow and oak as well as any cultivated plants like
alfalfa on private lands. The distribution of these
animals is limited to the areas primarily due to the
lack of grasses and forbs in the rest of the Beaver
Dam Unit.
Jackrabbits, cottontails, ground squirrels, chipmunks,
mice, rats, and some reptiles are widespread through-
out the unit. For these animals, the seeds, fruits
and vegetative parts of sagebrush, prickly pear, bitter-
brush, pinyon pine, Gambel's oak, yucca, and the light
scattering of grasses provide sufficient forage.
Birds of prey and furbearers are widespread and rely
on populations of small animals as a food source, and
thus are indirectly affected by forage conditions.
b. Water
During dry summer months, water becomes a limiting
factor for many species of small wildlife. These
animals are generally restricted to natural water
sources (Beaver Dam, Clover, Cottonwood, Pine & Ash
23-
Creeks, Meadow Valley Wash, and existing springs).
The livestock water facilities usually provide water
on only a temporary, seasonal basis or are not a-
vailable to small animals because the water is stored
in steep-sided troughs.
c. Cover
Cover is vital to small animals as protection against
predators and harsh weather (heat, cold, wind, rain and
snow), and as resting and breeding areas. In desert
areas, cover in the vicinity of permanent sources is
particularly important. In the Beaver Dam WHA, sage-
brush, greasewood, Cottonwood, willow and rabbitbrush
along the Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek provide
good cover for quail, chukar, songbirds, rabbits, rodents
and reptiles.
d. Living Space
Space is not a limiting factor for small wildlife
species in the Beaver Dam WHA.
B. Potential for Habitat Improvement
In summary, the main problems shared by big game, small game
and non-game wildlife are 1) lack of palatable browse, forbs
and grass due to pinyon/juniper encroachment and wildlife/
cattle/horse competition and 2) poor distribution and avail-
ability of permanent water supplies.
There are two ways of solving forage inadequacies: habitat
management and/or development combined with proper livestock
and wild horse management. Theoretically, horse/cow and deer
preferences are diametrically opposed, 80% grass and 80%
browse, respectively. But when grass is scarce as it is in
this WHA, cows and horses will compete with deer and other
wildlife for browse and forbs. Several measures should be
taken to improve forage for horses, cattle and wildlife in
the Beaver Dam area.
1) Areas of heavy pinyon/juniper encroachment should be
chained, plowed or prescribed burned. Specific locations
should be identified in the Habitat Management Plan for
the Beaver Dam area. These areas should be reseeded with
a variety of grass, browse and forbs that would benefit
horses, cattle, and wildlife.
2) On range seeding projects for livestock, less emphasis
should be placed on crested wheatgrass and more thought
given to planting a variety of grass, browse and forbs.
24-
3) Wildlife and wild horse activities should cooperate
on a wild horse and burro plan for the area to determine
the extent of competition and methods of solving forage
and water problems.
4) Wildlife and range activities should cooperate on efforts
to complete Allotment Management Plans for those areas
not using a rest-rotation grazing system and to revise
old AMPs that didn't contain multiple use considerations.
Sufficient numbers of AUM's should be determined and
reserved for wildlife in these plans. This is especially
important in AMP's for areas containing crucial muledeer
habitat (Oak Wells, Enterprise, etc.).
5) More research is needed to determine the rate of pinyon/
juniper encroachment, forage requirements of non-game species,
utilization of key browse species, horse/deer competition
and other factor that would have a bearing on future habitat
rehabilitation projects. Specific studies should be re-
commended in the HMP.
Water deficiencies can also be rectified in the Beaver
Dam WHA. New water catchment devices should be installed
for both deer and small wildlife species in the Ella
Mountain and Sawmill Range areas and in the Enterprise
Allotment. There are several natural water sources - springs ■
that can be developed for wildlife. Also there are several
livestock watering areas which can be made accessible to
small animals with the addition of sumps or bird ladders.
Specific sites for these types of water developments should
be identified in the HMPC
-25-
VI. Other Problems and Possible Solutions
Cover in the form of pinyon and juniper trees is more than suf-
ficient throughout the WHA for deer and mountain lions. But
cover for Gambel's quail, rabbits, doves, and other small animals
near waters is not so prevalent.
Brushy thickets occurring in drainages and large cottonwood and
willow trees along the Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek should
be protected and enhanced, if possible.
Protected species in the Beaver Dam WHA may have particular habi-
tat-related problems but because of the lack of research on spotted
bats, falcons, and other raptors and desert tortoises it is dif-
ficult to identify crucial habitat, habitat problems and solutions.
The HMP can identify studies and research needed in these areas.
Many of the non-habitat related problems of endangered species
(shooting, harassment, capture, etc) are due to public ignorance
of the plight of these species. Improved public relations efforts
(HMP should suggest methods and measures like brochures, slide
talks, etc.) can do much to educate the public and relieve human
pressures on threatened, rare endangered species.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
N5-WHA-T24
BEAVER DAM WILDLIFE HABITAT AREA
1975
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District Office
Las Vegas, Nevada
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
N5-WHA-T24
BEAVER DAM WILDLIFE HABITAT AREA
1975
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas District Office
Las Vegas, Nevada
REVISED BY:
Denise P. Meridith
District Wildlife Specialist
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas, Nevada
Lynn F. Williams, Phillip V. Range
Area Managers
Bureau of Land Management
Las Vegas, Nevada
IN COOPERATION WITH:
CONCURRED BY:
APPROVED BY:
^k^-
~7 D/te
Norm Raymond
Fish & Game Agent
Nevada Dept. of Fish and Game
CHECKLIST FOR PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLANS (HMP's)
Name of HMP and WHA Number
NS-wHA- TT-1
Resource Area
C<*UwIl
Assigned To
«lynn Williams
Date
Initials
1. NSO 6521 completed.
2. Preliminary meeting (s) with Nevada Depart-
ment of Fish and Game (or other appropriate
cooperators) to discuss tentative HMP and
wildlife objectives.
3. Prepare draft HMP.
4. Prepare EAR on draft HMP.
5. If necessary, prepare second HMP draft
based on adopted recommendations.
6. Review of draft by District Specialists.
Range
Wild Horses
Lands
Minerals
Watershed
Forestry
Recreation
Area Manager
7. Review of draft by District Wildlife
Specialist.
8. Review of draft by Chief, Resource Mgmt .
9. Final review (when appropriate) by:
State Office
Service Center
Other
10. Review of final draft with NDF&G for
agency concurrence and signature.
11. Approval of District Manager.
Vt >
\»[l4
DPM
6 7
//A/7/-
IL/SLZX
li/€/7i
»JS/? +
jp^
/e/^rAr
^<j
lofazhtj
Df»1
yfetf-?*
^^
^nhs
///f?M
INVENTORY
WILDLIFE HABITAT PROJECT AND /OR HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Form NSO 6521
Rev. (February 1972)
^(NDF&G-BLM Coop. Fono)
District: L<xS Ve^aS aT-OS'O
Prepared by: Dentin P. Mgrijift Lyi\,\ lAJ./lfqn^ Nor* RyaJ
Reviewed by: /5p^JUt ft Jh±^JL.JL ^/t>/?Y
Name
BLM District Wildlife Specialist
NDF&G District Representative
INVENTORY
WILDLIFE HABITAT PROJECT AND/OR HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN .
of Project or Plan Beaver Dam Habitat Management Plan
Date
Date
^Location of Project or Plan . r.ai-ipn+o Planning Tin-it.
Species Benefited Mule deer, Gambel's quail, mourning dove, cottontail
rabbjt.s, mountain lionr rantors
\~
Description of Job or Project tc rcvioc HMP first completed in 1/'71-
in ~~*~~ + „ in-VH? new data & suggestions & to comply with NSO comments
Justification and Priority Area contains r»i»nri_a1 hi g ^ame hahi tat — which in in
poor and worsening noncj-it.;jnn .
» Cost and Manpower Estimates
$3000 and 2 man-months needed to revise plan
Mpvaria TVpt - r>f TTi-gn A- flamp poT^nnnnl will assist, in thff rPVI SI rffl
Cooperative Funding (if any) NDF&G will pav their own salary costs.
Approved :
-7
^x^^^g
Supervisor, NDF&G Date
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
II. Management Plan Objectives 2
III. Management Methods 3
A. Livestock Grazing 3
B. Utilization of Wildlife 4
C. Timber Management 4
D. Habitat Development and/or Improvement 5
1. Water Developments 5
2. Forage Developments 6
E. Access Development or Improvement 8
F. Land Aquisition, Classification and Withdrawal 8
G. Fire 9
H. Wild Horse Management 9
IV. Management Evaluation 10
V. Provision for Review and Modification 11
VI. Implementation Schedule 12
References
Appendix
Map No. 1
B.L.M. ADMINISTRATION
NEVADA
WHA-T24
BEAVER
DAM
lUiixjftaasa
e
$)
-1-
Introduction
The Beaver Dam Wildlife Habitat Area (N5-WHA-T24) is located in
Lincoln County, Nevada and includes 62% of the Nevada Department
of Fish and Game Management Unit No, 24 (see maps #1 and #2),
National resource lands total about 616,000 acres, private lands
about 17,000 acres and the Beaver Dam State Park covers 2,000
acres,
A wide variety of wildlife resides in the area: over 300 species
of birds, over 50 of mammals, over 15 of reptiles and amphibians,
and several species of fish„ Two inventories and habitat manage-
ment plans should be completed for the area. At a later date,
an inventory and HMP will be completed for the aquatic habitat
in this WHA (Beaver Dam, Clover, Cottonwood, Pine and Ash Creeks),
This inventory and its accompanying HMP deal with terrestrial
wildlife habitat. It is an update of the inventory completed by
Lewis Myers in 1971. The inventory includes a general description
of the WHA, wildlife population conditions, harvest and habitat
requirements and a discussion of the present condition of wild-
life habitat, management problems and possible solutions,,
I,...., ■ f
jo 7 Cliff
^^ -Li J
616,000 acres - national resource
lands
17,000 acres - private lands
2,000 acres - Beaver Dam State Park
-2-
II. Management Plan Objectives
The overall goal of this HMP is to document ways of increasing
the carrying capacity of the terrestrial habitat in the region
for the widest variety of wildlife species. Specifically the
objectives are:
1. To make more permanent water sources available to wild-
life by constructing water catchment devices in the Ella Mt.
and Sawmill Range areas and the Enterprise Allotment.
2. To improve the availability of already existing waters
to wildlife by developing springs, installing bird ladders
in livestock waters, etc.
3. To employ habitat treatment methods on about 25,000 acres
to (a) increase the composition of palatable forbs from the
present trace to 5-10% and (b) increase bitterbrush-cliff-
rose composition, reproduction and availability on Barclay,
Enterprise, Sheep Flat, Cottonwood, Oak Wells and Sheep
Spring Allotments.
4. To maintain or improve riparian habitat for small animals
along the Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek and near other
water sources.
5. To increase the edge effect by leaving islands of cover
for wildlife during chaining, plowing or burning vegetative
type conversions in heavily wooded areas.
6. To assist the range activity in the development of Allot-
ment Management Plans and other means of grazing manage-
ment on areas containing crucial wildlife habitat by providing
basic data on the habitat requirements of wildlife.
7. To initiate studies that will identify habitat condition
and trend of crucial areas for endangered and other non-game
species, areas of heavy competition among cattle, horses and
wildlife, and gather other information which will aid in
the management of this area.
■3-
III. Management Methods
A. Livestock Grazing
Proper livestock management is very important in this area
because it directly affects the condition and trend of vege-
tation needed by wildlife. When grasses are depleted,
cattle will compete with mule deer and other wildlife for
use of palatable browse and forbs. When cattle and deer
are not properly managed, they can be a detriment to their
habitat and, thus to each other. But when properly managed,
the range can actually be improved and the two species can
complement each other.
Parts or all of 27 livestock allotments under Section 3
permit are included within this Wildlife Habitat Area.
Many of these contain crucial wildlife habitat. It is recom-
mended that wildlife and range activities give high priority
to cooperation on the development of the following Allot-
ment Management Plans:
Enterprise (crucial deer yearlong habitat)
Clover Creek (crucial deer yearlong habitat and important
small and non-game habitat)
Oak Wells (crucial deer winter habitat)
Little Mountain (crucial, deer winter)
Pennsylvania, Sheep Flat, Cottonwood and Mustang Flat
(crucial deer yearlong and important small and
non-game habitat)
The two activities should also cooperate on revision of the
Barclay Summer AMP (crucial deer winter habitat) to give more
consideration to multiple-use of the area.
There are certain considerations that should be taken into
account during the developments of these plans.
First of all, less emphasis should be given to the planting
of crested wheat grass (which has limited value to wildlife)
and more emphasis given to utilizing a variety of palatable
browse, forbs and grasses.
Allotments shown on Table 1 should be reexamined to identify any
needed changes in animal unit months (AUM's) allotted to deer.
Table 1 shows deer demands for optimal deer density.
g
CI
co S
h3
a
to
Cd
3=
W 5C
^
CO
CO
r1
O
O CO
o
M
cd
cd
W
Cd
Cd
h- 1
Cu C
0)
<
03
3
ft)
CO 03
ft)
3*
J
H-
»-|
o rr
Cu
3
0)
CD
03
03
Pi
o
£ en
3
0>
cr
o
3
T3 V$
3
ft)
ft)
rr
O
rt ft)
K"
rr
H
r(
l-l
l-l
r-i
<
g rr
03
D.
cr
?r
►1
h-"3
3
ft)
ft)
rt
CO
rt ft>
IB
o
o
o
o
O
CD
p. JU
O
0)
H-
cr
H-
H> H
CO
T3
T)
i—1
CO
O T3
s:
M
h- '
I—1
t— ■
t— '
H
r|
t- 3
0>
rt
o
re
3 m
vj
rt
►1
3
a
TJ
03
p)
03
03
to
(-■ (JQ
03
1 0)
t— '
►^
►*J
o
53 co
r-1
11
«<
«<
^
><
*<
n
O
co
•-4
f co
<
h- ■
1— '
2
03
O T3
I—1
K-
H
03
T3
CL
<<
03
03
03
rr
CL
O «
en
en
s:
03
CO
CO
CO
a
ft
•-J
rt
3
rt
rt
•
CO
CL h*
rt
(-••
c
c
c
C
n
rt
H-
M
h*
3
3
a
B
H
3
x
i-1
ft)
3
(JQ
n>
03
tw
rt
ft)
1
IB
ft)
>-l
ft)
1
rt
ft)
3
3
CO
2
3
CO
Ln
o>
ON
3 co
rr
3
o
03
O
o
O
rt
O
o
w
V
»
o o
rr
3
CO
i-l
*
c
en
i-l
c
o
o
o
1 c
)-(
o
rt
rt
rt
rt
rt
rr
rt
rt
o
o
o
rt rt
rt
III I
1 3"
ar
3d
en
3
3-
o
o
O 1 1
i 3" rr
rt
I 1 1 O 1
i rt>
CO
i— ■
CO
co
—
—
- 1 1
i
3
03
o
r- '
O
h- •
1— ■
O co
ft>
CO
3
O
T)
o
o
+
1
+
3 ^
i
rt
n>
"3
rt
x>
xs
ft) O
S
ID
i
ft)
ft)
ft)
I X)
03
i-l
Hi
rr ft>
r-1
3
o
03
t-h
O
3
ft)
I
r-h
rt
3*
h-1
O
C
i-(
rt
:r
vC
-vl
•
00
W I- 'I— ' I — ' I — ' U) I— 'l— ' NJ O^roLnUHIOCnUWUW^vj (-"NJ
HONOMHCOOO^OMjMXlOOOCOHMNj^vHOHVOCOrO
HOMjJONHH^UirOfO^O^OlOOO^UU^UUOfOOCO
OiLnLnLnl^ijiUULnUiiJiCnCnLnCnuiCnLnlncnLnLnHUiH
O O
\j\
o
UHnHiouroHW
OOUUiCOHOOUWN)
OOCO^JCTiNJWCTN-P^^J^^Cyi-J
^OWUNJffi^OlC^vOONHvO
-P* ro
Ln 00
UHUHHUOHU)Nt-'OOONOHO)^HO\NOUlOU
KiKjKiSKlSSSSKlSCOCOSISISISCOKjKjKlSISKjCOK;
r-Jr-'t-' + r-'+ + + + h-'+C 3 + + + + 3 r-'l-'l-'-r + l-'C I-1
HHHOM-,0\^C>CM-]^CT)C^OVffiO)CM^I-'l-,Hff)CT)HffiH
N N) M N) NJ NlhOhO N>N>
00
N3
•P^ I — 'I — ' NJ N) H HHOlH^WHMUlNUlUlUlUO
UiUiOOviLnMLOMvOUOOOW^WHOOMUiOOUiCftsl
vOvlUOOUvOCOOOU^UiOCOCBUO\^
M M H
LO -^J ^J
VOvO^^vJ^CDOH
n:
rt
NJ
S co
o ft)
3 03
co
rr o
co 3
> a
i ft>
- H
CO
cd
cd
0Q
O
0)
3
ft)
O
ft)
ft)
1
o
ft)
3
03
3
C3-
■4-
The goal would be to maintain habitat suitable for sus-
taining 4000-4700 mule deer (5 deer/square mile) in the
WHA (minimum of 8,000 AUMs) under average climatic condi-
tions.
When livestock fencing is proposed in AMPs, consideration should
be given to deer movements. The Caliente Management Frame-
work Plan recommends that fencing should not be less 42"
in order not to interfere with deer migrations.
Original spring sources should be fenced to protect the
original supply of water, to protect riparian vegetation
and guarantee wildlife access on a yearlong basis - water
can be piped to livestock.
Finally, in AMPs the need for modification of livestock
water sources should be identified. Many steep-sides
troughs do not allow small animals (birds, furbearers, squir-
rels, reptiles, etc.) access to the water. It is recom-
mended that bird ladders or ramps be installed in all troughs
which do not provide such access. Also, livestock waters
should be made available to wildlife yearlong, even during
periods of non-use by cattle.
B. Utilization of Wildlife
The annual harvests of mule deer^ bucks, mountain lions,
Gambel's quail, mourning doves, furbearers, waterfowl and
rabbits do not seem to be having an adverse effect on these
populations. These populations appear capable of sustaining
light to moderate hunting pressure during short seasons like
the ones being held this year.
Chukar and crested tinamou releases have not been success-
ful enough to merit open seasons in Lincoln County.
Harvests in the past have been much higher (see harvest
figures in the Intensive Inventory and Analysis). It is
probable that with habitat improvements and the resulting
increases in game populations, the quality of hunting in
the Beaver Dam Area will be improved.
C. Timber Management
In untreated pinyon- juniper woodlands, harvests of Christmas
trees and posts should continue to be encouraged. Removal
of these trees (especially through clear-cutting of small
areas several acres in size) will help thin dense stands and
thus improve the edge effect desirable to most species of
wildlife. This will also decrease vegetative competition
-5-
and result in the production of more species of plants
which are palatable to wildlife.
D. Habitat Development and/or Improvement
1. Water Developments
About 70 percent of deer habitat is more than one mile
from known water sources. The two methods of increas-
ing water availability for deer as well as other wild-
life are (a) through construction of new water catch-
ments and (b) through spring development.
Table II gives a list of potential sites for water catch-
ments. These water- storing devices are needed to main-
tain or increase 27 square miles summer habitat (also
see Map #3 for locations) . Guzzlers should be placed
so as to be as inconspicuous as possible. Shiny metal
parts should be painted a dull, flat color. Livestock
should be excluded from these guzzlers by construction
of a fence. Design for the guzzlers is included in
Appendix No. 1.
Spring locations, utilization and needs for development
are shown in Table III. Efforts should be made to assess
the development needs of those springs which have not
yet been visited. See Appendix No. 2 for suggested
type of bird ramp. The following springs should be given
top priority for development:
a. Garden Spring (see photos #1 and #2)
Spring source needs fence protection. Install bird
ladder in trough.
b. East Setting Spring
Fence spring source. Install spring box, pipeline,
trough and bird ladder.
c. Quaking Aspen Spring (see photos #3 and #4)
Fence spring source providing water for wildlife at
the source while piping water \ mile north to campers,
TABLE 2
Locations of Recommended Water Catchments to be
Constructed for Wildlife
Number
Location
Priority
T.3S.
T.3S.
T.3S.
T.4S.
T.4S.
T.4S.
T.5S.
T.5S.
T.5S.
T.5S.
T.5S.
T.5S.
T.5S.
T.5S.
T.6S.
T.6S.
T.6S.
T.6S.
T.6S.
T.6S.
T.6S.
T.6S.
R.71E.
R.70E.
R.70E.
R.71E.
R.71E.
R.70E.
R.71E.
R.71E.
R.70E.
R.70E.
R.70E.
R.69E.
R.67E.
R.67E.
R.71E.
R.70E.
R.70E.
R.69E.
R.69E.
R.68E.
R.68E.
R.67E.
SW£ Sec.
NE^ Sec.
SE^ Sec.
Sec. 17
SW^; Sec.
SE^ Sec.
SW% Sec.
SW^; Sec.
SE% Sec.
Sec. 34
SW£ Sec.
NE% Sec.
SE% Sec.
SW^ Sec.
SW^ Sec.
SE% Sec.
SW^NW% S
NW^ Sec.
NW% Sec.
NE% Sec.
NW% Sec.
SW% Sec.
29
36
27
19
23
31
30
26
13
34
20
28
6
12
ec.
19
20
9
6
2
15
13
14
15
6
7
8
1*
2*
3
4
11
12
21
22
5
10
9
16
17
18
19
20
* Installed in FY '75
d. Topah Spring
Two water sources about 600' apart. Repair old
fences. Install new spring boxes. Pipe upper
spring to lower spring box. Install new 400-500
gallon trough with expanded metal bird ramp.
e. Unnamed Spring
Fence spring source. Install new spring box. Pipe
water 100 feet or less and install 400-500 gallon
trough with expanded metal bird ramp,
f . Bunker Spring
Install spring box. Pipe water 25 feet to 400-500
gallon trough with bird ramp.
g. *Sheep Spring (see Photo #5)
Fence source. Install spring box, pipe and 400-500
gallon trough with bird rampD
h. Ella Spring
Remove old mustang trap to permit better use by
deer.
i. Lime Mt. Well (see photo #6)
Clean out trough. Add bird ramps.
j . Pine Canyon Stock Tank
Circular (50' diameter) steel trough needs bird ramps.
2. Forage Development
Pinyon/ juniper encroachment is one of the most important
limiting factors for wildlife in the Beaver Dam WHA. These
trees crowd out the browse, forbs and grass needed as
forage for wildlife. Six areas (totaling about 26,000
areas) have been outlined on Map #3 as wildlife habitat
needing rehabilitation to improve deer forage:
a. Ella Spring (7,700 acres)
Severely degraded, potential deer summer habitat.
*Private land - easement needed before development.
Photo #1 - Garden Sprin
pi. j.iiS
Photo #5 - Sheep Spring
tot© #6 «• Lime Mt.
c c c c
C C C O O V c
3 3 3 Z Z >- 9
c c c
C
a
c c c
www
J*
to >»
>> CO «3
J4
41 41 41
c
V U
O M 0) V o
o c
9DD
>N >% >S
3
^TJ
C TJ >s ►» C
C 5
en
1-1
o
41
en
w
to
o
I
to
w
aS
06
*
OS
W
S
PQ
CO
s
at
A
tj
CO
H
TJ
•^
U
JO
i-i
00
J3
c
00
O (Q CO
» (0 (0
CO
CO
CO
C
» -o -o
"O TJ "O
TJ
tj
TJ
o
K H
b M h
U
>-■
U
(0
•> i-l -H
t4rl<f<
•H
■r*
•H
a>
H J J3
j3J3.fi
J3
J3
J3
■
>
•rl 00 00
00 00 00
00
00
00
41
o
to c c
3 O O
c c c
c
c
c
>
tj
o o o
o
o
o
O
c
c
cr to co
c
c c
§
CO to CO
g
CO
e
CO
CO
TJ C
"
3
3
3
^ 3
3
3
1— 1
o
o
* * *
O
o o
o
fk « «
O
»
o
•s
n
■ o
1-1
c
c
h h h
c
e c
c
J-i I-i J-.
c
u
•
u
•
c
u
u
»-l C
to
J*
M
0) 0) <u
J*
J* J*
J*
41 41 tl
J*
4)
<
41
<
M
41
41
41 J*
3
c
c
V tl HI
c
c c
c
41 41 41
c
41
•
41
•
C
4)
41
41 C
O
3
S3
"O "O T3
3
3 3
3
T) TJ TJ
3
TJ
Z
tj
Z
3
TJ
TJ
TJ 3
^
W
C
00
•H
CO
00 c
o
H
C -W
00
>
00
i-i H
c
h
Jx!
00
c
t-i a
00
•
1-1
41
(J
c
•H
i—l
a to
c
CO
J-I
CO
O
T-l
i—i
fc
i— 1
•
to
•H
00
41
a
41
«J
J-I
1—1
a
4> 00
CO
oo
c
u
c
as
to
oo as
to
a
41
to
^ c
cu
C 00
00 41 00
a
•H
c
to
2
1-1
ai
OO-H c
c a c
to
U
CO
CO
•H C
c
•u
a oo u
E c a
C U -H
•H CO i-l
a oo
BO
CO
oc
1- o
o •
•
•
C
4J
•H D- V-
-J < u
41
to c
CO
CO
c
a >^
>> CO
c
C
41
co i-i to
CO
v< to o-
*■» a
c
i-i
PU
Cw
1-1
to c
C 41
•U
U
H
O w
f-i
a to
41 00 to
•1-1
TJ U
J-I
CO
co as
£
£
a c
tn 473 a;
tu
to c
to c
>
ai a.
41
41
a
J- CJ
CJ
41
41 S>s
1-1 J=
41
E to
1—1
i—l
C72
w
CM
41
41
•u
•o
41
<U J3 CO
JJ j* CO
a
co
TJ
TJ
j^ j>i
41 U->
e
e
•H
E X H
N
J U J
to co fi-
CO
C J=
TJ
TJ
TJ
C (J
C -H
i-i
•H
£
(0 O 4
O
CO 3 41
ts 3 O
u
C n
•H
•H
3
3 CO
1-1 i-H
►J
J
CO CO o
o
^ as pq
uan
o
3 <
X
£
£
CQ »">
CJx u
c
o
1-1
■u
CN
o
m
41
to
«^ vfi
CN CT> vfi
O
O CM CN
i— i cn ^n
CN
00 ^H
en
N N 0>J O
•— I CN •— I CO
ON O
41
•
•
•
•
•
•
.
■
0£
W
w
U
W
w
W
U
W
W
C
•—I
o r
o> r
^
i— i
o r
~
on: :
r^
i— • r
o
CO
r^
r^
NO
r~
r^
NO
Nfi
r>~
r»
aS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
G
•w
as
as
aS
as
as
as
as
as
as
•>
#i
n
«
*
p«
tm
m
.
-C
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
c
00
oo r
oo r
"
r^
r>. r
E
r^ r r
r^
no r
NO
3
•
•
•
•
•
•
m
•
|
o
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
NO
to
NO
CO
tj
CU
CD
Z
*J
C
o
o
CO
o
TO
01
fl
O
cu
o
CO
•
•
CO
c
c
0)
CO
.X
.*
>N
>N
CO
fl
O CD
o
o
O
O
c
o
o
c
)-i
O
U
o
0
01
u
o
O
C ^
s
c
c
a
3
c
c
3
tj
c
TJ
c
c
>sTJ
c
c
•
CO
p
CO
0*
CO
u
CD
TJ
o
CO
TJ
M
o
3
n
•vt
^
•
u
u
a
» jD
«
a
CO
co a*
01
o>
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
TJ o»
CD
>
TJ CD
TJ
»
TJ
-a
TJ
u
TJ
U TJ
tj
o
w U
u
CO
U
U
U
CJ
u
ft
tj
fl O
ft
TJ
ft
t4
ft
o
fl
Xi •
•
v-l
X X
X
V-i
X
x
XI
X
60 CO
CO
c
*
0>
60 CO
60 ft
60
60
60
•»
60
C ct)
at
tH
V-i
S*
CO
V
CD
c
c
X
•u
C
c
C
CO
C
o o
u
o
cu
01
TJ
TJ
>
o •
o
3
o
o
o
TJ
o
CO u
u
X
CD
01
J-l
^
o
CO r-l
CO
CD
O
CO
to
CO
l-l
CO
o
o
60
TJ
tj
fl
ed
•
-a
CO
1-
u
•H
M
•H
X
CD
CO
M QJ
•K
o
4J
■k
■
a
X
«*
0) »
•k
43
•>
•N
60
4-1
a)
n
0) 4J
01
X
CD
CD
t-i
60
01
> CO
CO
CO
CO
c
CJ
to
>
>
CO
g
>
>
01
c
>
O TJ
tj
•
TJ
tj
o
•
CJ
TJ
o •
0
o
O
01
o
o
*o w
r-l
CO
w
u
CO
to
c
O
P
C
TJ CO
TJ
«*
X
TJ
-a
TJ
CO
TJ
ft
f-l
ct)
fl
fl
aj
»
tH
3
0)
i— t
C
• X
JO
u
X
X
«
u
o
•
X
O
■ o
•
CO
fl
•
■
P
•
t*
U 00
60
u
60
60
u
O
c
CU
60
c
•
u u
•
U
0)
CO
U
u
01
i-i
V c
c
o
C
c
01
o
^
>
c
-*
<
CD O
<
0)
4J
Ul
01
CD
CO
>
0)
CD O
o
o
o
01
c
o
o
c
•
01
•
0)
0)
CD
01
o
01
TJ CO
CO
CO
CO
TJ
»
tj
CO
3
2
TJ
z
TJ
TJ
X>
X
TJ
TJ
CO
w
OS
B
OS
w
PQ
CO
z
• 60
co c
CD fl
OS u
a
M CO
cu
tj a
t— I CD
3 CD
o x
PQ co
60
c
fl
Vi
a
CO
h
CO »-l
CU 01
^
OS 3
01
60
01
CO •
C
u
i— i i— i c
*
fl
o
60
-4 r-i (Q
. a*
60 U
c
CU f< o
CO cu
c a
^
fl
3 32
CD t-i
•H CO
u
u
.*
oS O
m
CO
a
>. 60 O
a. c
Cu
CO
CO C O
CU t-i
CO o
H-HOd
•— ( CD
CO
cu
^
O >-i
Xt >
TJ Wi
c
u
>4Ht
Wi o
3 «0
fl
o
co o cu
5^
S O
04
as
EQ OS OS
CO
cu
OS
X
u
00
c
fl
n
a
co
60
fl
OQ
I
cu
CU
u
U
u
01
>
o
r-H
CO
cu
OS
i— i
• 60 CO
.— i
a c cu
I— 1
CD
0» fl OS
«— I
3
CU u
cu
w at)
3
•H
co cu
i—l
cu B
c
CD
TJ a) co
3
X
«0 ^h C
o
aj
ki ^ c
Irf
•u
O W 3
PQ
CO
o
cu
CO
vD
CM CM
ON
i—i
CM
CM
««
00
1—1
1—1
CO
in
ao
«3
m
CO
CM
«tf
f-H
CO
CO
co
CO
^-1
CO
CM
CM
co <r o
CM CM CM
i-i m
^ co
cu
ex
c
CO
OS
I
a
•H
X
co
C
o
H
hi
u
w
w
H
W
a> z
00
r»
z.
f-H
-
O =
E
ON
vO
vO
vO
r^
r-^
vO
•
•
•
*
•
•
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
ft
•
•
K
m
«x
•
•
•
•
•
•
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
vo r
vO
SO
•
m
~
m r
S
m
W
W
w
00
Is* r
s
o
vO
vO
l»»
CO
m
co
in
os
CO
28
o
c
c c c c
X M M X
c c c c
3 3 3 3
c
3
c
w. C
T3 3
C C
3 3
w
a;
T-t
u
o»
CO
CO
U
« iH
09 X)
i-l O
60 CO
C U
O •> 3
CO 1-" O
CO U
•> a> 4J
CU 4-1
o • 5
CO C
* O «H
M O CO
v O h
w
Q
CO U
CU 0)
•u CU
•
CO •
cO co
u co
CJ u
O CJ
O
CO «
■O CO
U T3
•H U
£> CO
OOr-t
C -H
S g
<u c
> CO
s
c c c c
3 3 3 3
o o o o
c c c c
X X X M
C C C C
3 3 3 3
O
c
c
3
CU
•O
CO CO
-o -o
u u
JO x>
60 00
c c
o o
CO co
u u
CU O)
01 0»
o
• c
< X
• c
55 3
if
o o
c c
c c
3 3
w
>
3
CO
J
0)
CO
>
T3
CO
0>
X
i
v-
CJ
u
0>
>
o
<-*
c_>
60 60
C C
60
c
ex a
•H CO 03
U 60
a c x: x:
CO i-J CO CO
I* < <
a
co P W
CD 01
.* 3 a
to o a
O J 3
3
o
<o
01
OS
01
CO
1-1
a.
0)
■u
c
W
c
cu
a
3
a
60 60
C C
i-t i-l
I- u
a a
GO GO
a a
o» o>
cu cu
x: jc
CO CO
01
4J
CO
> ^
t-l 4-»
60 a to
C w >
CO
60 U
c a
to
o
X>
U
a
co
co
o» ^
3 iH tO
to £ O
cu
u
CO
>
60
c
60 U
c a
i-( co
u
a *j
CO i-l
X>
3 xi
O CO
a os
St
c
en
0
•r-t
•>
■U
00
CJ
CM
CV
CO
•>
r^
CM
00
<t m m i^.
H H (M M
o
en
r-> o\
oo st m
rH cm en
«tf st
cm en
cu
u
c
W
CO
00
OS
vO
&
OS
•H
X
•h
co
*
c
CO
3
St
o
•
H
H
u
vO
OS*
GO
St
w
W
H
w
I— 1
O r
ON =
~
CJN
r^
r^
sO
vO
CO
en
CO
en
co
en
co
CM
29
b. Oak Wells (9,200 acres)
Severely degraded, in potential deer summer habitat.
c. Bunker Pass (4,000 acres)
Badly degraded critical deer, summer habitat, but
with treatment good release of bitterbrush and
serviceberry can be attained.
d. Marble Reservoir (2,000 acres)
Seedings of extremely poor composition, in potential
deer summer habitat.
e. Sheep Spring (2,300 acres)
Seedings of very poor composition, potential deer
summer habitat.
f. Mahogany Knoll (700 acres)
Seeding of extremely poor composition, potential
deer summer habitat.
These areas should be chained, then reseeded with a com-
bination of the following plants:
Smooth brome ) higher elevations
Curl leaf mahogany)
Russian wildrye
Bluestem wheatgrass
Alfalfa
Chickpea milkvetch
Utah sweetvetch
Arrowleaf balsamroot
Small bur net
Fourwing saltbush
Antelope bitterbrush
Woods rose
True mountain mahogany
Habitat treatment should not aim towards complete
elimination of pinyon, juniper and sagebrush, especially
where stands of the palatable Artemesia tridentata
wyomingensis occur. Juniper, pinyon and sage brush are
important sources of energy and cover for deer during
the later winter-early spring period. These species also
provide some food and good cover for smaller animals.
I ZONA
-8-
Therefore 10-15 acres of each 100 acres to be treated
should remain undisturbed. These can usually be steep
slopes, rocky outcrops or fragile soil areas. Irregular
shaped chainings with interspersed area of cover will
increase aesthetic appeal, edge effect and value to
wildlife.
The public should be informed during the specific plan-
ning and implementation of these habitat rehabilitation
projects. There are many minconceptions and, as a result,
much public hostility towards chaining. News release
should be written describing the proposed chainings and
their benefits to wildlife.
E. Access Development or Improvement
Hunter access is generally adequate throughout most of the
WHA. Most of the roads in the Clover Mountains are well
signed.
F. Land Acquisition, Classification and Withdrawal
As stated in the introduction, 17,000 acres of the Beaver Dam
WHA is privately owned.
Those areas most important to wildlife include:
Sheep Spring - T.6S., R.69E., Sec. 28.
Rabbit Spring - T.2S., R.69E., Sec. 34.
Oak Wells - T.3S., R.69E., Sec. 35.
Miller Spring - T.3S., R.69E., Sec. 24.
Along Meadow Valley Wash -
T.2S., R.68E., Sees. 4-9, 17, 18-21, 30.
T.7S., R.67E., Sees. 7, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35.
T.8S., R.67E., Sees. 27, 34.
T.6S., R.66E., Sec. 2.
T.3S., R.67E., Sees. 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 21, 22,
28, 32, 33.
Along Clover Creek -
T4S., R.68E., Sees. 7, 21, 27, 28.
T.5S., R.69E., Sees. 2, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 37.
•9-
Consideration should be given to obtaining rights-of-way
or to obtaining these areas through exchanges when and if
these become the only ways of assuring hunter access and
habitat maintenance or development for wildlife.
At the moment, none of the crucial areas in the Beaver Dam
WHA (see Intensive Inventory for Crucial Areas) are being
recommended for classification or withdrawal. Future studies,
however, may reveal certain crucial non-game or endangered
species habitat that would require withdrawals for protection.
G. Fire
The Caliente Management Framework Plan recommended that the
small acreages (each 15-50 acres in size) of the south
slope of the Sawmill Range (area covers 65,000 acres) be
control burned (see Map #3 for the area involved) . This
area is too steep to chain. The prescribed burning of this
predominantly manzanita and oak covered area followed by
seeding (with some plants described under habitat improve-
ment) will increase composition of palatable forage and
improve the edge effect. Again a news release should de-
scribe the burning and its benefit to wildlife.
H. Wild Horse Management
As stated in the intensve inventory, horses are found through-
out the Beaver Dam WHA. They compete with deer on deer year-
long range and on crucial winter range in Little Mountain.
Horses in large numbers will put heavy pressure on deli-
cious sagebrush, bitterbrush, desert almond, Indian rice-
grass, needle-and-thread grass, fourwing saltbush and other
plants eaten by deer and other wildlife. Horses also compete
with livestock and wildlife for scarce supplies of water.
Jim Brunner, Range Conservationist, has written a sample Wild
Horse Management Plan for the Panaca Plateau (which includes
the northern part of the Beaver Dam WHA). The wildlife
and wild horse and burro activities should cooperate on in-
ventories like those outlined in the plan to determine
preferred forage for horses and conflicts with deer and live-
stock and to determine the number and whereabouts of excess
horses as well as methods of removing them.
IV. Management Evaluation
The following studies should be made to evaluate the effective
of this HMP.
1. Annual pellet counts to document changes in deer and
other wildlife use in areas where habitat improvements have
been added (refer to BLM manual 6630).
2. Cooperate with NDF&G on any capturing and tagging (and/or
radio transmitter) project to identify any shifts in seasonal
use as the result of habitat improvement.
3. Vegetation condition and trend studies should be accomplish-
ed on all crucial vegetative types. The 3-phase cooperative
exclosure plat constructed by the NDF&G and BLM will be
maintained. Photos should be taken periodically of crucial
areas, water sources, habitat manipulation projects, etc.
These studies should be carried out with the cooperation of BLM
range and NDF&G personnel.
V. Provision for Review and Modification
Due to the large size of the Beaver Dam WHA and the present lack
of knowledge about wildlife populations, this HMP should be
reviewed annually and modified as new information (particularly
about non-game species) becomes available.
The following studies and inventories should be conducted in
the Beaver Dam WHA:
1. Develop a study plot to determine the rate of pinyon/
juniper encroachment in the Beaver Dam Area. The large
number of young trees indicates that the landscape is changing,
pinyon and juniper trees are rapidly replacing browse, grasses,
and forbs. Aging all the trees in a small plot area will
give some indication of how fast the trees are invading.
This information may help in determining priorities for
habitat rehabilitation and modifying implementation sched-
ules.
2. Conduct an inventory of prairie and peregrine falcon,
golden eagle and other bird of prey nesting sites in the
Clover Mountains. These are protected birds and crucial
nesting areas must be identified so that their habitat
can be protected.
3. Conduct a study of the distribution and food habits of
the desert tortoise. This is also a protected species and
little is known about it here in Nevada. Again more infor-
mation is needed before its habitat can be properly managed
or developed.
4. Conduct an inventory to identify crucial mountain lion
habitat and habitat needs.
5. Cooperate with wild horse activity on horse studies like
those discussed under "H. Wild Horse Management".
6. Inventory springs listed in Table III and identify
development needs.
It is recommended that all of these studies be cooperative efforts
with the Nevada Department of Fish and Game and the University
of Nevada at Las Vegas. Technical assistance from the Denver
Service Center (particularly from the non-game specialist) would
also be helpful.
Some of the results of these inventories (especially information
about endangered species) should be included in pamphlets for
distribution to the public.
1Z-
VI. Implementation Schedule
Table IV is the proposed implementation schedule for the Beaver
Dam HMP. It involves the following:
Inventory and Analysis
This would include the inventory of the springs not yet sur-
veyed (see Table III). Using as a standard $1,500 per man
month, this one-half man month of work would cost about $750.
Studies and Research
This would include both the studies recommended under "Manage-
ment Evaluation" and those discussed under "Provision for Review
and Modification". About two man months and $3,000 would be
needed each year. Total cost is $15,000.
Habitat Treatment Planning
One man month would be needed each year to plan for habitat
treatment (chainings, burnings) proposed for each successive year.
Evaluation and Revision
One man month was needed to revise the HMP this year. One-half
man month will probably be necessary to modify the plan during the
program year when the spring inventory is completed and one- fourth
man month each successional year to add new information.
Public Affairs and Assistance
Time is scheduled for writing news releases, brochures, etc.
Environmental Analysis
One man month is needed to complete an environmental analysis
report on the Beaver Dam HMP habitat improvements. An additional
report may have to be completed on new proposals that result in
from the spring inventory in the program year.
Mechanical Revegetation
The total cost of chaining almost 26,000 acres (and reseeding
these areas with a variety of browse, grasses and forbs) at
about $40/acre is approximately $1,040,000. The chainings
should be accomplished in the following order: Ella Spring
(7,700 acres - Program year), Oak Wells (9,200 acres - Program
year + 1), Bunker Pass (4,000 acres - Program year + 2), Marble
Reservoir (2,000 acres - Program year + 3) and Sheep Spring
and Mahogany Knoll (3,000 acres - Program year + 4).
Revegetation, Burning
The Sawmill prescribed burning is shown under program year + 3.
It will cost about $975,000 to reseed 65,000 acres with a good
variety of browse, grasses and forbs.
Water Developments - Springs
Two spring developments have been scheduled each year at a cost
of $1,000 a piece. The total cost for spring developments should
be about $10,000. This schedule can and should be modified
after the spring inventory in the program year.
Water Developments - Catchments
Two guzzlers were constructed this current year. Four a year
are recommended over the next five years at a cost of about
$5,000 per guzzler and two man months per year. Total cost
is $110,000.
Maintenance - Water Developments
Time and money should be scheduled for maintenance of guzzlers
and spring developments. Total cost, as presently scheduled,
is $8,000 over the five year period.
-a
n>
1-1
3
Co
3
3
o
3
<~. Co
2 O
Co -4
H- 00
3
rr
n>
3
B)
3
o
ft)
s:
CU
rr
(D
i-l
O
fD
<
ft)
i—1
O
■d
3
fD
3
rf
£ N>
to 4>
rf ui
(I
i-(
O
fD
<
fD
1— »
o
o
3
ft)
3
rr
(A
i
o
to
rl
o
5"
3
ft)
3
rr
en
s: to
Co .p-
rr ro
ro
11
O
ft>
<
ft)
H- »
O
■o
3
ft)
3
rr
CO
1
0")
■a
H'
3
JO.
CO
pa o
ft) o
< Co
ro
JQ
fD
rr
Co
rr
H-
O
3
CO
c
1
3
p-
3
JO
-
po o
fD O
< ro
fD
JQ
fD
rr
111
rr
H-
O
3
fD
0
Co
3
r*
n
Co
7> oo
m oo
3 o
< o>
M-
11
o
3
3
ro
3
rr
CO
I—*
>
3
Co
r- '
■<
en
H-
en
^ co
►fl O
c o
a- i-"
H-
O
>
i-h
M>
0)
H-
1
CO
—
- i-
m .r>
< CO
CO vC
c
CO
rr
r*
O
3
Co
3
Q.
70
ro
<
en
H-
O
3
/-. to
X ro
Co -P-
er o
H"
rr
CO
rr
H
rl
fD
CO
rr
3
fD
3
rr
CO
3
D-
T)
CO
3
3
3
JO
^—. to
rr lo
C o
a.
H*
fD
to
Co
3
a.
po
ro
to
fD
Co
M
n
3"
i-i O
3 to
< Ul
fD
3
rr
O
CO
3
Pi
>
3
CO
t— '
^
(0
H-
CO
c
o
1-1
7?
I
c_
o
o-
o
o
o.
fD
CO
C
cr
CD
O
n
r*
<
r*
■<
H
to
00
Ul
C
H*
^^
D.
K<
Ml
fl
Ui
ui
Ul
O O
O O
O en
- rr
CO
n
c
I-I
M
ft
3
rr
H<
(I
CO
M
ro
1
i
1
-
1
-
1
G
3
H-
rr
CO
1— •
-
H-*
2
ui
*
N>
o
*
ro
*
I*)
o
00
>!-
Cn
U)
Ui
Ul
Ul
LO
Ul
o o
o o
O en
- rr
CO
—
□
CO
a
Mj
O
CO
M
ro
■P-
ro
i
0) ^j
o »
i -j
ro o
en O
t— *
-
t— »
-
G
3
rr
en
Ln
to
M
ro
Ui
ro
Ui
Ul
Ul
ro
Ul
2
2
*
ro
O
ro
CO
oo
i
Co
Ui
CO
^1
Ul
Ul
U)
o n
o o
O en
- rr
CO
1-1
0
H
Co
3
Kj
re
H
+
0^
-P-
ro
I
Co vD
n »
)-l ro
ro o
CO o
I
M
H
G
3
H'
rr
en
M
N)
H- »
ro
ro
Cn
ro
Ul
ro
2
2"
Ui
5{-
ro
O
ro
><•
ON
o
1
CO
Ui
CO
~o
Ul
Ul
I*)
o n
o o
O en
- rr
CO
hd
O
IK
»1
CC
3
rt
a
1
+
to
I—1
-P-
ro
1
Co .p-
0 •»
1 o
ro o
en o
I
i—1
ro
G
3
I-1-
rr
CO
ro
to
M
h-i
to
Ui
ro
Ui
Ul
ro
2
—
2
CO
*
ro
o
ro
■P-
Ui
oo
o
I
CO
Ul
CO
-J
Ul
Ui
IjJ
o o
o o
O en
- rr
en
i-(
O
Oc
11
CO
3
h<
ro
Co
1
+
oo
ro
O
■p-
ro
s§
01 o
Co ro
O »
i-t O
ro o
en O
M
to
G
3
H-
rr
en
to
ro
(-■
1— *
-
ro
Ui
ro
Ul
Ul
ro
2
2"
ro
O
ro
1
ro
o
i
CO
Ul
co
-J
Ul
LO
O
0 0
0 0
- en
en rr
T3
i-l
O
i-l
Co
3
<
n>
CD
rl
+
-0
ro
-P-
ro
'
to co
o »
i-l o
ro o
en o
(— '
G
3
r*
rr
en
to
ro
M
ro
Ul
ro
Ul
to
. .
2
2
2
w
t-1
4>
REFERENCES
Brunner, J„, 1974. Wild Horse Management Plan; Panaca Plateau.
Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Dasmann, W. , 1971. If Deer are to Survive. Stackpole Books.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 128 pp.
Deibert, 1968. Mule Deer Condition and Food Habits on Two Nevada
Range So MS Thesis. University of Nevada. Reno, Nevada.
Drewien, G., 1971. Food habits and Weight Relationships of Mourning
Doves in Northern Nevada. MS Thesis. University of Nevada,
Reno, Nevada.
Martin, Zim and Nelson, 1951. American Wildlife and Plants: A
Guide to Food Habits. Dover Publications, Inc. New York,
New York. 500 pp.
Myers, L. 1971. Intensive Inventory and Habitat Management Plan:
Beaver Dam. Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada 35 pp.
Stanton, F., 1973. Wildlife Guidelines for Range Fire Rehabilitation.
Bureau of Land Management (Denver Service Center), Denver,
Colorado. 48 pp.
»
Appendix }
*
->j // oJ. "J '•"!;>!
7 6'.J)
float s/Myc flS^WJy
¥>Asi*4tecUed)
"1
>'// ^.-nV/,','.0,
//' C
y-Wc
V
\
V
o^"
*0*
w-
/2
=H
\
Z3" — -
tJS
s-y
7^u4
1
"A"
W
; ±
^: g ..... . /
< r
Ir-?CC(
*# V-C^C V, ^ U. C k.C{ TlM! «■ '/; U - O - (^ *N * *- V ^^ «
VC kV-L.
U
»«»., SSUS*,
_j
-J".
* 0:
I
l;'i R.
r*
i >
>
T'
i s>
* I f f
^ iff >
ki:l> s.
• • i
: i iu to
■ I i a
' > IS
ir
n
6\
■ u ;
i > i'
C&
; 01 |
o I
D
>
7.
I G^
Z
m
! C
<
>
Lx
h
>
?.;nj
r-
|7-f
-n
~'r n
i/i
!
HI
r'*'
n
Q1
!i '
r
n
>
'£>
(?""
m
h
r>
,■
o
«>.-
■ '
5
2;
'T3
i >
7
!c.">
I
•'!■;
i:;
-i
u
!l-
i
iif; ^ ■* \
1 .. ■ ■ v. ■« *
1 A %A£M i
\VVv a> "
■ w \ > • ^ \ i. v-
c W\ V v>\ \t* V \
"= U>'.-1
J
T
i\
\
>
. • • •
MATERIAL LIST
Two ea. - 60d nails or larger
for hooks
Two ea. - 1/2" rebar 98" long
One ea. - 1/2" X 8" pipe over one
leg as a hinge. Photo 2
Type of screen as preferred
PHOTO I
O
■9
^v" % s
( —
PHOTO 2
Rebar is heated and bent at angles
STOCK WATER TANK BIRD LADDER
6620
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RECORD
for
Beaver Dam Habitat Management Plan
E.A.R. No. NV-050-6-114
Caliente Planning Unit
Las Vegas District
Las Vegas, Nevada
Prepared by: Denise P. Meridith
Environmental Specialist
February, 1976
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1791
(N-053)
To District Manager, Las Vegas Date:
From Area Manager, Caliente-Virgin Valley Resource Area
Subject : E.A.R. No. NV-050-6-114
This final environmental analysis report discusses the impacts of
implementing actions proposed in the Beaver Dam Habitat Management
Plan. The major actions discussed are:
1) Improving the availability of already existing waters to wildlife
by developing springs and constructing water catchments.
2) Employing habitat treatment methods (chaining or prescribed
burning) .
3) Initiating studies to identify habitat condition and trend of
crucial wildlife areas.
4) Assisting the range and wild horse/burro activities in development
of allotment management and horse and burro management plans.
Analysis of the proposed actions indicates that the Beaver Dam HMP
will have some temporary adverse impacts on the environment (creation
of dust or smoke, displeasing effects on aesthetics, temporary
displacement of wildlife, etc.). Most of the long-range impacts,
however, will be favorable for vegetation, wildlife, and human
resources.
A list of mitigating measures that were recommended in the E.A.R.
is attached.
None of the actions that affect livestock grazing in the Beaver Dam
area (chaining, prescribed burning, seeding) should be implemented
until a grazing environmental impact statement for the Caliente
Planning Unit (scheduled for FY 1978) is prepared. These are considered
significant and controversial actions.
Based on the information in this final E.A.R., it is determined that
all the other aspects of the proposed action do not constitute major
Federal actions significantly affecting the human environment.
Therefore, it is recommended that no impact statements be prepared
for these actions and that they be implemented as proposed.
This final E.A.R. complete with replies to comments on the draft
should be forwarded to the State Clearinghouse f/fr their information.
Date '
Phillip V//Range
Caliente-Virgin Valley
Resource Area Manager
I Concur:
y^/?t
Date
The following mitigating measures are recommenaea;
1. Minimize dust by chaining or burning when wind condi-
tions are right.
2. Watershed, wildlife, minerals, recreation and forestry
activities will cooperate to identify specific sites
for prescribed burnings and chainings. Consult with
State of Nevada Health Department (Air Pollution Divi-
sion) before development.
3. Mixing of concrete for water catchments and spring
developments should be done in contained facilities
to reduce the chance of soil pollution.
4. Leave piles of downed trees on the site to help reduce
runoff of soil and water and to improve cover for small
animals.
5. Restrict all heavy vehicles used in transporting men
and equipment to existing roads, trails, and washes on
fragile watershed areas.
6. Minimize damage to valuable understory vegetation during
chaining.
7. Use a mixture of browse, grass and forbs to reseed
chaining and burning sites.
8. Check for and avoid mining claim markers during chaining
or burning operations.
9. Leave patches of trees (10-15 acres in size) scattered
throughout the treated areas for wildlife cover,
Christmas trees, pinyon nuts and aesthetic values.
10. Fence reseeded areas to exclude livestock for two
growing seasons.
11. Fences around waters and habitat rehabilitation sites
will be constructed to allow wildlife easy access.
12. Clean up spring development and water catchment sites
quickly and thoroughly after construction is completed.
13. Provide water for livestock and wild horses and burros
away from the fenced, improved source. For instance,
pipe water from a fenced spring development to a
separate trough for livestock and horses.
14. Aprons of water catchments should be painted natural
colors (pale beige, green or grey) to blend with the
surroundings .
VI
15. The District landscape architect will help design
all chaining and burning projects. Treated areas should
have irregular boundaries and buffer zones.
16. Archaeological surveys should be made of all selected
chaining or burning sites and water development areas
before development.
17. Any culturally important pinyon nut gathering areas
will be excluded from treatment. Enlist aid of the
Indian Tribal Council in identifying these areas.
18. Commercial and individual collections of Christmas
trees, firewood and juniper posts should be concentrated
in areas slated for habitat rehabilitations.
19. Inform the public of all proposed projects prior to
development through news releases, feature articles,
slide shows, etc.
20. Cooperate with Nevada Department of Fish & Game, U. S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, and interested groups and indi-
viduals during inventories and habitat development projects,
21. Consult with Utah BLM on any rehabilitation projects
near the Utah-Nevada border.
Table of Contents
Introduction
I„ Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
II. Description of the Existing Environment
A. Non-Living Components
1. Air and Climate
2 . Land
3. Water
4. Hazards
B. Living Components
1. Vegetation
2. Wildlife
3. Livestock
4. Wild Horses and Burros
C. Ecological Interrelationships
D. Human Values
1. Landscape Character
2. Socio-Cultural Interests
III. Analysis of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
1. Anticipated Impacts
a. Non-Living Components
b. Living Components
c. Ecological Interrelationships
d. Human Values
2. Possible Mitigating Measures
a. Non-Living Components
b. Living Components
c. Ecological Interrelationships
d. Human Values
3. Recommendations for Mitigation or
Enhancement
4. Residual Impacts
50 Relationship Between Short-Term Use and
Long-Term Productivity
6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment
of Resources
B. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives
1. Alternative #1
2. Alternative #2
IV,
V,
VI,
I
VII,
VIII,
Persons, Groups and Government Agencies Consulted
Intensity of Public Interest
Participating Staff
Summary
References
Page
1
2
7
7
7
7
8
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
16
18
19
20
20
20
21
21
22
25
25
25
25
25
26
28
28
28
28
30
-1-
I. Introduction
The Beaver Dam Wildlife Habitat Area contains 616,000 acres of
national resource lands, 17,000 acres of private lands and 2,000
acres which are included within Beaver Dam State Park. (See
Maps No. 1&2) . This area includes 627, of Nevada Department of
Fish and Game management unit No. 24.
This area is recognized as a fairly intact deer herd unit with
occasional significant winter influx of deer inhabiting Dixie
National Forest in western Utah. Good mule deer summer habitat
is lacking. Deer inhabit most of the area yearlong with only
local seasonal movements. Deer harvest has declined about 907.
since 1959. Condition of most habitat is poor.
Small game animals which include Gambel's quail, mourning dove,
cottontail, and a few chukar are largely restricted to lands along
Meadow Valley Wash and Clover Creek. Small numbers of waterfowl
also rest along Meadow Valley Wash.
Non-game animals found here include raptors, numerous songbirds,
mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish. Several threatened, en-
dangered or protected species are also found in the area - prairie
and peregrine falcons, desert tortoise and possibly the spotted bat,
This habitat management plan discussed methods of maintaining,
improving and expanding terrestrial wildlife habitat in T-24„
It is an update of the HMP completed by Lewis Myers in 1971 ■>
A separate HMP will be completed at a later date for aquatic habi-
tat in the area.
Introduction
This Environmental Analysis Report evaluates the impacts of actions pro-
posed in the Beaver Dam Habitat Management Plan.
The Beaver Dam HMP was revised in June, 1975. It was approved by the
Regional Supervisor of the Nevada Department of Fish and Game in De-
cember, 1975 and by the District Manager of the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment in January, 1976. The Beaver Dam Wildlife Habitat Area (from now
on referred to as the Beaver Dam WHA) includes over 600,000 acres of
national resource lands in the Caliente Planning Unit (see Maps No. 1 & 2) .
The overall objective of the HMP was to document ways of maintaining
and/or improving the terrestrial habitat for mule deer, Gambel's quail,
mourning dove, cottontail rabbits, mountain lions and non-game species in
the area. An HMP on aquatic habitat in the area will be completed at a
later date.
The draft environmental analysis report was also written in June, 1975.
Comments on the E.A.R. were solicited and received from the State Clearing-
house, Nevada Department of Fish and Game and the BLM Nevada State Office.
Many of the comments were incorporated into this final E.A.R. All the
comments were answered individually and appear in the appendix.
The final E.A.R. also differs from the draft in that the proposal to
obtain private lands in the Beaver Dam WHA was modified. The final
proposed action recommends that cooperative agreements or easements be
established with the private landowners, if necessary, to protect wild-
life habitat.
None of the actions that affect livestock grazing in the Beaver Dam WHA
(chaining, prescribed burning, seeding) should be implemented until a
grazing environmental impact statement for the Caliente Planning Unit
(scheduled for FY 1978) has been prepared.
Meridith, 1976
Map No. 1
B.L.M. ADMINISTRATION
5IWHA-T24
BEAVER
DAM
'-CU
Si
V
Si
\i
U
tl
II
u
I. Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
The actions suggested in the HMP can be summarized as follows:
1. To improve the availability of already existing waters to
wildlife by developing springs and modifying livestock
troughs to accommodate wildlife. The following projects
have highest priority for completion:
Garden Spring
Spring source needs fence protection. Install bird ladder
in trough .
East Setting Spring
Fence spring source. Install spring box, pipeline, trough and
bird ladder.
Quaking Aspen Spring
Fence spring source providing water for wildlife at the
source while piping water \ mile north to campers.
Topah Spring
Two water sources about 600' apart. Repair old fences. Install
new spring boxes. Pipe upper spring to lower spring box.
Install new 400-500 gallon trough with expanded metal bird ramp.
Unnamed Spring
Fence spring source. Install new spring box. Pipe water 100
feet or less and install 400-500 gallon trough with expanded
metal bird ramp.
Bunker Spring
Install spring box. Pipe water 25 feet to 400-500 gallon
trough with bird ramp.
Sheep Spring
Fence source. Install spring box, pipe and 400-500 gallon
trough with bird ramp.
Ella Spring
Remove old mustang trap to permit better use by deer.
Meridith, 1976
<)
*l
M
Lime Mountain Well
Clean out trough. Add bird ramps.
Pine Canyon Stock Tank
Circular (50' diameter) steel trough need bird ramps,
four expanded metal ramps 4-5' wide and 6' long.
Install
2. To make more permanent water available to wildlife by con-
structing water catchment devices in the Ella Mountain,
Sawmill Range and Enterprise Allotment areas. The following
are the suggested catchment locations and priorities for
construction (see Map #3):
Location
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
To
T.
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
S.
S.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
R.
R.
R.
R.
R.
R.
R.
R.
R.
R.
R.
R.
R.
Ro
R.
R.
R.
Ro
R.
R.
71
70
70
71
71
70
70
70
70
69
67
67
71
70
70
69
69
68
68
67
SUk Sec.
NE% Sec.
NE^; Sec.
Sec. 17
SW^ Sec.
SE% Sec.
SE% Sec.
Sec. 34
SW% Sec.
NE^ Sec.
SE% Sec.
SW% Sec.
SW% Sec.
SE% Sec.
SW^NW% Se
NW% Sec.
NW% Sec.
NE% Sec.
NW% Sec.
SW% Sec.
29
36
27
19
23
26
13
34
20
28
6
12
c. 15
19
20
9
6
2
Priority
11
12
13
4
5
6
1
2
9
10
19
20
3
8
7
14
15
16
17
18
3. To employ habitat treatment methods (chaining or prescribed
burning), on about 26,000 acres to a) increase the composition
of palatable forbs from the present trace to 5-10%, b) increase
composition of grasses, c) increase bitterbrush/clif frose
composition, reproduction and availability.
The following (also shown on Map #3) are the areas suggested
for chaining:
Ella Spring (7,700 acres)
Severely degraded, potential deer summer' habitat.
Meridith, 1976
I <
I
'
V
1 1
(
Oak Wells (9,200 acres)
Severely degraded, in potential deer summer habitat.
Bunker Pass (4,000 acres)
Badly degraded critical deer, summer habitat, but with treat-
ment good release of bitterbrush and serviceberry can be
attained.
Marble Reservoir (2,000 acres)
Seedings of extremely poor composition, in potential deer
summer habitat.
Sheep Spring (2,300 acres)
Seedings of very poor composition, potential deer summer habitat.
Mahogany Knoll (700 acres)
Seeding of extremely poor composition, potential deer summer
habitat.
Suitable portions of these areas would be chained, then reseeded.
Drilling will be used where possible. Hand planting and/or
boradcasting will be used on areas where drilling is impractical.
The following are suggested rates of seeding:
- Pounds Per Acre -
Species
North Exposures & Shady Areas
Broadcast Drilled
Sunny Exposures
(south, west, east)
Broadcast Drilled
ses:
Smooth Brome 4
Russian Wildrye 1
Bluestem Wheatgrass %
s:
"Alfalfa 2
Chickpea Milkvetch 0
Utah Sweetvetch 0
Arrowleaf Balsamroot 1
Small Burnet 1
js:
Curl leaf Mtn. Mahogany 0
Birchleaf Mtn. Mahogany 1
Fourwing Saltbush 1
Antelope Bitterbrush 1
Woods Rose 1
2
1
\
1
0
0
\
h
1
2
h
1
1
h
h
Meridith, 1976
/ 1
i I
I I
1 1
i \
I I
I I
At least 10-15 acres of each 100 acres treated would remain
undisturbed. Such irregular shaped chainings would increase
aesthetic appeal, edge effect and value of the project to wild-
life. Also debris (downed trees) would be left in place to
reduce erosion.
In addition to the above-mentioned project, small acreages
(each 15-50 acres in size) of the south slope of the Sawmill
Range are to be controlled burned (see Map #3 for area
involved) .
This area is too steep to chain. The prescribed burning of
this predominantly manzanita and oak covered area followed
by seeding (with same plants described under chaining) is
supposed to increase composition of palatable forage and improve
the edge effect.
The public will be informed during the specific planning and
implementation of these habitat rehabilitation projects through
news releases, newspaper feature articles, etc.
4. To assist the range activity in the development of Allotment
Management Plans or other means of grazing management on areas
containing crucial wildlife habitat by providing basic data
on the habitat requirements of wildlife. Allotments pre-
sently identified as containing crucial wildlife habitat and
which are in need of AMPs include: Enterprise, Clover Creek,
Oak Wells, Little Mountain, Pennsylvania, Sheep Flat, Cotton-
wood, and Mustang Flat Allotments.
5« To establish cooperative agreements and/or easements with
owners of the following private lands when and if this becomes
necessary to assure hunter access to national resource lands
or to provide vital maintenance or development of wildlife
habitat:
Rabbit Spring - T. 2 S. , R. 69 E. , SecD 34.
Oak Wells - T. 3 S., R. 69 E., Sec. 35.
Miller Spring - T0 3 S., R0 69 E., Sec. 24.
Along Meadow Valley Wash -
T. 7 S., R. 67 E., Sees. 7, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35.
T. 8 S., R. 67 E0, Sees. 27, 34.
T. 6 S., R. 66 E., Sec.
Along Clover Creek -
T. 4 S., R. 68 E., Sees. 7, 21, 27, 28.
T. 5 S., R. 69 E., Sees. 2, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 32, 37.
6. To initiate studies that will identify habitat condition
and trend of crucial areas for endangered and other non-game
Meridith, 1976
species, areas of heavy competition among cattle, horses and
wildlife and to gather the information which will aid in the
management of the area.
7. To cooperate with wild horse and burro activity on a horse
and burro management plan for the area.
The implementation schedule for these projects is included.
It covers a span of six years.
Each of the suggested actions is composed of a series of stages
and discrete actions. For instance, habitat rehabilitation would
involve 1) selection of the site, 2) the actual chaining or
burning, 3) reseeding, and 4) posting or fencing the area,
if necessary. In turn, selection of the site involves on-the-
ground selection, pellet counts, soil sampling, etc.
Alternatives to the present proposed action are: 1) modification
of the implementation schedule and 2) no action.
Meridith, 1976
1
-)
■ I X O N A
>
H
o
3"
cr rt
fD
ro (d
01
cu
fD
rt 00
fD fD
Hi
3- 01
H-
CD
no
cr en
c
rt- 3"
n
M o
fD
H- 5
01
n 3
CO
D.
n rt
O
(0 fD
3. T3
3
rt
O
Co ID
rt
3 Co
a. ra
rt-
3
3
B n
o
O
M
3 rt
c
fD 3-
a
V! fD
fD
CO 01
o
"o cr
o
fD 01
01
3 O
rt
rt M
01
C
O rt
0
3 fD
i-h
rt 0
3
3" Cu
P>
fD X
3
0) H-
fD 3
rt
C
o
•o g
3
H
rt
O 3
3
._.. c
01
fD S
n o-
1
rt fD
01 l-t
o
€ O
H
CO
O
o
of
rt
o
fD
n
3
01
•n
S
C
C
rt
rt
n
3"
Co
3"
Co
rt
rt
r>
H
O
ft-
O
3
w
O
01
n
c
H*
01
a.
rt
fD
cr
fD
H-
01
3
fD
<
a.
o
H
o
<
3
M
n
01
rt
rt
C
CO
(u
3
h-1
a.
pi
3
rt
C
Ci
s
o
o
Q oo
E§
3 °°
rt
fD
3
Co
3
r>
fD
1
Cu
rt
fD
a
(D
<
m
M
O
■o
s
ID
3
rt
01
a
fD
<
fD
H
O
■a
3
fD
3
rt
0)
1
fl
CO
rt
o
&
3
ft
3
rt
01
B> Nl
rt -t-
fD NO
rt
O
fD
<
fD
rt"
0
-a
3
fD
3
rt
01
1
C/l
rt
rt-
3
00
01
< °
n
rt
Co
rt
H-
O
3
63
C
rt
3
rt-
3
00
^^
< °
fD
rt
CU
rt
H-
0
3
fD
n
3"
§
3
rt-
n
CU
H
3 a'
rt
o
3
3
ID
3
rt
CO
rt-
3-
Co
H
~<
CO
H-
01
5- o
h- rt-
H-
O
>
i-h
Ml
Co
M-
rt
0)
<~N 1-
PI •£>
< u.
CO vC
C
CO
rt
H-
0
3
CU
3
Q.
?5
fD
<
01
rt-
O
3
3- o
H-
rt
Co
rt
H
rt
(D
Co
rt
3
fD
3
rt
CO
3
a.
-a
f— •
Co
3
3
rt*
3
00
t/1 »—
rt OJ
C O
a
rt*
fD
01
Co
3
a.
»
fD
01
(D
CO
rt
n
3-
^v NJ
l-H O
3 N3
< U>
fD
3
rt
O
rt
><
Co
3
a.
3*
CO
01
rt>
01
C
0
rt
7T
<_
0
3"
o
o
Q.
fD
CO
c
3-
B)
n
rt
<
ri
<
Kl
00
Ol
1
c
—
—
rtl
It
H
Ln
*
O O
O O
O 01
- rt
01
n
c
M
►1
II
9
ri
►<
ft
go
N>
1
1
'
1— 1
1
rt-
1
c
3
H-
rt
01
H
-
rt-
BE
2
to
O
*
IO
•*-
O
oo
Id
1?
° 01
—
a
•-
N>
->
IO
1
Si
-
H
rt-
-
c
3
H-
rt
0)
5
rtj
a
-1
l_n
to
rt-
IO
Ln
Ui
Ul
NJ
Ul
■x
SE
I-1
io
o
*
ro
UJ
o>
00
1
Id
Ul
CO
1?
° 01
"a
rt
O
DC
-i
-
5
■<
n
IB
rt
+
O
*>
No
1
rt to
fD O
CO O
1
t— '
1— ■
c
3
rt-
rt
01
h*
N)
M
IO
NJ
i_n
NJ
2
2
H"
\_n
to
O
*
to
*
ON
o
1
LJ
UJ
1?
° 01
£"
T3
rt
0
30
rt
-CO
3
Mj
fD
Co
rt
+
to
I--
£-
N)
1
Co J>-
n -
rt o
fD O
01 o
1
H
to
3
rt-
rt
01
N>
NO
M
H
NO
r-o
l_n
r-o
2
N>
ol-
N>
o
*
IO
*
*
00
O
*
'
Ul
Ln
UJ
° 01
13
rt
0
0Q
ii
io
o
4>
NO
CO l_n
n »
rt o
fD O
0) o
CU M
0 »
rt O
fD O
01 O
h-1
M
a
3
H-
rt
01
5
II
rt
+
N>
IO
1— '
l->
M
N)
NJ
ai
Ui
M
to
O
X-
IO
*
1
o
1
Ul
Ul
UJ
h
0 01
a
rt
Co
to
ai
-c-
NO
'
CO LO
n -
rt o
fD O
01 o
I—1
c
3
5T
ro
rt
-+
to
IO
M
H
N)
Ul
K)
S
s
I
II. Description of the Existing Environment
A. Non-Living Components
1. Air and Climate
The Beaver Dam WHA is located in the Great Basin desert.
Precipitation (between 8 and 9 inches per year), and humidity
(less than 15% during the summer) are low. Temperatures can
reach over 100 degrees during the summer. Winds can also
reach high levels, as high as 50-80 m.p.h. Droughts occur
occasionally. This climate precludes farming,
without irrigation; it favors range vegetation for livestock.
Due to the lack of industry and automobile traffic, the
air quality in the area is usually good. Occasionally
high winds can cause some dust pollution.
2. Land
Topography
The elevation of the Tertiary volcanic mountains in
the area ranges from slightly less than 5,000 to
over 7,000 feet. Generally the northern part of the
WHA is characterized by large, gently rolling areas
with many wide draw floors and high flat ridges „ The
southern portion (Sawmill Range) is steep and moun-
tainous with deep, narrow draws. The deep, sheer-
walled Meadow Valley Wash forms the western border
of the Habitat Area.
b. Soils
Soils of the area are lithosols and browns, shallow
and weakly developed. Parent materials are igneous.
Erosion is a problem. Soil sites, devoid of any
understory vegetation are not uncommon, particularly
in the dense pinyon/juniper woodlands.
Minerals
There is presently little mining in this WHA (there
are several small gold and silver properties) „ There
may be some mining claims in the area. Most of the
Caliente region has some potential for oil, gas and
geothermal resources. Increased exploration can be
expected as a result of the nationwide energy crunch
but probably little or no production will result.
Meridith, 1976
•
•
I
'I
I
I
d. Land Uses
Livestock grazing (over 20 allotments exist within the
Beaver Dam WHA) , mining, recreation (hunting, fishing,
camping, picnicking, geologic and botanic sightseeing,
wildlife photography, etc.), small commercial ventures
(occupying about 13 acres of land in Panaca and Caliente),
Christmas tree and pinyon nut harvesting are some of
the land uses occurring on national resource, state and
private lands in the area. There are two state parks -
Kershaw-Ryan and Beaver Dam - within the Beaver Dam
WHA, which are enjoyed by many people.
There are several impor tant rights-of-way that occur
in the area. Routes 93 and 25 are the major roads.
The Union Pacific Railroad runs along the western
boundary (from Panaca south through Elgin) and through
the center (from Caliente east through Crestline) of
the WHA,
e0 Land Use Planning
The Unit Resource Analysis and Management Framework
Plan for the Caliente Planning Unit were completed in
1972. Decisions from the MFP that affect this WHA
are listed in the Appendix,
The entire URA and MFP are presently being updated.
3. Water
Surface water is scarce in the Beaver Dam WHA. Major
water sources include Beaver Dam Creek, Clover Creek,
Cottonwood Creek, Pine Creek and the largest, Meadow
Valley Wash. Meadow Valley Wash's average flow is 11.3
cubic feet/second or about 8,200 acre-feet/year. In
addition, Matthews Canyon and Pine Canyon washes have
flows during times of heavy rainfall or rapid snowmelt.
Two water catchments were constructed by BLM in this WHA
in 1975. These sources will benefit mule deer and small
animals .
But most cf the water available to livestock, wildlife and
people comes from underground sources „ Table 1 lists the
major springs found in the WHA. Ground water recharge for
these springs is derived mostly from precipitation within
the drainage area. A lot of ground water in the area is
discharged through evapotranspiration (phreatophytes include
greasewood, rabbitbrush, meadow grass and salt bush, cotton-
wood, willow and saltcedar) and pumping for irrigation.
Meridith, 1976
CO
■ >
■ 1
> vO
i !
H
H
H
h
H
H
M
h
J
o
•
•
•
•
■•
•
•
•
»
•;
o>
- CT\
~-j
2
*
-i
z
r -j
--j
~
1
z oo
00
:)
CO
SO
01
01
to
to
-)
u)
CO
i
*
ft
*
ft
•
•
*
•
*
m
"
s*
■
■
w
V
v
••
7*
pa
pa
JV»
! ■>
,"i
PO
pa
; j
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
J
»J
■^j
<j>
rr>
•*J
•»l
O
•~j
-j
;>
O
^ »-»
^.i
Z
^
vo»
z
Z O
i— ■
z
= o
k'
3
M
M
to
pi
M
M
" fi
W
M
IQ
•
«
■
•
•
•
•
«
It
I ' : --• fO k-<
O •>>• O W N>
>■ ' CO
to
vji ^) c
t-o .-•) o
o
er» vo N>
3 O
o *i
c,
M
J3.
«
rjj
r> i i
o
I \ .O
Pi
' 1
pa
^ »
O
.
'
t-1
•-■'
,.j | ^
P3
c:
c
p*
P-
- 3
'»
:
.j
■
r:
?■>
o
O to
H«
p- 3
o
3
o.
o.
Ou
j- .)
n
^J P
f .-
.0
rr
;i
H
,: rl
K-
:j
.1
f-h re
7?
jc
a
a.
.%i
' 3
VI ^
rr
w
o*
re
n
d
-ft
rr
(j
j
vj
Ki
ro
en
PJ
h-J
oi 3
(j
3' »-••
X
re
i j
■•■)<■>
re
pj
,
o
o
»-t
•o
re
re
'3 re
<;
3
CO
3
CT
»--j
3
XI
j2j
■l
pa pa
IB
i1
i-t a.
H«
C/j 0 5
re
CO
t3
H*
M O
>]
rr
f f
.
re 3
3
en
P-
►tJ
M
p.
3
TJ
nr
•a
to
H
CJ
CO
1 ■■ pi
n
3
3
-J
ca ^
«.<;
TJ
3
B>
Oi
3 M
o
.{ >
rr
^
•o
K-
r.*
■\J
n 3
3
•
•
1
• O
O
K
OQ
to
03
CQ *X3
o
>-»• CJ
p*
y-
M
3
1
CQ "3
rr
^">
9
3
P-
w
en
u
JO
3
'•j
K"-0)
?3
>-•-
J
'i
<t
3
m-
")
OQ re
oq
0Q
3
re
3
-;,
CO
re
1
1
, '
Co
$tf cr<
CO
.W
3
.1
3
oq
03
M
-
TJ
(-•
r<
;
>
1
rt
re
■X3
re
09
►*>
r/i
ft
M
M
»-•
h1-
^
o
on
M
en
3
CO %.
h->
r*
:j
fj
re
P*
•
0Q
•u
1
3
I
>
>
*'
n
3
»1
H-
OQ
•-
CR>
<
OQ
»-••
3
H
o
rj
00
r-
P>
P-
OQ
>
m
J
3
J*.'
>1
-:;]
.
pa
?3
M
v>
O
-.
G a.
a.
CL
c
SI
a
5S Cu
c
Ou O.
a.
c
cj
a
cn
o.
O- Ou
c:
c:
sO
M
3 re
re
re
3
•
re
• re
3
(D re
re
3
3
3
3
re
O .)
3^
3
c
CO
?r re
<T>
re
?r
>
re
> re
7?
re re
re
7?
X
7?
7T
re
re re
7<*
7?
CJ
3 n
H
n
3
•
1
• n
3
*\ >-i
»-t
3
3
3
3
M
n •-{
3
3
►*"
CO
o »
m
%•
o
V
O
■» ■»
*j
O
O
O
O
«•
»« •♦
O
O
K-*
XJ
*:
«:
$:
[1
£
£
§
j:
£
H
re
3 O,
at
en
3
C3
3
en cn
en
3
3
cn
01 J5
3
3
o
Q
Q
O
O
O O
O
O
o c
O-
p-
■
<
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3 Pi
o
13
re
CO
OQ
0Q
CO 0Q
0Q
0Q
0Q H«
<:
CO
■
or
P-
a* o-
cr
>*•
a* >-.
re
en
1
•1
K
»i 1
1
'-t
>■{
O
Ci.
Cu
cu
a. ex.
a.
CL.
O- CO
3
a
CO
ca
cn o)
CO
w
cn o
CM
3
O*
0Q
p.
cr*
M
►*■
0u
i-i
OJ
O-
ftj
CO
f?
e .
*< *< a. 3
re re rt- O"
ca cn vj
1 re
a : v: vj v«;
3 re re re
X cn cn cn
3
c c: a a
3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
ms k: z c: c:
re o o 3 3
en pc ?r
3 3
a
c
m
3
(0
?r
o.
3
CA
a
re
<:
c
(1,
z f>
CO
w
»/1
en
:. >
*
Ul
CO
*>
-»l
cr>
cr»
o
™
r ^-i
oo
C'J
W
PI
■ i
H
H
H
H
► 1
H
o
•
•
•
•
•
■>]
v>
-
: vji
J»-
s-i
5
o»
Cr>
.: i ^
3
CO
en
CO
CO
CO
CO
•;>
•
•
«
*
•
•
r
•4
•*
■
■
■
■
i
PJ
TV
73
?a
&
^
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
• i
CT»
- J
-4
cr»
cr>
<T*
•
\o
~
»= o
5
►-••
3
-j
00
■
•
PI
pi
PJ
n
W
' J
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
«
ro
,_. -J
*•
C/« <•
-O
U M
N>
i ■•) <o
Ul
Ul
<o ' UJ
P'
.- i 1 )
Ul M
CD
•.-'• W
l-J
Ul
^ COU)
i--»
•
<>> i— • r-*
03
ivj ro
■/>
w
c : m
O
t .
M
'J h «
h
SB
O
::) I-1
Co
••'
5:
Ci Pi
cx
fj
:j
a
ro
p«
fl> CO
P-
x:
p. TJ
to
CD
»i
n
:'.
M
ptJ p.
ro
ii)
P1
ro 3
TJ
»-•
i 1 09
1
l-»
•
CO
o
K
t->
co
o
n
<
cr
ro
i— •
»-i
<U
o
>J
^t
.n
ro
CO
<D
•
^
w
TO
CO
■X)
M
P>
3
09
o
V
■/a r^ w
pi
>TJ
o :<
>-'
.T> O .'>
O
P-
Co c:
o
'i
;i. ►-• rj
O
3
»•< a.
<
<r
r-' o
w'
n
r.)
n
>— •
pd i^ m
O CO
;t
A
O 3 Co
ro
TJ
/ 3 -O
1 :
(» 09 ^
tj
B>
o
*cJ
X
<t
H
CO 1'-
rt
ro
W S3
H-
tt
tj :3
ro
co
o i-- «
3
10Q
ro
•
» »-• »-•
0q
o
h*
?5*
3 r-» p*
m
3
• CO
ro
ro
<W
ad *j
*•
ro n
}-' CO
;•)
i '*
en
TJ
M
3
09
CO W
IB C
fv >-•
TJ O.
A
CT 't
•a
1 ?d
)••• iTj
0^ •
'1
1
I
J- ■
M
CO
o
ex ex
ro o
a <£,
n co
Ol CO
o o
< 3
ro oo
cr
>^-
co M
o ex
d co
09 -
cr
H
cx
CO
rx
ro
ro
n
3" CX CX
ro ro ro
p> ro ro
< »i n
cx cx cx
ro o o
ro < <
n ro ro
CD W CO
o o o
3 3 3
09 09 C9
cr cr cr
H- >-"• H-
r{ H r-t
CX CX CX
CO CO CO
cx
ro
H rr rt)
to ro n
P> CD w
3 »-•
cr » cx
o o
j: co <
3* ro
o <•
ri
ro co
o
cr 3
H- 09
M cr
CX H-
co n
<• a.
CD
TJ «.
H
c o
CO o
o
Co
CO
n
o
c
rr
>
CX 5S
ro •
o ro >
0 n •
r> «.
P>
CO cx
• o
<
rt ro
ro - '
Co
|_J CO
- O
3
01 09
3" cr
o >■*•
H i-{
ro cx
en
cr -
»■*•
CO
c: co cx
3 O O
7? 3 <
3 09 ro
o cr.
H r--
3 *1 O
CX O
CO o
v P
CO
cx .
o
< cx
ro ro
ro
H
3
CX
ro
X O rt
3 O ^
on-
£ Co
3 co co
• O
3
rr 0q
ro cr
£0 h-
»-' n
cx
co
cx
o
<
rt
CO CO
O O
CO 09
cr cr
K- r'-
n n
cx cx
co co
cx cx
ro ro
ro ro
•■i M
CO
O
O 3
O 09
r> cr
to
»i
• CX
CO
cr -
►»•
09 O
3* n
o o
n co
3 co
cx
ro
rt
n
CO cx
O io
3 ro
09 M
cr »
»■«■
rt CX
CX O
CO <
« ro
o
O M
r^ o
Co 3
CO 09
. cr
CX H
(0 D.
ro co
^t
O
m
co
o
o
3
(T
3 3
O O
CXSi 3
M ro o
p- CO
rt
co
3
O
a.
si
3CX C33 C 3 33
O 1 300 3 O OO
Si 7T 7?
3 3
as
3
si
3
cTD
O
ro
O
ro
CO
a
<
NJ
z
z u>
z.
OJ
co
CO •
co
CO
CO
•
•
•
«
**
<•
M
-
73
M
Jtf
?u
•
•
•
•
o>
OX
-^1
--j
\o
~
= vO
~
o
►-•
pj
pj
■*
pi
PI
CO
ON
H
> 1
•
')
f>
' ]
co
3
•
^)
3*
h^
pa
a
o>
CD
Co
PI
:j
N
(0
-P- 4>
W N H
\jy i> OD
vn ^j
to
O
W M H H
CO
ro
^j
<•
'n
Ci
M
o
00
rt
m
>-*-
o
U>
-J
■P*
ixf
O
O K W
CO
CO
PI
e: f
< J
s:
fi
O
PJ »-*• c
3"
3*
3
"U o
P
»-■•
cr
£
7T" >-« O
re
re
rr
-o c
?f
h-1
cr
►-• 7?
re
IB
re
re o
►-■
H-
CO
s: re O*
x>
'O
H
H rl
Cfl
o
rt
na
i0 »-i O
*C
•o
K
H
t— • Co
CO
co
►1
> >
►1
CO
H-
Htfl '(
"3
\J
t+>
CI 01
!-'•
CO
*d
3
O "O Ou
M
r*
n
3" 3*
"J
-3
n
09
"*» H- CO
H-
H«
re
0}
rt
I-*-
3
3
CO 01
>-*•
3
"O 3 X)
0Q
09
?3
TJ *U
3
09
1* H*
CO
re
a
rt 1
OQ
•*X
< /-s 3
C
•
3 3
M
CO XJ 09
"O
OQ 0Q
1
rt i-t
'O
►*•
re h-
>-•
<
^ <
re
Co
p>
3
rt
rt
re
ID
A
3
*~s
**~*
rt
£0
3 3
3 3
O O
§£
3
3 •
?r >
3 •
o
(0 re
re re
0) CO
o o
3 3
OQ 0Q
o* cr
p. p,
rt M
cl a.
CO CO
o
<
re
en
3
3
O
c-acicj
3 3 3 3
7? 7? 7? 7?
3 3 3 3
O O O O
*: t, c s
3 3 3 3
O
*-*
O
<
re
>-t
O
rt
•
i
re
ta
<
re
CO
zr
a
o
p> <
3 re
Ou .
g co
5 o
t-J 3
H-« 0Q
to cr
CL 1-J
CO cu
« CO
o
o o
o o
o> o
CO 33
• co
•
0U
re rt
re re
n ft
M O
(a o
h- o
3 o
cr «
o
rt
ri
0
C
r»
O
re
re
CL
• o
<
rt re
re «
01
K-" CO
- o
3
CO OQ
=r cr
O H-
re a.
cr »
K- -
H
C3u
CO
CO
o
re
<
pi
50
?3
to
CO
o
?3
O
P3
CO
n
o
<3 a
3 3
X 7T
3 3
c: ex
3 3
C
c: c c c:
3 *
O O
■ 3
3 3 3 3
xv;
7T
*- ?r ?r ?i-
3
3
3 3 3 3
3
O
n
3
re
O
(X
CO
a
re
<
Table 2 shows a chemical analysis of well water in the
Meadow Valley area. Sulfate and dissolved solid con-
centrations are high in this area as they are throughout
most of the Las Vegas District. The reasons for the high
mineral content of water in southern Nevada include
1) high evaporation rates leaving high concentrations of
salt at or near the surface, 2) slow movement of water
through the ground, dissolving metallic and non-metallic
substances (like sulfides, borate, gypsum, etc.) prevalent
in the soil and, 3) Large amounts of dust washed into
ground water supplies.
4. Hazards
There is no history of any landslide or other earth failure
hazards in the area.
Floods present the primary hazard in the Beaver Dam WHA.
In 1906 and 1910, major floods occurred along Meadow Valley
Wash and Clover Creek. Lesser floods occurred in 1907,
1908, 1911, 1914, 1922, and 1938. In 1955 two flood control
dams were built in Clover Valley. Flash floods can occur
in other areas during thunderstorms.
In 1960, a study was prepared jointly by the Lincoln County
Flood Control District, Meadow Valley Soil Conservation
District, the Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation
Service and BLM. The study recommended the construction of
numerous, small retainer dams along tributaries. The Pre-
liminary Lincoln County Master Plan (1974) encouraged the
installation of these projects along with the seeding and
planting of erosion-prone areas. The Meadow Valley Wash
remains classified as a flood prone area by the U. S.
Geological Survey.
B. Living Components
1. Vegetation
Most of the Beaver Dam WHA supports a dense pinyon/ juniper
woodland with sagebrush and cliffrose understories. For a
more detailed description of vegetation in the area, refer
to the Beaver Dam Intensive Inventory.
2. Wildlife
The major species in the area are the mule deer, Gambel's
quail, mourning dove, cottontail rabbit, desert tortoise,
mountain lion and raptors. For a thorough discussion of
wildlife, known habits and habitat requirements, refer to
both the Beaver Dam Intensive Inventory and HMP.
Meridith, 1976
'&**.&:#■ >■** <*£<**{& •'*•"-■
7/\6L£ 2l
TiVU ll.--Q>aalcal analraet. la Hr» par ainiaa. af watar frwa tKe H..aow Vallay araa
(rial, lulfiu ky the 0.1. C.eleglcel larva*)
Owner .e*7er
I pacific
Cal- Meaae- Hear- fatal ceaaeet*
tote clam, alias keaate Cklerlaa Kara- aaee
cell.ctee (Ca) (M«) (BO.) (CI) aaaa l>l.<^H
» »'o
U-^4'
laa. I, T. J I., t. 4t I. Varenlp Vaek tyring 10-25-41
•aa. T. T. 1 I.. 1. 70 I. Iprlat Valla; Creek 10-23-13
Iprlni Valley
U 3.1 H U 44 111
Jl 10 )U X 141 373
T.I tvrface weter eeaele.
7.0 turfece watar eenple t.k.e at kr14ge avar
laa. II. T. II.. 1. at I. lartai teller Craak
in/tt-1041 real 111.. ».ll
fac. U. T. 1 I., 1. it I. lariat "Ilia* Craak
laa. II, T. 1 I., I. »t I. lyrlng Valley Craak
l»/tt-llal Jeaee loaa wall
laa. II. T. 1 I.. ». M I. X..dow Valla; Vaak
11/41 Ul Delaue Iroth.re • Bortk vail 10-14-43
Tveaty-oae alia heldlae.
cotr.l vail
11/44-13.1 C. lenoatk Lee - South vail 12- »-4J
11/17-1441 noy Kurt - Ho. 1 vail 10-17-IJ
lac. 4, T. I I., I. M I. faaeee Iprlat 4-13-43
tail, v.llar
10-15-41
15
17
411
13
141
M7
10 25- 4 J
«••« Valla*
411
10-14-41
71
IS
Ml
41
Ul
711
10-15-41
71
t.l
Ott Valla,
It*
41
HI
471
10-17-i]
J]
4.7
U7
41
ID
Mt
11/41- 5V1
U/M-7.1
21/41-143
U/41-vc)
2S/44-4M
II/4I-1M1
ll/ll-ltal
31/17- Ul
31/47-llcl
41/44- 14*1
41/44-2541
41/47-1141
71/47-llcl
123/43-1341
141/44-3341
Harry I. lorlackor vail
leeece LDC Owrck vail
I.I.C.I. - Oheervetloe vail 11- 5-41
Dclaue Irctltara - lartk vail 11- 4-41
Dalaaia lroth.r. - Soutk vail 11- 4-41
Doa Veoewertk - *.. 1 vail 10-28-45
Doa Vedavortk - Is. 1 vail 10-21-43
Craat Le« - Ho . 1 vail 12- 4-45
Ckaeter Oikorrov - far. I vail 11- 4-U
Every Conway - Hleelc vail 11- 5-43
Every Cooavay - Lover vail 11- 3-43
Every Cooavay - Dppar vail 11- 3-43
Jeaee H. Iredehav vail 11- 3-41
Hlldrad lrcealovc vail II- 3-41
1. J. KcGoralck vail 10-10-41
U U 4*0 33 137
Vatlot.oe Vallar
41 t.l lit 30 Ul
•anacl Vail
•Z
41
t.l
214
u
Ul
•1
13
141
117
307
11
t.l
lit
IS
111
11- 4-41
11
11
1M
It
210
1.030
7.1
11- 4-41
13
21
231
123
230
• 10
7.1
11- 1-43
34
31
11*
107
244
1.700
7.4
i-mt
21
U
1.130
212
134
3. 310
- -
11
11
301
43
212
1
.020 .
7.1
1U
41
300
274
343
2
.240
7.3
137
M
442
117
til
1
,7M
7.4
111
ia
42*
71
330
1
330
7.5
73
31
32*
33
310
1
.010
7.7
2*
7.3
Lovar MeeAov
U3
Vallar
31
tl
410
1.2
70
13
340
37
234
7t3
7.7
33
11
272
24
174
312
7.1
34
14
240
21
174
322
7.7
43
14
340
43
143
112
1.0
lot
17
244
»5
341
1
,340
7.»
L32
10
230
32
431
1
.430
terfece vatar .aaele talee at gage alia la
caayaa ketweee Iprt eg ana lagla Valla*.
urfaca vatar a.aple tehee la renyea
ketw.ee E«gl. ana aoee Velloye.
1.1 e.rfeco vatar eeeplo takaa la ca
ketneee keee eae Dry Valley*,.
1.7 Bwrfece vatar ..nale takaa at aawtk af
Coeter Caayaa. Alaa: CarVonata (CO,),
10 gam.
an Spring, 2 rflti north ml Vanaca. 4 1a.
Illlea (110,). 31; lraa (7a). 0; Sedlua
(He). 31; 7ai.nl— (I), 4.1; lulfata
(10.). 21; Vlvarlao (D. 1-4; lit rata
(aX),), 2.1; were* (I). 0.1; tmolral
eollaa. 271.
Half vlla vaat af Nuct.
Alaa: Illlea (110,). 13; lvalue (la) *>
foteaalua (I). 733; Selfete (SO.). 307;
riuorloa (F). 12. «t rat. ( B0 ) . 0; kraa
(I). 1.0; W..ol..a tellee. 2:240.
Two allaa eoatk af Cell rate.
Tkra* allaa aoatk af Celleete.
Bait alia vaat af Callaata.
1.0 Thrae all.i aoatk af Ilcie.
Hear lox. Veveda.
it Cl.od.la. Alaa: Illlea (SlOa), 27;
Soalua (Ha) ♦ Potaaalaa (r) , 42; Sulfate
(SO4), 514; lltrata (BC-,) , I.I; Diaeolaal
aollAa, til.
1. Watar teaparatura ahova la takla 13.
3. Livestock
See Beaver Dam HMP.
4. Wild Horses and Burros
See Beaver Dam Intensive Inventory and HMP.
C. Ecological Interrelationships
A complex web of ecological cycles and interrelationships is
at work within the Beaver Dam Wildlife Habitat Area.
Solar energy strikes the earth; some is reflected back into the
atmosphere, some is absorbed by the soil and plants. Through
photosynthesis, the energy is used to produce sugars, proteins
and carbohydrates. Some plants die and their nutrients are re-
cycled into the soil. Others are consumed by the herbivores
(plant-eating animals) present in the area. Some of the major
herbivores include mule deer, quail, chukar, horses, cotton-
tails, jackrabbits, doves, reptiles and rodents. In turn, these
animals either die of natural causes or are eaten by predators
like coyotes, raptors, bobcats, mountain lions and foxes.
Scavengers in the form of ravens, insects and others clean up
carrion. Those dead animals which aren't consumed, decay and
are recycled into the soil.
Soil micro-organisms are responsible for organic matter de-
composition whereby plant and animal residues are broken down
and nutrients are released for assimilation. During the decaying
process by which humus is formed, soil aggregate stability
is enhanced and CO2 is given off which ultimately escapes to the
atmosphere, where it may again be used by plants.
In the Beaver Dam WHA> pinyon and juniper trees are a dominant
form of vegetation. They grow rapidly in the absence of suc-
cession - controlling wildfires and in areas where other, more
palatable vegetation is overgrazed by livestock or wild horses
and burros. Pinyon and juniper trees tend to crowd out other forms
of vegetation: allelopathic substances, litter and shade retard
growth of understory plants. Only a few wildlife species like
pinyon mice and pinyon and scrub jays are adapted to life in
these dense woodlands, using the trees as sources of both food
and cover.
The water cycle is, of course, another important aspect of
ecological interrelationships in this area. Precipitation falls
in the form of snow or rain. A very small amount infiltrates
the soil. Most is either evaporated (as a result of high summer
temperatures, low humidity and high winds) or runs off down gullies,
carrying off the soil and loose pebbles. The lack of understory
vegetation beneath dense pinyon/juniper stands makes many
areas prone to erosion. Water that infiltrates the soil is
Meridith, 1976
thirstily absorbed by the roots of plants and, that which is
not used in photosynthesis, is transpired into the atmosphere „
Most of the animals and plants in desert areas like this one
have adaptations which allow them to survive with little water.
Plants have extensive root systems to take advantage of the
small amounts of water which infiltrate the soil and leaves
with small surface area to cut down transpiration. Animals have
physiological (special metabolic, excretory and respiratory
systems) and/or behavioral (nocturnal habits, estivation, etc.)
adaptations.
Thus, the combination of scarce surface water supplies and
pinyon/juniper encroachment are two primary influences on
ecological interrelationships in the Beaver Dam WHA. These
two factors are presently limiting the diversity of vegetation
and wildlife and numbers of livestock and horses that can exist
within the donfines of this ecosystem.
Though few people live within the boundaries of the WHA, man
has also had ai important effect on the ecology. He acts as a
predator (hunting harvests, road kills, etc.). He has altered
the ecology by putting out natural fires and allowing pinyon-
juniper woodlands. to expand and get denser. His livestock has
heavily grazed some areas, eliminating palatable forage species.
In some areas he's replaced native vegetation with introduced
crested wheatgrass. He's built roads, corrals and in other ways,
changed the landscape character of the area.
D. Human Values
1. Landscape Character
The mountains in this WHA are aesthetically appealing. They
are cool and moist compared to the parched desert lowlands
that cover much of the Las Vegas District. A person can
retreat to many isolated, quiet and refreshing spots to
relax, view desert wildf lowers or birdwatch. Areas like
Quaking Aspen Spring and Beaver Dam Creek are particularly
appealing to recreationists .
2. Socio-Cultural Interests
a. Archaeology
The area encompassed by the Beaver Dam Wildlife Habitat
has been utilized by man for at least the last 7,000
years. Initial occupation was by carriers of a Desert
Meridith, 1976
11
Archaic culture. These hunter-gatherers were highly
mobile and moved in relation to resource availability.
This same area was later occupied by Puebloan groups
ca. A.D. 1000. Sometime after 1000 A.D. the area was
occupied by the Southern Numic- speaking Southern
Paiute. As a result of this long-term and heter-
ogeneous occupation of the area, an abundant archae-
ological record remains. Site types include deep, well-
stratified caves, rockshelters with varying degrees
of deposition, open air sites, lithic scatters and
numerous petroglyph sites.
At present, only a small portion of the land within
the wildlife habitat has been intensively surveyed for
cultural resources, yet this small sample indicates
the potential for numerous cultural resource loci on
the unsurveyed portions.
b. Historical Values
Lincoln County was first visited by white people in
the 1820' s; Jedediah Smith was one of the first
explorers o
In the 1860's, the discovery of mineral values en-
couraged the immigration of whites. In 1863, Paiute
Indians led William Hamblin, a Mormon missionary, and
some of his followers to Panaca.
Lincoln County was formed in 1866.
Caliente was first established in the 1900' s as a
railroad center.
Some of the sites which remain today to document the
history of the area include the Panaca charcoal kilns,
and an abandoned railroad station in Caliente.
c. Socio-Economic Factors
The two largest towns in the area are Panaca and
Caliente, both located along the western border of
the WHA. In 19^70* "the population of Panaca was 539,
while about 900 lived in Caliente. By 1990, these
populations are expected to increase to 700-770 and
1260-1350, respectively.
Table 3 shows the types of industries employing
Lincoln County residents. The median family income
in Lincoln County in 1969 was $8,864. Almost 12%
of all families have incomes below the poverty level.
Meridith, 1976
12
CO 0
o r-
c re
-t i/>
o v>
re
at
C 3
CXI
c -o
-j re
re -t
ai n
c re
3
O rt
3"
(V
o
re
«/>
C
o
O
■o
c
o
l/>"0 fB rt
rt(t 3 W
O) -J -o — <
rt r> — •
re re o r>
3 "< o
n> rt 3 c
3 re 3
X3 O 3 rt
— ■ -t) rt •<
O
y<. c^ O)
3 O </>
re rt
3 Ol
rt — <
O O
re rt l» rt
3 a 3 a>
-O — "O —
o co o
v< rf *<
3 Oi 3
re rt- re
3 re
n
o
c
3
rt-
rt^
VO
o
ro
VO
-J
8
vO
o
e
VO
o
CD
re
3
(V
-J
Ol
-o
o
-a
c
o
3"
Ol
"J
Q>
O
rt
re
1
o -n co -n
O Ore -*•
< </> c -j Oi~3
re re -» < 3 Oi
-J -| -•• -*• Q. 3
3 < «/> o r>
3 — • rt re -j re
re O I wi re •
3 re -l oi
rt i/i re — • -*•
— < 3
en re i/>
rt i/> C
re rt -I
Q. Oi Oi
rt 3
re o
re
3
-i
-o
^C
o
1
3> O.
-1
c
Oi
o
lO c
CU
cr
3
3
3
T V
n.
— ■*
C
l/l
— *-
-*• rt-
re
-*•
-h
rt
3
S3
n
Oi
-1
m
o
C
^^
c
«-r
o
rt-
rt
c
rt
C
-*•
-t
-*•
re
—J
— *•
O
—A*
3
3
rt
to
— < en
4* ^
*» en
00 — <
00 CO
ro — <
Co
vo oo
oo ro
ro en
en *-j
— » >J
O
VO
to
ro
-•4
-■J
en
>>j
o
00
-~j
o
00
en
ro
o o
-P» CO
O O O — ■
cn oo — •
en
cn
o
ro
4k
ro
o
CO
vO
-t»
—
vO
cn
00
00
CTl
cn
~j
o
VO
VO
cn
cn
00
cn
cn
cn
o o
cn cn
O
O
o
o
a
o
Co
3
■o CO O —i
— • re o o
O o C rt
v< rt 3 0»
reS£^
3
3
X3 CO CO —i
— ■ re rt o
o n Oi rt
*< rt rt Oi
3 o re —
re -j
3
O
OD rt-
v< Oi
CO
re <->
o o
rt C
O 3
-J rt-
v<
Oi
i/> m
3
-o-o
Q — ■
-i o
O v<
3re
rt 3
co o
re -h
o
rt >
O — ■
-» — '
3 3
"O O.
— • C
O m
v< rt
3 -l
re -*
3 Oi
o
03 rt
v< Ol
O — '
-h co
re C">
m -H O O
3 O rt c
T3 rt o 3
— ■ Oi -i rt
O — < ><
*< Oi
3 o <« m
re o 3
3 C TPT3
rt 3 re — ■
rt-IO
«< O <<
re 3
3 re
o
CO rt-
v< Oi
o
CO
-n
re o
m
o o
=1
— 1
rt c
-a
o
O 3
— i
r+
-» rt
o
a>
v<
*<
—*
Oi
^
vn m
IB
l/J
3
3
r-f
T3"0
rt
DJ
re — *
rt
-5 O
O
r> v<
.n 3
3 re
rr 3
o
o
o
-o
o
-<
CO
-<
c;
co
-»
r—
co
m
n
-H
33
VO
o
About 83% of the 6,800,000 acres in Lincoln County
are managed by BLM. Two of the major activities
that would be affected by this HMP are agriculture and
hunting. As stated earlier, there are many allotments
within this WHA (see Map #4) „ Cattle raising is an
important industry in the area.
Over 400 hunting licenses are issued annually in
Lincoln County for big and small game. Mule deer is
probably the most important game species in Lincoln
County. Of the 12,300 hunter days utilized for mule
deer in the Las Vegas District, in 1970, 10,981
(over 85%) occurred in Lincoln County, In addition,
1980 days were spent hunting for dove, 2760 for quail
and 4185 for rabbit.
Meridith, 1976
I s
III. Analysis of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
1 . Anticipated Impacts
a. Non-Living Components
Air and Climate
The proposed actions have no effect on climate. Any
effect they have on air quality is temporary. During
the construction of water catchments (transportation of
men and materials to and from the sites, digging holes,
etc) and during and immediately after chaining (before
vegetation reestablishment) , dust may be a problem.
Also the prescribed burning will add carbon dioxide,
water and particulates (in the form of smoke and soot)
to the atmosphere during the operation. The degree of
the negative impact these actions have on air quality
depends on wind velocities and direction, soil moisture
and vegetative conditions at the times and sites chosen
for the operations.
Land
The proposed action would have no effect on the
topography or minerals of the area.
There will, however, be effects on soils and erosion
potential. First of all, chaining will churn up the
soil surface, breaking up any vesicular crusting
present. The degree of tilling depends on soil charact-
eristics and density of vegetation present. The loss
of this vesicular crust would leave an area subject to
wind and water erosion.
According to Gifford (1973) chained -with-windr owing
plots yield from 1-2 to 5 times more water during a run-
off event than native pinyon- juniper. However, runoff
from debris-in-lace plots (as proposed here) was not
greater than that measured from natural woodland and
resulting sediment yields were similar to those from
adjacent unchained woodland areas. Infiltration rates
on chain-with-debris-in-place treatment are not as
greatly affected due to much less mechanical disturbance
of surface soils. Debris left on the soil surface acts
as both retention and detention storage, nearly elim-
inating all runoff because water is held on the land-
scape until the soil can absorb it while also reducing
evaporation losses by reducing wind.
Meridith, 1976
14
Burned areas (where there will be little debris left)
may be immediately subject to erosion during storms.
However after the browse, grass and forbs become
established on these areas, soil stability will be
greatly improved.
Still another cause of erosion will be vehicles and
equipment that may cross fragile watershed areas on
their way to and from water catchment sites.
Land Uses
The proposed action would have both favorable and
unfavorable impacts on land uses. The entire plan
is designed to benefit wildlife and would in turn
benefit some recreationists - hunters, wildlife photo-
graphers, zoological sightseer s0 Chainings, burnings
and seedings will ultimately benefit ranchers by
providing more forage for livestock as well as wildlife.
Cooperative agreements that allow BLM to maintain or
improve wildlife habitat on private land may also in-
directly benefit landowners. The proposed actions
are complementary to most of Caliente MFP decisions.
On the other hand, improperly planned chainings, and
prescribed burnings can be offensive to campers,
picnickers and botanical sightseers, who prefer un-
interrupted "groves'* of pinyon pine. Mining claim
markers could also be damaged or obliterated by
chaining and burning. Christmas tree harvesting will
of course be temporarily disrupted in chaining or
burning areas. But in the long run higher quality
Christmas trees will be produced on these sites. Pinyon
nut harvesting will also be inhibited by burning and
chainings .
A possible conflict may develop between wildlife
projects and future oil, gas and geothermal develop-
ment (refer to draft E.A.R. for Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Development in the Caliente-Virgin Valley Resource
Area for a detailed discussion of the effects of this
type of action on wildlife). As of yet, however, no
specific oil, gas or geothermal exploration/development
sites have been identified within the Beaver Dam WHA.
Water
The proposed actions-spring improvements, water catch-
ments, chainings, burning, seedings-will have a variety
of effects on water in the Beaver Dam WHA. During the
Meridith, 1976
construction phase of spring development, the spring
and surrounding area will be disturbed, making the
water unavailable for wildlife and livestock. This
effect is temporary, though, and more water will be
available for livestock and wildlife after the work
is completed. Fencing the original sources for wild-
life, while piping water to troughs for livestock and
horses will improve water quality of the springs;
horses, burros and livestock will no longer be able
to trample and muddy the sources. Bird ladders and
floats will make more surface water available to small
birds and mammals.
Water catchments will collect and store rainwater
during storms and make this water available yearlong
to big game, small game and non-game species. This
will increase the carrying capacity of the area for
wildlife.
If downed timber isn't left after chaining, run-off
will be a problem until vegetation is reestablished.
Once it is, runoff will be less than it is on areas
dense with pinyon and juniper trees.
Hazards
The seedings with grass, browse and forbs that follow
chaining and prescribed burning will reduce the
chance of flash floods by slowing down runoff after
thunderstorms.
b. Living Components
Vegetation
Both chaining and prescribed burning will, of course,
have a major effect on vegetation on the areas shown
on Map #3. The initial effect of chaining will be to
uproot large, mature trees. Some understory browse
plants that don't have the physiological capacity for
regrowth through sprouting may be harmed. Also, the
small trees left standing may be stimulated to grow
more quickly than they would have without chaining.
But the beneficial effects of a well-planned chaining
are numerous, j Some browse plants return with increased
vigor and growth after chaining. The stand is opened
up by chaining, allowing grasses, forbs and shrubs to
increase production.
Meridith, 1976
16
Prescribed burning on areas too steep to chain, will
reduce the numbers of large trees as well as thick
accumulations of litter that prohibit growth of grass,
forbs and browse.
The edge effect (the amount of interfacing between
woodlands and open areas relished by most species of
wildlife) is also increased by chaining and burning.
The percentage of trees left standing, the severity of
chaining' s effect on understory browse, the types of
vegetation that are reestablished, the longevity of the
project, in general, the success of chaining can all be
controlled by careful planning.
Wildlife
The Beaver Dam Intensive Inventory and HMP identify
lack of permanent water and lack of palatable browse,
grasses and forbs as major limiting factor for wild-
life in this WHA. Wildlife will be temporarily dis-
placed during the construction stage of bird ladders,
water catchments and spring developments. But once the
improvements are completed, more permanent water will
be available for more species.
The r eduction of habitat for pinyon jays, pinyon mice
(and the other few species adapted to pinyon /juniper
woodlands) caused by chaining and burning will be counter-
acted by the increase in carrying capacity for deer,
quail, raptors, songbirds and most other species 0
Browse, grasses and forbs preferred by these species
would be planted and encouraged to grow.
Also, debris (downed trees) left on the site will
provide additional cover and den sites for small
rodents and reptiles.
Finally, the studies proposed will reveal valuable
information about game non-game species, their dis-
tribution and habitat preferences that will help BLM
make habitat management decisions.
Livestock, Horses and Burros
Livestock, wild horses and burros would benefit from
water and forage improvements as much as the wild-
life would. A mature pinyon/ juniper stand with little
understory vegetation has no nutritional value to these
Meridith, 1976
17
animals. Chaining and burning followed by reseeding
would increase the forage available to wildlife and
horses, burros and livestock.
Spring developments would make water available to
wildlife while still allowing livestock, horses and
burros access. Water catchments, however, would be
solely for wildlife use with livestock, horses and
burros being excluded from the source by fences.
Wildlife input into allotment management plans and
horse and burro plans may recommend reductions of the
numbers of livestock, horses and burros allowed in
certain areas. This, of course, in the short run
would be detrimental to the certain number of animals
chosen for removal. But, in the long run, a healthy
population of livestock, horses and burros in harmony
with their environment will result.
Ecological Interrelationships
The ecological interrelationships will be changed
dramatically by the chaining/burning and reseeding
actions. The change of the vegetative community from
mature pinyon/juniper stands to a diversified grass,
forbs and browse composition will affect ecological
cycles, plant/animal and predator/prey interactions.
After the grasses, forbs and browse become reestablished,
water runoff will be reduced. Rainfall will be more
readily absorbed through the roots of the new plants.
Instead of being completely transpired from trees,
some water will be redirected through animals which
consume the more succulent grasses, forbs and browse.
The burning will cause quicker recycling of plant
nutrients.
Animal interrelationships will be altered as pinyon
jays, mice and other animals adapted to mature
pinyon/juniper communities move out and are replaced
by other birds, mammals and reptiles which prefer the
newly«created niches.
A greater variety of prey species will be available
as succulent forage and new cover (downed trees make
good dens) appears. New food sources will in turn
attract more predator species. Raptors will probably
utilize dead trees as perches. The intensified edge
effect will also help improve hunting conditions . ;
for predators.
Meridith, 1976
The water developments will complement these effects
caused by chaining, burning and reseeding. New water
sources will also help attract a wider variety of prey
and predator species into areas previously off-limits
because of water shortage.
d. Human Values
Landscape Character
The proposed actions will change the face of the land-
scape. The spring and water catchment developments
would add permanent artifacts (troughs, pipelines,
aprons, etc.) that could disrupt the undisturbed
appearance of some areas.
Chaining and burning will immediately alter landscape
character. At first burned or downed trees will
litter large areas. After vegetation has become re-
established, the areas of trees left standing inter-
psersed with lush areas of grass and forbs will have a
more pleasing aesthetic appearance.
Socio-Cultural Values
Poorly planned chaining, burning, and water developments
could be detrimental to archaeological sites. Such a
loss would be irreversible.
There are no identified historic sites which would be
damaged by any of the proposed actions.
Socio-Economic Values
Other adverse economic or social impacts include
1) temporary loss of areas for pinyon nut collection,
post cutting and Christmas tree gathering, 2) some
public disapproval of "ugly" chaining or burning
projects.
On the other hand, the proposed actions would have two
major favorable impacts. First of all, habitat for
livestock grazing would be improved. Grazing is an
important economic activity in this WHA. Secondly,
some recreational opportunities would be increased.
Improved wildlife habitat means improvement in the
quality of hunting. Better hunting would benefit
local people in 2 wyas: 1) an increase in their own
hunting pleasure, 2) more revenue from the increased
number of hunters passing through the two towns -
Panaca and Caliente.
Meridith, 1976
19
2. Possible Mitigating Measures
a. Non-Living Components
Air and Climate
Careful choice of time when chaining and burning will
take place (time of lowest wind velocity; most condi-
tions for chaining, traveling, etc.) can reduce the
amount of dust created by these operations.
Land
Soil tests should be made to determine best areas for
burning or chaining. Mixing of concrete should be done
in contained facilities to reduce the change of soil
pollution. Piles of downed trees left on the site will
help reduce runoff of soil and water. If heavy vehicles
used to transport men and equipment to project sites are
restricted to existing roads, trails and washes, damage
to fragile watershed areas will be kept to a minimum.
Areas of chainings or burns should be checked for
mining claim markers prior to beginning the operation.
b. Living Components
Vegetation
Care should be taken during chaining to do as little
damage as possible to valuable under story vegetation.
A mixture of browse, grass and forbs should always be
used to reseed the treated area.
Wildlife
Fences around waters and habitat rehabilitation sites
should be constructed to wildlife specifications to
allow easy access.
Patches of trees 10-15 acres in size scattered over
the treated area will 1) preserve some habitat area
for pinyon jays, pinyon mice and other species adapted
to mature pinyon/ juniper woodlands 2) maximize the
edge effect and 3) leave areas of cover preserved for
wildlife.
Clean up of sites after construction of spring develop-
ments and water catchments should be quick and thorough,
in order to encourage wildlife to return to the area
as soon as possible.
Meridith, 1976
20
Heavy vehicles, carrying equipment and men should use
existing roads, trails and washes to reduce damage to
wildlife habitat in the vicinity of projects and to
disturb the wildlife itself, as little as possible.
Livestock, Horses and Burros
Reseeded areas should be fenced to exclude livestock
for two growing seasons to allow the vegetation to
become established. This requires careful planning to
insure that forage is available elsewhere for livestock.
Likewise, fencing all the springs or guzzlers off solely
for wildlife would be fatal to livestock, wild horses
and burros. Provisions should be made for these
animals, like piping water to separate troughs for
them to use.
Total removal of livestock and horses would eliminate
their competition with wildlife for water, forage and
living space. But this would not be compatible with
multiple use objectives or with the Wild Horse and Burro
Act of 1971. Allotment Management Plans and Horse and
Burro Plans should consider the habitat needs of all
animals present and seek ways of satisfying their needs
without overtaxing environmental resources.
c. Ecological Interrelationships
All the above mitigating measures would relieve some
damage to ecological interrelationships caused by the
proposed action.
d. Human Values
Landscape Character
Aprons of water catchments should be painted natural
colors (pale beige, green or grey) to blend in with the
surrounding environment. The sites should be thoroughly
cleared of debris after construction is completed.
The aid of landscape architects should be solicited to
design all chaining and burning projects. Treated areas
should have irregular boundaries. Also, small areas of
trees should be left standing to minimize the visual
impact of opening up the formerly dense pinyon /juniper
stands to provide some shade and cover.
Meridith, 1976
21
Socio-Cultural Values
Archaeological surveys should be made of all specific
chaining or prescribed burning sites and water develop-
ment areas before development in order to protect any
possibly irreplaceable archaeological values.
Known pinyon nut gathering areas should be excluded from
treatment. Commercial and individual collections of
Christmas trees, firewood and juniper posts should be
concentrated in areas slated for habitat rehabilitations.
Leaving some acres of trees standing within treatment
areas will also help minimize post, firewood and
Christmas tree loss.
It is important that the public be informed of proposed
projects in this WHA. Many people misunderstand the
purposes and benefits of pinyon and juniper tree removal.
News releases, articles, slide shows, etc., should be
developed and distributed to identify areas for
rehabilitation and to describe the reasoning behind such
actions and what the expected results will be.
3. Recommendations for Mitigation or Enhancement
The following mitigating measures are recommended:
1. Minimize dust by chaining or burning when wind condi-
tions are right.
2. Watershed, wildlife, minerals, recreation and forestry
activities will cooperate to identify specific sites
for prescribed burnings and chainings. Consult with
State of Nevada Health Department (Air Pollution Divi-
sion) before development.
3. Mixing of concrete for water catchments and spring
developments should be done in contained facilities
to reduce the chance of soil pollution.
4. Leave piles of downed trees on the site to help reduce
runoff of soil and water and to improve cover for small
animals.
5. Restrict all heavy vehicles used in transporting men
and equipment to existing roads, trails, and washes on
fragile watershed areas.
6. Minimize damage to valuable understory vegetation during
chaining.
Meridith, 1976
22
7. Use a mixture of browse, grass and forbs to reseed
chaining and burning sites.
8. Check for and avoid mining claim markers during chaining
or burning operations.
9. Leave patches of trees (10-15 acres in size) scattered
throughout the treated areas for wildlife cover,
Christmas trees, pinyon nuts and aesthetic values.
10. Fence reseeded areas to exclude livestock for two
growing seasons.
11. Fences around waters and habitat rehabilitation sites
will be constructed to allow wildlife easy access.
12. Clean up spring development and water catchment sites
quickly and thoroughly after construction is completed.
13. Provide water for livestock and wild horses and burros
away from the fenced, improved source. For instance,
pipe water from a fenced spring development to a
separate trough for livestock and horses.
14. Aprons of water catchments should be painted natural
colors (pale beige, green or grey) to blend with the
surroundings.
15. The District landscape architect will help design
all chaining and burning projects. Treated areas should
have irregular boundaries and buffer zones.
16. Archaeological surveys should be made of all selected
chaining or burning sites and water development areas
before development.
17. Any culturally important pinyon nut gathering areas
will be excluded from treatment. Enlist aid of the
Indian Tribal Council in identifying these areas.
18. Commercial and individual collections of Christmas
trees, firewood and juniper posts should be concentrated
in areas slated for habitat rehabilitations.
19. Inform the public of all proposed projects prior to
development through news releases, feature articles,
slide shows, etc.
20. Cooperate with Nevada Department of Fish & Game, U. S.
Fish & Wildlife Service, and interested groups and indi-
viduals during inventories and habitat development projects
Meridith, 1976
23
21. Consult with Utah BLM on any rehabilitation projects
near the Utah-Nevada border.
Meridith, 1976
24
4. Residual Impacts
Most of the temporary adverse impacts -- dust, temporary
displacement of wildlife, littering of the landscape with
burned or downed trees after habitat rehabilitation projects,
temporary exposure of treated areas to some erosion -- are
unavoidable. Others -- like changes in ecological inter-
relationships, loss of potential Christmas trees, firewood
and posts -- will last until pinyon and juniper trees reinvade
the treated area (trees can begin to dominate a site again in
12-15 years) .
5. Relationship between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity
In the short run, most of the impacts of the proposed
action will be detrimental to the environment: trees will
be uprooted, large areas of burned stumps or piled
debris will be visible, wildlife will be driven out of treat-
ment areas or away from water sources, noise and dust will
accompany construction of many projects, etc. But in the
long run (starting in from 2-5 years after habitat rehab-
ilitation and starting almost immediately after water develop-
ments are completed) , the advantages of these actions will be
great: production of grass, forbs and browse will increase,
more water and forage will be available to livestock, horses
and burros, etc. In the long run, the beneficial impacts far
outweigh the adverse temporary impacts.
6. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
If all the mitigating measures are instituted, the only
irreversible and irretrievable commitment will be the loss
of some pinyon and juniper trees and the reduction in numbers
(or at least a change in distribution) of species adapted
to the present conditions. These commitments will be small
since islands of trees in the treatment area will remain
untouched. These commitments will actually not be permanent
either since new trees will eventually reinvade the treated
area.
B. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives
1. Alternative #1
One alternative to the proposed action is altering the
implementation schedule. The plan, as it now exists,
allows time for inventories and studies before projects
are initiated and time for evaluation and maintenance of
projects after they are completed.
Meridith, 1976
25
Minor changes in the schedule, like constructing 3 catch-
ments in the first year and 3 in the next (instead of 2
and 4) will not have an effect on the environment.
But major changes like rushing through projects or de-
laying them indefinitely will have adverse effects on
the environment. Carrying out the projects without
sufficient study may result in loss of archaeological and
aesthetic values, damage to fragile watersheds, inefficient
chaining (which results in rapid reinvasion of trees) and
a waste of time, money, effort and resources. Recommended
mitigating measures would remain the same but there would
be more residual adverse impacts and there would be a larger
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. The
long-termed productivity would be reduced.
On the other hand, a long delay in implementing the proposed
action may lead to a continuing deterioration of wildlife
habitat. Without treatment, pinyon/juniper woodlands will
probably get denser in the Beaver Dam WHA, water will reamin
remain scarce and the carrying capacity for a wide variety
of wildlife species will decrease.
2. Alternative #2
No Action is another alternative to the proposed action.
This would mean that no studies or inventories would be
conducted, no water development would be constructed, no
springs developed and no chaining/burning/seeding actions
would take place.
There would be no impact on air, climate, landscape charac-
ter, or archaeological and historical values, or wildlife
adapted to pinyon/juniper vegetation.
But no action will allow pinyon/juniper woodlands to spread
and get denser. Also water will remain scarce or unavailable.
Unmanaged wild horses and burros populations will continue
to grow rapidly. No information will be gathered on vege-
tation or wildlife habitat, and therefore, the wildlife program
will have little input into allotment management plans
or horse and burro plans.
The results of all this will include 1) increased loss
of soil due to erosion 2) increased water runoff and
flash flood potential 3) increased loss of forage-pro-
ducing plants and the resulting loss of plant diversity
and stability as well as loss of food for wildlife,
livestock and horses 4) increased competition among wild-
life, horses and livestock for small quantities of water
Meridith, 1976
2fi
and decreasing forage 5) loss of habitat of endangered
or protected species because little is known about their
distribution or habitat requirements 6) damage to fragile
watershed areas 7) loss of revenue as the livestock
industry and quality of hunting decline. Some short-term
adverse impacts (like dust or smoke, ugly burned stumps,
etc.) would be avoided by taking no action but long-term
productivity would be greatly reduced. The irreversible
and irretrievable commitment of resources (particularly
diversified vegetative and wildlife species) would be
large if no action is taken in the Beaver Dam WHA.
Meridith, 1976
27
IV. Persons, Groups and Government Agencies Consulted
Nevada Department of Fish & Game
Nevada State Clearinghouse
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
V. Intensity of Public Interest
Governmental agencies (BLM, NDF&G, FWS, etc.) sportsman and con-
servation groups and Lincoln County residents would all be inter-
ested in the actions proposed in the Beaver Dam Habitat Management
Plan.
VI. Participating Staff
Robert J. Sulenski - Environmental Coordinator
Phillip V. Range - Caliente-Virgin Valley Resource Area Manager
Richard Enriquez - Staff Wildlife Specialist
Terry Driver - Staff Range Conservationist
Frank E. Bingham - Chief, Division of Resource Management
James Gegen - Soil Scientist
Brian W. Hatoff - Archaeologist
VII. Summary
Analysis of the proposed action and alternatives indicates that the
Beaver Dam Habitat Management Plan will have some temporary adverse
impacts on the environment (creation of dust or smoke, displeasing
aesthetics, temporary displacement of wildlife, etc.) but that the
long-run impacts are favorable for vegetation, wildlife and human
resources.
Date Denise P. Meridith
Environmental Specialist
Meridith, 1976
28
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL:
Date
3/?/?<f
Date
i*/it>
Date
-^/^hk
rank E.
Ffank E. Bingham
Chief, Division of Resource Management
6t*iA^_
Phillip VJ R/»nge
Caliente-Virgin Valley Resource Area Manager
APPROVAL:
DateT /
Meridith, 1976
29
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
1. Action
Implementation of Beaver Dam HMP
2. Stages of implementation
Habitat Treatments (Chaining or Prescribed Burning)
3. DISCRETE OPERATIONS
4
. COMPONENTS, SUBCOMPONENTS.
AND ELEMENTS IMPACTED
s
ANTICIPATED
IMPACTS
6. REMARKS
A. AIR
Air Quality
Dust (Particulates)
+L
■m
+L
0
Dust and exhaust emissions
Chemicals (CO, etc.)
+L
-m
0
0
will result from the vehicles
and machinery used.
£
B. LAND
Soil Pollution
0
+L
0
-M
Runoff will occur as land is
z
u
Z
Erosion Potential
+L
+M
0
-H
cleared and churned up. But once
o
5.
B
o
vegetation is reestablished,
erosion and flood hazard will be
o
z
greatly reduced.
>
z
o
z
«
Flood Hazard
0
+M
0
-H
C. WATER
Water Supply
0
0
0
0
Some chemicals & sediments mav
Contamination
enter water supplies as earth
Animal Waste
0
0
0
0
is churned up and runoff occurs.
Chemicals
0
+L
0
-L
But after vegetation becomes re-
Sediment
0
m
0
-L
established this sort of contam-
ination is a lot less likely.
A. PLANTS (Aquatic)
N/A
H
z
u
z
o
0.
1
o
o
o
z
>
J
(Continued on reverse)
Form 1790-3 (June 1974)
DISCRETE OPERATIONS
COMPONENTS. SUBCOMPONENTS,
AND ELEMENTS IMPACTED
ANTICIPATED
IMPACTS
B. PLANTS I Terrestrial )
Grass
-L
-Hi
+H
Chaining or burning will seri-
Forbs
-L
+H
+-H
ously thin out pinyon/ -juniper
Conifers
-H
+L
and reseeding will allow grasses.
Brush & Shrubs
-Hi
4fl
forbs & browse to become re-
established,
C. ANIMALS ' Aquatic .
N/A
D. ANIMALS 'Terrestrial'
Mammals (wildlife)
-Hi
Animals will be initially dis-
Birds
+M
-Hi
placed from the area chained or
Reptiles
-M
+L
-Hi
burned or by men & vehicles
Livestock
-Hi
studying the area. But once
Horses & Burros
-M
-Hi
grass, forbs & grass return,
Invertebrates
-L
+L
-Hi
most animals will benefit.
Si
A. ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Nutrient Cycle
+M
+L
-Hi
Chaining & burning will quickly
Hydrologic Cycle
-m
return nutrients to soil 6> increase
Food Chain
-M
+L
-HM
number of plants & animals after
vegetation is established will
stimulate nutrient, hydrologic 6*
food cycles
A. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
Visual Impact
-Hi
At first burning or chaining
Sound
+L
+L
+L
will have great adverse impact
on landscape appearance. Noise
will be prevalent temporarily
during the operation. As vegeta-
B. SOCIOC JlTURAl INTERESTS
tion returns, landscape charac-
ter will improve.
Archaeological Values
-X
Chaining, burning & revegetatior,
Socio-Economic Values
may obscure or destroy archaeclc-
Cultural
gical sites, or traditional pinycn
gathering areas not yet identified.
INST
4r::or. — Enter action being taken analytic step for which
worksheet is being used, environniental viewpoint of lm-
pact and any assumptions relating to impact
a Worksheet is normally used to analyze " Anticifratea
Imf-ac:?" of action, '•:'- e: p* it may be used to analyze
"Hesiaua. Impact! " Worksheets may also be used to
compare impacts before and after mitigating measures
are applied
b Slate viewpoint that best describes environmental im-
pact For example, a fence viewed down the fence
line nas greater impact than the same fence viewed
over an entire allotment Generally narrow viewpoints
better illustrate specific impacts than will broad
* lewpcints
c Assumptions mav be made to establish a base for
analvsis c ; estimates '.n_< -.i'.-c: 5*j«:"t :■■ \ea-
i :a*( t v. ; .f
proposed project
- Identify differen*
phases of
.' . -. e .
r.att t •
l\ ■:•(:< •'.:••*■.■■•■ - Identih separate actions
prising i particular stage of implementation t i
"•'!-• • -,f :.*« "jM :•■'<■ •!.: :• i an
•;•<•---. - - o-f, i'aani .7r.; :■*'■ acini
E.errir.:- rr : :> t« - Enter under appropriate heading all
em lrc-nmenta.' elements susceptible tc impact from action
and alternate es Re levan: elements not contained in the
digest sho_)c als-. be entered See BLM Manual 17511,
Appendix 2 En\ ironn ental Digest
RUCTIONS
I ~ ^r:ic::ta:ea )mf>s.c: — Evaluate anticipated impact or. eacr
element and place an entrv in the appropriate squa-e -nd.-
eating degree of impact as low L; medium (Mi .'.igr. H
nc impact iOj. or unknown or negligable ^X ■ Preceec
each entrv bv a plus >-• or minus <-, sign ind.cating a
beneficial or adverse tvpe of impact If type :' iirp&ct
reflects a matter of opinion or is no' known - : - ;,re-
ceed with a sign For example construction of i » .n: tt....
on open range has t definite visual impact. * :•-. c . -: • ■:
some people the effect is detrimental while tc others _• _s
an improvenient Bi not entering a plus - ) or nines -
sign the worksheet is kept factual and unbiased L' both
degree and tvpe of impact are unknown place an x ir the
appropriate square
a The measures of impact f x. . -. i. meazun jr. - , -
are relative and their meaning may vary slightly free
action to action The 'errr. "o.. "should no- be ap-
plied tc impacts of a negligible nature For example
we know that a pickup trucV driving down a proposed
fence line laying wire has some impact on au ruali'i
Howe\ er. the significance of this impac I
normally great enough tc warrant even a " :.
In cases like this the impact will usualh b(
"'.•" or the elemen' left off the worksheet
b It is recognizee that some em ironmenial elements n.a\
defy accurate tr easurement or m-depth anaivs.s » r.r -
in current Burea. capabilities or expertise The r.atu-e
| of the actio:, as wei! as tvpe and degree o! xfi.'
shou.d cuide _r -r.e decision v. seek outside expe't.se
or assistance
is not
-at.r.g
Ente- carifving information
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
1. Action
Implementation of Beaver Dam HMP
2. Stages of implementation
Spring and Water Catchment Developments
/4f 7 <
j/
/ /
4
COMPONENTS, SUBCOMPONENTS,
AND ELEMENTS IMPACTED
5. ANTICIPATED
IMPACTS
6. REMARKS
A. AIR
Air Quality
Dust (Particulates)
+L
+L
0
+L
A slight degradation of air
Chemicals (CO.SxO)
+L
+L
0
+L
quality will result because
of dust & exhaust emission from
vehicles & equipment used in
construction.
B
B. LAND
Soil Pollution
0
0
0
0
0
Minor erosion may result from
z
a
z.
Erosion Potential
+L
+L
0
+L
0
clearing small sites for devel-
0
a
s
o
u
opment & from vehicles used on
fragile watershed areas.
o
z
>
z
o
z
«
Flood Hazard
0
0
0
0
0
C. WATER
Water Supply Contamination
-L
-L
0
-L
+H
Water mav be made unavailable
(Animal Waste)
0
0
-H
0
-H
during construction, but in the
(Chemicals)
0
+L
0
0
long run supply will increase
(Sediment Load)
0
+L
-L
0
-L
Fencing will eliminate contamin-
ation by livestock, horses &
burros. Some chemical and sedi-
ment may accidently pollute
water during construction.
A. PLANTS (Aquatic)
N/A
H
z
z
o
a
u
c
z
>
J
(Continued on reverse)
Form 1790-3 (June 1974)
DISCRETE OPERATIONS
COMPONENTS, SUBCOMPONENTS,
AND ELEMENTS IMPACTED
ANTICIPATED
IMPACTS
REMARKS
B. PLANTS (Terrestrial)
Grass
-L
-L
+M
0
+L
Some vegetation may be des-
Forbs
-L
-L
+M
0
+L
troyed during transportation
Conifer
-L
-L
0
0
+L
and construction. But fencing
Brush & Shrubs
-L
-L
4M
0
+L
will protect reestablished
vegetation within enclosures.
c
0
O
V)
H
Z
C. ANIMALS (Aquatic)
N/A
Id
E
0.
J
u
o
g
>
J
D. ANIMALS (Terrestrial)
Mammals (wildlife)
-M
-M
-HM
-L
+H
Animals may be temporarily dis-
Birds
-M
-M
+M
-L
■m
placed by noise & movement of
Reptiles
-L
-L
-HM
-L
■m
men & machines. In long run all
Livestock
-M
-M
-L
-L
■m
animals, but particularly wildlife
Invertebrates
-L
-L
+M
-L
m
(now crowded out by some cows,
Horses & Burros
-M
-M
-L
-L
+M
horses & burros) will benefit
£E
A. ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Nutrient Cycle
0
-L
0
0
fM
from increased water.
Cycles may be temporarily dis-
EX
Hydrologic
0
-L
0
0
■m
turbed as wildlife & vegetation
S2
Predator /Prey Relat.
-L
-L
-L
-L
+H
are disturbed, but after com-
pletion of project ecological
SJ
processes will be beneficial.
A. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
Visual Impact
-L
-M
-L
-L
-L
Noise disturbance will be
Sound
-L
-M
0
-L
0
temporary. But the spring dev.
Id
3
or attachment will slightly
1
disrupt the desert landscape.
2
<
S
B. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERESTS
Archaeological Values
-L
-M
-L
-L
-M
Some arch, values may be lost.
>
Socio-Economic Values
+L
+L
0
+L
+M
Economy will benefit from work
Cultural
0
0
3
0
0
force and increased hunter trade
in the future.
INST
1. Action — Enter action being taken, analytic step for which
worksheet is being used, environmental viewpoint of im-
pact, and any assumptions relating to impact-
a. Worksheet is normally used to analyze "Anticipated
Impacts" of action; however, it may be used to analyze
"Residual Impacts." Worksheets may also be used to
compare impacts before and after mitigating measures
are applied.
b. State viewpoint that best describes environmental im-
pact. For example, a fence viewed down the fence
line has greater impact than the same fence viewed
over an entire allotment. Generally, narrow viewpoints
better illustrate specific impacts than will broad
viewpoints.
c. Assumptions may be made to establish a base for
analysis (e.g. estimated time periods, season of year,
etc.).
2. Stages of Implementation — Identify different phases of
proposed project (e.g. a road project consists of survey,
construction, use, and maintenance stages).
Discrete Operations - Identify separate actions com-
prising a particular stage of implementation (e.g. the
construction stage of the road project has the discrete
operations of clearing, grading, and surfacing).
4. Elements Impacted — Enter under appropriate heading all
environmental elements susceptible to impact from action
and alternatives. Relevant elements not contained in the
digest should also be entered. See BLM Manual 1791,
Appendix 2, Environmental Digest.
RUCTIONS
5. Anticipated Impact — Evaluate anticipated impact on each
element and place an entry in the appropriate square indi-
cating degree of impact as low (L), medium (M), high (H),
no impact (O), or unknown or negligable (X). Preceed
each entry by a plus (+) or minus (-) sign indicating a
beneficial or adverse type of impact. If type of impact
reflects a matter of opinion or is not known, do not pre-
ceed with a sign. For example, construction of a wind mill
on open range has a definite visual impact; however, to
some people the effect is detrimental while to others it is
an improvement. By not entering a plus (+) or minus (-)
sign the worksheet is kept factual and unbiased. If both
degree and type of impact are unknown, place an (x) in the
appropriate square.
a. The measures of impact (e.g. low, medium, and high)
are relative and their meaning may vary slightly from
action to action. The term "/ou"should not be ap-
plied to impacts of a negligible nature. For example,
we know that a pickup truck driving down a proposed
fence line laying wire has some impact on air quality.
However, the significance of this impact is not
normally great enough to warrant even a "low" rating.
In cases like this, the impact will usually be marked
"O" or the element left off the worksheet.
b. It is recognized that some environmental elements may
defy accurate measurement or in-depth analysis with-
in current Bureau capabilities or expertise. The nature
of the action as well as type and degree of impact
should guide in the decision to seek outside expertise
or assistance.
6. Remarks - Enter clarifying information.
J
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
1. Action
NO ACTION
2. Stages of implementation
4. COMPONENTS, SUBCOMPONENTS,
AND ELEMENTS IMPACTED
5. ANTICIPATED
IMPACTS
6. REMARKS
A. AIR
Climate
Air Quality
Dust
Chemicals
B. LAND
Soil Pollution
If pinyon/ juniper woodlands
Erosion Potential
4-H
get denser, erosion and flood
Flood Hazards
+H
hazards will increase due to
increasing lack of understory
vegetation.
C. WATER
Water Supply
-M
Contamination
With no improvements water
quantity will stay low or decrease
(Animal Waste)
m
Uncontrolled livestock, horses &
(Chemicals)
+-L
burros will continue to muddy &
(Sediment Load)
+M
contaminate water sources,
Chemicals & sediments will continue
to pollute water as erosion & flood
hazards increase.
A. PLANTS (Aquatic)
N/A
(Continued on reverse)
Form 1790-3 (June 1974)
DISCRETE OPERATIONS
COMPONENTS, SUBCOMPONENTS,
AND ELEMENTS IMPACTED
ANTICIPATED
IMPACTS
REMARKS
B.
PLANTS (Terrestrial)
Grass
-H
With no chaining or burning to
Forbs
-H
thin woodlands, P/J will
Conifers
+H
continue to crowd out grass.
Brush & Shrubs
-M
forbs, brush & shrubs
e
0
U
w
H
Z
C.
ANIMALS (Aquatic)
N/A
Id
Z
u
a
z
>
-i
D.
ANIMALS (Terrestrial)
Mammals (wildlife)
-H
With no improvements, habitat
Livestock
-M
(forage & water) will deteriorate
Horses & Burros
-M
to the disadvantage of most
Birds
-M
animals.
Reptiles
-L
Invertebrates
-L
££
A.
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Nutrient Cycle
-M
As habitat deteriorates,
Hydrological Cycle
-M
ecological processes are
(_>Z
Pred./Prey Relationship
-M
disrupted or altered.
E->
A
LANDSCAPE CHARACTER
Visual Impact
0
Sound
0
1
• z
<
s
B.
SOCIOCULTURAL INTERESTS
Archaeological Values
0
>
Socio-Economic
0
Cultural
0
INST
1. Action — Enter action being taken, analytic step for which
worksheet is being used, environmental viewpoint of im-
pact, and any assumptions relating to impact.
a. Worksheet is normally used to analyze "Anticipated
Impacts" of action; however, it may be used to analyze
"Residual Impacts." Worksheets may also be used to
compare impacts before and after mitigating measures
are applied.
b. State viewpoint that best describes environmental im-
pact. For example, a fence viewed down the fence
line has greater impact than the same fence viewed
over an entire allotment. Generally, narrow viewpoints
better illustrate specific impacts than will broad
viewpoints.
c. Assumptions may be made to establish a base for
analysis (e.g. estimated time periods, season of year,
etc.).
2. Stages o/ Implementation - Identify different phases of
proposed project (e.g. a road project consists of survey,
construction, use. and maintenance stages).
Discrete Operations _ Identify separate actions com-
prising a particular stage of implementation (e.g. the
construction stage of the road project has the discrete
operations of clearing, grading, and surfacing).
4. Elements Impacted — Enter under appropriate heading all
environmental elements susceptible to impact from action
and alternatives. Relevant elements not contained in the
digest should also be entered. See BLM Manual 1791,
Appendix 2, Environmental Digest.
RUCTIONS
5. Anticipated Impact - Evaluate anticipated impact on each
element and place an entry in the appropriate square indi-
cating degree of impact as low (L), medium (M), high (H),
no impact (O), or unknown or negligable (X). Preceed
each entry by a plus (+) or minus (-) sign indicating a
beneficial or adverse type of impact. If type of impact
reflects a matter of opinion or is not known, do not pre-
ceed with a sign. For example, construction of a wind mill
on open range has a definite visual impact, however, to
some people the effect is detrimental while to others it is
an improvement. By not entering a plus (+) or minus (-)
sign the worksheet is kept factual and unbiased. If both
degree and type of impact are unknown, place an (x) in the
appropriate square.
a. The measures of impact (e.g. low, medium, and high)
are relative and their meaning may vary slightly from
action to action. The term "/ou"should not be ap-
plied to impacts of a negligible nature. For example,
we know that a pickup truck driving down a proposed
fence line laying wire has some impact on air quality.
However, the significance of this impact is not
normally great enough to warrant even a "low" rating.
In cases like this, the impact will usually be marked
"O" or the element left off the worksheet.
b. It is recognized that some environmental elements may
defy accurate measurement or in-depth analysis with-
in current Bureau capabilities or expertise. The nature
of the action as well as type and degree of impact
should guide in the decision to seek outside expertise
or assistance.
6. Remarks - Enter clarifying information.
VIII. References
Brunner, J., 1974 „ Environmental Analysis Record: Delamar Valley
Allotment Management Plans. Bureau of Land Management.
Las Vegas. 92 pp.
Bureau of Land Management, 1973. Caliente Unit Resource Analysis
and Management Framework Plan. USDI : BLM, Las Vegas, Nevada.
, 1974. Economic Supplement - Las
Vegas District. USDI: BLM, Reno, Nevada. 174 pp.
Gifford, G„, 1973„ "Runoff and Sediment Yields from Runoff Plots on
Chained Pinyon-Juniper Sites." Journal of Range Management.
Vol. 26, No. 6; pp. 440-443.
Meridith, D„, 1975. Beaver Dam Intensive Inventory and Habitat
Management Plan (Revision). Bureau of Land Management, Las
Vegas, Nevada.
Rush, 1964. Ground Water Appraisal of Meadow Valley Area (Report 27)
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Carson
City, Nevada. 43 pp„
Tansch, R„ , 1972. Plant Succession and Mule Deer Utilization on
Pinyon/Juniper Chainings in Nevada (Masters Thesis).
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.
United States Forest Service, 1973. Draft Environmental Statement:
Pinyon-Juniper Chaining Program on National Forest Lands in
the State of Nevada. U. S. Department of Agriculture:
U. S. Forest Service. Ogden, Utah. 58 pp.
United States Geological Survey, 1974. Water Resources Data for
Nevada. U. S. Department of the Interior: U. S. Geological
Survey. Carson City, Nevada 0 244 pp.
Willie & al., 1975. Preliminary Lincoln County Master Plan.
Lincoln County Commission. Pioche, Nevada. 47 pp.
Meridith, 1976
APPENDIX
Caliente MFP Step III Decisions Affecting
The Beaver Dam WHA
Recreation
1. Where feasible, game populations will be increased in the
Clover Mountains. Roads in this area will be maintained regularly
to facilitate hunter access. Public access across national
resource lands will be maintained.
2. In the Meadow Valley Wash area, identify and obtain access
routes across private lands where such access is limited. Wherever
possible, present upland bird populations will be improved.
3. Maintain access into Clover Mountains where wild horses or
burros may be viewed. Where practical, water developments within
these areas will be constructed to facilitate recreational ob-
servation of wild horses and burros.
40 All developments or operations within the Clover Mountains
will consider aesthetic values (buffer zones will be provided
around chainings, seedings and sprayingswwhere they may be viewed
from any existing transportation route).
Minerals
1. Small areas around crucial wildlife habitat areas and water
sources should be withdrawn from the general mining laws subject
to valid and existing rights.
2„ Mineral and energy sources will contain surface protection
stipulations for the protection of other resources, especially
fragile watershed, wildlife and recreational values.
3. Exploration for geothermal energy sources will be encouraged,
Prior to issuance of a permit or lease for geothermal exploration
or development, a thorough examination will be made to determine
if conflicts exist with other resources.
Wild Horses and Burros
1. Inventory wild horsesand burro populations and determine
allotments where they are found.
2. Determine the allowable numbers of wild horses and burros in
each habitat area to maintain the ecological balance and prevent
environmental degradation.
3. In areas of known wild horse and burro use, fences will be
carefully planned so movement of horses are not necessarily restricted,
Meridith, 1976
4. Develop Wild Horse Management Plan for wild horse selected
problem areas. Manage w^ld horses in place as one component of
the ecosystem. Priority allotment areas include: Little Mountain,
Rabbit Spring, Sheep Spring, Oak Wells, Buckboard, Cottonwood,
Pennsylvania, Sawmill-Clover Mountain, Clover Creek, and Mustang
Flat.
Watershed
1. Priority watersheds for chemical or mechanical vegetation
manipulation are Sheep Spring, Rabbit Spring, Oak Wells and
Little Mountain.
2. Other priority watersheds for mechanical vegetation manipu-
lation include Buckboard, Pennsylvania and Cottonwood.
3. Improve watershed cover and conditions in the Beaver Dam
watershed (a fragile watershed) by restricting uses which disturb
the soil and vegetative cover.
4. Watershed intensive analysis and activity planning will be
initiated based on the following multiple used priorities.
East Panaca Geographic Area, Pennsylvania watershed.
5. Improve and maintain w ater and environmental quality by reducing
excess silts in high runoff water flows in Clover Creek, Meadow
Valley Wash and Beaver Dam Creek by improving watershed cover condi-
tions. Develop Watershed Management Plans with priority on the East
Panaca Geographical Area.
6. Reduce chemical pollution at water sources and improve environ-
mental quality by fencing livestock away from water sources and
piping water to a suitable drinking trough. Place bird ladders
in troughs.
7. Protect the following watershed improvements from wildfire:
Sheep Flat, Barclay summer and Enterprise seedings and the Staheli
and Simpkins chainings. Rehabilitate wildfire areas immediately.
Lands
1. If suitable land exchange can be arranged, acquire those
private lands containing archaeological sites located along the
Meadow Valley Wash Road six miles south of Caliente.
Meridith, 1976
Forestry
1. Investigate the possibility of establishing a Christmas tree
farm on the Sheep Spring chaining.
20 Concentrate forest product sales in areas proposed for
chaining.
Livestock
1. Continue implementation and/or maintenance of Allotment Manage-
ment Plans on Mustang, Oak Springs, and Barclay Summer allotments.
2„ Develop and maintain AMP's on all allotments. Priority will
be on the allotments which can be improved through livestock manage-
ment alone: Crossroads, Sheep Spring, Enterprise and Barclay
Winter allotments.
3. Use mechanical and/or chemical treatment or fire to reduce
woody competition and to permit growth of good forage plants on
those areas which have been identified through Allotment Manage-
ment Planning.
4. Livestock waters will remain functioning throughout the year
for use by wildlife,,
5. Water troughs will be equipped with bird ladders or other
devices to facilitate small animal use.
6. Reclassify the Little Mountain Allotment for cattle use only.
7. When possible, construct all fences in important big game areas
to wildlife specifications.
Wildlife
1. Conduct studies to identify crucial mountain lion habitat
areas. Consider mountain lions in all Habitat Management Plans.
2. Inventory and protect crucial small game and non-game habitat.
3. Conduct inventory to determine habitat areas of threatened
and protected species. Develop special management plans.
4. Intensive inventories will be made of Ash, Pine and Cottonwood
Creeks .
5. Wildlife specialist will work closely with Range Specialist
in developing Allotment Management Plans for those allotments
involving crucial wildlife habitat.
Meridith, 1976
6. Cooperate in the development of wild horse and burro manage-
ment plans.
7. Construct big game catchments identified in Habitat Manage-
ment Plans.
8. Develop new waters for quail, dove, chukar, cottontails
and non-game use in the Clover Mountains,
9. Control burn portions of the south slope of Sawmill Range
(see Management Framework Plan overlays),
10. Mineral examinations will be made of crucial wildlife areas
to identify potential conflicts,
11. Maintain or improve riparian vegetation along Meadow Valley
Wash and Clover Creek.
12. Leave unchained patches of pinyon/juniper of 10 to 15 acres
for every 100 treated. Design projects in irregular shapes to
increase edge effect and maintain treated areas as close to cover
as possible.
13. Develop additional summer habitat through chaining and
seeding projects.
Meridith, 1976
UNITEp^A>ES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
y
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1791
CN-911.5)
To
: District Ma*rager, Las Vegas
Date:
DEC 1 8 1975
_ Associate
From : state Director, Nevada
Subject : Review of EAR for Beaver Dam Habitat
Management Plan
Attached are the respective comments on the subject environmental
analysis record received from the State Planning Coordinator and
the Nevada Department of Fish and Game. Please prepare your draft
responses to each of those offices and submit them to this office
for review. The final product will then be signed and transmitted
under my signature to those offices. Your drafts should address
the specific comments where possible.
Also attached are the comments from the NSO Division of Resources.
We concur with these staff review comments with the exception of
the second portion of comment "C under III -General Comments. The
Division of Resources thought that the statement recommending an
EIS not be prepared was included in the EAR because the EAR title
page had mistakenly been placed in front of the district's cover
memorandum after the document had arrived in the State Office for
review.
7^Z 0l.
Enclosures - 3
Encl. 1 - Comments from State Clearinghouse and Nevada
Department of Fish and Game
Encl. 2 - Comments from NSO Division of Resources ,
Encl. 3 - EAR
,/,
c o
7- , ■
te>
STATE OF NEVADA
GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION
Capitol Building, Room 45
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 897 10
(702) 883 4865
November 21, 197^
Mr. E. I. Rowland
State Director
U. S. Bureau of Land Management
300 Booth Street
Reno, Nevada 89502
Re: Beaver Dam Habitat Management Plan EAR, SAI CiV#7600OO26
Dear Mr. Rowland:
The Nevada Clearinghouse has completed its review. of the Beaver Dam
Habitat Management -Plan Environmental Analysis Record. The review indi-
cates general agreement with the proposed management plan with one major
exception. This concern relates to the proposal on page *>> action 5
in which it is proposed to obtain substantial amounts of private land
to "assure hunter access to national resource land."
Nevada strongly objects to such acquisition, especially in counties
where federal ownership of land equals 99/» of the total county. The
property tax for funding county and local government is severely limited
because of the vast federal land holdings and efforts, such as you pro-
pose, to reduce the amount of land on the tax rolls is opposed, especially
in light of the fact that need for such acquisition has not been adequately
demonstrated. Subject proposal should be deleted.
Technical comments from the Department of Fish and Game are also
attached. You should respond to their comments directly with a copy to
this office.
BDA/db
enc
cc : Department of Agriculture
Department of Fish and Game
Sincerely,
Bruce D. Arkell
State Planning Coordinator
"A\
MIKE OCALLAGHAN
GOVERNOR
GLEN K. GRIFFITH
Director
>0 VALLEY ROAD
P.O. BOX 10678
RENO. NEVADA 89510
TELEPHONE ( 702 ) 784-6219
November 20, 1975
Mr. Bruce D. Arkell
Planning Coordinator
Governor's Office
Capitol Building, Rm. 45
Carson City, Nv. 89701
Dear Mr. Arkell:
Attached you will find the comments of the Nevada Department
of Fish and Game concerning the Beaver Dam Habitat Management Plan
SAI #76800026.
There is the possibility that all of these comments may not
be pertinent to the subject document since the reviewing office
has not received a copy of the revised Beaver Dam Habitat Manage-
ment Plan as referenced on Page 1. The document receiving com-
ments is the Beaver Dam Habitat Management Plan N5-WHA-T24
Caliente Planning Unit, prepared by Denise P. Meridith, Environ-
mental Specialist, dated June 1975.
Sincerely,
GLEN K. GRIFFITH, DIRECTOR
<! Cu</j&*JL*>
A. J^ck Dieringer
Assistant Chief
Division of Fisheries
AJD:vh
Enc:
Page 1
EAR Reviewed Beaver Dam Habitat Management Plan SAI# 76800026
Reviewing Agency Nevada Department of Fish & Game
Person/s Preparing Review Nick J. Papez
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Major direct and secondary impacts on State.
Page 13 Mention should be made that increased livestock grazing
and trampling on vegetation and soil disturbance will have con-
siderable impact particularly during drought periods. The result
of such impacts will directly affect all wildlife species either
directly through loss of escape cover, water and food sources or
indirectly by lowered carrying capacity through crucial winter
and spring survival periods. Grazing in this area by livestock
and "wild" and free-roaming horses and burros will definitely
impact wildlife.
Page 15-16 Wildlife: This section should present impacts, both
direct and indirect, upon all wildlife species resulting from im-
proper grazing practices during all seasons of the year.
Page 16 Livestock grazing during drought periods will directly
affect watershed values, ground water tables and increase erosion
potential.
Page 2
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
3. ' General comments.
Pages 2-6 This suggests a horse and burro management plan
superimposed over the existing HMP. Priorities here should
be re-aligned to exclude or totally eliminate horse popula-
tions from such an important wildlife area.
Pages 7-12 Description of existing environment is too brief
and general.
Method of seed application should be identified. Aerial ap-
plication of expensive seed as bitterbrush and majogany is
wasteful unless done between chaining or hand planted. On a
burn treatment these species should be hand planted on select-
ed sites.
4. Technical comments.
Page 4 Seeding mixture recommended is very good, but the
seeding rate of each species should be identified.
Page 5 Re: Sawmill Range controlled burn: Seed species and
rate should be identified.
Page* 16 We do not agree with the statement that "livestock,
wild horses and burros would benefit from water and forage im-
provements as much as wildlife would". We strongly feel they
can and will "out compete" all wildlife species for water,
forage and space during critical periods such as cold weather
and drought periods.
Page 18 Livestock, horses and burros. Mention is made here
of mitigating measures involving total removal of livestock
and horses to eliminate livestock competition with wildlife for
water, forage and living space. In the same paragraph it is
also stated: "but this is not compatible with multiple use
objectives or with the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971".
Since in many cases, livestock and wild horses are not com-
patable with wildlife water, forage and specie needs, we believe
it logical the priorities be established. A key wildlife seasonal
range of water source should be protected from livestock and horse
use.
5. Other Specific Comments.
Page 1 This reviewing office has not received a copy of the
revised Beaver Dam HMP as referenced to on this page.
Page 3
6. Suggested alternatives, remedial actions and/or mitigating measures.
Alternative One is more acceptable than two, but the proposed
action schedule should be the first alternative.
* UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
mg y DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
JM € tllO rail Ull ttl BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT in reply refer to:
Nevada State Office 1791
Room 3008 Federal Building (N-930,4)
300 Booth Street
Reno, Nevada 89509
To : Chief, Planning Coordination Staff (N-911.5) Date: December 17, 1975
From : chief, Division of Resources
4
Subject : Review 0f EAR for Beaver Dam tfMP
The following staff review comments are provided for your coordination with
the District. \
|
L Watershed/Forestry
A. HMP Implementation Schedule t Costs of catchments appear low —
$5,000/unit.
B. Page 5 - What is the erosion hazard of controlled burning?
Are controlled and prescribed burning synonymous?
Co Precipitation of 8-9 inches per year indicates that marginal
results can be expected with reseeding of most browse and
forb species listed on page 4.
D. The EAR does not fully consider the detrimental effects
(erosion hazard) of controlled burning 65,000 acres.
E. P-J chaining should be complimentary to erosion control on
the shallow soil sites.
Fo Page 10 - How do soil micro-organisms fit into the ecological
interrelationships? Do humans fit into the ecology?
G. Page 11 - Socio-Economic Factors - Is there any value or
demand for P-J posts, firewood, and other woodland products?
H. Page 13 - P-J chaining debris will aid in soil stabilization
objective.
I. Page 14 - Fencing of water developments will reduce fecal
and total coliform counts.
J. Page 14 - Hazards - Will "down" vegetation (P-J) and fences
present any safety hazard to animals? Appropriate entry
of comment should be in Section III.A.l.b.
K. Page 18 - First sentence - More posts should be immediately
available. Reinvasion of P-J will occur and, in perhaps
6 to 10 years, Christmas trees should be available. MFP
decision supports this comment.
Lo Page 18, Item II0A02.a - Prescribed Burning Plan development,
including cooperation with State of Nevada, Environmental
Health Department, Air Quality Division, should be mentioned.
M. Page 18 - What mitigating measures can be taken to enhance
water quality? Runoff reduction will decrease sediment yield
(PPMofTDS).
N. Page 20 - Indian Tribal Council should be notified of proposed
pinyon chaining.
0. General Comment - Pine and Mathews Canyon Watersheds are in the
HMP area. No mention of research results with University of
Nevada or hydrologic study data was included.
These comments represent a "quickie" review of the HMP. The 65,000 acres
of controlled burning is alarming. Perhaps an EIS on the controlled
burning should be forthcoming.
II. Recreation
A. The HMP mentioned hunting quality would be increased. This
statement should be explained further. Perhaps what is meant
is the quantity of wildlife available would be increased.
In recreation, quality refers to enjoyment of the hunter's
experience and quantity refers to number.
Bo We can find no reference to ORV use and its effect on the
objectives of the HMP. Do we need to protect the values
created by the HMP or is there critical wildlife habitat
that should be restricted from or closed to ORV's?
C. The existing recreation opportunities have not been fully
stated,, We cannot accept the statement - Land Use -
".. o recreation, hunting, fishing, etc." Every recreation
opportunity existing should be narrated, including primitive
values.
D0 There are three State Parks in the WHA0 These should be
discussed under the existing situation* The effects on
these State Parks should also be discussed. For example,
water and air quality from a recreation point of view.
Aesthetical impacts of chaining and burning is visible
from the Parks.
E. Visual management techniques should be added to mitigating
measures. Are the chainings and burning still practical
after the required visual management constraints are applied?
Should this constraint be part of the proposal?
-2-
F. Don Fowler and Dr» Richard Brooks should be consulted for
information on cultural values in the area. They have done
work in the area and their reports should be utilized to
show the probable impact of our proposal on the cultural
resources. It is not adequate to say "BLM has not conducted
archaeological surveys" because there is known data avail-
able if we take the time to do the research.
Adding to the existing situation would allow an analysis of
the impact of the project and the mitigating measures.
After mitigating measures are applied, is the project
practical or economical?
III. General Comments
A. It's hard to believe that 65,000 acres of controlled burn
doesn't have a significant effect on the human environment
and doesn't constitute a major federal action.
B0 As the proposed project is on the Stateline, the environmental
analysis should include the affected area across the boundary.
Utah should have a change to review the project and the EAR.
C. The report was signed in September; therefore, the title page
should show September, not June. Instruction Memorandum No.
75-325 (WO) indicated that the statement on the necessity of
an EIS should not be part of the EAR.
-3-
REPLIES TO NSO DIVISION OF RESOURCE COMMENTS:
Comment: "HMP Implementation Schedule
$5,000/unit."
Costs of catchments appear low -■
Answer: Two such water catchments were installed in the Caliente Planning
Unit in 1975 at a cost to BLM of $3,000 a piece. Therefore, the
cost stated in the E.A.R. is not low. In fact, it was estimated
at $5,000 to take into account rising inflation costs in the near
future .
Comment: "Precipitation of 8-9 inches per year indicates that marginal
results can be expected with reseeding of most browse and
forb species listed."
Answer: Low precipitation does limit the effectiveness of reseeding through-
out southern Nevada, But some past projects (like Horsethief
chaining in Lincoln County) have been successful. Most of these
projects have occurred in areas with 10 inches or more of precipi-
tation. Amount of rainfall and chances of success will be evaluated
on individual reseeding projects and priorities will be set ac-
cordingly. These areas mentioned in the E.A.R. are only potential
rehabilitation areas.
Comment: Socio-Economic Factors - Is there any value or demand for P-J
posts, firewood, and other woodland products?
Page 20 - Indian Tribal Council should be notified of proposed
piny on chaining.
Answer: Yes. Permits for P-J posts, firewood and woodland products are
issued for the Caliente area by BLM. The impacts of the HMP on
this resource is mentioned under III.A.l.d. (Socio-Economic Values).
The major one is temporary loss of areas for pinyon nut collection,
post cutting and Christmas tree gathering.
Mitigating measures discussed in the E.A.R. include:
1) Known pinyon nut gathering areas should be excluded
from treatment, 2) commercial and individual collection
of Christmas trees, firewood and juniper posts should
be concentrated in areas slated for habitat rehabilitations
and 3) areas of trees will be left standing within re-
habilitation areas to minimize post, firewood and Christmas
tree loss.
In any case, the loss of Christmas trees in chained areas is
temporary. In 10-12 years, the trees will return and probably
be better specimens than those presently growing under crowded
conditions.
The Indian Tribal Council should be notified. Information from
this group and other members of the public will be used to
identify known pinyon nut gathering areas (which will be excluded
from rehabilitation).
Comment: "Item II„A.2.a. - Prescribed Burning Plan development, including
cooperation with State of Nevada, Environmental Health Department,
Air Quality Division, should be mentioned."
Answer: These agencies and others will be consulted prior to any prescribed
burning.
Comment: "Fencing of water developments will reduce fecal and total
coliform counts."
Answer: We agree. The E.A.R. states that fencing will improve water quality
of the springs. (Refer to Anticipated Impacts - Water). The
reduction of fecal and total coliform counts are two ways in which
quality will be improved.
Comment: Hazards - Will "down" vegetation (P-J) and fences present any
safety hazards to animals? Appropriate entry of comment should
be in Section III.A.l.b.
Answer: Downed vegetation will not present a safety hazard to animals.
In fact it will benefit wildlife by providing more cover for
small animals like rabbits and rodents. As stated under "Miti-
gating Measures" fences around waters will be constructed to
wildlife specifications to allow easy access.
Comment: "The HMP mentioned hunting quality would be increased. This
statement should be explained further. Perhaps what is meant is
the quantity of wildlife available would be increased. In recreation,
quality refers to enjoyment of the hunter's experience and quantity
refers to number."
Answer: If the condition of and quantity of game wildlife is improved, it
follows that the enjoyment of the hunter's experience will increase.
Both hunting quantity and quality will be improved as a result of
implementation of the HMP.
Comment: "We can find no reference to ORV use and its effect on the ob-
jectives of the HMPo Do we need to protect the values created
by the HMP or is there critical wildlife habitat that should be
restricted from or closed to ORV's?"
Answer: ORV use has not yet conflicted with wildlife in the Beaver Dam
WHA. The wildlife activity has identified no areas that need to
be closed to ORV's.
Comment: "The existing recreation opportunities have not been fully
stated. We cannot accept the statement - Land Use - " ...
recreation, hunting, fishing, etc." Every recreation opportunity
existing should be narrated, including primitive values.
Answer: Whether an E.A.R. is long enough or is detailed enough will always
be a subjective opinion. Many, many recreational and other land
uses (everything from rockhounding in the Clover Mountains to
mountain climbing in the Highland Range) could have been mentioned
and even delved into in detail. But the E.A.R. emphasized
the recreational activity most affected by the proposed action --
hunting. The importance of hunting is described under "Description
of Existing Environment - Socio-Economic Factors" and the impacts
of the proposed action on hunting are described in HI.A.l.d.
Other recreational opportunities throughout the Caliente Planning
are discussed in detail in the Caliente Unit Resource Analysis,
Comment: There are three State Parks in the WHA, These should be discussed
under the existing situation. The effects on these State Parks
should also be discussed. For example, water and air quality from
a recreation point of view, Aesthetical impacts of chaining and
burning is visible from the Parks.
'Visual management techniques should be added to mitigating measures.
Are the chainings and burning still practical after the required
visual management constraints are applied? Should this constraint
be part of the proposal?
Answer: There are only two State Parks within the boundaries of the Beaver
Dam WHA -- Beaver Dam a nd Kershaw-Ryan, Cathedral Gorge is north
of the WHA, There will be no effect on water quality in these
areas. Air quality may be very temporarily degraded from dust and
smoke during chaining or burning. Both the distance between these
parks and proposed projects (minimum of four miles in mountainous
country) and buffer zones around projects (see MFP recreation
decision in the appendix) will effectively shield the projects
from view of the parks.
Visual management techniques already appear under, mitigating
measures (refer to "Landscape Character"). It is possible to
conduct habitat rehabilitation projects with a minimum of aesthetic
damage.
Comment: "Don Fowler and Dr. Richard Brooks should be consulted for information
on cultural values in the area. They have done work in the area
and their reports should be utilized to show the probable impact
of our proposal on the cultural resources. It is not adequate to
say "BLM has not conducted archaeological surveys" because there
is known data available if we take the time to do the research."
Answer: A brief description of archaeology of the area has been added to
'•Description of the Existing Environment." Not much of the WHA
has been intensively surveyed.
The following statement appears under mitigating measures:
"Archaeological surveys should be made of all proposed chaining
or prescribed burning sites and water development areas in order
to protect any possibly irreplaceable archaeological values."
This is recommended as a stipulations „ Therefore before any project
is begun the Las Vegas District archaeologist will determine if
any archaeological values are present on a project-by-project
basis and how best to salvage or preserve them. Whether he makes
this determination on the basis of this own new on- the-ground
investigations or on the basis of existing outside data is up
to the discretion of him and the District Manager.
Comment: It's hard to believe that 65,000 acres of controlled burn doesn't
have a significant effect on the human environment and doesn't
constitute a major federal action.
Answer: All the proposed chainings and burnings that appear in the Beaver
Dam HMP are considered major actions with significant impacts on
the environment. That is why the cover memo which accompanied
this E.A.R. stated that "none of the actions that affect livestock
grazing in the Beaver Dam area (chaining, prescribed burning,
seeding) should be implemented until a grazing environmental
impact statement for the Caliente Planning Unit (scheduled for
FY 78) has been prepared,,"
But it has been determined that the other actions proposed in
the E.A.R. (water catchments, spring developments, etc.) do
not constitute major federal actions significantly affecting the
human environment „ It is recommended that these actions and
only these actions be implemented.
Comment: "As the proposed project is on the State line, the environmental
analysis should include the affected area across the boundary.
Utah should have a chance to review the project and the E.A.R."
Answer: Utah should have a chance to review the HMP and E.A.R. It is
particularly important to get their opinion of the proposed
burning which is close to the Utah-Nevada border. This has been
added as a recommended mitigating measure.
Comment: What is the erosion hazard of controlled burning? Are controlled
and prescribed burning synonymous?
Answer: The proposed action does not suggest controlled or prescribed
burning, which are considered synonymous, of the entire 65,000
acres. The boundary shown on Map #3 and the acreages in the im-
plementation schedule merely identified the area to be considered
by the resources from which to derive viable burn locations that
would not be detrimental in terms of erosion hazard, sediment
Comment
production, and water quality. This would, out of necessity,
involve extensive coordination efforts among soils, watershed,
wildlife, recreation, visual aspects, and forestry to identify areas
where prescribed burning would not be detrimental. Such identified
areas could not possibly involve acreages approaching the magnitude
of 65,000 acres.
What mitigating measures can be taken to enhance water quality?
Runoff reduction will decrease sediment yield (PPM of TDS).
P-J chaining debris will aid in soil stabilization objective.
P-J chaining should be complimentary to erosion control on the
shallow soil sites.
Answer: According to Gifford (1973) chained-with-windrowing plots yield
from 1-2 to 5 times more water during a runoff event than native
pinyon- juniper o However, runoff from debris-in-place plots was
not greater than that measured from natural woodland and resulting
sediment yields were similar to those from adjacent unchained
woodland areas. Infiltration rates on chain-with-debris-in-place
treatment are not as greatly affected due to much less mechanical
disturbance of surface soils. Debris left on the soil surface
(a mitigating measure) acts as both retention and detention storage,
nearly eliminating all runoff because water is held on the land-
scape until the soil can absorb it while also reducing evaporation
losses by reducing wind.
Comment: How do soil micro-organisms fit into the ecological interrelationships?
Do humans fit into the ecology?
Answer: Soil micro-organisms are responsible for organic matter de-
composition whereby plant and animal residues are broken down
and nutrients are released for assimilation. During the decaying
process by which humus is formed, soil aggregate stability is
enhanced and CO2 is given off which ultimately escapes to the
atmosphere, where it may again be used by plants.
Two towns are located on the western edge of the Beaver Dam WHA
(for a discussion of these communities refer to socio-economic
section of the E.A.R.). Though few people live within the boundaries
of the WHA, man has had an effect on the ecology. He acts as a
predator-hunting haravests, road kills, etc. He has altered the
ecology by putting out natural fires and allowing pinyon- juniper
woodlands to expand and get denser. His livestock have heavily
grazed some areas, eliminating palatable forage species. In some
areas he's replaced native vegetation with introduced crested
wheatgrass0 He's built roads, corrals and in other ways, changed
the landscape character of the area.
REPLIES TO NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME COMMENTS
Policy Considerations
Comment: "Page 13 Mention should be made that increased livestock grazing
and trampling on vegetation and soil disturbance will have consid-
erable impact particularly during drought periods. The result
of such impacts will directly affect all wildlife species either
directly through loss of escape cover, water and food sources or
indirectly by lowered carrying capacity through crucial winter and
spring survival periods. Grazing in this area by livestock and
"wild" and free-roaming horses and burros will definitely impact
wildlife."
Answer: The Beaver Dam HMP, and the Caliente Management Framework (as well
as allotment management plans and horse/burro management plans) are
designed to minimize conflicts between wildlife and livestock, wild
horses and burros. Many of the recommendations in the E.A.R.
(like segregating the seedings from livestock use for the first
two seasons, and providing separate waters) and the MFP (like
equipping all livestock troughs with bird ladders) will hopefully
decrease the negative impact of grazing on wildlife that is de-
scribed in this comment. Efficient multiple-use of the Beaver Dam
WHA is the goal of BLM planning.
Comment: "Wildlife: This section should present impacts, both direct and
indirect, upon all wildlife species resulting from improper grazing
practices during all seasons of the year."
"Livestock grazing during drought periods will directly affect
watershed values, ground water tables and increase erosion
potential. "
Answer: The HMP and E.A.R. make no recommendations on increasing or de-
creasing livestock grazing on the Beaver Dam WHA. No livestock
grazing proposals are presented and the impacts of grazing are not
analyzed. These types of recommendations are discussed in allot-
ment management plans and will be evaluated in the environmental
impact statement on grazing in Caliente (scheduled in FY 78) . The
improvements suggested in these reports are designed primarily to
benefit wildlife, not livestock, horses and burros. Livestock,
horses and burros will be benefited indirectly but there will be
no increase in the number of allotted AUM's as a result of im-
plementation of the HMP.
Technical Considerations
Comment: The suggestion is made that a horse and burro management plan be
superimposed over the existing HMP. "Priorities here should be
re-aligned to exclude or totally eliminate horse populations from
such an important wildlife area."
"We do not agree with the statement that "livestock, wild horses
and burros would benefit from water and forage improvements as
much as wildlife would." We strongly feel they can and will
"out compete" all wildlife species for water, forage and space
during critical periods such as cold weather and drought periods."
"Livestock, horses and burros. Mention is made here of mitigating
measures involving total removal of livestock and horses to elimi-
nate livestock competition with wildlife for water, forage and
living space. In the same paragraph it is also stated: "but
this is not compatible with multiple use objectives or with the
Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971". Since in many cases, live-
stock and wild horses are not compatible with wildlife water,
forage and species needs, we believe it logical that priorities
be established. A key wildlife seasonal range of water source
should be protected from livestock and horse use."
Answer: Again, the Bureau's policy is one of multiple use management. To
totally eliminate horses from this 600,000 acres is in direct
conflict with the Caliente Management Framework Plan (refer to
appendix to the E.A.R.) which states that wild horses will be
managed in place as one component of the ecosystem. A horse and
burro management plan may determine and may recommend that some
horses and burros be rounded up and moved to another area or given
up for adoption. But this would have to be accomplished jointly
by the wildlife and wild horse and burro activities through planning
as suggested in the MFP.
Comment: "Description of existing environment is too brief and general."
Answer: whether an E.A.R. is long enough or is in enough detail will always
be a subjective opinion. The E.A.R. summarizes what was con-
sidered relevant information to describe the existing environment
of the Beaver Dam WHA. The E.A.R. refers the reader to the Beaver
Dam HMP and Intensive Inventory for more detailed descriptions.
The reader can also refer to the Unit Resource Analysis for existing
environment information.
Comment: "Method of seed application shouJd be identified. Aerial applica-
tion of expensive seed as bitterbrush and mahogany is wasteful
unless done between chaining or had planted. On a burn treatment
these species should be hand planted on selected sites."
"Seeding mixture recommended is very good, but the seeding rate
of each species should be identified."
"Re: Sawmill Range controlled burn:
be identified."
Seed species and rate should
Answer: The same species will be used on the prescribed burn and on
chaining areas. Drilling will be used where possible. Hand plant-
ing and/or broadcasting will be used on areas where drilling is
impractical. Suggested rates of seeding have been added to the
proposed action.
Comment: "This reviewing office has not received a copy of the revised
Beaver Dam HMP as referenced to on page 1."
Answer: John Donaldson, Regional Supervisor of the Nevada Department of
Fish and Game in Las Vegas, received a copy of the revised
Beaver Dam HMP last summer and signed it in December, 1975.
Copies of the HMP will be redistributed with the final copies
of this E.A.R.
REPLY TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE COMMENTS:
The full statement that appeared in the draft E.A.R. stated that the lands
described should be obtained "when and if" acquisition becomes the "only"
way of accomplishing the stated goals. The chance of the problem arising
is nil and the chance of acquisition being the only solution is even more
remote. Easements or other cooperative agreements between the Federal
government and private landowners are more common methods of dealing with
access or important wildlife habitat problems. The main intent of the
proposal in the E.A.R. was to identify important wildlife habitat that exists
on private land. Anyway, this proposal has been modified in the final E.A.R.
Bureau of Land Management
Library
3ldg. 50, Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
"jantor
I
r
o a
> >
Z H
PI PI
D
r-i • 00 /O
y
Z r+
t-n (D
l =3
S en
> <
I CD
H
K) H-
<
t-» CD
<£> 3
■~J ri-
al O
• t-j
o
o
7]
;o
o
m
03.^
OH
•AS
OO